"... The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) has designated Slotkin as one of its top candidates, part of the so-called "Red to Blue" program targeting the most vulnerable Republican-held seats -- in this case, the Eighth Congressional District of Michigan, which includes Lansing and Brighton. The House seat for the district is now held by two-term Republican Representative Mike Bishop. ..."
"... The 23rd Congressional District in Texas, which includes a vast swathe of the US-Mexico border along the Rio Grande, features a contest for the Democratic nomination between Gina Ortiz Jones, an Air Force intelligence officer in Iraq, who subsequently served as an adviser for US interventions in South Sudan and Libya, and Jay Hulings. The latter's website describes him as a former national security aide on Capitol Hill and federal prosecutor, whose father and mother were both career undercover CIA agents. The incumbent Republican congressman, Will Hurd, is himself a former CIA agent, so any voter in that district will have his or her choice of intelligence agency loyalists in both the Democratic primary and the general election. ..."
An extraordinary number of former intelligence and military operatives from the CIA, Pentagon, National Security Council and State
Department are seeking nomination as Democratic candidates for Congress in the 2018 midterm elections. The potential influx of military-intelligence
personnel into the legislature has no precedent in US political history.
If the Democrats capture a majority in the House of Representatives on November 6, as widely predicted, candidates drawn from
the military-intelligence apparatus will comprise as many as half of the new Democratic members of Congress. They will hold the balance
of power in the lower chamber of Congress.
Both push and pull are at work here. Democratic Party leaders are actively recruiting candidates with a military or intelligence
background for competitive seats where there is the best chance of ousting an incumbent Republican or filling a vacancy, frequently
clearing the field for a favored "star" recruit. A case in point is Elissa Slotkin, a former CIA operative with three tours in Iraq,
who worked as Iraq director for the National Security Council in the Obama White House and as a top aide to John Negroponte, the
first director of national intelligence. After her deep involvement in US war crimes in Iraq, Slotkin moved to the Pentagon, where,
as a principal deputy assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs, her areas of responsibility included drone
warfare, "homeland defense" and cyber warfare. Elissa Slotkin
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) has designated Slotkin as one of its top candidates, part of the so-called
"Red to Blue" program targeting the most vulnerable Republican-held seats -- in this case, the Eighth Congressional District of Michigan,
which includes Lansing and Brighton. The House seat for the district is now held by two-term Republican Representative Mike Bishop.
The Democratic leaders are promoting CIA agents and Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans. At the same time, such people are choosing
the Democratic Party as their preferred political vehicle. There are far more former spies and soldiers seeking the nomination of
the Democratic Party than of the Republican Party. There are so many that there is a subset of Democratic primary campaigns that,
with a nod to Mad magazine, one might call "spy vs. spy."
The 23rd Congressional District in Texas, which includes a vast swathe of the US-Mexico border along the Rio Grande, features
a contest for the Democratic nomination between Gina Ortiz Jones, an Air Force intelligence officer in Iraq, who subsequently served
as an adviser for US interventions in South Sudan and Libya, and Jay Hulings. The latter's website describes him as a former national
security aide on Capitol Hill and federal prosecutor, whose father and mother were both career undercover CIA agents. The incumbent
Republican congressman, Will Hurd, is himself a former CIA agent, so any voter in that district will have his or her choice of intelligence
agency loyalists in both the Democratic primary and the general election.
CNN's "State of the Union" program on March 4 included a profile of Jones as one of many female candidates seeking nomination
as a Democrat in Tuesday's primary in Texas. The network described her discreetly as a "career civil servant." However, the Jones
for Congress website positively shouts about her role as a spy, noting that after graduating from college, "Gina entered the US Air
Force as an intelligence officer, where she deployed to Iraq and served under the US military's 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy" (the
last phrase signaling to those interested in such matters that Jones is gay).
According to her campaign biography, Ortiz Jones was subsequently detailed to a position as "senior advisor for trade enforcement,"
a post President Obama created by executive order in 2012. She would later be invited to serve as a director for investment at the
Office of the US Trade Representative, where she led the portfolio that reviewed foreign investments to ensure they did not pose
national security risks. With that background, if she fails to win election, she can surely enlist in the trade war efforts of the
Trump administration.
Do some research it becomes clear quickly what the real story is. Hillary and her bunch
stink to high heaven and have or YEARS. Started with her and husband. They sold this country
o or personal gain.Just search a little and make sure to use factual information. It is there
for anyone to find.
DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Agent Smith, you testified that the Russians hacked the DNC computers, is that correct?
FBI AGENT JOHN SMITH: That is correct.
DEF ATT: Upon what information did you base your testimony?
AGENT: Information found in reports analyzing the breach of the computers.
DEF ATT: So, the FBI prepared these reports?
AGENT: (cough) . (shift in seat) No, a cyber security contractor with the FBI.
DEF ATT: Pardon me, why would a contractor be preparing these reports? Do these contractors run the FBI laboratories where
the server was examined?
AGENT: No.
DEF ATT: No? No what? These contractors don't run the FBI Laboratories?
AGENT: No. The laboratories are staffed by FBI personnel.
DEF ATT: Well I don't understand. Why would contractors be writing reports about computers that are forensically examined in
FBI laboratories?
AGENT: Well, the servers were not examined in the FBI laboratory.
(silence)
DEF ATT: Oh, so the FBI examined the servers on site to determine who had hacked them and what was taken?
AGENT: Uh .. no.
DEF ATT: They didn't examine them on site?
AGENT: No.
DEF ATT: Well, where did they examine them?
AGENT: Well, uh .. the FBI did not examine them.
DEF ATT: What?
AGENT: The FBI did not directly examine the servers.
DEF ATT: Agent Smith, the FBI has presented to the Grand Jury and to this court and SWORN AS FACT that the Russians hacked
the DNC computers. You are basing your SWORN testimony on a report given to you by a contractor, while the FBI has NEVER actually
examined the computer hardware?
AGENT: That is correct.
DEF ATT: Agent Smith, who prepared the analysis reports that the FBI relied on to give this sworn testimony?
AGENT: Crowdstrike, Inc.
DEF ATT: So, which Crowdstrike employee gave you the report?
AGENT: We didn't receive the report directly from Crowdstrike.
DEF ATT: What?
AGENT: We did not receive the report directly from Crowdstrike.
DEF ATT: Well, where did you find this report?
AGENT: It was given to us by the people who hired Crowdstrike to examine and secure their computer network and hardware.
DEF ATT: Oh, so the report was given to you by the technical employees for the company that hired Crowdstrike to examine their
servers?
AGENT: No.
DEF ATT: Well, who gave you the report?
AGENT: Legal counsel for the company that hired Crowdstrike.
DEF ATT: Why would legal counsel be the ones giving you the report?
AGENT: I don't know.
DEF ATT: Well, what company hired Crowdstrike?
AGENT: The Democratic National Committee.
DEF ATT: Wait a minute. Let me get this straight. You are giving SWORN testimony to this court that Russia hacked the servers
of the Democratic National Committee. And you are basing that testimony on a report given to you by the LAWYERS for the Democratic
National Committee. And you, the FBI, never actually saw or examined the computer servers?
AGENT: That is correct.
DEF ATT: Well, can you provide a copy of the technical report produced by Crowdstrike for the Democratic National Committee?
AGENT: No, I cannot.
DEF ATT: Well, can you go back to your office and get a copy of the report?
AGENT: No.
DEF ATT: Why? Are you locked out of your office?
AGENT: No.
DEF ATT: I don't understand. Why can you not provide a copy of this report?
AGENT: Because I do not have a copy of the report.
DEF ATT: Did you lose it?
AGENT: No.
DEF ATT: Why do you not have a copy of the report?
AGENT: Because we were never given a final copy of the report.
DEF ATT: Agent Smith, if you didn't get a copy of the report, upon what information are you basing your testimony?
AGENT: On a draft copy of the report.
DEF ATT: A draft copy?
AGENT: Yes.
DEF ATT: Was a final report ever delivered to the FBI?
AGENT: No.
DEF ATT: Agent Smith, did you get to read the entire report?
AGENT: No.
DEF ATT: Why not?
AGENT: Because large portions were redacted.
DEF ATT: Agent Smith, let me get this straight. The FBI is claiming that the Russians hacked the DNC servers. But the FBI never
actually saw the computer hardware, nor examined it? Is that correct?
AGENT: That is correct.
DEF ATT: And the FBI never actually examined the log files or computer email or any aspect of the data from the servers? Is
that correct?
AGENT: That is correct.
DEF ATT: And you are basing your testimony on the word of Counsel for the Democratic National Committee, the people who provided
you with a REDACTED copy of a DRAFT report, not on the actual technical personnel who supposedly examined the servers?
AGENT: That is correct.
DEF ATT: Your honor, I have a few motions I would like to make at this time.
PRESIDING JUDGE: I'm sure you do, Counselor. (as he turns toward the prosecutors) And I feel like I am in a mood to grant them.
Brilliant! that sums it up nicely. of course, if the servers were not hacked and were instead "thumbnailed" that leads to a
whole pile of other questions (including asking wiileaks for their source and about the murder of seth rich).
Former Vice President Joe Biden has released
a video statement telling the American people that the
accusations he is now facing
of touching women in inappropriate ways without their consent is the product of changing "social norms", assuring everyone that
he will indeed be adjusting to those changes.
And thank goodness. For a minute there, I was worried Biden might cave under the pressure of a looming scandal and decline to
run for president on the grounds that it could cripple his campaign and leave America facing another four years of Donald Trump.
Here are nine good reasons why I hope Joe Biden runs for president, and why you should support him too:
1. It's his turn.
It's Biden's turn to be president. He's spent years playing second fiddle while other leading Democrats hogged all the limelight,
and that's not fair. He's been waiting very patiently. Come on.
2. Most Qualified Candidate Ever.
If Joe Biden secures the Democratic Party nomination for president, he would be the Most Qualified Candidate Ever to run for
office. His service as a US Senator and a Vice President has given him unparalleled experience priming him for the most powerful
elected office in the world. Everything Biden has done throughout his entire career proves that he'd make a great Commander-in-Chief.
3. He's closely associated with a popular Democratic president.
You think Biden, you think Obama. You think Obama, you think greatness. You can't spend that much time with a great Democratic
president without absorbing his greatness yourself. It's called osmosis.
4. You liked Obama, didn't you?
Biden was part of the Obama administration. Remember the Obama administration? It was magical, right? If you want more of that,
vote Biden.
5. But Trump!
Do you want Trump to win the next election? You know he'll shatter all our norms and literally end the world if he does, right?
You should be terrified of the possibility of Trump winning in 2020, and if you are, you should want him running against Joe Biden.
What's the alternative? Nominating some crazy unelectable socialist like Bernie Sanders? Might as well just hand Trump the victory
now, then. Anyone who wants to beat Trump must fall in line behind the Most Qualified Candidate Ever.
6. Iraq wasn't so bad.
Okay, maybe some of his past foreign policy positions look bad in hindsight, but come on. Pushing for the Iraq war was what
everyone was doing back in those days. It was all the rage. We all made it through, right? I mean, most of us?
7. This is happening whether you like it or not.
We're doing this. We're going to push Joe Biden through whether you like it or not, and we can do it the easy way or the hard
way. Just relax, take deep breaths, and think about a nice place far away from here. Don't struggle. This will be over before
you know it. We'll use plenty of lube.
8. Just vote for him.
Just vote for him, you insolent little shits. Who the fuck do you think you are, anyway? You think you're entitled to a bunch
of ponies and unicorns like healthcare and drinkable water? You only think that because you're a bunch of racist, sexist homophobes.
You will vote for who we tell you to or we'll spend the next four years calling you all Russian agents and screaming about Susan
Sarandon.
9. Nothing could possibly go wrong.
Honestly, what could possibly go wrong? It's not like the Most Qualified Candidate Ever could manage to lose an election to
some oafish reality TV star. Hell, Biden could beat Trump in his sleep. He could even skip campaigning in Michigan, Wisconsin
and Pennsylvania and still win by a landslide, because those states are in the bag. There's no way he could fail, barring some
unprecedented and completely unforeseeable freak occurrences from way out of left field that nobody could possibly have anticipated.
Totalitarian ideologies live by lies and contradiction. For example, the slave-state of
North Korea , ruled by
a hereditary dictatorship, proclaims itself a Democratic People's Republic when it is neither
democratic, popular, nor a republic.
In Nineteen Eighty-Four , Orwell wrote of how "the names of the
four Ministries by which [the oppressed population is] governed exhibit a sort of impudence in
their deliberate reversal of the facts. The Ministry of Peace concerns itself with war, the
Ministry of Truth with lies, the Ministry of Love with torture and the Ministry of Plenty with
starvation.
These contradictions are not accidental, nor do they result from ordinary
hypocrisy; they are deliberate exercises in doublethink ."
Defending the death-machine
You could, then, call GCHQ and the NSA part of the Ministry of Morality. While breaking laws
against surveillance and trying to destroy freedom of expression and enquiry, they pretend that
they're caring, ethical organizations who defend the oppressed and want to build a better
world. In fact, of course, GCHQ and the NSA are defending the death-machine of the military-industrial
complex , which has been wrecking nations and slaughtering civilians in
the Middle East (and elsewhere ) for
decades.
Quote: Orwell didn't foresee the celebration of homosexuality by totalitarians, but he did
explain it.
If you read Anthony Burgess' The Wanting Seed he writes about the roles of gays in
dystopia. He also talks about race, two things that Orwell and Huxley didn't. The Wanting
Seed is just as important in the world of dystopia as Brave New World or 1984.
one way George Orwell got the future completely wrong
That assumes he was writing about the future. He was mocking the Soviet "justice" system
in the recent past. The man was a satirist, after all. How did Stalin's men treat sexual
deviation?
1) The iniquities of the members of one skyfairy cult are not evidence for the virtues of
another such organisation and never will be.
2) It seems likely to me that homosexuality is a feature of overpopulation and may be a
natural population control mechanism. Experiments have shown that rats kept in overcrowded
conditions exhibit homosexual tendencies and also become more violent towards other rats. I
doubt that it is purely a coincidence that homosexuality first became notable round about the
time that humans started living in cities.
Other species have means of controlling their
populations, rabbits for example can reabsorb their embryos if the population count is too
high, seals can freeze the development of their foetuses etc.
I see no rational purpose in demonising homosexuals and I am certainly not going to let the purveyors of ancient
superstitious claptrap do my thinking for me. Cue howls of outrage from both skyfairy
cultists and from queers (if they are happy to use the word I don't see why I shouldn't)
3) It seems to me that the Zionist bankers have essentially bankrupted the western world
in an attempt to bring the rest of the world under their control, they have failed. They are
now attempting to mobilise any and all sections of the population that identify as minorities
as allies against the majorities in those countries, importing as many more as they can get
away with. What sense does it make to reinforce their narrative that it is heterosexual
whites v everyone else? because that is exactly what some people are doing. The Zionists are
making their following as broad as possible while attempting to narrow ours, why play into
their hands? Opposition to immigration for example does not have to be presented as a racial
issue, many people here in the UK were opposed to mass immigration from eastern Europe on
purely economic grounds, Poles and Lithuanians are not a different race and hardly even a
different culture. Do you really think that Blacks and Latinos that have been in the US for
generations are uniformly delighted about a new influx of cheap labour? Do you really believe
that Muslims are the natural allies of Jews or of homosexuals? If you actually put some
thought into the struggle rather than relying on superstitious claptrap and bigotry you might
be able to start pushing back.
So, Western civilization is going to collapse because of a few fairies & fag
hags?
Yes, it looks as if it will collapse. Not because the fairies and fag hags are
all-powerful, but because we have had it so good & easy for so long that we've gotten
weaker than any determined, focused fairy or hag.
Leftism in general, which I characterize as a mass adoption of a "mental map" (the gross
oversimplification of infinite reality people use to navigate their lives) highly estranged
from underlying reality, is Nature's "suicide switch" for an organism that has grossly
overgrown its ecological niche.
Today people believe palpably unreal things, in incredibly large numbers, with incredibly
deep fervor. The poster-child is the belief in the efficacy of magical incantations (statute
legislation) to change Actual Reality. If "we" want to end racism (however we define it in
the Newspeak Dictionary) then we just pass a law and "pow!" it's gone. (When that doesn't
work, we pass another law, and another and another and another, always expecting a different
result.)
Ditto the banking (and monetary) system. Money used to be basically a "receipt" for
actually having something IN HAND to take to the market and engage in trade. This was the
essence of Say's Law, "in order to consume (buy something) you must first produce."
Some clever Machiavellians figured out that if you could "complexify" and obscure the
monetary system enough, you could obtain the legal right to create from thin air the
ability to enter that market and buy something, which stripped to its essence is the crime of
fraud.
Banking has been an open fraud for a very long time, certainly since the era of naked fiat
money was introduced in the 1960's. But as long as everyone went along with the gag, and
especially once Credit Bubble Funny Money started fueling a debt orgy and rationalizing an
asset price mania, everyone thought "we could all get rich."
Today we have vast claims on real wealth (real wealth is productive land, productive plant
& equipment and capital you can hold in your hands, so to speak.) But we have uncountable
claims on each unit of real capital. The Machiavellians think that they will end up holding
title to it all, when the day comes to actually make an honest accounting. I suspect that
they lack the political power to pull that off, but only time will tell.
When this long, insane boom is reconciled, a lot of productive capital will turn out to be
nothing but vaporware and rusting steel. Entire industries arose to cater to
credit-bubble-demand, and when the bubble eventually ceases to inflate, demand in (and the
capital applied to) those industries will collapse. How many hospitals do you need when no
one has the money to pay for their services, and the tax base has burned to the ground?
Simple formula. Liberalism was the defense of the individual against the group.
All one needs to do is a simple substitution. Minorities , environment , animals etc are a
means by witch one can make individuals into the institutionalized oppressor. Even better is
the so called intersectional mini oppressions which make nearly all victims which in turns
makes all guilty. State intervention must increase .Guilty people , as all religions of the
world understand, are easily dominated and controlled.
The power the individual is destroyed by its own momentum.
@Digital Samizdat The Bolsheviks first pushed "free love" – easy divorce, abortion
and homosexuality. There even was serious discussion about whether or not to abolish
marriage. They reversed themselves and by the time WWII broke out, the official culture of
the Soviet Union was more socially conservative than that of the US. Even in the 1980s, the
Commies were tough on gays, lesbians and druggies.
Turkey, since 2011, has been waging a pro-Sunni proxy war in Syria, in the hope of one day
establishing in Damascus a pro-Turkey, Islamist regime. This ambition has failed, costing
President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's Turkey violent political turmoil on both sides of
Turkey's 911-km border with Syria and billions of dollars spent on more than 4 million Syrian
refugees scattered across the Turkish soil.
In Egypt, in 2011-2012, Erdoğan aggressively supported the failed Muslim Brotherhood
government and deeply antagonized the incumbent -- then-general but now president -- Abdel
Fattah al-Sisi. Since Erdoğan's efforts in Syria and Egypt failed, his Sunni Islamist
ambitions have found a new proxy-war theater: Libya.
On December 10,
Erdoğan said he could deploy troops in Libya if the UN-backed Government of National
Accord (GNA) in Tripoli (which Turkey supports) requested it. Erdoğan's talks with GNA's
head, Fayez al-Sarraj, who is fighting a war against the Libyan National Army (LNA) of General
Khalifa Haftar, produced two ostensibly strategic agreements: a memorandum of understanding on
providing the GNA with arms, military training and personnel; and a maritime agreement
delineating exclusive economic zones in the Mediterranean waters.
Greece and Egypt protested immediately while the European Council unequivocally condemned
the controversial accords. Meanwhile, the deals apparently escalated a proxy competition
between Turkey's old (Greece) and new (Egypt and the United Arab Emirates) rivals.
With the al-Sarraj handshake, Erdoğan is apparently aiming to:
minimize Turkey's isolation in the Mediterranean, one which has gradually worsened since
2010, following one diplomatic crisis after another with Israel;
counter strategic cooperation between Cyprus, Greece, Egypt and Israel, including joint
diplomatic, energy and military initiatives;
cut into the emerging Cypriot-Greek-Egyptian-Israeli maritime bloc;
push back against Arab (Egyptian and UAE) pressure on al-Sarraj;
fill the European vacuum in Libya; and
emerge as a deal-breaker in the Mediterranean rather than a deal-maker.
All that ambition requires military hardware as well as diplomatic software. Since 2011, a
year after the Mavi Marmara incident ruptured relations with Israel, Turkey has been investing
billions of dollars in naval technologies, in an apparent effort to build up the hardware it
would one day require.
In the eight years since then, Turkey has built
four Ada-class corvettes; two Landing Ship Tank (LST) vessels; eight fast Landing Craft Tank
(LCT) vessels; 16 military patrol ships; two deep-sea rescue ships; one submarine rescue ship;
and four assault boats.
The jewel in the naval treasury box is a $1 billion Landing Platform Dock (LPD), now being
built under license from Spain's Navantia shipyards, to be operational in 2021. The TCG
Anadolu , Turkey's first amphibious assault ship, will carry a battalion-sized unit of
1,200 troops and personnel, eight utility helicopters and three unmanned aerial vehicles; it
also will transport 150 vehicles, including battle tanks. It also may be able to deploy short
takeoff and vertical landing STOVL F-35 fighter jets. Turkey will be the third operator in the
world of this ship type, after Spain and Australia.
Erdoğan's naval ambitions, however, are not limited just to an emerging fleet of
conventional vessels. In 2016, he said
that the LPD program would hopefully be the first step toward producing a "most elite" aircraft
carrier. He also said he "sees it as a major deficiency that we still do not have a nuclear
vessel."
On December 22, Turkey's first Type 214 class submarine, the TCG Piri Reis , hit the seas
with a ceremony attended by Erdoğan. "Today,"
he said , "we gathered here for the docking of Piri Reis . As of 2020, a submarine will go
into service each year. By 2027, all six of our submarines will be at our seas for
service."
Unsurprisingly the docking ceremony reminded Erdoğan of his Libyan gambit: "We will
evaluate every opportunity in land, sea and air. If needed, we will increase military support
in Libya."
Erdoğan seems to think that his best defense in the Mediterranean power game is an
offense. On December 15, Turkish Naval Forces
intercepted an Israeli research ship, the Bat Galim , in Cypriot waters and escorted it
away, as tension over natural resource exploration continued to rise in the region.
On December 16, Turkey dispatched a surveillance and reconnaissance drone to the
Turkish-controlled north of the divided island of Cyprus. A week before the drone deployment,
Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu said that Ankara could use its
military forces to halt gas drilling in waters off Cyprus that it claims as its own.
Libya is another risky proxy war theater for Turkey. Its deals with the al-Sarraj government
over troop deployment and maritime borders will become null and void if the Libyan civil war,
begun in 2014, ends with Gen. Haftar's victory. The chief of staff of the LNA, Farag
Al-Mahdawi,
announced that his forces would sink any Turkish ship approaching the Libyan coast. "I have
an order; as soon as the Turkish research vessels arrive, I will have a solution. I will sink
them myself," Al-Mahdawi warned, noting that the order was coming from Haftar. On December 21,
Haftar's forces seized
a Grenada-flagged ship with Turkish crew aboard, on the suspicion that it was carrying arms.
The ship was later released.
The European Union is another factor why Erdoğan, once again, is probably betting on
the wrong horse. Technically speaking, Turkey is a candidate for full EU membership, but it is
an open secret that accession talks have not moved an inch during the past several years, and
with no prospects of progress in sight. Making membership prospects even gloomier, EU foreign
ministers in November
agreed on economic sanctions for Ankara for violating Cyprus' maritime economic zone by
drilling off the island.
The Mediterranean chess game leaves Turkey in alliance with the breakaway Turkish Cypriot
statelet and one of the warring factions in Libya, versus a strategic grouping of Greece,
Cyprus, Egypt (and the UAE), Israel, and the other warring Libyan group.
One emerging power in Libya, however, is not a Western state actor. After controlling Syria
in favor of President Bashar al-Assad and establishing permanent military bases inside and off
the coast of the country, Russia has the potential to step into the Libyan theater with a
bigger proxy and direct force, to establish its second permanent Mediterranean military
presence. As in Syria, where divergent interests did not stop Turkey from becoming a
remote-controlled Russian player, Moscow can once again make use of the Turkish card to
undermine Western interests in Libya.
Also as in Syria, Turkey's Islamist agenda will probably fail in Libya, but by the time
Erdoğan understands that, it might be too late to get out of Moscow's orbit.
It is reasonably cheap to buy a journalist and turn him into the attack dog on particular, inconvenient or dangerious for the
financial oligarchy candidate.
New article about Tulsi Gabbard being viciously attacked over religion during Christmas.
Angry Bernie Sanders supporters whom I guess forgot to take their meds over the holidaze
are viciously attacking Tulsi because of Jesus? LOL. This new article is specifically about
Mike Figueroa from The Humanist Report, a semi-popular vlogger, and also a fanatic atheist
type.
He used to be a Tulsi supporter, but since he is connected to the TYT network which is
funded by Hollywood Billionaire and major DNC Clinton funder Katzenberg, he must have
recently been told to toe the party line on smearing Tulsi if he wanted to reap the funding
benefits of TYT who are hardcore Tulsi haters, following the DNC line.
I guess Tulsi showing the Christmas spirit gave him a reason to look hardcore to his
fellow fanatics and appease TYT money folks. Anyways, here is the new article Like, In The
Year 2024
"... Despite fond youthful memories of Bill Clinton/Kenneth Starr/Monica Lewinsky jokes on late-night television, my interest in the current impeachment saga can pretty much be summed up as follows: "Get back to me when they launch an impeachment inquiry over Yemen ." Watching the House vote along party lines to impeach President Donald Trump while barely stifling a yawn over the Afghanistan Papers does little to alter my skepticism about this constitutional crisis built for cable news. ..."
"... Progressive commentator Michael Tracey offered this apt summary of Washington's bizarre priorities: "This last week teaches us that temporarily freezing and then unfreezing future military aid to one of our many far-flung client states is [a] huge national emergency but the government systematically lying about every aspect of the longest war in U.S. history is a forgettable non-issue." ..."
Despite fond youthful memories of Bill Clinton/Kenneth Starr/Monica Lewinsky jokes on
late-night television, my interest in the current impeachment saga can pretty much be summed up
as follows: "Get back to me when they launch an impeachment inquiry over Yemen
." Watching the House vote along party lines to impeach President Donald Trump while barely
stifling a yawn over the
Afghanistan Papers does little to alter my skepticism about this constitutional crisis
built for cable news.
Progressive commentator Michael Tracey offered this apt summary of Washington's bizarre
priorities: "This last week teaches us that temporarily freezing and then unfreezing future
military aid to one of our many far-flung client states is [a] huge national emergency but the
government systematically lying about every aspect of the longest war in U.S. history is a
forgettable non-issue."
Nobody will be impeached for lying about Afghanistan. There will be no intelligence
community whistleblower setting in motion an impeachment inquiry over weapons of mass
destruction in Iraq. In fact, the same Nancy Pelosi who ultimately caved to the Resistance shut
down antiwar Democrats who wanted such hearings into George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. But here
John Bolton, an advocate
of preventive presidential war during this very administration, may finally get his wish of
being
greeted as a liberator .
Even as Representative Adam Schiff led the drive to impeach Trump, the California Democrat
voted for a defense bill that lavishes the executive branch with money without restraining
presidential war powers. But this seeming inconsistency is practically the point -- the entire
impeachment inquiry was wrapped in hawkish assumptions and rhetoric as liberal Democrats
unthinkingly stumbled into a Cold War 2.0 mindset that few of them this side of Hillary Clinton
would have willingly embraced absent
frequently overhyped Trump-Russia headlines dating back to the 2016 campaign.
No, Trump isn't Jesus Christ being handed
over by Pontius Pilate. His phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky wasn't "
perfect
" and neither side of this partisan morality tale has exactly covered itself in glory. Rudy
Giuliani's escapades seem particularly likely to end badly. One need not even necessarily
defend Trump's conduct to oppose an impeachment inquiry largely predicated on threat inflation.
Arm Ukraine, Stanford law professor Pamela Karlan testified, so they can "fight the Russians
there and we don't have to fight them here." She could have been starring in a Democratic
reboot of Red Dawn decades after the Soviet Union disintegrated.
There's no question Trump to some extent dangled a White House visit and congressionally
authorized aid to Ukraine before Kyiv in pursuit of the talking point that Joe Biden was under
investigation. The only matters in dispute are how determined the effort was, whether Trump's
motives were at least partially publicly spirited, the degree of the Bidens' shadiness, and why
the aid was ultimately disbursed (Byron York
makes the case that it wasn't necessarily because of the whistleblower).
House Democrats began with a presumption of corrupt intent on all counts and a definition of
foreign election interference elastic enough to include Trump utterances about WikiLeaks and
Hillary's deleted emails but not Ukraine's (smaller, less systematic and arguably less
effective than Russia's) 2016 influence
campaign . And while not all investigations are created equal -- if Hunter Biden's business
dealings are to be probed, it should not be as a favor to any president -- the impeachment
inquiry itself is an investigation of a political rival, who was also investigated during his
previous campaign .
If shortcuts were taken in the beginning of the Trump-Russia investigation, the origins of
Trump-Ukraine resemble a template for undermining any seriously antiwar or civil libertarian
president. Trump is not that president himself, of course -- his acquiescence to the Beltway
blob on lethal military aid is precisely what increased his leverage over Ukraine -- but some
plausible and even the
occasional Republican could be. Trump's mild rhetorical dissents on foreign policy are
clearly a factor in why he has reason to be suspicious of his own subordinates (it's also why
it is disingenuous to suggest that replacing Trump with Mike Pence is no different than
replacing Bill Clinton with ideologically identical Al Gore or that people who have worked for
Bush, Cheney or John McCain
would have no reason to oppose Trump).
Many Democrats sincerely believed they were impeaching Trump for the least of his crimes,
like Al Capone and tax evasion, and that Robert Mueller let him escape last time. They are also
making a case against Trump's ability to separate personal and national interests in a way that
speaks to his fitness for the office, with Ukraine merely being their specific example. But in
doing so, they are also ratifying a bipartisan foreign policy consensus that has failed the
American people, and that's bigger than any one president.
W. James Antle III is the editor of The American Conservative.
Lyttennburgh, I can think of a couple of reasons for Erdogan's Libyan adventure. First, he'd
rather have those battle tested jihadis in Libya than on his border or in his country.
Second, he may have his eyes on Mediterranean oil. Lastly, he may see a friendly Libyan
government as an ally or province of his Ottoman Empire dream. No matter what the reason,
he's setting himself up for another confrontation with Russia.
Combating the scourge of US-supported terrorists in Syria at the behest of its government
aside, Russia's involvement elsewhere is diplomatic, including in Libya.
Obama regime-led aggression in 2011 transformed Africa's most developed nation into a
charnel house, a dystopian failed state, endless war raging with no resolution in prospect.
Wherever wars rage, chances are US dirty hands are involved, clearly the case in multiple
countries, including Libya.
Russia is not involved in the country militarily. Claims otherwise are fabricated. Russian
Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov strongly denied them, saying:
"I categorically refute speculations of this kind. We are acting in the interest of the
Libyan settlement," adding:
"We are supporting the existing effort, including through the United Nations. We maintain a
dialogue with those who somehow influence the situation."
"We do not think that there is any grounds for such statements, such fiction, but this is
not the first time that US media spread different speculations, wicked rumors, falsehoods
targeting us."
"We have already gotten used to this, and we take it in stride. However, I have to
acknowledge that recurrent hoaxes of this kind exercise a negative influence on the sentiment
of the US domestic public, and the general atmosphere in the United States."
"Unfortunately it does not promote normalization of our ties, although we strive for
it."
A November NYT propaganda piece falsely accused Russia of involvement militarily in Libya --
instead of focusing on how the Obama regime raped and destroyed the country.
Trump hardliners support warlord Khalifa Haftar, a longtime CIA asset, a former US resident,
commander of the so-called Libyan National Army (LNA) -- waging war on the UN-backed
Tripoli-based Government of National Accord (GNA).
Since US-led aggression toppled Muammar Gaddafi in October 2011 and sodomized him to death,
the US continued to wage secret drone war on the country, conducting hundreds of strikes,
continuing since Trump took office.
The Times falsely claimed "Russian mercenaries (and) snipers" are involved in Libya -- no
evidence cited proving what's not so, adding:
Hundreds of "Russian fighters (are) part of a broad campaign by the Kremlin to reassert its
influence across the Middle East and Africa (sic)."
"It has introduced advanced Sukhoi jets, coordinated missile strikes, and precision-guided
artillery, as well as the snipers -- the same playbook that made Moscow a kingmaker in the
Syrian civil war (sic)."
There's nothing remotely "civil" about US aggression in Syria. No evidence suggests Russia
is involved militarily in Libya with heavy or other weapons.
The Kremlin didn't intervene in the country on behalf of anyone. Its involvement is
diplomatic to try resolving the mess US aggression created -- what the Times and other
establishment media cheerled.
Days earlier, Russia's Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova slammed false claims
about Kremlin involvement in Libya militarily, saying:
Moscow officials maintain diplomatic contact "with all current Libyan political forces,"
adding:
Congressional hardliners drafted the so-called Libya Stabilization Act -- imposing sanctions
on Russia for its "imaginary military presence in" the country.
The measure falsely accuses Moscow of "military intervention," blaming what doesn't exist on
destabilizing the country, ignoring how US-led NATO smashed Libya, massacring countless
thousands, displacing many more, destroying their livelihoods and well-being
"I wonder how US lawmakers describe the illegal US armed forces presence in Syria or the
reckless actions of the (Obama regime) in Libya to their voters," Zakharova stressed.
The Times propaganda piece barely acknowledged Trump regime support for Haftar, mentioning
it buried well into its article, ignoring its April 2019 piece, headlined:
As the New Cold War gathers up speed and escalates, we are entering a "fact free world" as
allegations are made that are proved not to be true are promoted; for example, the allegation
that the DNC was hacked by Russia has been officially debunked -- no one could name the
seventeen intelligence agencies, the Coast Guard was one. The notion of the hacking was cooked
up by two agencies: by the DNI's head James Clapper and Brennan at the CIA. Nevertheless,
recently News Anchor Chuck Todd of NBC (the most pro-Russiagate network, the ones who
shamelessly accused presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard of being a Russian asset) took it one
step further: ignoring the facts, Todd again stated that seventeen intelligence agencies agreed
that the Russians not only interfered in the election but that they swung the election to
Trump. While interference is one thing, no one has previously made that allegation.
Consequently, we are now in a fact free discourse in America: no evidence is necessary to prove
anything, falsehoods are taken up by the legacy media, what Professor Cohen would call a world
of tabloid gossip media, except in their favor the tabloids, fearing lawsuits, will do some
fact checking, which is conspicuous in its absence in the legacy media. And Professor Cohen
noted that it's hard to get traction and you can't have a conversation with someone when you
don't agree upon the facts.
In conversation on a cruise with fellow liberals, Professor Cohen noted most take the view
that where there is smoke there is fire and there is something to these allegations of
Russiagate and Putin's control over Trump; they state the media wouldn't continue to promote
these conspiracy theories, these allegations about Trump's nefarious relations with the
Kremlin, without reason and so there must be something to them. Yet while facts have become
absolutely critical Cohen notes you can't get people to focus on the facts; for that reason, he
feels despair and observes that for the first time in his life in his public discussions of
Russia there are no basic premises that people accept any more, for if you say "If there's
smoke, there's fire," that is just not a logical way of thinking: you either have the facts or
you don't.
Batchelor also points out in the impeachment charges there is a great deal of presumption;
there are no facts regarding the president as well, and he cites Trump's letter to Nancy Pelosi
and poses this question: what does the Kremlin think about the impeachment?
Cohen answers that the Russian high policy class in the 1990s -- the America worship period
-- they and not just the youth, strongly believed that Russia's future was with the West and
America in particular, and now what strikes Russians most is the role of Russian intelligence
services in the Western allegations. Pro-America Russians thought that American intelligence
services didn't play the role that the Soviet ones did. In Russian history classes and as a
staple of popular culture, the sinister role of the "secret police" goes back to the Czarist
era but what distinguished America was that it didn't have anything comparable in abuses by its
intelligence services -- or so it was believed. Consequently, for those who looked up to
America, it's a source of disillusion and shock to learn that the American special services
"went off the reservation" for quite a long time, not unlike Russia's, and so they have become
disillusioned while for those who tried to get Russians to be more nationalistic, their
perspective is to say with gratification, "We told you so. Now will you please grow up!"
Russians call the American agencies "the organs" perhaps not being clear on the difference
between the CIA and the FBI and conflating them. For Russians, the role of such agencies is
baked into the culture and this has resulted in rethinking not only about America but about
their own special services. An Op-Ed piece in a Russian liberal newspaper the Russian liberal
author wrote, after watching what's unfolding in America, we used to beat up on our
intelligence services for decades but now maybe we need them. Contrary to a "cult of the
intelligence services," Cohen thinks what must be determined is the role of the American
intelligence services in creating Russiagate from the very beginning.
Yet what is critical is to know how Russiagate began in America, with the Barr-Durham probe
into the origins of Russia and Russiagate will continue to be a major issue in the 2020
election. What struck Cohen about the letter from Trump to Pelosi -- which was so eloquent he
doubts Trump wrote it -- was that he understands it will be an issue in the 2020 elections, and
it was a campaign document. That aside, Trump is aware that Democrats are campaigning still on
Russiagate; nothing has turned up that it factual. Therefore, despite the absence of facts,
this will be a major issue. Ukraine has turned into a stand-in for Russia.
Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post, once a quintessential conservative, published an
article titled "Time to Call out and Remove Putin's Propagandist in America." While the article
is slightly cagier than that headline, essentially she wants to shutdown and deprive access to
media who aren't espousing and promoting the Russiagate/Russophobic narratives. Cohen condemns
that kind of behavior is that. On opposite side of Rubin, Cohen stated he himself has never
advocated the silencing and removal of those who promote among other falsehoods the provably
false Russiagate narrative. He asks where are things drifting and he answers discourse and
relations are becoming ugly and awful.
Returning to the past, he notes there was an assumption that Russia under Yeltsin would
emerge as a replica and junior partner of America; Cohen believes those who promote the
Russiagate narrative and demonize Trump because their "impossible dream" failed -- Russia is
too old, too vast to ever be a replica of America. What took Professor Cohen aback in the
testimony from Fiona Hill and others was how deep and wide the Russophobia runs in the
Washington think tanks. Until she spoke and testified he had no idea how much she -- and the
other Russia experts -- hate Russia.
Batchelor noted this is the language of civil war in Trump's letter; Trump uses the term
"Star Chamber of partisan persecution" and "coup" which are the language of a country torn in
half and he asked the question whether the weakening of the civil contract to be an advantage
to Putin and Russia. Cohen notes every newspaper and media source in America say Putin is
delighted since it is his goal is to foment disarray in America.
The fact is, however, this chaos and dysfunction and enmity is one of the last things Putin
wants. Putin's purpose is to rebuild Russia from the economic and political catastrophes of the
1990s; Putin's role is to reverse the demographic trend -- men died in their fifties in the
1990s -- and spend funds on modernization; that would be his legacy. Four hundred billion
dollars has been saved to implement the modernization program. That attempt would be taken with
modernizing partnerships with the West. Therefore, the last thing he wants is a new Cold War;
the last thing he wants is political turmoil in America or in any Western nation. Cohen points
out President Macron of France appears to understand that; he called for a rethinking of
relations and said there could be no European security without Russia. Macron has broken with
Washington and there will be a hell of fight because Washington is against it. But the notion
that Putin wants to disrupt American society is wrong; Putin wants stability and partners.
Cohen still thinks that leadership -- the new President of Ukraine, Trump and Putin --
I always listen to the Prof's podcast shows at Batchelor. What bothers me is that so many
Trump supporters and public commentators BELIEVE, or at least parrot the idea that Russia
INVADED both western Ukraine and Crimea.
As the Prof has pointed out and seconded by many others, Crimea has been a part of Russia
since late 18th century. Because Khrushchev "gave' it to Ukraine in 50s when it was all one
country does not obviate the fact that Crimeans consider themselves Russians as proved by all
polling and a plebiscite. They had permanent bases there and the alleged invasion was nothing
more than politely escorting the Ukrainian military off from the peninsula without any
injuries to either side. Some invasion.
Surely some Russians (whether incognito military/intelligence forces or private citizens)
were part of the Donbass forces that rebelled against Kiev. And they had good reasons to
rebel witness the horrors of Odessa when 40 something citizens of Russian ancestry were
burned alive trapped in a building by Ultra-Ukrainian nazi-like forces.
Now Senate Foreign Relations committee, chaired by Senator from my state, has called for
designating Russia as a "terror supporting state." I emailed him and asked if he was insane.
He returned a long letter that is full of obfuscations and lies, and I will compose a
detailed response soon. But the question presents: is the Deep State and their globalists'
master deliberately trying to force Russia into a military alliance with China? Could we
prevail against that combination? Haunting resemblance to conditions that created
Ribbentrop/Molotov pact in late 30s. And what that foretell?
Well, I guess when you have such luminaries as members of the Council on Foreign Relations
spieling the same level of ignorance, blindness, prejudice, propaganda and plain
perverseness, you have to expect it from all levels of "Governance"
For anyone who knows even a small amount about Russia and her leader, go listen to a recent
YouTube convention headed Russia's Resurgence: Prospects for stability in Russia-US
relationship.
One thing is for sure – as long as these supposed "think tank leaders" can deliberately
blind themselves to reality as this trio did, and spout the utterly brain dead stupidity they
used to instigate a Q & A, there is no hope whatsoever of any stability in Russia –
US relationship.
The people of the media lie because they are for sale and are paid to lie. Rather uninspiring
but understandable: they do it for the money and to stay in front of the cameras. But what's
everyone else's excuse? Putin is a Svengali who mind-controls Trump? I thought people like
that wore turbans and robes. How stupid are Americans, anyway? Who'd have thought something
like this would have any traction whatsoever? It's simply incredible.
I was born into the Cold War in 1944. I got my draft notice in 1965. I had been expecting it
all my young life. The Berlin wall did not fall until 1989.
This new Cold War will be over soon. It will turn hot and we will all die or the "West"
will collapse and will repatriate it's legions. The Anglo/Zio Empire is in steep decline
while Russia and her allies are ascendant.
I agree that the truth is no defense against the "left". Their long march is completed and
they occupy the high ground whether it's politics or culture. They have taken over the
country just in time to preside over its demise.
Russians who thought their future was with the West were not completely wrong. If the U.S.
has a future it is probably with Russia.
There is a couple of points I would like to add on a changing European perspective on the
dynamics between the USA and Russia, with Europe caught in-between.
1.) After the Second World War the choice between Bolshevism and US liberal democracy
seemed blatantly obvious; for Germany especially it was a question of national survival,
since Stalin was viewed as a serious threat by the Adenauer government. Germany had actually
enjoyed more internal independence from leading US doctrines in this period. US rule of law,
the character of its elites and the general morality of the society had not completely
degraded yet either. Today institutional erosion of American democracy, the rule of law and a
cynical Neocon approach towards "promoting democracy abroad" turned the USA into a
non-appealing leader of 'the West'. The increasing "Sovietization" of its state apparatus
emphasizes this point: the expansion of the surveillance state, selective access to real
political and economic access to a select few of the privileged; often hereditary dynasties
of oligarchs, a political-media complex of agitation and propaganda. Thus, the accusations
against Russia (or China for that matter) about a lack of transparency, pluralism and the
rule of law sound entirely hollow.
2.) Thus secondly NATO has turned from a credible alliance of defense against the Soviet
Union into a tool of US imperialism; especially after the USA has declared victory in the
Cold War. Wars surrounding Europe and even inside of it – The Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia and in Ukraine – were the result. Nations were destroyed, heads of state
publicly executed or tortured to death like Muammar Gaddafi and millions of people were
killed; many more were made homeless and a refugee crisis was created. And concealing wars of
aggression as "human rights promotion" opened a can of worms for cynical nihilism as the new
norm of US foreign policy – WMD lies, Abu-Ghuraib and NSA scandals included. Just as
the established political-media apparatus is guilty of everything populism is accused of:
post factual parallel realities, fake news and fake realities, systematic disinformation,
social engineering and conditioning into hysteria and the frenzy of the mob. The pathology of
the new US ruling class personified by Hillary Clinton and Madeleine Albright
3.) There is indeed no lasting European stability imaginable without a permanent peaceful
agreement between Western- and Eastern-Europe and Russia. Russia's role as the Eurasian land
bridge to China is also essential this century. Mutual agreement has to be found to settle
old grievances and fears regarding Napoleon and Hitler on the Russian side and Stalinism and
the Soviet Union on the European side. A situation which the USA also currently exploits for
political destabilization – especially in Poland.
4.) Germany, currently the central country in the EU, owes its unification largely to
Russia. Unfortunately it was a mistake on the Russian side when they had unilaterally
withdrawn all their troops from German territory, that they did not demand the same from
US/NATO forces. In that moment the transformation of NATO was sealed and the New Cold War had
begun. Yet while the attitudes of the older generations are shaped by the US-Soviet Union
Cold War, for new generations it's a different story. Increasingly the USA is seen as a more
credible threat and/or bully with its war policy, real political meddling and especially in
my country the fact that Germany was both forced to sanction Russia, which went against its
own vital interests, and then be sanctioned as well.
5.) I am leaving out the value and identity politics debate. Fundamentally the general
public on both sides of the Atlantic agrees on the theory on foundations of functioning
democracy. Although I do think that since the end of the last Cold War the influence of the
USA has been more harmful and corrosive than helpful and stabilizing.
Conclusion: In this new Cold War which was, I think, initiated by the US establishment, we
could see a future in which Germany and Russia begin to view themselves more in the light of
the Prussian-Russian coalition against the new "Napoleon", the United States. Although this
arising conflict could rightly be dubbed: The Unnecessary Cold War.
that the truth is no defense against the "left". Their long march is completed and they
occupy the high ground whether it's politics or culture.'
'
Left ? Do you believe that the establishment crowd of Democrats (Liberals,) and the
managed news (Liberals,) and others Liberals, neoliberals, neocons, or anything else
comprising the Russiagate hoax can be describes as Leftist?
It's been determined that the Democrats intentionally jettisoned the Working Class decades
ago. It shouldn't be news to working people that they don't have a party!
It was a rational decision to unload the workers, and substitute special interest and
identity politics, because of trends of the decline of union membership in age of technology,
automation, and YUPPIES! The Democrats are now slick pretenders of social justice, but not
left.
@RJJCDA " is the Deep State and their globalists' master deliberately trying to force
Russia into a military alliance with China? "
Hard to say what their intentions are. (The old ploy of unity at home by means of an
external enemy ?) Whatever they are -- US foreign policy (FO) re Russia should go down with
Iraq (II) as among the US's greatest FO blunders.
As the Saker has pointed out– Russia & China are in symbiosis, which runs deeper
than an alliance.
Russiagate is a kind of "two birds with one stone" deal: you get to bash Trump & Russia
using each as a club to beat the other. That this whole base concoction of lies seems to
still have legs speaks volumes as to the deep of Trump derangement syndrome & the
universality of msm propaganda.
Mr Cohen is so far ahead of Washington , when it comes to Russia and other foreign matters,
it just boggles the mind of us normies. The Ukraine Gate is all about the Kyivian Jew
Oligarchs, trying to oust the thief Democrats from all the IMF looting , that those Kyivians
, had their eyes/hands on. It's like – thanks for doing the Coup but all the money we
get is – Ours for the looting. And there are hundreds of millions – missing.
Russia Gate will go on, until the American public – " Grows Up " as Mr. Cohen says.
What damns the US media, both anti-Trump and Fox News, is that America has been massively
meddling in elections all over the globe since Day One, including Russia, and this is known
or should be known to anyone with a basic knowledge of international relations, yet it is
almost NEVER mentioned when the subject of Russian meddling comes up.
There is a feeling that it would be unpatriotic (treasonous?) to admit it. This is
something new for America. In the old days American foreign policy was sharply debated and
America's sins were much discussed by the left. But now, the left is on the CIA's side. This
probably has to do with the Jewishness of the left. Jews tend to hate Russia as much as they
tended to like the Soviet Union. They see post-Communist Russia as politically incorrect
(e.g. anti-gay) and Christian, a potentially nationalistic society that could turn
anti-Semitic.
Because of Russia's nuclear capability it is not possible for the US to invade it, so we
are relying on internal subversion and economic tactics to bring down Putin, leading to the
installation of a US lackey with neocon approval. Even as we speak of Russian meddling the
CIA is busy organizing and funding anti-Putin elements in Russia.
"We're just trying to spread democracy. What's wrong with that!?"
@Back1 Stupidity does not produce the invention and promotion of lie after lie,
Nor is stupidity consistent with the selection of the best lies from those total of lies
generated.
Only lies that work on the minds targeted are repeated.
Repeat the lie but hide it, camouflage the lie with some truth, and embedded the lie into
the propaganda that establishes the narrative, and then mass produce the lie embedded
propaganda that establishes the false or misleading narrative is a complicated process.
Repeat and repeat the false narrative is a hat trick that often deceives innocent minds into
adopting, embedding and acting on beliefs established in innocent minds by mind control
technology. These process are not consistent with stupidity, but instead suggest diabolical
genius at work.
When only the lies that work; that is, that control, deceive or influence innocent minds
are repeated you are looking process which took intelligence to make work. Inventing lies
takes imagination, producing them into propaganda takes skill, and promoting the produced
invented lie takes money, power and access.
Selection (of the best or most suitable lie) is an process that requires identification
and sufficient intelligence to sort; while repetition requires the selected object be either
committed to memory, or to be continuously and precisely regenerated for each
promotion(campaign). Promotion is a delicate process; its success so dependant on so many
things, that many people have obtained Phds from the subject matter that surround the
technology of deceit.
The point is that promoting false narratives is an invented developing technology that
takes professionally trained persons to make work. Someone is paying the mind control
professionals (MCPs) that are working to embed false narrative into the memory of the minds
of the governed masses. MCPs are not stupid people. Not only are they highly trained
professionals but also they don't work for free. So who is paying them.
Why is Steven Cohen credited with this article when obviously it is written by another? What
gives, Unz? It is an example of the same facts twisting it rails against.
@Antiwar7 "If there's smoke, there's fire" is not so much stupid as devious. You have to
understand that many political leaders nowadays have realised that they don't need hard facts
and figures or logic to sway opinion.
Increasingly, political divisions are tribal; and the worst condemnation is "you are not
one of us". Disagreeing with the party line shows that a person is "not one of us".
That is especially the case when the party line is obviously untrue. Then sticking to it
is an absolute proof of devoted, unthinking loyalty. It's more like a pledge of allegiance
than a rational statement of fact.
I agree that the truth is no defense against the "left". Their long march is completed
and they occupy the high ground whether it's politics or culture. They have taken over the
country just in time to preside over its demise.
It is the right as well on important issue to the Deep State there is no right and
left.
Does it really matter? America is already a Jewish/Bolshevik occupied nation?
To achieve absolute power, Lenin focused on fomenting a class war, while Hitler set his
sights on a race war. Either way, the divide-and-conquer modus operandi of fascist and
communist demagogues is pretty much the same, no matter what each side might claim about
the other. Their propaganda content may differ, but not so much their divide-and-conquer
methods. Attitudes of supremacy come in a virtual rainbow of flavors and colors.
theamericanconservative.com : "Forget Trump : The
Military-Industrial-Complex is still running the show " By Bruce Fein , July 18, 2018 theintercept.com " Defense
contractors say Russian threat is great for business "
Did Russian believe that any assurances could prevent Nato being drawn right up to the
borders of Russia? Did Ukrainians believe the UK and US's security assurances 'against the
threat or use of force against Ukraine's territory or political independence' could replace
Ukraine's possession of nuclear weapons? Zbigniew Brzezinski did speak of Russia
"increasingly passing into de facto western receivership" .
They say the Russians only heard what that wanted to hear, but the record suggests the
Americans misrepresented their intentions, and gave assurances that the Russians took at face
value. Russia permitted an American campaign to spent vast sums and organise Yeltsin's
reelection, which would not have happened without them. The Russian foreign minister at that
time, Andrei Kozyrev, now lives in Miami.
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2018-03-16/nato-expansion-what-yeltsin-heardD.C
., March 16, 2018 – Declassified documents from U.S. and Russian archives show that
U.S. officials led Russian President Boris Yeltsin to believe in 1993 that the Partnership
for Peace was the alternative to NATO expansion, rather than a precursor to it, while
simultaneously planning for expansion after Yeltsin's re-election bid in 1996 and telling
the Russians repeatedly that the future European security system would include, not
exclude, Russia.
The declassified U.S. account of one key conversation on October 22, 1993, (Document 8)
shows Secretary of State Warren Christopher assuring Yeltsin in Moscow that the Partnership
for Peace was about including Russia together with all European countries, not creating a
new membership list of just some European countries for NATO; and Yeltsin responding, "this
is genius!"
Christopher later claimed in his memoir that Yeltsin misunderstood – perhaps from
being drunk – the real message that the Partnership for Peace would in fact "lead to
gradual expansion of NATO";[1] but the actual American-written cable reporting the
conversation supports subsequent Russian complaints about being misled.[2]
After obtaining a succession of huge US-backed IMF loans, being found on Pennsylvania
Avenue, drunk, in his underwear and trying to hail a taxi cab in order to find pizza in 1995,
Yeltsin chose Putin the teetotal former counterintelligence specialist to succeed him. What a
sense of humour Yeltsin must have had.
@jack daniels I agree that the paraphraser should not go anonymous. But more important is
to bring to the reader's attention that a broadcast podcast is available at the article's
end.
@Vaterland The American elutes might be forgiven theirvicious follies by Americans if
they had not impoverished so many Americans and,at best leaving them struggling.
@9/11 Inside job We do not call it "the Military-Industrial-Complex".
We do not call it "the Banks".
We do not call it "the FED"
We do not call it "the Wall Street"
We do not call it "the Media"
@Realist Agreed. Truth is no defense against the Deep State which is neither left nor
right.. Still, it is the ideological left that denies the existence of objective reality. For
them there are no facts. Only subjective experience. Useful idiots and propagandists for the
Deep State, they "know" Trump is a Russian agent because they can feel it. They don't
need no steenking evidence.
The (left) media promote hatred. Orange Man Bad. The ideological left understands and
enjoys hatred. They can feel it. When you hate somebody you are ready and eager to
believe the worst about them.
@EdNels Thank you. Well said, and not nearly enough.
It's my opinion that the relentless use of "left" to describe the neoliberal half of the
Republicrat/Wall Street/war industry party is no accident.
Describing the "Democrats" of the Clinton DNC as "left" is useful to discredit and
marginalize any political stance that, fairly and realistically, could be considered "left."
It produces chaos and confusion, which is the objective of the neocon/neoliberal grifters who
control both halves of the war party.
@Realist I suspect that the paraphraser is our own Ron Unz since he strikes me as a
hands-on operator. Secondary suspect is Phil Giraldi, UR's National Security Editor.
In any event it's important to dissimulate Cohen's views since he's literally A
Geopolitical Voice Crying Out in the Wilderness! For this both Batchelor and Unz are to be
commended!!
@Realist There's a left alright; there's just no right. Since the 1960's the conservative
movement and Republican Party have conserved exactly nothing while the left has completely
transformed America, successfully implementing much of the 1930's communist agenda and
turning the government into the enemy of the society at large.
In his Myth of Religious Violence William T Cavanaugh points out that before the
arrival of Frankfurter on the Supreme Court, religion, meaning chiefly Christianity, was held
by the court to be the fundamental source of social cohesion and peace in America, while
since the late 1940s and post-Frankfurter, religion, now meaning only Christianity,
has been consistently held to be not only divisive, but the fundamental source of violence.
The point is, this upending of society was accomplished by legislating from the bench, while
the Republicans and Conservatism Inc, as we now learn, were funded to neutralize opposition,
blowing smoke in Americans' eyes about legalisms at a time when at least 90% of this country
was conservative.
Sites like The American Conservative and American Thinker, for example, are apparently
funded to publish fawning material about the Jews and Israel that the latter would be too
ashamed to write themselves, which also pretty much sums up the Republican's m.o. in
Congress.
It's about time the American electorate saw candidates for national and state office as
figureheads for their largest donors, who're presently portrayed as almost incidental by the
msm. Instead of saying that Mitch McConnell or Lindsey Graham said this or that, accuracy
requires we say Paul Singer and Sheldon Adelson's spokesman in the Senate, some so-and-so
stooge, said this or that. It's the same on both sides of the aisle, obviously, and it turns
out that the owners of both parties are kin when it comes to destroying the social fabric of
this country for their own hateful reasons.
@Patrikios Stetsonis You forgot , an aspect. "We do not call it Z.O.G."
Which commands and guides the US government in both domestic and foreign policy.
On similar note to your closing statement ,
To quote Treitschke 1879 "The Jews are our misfortune"
The zionists hate Christians and since Russia is becoming more Christian the zionists hate
towards Russia has reached a hysteria that is only matched by their demonic hate of
Christians and one of the ways to strike at Russia is through lies and false flags blamed on
Russia.
The ZUS is winning the war against Christians here in America with abortions and
pedophilia in high places and the worship of satan in Hellywood and elsewhere and the
penetration of the Christian churches by zionist elements.
The zionists will not stop until America is destroyed, zionism is the most dangerous
element in America.
Read the Protocols of Zion, it is all right there.
*All* mainstream media is propaganda from clown world. This defines our era in US. Mass
psychosis is the new reality.
The Russia nonsense tells me that US establishment people are stupid and self deluded,
truly sad sack dummies.
Several commenters around here have claimed the Apollo moon landing hoax "does not
matter".
[MORE]
It is old news, not relevant to today, too controversial, etc.
The problem is that once the elites get away with lying, it encourages them to do more of
it. This hoax _is_ going to be exposed, and fairly soon–and it may unravel the whole
ball of string of intelligence agency and mass media lies.
It is _not_ a left/right issue, so folks of any and all political persuasions will be able
to accept it without crushing their ideological dreams.
@Desert Fox Judaic identity is essentially about hating Christians, as the Talmud makes
clear, and as most anyone who's worked with Jews on Wall Street will attest. Michael Hoffman
proves this in his books on Judaism, pointing out that modern Talmudic Judaism came into
being nearly two centuries after the rise of Christianity and in opposition to it.
" is the Deep State and their globalists' master deliberately trying to force Russia
into a military alliance with China? "
Hard to say what their intentions are. (The old ploy of unity at home by means of an
external enemy ?) Whatever they are -- US foreign policy (FO) re Russia should go down with
Iraq (II) as among the US's greatest FO blunders.
Agreed that it's a mistake, but when they've successfully pulled off the WMD lies, the
9/11 fakery, the destruction of Iraq, Libya etc., control the US media, and can dictate to
Congress, then it's understandable that they get rather arrogant.
They simply want to kick Russia and Putin because he was the one that spoiled their
Yeltsin looting party – and worst of all arrested and imprisoned their top guy
Khodorkovsky. That it drives Germany and the EU towards Russia and strengthens Russian ties
with China is secondary. After all, Hitler (after great military success), likened invading
Russia to kicking down a rotten barn door, and he didn't work out the implications of
declaring war on the US.
@Anonymous I agreed with you, except there is a Deep State and it is not made up of just
Jews. But I do concede that Jews are disproportionately represented, as both sponsors and
minions, for their demographics.
I believe the Deep State consists of the very wealthy who are greedy for more wealth and
power. There are 607 billionaires in the US. There is no reason for the Deep State members to
formally collude they all know what needs to be done and how to do it. They use a relatively
small amount of their money to place their minions in positions of power heads of the movie
industry, the media, the federal government, academia. From then on if the lessers in these
groups want to keep their jobs/lives they will toe the line. It becomes self sustaining from
tax money and the Deep State glories in more wealth and power. Here is an excellent example
of the Deep State in action: The SCOTUS has passed down egregious decisions that abridge the
First Amendment and show contempt for the concept of a representative democracy. Buckley v.
Valeo, 424 U.S. 1976 and exacerbated by continuing stupid SCOTUS decisions First National
Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and McCutcheon v.
Federal Election Commission.
These decisions have codified that money is free speech thereby giving entities of wealth and
power almost total influence in elections. By gaining control of the SCOTUS the Deep State is
able to further their goals.
The Democrats are now slick pretenders of social justice, but not left.
Excellent summary. What goes under "left" moniker (Cultural Marxist, "communists",
socialists etc.) in the West nowadays is not left. Agree. it is just another iteration of
Neo-liberal politics serving as a substitution for dealing with actual problems of Labor.
"Their respective ambitions led the two men[Trump and Putin] – along with Trump's
future son-in-law, Jared Kushner -to build a set of close, over-lapping relationships in a
small world that overlaps on Chabad , an international Hasidic movement most people have
never heard of ."
@gotmituns @ gotmituns <=Why then did you read the article?
At the heart of the impeachment process (Article II, Section 2, paragraph 3 and 4) are two
questions that should interest most folks: @ paragraph 3 lays out a big part of Trump's
defense in my view "Section 3 requires ..that the President shall take Care that the Laws be
faithfully executed, <=execution requires action so which law did the President not
execute faithfully? <= I do not see such a question in the Articles of Impeachment.. @ Sec
II, Art. II, paragraph 4 "The President shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and
Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.. " < the house
found evidence it says, strong enough to indite the president on charges that .. he violated
which of these 4 things?
Some think Trump should have been impeached for failure to deliver his tax Return.. but I
do not see failure to deliver a tax return as failure to execute a law, or as a high crime,
or as treason, or as an act of Bribery, or as a misdemeanor.. so the current impeachment
indictment by the House against Trump reveals that the constitution is inadequate. The
constitution does not express a government that can protect the Americans such a government
governs; from the possibility, or the reality, that a deceitful president will be empowered
to that job?
The best governed Americans can hope for from the USA is that the Congress of the USA
rather than impeaching will decide to amend the constitution, so that the constitution denies
any one that can be shown to be deceitful, to be the President. This one amendment could
eliminate making campaign promises and do just the opposite once in office.
Of course such an amendment would mean few in politics today could be the President.
Most likely no matter the outcome of the impeachment, Trump will probably be reappointed
President by the electoral college.. (recall that persons who animate the functions allowed
to the USA to governed Americans are not elected by those who the USA governs. (Americans c/n
vote for their president or their vice president because President and VP are article II
persons; and article II persons are appointed to office by processes conducted at the state
level, that appoint persons to the electoral college, and it is the electoral college that
elects the President and the Vice President). Who has written a book on the electoral
college? I have requested information from the government on the electoral college activities
since the beginning and to date have received nothing but referrals to others.
@EdNels Left ? Do you believe that the establishment crowd of Democrats (Liberals,) and
the managed news (Liberals,) and others Liberals, neoliberals, neocons, or anything else
comprising the Russiagate hoax can be describes as Leftist?
No. I do not believe that. I agree with you entirely. But common usage has the people you
are talking about as LEFT and I am tired of bitching about it.
@RJJCDA Russia no more "invaded" Ukraine than the United States "invaded" Texas, Ohio or
Florida. Ukraine has been a Russian fiefdom for centuries longer than it has ever been
"independent," and its fate is no more the business of the United States or Western Europe
than the fate of Hong Kong or Syria should be.
Please just let me ask americans some opinions about
if pastor John Hagee and his followers are jews or christians ? , if the thousands of
pastors in the USA like Hagee and their millions of followers are jews or christians ? if the
US puritan founding fathers were jews of christians ? , if the british angloisraelites are
jews or christians ? , if the yankees are jews or christians ? if the wasps are jews or
christians ? if the US " deep state " is jew or chistian ? , if the US masses are jew or
christian ?
. because blaming the jews all the time of every problem and pretending that that the
anglo-yankees are so pure and naive does not seem to be very realistic
@Antiwar7 Americans should have believed into the existence
of thousands Mayan gods when they first saw the smoke billowing out of the sacrificial pit in
front of the menacing idols.
Some things never change. Russiagate is no aberration. Establishment Authority, police state
apparatuses and religious catechisms, are NOT based on reasoning and evidence, but rather
fact-free Narratives handed down from above and grounded by Fear of the Other, the bogeymen
(be it Russians, White Supremacists, Black men, Assad, Trump, the Devil, etc), without which
authority will collapse. As the historian Will Durant noted, Strabo said it best 2000 years
ago:
"For in dealing with a crowd of women a philosopher cannot influence them by reason or
exhort them to reverence, piety or faith; nay, there is need of religious fear also, and this
cannot be aroused without myths and marvels the founders of states gave their sanctions to
these things as bugbears wherewith to scare the simple-minded."
@Anon John Hagee, his followers and other Christian Zionists are morons. Happily, they
are not nearly as common as you imply. Being a Christian Zionist takes a special kind of
stupid
I cannot see Haggee without immediately recalling Christ's warning to beware of obese
wolves in sheep's clothing, who take jiggly church secretaries and XXXL Italian silk suits as
proof of God's blessing.
Cohen is another Jewish voice in the Jewish Mafia War between factions. I don't consider him
that insightful or honest, as he never mentions the glaringly obvious: the attempt to oust
Trump is a Jew Coup.
Start telling the truth about the Hostile Elite destroying America Cohen. Until then you are
just another lying Jew destroying the country that welcomed your ancestors.
When will the Traitors be routed out and hung?
No country can withstand Treason from Within going unpunished for any length of time. We
either destroy these scum or they will destroy America.
I gotta hand it to Larry King, even with one foot in the grave he's still doing these
interviews and with Professor Cohen no less. Kudos to the old coot. (Grin)
Steven Cohen should be a special advisor to the POTUS. It would be a demotion for Cohen but
good for Trump and for America.
So Turkey goes against Uncle Sam and Egypt. Interesting...
Notable quotes:
"... Erdogan's eyes set on defeating Benghazi-based General Khalifa Haftar, it appears this arms and jihadist rat line has conveniently been reversed . ..."
"... In a deepening proxy war, Turkey aims to send its Navy to protect Tripoli, while its troops train and coordinate forces of Prime Minister Fayez al-Sarraj, according to a senior Turkish official. Turkey recently signed a critical maritime deal with oil-rich Libya that serves energy interests of both countries and aims to salvage billions of dollars of business contracts thrown into limbo by the conflict . ..."
"... Remember when the CIA thought it was a good idea to train and fund jihadists in Syria to topple Assad? ..."
"... The conflict in Syria has become a rallying point for jihadists from around the world. More than 20,000 foreign fighters are fighting or have fought in Syria, and most are part of jihadist groups, including Jubhat al Nusra (JAN) and Islamic State (IS). North Africa has provided a large portion of these foreign fighters, from countries as diverse as Morocco and Libya. ..."
Bloomberg has confirmed on Friday the prior rumors that Turkey will be sending mercenaries
to Libya -- where it is propping up the UN-backed government in Tripoli (the GNA) -- are true.
"Turkey is preparing to deploy troops and naval forces to support the
internationally-recognized Libyan government, joining a planned push by Ankara-backed Syrian
rebels to defeat strongman Khalifa Haftar,"
reports Bloomberg .
Though Ankara has yet to confirm or deny the new reports, Erdogan's Turkey has for years
overseen a Libya-to-Turkey-to-Syria arms
"rat line" which saw both heavy weaponry and jihadists fighters transported for the purpose
of toppling Assad. But now with Erdogan's eyes set on defeating Benghazi-based General Khalifa
Haftar, it appears this arms and jihadist rat line has conveniently been reversed
.
This also as President Erdogan
in a speech on Thursday presented plans to send Turkish national troops bolster Tripoli as
well .
Possibly thousands from among the so-called Turkish Free Syrian Army (formerly the FSA),
with most of its fighters currently attacking Syrian Kurds in the ongoing 'Operation Peace
Spring', will now be sent into Libya.
There are reports suggesting Turkey is ready to pay $2,000 a month for each Syrian 'rebel'
willing to go to Libya .
TFSA source told me Turkey will be offering fighters from all TFSA factions $2,000/month
to go to Libya.
And akin to the current proxy war which has seen both the US, Kurds, and Sunni Islamists
backed by Turkey wrangle over Syria's oil rich eastern region, Libya is heating up to be the
latest 'oil and gas prize' -- but with immensely more at stake. As Bloomberg notes:
In a deepening proxy war, Turkey aims to send its Navy to protect Tripoli, while its
troops train and coordinate forces of Prime Minister Fayez al-Sarraj, according to a senior
Turkish official. Turkey recently signed a critical maritime deal with oil-rich Libya that
serves energy interests of both countries and aims to salvage billions of dollars of business
contracts thrown into limbo by the conflict .
As we
predicted earlier , Libya and the southern Mediterranean is on its way to becoming the next
big Middle East conflict of 2020 , also with Egypt and even Russia warning of further
involvement to block Turkey's increasing role on the ground.
And as the mainstream media finally stops ignoring the looming catastrophe for north Africa
and the region (still in denial as to the fruits of US-NATO "liberated" Libya after Gaddafi was
overthrown and killed), it
must be remembered that in another ironic plot twist, the CIA trained the very FSA 'rebel'
fighters now on their way to Libya .
Gee who would have ever predicted? It's the foreign fighter 'rat line' in reverse.
Remember when the CIA thought it was a good idea to train and fund jihadists in Syria to
topple Assad? Via a 2015
military study :
The conflict in Syria has become a rallying point for jihadists from around the world.
More than 20,000 foreign fighters are fighting or have fought in Syria, and most are part of
jihadist groups, including Jubhat al Nusra (JAN) and Islamic State (IS). North Africa has provided a large portion of these
foreign fighters, from countries as diverse as Morocco and Libya. Who are these North African fighters, and why are they
going to Syria? What do they hope to accomplish there, and do they want to return to their home countries?
Considering the tens of thousands of foreign fighters which poured into Syria starting in
2011 and 2012 in the first place, many of them from Libya, perhaps many are now simply headed
"home" -- ready to further the proxy war chaos at Erdogan's bidding.
NATO IS NOTHING more than an extension of George Soros' arm as it is also an extension
of the Rothschild arm! Most should have gleaned this by now, particularly recognizing the
radical Wahhabism that was included in this band of merry global thugs (Saudi Arabia) to do
the bidding of the globalist satanic cabal. Kind of sad hearing this kind of neive
responses from the gallery...sorry Mr. teolawki but you missed the forest for the
trees.
What is naive is not understanding that Turkey is the current NATO nations gateway for
all manner of illicit and illegitimat activity to foment and perpetuate the forever wars in
the ME. This has been going on since well before Benghazi and has only gotten worse under
Erdogan.
If you have a way to snap your fingers and solve every problem simultaneously, then
please do so. Otherwise it must be undertaken one step at a time. Closing that Turkish
gateway permanently is an excellent start.
At the end of the nineteenth century, Lord Palmerston stated what he thought was obvious,
that "England has no eternal friends, England has no perpetual enemies, England has only
eternal and perpetual interests." Palmerston was saying that national interests should drive
the relationships with foreigners. A nation will have amicable relations most of the time with
some countries and difficult relations with some others, but the bottom line should always be
what is beneficial for one's own country and people.
If Palmerston were alive today and observing the relationship of the United States of
America with the rest of the world, he might well find Washington to be an exception to his
rule. The U.S., to be sure, has been adept at turning adversaries into enemies and
disappointing friends, and it is all done with a glib assurance that doing so will somehow
bring democracy and freedom to all. Indeed, either neoliberal democracy promotion or the
neoconservative version of the same have been seen as an overriding and compelling interest
during the past twenty years even though the policies themselves have been disastrous and have
only damaged the real interests of the American people.
The U.S. relationship with Israel is, for example, driven by a powerful and wealthy domestic
lobby rather than by any common interests at all yet it is regularly falsely touted as being
between two "close allies" and "best friends." It has cost Americans hundreds of billions of
dollars in subsidies for the Jewish state and Israeli influence over U.S. policy in the Middle
East region has led to catastrophic military interventions in Afghanistan, Lebanon, Iraq,
Syria, Mogadishu and Libya. Currently, Israel is agitating for U.S. action against the
nonexistent Iranian "threat" while also unleashing its lobby in the United States to make
illegal criticism of any of its war crimes, effectively curtailing freedom of speech and
association for all Americans.
Far more dangerous is the continued excoriation of the Kremlin over the largely mythical
Russiagate narrative. Congress has
recently approved a bill that would give to Ukraine $300 million in supplementary military
assistance to use against Russia. The money and authorization appear in the House of
Representatives version of the national defense authorization act (NDAA) that passed last
week.
The bill is a renewal of the controversial Ukraine
Security Assistance Initiative that Donald Trump allegedly manipulated to bring about an
investigation of Joe Biden's son Hunter. The new version expands on the former assistance
package to include coastal defense cruise missiles and anti-ship missiles as offensive weapons
that are acceptable for export to Kiev. It also authorizes an additional $50 million in
military assistance on top of the $250 million congress had granted in last year's bill, "of
which $100 million would be available only for lethal assistance."
Ukraine sought the money and arms to counter Russian naval dominance in the Black Sea
through its base at Sevastopol in the Crimea. One year ago the Russian navy
captured three Ukrainian warships and Kiev was unable to push back against Moscow because
it lacked weapons designed to attack ships. Now it will have them and presumably it will use
them. How Russia will react is unknowable.
Dmytro Kuleba, Ukraine's Deputy Prime Minister for European and Euro-Atlantic Integration,
has been in Washington lobbying for the additional military assistance. He has had considerable
success, particularly as there is bipartisan support in Congress for aid to Kiev and also
because the Trump Departments of Defense and State as well as the National Security Council are
all on board in countering the "Russian threat" in the Black Sea. President Trump signed the
NDAA last week, which completed the process.
Far more ominously, Kuleba and his interlocutors in the administration and congress have
been revisiting a proposal first surfaced under Bill Clinton, that Ukraine and Georgia should
be admitted to the NATO alliance. Like the $300 million in military aid, there appears to be
considerable bipartisan support for such a move. NATO already has a major presence on the Black
Sea with Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey all members. Adding Ukraine and Georgia would completely
isolate the Russian presence and Moscow would undoubtedly see it as an existential threat.
The NDAA also provides seed money to initiate the so-called Space Force ,
which President Trump inaugurated by describing it as "the world's newest war-fighting domain.
Amid grave threats to our national security, American superiority in space is absolutely vital.
We're leading, but we're not leading by enough, but very shortly we'll be leading by a lot. The
Space Force will help us deter aggression and control the ultimate high ground."
If that isn't bad enough, the new defense budget ominously also requires the Trump
administration to impose sanctions "with respect to provision of certain vessels for the
construction of certain Russian energy export pipelines." Last week the House of
Representatives and Senate
approved specific sanctions relating to the companies and governments that are
collaborating on the construction of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline that will cross the Baltic Sea
from Vyborg to Greifswald to connect Germany with Russian natural gas. President Trump has
signed off on the legislation.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Please
enter a valid email Thank you for subscribing!Something went wrong. Please refresh
and try again.
The United States has opposed the project ever since it was first mooted, claiming that it
will make Europe "hostage" to Russian energy, will enrich the Russian government, and will also
empower Russian President Vladimir Putin to be more aggressive. Engineering companies that will
be providing services such as pipe-laying will be targeted by Washington as the Trump
administration tries to halt the completion of the $10.5 billion project.
Now that the NDAA has been signed, the Trump administration has 60 days to identify
companies, individuals and even foreign governments that have in some way provided services or
assistance to the pipeline project. Sanctions would block individuals from travel to the United
States and would freeze bank accounts and other tangible property that would be identified by
the U.S. Treasury. One company that will definitely be targeted for sanctions is the
Switzerland-based Allseas, which has been contracted with by Russia's Gazprom to build the
offshore section of pipeline. It has suspended work on the project while it examines the
implications of the sanctions.
Bear in mind that Nord Stream 2 is a peaceful commercial project between two countries that
have friendly relations, making the threats implicit in the U.S. reaction more than somewhat
inappropriate. Increased U.S. sanctions against Russia itself are also believed to be a
possibility and there has even been some suggestion that the German government and its energy
ministry might be sanctioned. This has predictably resulted in pushback from Germany, normally
a country that is inclined to go along with any and all American initiatives. Last week German
Foreign Minister Heiko Maas asked Congress not to meddle in European energy policy, saying "We
think this is unacceptable, because it is ultimately a move to influence autonomous decisions
that are made in Europe. European energy policy is decided in Europe, not in the U.S."
German Bundestag member Andreas Nick warned that "It's an issue of national sovereignty,
and it is potentially a liability for trans-Atlantic relations." That Trump is needlessly
alienating important countries like Germany that are genuine allies, unlike Israel and Saudi
Arabia, over an issue that is not an actual American interest is unfortunate. It makes one
think that the wheels have definitely come off the cart in Washington.
The point is that Donald Trump, Mike Pompeo, Mike Pence and Mike Esper (admittedly too
many Mikes) wouldn't know a national interest if it hit them in the face. Their
politicization of policy to "win in 2020" promoting apocalyptic nonsense like war in space has
also reinforced an existing tunnel vision on what Russia under Vladimir Putin is all about that
is extremely dangerous. Admittedly, Team Trump throws out sanctions in all directions with
reckless abandon, mostly aimed at Russia, Iran, North Korea and, the current favorite,
Venezuela. No one is immune. But the escalation going from sanctions to arming the Kremlin's
enemies is both reckless and pointless. Russia will definitely strike back if it is attacked,
make no mistake about that, and war could easily escalate with tragic consequences for all of
us. That war is perhaps becoming thinkable is in itself deplorable, with Business
Insiderrunning a recent
piece on surviving a nuclear attack. New homes in target America will likely soon come
equipped with bomb shelters, just like in the 1950s. Tags Politics
"... no reason to believe she'd be any less a hawk than she was as a senator, when she backed George W. Bush's war in Iraq, or as secretary of state, when she encouraged President Barack Obama to escalate the war in Afghanistan. If her nomination is as sure a thing as people say, then antiwar organizing needs to start right away. ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... it's something that might have been called neocon, ..."
"... Charles Davis is a writer in Los Angeles. His work has been published by outlets such as Al Jazeera, The New Republic, and Salon. Medea Benjamin is the co-founder of the peace group CODEPINK and the human rights organization Global Exchange. She is also the author of Drone Warfare: Killing by Remote Control. ..."
Announcing her latest campaign for the presidency, Hillary Clinton declared she was entering the race to be the champion for "everyday
Americans." As a lawmaker and diplomat, however, Clinton has long championed military campaigns that have killed scores of "everyday"
people abroad, from Iraq to Yemen.
As commander-in-chief, there's no reason to believe she'd be any less a hawk than she was
as a senator, when she backed George W. Bush's war in Iraq, or as secretary of state, when she encouraged President Barack Obama
to escalate the war in Afghanistan. If her nomination is as sure a thing as people say, then antiwar organizing needs to start right
away.
"If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue," he said, "it's something that might have been called neocon,
but clearly her supporters are not going to call it that; they are going to call it something else."
We're going to call it what it is: More of the same sort of murderous policies that destroyed Iraq,
destabilized Libya, killed women
and children
with
cluster bombs and drones in Yemen, and legitimized the undermining of democracy in Honduras. There's little chance the Republicans
will nominate someone better, but given Clinton's record as a senator and secretary of state - the latter giving us a very good idea
of how she would approach foreign affairs once in office - it will be hard for them to find anyone much worse.
We know that Clinton is no reliable friend of peace. Today she supports diplomacy with Iran, but
back in 2009, as secretary
of state, she was adamant that the U.S. keep open the option of attacking the Islamic Republic over never-proven allegations it was
seeking nuclear weapons. (In fact, Israel is the region's only
nuclear power.)
Her attempts to portray herself as an ally of those who are pro-peace, as a sort of reluctant imperialist, is the same sort of
co-opting distortion that has helped quiet opposition to President Obama's hawkish agenda. If anything, Hillary is even more militaristic
than the ostensibly reluctant warrior she's campaigning to replace. Still, that hasn't stopped her from trying to be all things to
all people - even people like us.
Indeed, in March 2003, Clinton did something she'll probably never willingly do again: She
met with CODEPINK to explain her support for the Iraq war.
"I like pink tulips around this time of the year," she began. They "kind of remind ya that there may be a spring. Well, you guys
look like a big bunch of big tulips!" It got progressively more awkward after that. "I admire your willingness to speak out on behalf
of the women and children of Iraq," said Clinton, but "There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put into harm's way
and that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm and I have absolutely no belief that he will."
We thought the easiest way to prevent harming the women, children, and other living things in Iraq was to stop a war of aggression,
ostensibly over weapons of mass destruction that UN inspectors on the ground couldn't find and which were, in fact, never found -
because they didn't exist. Clinton, however, was steadfast: "If Saddam were serious about disarming he would have been much more
forthcoming," she claimed. "The very difficult question for all of us is how does one bring about the disarmament of someone with
such a proven track record of a commitment, if not an obsession, with weapons of mass destruction?"
Her answer: Destroying Iraq by dropping millions of U.S.-made WMDs, including bombs with
depleted uranium that have more
than doubled the country's pre-2003
rate of cancer. Speaking
to the women of CODEPINK, Clinton even explicitly defended George W. Bush's unilateralism, citing her husband's go-it-alone intervention
in Kosovo back in the 1990s.
In 2011, when the Arab Spring came to Libya, Clinton was the Obama administration's
most forceful advocate for going above and beyond a no-fly zone to depose Muammar Gaddafi, whose U.S.-trained security forces
were killing Libyans with the help of weapons and equipment provided by his erstwhile allies in the United States, Britain, and France.
She even
out-hawked Robert Gates, the defense secretary first appointed by George W. Bush who was less than enthusiastic about going to
war. When Libyan rebels carried out an extrajudicial execution of their country's former dictator, her response was sociopathic:
"We came, we saw, he died," she
said, smiling and laughing. That sent a message that the United States would look the other way at crimes committed by allies
against its official enemies; indeed, it was the same policy of tolerance for friends' war crimes that arguably led Gaddafi to believe
he could get away with killing anyone he labeled "al-Qaeda."
Libya was part of a pattern for Clinton. On Afghanistan, she advocated a repeat of the surge in Iraq, encouraging President Obama
to more than double
the number of troops there. Her State Department also provided cover for the expansion of the not-so-covert drone wars in Pakistan
and Yemen. Clinton's top legal adviser, Harold Koh, exploited his pre-government reputation as an advocate for human rights to declare
in a 2010 speech that not only did the government
have the right to detain people without charge at Guantanamo Bay, but it can kill them with unmanned aerial vehicles anywhere in
the world.
Clinton practiced "soft power" diplomacy too, of course: After Honduran forces trained at the U.S. School of the Americas carried
out a coup against elected president Manuel Zelaya, Clinton's State Department immediately got to work on legitimizing the regime
that seized power. As commentator
Mark
Weisbrot observes, she even said as much in her book, Hard Choices: "In the subsequent days [after the coup] I spoke
with my counterparts around the hemisphere, including Secretary [Patricia] Espinosa in Mexico," wrote Clinton. "We strategized on
a plan to restore order in Honduras and ensure that free and fair elections could be held quickly and legitimately, which would render
the question of Zelaya moot."
The subsequent "free and fair" election would end up being between two candidates who supported a coup opposed by most "everyday
people" in Honduras, now one of the most violent,
drug-war ravaged countries in
the world. Clinton has also
called for deporting child refugees fleeing that violence. In Honduras, as elsewhere, it seems it's not the lives of "everyday
people" that are of chief concern to politicians like Clinton.
When Barack Obama became president, the anti-war movement became his first casualty - followed by a group of Pakistanis
droned to death three days after his inauguration. We should never lose hope that we can bring about positive change, but actually
changing the world for the better requires being aware that whoever sits in the White House come January 2017 is not going to be
our friend.
Charles Davis is a writer in Los Angeles. His work
has been published by outlets such as Al Jazeera, The New Republic, and Salon. Medea Benjamin is the co-founder of the peace group
CODEPINK and the human rights organization Global Exchange. She is also the author of Drone Warfare: Killing by Remote Control.
French far left leader Jean-Luc Mélenchon responded to Labour's general election
defeat by accusing his country's main Jewish federation Crif of being a group of arrogant
sectarians who send out orders to politicians.
Mr Mélenchon wrote that Britain's Chief Rabbi and "pro-Likud networks" had
orchestrated a campaign against Jeremy Corbyn, adding that "unlike Corbyn", he would never
give in to Jewish groups.
His comments, which were backed by some of MPs in his France Unbowed party, were
criticised by government officials.
"He (Corbyn) faced unsubstantiated, churlish antisemitism claims from England's chief
rabbi and pro-Likud networks," Mr Mélenchon wrote, saying their accusations were one
of the major reasons for Labour's defeat. "Instead of firing back, he spent his time
apologising and making pledges. In both cases, he showed weakness."
He continued by saying "Labour and Corbyn's terrible defeat did not surprise me" and
vowing to adopt an apparently opposite strategy.
"I will never give in. The pension reform, a liberal and German Europe, Green
capitalism, bowing to the arrogant and sectarian dictates of the Crif: No! No means
No!"
What if France is next? That would be the death of the EU right there!
anti-semites who speak of bolshevikism and bolsheviks are cowards who are afraid to tackle
judaism(jewish supremacism) which originates from the old testament, with the talmid as
appendices. why are the afraid to call out the old testament? because they are low IQ cowards
who cannot leave the loathsome religion of the moses and its derivatives. the other reason
they use vocabulary such as bolshevism is because they were brainwashed into mindless cold
war anticommunism or they wish to rid the elites of jewishness, but not of the elitist
supremacy system based on financial hucksterism which is the jewishness of the worldly jew(as
expounded by karl marx) therefore they are not enemies of jewishness but only of jewish
domination of the jewish system, or they are frauds, pied pipers preventing and overthrow of
the jewish system by focusing on race instead of the jewish nature of all elite systems. they
are also ignorant of history. The Catholic church and royalty were the protectors of Jews.
They were the tax farmers of the nobility.
The least Jewish controlled countries today have communist pasts. And the most Jewish
controlled countries are those that were at the forefront of fighting communism. makes you
think doesn't it.
Any system that places labour above capital is inherently anti-Jewish. Capitalism is
Judaism. especially when combined with the ass backwards idea that money is virtue or value
of an individual. the elites believe their ability to jew society out of money is proof that
they should rule and decide for the rest of us.
A good article. Jewish power in UK politics should be openly discussed.
The reason that it isn't, is that it's excessive and undemocratic (same as the US). It's
exercised through private threats/deals with people on power rather than the ballot box.
How many British voters are aware of the pro-Jewish orientation of Johnson, Patel, Javid
and Raab? Or that CFI is Britain's most powerful lobbying group? Or that this lobby
prioritizes the interests of a foreign country (Israel)? From this POV, the British public
could easily be dragged (against their wishes) into a disastrous Iran war.
It is really shameful how the UK has changed. In 1962-68, I went to private schools in
England. Jewish kids were treated abominably. English kids treated them like rubbish. I was
born in Egypt and lived there my first 12 years. I was shocked. I never took part in this
bullying. And no one bullied me because I was not easy for them. They always pick on the
morally weak.
At the first private school I went to, where I spent almost 2 years, there was a boy
called Levi who was bullied mercilessly by an English boy and a Canadian boy. I was younger
than all of them. It was a school for dimwits who needed to catch up so as to enter a "Public
School" or kids like me who had a foreign background. They did not hit or punch Levi or
anything like that. They merely had to threaten and Levi, who was not small, would cringe and
beg them to be merciful to him. It was sickening to watch. On at least one occasion he tried
to divert the attention of his tormentors towards me.
At night, the English boy – his name was Henderson – would tell Levi that he
had a fart and that Levi should come to smell it. We were in a dormitory with maybe 12 kids.
Levi would beg and whine but Henderson would insist. Eventually, Levi would put his face near
the orifice of Henderson and receive his blessing. This sort of thing went on continuously. I
am sure that if they asked him to taste their shit, he would have done so.
The last time we left school, they were all laughing on the bus taking us to the railway
station. Apparently, they tied Levi to the overhead pipes. They trussed him up properly so
that he was aligned with the pipe with his feet not touching the ground. I have no idea when
he was found and how he got home. I guess the cleaners found him or his parents called the
school when he did not arrive at Victoria station.
At the second school, it was much more civilised as there were no dimwits. But there were
plenty of insults thrown at Jewish kids. We had compulsory sport (rugby, cricket and hockey)
4 days of the week and one day when we dressed as soldiers and marched about. There was an
armoury on the school grounds with hundreds of ex-WW2 Lee Enfield rifles and a few bazookas.
I was in "signals" and responsible for a huge ex-WW2 Canadian set C52 wireless transmitter
.
I was the best shot the school had up to that time. I became a member of the "School's
Hundred" at Bisley. The school had been participating since the 1920's. Of course, because of
my Egyptian background, they did not give me a sporting tie or anything of the sort. The
headmaster never mentioned my success and it never entered the school newspaper. But I still
have the badge.
The most noticeable thing about the Jewish kids at this school was the efforts they made
to avoid sports and to avoid military training. The lengths that they would go to –
fake medical symptoms, letters from doctors, maternal phone calls to the headmaster and so
on.
It has come to my notice that the school has joined in the grovelling. How things have
changed in England!
Stowe is delighted to have become a Holocaust Beacon School which is a status given by
University College, London's Centre for Holocaust Education. This exciting backing from UCL
is only awarded to a handful of schools each year and reflects the School's commitment to
developing our pupils' understanding of the Holocaust.
The least Jewish controlled countries today have communist pasts.
In the case of the Soviet Union and the E. European countries, we owe this fact to Stalin
and nothing else. Before he was firmly in control of the USSR, it was almost totally (I know
the term offends you, but it fits) a Jew-Bolshevik enterprise. It was Stalin who
gradually transformed it into something a bit more national-socialism. (See: Francis Parker
Yockey.)
As far as China, Vietnam, etc. are concerned–well, they'd never had any Jews to
begin with. Communism, for them, was just a way to modernize their civilizations without
having to mortgage their countries to Anglo-American (i.e., Jewish) capital. So these
countries were basically NS right from the start.
@Urban Moving breakingisraelnews.com : "New UK Prime Minister descended from Rabbi 'feels
Jewish'" :
"Johnson refers to himself as a 'passionate Zionist' who 'loves the great country of
Israel '"
@Miro23 Jews in the US and UK control the msm, movies, and publishing, completely, and so
the public forum or de facto propaganda machine that forms men's attitudes and
determines the outcomes of elections.
In an angry reply on camera to a question about Jewish power, Richard Perle said Jews
control all but about 5 out of 535 seats in Congress, which was borne out just a few years
ago when every member but one gave Netanyahu 29 standing ovations, on cue from Schumer,
despite Netanyahu's insulting end run around the President of this country -- just in case
the President wondered where Congress' true loyalty laid. As Cynthia McKinney revealed, every
member must sign a written pledge to support Israel before all else and has an AIPAC handler
either on staff or assigned to staff.
And as it's coming out all over now, the Republican Party is as much owned by Jewish
billionaires like Adelson and Singer as the Democratic, who it turns out are all Jews united
in subverting the social fabric of this nation. No wonder, as Kevin MacDonald points out,
Conservatism Inc and the Republican Party have conserved nothing, literally nothing at all,
in over sixty years of cultural warfare!
Gathering up the whole sordid picture in one volume, E Michael Jones's Jewish
Revolutionary Spirit uses the most prominent of Jewish sources, in their own words, in
scrupulous context, to make it clear that the West has no greater enemy than organized Jewry
and never has. The fact that Jews own Parliament and Congress and all the determinants of pop
culture still cannot create the Second Reality, and so nothing but brutal totalitarianism can
achieve their goals. If this is considered an extreme conclusion, maybe the voices of 60+
million Russians and Ukrainians who got in the way of Jewish supremacism during the last
century may serve as a warning.
@Wizard of Oz Gee Wiz -- - over 9,000 comments – most of them defending Jews
– and you are still Not-a-Jew.
Here is the "blinding " truth about the those poor Jews, you endlessly defend.
'Blinding the truth': Israeli snipers target Gaza protesters in the eyes
https://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/file/getimagecustom/3862df2f-7729-4f5e-8b5e-068946a695fd/850/479
"Some of these protesters and journalists were hit in the eye with teargas canisters, but
most were targeted directly with what is commonly called a 'rubber bullet,' giving the
impression they are somehow benign," says Ashraf Alqedra, MD, a treating physician at Gaza
City's al-Shifa Hospital and spokesperson for the Ministry of Health.
"But there is still steel at the core, and although these bullets don't usually kill,
they do grave damage. It is impossible
"... Far from being the work of a single political party, intelligence agency or country, the power structure revealed by the network connected to Epstein is nothing less than a criminal enterprise that is willing to use and abuse children in the pursuit of ever more power, wealth and control. ..."
"... According to one U.S. investigator with substantial knowledge of BCCI's activities, some BCCI officials have acknowledged that some of the females provided some members of the Al-Nahyan family [one of the ruling families in the UAE] were young girls who had not yet reached puberty, and in certain cases, were physically injured by the experience. The official said that former BCCI officials had told him that BCCI also provided males to homosexual VIPs." ..."
"... BCCI was largely brought into the United States business community through the efforts of Jackson Stephens and Bert Lance, former budget director for Jimmy Carter, who assisted with BCCI's acquisition of First American Bank. The law firm involved in this effort was Arkansas' Rose Law Firm and it involved several of the firm's lawyers, including Hillary Rodham Clinton, Webster Hubbell and C.J. Giroir. Also involved in the effort was Clark Clifford, former Secretary of Defense under Lyndon B. Johnson, and Kamal Adham, former director general of Saudi intelligence. ..."
"... The late journalist Michael Ruppert asserted that this "bugged software" was none other than the Promis software, which both U.S. and Israeli intelligence had bugged in order to spy on intelligence and which had been marketed in part by Robert Maxwell, father of Jeffrey Epstein's madam, Ghislaine Maxwell. Ruppert cited Systematics as "a primary developer of Promis for financial intelligence use." Promis had originally been leased by Inslaw Inc., a small software company founded by Bill Hamilton, to the Department of Justice -- which later stole it from Inslaw, forcing it to declare bankruptcy. ..."
"... Systematics also had a subsidiary in Israel that, according to a former Israeli intelligence officer, was operated by contractors for the Mossad and sold software to banks and telecommunications companies. According to Richardson's letter, that Israeli subsidiary of Systematics also had a Massachusetts-based front company, which was partially owned by a former U.S. intelligence official. ..."
"... Two partners in the Rose Law Firm who would later serve in the Clinton administration, Vince Foster and Webster Hubbell, acquired significant financial interests in Systematics through ownership in Alltel, which purchased Systematics in the early 1990s. The Hamiltons also provide considerable evidence that Foster's distress prior to his death in 1993 appears to have been related to concerns about litigation involving Systematics and the on-going litigation over Promis' theft. ..."
"... Casolaro had been investigating an international crime syndicate he termed " the Octopus " at the time of his death in 1991. Casolaro believed that this "Octopus" involved powerful individuals in the private and public sectors as well as the criminal underworld and that they were collectively responsible for some of the biggest scandals of the 1980s, including Iran-Contra, BCCI and the theft of the Promis software. ..."
"... Two days after arriving in Martinsburg, Casolaro was found dead in his hotel room and his briefcase full of his research notes and evidence was missing. His death was ruled a suicide. ..."
"... Speculation only grew following the FBI investigation , given that the FBI lied to Congress, pressured its own agents not to question whether it was a suicide and lost 90 percent of its files related to Casolaro's death -- among other glaring inconsistencies. ..."
"... Ostrovsky, in his #1 New York Times bestseller " By Way of Deception ," notes that Khashoggi had been recruited by the Mossad years before and that his private jet had been fitted in Israel. In relation to Iran-Contra, Ostrovsky claims that it was a $5 million bridge loan that Khashoggi provided that helped to overcome the lack of trust between Israel and Iran during the initial arms deals in the early 1980s, and thus his participation was critical to the success of the scheme. ..."
"... One of Epstein's clients after leaving Bear Stearns, per Ward's sources, was the CIA/Mossad-linked Khashoggi at the very time that Khashoggi was involved in Iran-Contra, an operation involving both U.S. and Israeli intelligence. British journalist Nigel Rosser reported in January 2001 in the Evening Standard that Epstein had claimed that he was also working for the CIA during this same time period. ..."
"... Since Epstein's arrest, records of Rosser's article have been scrubbed from British newspaper archives, including the Evening Standard 's own. However, MintPress independently confirmed with Bob Fitrakis, whom Rosser had interviewed for the article in question, that the article did allege that Epstein used to claim he worked for the CIA. In addition, other reports from the time period cited excerpts of Rosser's article, including the reference to Epstein's past claims of involvement with the CIA. ..."
"... Though Epstein denied past connections to the CIA at the time Rosser's article was published, it is worth mentioning that Robert Maxwell -- father of Ghislaine Maxwell and long-time Mossad operative -- also vehemently denied his now well-documented links to Israeli intelligence until his death. Furthermore, as will be shown later in this article, Epstein and his only known billionaire "client," Leslie Wexner, would later forge a business relationship with the CIA front company Southern Air Transport and play a major role in the airline's relocation to Columbus, Ohio in the mid-1990s. During that period, two prominent Ohio officials believed that both Epstein and Wexner were working with the CIA, according to Ohio-based journalist Bob Fitrakis. ..."
"... Furthermore, there is the additional fact that BCCI trafficked underage girls for sex as a means of obtaining favors from and gaining leverage over powerful individuals, something in which Epstein would later become deeply involved. As was shown in Part II of this series, several individuals who were running either sexual blackmail operations involving minors or child trafficking operations were connected to CIA front companies like BCCI, other organizations connected to the Iran-Contra scandal, and several individuals close to the Reagan White House. ..."
"... The CIA director at the time, Bill Casey, was a close friend of Roy Cohn, who also ran the sexual blackmail operation involving underage boys out of Manhattan's Plaza Hotel, described in Part I of this series. According to Cohn's long-time secretary Christine Seymour, Casey was one of Cohn's most frequent callers. ..."
"... [T]he CIA may have used B.C.C.I. as more than an undercover banker: U.S. agents collaborated with the black network in several operations, according to a B.C.C.I. black-network "officer" who is now a secret U.S. government witness. Sources have told investigators that B.C.C.I. worked closely with Israel's spy agencies and other Western intelligence groups as well, especially in arms deals ." (emphasis added) ..."
"... Later iterations of that arms deal were allegedly brokered with the involvement of Prince Charles of the British royal family, and corruption investigations into Al Yamamah were later shut down by the efforts of Tony Blair as well as Prince Andrew. Leese is said to have spoken of Epstein's "genius" and lack of morals when he introduced him to Steve Hoffenberg of Tower Financial, and soon after that introduction Hoffenberg hired Epstein. ..."
"... Two years after BCCI's fraud-driven collapse, Tower Financial imploded in 1993 in what is still considered to be one of the largest Ponzi schemes in American history. Hoffenberg later asserted in court that Epstein had been intimately involved in Tower's shady financial practices and had called Epstein the "architect of the scam." However, by the time Tower Financial had collapsed, Epstein was no longer working for the company. Despite Hoffenberg's testimony and abundant evidence regarding Epstein's role in the scheme, Epstein's name was mysteriously dropped from the case. ..."
"... It is likely that Epstein's conspicuous cultivation and support of prominent scientists was in fact camouflage to help cover his real role as a covert operative specializing in blackmail. Comments by some scientists who attended his soirees indicate that Epstein was scientifically an ignoramus and was unserious in scientific discussions. ..."
"... The Mena story was an open secret in Arkansas. Paul Greenberg (who bestowed the monicker "Slick Willie" upon The Boy Wonder) wrote extensively upon this subject. There have been rumors–never confirmed– that Clinton may have been recruited by Spook Inc. as early as his undergrad days at G-Town (it's still not clear how Clinton, a relatively unknown American college graduate, could gain entry into the USSR in the summer of '69 for a "vacation" at a time when our relations with that country were as low as they ever were). ..."
"... What con man does not claim to be a secret agent? ..."
"... Epstein also claimed to be a blackmailer, He promoted himself as freelance secret agent, acting for governments or malefactors whichever paid most, when he was trying to get a journalist to write a book about him in the eighties. Last year Epstein told a NYT journalist that he had compromising material on top tech magnates (this was probably Elon Musk) ..."
"... There was another interview around the same time in which Epstein "rambled" about the big tech people he knew to business reporters at his mansion. Every reporter who was around him decided he was full of it. ..."
"... Going on like this, Epstein would have been disposed of by his own organisation .. if it actually existed. The Mafia kill people for far less ..."
"... Wexner was one of five key managers of organized crime cash flows in the United States. many members of the so-called Mega Group, which Wexner co-founded, had direct ties to the Lansky crime syndicate. Meyer Lansky was a pioneer of sexual blackmail operations and was deeply connected to both U.S. intelligence and Israel's Mossad. ..."
"... I don't buy a word of this. Too much emphasis on sex trafficking, the meaningless description underage and the so-called victims. For some reason everyone believed the story that Epstein was some kind of pervert. Only children trust the Government when it says sex crime, WMD, ISIS or UFO. ..."
Far from being the work of a single political party, intelligence agency or country, the
power structure revealed by the network connected to Epstein is nothing less than a criminal
enterprise that is willing to use and abuse children in the pursuit of ever more power, wealth
and control.
On August 10th, and for several days after, speculation swirled after it was announced that
Jeffrey Epstein had been found dead in his cell. His cause of death has officially been ruled
suicide by hanging.
Epstein, the billionaire pedophile and sex trafficker with a myriad of connections to the
rich and powerful in the United States and several other countries, had told those close to him
that he had feared for his life prior to his sudden "suicide," the Washington Post
reported, while his defense lawyers claimed that he had planned to cooperate with federal
authorities.
Following the controversial conclusion by the New York Medical Examiner that Epstein's death
was a suicide -- a conclusion contested by Epstein's attornies as well as by independent
forensic pathologists, given the apparent evidence pointing towards strangulation -- corporate
media coverage of the Epstein case has slowed to a trickle, save for sensationalist stories
about his alleged co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell and new salacious details of his past. Gone
from corporate media are any hints of the larger scandal, revolving around the admission that
Epstein had "belonged to intelligence."
In this four-part series, " The Jeffrey Epstein Scandal:
Too Big to Fail ," MintPress has revealed that Epstein's activities -- a sexual
blackmail operation involving minors and connected to intelligence agencies -- was one of many
such operations that have taken place for decades, developing from the nexus forged between the
CIA, organized crime and Israeli intelligence shortly after World War II.
As Part
II of this series revealed, these sexual blackmail operations proliferated during the
Iran-Contra affair, which involved this same dark alliance between U.S./Israeli intelligence
and organized crime. Though this series has thus far largely focused on the ties of Republican
officials to those operations and associated crimes, the final installment of this series will
focus on Democratic politicians, namely the Clinton family, and their ties to this same network
as well as Jeffrey Epstein.
The Clintons' own involvement in Iran-Contra revolved around the covert activities at
Arkansas' Mena Airport, which involved the CIA front company Southern Air Transport and
occurred while Clinton was governor. Just a few years into the Clinton presidential
administration, Leslie Wexner and Jeffrey Epstein would play a major role in Southern Air
Transport's relocation to Columbus, Ohio, leading to concerns among top Ohio officials that
both men were not only working with the CIA, but that Wexner's company, The Limited, sought to
use the CIA-linked airline for smuggling.
During that same period of time, Epstein had already forged close ties to important Clinton
White House officials and prominent Clinton donors like Lynn Forester de Rothschild and made
several personal visits to the official presidential residence.
Some of these ties appear related to Epstein's shady financial activities, particularly
involving currency markets and offshore tax havens -- activities he began to perfect while
working for prominent Iran-Contra figures in the early 1980s, several of whom were tied to the
CIA-linked bank Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) and had known relationships
with Israeli intelligence, namely the Mossad. The nature of Epstein's work for these
individuals and other evidence strongly suggests that Epstein himself had a relationship with
BCCI after leaving Bear Stearns and prior to the bank's collapse in 1991.
Of particular importance are Epstein's relationship to the Clinton Foundation and the
alleged role of Epstein's Virgin Islands-based hedge fund and the Clinton Foundation in money
laundering activity, a relationship still under investigation by MintPress .
It is this tale of intrigue that fully reveals the extent to which this decades-old alliance
between organized crime, the CIA, and Israeli intelligence has corrupted and influenced
politicians of both political parties, both through the use of sexual blackmail and through
other means of coercion.
Far from being the work of a single intelligence agency or a single country, the power
structure revealed by this network connected to Epstein is nothing less than a criminal
enterprise that transcends nationality and is willing to use and abuse children in the pursuit
of ever more power, wealth and control. Existing for decades and willing to use any means
necessary to cover its tracks, this criminal racket has become so integrated into the levers of
power, in the United States and well beyond, that it is truly too big to fail.
When one thinks back to the now-famous Iran-Contra scandal, names like Ronald Reagan, Oliver
North and Barry Seal comes to mind, but former President Bill Clinton also played an outsized
role in the scandal -- using his home state of Arkansas, where he was then serving as governor,
as a sort of rallying point for the CIA's U.S.-side of the Central American operation.
In fact, during Clinton's reign as governor a small town called Mena, nestled in the Ozark
Mountains west of Arkansas' capital Little Rock, would be propelled into the national spotlight
as a hub for drug and arms smuggling and the training of CIA-backed far-right militias.
Under the close watch of the CIA, then led by William Casey, the Mena Intermountain Regional
Airport was used to stockpile
and deliver arms and ammunition to the Nicaraguan Contras. The arms were sometimes exchanged
for cocaine from South American cartels, which would then be sent back to Mena and used to fund
the covert CIA operation.
Though efforts have been made to dismiss Clinton's role in the scandal, his direct
intervention in the Contras' attempts to overthrow the Sandinista government of Nicaragua
suggests Clinton had some sort of personal stake in the efforts and was unlikely aloof to the
major smuggling operation taking place in his state while he had been governor. In fact, while
governor, Clinton split with many other state governments in
sending a contingency of the Arkansas National Guard to Honduras to train the Nicaraguan
Contras on how to overthrow their Sandinista government. Clinton would also discuss his
first-hand knowledge of the operation with now-Trump administration Attorney General William
Barr.
Much of this channeling of both weapons and drugs was carried out by notorious drug smuggler
and alleged CIA/DEA operative Barry Seal. According to the book Whiteout: the CIA,
Drugs and the Press by Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair:
A federal investigation aided by the Arkansas State Police established that Barry Seal, a
drug dealer working for the Medellin cartel as well as with the C.I.A. and the D.E.A., had
his planes retrofitted at Mena for drug drops, trained pilots there and laundered his profits
partly through financial institutions in Arkansas. Seal, at this time was in close contact
with [Oliver] North, who acknowledged the relationship in his memoir. These were the years in
which North was constructing his covert supply lines for the contras."
Seal was known to use aircraft that belonged to the company Southern Air Transport and he
also employed flight crews that worked for that same company. Southern Air Transport, formerly
Air America, was once directly owned by the CIA and today is remembered for being a CIA front
during Iran-Contra. Less known is the relationship between the CIA-linked airline and Leslie
Wexner and his then-close associate Jeffrey Epstein, which will be discussed in detail later in
this report.
Seal seemed to always operate with much less than six degrees of separation from Clinton
while the latter served as governor. In his 1999 confessional expose, Cross-fire: Witness
in the Clinton Investigation, former Arkansas policeman turned personal driver
and security guard for Bill Clinton, L.D. Brown, recounts how Clinton encouraged him to seek
out a post at the CIA. Clinton allegedly went so far as to edit the essay Brown wrote for this
employment application. The essay topic was drug smuggling in Central America. Upon receiving
his application, the CIA put Brown in touch with none other than Barry Seal. Seal would later
be gunned down in 1986 while serving six-months probation for drug-smuggling charges.
Seal was not the only affiliate of Oliver North running a Contra-connected operation in
Arkansas. Terry Reed, who had worked for North since 1983, claimed to have been put in touch
with Seal by North and established a base just 10 miles north of Mena -- in Nella, Arkansas --
where "Nicaraguan Contras and other recruits from Latin American were trained in resupply
missions, night landings, precision paradrops and similar maneuvers," according to Cockburn and
St. Clair. Reed further asserted that drug money was being laundered through Arkansas financial
institutions.
After Clinton's half-brother Roger was busted for cocaine smuggling (Clinton would later
pardon him while president) the CIA sought to move Contra operations out of Arkansas, hoping to
put a damper on the increasingly public and sloppy Arkansas-based operation. According to Terry
Reed in his book Compromised: Clinton, Bush and the CIA , co-written with John Cummings, a hushed
meeting was held in a bunker at Camp Robinson in North Little Rock, Arkansas. During the
meeting, William Barr, who represented himself as the emissary of then-CIA Director Bill Casey
told Clinton:
The deal we made was to launder our money through your bond business but what we didn't
plan on was you and your n****r here start taking yourselves seriously and purposely
shrinking our laundry."
Barr chastised Clinton for his sloppy handling of the delicate operation and his
half-brother's very public fall from grace. He would later tell Clinton,
according to Reed ,
Bill, you are Mr. Casey's fair-haired boy You and your state have been our greatest asset.
Mr. Casey wanted me to pass on to you that unless you fuck up and do something stupid, you're
No. 1 on the short list for a shot at the job that you've always wanted. You and guys like
you are the fathers of the new government. We are the new covenant."
Attempts to investigate Clinton's role in the Mena operations and more broadly in the
Iran-Contra affair were allegedly axed by Clinton's own confidantes, who consistently denied he
played a role in the scandal. According to the Wall Street Journal , former IRS
investigator William Duncan teamed with Arkansas State Police Investigator Russell Welch in
what became a decade-long battle to bring the matter to light. In fact, of the nine separate
state and federal probes into the affair, all failed.
Duncan would later say of the investigations, "[They] were interfered with and covered up,
and the justice system was subverted," and a 1992 memo from Duncan to high-ranking members of
the attorney general's staff notes that Duncan was instructed "to remove all files concerning
the Mena investigation from the attorney general's office." The attorney general, serving under
George H. W. Bush, at that time was William Barr, who is
currently attorney general under Trump.
Another Clinton connection to the CIA and the Iran-Contra affair runs through the family's
connection to Arkansas financier Jackson Stephens and the CIA-linked Bank of
Credit and Commerce International (BCCI), which critics nicknamed the "Bank of Crooks and
Criminals International." Stephens was among the richest people in Arkansas and was also a
major donor and backer of Ronald
Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Bill
Clinton . He also played a key role in the rise of
Walmart .
Jackson Stephens and other members of the Stephens family bankrolled
Bill Clinton's rise to political prominence , contributing large sums of money to both
Clinton's gubernatorial and his later presidential campaigns. In addition, Worthen Bank, which
was majority-owned by Stephens, provided Clinton's first presidential campaign a $3.5 million
line of credit. In addition, Stephens' many businesses were frequently represented by the Rose
Law Firm, where Hillary Clinton was a partner.
A redacted
FBI report from 1998 describes Stephens as having "lengthy and continuing ties to the
Clinton administration and associates" and also discusses allegations that Stephens has been
involved in the "illegal handling of campaign contributions to the Democratic National
Party."
BCCI had originally been founded by a group of bankers from Pakistan, though Newsweeklater reported
that CIA officials appeared to have been involved in the bank's founding and that BCCI founder
Agha Hasan Abedi had been encouraged by the CIA to found the bank after "the agency realized
that an international bank could provide valuable cover for intelligence operations." CIA
documents that later surfaced during congressional hearings on the bank's activities and
related scandals stated
that BCCI was directly involved in "money laundering, narco-financing, gunrunning and
holding large sums of money for terrorist groups."
Evidence in the case against BCCI shows
cocaine seized from a warehouse and suitcases full of cash to be laundered. Photo | FLMD
District Court
Though BCCI was known for its CIA links, Catherine Austin Fitts -- former Assistant
Secretary for Housing–Federal Housing Commissioner at HUD during the George H. W. Bush
administration, and investment banker with the firms Hamilton Securities Group and Dillon, Read
& Co. -- believes that those links went well beyond the CIA. Fitts -- who was placed on the
board of the BCCI subsidiary First American Bank following BCCI's collapse -- told
MintPress that, after reading through troves of documents regarding the bank's
activities prior to its implosion, it was clear to her that there was "no way" its clandestine
activities were carried on without the full knowledge of the Federal Reserve, specifically the
Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and the White House.
BCCI also played a key role in the
Iran-Contra affair and accounts of the bank were used to send payoffs to individuals linked to
the scheme. Adnan Khashoggi, a key figure and intermediary in the scandal, used one BCCI
account to move more than $20 million related to illegal arms sales and BCCI created fake
documentation, including checks signed by Oliver North, allowing the sale to go forward. The
bank later, when its activities subsequently came under congressional scrutiny, claimed it had
no records of these transactions.
In addition, BCCI appears to have been involved in the sex trafficking of underage girls,
including girls that had not yet reached puberty. According to the report entitled " The BCCI Affair ," by
then-U.S. Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and Hank Brown (R-CO), BCCI officials were alleged to have
obtained leverage with powerful individuals, including prominent members of the ruling families
of the United Arab Emirates (UAE), by providing them with young virgins.
According to one U.S. investigator with substantial knowledge of BCCI's activities, some
BCCI officials have acknowledged that some of the females provided some members of the
Al-Nahyan family [one of the ruling families in the UAE] were young girls who had not yet
reached puberty, and in certain cases, were physically injured by the experience. The
official said that former BCCI officials had told him that BCCI also provided males to
homosexual VIPs."
BCCI was largely brought into the United States business community through the efforts of
Jackson Stephens and Bert Lance, former budget director for Jimmy Carter, who assisted with
BCCI's acquisition of First American Bank. The law firm
involved in this effort was Arkansas' Rose Law Firm and it involved several of the firm's
lawyers, including Hillary Rodham Clinton, Webster Hubbell and C.J. Giroir. Also involved in
the effort was Clark Clifford, former Secretary of Defense under Lyndon B. Johnson, and Kamal
Adham, former director general of Saudi intelligence.
One of the men added to the BCCI board after the acquisition of First American Bank was
Robert Keith Gray, whom Newsweek
described as often having "boasted of his close relationship with the CIA's William Casey;
Gray used to say that before taking on a foreign client, he would clear it with Casey." As was
discussed in Part
II of this series, Gray was also an expert in homosexual blackmail operations for the CIA
and was reported to have collaborated with Roy Cohn in those activities. Some of Gray's clients
at the powerful PR firm he led, Hill & Knowlton, included BCCI clients and Mossad-linked
individuals, such as Adnan Khashoggi and Marc Rich.
While the Rose Law Firm was assisting BCCI's entrance into the American financial system, it
also represented the Stephens-owned financial services company, Stephens Inc., as well as
the data-processing company Systematics Inc., which Stephens acquired in the late 1960s.
According to James Norman in his book The Oil Card: Global Economic Warfare in the 21st Century , Systematics was "a
primary vehicle or front company for the National Security Agency in the 1980s and early 1990s
to market and implant bugged software in the world's major money-center banks and
clearinghouses as part of the Reagan/Bush 'follow the money' effort to break the Soviets."
The late journalist Michael Ruppert
asserted that this "bugged software" was none other than the Promis software, which both
U.S. and Israeli intelligence had bugged in order to spy on intelligence and which had been
marketed in part by Robert Maxwell, father of Jeffrey Epstein's madam, Ghislaine Maxwell.
Ruppert cited Systematics as "a primary developer of Promis for financial intelligence use."
Promis had originally been leased by Inslaw Inc., a small software company founded by Bill
Hamilton, to the Department of Justice -- which later stole it from Inslaw, forcing it to
declare bankruptcy.
According to a 1995
document sent on behalf of Inslaw's founders to then-independent Counsel Ken Starr that
asked him to review Inslaw's case, Systematics had "covertly implanted [software] into the
computers of its bank customers" that allowed "allied intelligence agencies surreptitiously to
track and monitor the flow of money through the banking system" and had done so at "the behest
of the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) and its partner in Israeli intelligence." Inslaw
also stated that the software was used by these same intelligence agencies in the "laundering
of money, especially drug profits."
Systematics also had a subsidiary in Israel that, according to a former Israeli intelligence
officer, was operated by
contractors for the Mossad and sold software to banks and telecommunications companies.
According to Richardson's letter, that Israeli subsidiary of Systematics also had a
Massachusetts-based front company, which was partially owned by a former U.S. intelligence
official.
Two partners in the Rose Law Firm who would later serve in the Clinton administration, Vince
Foster and Webster Hubbell, acquired
significant financial interests in Systematics through ownership in Alltel, which purchased
Systematics in the early 1990s. The Hamiltons also provide considerable evidence that Foster's
distress prior to his death in 1993 appears to have been related to concerns about litigation
involving Systematics and the on-going litigation over Promis' theft.
BCCI itself was known to employ the Promis software after its theft by the DOJ; and one of
its subsidiaries, First American Bank, also " filtered PROMIS money
" -- i.e., laundered the money generated from the sale of the stolen Promis software --
according to the late journalist Danny Casolaro.
Casolaro had been investigating an international crime syndicate he termed " the
Octopus " at the time of his death in 1991. Casolaro believed that this "Octopus" involved
powerful individuals in the private and public sectors as well as the criminal underworld and
that they were collectively responsible for some of the biggest scandals of the 1980s,
including Iran-Contra, BCCI and the theft of the Promis software.
Casolaro had told friends and family that he was close to concluding his investigation and
several people close to him had seen documents involving money transfers involving BCCI and the
World Bank to people involved in these scandals, such as Earl Brian and Adnan Khashoggi.
Casolaro went to Martinsburg, Virginia to meet with some sources to get the final piece of the
puzzle and "bring back the head of the Octopus." Two days after arriving in Martinsburg, Casolaro was found dead in his hotel room and his
briefcase full of his research notes and evidence was missing. His death was ruled a
suicide.
Crime scene photos show deep lacerations in Casolaro's arms
Many, including Casolaro's family, do not believe that Casolaro committed suicide. A week
before his death, Casolaro told his brother he had been receiving death threats and the manner
in which he died, deep slashes in his arms, was not consistent with Casolaro's well-known
squeamishness around even minor amounts of blood. Speculation only grew following the
FBI investigation , given that the FBI lied to Congress, pressured its own agents not to
question whether it was a suicide and lost 90 percent of its files related to Casolaro's death
-- among other glaring inconsistencies.
In a 1994
letter provided to MintPress by Inslaw Inc., Inslaw lawyer Charles Work told
then-Assistant Attorney General John Dwyer that one of Inslaw's confidential sources in
government had stated that Casolaro had been injected with a substance that deadened his nerves
from the neck down, explaining the apparent lack of struggle and that the substance used had
come from the U.S. Army inventory. The person who had arranged Casolaro's final meeting before
his death was a U.S. military intelligence officer named Joseph Cuellar.
The same year that Casolaro died, there were several other suspicious deaths involving
people directly connected to the Promis scandal or involved in Casolaro's investigation of "the
Octopus" -- including Alan Standorf , one of
Casolaro's sources;
Robert Maxwell , father of Ghislaine Maxwell, Mossad operative, and salesman of the bugged
Promis software; and
John Tower -- the former Texas senator who
assisted Maxwell in selling the bugged Promis software to the Los Alamos
laboratories.
While the role Arkansas played in Iran-Contra is one aspect of the scandal that is often
overlooked, so to is the key role played by Israeli intelligence-linked arms dealers and
smugglers who would later be connected to powerful individuals in the Mega Group and Jeffrey
Epstein, such as Marc Rich and Adnan Khashoggi.
One of the key players in the Iran-Contra affair was Saudi arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi,
uncle of the slain Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi. One lesser known fact
about Adnan Khashoggi is that, at the time of his Iran-Contra dealings, he was working for the
Israeli Mossad, according to former Mossad agent Victor Ostrovsky.
Ostrovsky, in his #1 New York Times bestseller " By Way of Deception ," notes that
Khashoggi had been recruited by the Mossad years before and that his private jet had been
fitted in Israel. In relation to Iran-Contra, Ostrovsky claims that it was a $5 million
bridge loan that Khashoggi provided that helped to overcome the lack of trust between Israel
and Iran during the initial arms deals in the early 1980s, and thus his participation was
critical to the success of the scheme.
According to journalist Vicky Ward ,
Adnan Khashoggi was a client of Jeffrey Epstein's in the early 1980s, not long after Epstein's
departure from Bear Stearns in 1981. The reason Epstein left the bank remains murky. Though
some former Bear Stearns employees claim he was fired, others -- including Epstein himself --
claimed that he resigned of his own volition.
Ward suggests that Epstein may have left the bank owing to a Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) investigation into insider trading in a case that involved a tender offer
placed by the Seagrams corporation for St. Joe Minerals Corp. Seagrams owner Edgar Bronfman,
son of Meyer Lansky associate Samuel Bronfman and member of the Mega Group, had tipped off
several investors and bankers of the coming tender offer. Epstein resigned from Bear Stearns
the day after the SEC opened the case and later claimed he had left the company as a result of
a relatively minor "Reg D" violation and rumors that he had an "illicit affair with a
secretary."
The SEC never brought any charges against anyone at Bear Stearns for insider trading in
St. Joe, but its questioning seems to indicate that it was skeptical of Epstein's answers.
Some sources have wondered why, if he was such a big producer at Bear Stearns, he would have
given it up over a mere $2,500 fine."
Regardless of the exact reason for Epstein's sudden departure, it was immediately after he
left the bank that "the details [of Epstein's work history] recede into shadow. A few of the
handful of current friends who have known him since the early 1980s recall that he used to tell
them he was a "bounty hunter," recovering lost or stolen money for the government or for very
rich people. He has a license to carry a firearm."
Writing
in Salon , a former friend of Epstein's, Jesse Kornbluth, also stated that Epstein
had claimed to be a "bounty hunter" for the rich and powerful:
When we met in 1986, Epstein's double identity intrigued me -- he said he didn't just
manage money for clients with mega-fortunes, he was also a high-level bounty hunter .
Sometimes, he told me, he worked for governments to recover money looted by African
dictators. Other times those dictators hired him to help them hide their stolen money
." (emphasis added)
One of Epstein's clients after leaving Bear Stearns, per Ward's sources, was the
CIA/Mossad-linked Khashoggi at the very time that Khashoggi was involved in Iran-Contra, an
operation involving both U.S. and Israeli intelligence. British journalist Nigel Rosser
reported in January 2001 in the Evening Standard that Epstein had claimed that he was
also working for the CIA during this same time period.
Since Epstein's arrest, records of Rosser's article have been scrubbed from British
newspaper archives, including the Evening Standard 's own. However, MintPress
independently confirmed with Bob Fitrakis, whom Rosser had interviewed for the article in
question, that the article did allege that Epstein used to claim he worked for the CIA. In
addition, other reports from the time period cited excerpts of Rosser's article, including the
reference to Epstein's past claims of involvement with the CIA.
Specifically, Rosser's article had included the following passage:
He [Epstein] has a license to carry a concealed weapon, once claimed to have worked for
the CIA, although he now denies it – and owns properties all over America. Once he
arrived at the London home of a British arms dealer bringing a gift – a New York
police-issue pump-action riot gun. 'God knows how he got it into the country,' a friend
said."
Though Epstein denied past connections to the CIA at the time Rosser's article was
published, it is worth mentioning that Robert Maxwell -- father of Ghislaine Maxwell and
long-time Mossad operative -- also vehemently denied his now well-documented links to Israeli
intelligence until his death. Furthermore, as will be shown later in this article, Epstein and
his only known billionaire "client," Leslie Wexner, would later forge a business relationship
with the CIA front company Southern Air Transport and play a major role in the airline's
relocation to Columbus, Ohio in the mid-1990s. During that period, two prominent Ohio officials
believed that both Epstein and Wexner were working with the CIA, according to Ohio-based
journalist Bob Fitrakis.
Past claims and evidence of Epstein's involvement with the CIA, coupled with his time as a
"shadowy" financial fixer for double-asset Khashoggi, strongly suggest that, whatever Epstein
was doing for Khashoggi during this time, it likely involved BCCI. According to " The BCCI Affair "
report, Khashoggi "acted as the middleman for five Iranian arms deals for the United States,
financing a number of them through BCCI" and "served as the 'banker' for arms shipments as the
undercover scheme developed." The report continued:
Khashoggi and [another Iran-Contra arms dealer Manucher] Ghorbanifer performed a central
role for the U.S. government in connection with the Iran-Contra affair in operations that
involved the direct participation of CIA personnel [and both Khashoggi and Ghorbanifer]
banked at BCCI's offices in Monte Carlo and, for both, BCCI's services were essential as a
means of providing short-term credit for sales from the U.S. through Israel to Iran."
Saudi arms deale Adnan Khashoggi arrives at Manhatten Federal Court, New York,
April 4, 1990. Photo | AP
This connection is even more likely given the fact that Bear Stearns -- Epstein's previous
employer right up until he became a financial fixer for Khashoggi and other powerful people --
also worked directly with BCCI during this period. Indeed, Bear Stearns
served as a broker to BCCI, a fact that remained hidden until a lengthy court battle in the
U.K. concluded in 2011 and forced the government's "Sandstorm Report" about BCCI's activities
to unredact the names of Bear Stearns and other institutions, individuals and countries that
had done business with the CIA-linked bank.
Furthermore, there is the additional fact that BCCI trafficked underage girls for sex as a
means of obtaining favors from and gaining leverage over powerful individuals, something in
which Epstein would later become deeply involved. As was shown in Part
II of this series, several individuals who were running either sexual blackmail operations
involving minors or child trafficking operations were connected to CIA front companies like
BCCI, other organizations connected to the Iran-Contra scandal, and several individuals close
to the Reagan White House.
The CIA director at the time, Bill Casey, was a close friend of Roy Cohn, who also ran the
sexual blackmail operation involving underage boys out of Manhattan's Plaza Hotel, described in
Part
I of this series. According to Cohn's long-time secretary Christine Seymour, Casey was one
of Cohn's most frequent callers.
Another fact that further suggests that Epstein had connections to BCCI is that Epstein was
known to have been close to other arms dealers of the period and BCCI was frequently used
specifically for covert arms deals. After the bank's collapse in 1991, an article in
Time magazine entitled "BCCI: The Dirtiest Bank of All" noted the following:
[T]he CIA may have used B.C.C.I. as more than an undercover banker: U.S. agents
collaborated with the black network in several operations, according to a B.C.C.I.
black-network "officer" who is now a secret U.S. government witness. Sources have told
investigators that B.C.C.I. worked closely with Israel's spy agencies and other Western
intelligence groups as well, especially in arms deals ." (emphasis added)
One of the arms dealers that Epstein apparently knew quite well was the British arms dealer
Sir Douglas Leese. Leese was involved in brokering the first of a series of controversial
British arms deals that
involved Khashoggi , known as the Al Yamamah Deal and allegedly involving bribery of
members of the Saudi royal family and top Saudi officials. In addition to Khashoggi, several of
those officials and royal family members had deep ties to BCCI.
Later iterations of that arms deal were allegedly brokered with the involvement of Prince
Charles of the British royal family, and corruption investigations into Al Yamamah were later
shut down by the efforts of Tony Blair as well as Prince Andrew. Leese is said to
have spoken of Epstein's "genius" and lack of morals when he introduced him to Steve
Hoffenberg of Tower Financial, and soon after that introduction Hoffenberg hired Epstein.
Two years after BCCI's fraud-driven collapse, Tower Financial imploded in 1993 in what is
still considered to be one of the largest Ponzi schemes in American history. Hoffenberg
later asserted in court that Epstein had been intimately involved in Tower's shady
financial practices and had called Epstein the "architect of the scam." However, by the time
Tower Financial had collapsed, Epstein was no longer working for the company. Despite
Hoffenberg's testimony and abundant evidence regarding Epstein's role in the scheme, Epstein's
name was mysteriously dropped from the case.
Given that Epstein allegedly received his "sweetheart deal" in 2008 as a result of having
"belonged to intelligence," Epstein's activities in the 1980s and early 1990s suggest that his
ability to avoid charges in relation to the Tower Financial Ponzi scheme may have been for
similar reasons.
Though Hoffenberg claims that he met Epstein through Leese, Epstein himself claimed that
he had met the convicted fraudster through John Mitchell, former attorney general under Richard
Nixon.
As was noted in Part
II of this series, Mitchell was a "friend" of disgraced Washington lobbyist Craig Spence,
according to Spence before his fall from grace. Spence, for much of the 1980s, ran a sexual
blackmail operation in D.C. involving underage boys and had taken some of those "call boys" on
midnight tours of the White House that he said had been arranged by then-National Security
Adviser Donald Gregg. Spence, after his trafficking and exploitation of minors was exposed,
died under mysterious circumstances. His death was quickly labeled a suicide, not unlike
Jeffrey Epstein's.
While the state of Arkansas became a hub for CIA activity during the Reagan years and the
Iran-Contra scandal, another state appeared to take its place in the 1990s -- Ohio. Just as
Arkansas oligarch Jackson Stephens helped attract the CIA to his home state during Iran-Contra,
it was also an Ohio oligarch and his close associate that helped attract the CIA to the Buckeye
State. Those men were Leslie Wexner and Jeffrey Epstein, respectively.
In
Part III of this series, MintPress detailed Wexner's alleged ties to organized crime
and his links to the still unsolved homicide of Columbus, Ohio lawyer Arthur Shapiro. Shapiro,
who was representing Wexner's company "The Limited" at the time of his death, was set to
testify before a grand jury about tax evasion and his involvement with "questionable tax
shelters." Columbus police described the Shapiro murder as "a Mafia 'hit'" and a suppressed
police report implicated Wexner and his business associates as being involved in or benefiting
from Shapiro's death, and as having links to prominent New York-based crime syndicates.
However, Wexner and The Limited also appear to have had a relationship with the CIA. In
1995, Southern Air Transport (SAT) -- a well-known front company for the CIA --
relocated from Miami, Florida to Columbus, Ohio. First founded in the late 1940s, SAT from
1960 until 1973 was
directly owned by the CIA, which sought to use the company as a cover for covert
operations. After 1973, the company was placed in private hands, although all of its subsequent
owners would have CIA ties, including James Bastian, a former lawyer for the CIA, who owned SAT
at the time of its relocation to Ohio.
SAT was intimately involved in the Iran-Contra affair, having been used to funnel
weapons and drugs to and from the Nicaraguan Contras under the guise of delivering
"humanitarian aid," while also sending American weapons to Israel that were then sold to Iran
in violation of the U.S. arms embargo. In 1986 alone, SAT
transported from Texas to Israel 90 tons of TOW anti-tank missiles, which were then sold to
Iran by Israel and Mossad-linked intermediaries like Saudi arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi.
Even though the airline's CIA links were well known, Leslie Wexner's company, The Limited,
sought to coax SAT to relocate its headquarters from Miami, Florida to Columbus, Ohio, a move
that was realized in 1995. When Edmund James, president of James and Donohew Development
Services,
told the Columbus Dispatch in March 1995 that SAT was relocating to Columbus'
Rickenbacker airfield, he stated that "Southern Air's new presence at Rickenbacker begins in
April with two regularly scheduled 747 cargo flights a week from Hong Kong," citing SAT
President William Langton. "By fall, that could increase to four a week. Negotiations are
underway for flights out of Rickenbacker to the Far East Much of the Hong Kong-to-Rickenbacker
cargo will be for The Limited," Wexner's clothing company. "This is a big story for central
Ohio. It's huge, actually," James said at the time.
The day following the press conference, Brian Clancy, working as a cargo analyst with
MergeGlobal Inc.,
told the Journal of Commerce that the reason for SAT's relocation to Ohio was
largely the result of the lucrative Hong Kong-to-Columbus route that SAT would run for Wexner's
company. Clancy specifically stated that the fact that "[The] Limited Inc., the nation's
largest retailer, is based in Columbus undoubtedly contributed in large part to Southern Air's
decision."
According to documents obtained by journalist Bob Fitrakis from the
Rickenbacker Port Authority, Ohio's government also tried to sweeten the deal to bring SAT to
Columbus in order to please powerful Ohio businessmen like Wexner. Orchestrated by Governor
George Voinovich's then-Chief of Staff Paul Mifsud, the Rickenbacker Port Authority and the
Ohio Department of Development created a package of several financial incentives, funded by
Ohio taxpayers, to lure the airline to relocate to Ohio. The Journal of Commercedescribed the
"generous package of incentives from the state of Ohio" as "including a 75 percent credit
against its corporate tax liability for the next 10 years, a $5 million low-interest loan, and
a $400,000 job-training grant."In 1996, then-SAT spokesman David Sweet had told Fitrakis that the CIA-linked airline had
only moved to Columbus because "the deal [put together by the development department] was too
good to turn down."
Though SAT had promised Ohio's government that it would create 300 jobs in three years, it
quickly laid off numerous workers and failed to construct the maintenance facility it had
promised, even though it had already accepted $3.5 million in taxpayer funds for that and other
projects. As the company's financial problems mounted, Ohio's government declined to recoup the
millions in dollars it loaned the company, even after it was alleged that $32 million in the
bank account of Mary Bastian, the wife of SAT's owner and former CIA lawyer James Bastian,
were actually company funds . On October 1, 1998, SAT filed for bankruptcy. It was the very
same day that the CIA's Inspector General had published a comprehensive report on the airline's
illicit involvement in drug trafficking.
Furthermore, Fitrakis noted that in addition to Wexner the other main figures who were key in securing
SAT's relocation to Ohio were Alan D. Fiers Jr., a former chief of the CIA Central American
Task Force, and retired Air Force Major General Richard Secord, head of air logistics for SAT's
covert action in Laos between 1966 and 1968, while the company was still known as Air America.
Secord was also the air logistics coordinator in the illegal Contra resupply network for Oliver
North during Iran-Contra. Fiers was one of the key individuals involved in Iran-Contra who was
later pardoned by George H.W. Bush with the assistance of then-Attorney General Bill Barr. Barr
-- currently serving as attorney general in the Trump administration, and top of the chain of
DOJ command in the investigation of Epstein's death in prison -- has refused to recuse himself
from the investigation into Epstein's network and his recent death.
Despite the involvement of these CIA-linked men, as well as the organized crime-linked
Leslie Wexner, the then-president of SAT
told the Columbus Dispatch that the airline was "no longer connected to the
CIA."
Notably, It was during this same time that Epstein exerted substantial control over Wexner's
finances; and, according to Fitrakis and his extensive reporting on Wexner from this period, it
was Epstein who orchestrated logistics for Wexner's business operations, including The Limited.
As was revealed in the Arthur Shapiro murder file and in ties between SAT and The Limited, much
of The Limited's logistics involved figures and companies connected to organized crime and U.S.
intelligence. It is also important to note that SAT was well-known for being a CIA front
company prior to the efforts of Wexner et al. to bring the airline to Columbus, and that, a few
years prior, Epstein himself had previously worked for intelligence-linked figures also
involved in Iran-Contra, such as Adnan Khashoggi.
In addition, during this time period, Epstein had already begun to live in the now infamous
New York penthouse that had first been purchased by Wexner in 1989. Wexner had apparently
installed CCTV and recording equipment in an odd bathroom in the home after his purchase, and
never lived in the home, as was noted in
Part III of this series.
In an exclusive interview, Bob Fitrakis told MintPress that Epstein and Wexner's
involvement with SAT's relocation to Ohio had caused suspicion among some prominent state and
local officials that the two were working with U.S. intelligence. Fitrakis specifically stated
that then-Ohio Inspector General David Strutz and then-Sheriff of Franklin County Earl Smith
had personally told him that they believed that both Epstein and Wexner had ties to the CIA.
These claims further corroborate what was first reported by Nigel Rosser in the Evening
Standard that Epstein had claimed to have worked for the CIA in the past.
Fitrakis also told MintPress that Strutz had referred to SAT's route between Hong
Kong and Columbus on behalf of Wexner's company The Limited as "the Meyer Lansky run," as he
believed that Wexner's association with SAT was related to his ties to elements of organized
crime that were connected to the Lansky-created National Crime Syndicate. In addition,
Catherine Austin Fitts -- the former investment banker and government official, who has
extensively investigated the intersection of organized crime, black markets, Wall Street and
the government in the U.S. economy -- was told by an ex-CIA employee that Wexner was one of
five key managers of organized crime cash flows in the United States.
As this series has noted in previous reports, Meyer Lansky was a pioneer of sexual blackmail
operations and was deeply connected to both U.S. intelligence and Israel's Mossad. Furthermore,
many members of the so-called Mega Group, which Wexner co-founded, had direct ties to the
Lansky crime syndicate.
Another shadowy figure with connections to the Mega Group, Mossad, U.S. intelligence and
organized crime is the "fugitive financier" Marc Rich, whose pardon during the last days of the
Clinton White House is both well-known and still mired in controversy years after the fact.
Marc Rich was a commodities trader and hedge fund manager best known for founding the
commodity trading and mining giant Glencore and for doing business with numerous dictatorships,
often in violation of sanctions. He worked particularly closely with Israel and, according to
Haaretz :
In the years after the 1973 Yom Kippur War and the ensuing global Arab oil embargo, a
period when nobody wanted to sell oil to Israel, for almost 20 years Rich was the main source
of the country's oil and energy needs."
It was that trading on Israel's behalf that would ultimately lead to Rich being charged in
1983 for violating the U.S. oil embargo on Iran by selling Iranian oil to Israel. Rich was also
charged with tax evasion, wire fraud, racketeering and several other crimes.
Haaretz
also noted that Rich's businesses were "a source of funding for secret financial
arrangements" and that "his worldwide offices, according to several reliable sources,
frequently served Mossad agents, with his consent." Rich had more direct ties to the Mossad as
well. For instance, his foundation -- the Rich Foundation -- was run by the former Mossad agent
Avner Azulay. Rich was also friendly with prominent Israel politicians, including former Prime
Ministers Menachem Begin and Ehud Barak, and was
a frequent provider of "services" for Israeli intelligence, services he freely
volunteered.
Marc Rich, right, is pictured with Israel's Shimon Peres in a photo from Mark
Daneil Ammann's "The King of Oil."
According to Rich's biographer, Daniel Ammann, Rich also fed information to U.S.
intelligence but declined to give specifics. "He did not want to tell with whom he cooperated
within the U.S. authorities or which branch of the U.S. government he supplied with
intelligence," Ammann said in an interview with the Daily
Beast .
One clue as to the nature of Rich's relationship to U.S. intelligence is his apparent ties
to BCCI. "The BCCI Affair" report mentions Rich as a person to investigate in relation to the
bank and states :
BCCI lending to Rich in the 1980s amounted to tens of millions of dollars. Moreover,
Rich's commodities firms were used by BCCI in connection with BCCI's involv[ement] in U.S.
guarantee programs through the Department of Agriculture. The nature and extent of Rich's
relationship with BCCI requires further investigation."
Rich was also deeply tied to the Mega Group, as he was one of the main donors to the
Birthright Israel charity along with Mega Group co-founder Charles Bronfman and Mega Group
member Michael Steinhardt. Steinhardt was particularly close to Rich, first meeting the
commodities trader in the 1970s and
then managing $3 million for Rich, Rich's then-wife Denise, and Rich's father-in-law from
the early 1980s to the mid-1990s through his hedge fund. In the late 1990s, Steinhardt would
enlist other Mega Group members, such as Edgar Bronfman, in the effort to settle the criminal
charges against Rich, which eventually came to pass with Clinton's controversial pardon in
2001. Steinhardt claimed to have
come up with the idea of a presidential pardon for Rich in late 2000.
Rich's pardon was controversial for several reasons, and many mainstream outlets asserted
that it "reeked of payoff." As
the New York Post noted in 2016, in the run-up to the presidential pardon the
financier's ex-wife Denise had donated $450,000 to the fledgling Clinton Library and "over $1
million to Democratic campaigns in the Clinton era." In addition, Rich had hired high-powered
lawyers with links to powerful individuals in both the Democratic and Republican parties as
well as the Clinton White House, including Jack Quinn, who has previously served as general
counsel to the Clinton administration and as former chief of staff to Vice President Al
Gore.
However, per
Clinton's own words and other supporting evidence, the main reason behind the Rich pardon
was the heavy lobbying from Israeli intelligence, Israeli politicians and members of the Mega
Group like Steinhardt, with the donations from Denise Rich and Quinn's access to the president
likely sweetening the deal.
Among the most ardent
lobbyists for Rich's pardon were then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, former Prime
Minister Shimon Peres, then-Mayor of Jerusalem Ehud Olmert, then-former Foreign Minister Shlomo
Ben-Ami and former Director of the Mossad Shabtai Shavit. According to Haaretz , Barak was so adamant that Clinton pardon Marc Rich that he was heard
shouting at the president on at least one occasion. Former adviser to Barak, Eldad Yaniv,
claimed that Barak had shouted that the pardon was "important Not only from the financial
aspect, but also because he helped the Mossad in more than one instance."
The Israel lobbying effort had considerable help from Mega Group member Michael Steinhardt
as well as Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which was at the time heavily funded
by Mega Group members, including Ronald Lauder and Edgar Bronfman.
There has been speculation for years that Clinton's decision to pardon Rich may have been
the result of "leverage" or blackmail that Israel had acquired on the then-president's
activities. As was noted in
Part III of this report, the Mossad-linked "Mega" spy scandal broke in 1997, whereby
Israeli intelligence had been targeting Clinton's effort to broker a peace agreement between
Israel and Palestine and had sought to go to "Mega," likely a reference to the Mega Group, to
obtain a sensitive document.
In addition, Israel is known to have acquired phone conversations between Clinton and Monica
Lewinsky before their affair was made public. Author Daniel Halper -- relying on on-the-record
interviews with former officials and hundreds of pages of documents compiled in the event that
Lewinsky took legal action against Clinton -- determined
that Benjamin Netanyahu told Clinton that he had obtained recordings of the sexually-tinged
phone conversations during the Wye Plantation talks between Israel and Palestine in 1998.
Netanyahu attempted to use this information to get Clinton to pardon convicted Israeli spy
Jonathan Pollard. Clinton considered pardoning Pollard but decided against it after CIA
Director George Tenet threatened to resign if the pardon was given.
Investigative journalist and author Gordon Thomas had
made similar claims years prior and asserted that the Mossad had obtained some 30 hours of
phone-sex conversations between Lewinsky and Clinton and used them as leverage. In addition,
a
report in Insight magazine in May 2000 claimed that Israeli intelligence had
"penetrated four White House telephone lines and was able to relay real-time conversations on
those lines from a remote site outside the White House directly to Israel for listening and
recording."
Those phone taps apparently went well beyond the White House, as revealed by a December 2001
investigative report by Carl Cameron for FOX News . According to
Cameron's report :
[Israeli telecommunications company Amdocs] helped Bell Atlantic install new telephone
lines in the White House in 1997 [and] a senior-level employee of Amdocs had a separate T1
data phone line installed from his base outside of St. Louis that was connected directly to
Israel
[I]nvestigators are looking into whether the owner of the T1 line had a 'real time'
capacity to intercept phone calls from both the White House and other government offices
around Washington, and sustained the line for some time, sources said. Sources familiar with
the investigation say FBI agents on the case sought an arrest warrant for the St. Louis
employee but [Clinton] Justice Department officials quashed it."
[Both Amdocs and Verint Inc. (formerly Comverse Infosys)] are based in Israel –
having arisen to prominence from that country's cornering of the information technology
market – and are heavily funded by the Israeli government, with connections to the
Israeli military and Israeli intelligence
The companies' operations, sources suggest, have been infiltrated by freelance spies
exploiting encrypted trapdoors in Verint/Amdocs technology and gathering data on Americans
for transfer to Israeli intelligence and other willing customers (particularly organized
crime)."
Given the extent of phone tapping of the U.S. government by Israeli intelligence-linked
companies and Netanyahu's previous use of intercepted phone calls to pressure Clinton to pardon
Jonathan Pollard, it is entirely reasonable to speculate that some other trove of intercepted
communications could have been used to push Clinton to pardon Rich in the final hours of his
presidency.
Also notable is the fact that several figures who heavily lobbied Clinton over the Rich
pardon had ties to Epstein, who also had ties to Israeli intelligence and Israeli
intelligence-linked tech companies, as discussed in
Part III of this series. For example, Ehud Barak, a close friend and business associate of
Epstein, and Shimon Peres, who introduced Barak to Epstein, were the major players in convincing Clinton to
pardon Marc Rich.
Furthermore, as will be shown in a subsequent section of this report, Jeffrey Epstein had
developed ties with the Clinton administration beginning in 1993 and those ties expanded,
particularly in 1996, when Epstein's intelligence-linked sexual blackmail operation was
underway. Clinton would later fly on Epstein's infamous private jet, nicknamed the "Lolita
Express," and Epstein would later donate to the Clinton Foundation and claim to have played
a key role in the creation of the Clinton Global Initiative.
In addition to the role of figures close to Epstein in securing Rich's pardon, Epstein
himself appeared to share some level of connection with Rich's former business partners. For
instance, Felix Posen -- who ran Rich's London operations for years and
whom Forbes described as "the architect of Rich's immensely profitable but suddenly
very controversial business with the Soviet Union" -- appears in
Epstein's book of contacts . In addition, Epstein's offshore structured investment vehicle
(SIV), Liquid Funding, has the same attorney and director as several Glencore entities :
Alex Erskine of the law firm
Appleby.
The significance of that connection, however, is unclear, given that Erskine was connected to a total of
274 offshore entities at the time of the "Paradise Papers" leak in 2014. Catherine Austin Fitts
told MintPress that it could suggest that Epstein's Liquid Funding -- 40 percent of
which
had been owned by Bear Stearns , and which may have received
a "secret" bail-out from the Federal Reserve -- is part of the same shadow economy
"syndicate" as Glencore.
This possibility merits further investigation, given that Glencore is partially
owned by British financier Nathaniel Rothschild, whose father, Jacob Rothschild, is on the
board of advisers of Genie Energy, which includes Michael Steinhardt as well as several alleged
associates of Epstein, such as Bill Richardson and Larry Summers. In addition, Nathaniel
Rothschild's cousin by marriage, Lynn Forester de Rothschild, is a long-time associate of
Jeffrey Epstein with considerable ties to the New York City "Roy Cohn machine." Marc Rich had
long-standing ties to the Rothschild family, going back to
the early 1970s when he began commodity trading at Philipp Brothers.
After Epstein's arrests first in 2007 and then again last month, numerous media reports
emerged detailing the links between Epstein and Clinton, with most asserting that they had met
not long after Clinton left office in 2001 and, as recently mentioned, issued the controversial
pardon of Marc Rich.
Those reports claimed that the Epstein-Clinton relationship had been facilitated by
Epstein's long-time girlfriend and alleged madam Ghislaine Maxwell. However, documents obtained
from the Clinton presidential library have revealed that the ties between Epstein and Clinton
date back years earlier and were facilitated by powerful individuals who have largely evaded
scrutiny in connection with the Epstein case.
One major player who has been largely overlooked in bringing Epstein and the Clintons
together is Lynn Forester de Rothschild. Notably, Forester de Rothschild has long been
connected to neoconservative Reagan era officials -- the Lewis Rosenstiel/Roy Cohn network
described in Parts 1 and 2 of this series, as well as the Mega Group, which was detailed in
Part 3 of this series.
Lynn Forester de Rothschild became involved in the world of Democratic Party politics in the
late 1970s when she
worked on the 1976 campaign of hawkish Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY) alongside
now-notorious neoconservatives like
Elliott Abrams , who would go on to play an important role in the Iran-Contra affair during
the Reagan era and later serve in the State Department under Trump. She was also introduced to
her second husband, Evelyn de Rothschild, by Henry Kissinger at a Bilderberg conference.
Several of the individuals connected to the Mega Group and the Mossad-linked media mogul Robert
Maxwell -- including Mark Palmer, Max Fisher and John Lehman -- were one-time aides or advisers
to Henry Kissinger.
Before marrying into the Rothschild family in 2000, Lynn
had previously been married to Andrew Stein, a major figure in New York Democratic
politics, with whom she had two sons. Andrew's brother, James Finkelstein, married Cathy Frank,
the granddaughter of Lewis Rosenstiel, the mob-linked businessman who ran a sexual blackmail
operation exploiting underage boys, as was discussed in Part 1 of this series. Rosenstiel's
protege Roy Cohn
was the lawyer for Cathy Frank and James Finkelstein and it was at their behest that Cohn
attempted to trick a nearly comatose Rosenstiel to into naming Cohn, Frank and Finkelstein the
executors and trustees of his estate, valued at $75 million (more than $334 million in today's
dollars).
According to the
New Yorker , Lynn Forester de Rothschild requested "financial help" from none other
than Jeffrey Epstein in 1993 during her divorce from Andrew Stein.
As far as Forester de Rothschild's ties to the Mega Group go, she is currently on the
board of directors of Estee Lauder companies, which was founded and is still owned by the
family of Ronald Lauder -- a member of the Mega Group, a former Reagan official, a family
friend of Roy Cohn, and the alleged source of Jeffrey Epstein's now-infamous Austrian passport.
In addition, Forester de Rothschild also partnered with Matthew
Bronfman -- son of Mega Group member Edgar Bronfman and grandson of Samuel Bronfman, who had
close ties to Meyer Lansky -- in creating the investment advisory firm Bronfman E.L. Rothschild
LP.
It is unclear when Lynn Forester de Rothschild first met Jeffrey Epstein, but she was one of
his leading advocates and had the ear of then-President Bill Clinton in the early 1990s,
speaking to Clinton specifically about Epstein during her "fifteen seconds of access" with the
president and also introducing Epstein to lawyer Alan Dershowitz in 1996.
Living History by
Hilary Clinton Book Party Hosted Lynn Forester and Evelyn De Rothschild pose with Bill and
Hilary Clinton at the Kensington Palace in London. Photo | Alan Davidson
Forester de Rothschild is a long-time associate of the Clintons and has been a major donor
to both Bill and Hillary Clinton since 1992. Their ties were so close that Forester de
Rothschild spent the first night of her honeymoon at the Lincoln Bedroom in the White House
while Clinton was president. Furthermore, a leaked email between Forester de Rothschild and
Hillary Clinton saw Clinton
request "penance" from Forester de Rothschild for asking Tony Blair to accompany Clinton on
official business while she was secretary of state, preventing Blair from making a planned
social visit to Forester de Rothschild's home in Aspen, Colorado. Humbly requesting forgiveness
is not something Hillary Clinton is known for, given that her former bodyguard once said she
could "make Richard Nixon look like Mahatma Gandhi."
In 1995, Forester de Rothschild, then a member of Clinton's National Information
Infrastructure Advisory Council, wrote the following to then-President Clinton:
Dear Mr. President: It was a pleasure to see you recently at Senator Kennedy's house.
There was too much to discuss and too little time. Using my fifteen seconds of access to
discuss Jeffrey Epstein and currency stabilization, I neglected to talk to you about a topic
near and dear to my heart. Namely, affirmative action and the future."
Forester de Rothschild then states that she had been asked to prepare a memo on behalf of
George Stephanopoulos, former Clinton communications director and currently a broadcast
journalist with ABC News . Stephanopoulos attended a
dinner party hosted by Epstein at his now infamous Manhattan townhouse in 2010 after
Epstein's release from prison for soliciting sex from a minor.
While it is unknown what Forester de Rothschild discussed with Clinton regarding Epstein and
currency stabilization, a potential lead may lie in the links of both Forester de Rothschild
and Epstein to Deutsche Bank. Journalist Vicky Ward reported in 2003 that
Epstein boasted of "skill at playing the currency markets 'with very large sums of money'" and
he appears to have done much of this through his long-standing relationship with Deutsche
Bank.
[Epstein] appears to have been doing business and trading currencies through Deutsche Bank
until just a few months ago, according to two people familiar with his business activities.
But as the possibility of federal charges loomed, the bank ended its client relationship with
Mr. Epstein. It is not clear what the value of those accounts was at the time they were
closed."
In the case of Forester de Rothschild, she served as an advisor
to the Deutsche Bank Microfinance Consortium for several years and is currently a board member
of the Alfred Herrhausen Society of International Dialogue of Deutsche Bank.
The same year that Forester de Rothschild made the above-noted comments to Bill Clinton
about Jeffrey Epstein, Epstein attended
another Clinton fundraiser , hosted by Ron Perelman at his personal home, that was very
exclusive, as the guest list included only 14 people.
Even before Forester de Rothschild's 1995 meeting with Clinton, Epstein was already an
established Clinton donor. Records obtained
by the Daily Beast revealed that Epstein had donated $10,000 to the White House
Historical Association and attended a Clinton donor reception alongside Ghislaine Maxwell as
early as 1993.
The Daily Beast suggests that Bill Clinton's long-time friend from his college days,
A. Paul Prosperi, was the facilitator of that early relationship, as Prosperi had a
decades-long relationship with Epstein and even visited Epstein at least 20 times while he was
in jail in 2008. Prosperi was intimately involved with the 1993 fundraiser for the White House
Historical Association noted above.
The relationship between Epstein and Clinton would continue well after Clinton left office
in 2001, a fact well-documented by Bill Clinton's now-infamous flights on Epstein's (recently
sold) private jet -- often referred to as the "Lolita Express." Clinton flew on the Lolita
Express no less than
26 times in the early 2000s according to flight logs. On some of those flights, Clinton was
accompanied by his Secret Service detail but he was unaccompanied on other flights.
Arguably the most infamous flight taken by Clinton on Epstein's jet was
a lengthy trip to Africa, where actor Kevin Spacey, who has also been accused of
raping minors ; Ghislaine Maxwell; and Ron Burkle, a billionaire friend of Clinton's who
has
been accused of soliciting the services of "super-high-end call girls," were also present.
Clinton specifically requested that Epstein make his jet available for the trip well in
advance, with Doug Band as the intermediary. President Donald Trump, also a friend of Epstein,
is said to have flown on the plane but appears
only once on flight logs.
In addition to flights, an Epstein-run foundation
gave $25,000 to the Clinton Foundation according to the 2006 filing tax return of Epstein's
former charity, the C.O.U.Q. Foundation. Notably, Epstein's lawyers, Alan Dershowitz among
them,
claimed in 2007 that Epstein had been "part of the original group that conceived the
Clinton Global Initiative, which is described as a project 'bringing together a community of
global leaders to devise and implement innovative solutions to some of the world's most
pressing challenges.'"
Before the associations between Epstein and the Clinton White House in the early 1990s were
made public, Ghislaine Maxwell was thought to
have been the bridge between Epstein and the Clinton family because of her close
relationship to the family. However, the close relationship between Maxwell and the Clintons
appears to have developed in the 2000s, with Politico
reporting that it began after Bill Clinton left office. Clinton associate Doug Band was
also reportedly friendly to Maxwell, appearing at an exclusive dinner party she hosted at her
residence in New York in 2005. Maxwell later became particularly close to Chelsea Clinton,
vacationing with Chelsea in 2009 and attending her wedding a year later. Maxwell was also
associated with the Clinton Global Initiative at least up until 2013.
Other close Clinton associates and officials in the early 1990s also had notable
relationships with Jeffrey Epstein, including Mark Middleton, who was a special assistant to
Clinton Chief of Staff Mack McClarty beginning in 1993, and met with Epstein on
at least three occasions in the White House during the early Clinton years. In addition,
White House social secretary under Clinton, Ann Stock,
appears in Epstein's "little black book" as does Doug
Band , once referred to by New
York Magazine as "Bill Clinton's bag carrier, body man, fixer, and all-purpose
gatekeeper." Band also appears several times in the flight logs of Epstein's private jet.
Epstein was also
associated with both Bill Richardson, former ambassador to the UN and former secretary of
energy under Clinton, and Larry Summers, secretary of the treasury under Clinton. Both
Richardson and Summers sit on the advisory board of controversial energy company Genie Energy,
alongside CIA director under Clinton, James Woolsey; Roy Cohn associate and media mogul, Rupert
Murdoch; Mega Group member Michael Steinhardt; and Lord Jacob Rothschild. Genie Energy is
controversial primarily for its exclusive rights to drill in the Israeli-occupied Golan
Heights. Bill Richardson also has ties to Lynn Forester de Rothschild as she was on the
Secretary of Energy's Advisory Board while
Richardson was secretary of energy.
Bill Richardson appears to be among the Clinton era officials closest to Jeffrey Epstein,
having
personally visited Epstein's New Mexico ranch and been the recipient of Epstein donations
of $50,000 to his 2002 and 2006 gubernatorial campaigns. Richardson gave Epstein's donation in
2006 to charity after allegations against Epstein were made public. Richardson was also accused
in recently released court documents of engaging in sex with Epstein's underage victims, an
allegation that he has denied.
In 1990, Danny Casolaro began his fateful one-year investigation of "the Octopus," an
investigation that played no small role in his untimely death. Shortly after he was found
lifeless in a hotel bathtub, Casolaro's friend Lynn Knowles was threatened and told the following : "What
Danny Casolaro was investigating is a business Anyone who asks too many questions will end up
dead."
Nearly thirty years later, that same "Octopus" and its "business" remains with us and has
become ever more wrapped around the levers of power -- particularly in the worlds of
government, finance and intelligence.
This MintPress investigative series has endeavored to show the nature of this network
and how the world of "the Octopus" is the same world in which Jeffrey Epstein and his
predecessors -- Craig Spence, Edwin Wilson and Roy Cohn among them -- operated and profited. It
is a world where all that matters is the constant drive to accumulate ever more wealth and ever
more power and to keep the racket going at all costs.
While this network has long been able to ensure its success through the use of sexual
blackmail, often acquired by the unconscionable exploitation of children, it has also been a
driving force behind many other ills that plague our world and it goes far beyond human and
child trafficking. Indeed, many of the figures in this same sordid web have played a major role
in the illicit drug and weapons trades, the expansion of for-profit prisons, and the endless
wars that have claimed an untold number of lives across the world, all the while enriching many
of these same individuals.
the network connected to Epstein is nothing less than a criminal enterprise that is
willing to use and abuse children in the pursuit of ever more power, wealth and
control.
Another aspect of this Mossad honey pot op being run by Epstein is this: How many of
those teenage girls, due to being plied by alcohol and drugs so they could perform for dirty
old men, how many of them broke down mentally and either committed suicide or were killed off
to hide the evidence?
My guess is that there's an underwater burial spot near Epstein's Orgy Island or maybe
they're buried under yards and yards of concrete, thanks to Epstein buying and moving that
concrete truck to that island.
As for the Rose Law firm in Arkansas, at the same time Hillary was working there, one of
her co-workers was Johnathan Pollard, the Israeli spy that did a tremendous amount of damage
to our intelligence apparatus, even getting spies killed who he helped expose.
Hillary's Secrets
Most progressives tend to think of the sordid topic of Vince Foster's death as the
exclusive domain of the Rush Limbaugh right wing radio circuit. But did you know that
Vince Foster, Hillary Clinton, and Jonathan Pollard were all simultaneously partners at
Rose Law Firm? Yes, that Jonathan Pollard, the unrepentant spy for Israel, arrested and
sentenced to life in 1986 for espionage . Did you know that Vince Foster was under CIA
scrutiny for the exact same crime at the time of his "suicide" in 1993?
Why is it that many of these kind of incidents always involve our friend and
special ally, Israel?
Spectacular job of reporting, that the large majority of Americans will never see, as the MSM
is too busy serving the needs of the CIA and Israel, and not interested in reporting actual
news.
Whitney, is it more likely that Epstein was killed by the Clintons or Trump? It would be
helpful to have a short paragraph giving the thrust of your thinking.
What we have not been told yet regarding the Epstein scandal is exactly what political and
monetary favors were provided to whom as a result of this sick, sadistic, satanic cult of
predators.
The motive must have been for political favors, and not merely sums of cash, would be my
guess. Yes, Epstein benefitted from the cash, but if Epstein was acting on behalf of the
Mossad, it was apparently for policy control.
So who were the individuals that were threatenning politicians with exposure for not
enacting, or for enacting specific policies, and precisely which policies and businesses
would be financially rewarded is what has not yet been disclosed and what I think that
everyone would like to know.
With Epstein dead, we don't know if we will ever find out. Obviously, many people in the
surveillance state know exactly who these individual policy threatenners were, and which
policies were demanded and have remained silent on these issues.
It is likely that Epstein's conspicuous cultivation and support of prominent scientists was
in fact camouflage to help cover his real role as a covert operative specializing in
blackmail. Comments by some scientists who attended his soirees indicate that Epstein was
scientifically an ignoramus and was unserious in scientific discussions.
Around '83, I was living Beaufort Gardens, Knightsbridge. Only a few steps away from the big
building occupied by the BCCI at 171-175 Brompton Road. It was purpose-built for the bank. I
was without a job. Enjoying myself the way one used to be able to do in one of the smartest
areas of London.
My friends and I could not help noticing the smart Mercedes saloons gliding into the
underground parking lot of the BCCI every morning. The guys driving seemed to be all
Pakistanis. I passed on foot past their imposing building several times every day for almost
a year. But I never saw a customer entering into their banking hall. I was bewildered. My
finances were non-existent and I envied these bankers. I just could not work out what sort of
scam was going on. It was all so obvious to anyone remotely streetwise.
The Mena story was an open secret in Arkansas. Paul Greenberg (who bestowed the monicker
"Slick Willie" upon The Boy Wonder) wrote extensively upon this subject. There have been
rumors–never confirmed– that Clinton may have been recruited by Spook Inc. as
early as his undergrad days at G-Town (it's still not clear how Clinton, a relatively unknown
American college graduate, could gain entry into the USSR in the summer of '69 for a
"vacation" at a time when our relations with that country were as low as they ever were).
Netanyahu's son says Barak has a drinking problem.
Epstein used to claim he worked for the CIA
What con man does not claim to be a secret agent?
Gone from corporate media are any hints of the larger scandal, revolving around the
admission that Epstein had "belonged to intelligence."
Hearsay, and the person supposed to have said it refused to discuss it, probably because
it was a lie intended to explain why he gave Epstein a soft plea deal, and he fears being
required to testify about it on oath.
Epstein also claimed to be a blackmailer, He promoted himself as freelance secret agent,
acting for governments or malefactors whichever paid most, when he was trying to get a
journalist to write a book about him in the eighties. Last year Epstein told a NYT journalist
that he had compromising material on top tech magnates (this was probably Elon Musk)
The Day Jeffrey Epstein Told Me He Had Dirt on Powerful People https://www.nytimes.com ›
2019/08/12 › business › jeffrey-epstein-interview
12 Aug 2019 – I went to Mr. Epstein's Manhattan mansion to talk about Tesla. 16,
2018, I visited Jeffrey Epstein at his cavernous Manhattan mansion. . .
There was another interview around the same time in which Epstein "rambled" about the big
tech people he knew to business reporters at his mansion. Every reporter who was around him
decided he was full of it.
Going on like this, Epstein would have been disposed of by his own organisation .. if it
actually existed. The Mafia kill people for far less
Far from being the work of a single intelligence agency or a single country, the power
structure revealed by this network connected to Epstein is nothing less than a criminal
enterprise that transcends nationality and is willing to use and abuse children in the
pursuit of ever more power, wealth and control. Existing for decades and willing to use any
means necessary to cover its tracks
@BannedHipster The "deciders" of the US foreign and internal politics:
Wexner was one of five key managers of organized crime cash flows in the United States.
many members of the so-called Mega Group, which Wexner co-founded, had direct ties to the
Lansky crime syndicate. Meyer Lansky was a pioneer of sexual blackmail operations and was
deeply connected to both U.S. intelligence and Israel's Mossad.
Criminal, ignorant, deviant. The face of the US highest echelons of power.
The tawdry sleaziness of both Clintons has been apparent for many years to anyone who would
spend ten minutes to check. Yet the media have glossed over all that and promoted Hilary for
president. She has millions of fans and has been relentlessly promoted as the second coming,
making one wonder as to how stupid are Americans anyway? There's a connection between
mafia-like criminality, intelligence services and the supposed legitimate aboveground
government. There's plenty of money to be had for all playing the game with the bulk of the
American people being the cash cow that can be milked.
They'll never give up living like
kings and queens; anybody threatening that gets suicided or otherwise dies young. They'll
take us all to the brink of Armageddon with other countries rather than lose their positions.
Some commenters have theorized Epstein is alive and living incognito elsewhere. This is
doubtful.
It's like the mafia: when someone becomes a liability he's got to go. They're not
going to take any chances. Epstein became the weak link and so had to be shut up permanently.
I don't buy a word of this. Too much emphasis on sex trafficking, the meaningless description
underage and the so-called victims. For some reason everyone believed the story that Epstein
was some kind of pervert. Only children trust the Government when it says sex crime, WMD,
ISIS or UFO.
Christians burned people at the stake. I suppose lots of children in the USA
would support the Government if they decided to start burning people at the stake for sex.
Think of the children!
While the state of Arkansas became a hub for CIA activity during the Reagan years and the
Iran-Contra scandal, another state appeared to take its place in the 1990s -- Ohio. Just as
Arkansas oligarch Jackson Stephens helped attract the CIA to his home state during Iran-Contra,
it was also an Ohio oligarch and his close associate that helped attract the CIA to the Buckeye
State. Those men were Leslie Wexner and Jeffrey Epstein, respectively.
In
Part III of this series, MintPress detailed Wexner's alleged ties to organized crime
and his links to the still unsolved homicide of Columbus, Ohio lawyer Arthur Shapiro. Shapiro,
who was representing Wexner's company "The Limited" at the time of his death, was set to
testify before a grand jury about tax evasion and his involvement with "questionable tax
shelters." Columbus police described the Shapiro murder as "a Mafia 'hit'" and a suppressed
police report implicated Wexner and his business associates as being involved in or benefiting
from Shapiro's death, and as having links to prominent New York-based crime syndicates.
However, Wexner and The Limited also appear to have had a relationship with the CIA. In
1995, Southern Air Transport (SAT) -- a well-known front company for the CIA --
relocated from Miami, Florida to Columbus, Ohio. First founded in the late 1940s, SAT from
1960 until 1973 was
directly owned by the CIA, which sought to use the company as a cover for covert
operations. After 1973, the company was placed in private hands, although all of its subsequent
owners would have CIA ties, including James Bastian, a former lawyer for the CIA, who owned SAT
at the time of its relocation to Ohio.
SAT was intimately involved in the Iran-Contra affair, having been used to funnel
weapons and drugs to and from the Nicaraguan Contras under the guise of delivering
"humanitarian aid," while also sending American weapons to Israel that were then sold to Iran
in violation of the U.S. arms embargo. In 1986 alone, SAT
transported from Texas to Israel 90 tons of TOW anti-tank missiles, which were then sold to
Iran by Israel and Mossad-linked intermediaries like Saudi arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi.
Even though the airline's CIA links were well known, Leslie Wexner's company, The Limited,
sought to coax SAT to relocate its headquarters from Miami, Florida to Columbus, Ohio, a move
that was realized in 1995. When Edmund James, president of James and Donohew Development
Services,
told the Columbus Dispatch in March 1995 that SAT was relocating to Columbus'
Rickenbacker airfield, he stated that "Southern Air's new presence at Rickenbacker begins in
April with two regularly scheduled 747 cargo flights a week from Hong Kong," citing SAT
President William Langton. "By fall, that could increase to four a week. Negotiations are
underway for flights out of Rickenbacker to the Far East Much of the Hong Kong-to-Rickenbacker
cargo will be for The Limited," Wexner's clothing company. "This is a big story for central
Ohio. It's huge, actually," James said at the time.
The day following the press conference, Brian Clancy, working as a cargo analyst with
MergeGlobal Inc.,
told the Journal of Commerce that the reason for SAT's relocation to Ohio was
largely the result of the lucrative Hong Kong-to-Columbus route that SAT would run for Wexner's
company. Clancy specifically stated that the fact that "[The] Limited Inc., the nation's
largest retailer, is based in Columbus undoubtedly contributed in large part to Southern Air's
decision."
According to documents obtained by journalist Bob Fitrakis from the
Rickenbacker Port Authority, Ohio's government also tried to sweeten the deal to bring SAT to
Columbus in order to please powerful Ohio businessmen like Wexner. Orchestrated by Governor
George Voinovich's then-Chief of Staff Paul Mifsud, the Rickenbacker Port Authority and the
Ohio Department of Development created a package of several financial incentives, funded by
Ohio taxpayers, to lure the airline to relocate to Ohio. The Journal of Commercedescribed the
"generous package of incentives from the state of Ohio" as "including a 75 percent credit
against its corporate tax liability for the next 10 years, a $5 million low-interest loan, and
a $400,000 job-training grant."In 1996, then-SAT spokesman David Sweet had told Fitrakis that the CIA-linked airline had
only moved to Columbus because "the deal [put together by the development department] was too
good to turn down."
Though SAT had promised Ohio's government that it would create 300 jobs in three years, it
quickly laid off numerous workers and failed to construct the maintenance facility it had
promised, even though it had already accepted $3.5 million in taxpayer funds for that and other
projects. As the company's financial problems mounted, Ohio's government declined to recoup the
millions in dollars it loaned the company, even after it was alleged that $32 million in the
bank account of Mary Bastian, the wife of SAT's owner and former CIA lawyer James Bastian,
were actually company funds . On October 1, 1998, SAT filed for bankruptcy. It was the very
same day that the CIA's Inspector General had published a comprehensive report on the airline's
illicit involvement in drug trafficking.
Furthermore, Fitrakis noted that in addition to Wexner the other main figures who were key in securing
SAT's relocation to Ohio were Alan D. Fiers Jr., a former chief of the CIA Central American
Task Force, and retired Air Force Major General Richard Secord, head of air logistics for SAT's
covert action in Laos between 1966 and 1968, while the company was still known as Air America.
Secord was also the air logistics coordinator in the illegal Contra resupply network for Oliver
North during Iran-Contra. Fiers was one of the key individuals involved in Iran-Contra who was
later pardoned by George H.W. Bush with the assistance of then-Attorney General Bill Barr. Barr
-- currently serving as attorney general in the Trump administration, and top of the chain of
DOJ command in the investigation of Epstein's death in prison -- has refused to recuse himself
from the investigation into Epstein's network and his recent death.
Despite the involvement of these CIA-linked men, as well as the organized crime-linked
Leslie Wexner, the then-president of SAT
told the Columbus Dispatch that the airline was "no longer connected to the
CIA."
Notably, It was during this same time that Epstein exerted substantial control over Wexner's
finances; and, according to Fitrakis and his extensive reporting on Wexner from this period, it
was Epstein who orchestrated logistics for Wexner's business operations, including The Limited.
As was revealed in the Arthur Shapiro murder file and in ties between SAT and The Limited, much
of The Limited's logistics involved figures and companies connected to organized crime and U.S.
intelligence. It is also important to note that SAT was well-known for being a CIA front
company prior to the efforts of Wexner et al. to bring the airline to Columbus, and that, a few
years prior, Epstein himself had previously worked for intelligence-linked figures also
involved in Iran-Contra, such as Adnan Khashoggi.
In addition, during this time period, Epstein had already begun to live in the now infamous
New York penthouse that had first been purchased by Wexner in 1989. Wexner had apparently
installed CCTV and recording equipment in an odd bathroom in the home after his purchase, and
never lived in the home, as was noted in
Part III of this series.
In an exclusive interview, Bob Fitrakis told MintPress that Epstein and Wexner's
involvement with SAT's relocation to Ohio had caused suspicion among some prominent state and
local officials that the two were working with U.S. intelligence. Fitrakis specifically stated
that then-Ohio Inspector General David Strutz and then-Sheriff of Franklin County Earl Smith
had personally told him that they believed that both Epstein and Wexner had ties to the CIA.
These claims further corroborate what was first reported by Nigel Rosser in the Evening
Standard that Epstein had claimed to have worked for the CIA in the past.
Fitrakis also told MintPress that Strutz had referred to SAT's route between Hong
Kong and Columbus on behalf of Wexner's company The Limited as "the Meyer Lansky run," as he
believed that Wexner's association with SAT was related to his ties to elements of organized
crime that were connected to the Lansky-created National Crime Syndicate. In addition,
Catherine Austin Fitts -- the former investment banker and government official, who has
extensively investigated the intersection of organized crime, black markets, Wall Street and
the government in the U.S. economy -- was told by an ex-CIA employee that Wexner was one of
five key managers of organized crime cash flows in the United States.
As this series has noted in previous reports, Meyer Lansky was a pioneer of sexual
blackmail operations and was deeply connected to both U.S. intelligence and Israel's Mossad.
Furthermore, many members of the so-called Mega Group, which Wexner co-founded, had direct ties
to the Lansky crime syndicate.
Another shadowy figure with connections to the Mega Group, Mossad, U.S. intelligence and
organized crime is the "fugitive financier" Marc Rich, whose pardon during the last days of the
Clinton White House is both well-known and still mired in controversy years after the fact.
Marc Rich was a commodities trader and hedge fund manager best known for founding the
commodity trading and mining giant Glencore and for doing business with numerous dictatorships,
often in violation of sanctions. He worked particularly closely with Israel and, according to
Haaretz :
In the years after the 1973 Yom Kippur War and the ensuing global Arab oil embargo, a
period when nobody wanted to sell oil to Israel, for almost 20 years Rich was the main source
of the country's oil and energy needs."
It was that trading on Israel's behalf that would ultimately lead to Rich being charged in
1983 for violating the U.S. oil embargo on Iran by selling Iranian oil to Israel. Rich was also
charged with tax evasion, wire fraud, racketeering and several other crimes.
Haaretz
also noted that Rich's businesses were "a source of funding for secret financial
arrangements" and that "his worldwide offices, according to several reliable sources,
frequently served Mossad agents, with his consent." Rich had more direct ties to the Mossad as
well. For instance, his foundation -- the Rich Foundation -- was run by the former Mossad agent
Avner Azulay. Rich was also friendly with prominent Israel politicians, including former Prime
Ministers Menachem Begin and Ehud Barak, and was
a frequent provider of "services" for Israeli intelligence, services he freely
volunteered.
Marc Rich, right, is pictured with Israel's Shimon Peres in a photo from Mark
Daneil Ammann's "The King of Oil."
According to Rich's biographer, Daniel Ammann, Rich also fed information to U.S.
intelligence but declined to give specifics. "He did not want to tell with whom he cooperated
within the U.S. authorities or which branch of the U.S. government he supplied with
intelligence," Ammann said in an interview with the Daily
Beast .
One clue as to the nature of Rich's relationship to U.S. intelligence is his apparent ties
to BCCI. "The BCCI Affair" report mentions Rich as a person to investigate in relation to the
bank and states :
BCCI lending to Rich in the 1980s amounted to tens of millions of dollars. Moreover,
Rich's commodities firms were used by BCCI in connection with BCCI's involv[ement] in U.S.
guarantee programs through the Department of Agriculture. The nature and extent of Rich's
relationship with BCCI requires further investigation."
Rich was also deeply tied to the Mega Group, as he was one of the main donors to the
Birthright Israel charity along with Mega Group co-founder Charles Bronfman and Mega Group
member Michael Steinhardt. Steinhardt was particularly close to Rich, first meeting the
commodities trader in the 1970s and
then managing $3 million for Rich, Rich's then-wife Denise, and Rich's father-in-law from
the early 1980s to the mid-1990s through his hedge fund. In the late 1990s, Steinhardt would
enlist other Mega Group members, such as Edgar Bronfman, in the effort to settle the criminal
charges against Rich, which eventually came to pass with Clinton's controversial pardon in
2001. Steinhardt claimed to have
come up with the idea of a presidential pardon for Rich in late 2000.
Rich's pardon was controversial for several reasons, and many mainstream outlets asserted
that it "reeked of payoff." As
the New York Post noted in 2016, in the run-up to the presidential pardon the
financier's ex-wife Denise had donated $450,000 to the fledgling Clinton Library and "over $1
million to Democratic campaigns in the Clinton era." In addition, Rich had hired high-powered
lawyers with links to powerful individuals in both the Democratic and Republican parties as
well as the Clinton White House, including Jack Quinn, who has previously served as general
counsel to the Clinton administration and as former chief of staff to Vice President Al
Gore.
However, per
Clinton's own words and other supporting evidence, the main reason behind the Rich pardon
was the heavy lobbying from Israeli intelligence, Israeli politicians and members of the Mega
Group like Steinhardt, with the donations from Denise Rich and Quinn's access to the president
likely sweetening the deal.
Among the most ardent
lobbyists for Rich's pardon were then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, former Prime
Minister Shimon Peres, then-Mayor of Jerusalem Ehud Olmert, then-former Foreign Minister Shlomo
Ben-Ami and former Director of the Mossad Shabtai Shavit. According to Haaretz , Barak was so adamant that Clinton pardon Marc Rich that he was heard
shouting at the president on at least one occasion. Former adviser to Barak, Eldad Yaniv,
claimed that Barak had shouted that the pardon was "important Not only from the financial
aspect, but also because he helped the Mossad in more than one instance."
The Israel lobbying effort had considerable help from Mega Group member Michael Steinhardt
as well as Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which was at the time heavily funded
by Mega Group members, including Ronald Lauder and Edgar Bronfman.
There has been speculation for years that Clinton's decision to pardon Rich may have been
the result of "leverage" or blackmail that Israel had acquired on the then-president's
activities. As was noted in
Part III of this report, the Mossad-linked "Mega" spy scandal broke in 1997, whereby
Israeli intelligence had been targeting Clinton's effort to broker a peace agreement between
Israel and Palestine and had sought to go to "Mega," likely a reference to the Mega Group, to
obtain a sensitive document.
In addition, Israel is known to have acquired phone conversations between Clinton and Monica
Lewinsky before their affair was made public. Author Daniel Halper -- relying on on-the-record
interviews with former officials and hundreds of pages of documents compiled in the event that
Lewinsky took legal action against Clinton -- determined
that Benjamin Netanyahu told Clinton that he had obtained recordings of the sexually-tinged
phone conversations during the Wye Plantation talks between Israel and Palestine in 1998.
Netanyahu attempted to use this information to get Clinton to pardon convicted Israeli spy
Jonathan Pollard. Clinton considered pardoning Pollard but decided against it after CIA
Director George Tenet threatened to resign if the pardon was given.
Investigative journalist and author Gordon Thomas had
made similar claims years prior and asserted that the Mossad had obtained some 30 hours of
phone-sex conversations between Lewinsky and Clinton and used them as leverage. In addition,
a
report in Insight magazine in May 2000 claimed that Israeli intelligence had
"penetrated four White House telephone lines and was able to relay real-time conversations on
those lines from a remote site outside the White House directly to Israel for listening and
recording."
Those phone taps apparently went well beyond the White House, as revealed by a December 2001
investigative report by Carl Cameron for FOX News . According to
Cameron's report :
[Israeli telecommunications company Amdocs] helped Bell Atlantic install new telephone
lines in the White House in 1997 [and] a senior-level employee of Amdocs had a separate T1
data phone line installed from his base outside of St. Louis that was connected directly to
Israel
[I]nvestigators are looking into whether the owner of the T1 line had a 'real time'
capacity to intercept phone calls from both the White House and other government offices
around Washington, and sustained the line for some time, sources said. Sources familiar with
the investigation say FBI agents on the case sought an arrest warrant for the St. Louis
employee but [Clinton] Justice Department officials quashed it."
[Both Amdocs and Verint Inc. (formerly Comverse Infosys)] are based in Israel -- having
arisen to prominence from that country's cornering of the information technology market --
and are heavily funded by the Israeli government, with connections to the Israeli military
and Israeli intelligence
The companies' operations, sources suggest, have been infiltrated by freelance spies
exploiting encrypted trapdoors in Verint/Amdocs technology and gathering data on Americans
for transfer to Israeli intelligence and other willing customers (particularly organized
crime)."
Given the extent of phone tapping of the U.S. government by Israeli intelligence-linked
companies and Netanyahu's previous use of intercepted phone calls to pressure Clinton to pardon
Jonathan Pollard, it is entirely reasonable to speculate that some other trove of intercepted
communications could have been used to push Clinton to pardon Rich in the final hours of his
presidency.
Also notable is the fact that several figures who heavily lobbied Clinton over the Rich
pardon had ties to Epstein, who also had ties to Israeli intelligence and Israeli
intelligence-linked tech companies, as discussed in
Part III of this series. For example, Ehud Barak, a close friend and business associate of
Epstein, and Shimon Peres, who introduced Barak to Epstein, were the major players in convincing Clinton to
pardon Marc Rich.
Furthermore, as will be shown in a subsequent section of this report, Jeffrey Epstein had
developed ties with the Clinton administration beginning in 1993 and those ties expanded,
particularly in 1996, when Epstein's intelligence-linked sexual blackmail operation was
underway. Clinton would later fly on Epstein's infamous private jet, nicknamed the "Lolita
Express," and Epstein would later donate to the Clinton Foundation and claim to have played
a key role in the creation of the Clinton Global Initiative.
In addition to the role of figures close to Epstein in securing Rich's pardon, Epstein
himself appeared to share some level of connection with Rich's former business partners. For
instance, Felix Posen -- who ran Rich's London operations for years and
whom Forbes described as "the architect of Rich's immensely profitable but suddenly
very controversial business with the Soviet Union" -- appears in
Epstein's book of contacts . In addition, Epstein's offshore structured investment vehicle
(SIV), Liquid Funding, has the same attorney and director as several Glencore entities :
Alex Erskine of the law firm
Appleby.
The significance of that connection, however, is unclear, given that Erskine was connected to a total of
274 offshore entities at the time of the "Paradise Papers" leak in 2014. Catherine Austin Fitts
told MintPress that it could suggest that Epstein's Liquid Funding -- 40 percent of
which
had been owned by Bear Stearns , and which may have received
a "secret" bail-out from the Federal Reserve -- is part of the same shadow economy
"syndicate" as Glencore.
This possibility merits further investigation, given that Glencore is partially
owned by British financier Nathaniel Rothschild, whose father, Jacob Rothschild, is on the
board of advisers of Genie Energy, which includes Michael Steinhardt as well as several alleged
associates of Epstein, such as Bill Richardson and Larry Summers. In addition, Nathaniel
Rothschild's cousin by marriage, Lynn Forester de Rothschild, is a long-time associate of
Jeffrey Epstein with considerable ties to the New York City "Roy Cohn machine." Marc Rich had
long-standing ties to the Rothschild family, going back to
the early 1970s when he began commodity trading at Philipp Brothers.
After Epstein's arrests first in 2007 and then again last month, numerous media reports
emerged detailing the links between Epstein and Clinton, with most asserting that they had met
not long after Clinton left office in 2001 and, as recently mentioned, issued the controversial
pardon of Marc Rich.
Those reports claimed that the Epstein-Clinton relationship had been facilitated by
Epstein's long-time girlfriend and alleged madam Ghislaine Maxwell. However, documents obtained
from the Clinton presidential library have revealed that the ties between Epstein and Clinton
date back years earlier and were facilitated by powerful individuals who have largely evaded
scrutiny in connection with the Epstein case.
One major player who has been largely overlooked in bringing Epstein and the Clintons
together is Lynn Forester de Rothschild. Notably, Forester de Rothschild has long been
connected to neoconservative Reagan era officials -- the Lewis Rosenstiel/Roy Cohn network
described in Parts 1 and 2 of this series, as well as the Mega Group, which was detailed in
Part 3 of this series.
Lynn Forester de Rothschild became involved in the world of Democratic Party politics in the
late 1970s when she
worked on the 1976 campaign of hawkish Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY) alongside
now-notorious neoconservatives like
Elliott Abrams , who would go on to play an important role in the Iran-Contra affair during
the Reagan era and later serve in the State Department under Trump. She was also introduced to
her second husband, Evelyn de Rothschild, by Henry Kissinger at a Bilderberg conference.
Several of the individuals connected to the Mega Group and the Mossad-linked media mogul Robert
Maxwell -- including Mark Palmer, Max Fisher and John Lehman -- were one-time aides or advisers
to Henry Kissinger.
Before marrying into the Rothschild family in 2000, Lynn
had previously been married to Andrew Stein, a major figure in New York Democratic
politics, with whom she had two sons. Andrew's brother, James Finkelstein, married Cathy Frank,
the granddaughter of Lewis Rosenstiel, the mob-linked businessman who ran a sexual blackmail
operation exploiting underage boys, as was discussed in Part 1 of this series. Rosenstiel's
protege Roy Cohn
was the lawyer for Cathy Frank and James Finkelstein and it was at their behest that Cohn
attempted to trick a nearly comatose Rosenstiel to into naming Cohn, Frank and Finkelstein the
executors and trustees of his estate, valued at $75 million (more than $334 million in today's
dollars).
According to the
New Yorker , Lynn Forester de Rothschild requested "financial help" from none other
than Jeffrey Epstein in 1993 during her divorce from Andrew Stein.
As far as Forester de Rothschild's ties to the Mega Group go, she is currently on the
board of directors of Estee Lauder companies, which was founded and is still owned by the
family of Ronald Lauder -- a member of the Mega Group, a former Reagan official, a family
friend of Roy Cohn, and the alleged source of Jeffrey Epstein's now-infamous Austrian passport.
In addition, Forester de Rothschild also partnered with Matthew
Bronfman -- son of Mega Group member Edgar Bronfman and grandson of Samuel Bronfman, who had
close ties to Meyer Lansky -- in creating the investment advisory firm Bronfman E.L. Rothschild
LP.
It is unclear when Lynn Forester de Rothschild first met Jeffrey Epstein, but she was one of
his leading advocates and had the ear of then-President Bill Clinton in the early 1990s,
speaking to Clinton specifically about Epstein during her "fifteen seconds of access" with the
president and also introducing Epstein to lawyer Alan Dershowitz in 1996.
Living History by
Hilary Clinton Book Party Hosted Lynn Forester and Evelyn De Rothschild pose with Bill and
Hilary Clinton at the Kensington Palace in London. Photo | Alan Davidson
Forester de Rothschild is a long-time associate of the Clintons and has been a major donor
to both Bill and Hillary Clinton since 1992. Their ties were so close that Forester de
Rothschild spent the first night of her honeymoon at the Lincoln Bedroom in the White House
while Clinton was president. Furthermore, a leaked email between Forester de Rothschild and
Hillary Clinton saw Clinton
request "penance" from Forester de Rothschild for asking Tony Blair to accompany Clinton on
official business while she was secretary of state, preventing Blair from making a planned
social visit to Forester de Rothschild's home in Aspen, Colorado. Humbly requesting forgiveness
is not something Hillary Clinton is known for, given that her former bodyguard once said she
could "make Richard Nixon look like Mahatma Gandhi."
In 1995, Forester de Rothschild, then a member of Clinton's National Information
Infrastructure Advisory Council, wrote the following to then-President Clinton:
Dear Mr. President: It was a pleasure to see you recently at Senator Kennedy's house.
There was too much to discuss and too little time. Using my fifteen seconds of access to
discuss Jeffrey Epstein and currency stabilization, I neglected to talk to you about a topic
near and dear to my heart. Namely, affirmative action and the future."
Forester de Rothschild then states that she had been asked to prepare a memo on behalf of
George Stephanopoulos, former Clinton communications director and currently a broadcast
journalist with ABC News . Stephanopoulos attended a
dinner party hosted by Epstein at his now infamous Manhattan townhouse in 2010 after
Epstein's release from prison for soliciting sex from a minor.
While it is unknown what Forester de Rothschild discussed with Clinton regarding Epstein and
currency stabilization, a potential lead may lie in the links of both Forester de Rothschild
and Epstein to Deutsche Bank. Journalist Vicky Ward reported in 2003 that
Epstein boasted of "skill at playing the currency markets 'with very large sums of money'" and
he appears to have done much of this through his long-standing relationship with Deutsche
Bank.
[Epstein] appears to have been doing business and trading currencies through Deutsche Bank
until just a few months ago, according to two people familiar with his business activities.
But as the possibility of federal charges loomed, the bank ended its client relationship with
Mr. Epstein. It is not clear what the value of those accounts was at the time they were
closed."
In the case of Forester de Rothschild, she served as an advisor
to the Deutsche Bank Microfinance Consortium for several years and is currently a board member
of the Alfred Herrhausen Society of International Dialogue of Deutsche Bank.
The same year that Forester de Rothschild made the above-noted comments to Bill Clinton
about Jeffrey Epstein, Epstein attended
another Clinton fundraiser , hosted by Ron Perelman at his personal home, that was very
exclusive, as the guest list included only 14 people.
Even before Forester de Rothschild's 1995 meeting with Clinton, Epstein was already an
established Clinton donor. Records obtained
by the Daily Beast revealed that Epstein had donated $10,000 to the White House
Historical Association and attended a Clinton donor reception alongside Ghislaine Maxwell as
early as 1993.
The Daily Beast suggests that Bill Clinton's long-time friend from his college days,
A. Paul Prosperi, was the facilitator of that early relationship, as Prosperi had a
decades-long relationship with Epstein and even visited Epstein at least 20 times while he was
in jail in 2008. Prosperi was intimately involved with the 1993 fundraiser for the White House
Historical Association noted above.
The relationship between Epstein and Clinton would continue well after Clinton left office
in 2001, a fact well-documented by Bill Clinton's now-infamous flights on Epstein's (recently
sold) private jet -- often referred to as the "Lolita Express." Clinton flew on the Lolita
Express no less than
26 times in the early 2000s according to flight logs. On some of those flights, Clinton was
accompanied by his Secret Service detail but he was unaccompanied on other flights.
Arguably the most infamous flight taken by Clinton on Epstein's jet was
a lengthy trip to Africa, where actor Kevin Spacey, who has also been accused of
raping minors ; Ghislaine Maxwell; and Ron Burkle, a billionaire friend of Clinton's who
has
been accused of soliciting the services of "super-high-end call girls," were also present.
Clinton specifically requested that Epstein make his jet available for the trip well in
advance, with Doug Band as the intermediary. President Donald Trump, also a friend of Epstein,
is said to have flown on the plane but appears
only once on flight logs.
In addition to flights, an Epstein-run foundation
gave $25,000 to the Clinton Foundation according to the 2006 filing tax return of Epstein's
former charity, the C.O.U.Q. Foundation. Notably, Epstein's lawyers, Alan Dershowitz among
them,
claimed in 2007 that Epstein had been "part of the original group that conceived the
Clinton Global Initiative, which is described as a project 'bringing together a community of
global leaders to devise and implement innovative solutions to some of the world's most
pressing challenges.'"
Before the associations between Epstein and the Clinton White House in the early 1990s were
made public, Ghislaine Maxwell was thought to
have been the bridge between Epstein and the Clinton family because of her close
relationship to the family. However, the close relationship between Maxwell and the Clintons
appears to have developed in the 2000s, with Politico
reporting that it began after Bill Clinton left office. Clinton associate Doug Band was
also reportedly friendly to Maxwell, appearing at an exclusive dinner party she hosted at her
residence in New York in 2005. Maxwell later became particularly close to Chelsea Clinton,
vacationing with Chelsea in 2009 and attending her wedding a year later. Maxwell was also
associated with the Clinton Global Initiative at least up until 2013.
Other close Clinton associates and officials in the early 1990s also had notable
relationships with Jeffrey Epstein, including Mark Middleton, who was a special assistant to
Clinton Chief of Staff Mack McClarty beginning in 1993, and met with Epstein on
at least three occasions in the White House during the early Clinton years. In addition,
White House social secretary under Clinton, Ann Stock,
appears in Epstein's "little black book" as does Doug
Band , once referred to by New
York Magazine as "Bill Clinton's bag carrier, body man, fixer, and all-purpose
gatekeeper." Band also appears several times in the flight logs of Epstein's private jet.
Epstein was also
associated with both Bill Richardson, former ambassador to the UN and former secretary of
energy under Clinton, and Larry Summers, secretary of the treasury under Clinton. Both
Richardson and Summers sit on the advisory board of controversial energy company Genie Energy,
alongside CIA director under Clinton, James Woolsey; Roy Cohn associate and media mogul, Rupert
Murdoch; Mega Group member Michael Steinhardt; and Lord Jacob Rothschild. Genie Energy is
controversial primarily for its exclusive rights to drill in the Israeli-occupied Golan
Heights. Bill Richardson also has ties to Lynn Forester de Rothschild as she was on the
Secretary of Energy's Advisory Board while
Richardson was secretary of energy.
Bill Richardson appears to be among the Clinton era officials closest to Jeffrey Epstein,
having
personally visited Epstein's New Mexico ranch and been the recipient of Epstein donations
of $50,000 to his 2002 and 2006 gubernatorial campaigns. Richardson gave Epstein's donation in
2006 to charity after allegations against Epstein were made public. Richardson was also accused
in recently released court documents of engaging in sex with Epstein's underage victims, an
allegation that he has denied.
In 1990, Danny Casolaro began his fateful one-year investigation of "the Octopus," an
investigation that played no small role in his untimely death. Shortly after he was found
lifeless in a hotel bathtub, Casolaro's friend Lynn Knowles was threatened and told the following : "What
Danny Casolaro was investigating is a business Anyone who asks too many questions will end up
dead."
Nearly thirty years later, that same "Octopus" and its "business" remains with us and has
become ever more wrapped around the levers of power -- particularly in the worlds of
government, finance and intelligence.
This MintPress investigative series has endeavored to show the nature of this network
and how the world of "the Octopus" is the same world in which Jeffrey Epstein and his
predecessors -- Craig Spence, Edwin Wilson and Roy Cohn among them -- operated and profited. It
is a world where all that matters is the constant drive to accumulate ever more wealth and ever
more power and to keep the racket going at all costs.
While this network has long been able to ensure its success through the use of sexual
blackmail, often acquired by the unconscionable exploitation of children, it has also been a
driving force behind many other ills that plague our world and it goes far beyond human and
child trafficking. Indeed, many of the figures in this same sordid web have played a major role
in the illicit drug and weapons trades, the expansion of for-profit prisons, and the endless
wars that have claimed an untold number of lives across the world, all the while enriching many
of these same individuals.
Earlier this week, the Observer reported on a spat that had broken out between a
division of the giant Samsung empire and the American hedge fund Elliott Management. The
most newsworthy feature of the dispute involved a series of articles on Korean business
sites that pointedly criticized Elliott's CEO Paul Singer and directly attacked him for
being Jewish, noting that "Jewish money has long been known to be ruthless and merciless"
and claiming "It is a well-known fact that the US government is swayed by Jewish
capital."
"Do the Jews Really Control America?" asked one Chinese newsweekly headline in 2009. The
factoids doled out in such articles and in books about Jews in China -- for example: "The
world's wealth is in Americans' pockets; Americans are in Jews' pockets" -- would rightly
be seen to be alarming in other contexts. But in China, where Jews are widely perceived as
clever and accomplished, they are meant as compliments. Scan the shelves in any bookstore
in China and you are likely to find best-selling self-help books based on Jewish knowledge.
Most focus on how to make cash. Titles range from 101 Money Earning Secrets From Jews'
Notebooks to Learn To Make Money With the Jews.
Here's a key point - on June 12, Assange announces that Wikileaks will soon be releasing
info pertinent to Hillary. HE DOES NOT SAY THAT HE WILL BE RELEASING DNC EMAILS.
And yet, on June 14, Crowdstrike reports a Russian hack of the DNC servers - and a day later, Guccifer
2.0 emerges and proclaims himself to be the hacker, takes credit for the upcoming Wikileaks
DNC releases, publishes the Trump oppo research which Crowdstrike claimed he had taken, and
intentionally adds "Russian footprints" to his metadata.
So how did Crowdstrike and G2.0 know
that DNC EMAILS would be released?
Because, as Larry postulates, the US intelligence
community had intercepted communications between Seth Rich and Wikileaks in which Seth had
offered the DNC emails (consistent with the report of Sy Hersh's source within the FBI).
So
US intelligence tipped off the DNC that their emails were about to be leaked to Wikileaks.
That's when the stratagem of attributing the impending Wikileaks release to a Russian hack
was born - distracting from the incriminating content of the emails, while vilifying the Deep
State's favorite enemies, Assange and Russia, all in one neat scam.
Maybe they were worried someone had bear spray in their purse of backpack, when Fancy Bear
and Cozy Bear showed and put their paw prints on the DNC computers.
AkaPatience, that is exactly how it is done. Once the decision is made to totally clean the
network, it has to be done to EVERY computer and device on the network. Hackers leave dormant
code throughout the network that allows them to reenter the network after they are booted
out.
I don't know if you care to comment on this, but I met a marine 10 years ago who talked
about how he was administrating Windows Server when he was in the corps. I was flabbergasted.
I don't understand why more effort has not been put into running a secure OS - something with
a microkernel architecture and an application stack and GUI fully locked down with Mandatory Access
Control . I presume that the assumption is that any advances we make will be quickly
matched by Iran, Russia, and China, and that leadership is more interested in offence than
defence.
1. G2 released nothing remotely damaging to the DNC, the first document was even the DNC's
oppo file on DJT
2. G2 did some copying and compress/decompress on files. Imbedded timestamps strongly suggest
a US Timezone location
3. G2 released some files claiming to be from the DNC, but which demonstrably came from John
Podesta's account
4. G2 did not claim to be involved with the Podesta account, which was phished and not hacked
as such
5. As an aside, both the Fancy and Cosy Bear packages had been available for third parties to
obtain since 2013-4 or so. So their use is not proof of Russian involvement. One or other has
been used in bank exploits before 2016.
I believe that G2 is arguably US based (the timestamps are reasonably conclusive), and is
either CIA or Crowdstrike. The existence of G2 is a diversionary one to strengthen the case
for blaming the Russians. It may be connected to wanting to divert attention from Seth Rich
and his subsequent murder, but may not be - that is Seth Rich's death may be just an
unfortunate coincidence, we have inadequate information to conclude either way.
There have been numerous smears of Tulsi Gabbard that have been repeated over and over the
last few years after she went to Syria. She started to give the foreign policy blob a lot of
grief for their support of the overthrow of Syria to install a theocratic jihadi government
controlled by the usual suspects.
One smear they like to use is to call Tulsi an Islamophobe. That began years ago when she
criticized Our Savior Obama (pbaj) for claiming ISIS was not a religious extremist
organization, that it was a criminal group and the US needed to give Iraqi men more to do and
then they wouldn't join those criminal gangs like...ISIS.
Anyways, this article goes into a deeper state (yup, deeper than usual) conspiracy by
various actors to smear Tulsi for a variety of reasons subservient to foreign interests, with
a surprise intro to another often unspoken of interest with a lot of hidden power in
Washington.
Gossufer2.0 and CrowdStrike are the weakest links in this sordid story. CrowdStrike was nothing but FBI/CIA contractor.
So the hypothesis that CrowdStrike employees implanted malware to implicate Russians and created fake Gussifer 2.0 personality
is pretty logical.
Notable quotes:
"... Not one piece of corroborating intelligence. It is all based on opinion and strong belief. There was no human source report or electronic intercept pointing to a relationship between the GRU and the two alleged creations of the GRU--Guccifer 2.0 persona and DCLeaks.com. Now consider the spin that Robert Mueller put on this opinion in his report on possible collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians. Mueller bluffs the unsuspecting reader into believing that it is a proven fact that Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks were Russian assets. But he is relying on a mere opinion from a handpicked group of intel analysts working under the direction of then CIA Director John Brennan ..."
"... In October 2015 John Brennan reorganized the CIA . As part of that reorganization he created a new directorate--DIRECTORATE OF DIGITAL INNOVATION. Its mission was to "manipulate digital footprints." In other words, this was the Directorate that did the work of creating Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks. One of their specialties, creating Digital Dust. ..."
"... We also know, thanks to Wikileaks, that the CIA was using software specifically designed to mask CIA activity and make it appear like it was done by a foreign entity. Wikipedia describes the Vault 7 documents : ..."
"... Exhibit A in the case is this document created and later edited in the ubiquitous Microsoft Word format. Metadata left inside the file shows it was last edited by someone using the computer name "Феликс Эдмундович." That means the computer was configured to use the Russian language and that it was connected to a Russian-language keyboard. More intriguing still, "Феликс Эдмундович" is the colloquial name that translates to Felix Dzerzhinsky, the 20th Century Russian statesman who is best known for founding the Soviet secret police. (The metadata also shows that the purported DNC strategy memo was originally created by someone named Warren Flood, which happens to be the name of a LinkedIn user claiming to provide strategy and data analytics services to Democratic candidates.) ..."
"... Why would the CIA do this? The CIA knew that Podesta's emails had been hacked and were circulating on the internet. But they had no evidence about the identity of the culprit. If they had such evidence, they would have cited it in the 2017 ICA. ..."
"... The U.S. intelligence community became aware around May 26, 2016 that someone with access to the DNC network was offering those emails to Julian Assange and Wikileaks. Julian Assange and people who spoke to him indicate that the person was Seth Rich. Whether or not it was Seth, the Trump Task Force at CIA was aware that the emails, which would be embarrassing to the Clinton campaign, would be released at some time in the future. Hence the motive to create Guccifer 2.0 and pin the blame on Russia. ..."
"... The only source for the claim that Russia hacked the DNC is a private cyber security firm, CrowdStrike. ..."
"... Time for the common sense standard again. Crowdstrike detected the Russians on the 6th of May, according to CEO Dimitri Alperovitch, but took no steps to shutdown the network, eliminate the malware and clean the computers until 34 days later, i.e., the 10th of June. That is 34 days of inexcusable inaction. ..."
"... The actions attributed to DCLeaks and Guccifer 2.0 should be priority investigative targets for U.S. Attorney John Durham's team of investigators. This potential use of a known CIA tool, developed under Brennan with the sole purpose to obfuscate the source of intrusions, pointing to another nation, as a false flag operation, is one of the actions and issues that U.S. Attorney John Durham should be looking into as a potential act of "Seditious conspiracy. It needs to be done. To quote the CIA, I strongly assess that the only intelligence agency that evidence indicates was meddling via cyber attacks in the 2016 Presidential election was the CIA, not the GRU. ..."
"... LJ bottom line: "The only intelligence agency that evidence indicates was meddling via cyber attacks in the 2016 Presidential election was the CIA, not the GRU." ..."
"... ICA which seemed to have been framed to allow journalists or the unwary to link the ICA with more rigorous standards used by more authentic assessments? ..."
"... With the Russians not having the advantages that the NSA does (back doors in all US-designed network hardware/software and taps all over the internet), would Russia reveal anything unless it involved an immediate major national security threat. I doubt that would cover Trump. ..."
Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report insists that Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks were created by Russia's military intelligence organization,
the GRU, as part of a Russian plot to meddle in the U.S. 2016 Presidential Election. But this is a lie. Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks
were created by Brennan's CIA and this action by the CIA should be a target of U.S. Attorney John Durham's investigation. Let me
explain why.
Let us start with the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment aka ICA. Only three agencies of the 17 in the U.S. intelligence
community contributed to and coordinated on the ICA--the FBI, the CIA and NSA. In the preamble to the ICA, you can read the following
explanation about methodology:
When Intelligence Community analysts use words such as "we assess" or "we judge," they are conveying an analytic assessment or
judgment
To be clear, the phrase,"We assess", is intel community jargon for "opinion". If there was actual evidence or source material
for a judgment the writer of the assessment would state, "According to a reliable source" or "knowledgeable source" or "documentary
evidence."
Pay close attention to what the analysts writing the ICA stated about the GRU and Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks:
We assess with high confidence that the GRU used the Guccifer 2.0 persona, DCLeaks.com, and WikiLeaks to release US victim data
obtained in cyber operations publicly and in exclusives to media outlets.
Guccifer 2.0, who claimed to be an independent Romanian hacker, made multiple contradictory statements and false claims
about his likely Russian identity throughout the election. Press reporting suggests more than one person claiming to be Guccifer
2.0 interacted with journalists.
Content that we assess was taken from e-mail accounts targeted by the GRU in March 2016 appeared on DCLeaks.com starting
in June.
We assess with high confidence that the GRU relayed material it acquired from the DNC and senior Democratic officials to WikiLeaks.
Moscow most likely chose WikiLeaks because of its self-proclaimed reputation for authenticity. Disclosures through WikiLeaks did
not contain any evident forgeries.
Not one piece of corroborating intelligence. It is all based on opinion and strong belief. There was no human source report or
electronic intercept pointing to a relationship between the GRU and the two alleged creations of the GRU--Guccifer 2.0 persona and
DCLeaks.com. Now consider the spin that Robert Mueller put on this opinion in his report on possible collusion between the Trump
campaign and the Russians. Mueller bluffs the unsuspecting reader into believing that it is a proven fact that Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks
were Russian assets. But he is relying on a mere opinion from a handpicked group of intel analysts working under the direction of
then CIA Director John Brennan.
Here's Mueller's take (I apologize for the lengthy quote but it is important that you read how the Mueller team presents this):
DCLeaks
"The GRU began planning the releases at least as early as April 19, 2016, when Unit 26165 registered the domain dcleaks.com
through a service that anonymized the registrant.137 Unit 26165 paid for the registration using a pool of bitcoin that it had
mined.138 The dcleaks.com landing page pointed to different tranches of stolen documents, arranged by victim or subject matter.
Other dcleaks.com pages contained indexes of the stolen emails that were being released (bearing the sender, recipient, and date
of the email). To control access and the timing of releases, pages were sometimes password-protected for a period of time and
later made unrestricted to the public.
Starting in June 2016, the GRU posted stolen documents onto the website dcleaks.com, including documents stolen from a number
of individuals associated with the Clinton Campaign. These documents appeared to have originated from personal email accounts
(in particular, Google and Microsoft accounts), rather than the DNC and DCCC computer networks. DCLeaks victims included an advisor
to the Clinton Campaign, a former DNC employee and Clinton Campaign employee, and four other campaign volunteers.139 The GRU released
through dcleaks.com thousands of documents, including personal identifying and financial information, internal correspondence
related to the"Clinton Campaign and prior political jobs, and fundraising files and information.140
GRU officers operated a Facebook page under the DCLeaks moniker, which they primarily used to promote releases of materials.141
The Facebook page was administered through a small number of preexisting GRU-controlled Facebook accounts.142
GRU officers also used the DCLeaks Facebook account, the Twitter account @dcleaks__, and the email account [email protected]
to communicate privately with reporters and other U.S. persons. GRU officers using the DCLeaks persona gave certain reporters
early access to archives of leaked files by sending them links and passwords to pages on the dcleaks.com website that had not
yet become public. For example, on July 14, 2016, GRU officers operating under the DCLeaks persona sent a link and password for
a non-public DCLeaks webpage to a U.S. reporter via the Facebook account.143 Similarly, on September 14, 2016, GRU officers sent
reporters Twitter direct messages from @dcleaks_, with a password to another non-public part of the dcleaks.com website.144
The dcleaks.com website remained operational and public until March 2017."
Guccifer 2.0
On June 14, 2016, the DNC and its cyber-response team announced the breach of the DNC network and suspected theft of DNC documents.
In the statements, the cyber-response team alleged that Russian state-sponsored actors (which they referred to as "Fancy Bear")
were responsible for the breach.145 Apparently in response to that announcement, on June 15, 2016, GRU officers using the persona
Guccifer 2.0 created a WordPress blog. In the hours leading up to the launch of that WordPress blog, GRU officers logged into
a Moscow-based server used and managed by Unit 74455 and searched for a number of specific words and phrases in English, including
"some hundred sheets," "illuminati," and "worldwide known." Approximately two hours after the last of those searches, Guccifer
2.0 published its first post, attributing the DNC server hack to a lone Romanian hacker and using several of the unique English
words and phrases that the GRU officers had searched for that day.146
That same day, June 15, 2016, the GRU also used the Guccifer 2.0 WordPress blog to begin releasing to the public documents
stolen from the DNC and DCCC computer networks.
The Guccifer 2.0 persona ultimately released thousands of documents stolen from the DNC and DCCC in a series of blog posts
between June 15, 2016 and October 18, 2016.147 Released documents included opposition research performed by the DNC (including
a memorandum analyzing potential criticisms of candidate Trump), internal policy documents (such as recommendations on how to
address politically sensitive issues), analyses of specific congressional races, and fundraising documents. Releases were organized
around thematic issues, such as specific states (e.g., Florida and Pennsylvania) that were perceived as competitive in the 2016
U.S. presidential election.
Beginning in late June 2016, the GRU also used the Guccifer 2.0 persona to release documents directly to reporters and other
interested individuals. Specifically, on June 27, 2016, Guccifer 2.0 sent an email to the news outlet The Smoking Gun offering
to provide "exclusive access to some leaked emails linked [to] Hillary Clinton's staff."148 The GRU later sent the reporter a
password and link to a locked portion of the dcleaks.com website that contained an archive of emails stolen by Unit 26165 from
a Clinton Campaign volunteer in March 2016.149 "That the Guccifer 2.0 persona provided reporters access to a restricted portion
of the DCLeaks website tends to indicate that both personas were operated by the same or a closely-related group of people.150
The GRU continued its release efforts through Guccifer 2.0 into August 2016. For example, on August 15, 2016, the Guccifer
2.0 persona sent a candidate for the U.S. Congress documents related to the candidate's opponent.151 On August 22, 2016, the Guccifer
2.0 persona transferred approximately 2.5 gigabytes of Florida-related data stolen from the DCCC to a U.S. blogger covering Florida
politics.152 On August 22, 2016, the Guccifer 2.0 persona sent a U.S. reporter documents stolen from the DCCC pertaining to the
Black Lives Matter movement.153"
Wow. Sounds pretty convincing. The documents referencing communications by DCLeaks or Guccifer 2.0 with Wikileaks are real. What
is not true is that these entities were GRU assets.
In October 2015 John Brennan reorganized the CIA . As part of that reorganization he created a new directorate--DIRECTORATE
OF DIGITAL INNOVATION. Its mission was to "manipulate digital footprints." In other words, this was the Directorate that did the
work of creating Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks. One of their specialties, creating Digital Dust.
We also know, thanks to Wikileaks, that the CIA was using software specifically designed to mask CIA activity and make it
appear like it was done by a foreign entity. Wikipedia describes the
Vault 7 documents :
Vault 7 is a series of documents that WikiLeaks began to publish on 7 March 2017, that detail activities and capabilities of the
United States' Central Intelligence Agency to perform electronic surveillance and cyber warfare. The files, dated from 2013–2016,
include details on the agency's software capabilities, such as the ability to compromise cars, smart TVs,[1] web browsers (including
Google Chrome, Microsoft Edge, Mozilla Firefox, and Opera Software ASA),[2][3][4] and the operating systems of most smartphones (including
Apple's iOS and Google's Android), as well as other operating systems such as Microsoft Windows, macOS, and Linux[5][6
One of the tools in Vault 7 carries the innocuous name, MARBLE.
Hackernews explains the purpose and function
of MARBLE:
Dubbed "Marble," the part 3 of CIA files contains 676 source code files of a secret anti-forensic Marble Framework, which is basically
an obfuscator or a packer used to hide the true source of CIA malware.
The CIA's Marble Framework tool includes a variety of different algorithm with foreign language text intentionally inserted into
the malware source code to fool security analysts and falsely attribute attacks to the wrong nation.
Marble is used to hamper[ing] forensic investigators and anti-virus companies from attributing viruses, trojans and hacking attacks
to the CIA," says the whistleblowing site.
"...for example by pretending that the spoken language of the malware creator was not American English, but Chinese, but then
showing attempts to conceal the use of Chinese, drawing forensic investigators even more strongly to the wrong conclusion," WikiLeaks
explains.
So guess what
gullible techies "discovered" in mid-June 2016? The meta data in the Guccifer 2.0 communications had "Russian fingerprints."
We still don't know who he is or whether he works for the Russian government, but one thing is for sure: Guccifer 2.0 -- the nom
de guerre of the person claiming he hacked the Democratic National Committee and published hundreds of pages that appeared to prove
it -- left behind fingerprints implicating a Russian-speaking person with a nostalgia for the country's lost Soviet era.
Exhibit A in the case is this document created and later edited in the ubiquitous Microsoft Word format. Metadata left inside
the file shows it was last edited by someone using the computer name "Феликс Эдмундович." That means the computer was configured
to use the Russian language and that it was connected to a Russian-language keyboard. More intriguing still, "Феликс Эдмундович"
is the colloquial name that translates to Felix Dzerzhinsky, the 20th Century Russian statesman who is best known for founding the
Soviet secret police. (The metadata also shows that the purported DNC strategy memo was originally created by someone named Warren
Flood, which happens to be the name of a LinkedIn user claiming to provide strategy and data analytics services to Democratic candidates.)
Just use your common sense. If the Russians were really trying to carry out a covert cyberattack, do you really think they
are so sloppy and incompetent to insert the name of the creator of the Soviet secret police in the metadata? No. The Russians are
not clowns. This was a clumsy attempt to frame the Russians.
Why would the CIA do this? The CIA knew that Podesta's emails had been hacked and were circulating on the internet. But they
had no evidence about the identity of the culprit. If they had such evidence, they would have cited it in the 2017 ICA.
The U.S. intelligence community became aware around May 26, 2016 that someone with access to the DNC network was offering
those emails to Julian Assange and Wikileaks. Julian Assange and people who spoke to him indicate that the person was Seth Rich.
Whether or not it was Seth, the Trump Task Force at CIA was aware that the emails, which would be embarrassing to the Clinton campaign,
would be released at some time in the future. Hence the motive to create Guccifer 2.0 and pin the blame on Russia.
It is essential to recall the timeline of the alleged Russian intrusion into the DNC network. The only source for the claim
that Russia hacked the DNC is a private cyber security firm, CrowdStrike. Here is the timeline for the DNC "hack."
Here are the facts on the public record. They are at odds with the claims of the Intelligence Community:
It was
29 April 2016 , when the DNC claims it became aware its servers had been penetrated. No claim yet about who was responsible.
And no claim that there had been a prior warning by the FBI of a penetration of the DNC by Russian military intelligence.
According to CrowdStrike founder , Dimitri Alperovitch, his company first supposedly detected the Russians mucking around
inside the DNC server on 6 May 2016. A CrowdStrike intelligence analyst reportedly told Alperovitch that:
Falcon had identified not one but two Russian intruders: Cozy Bear, a group CrowdStrike's experts believed was affiliated
with the FSB, Russia's answer to the CIA; and Fancy Bear, which they had linked to the GRU, Russian military intelligence.
The Wikileaks data shows that the last message copied from the DNC network is dated Wed, 25 May 2016 08:48:35.
10 June 2016 --CrowdStrike waited until 10 June 2016 to take concrete steps to clean up the DNC network. Alperovitch told
Esquire's Vicky Ward that: 'Ultimately, the teams decided it was necessary to replace the software on every computer at the DNC.
Until the network was clean, secrecy was vital. On the afternoon of Friday, June 10, all DNC employees were instructed to leave
their laptops in the office."
On June 14, 2016 , Ellen Nakamura, a Washington Post reporter who had been briefed by computer security company hired by the
DNC -- Crowdstrike--, wrote:
Russian government hackers penetrated the computer network of the Democratic National Committee and gained access to the
entire database of opposition research on GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump, according to committee officials and security
experts who responded to the breach.
The intruders so thoroughly compromised the DNC's system that they also were able to read all email and chat traffic, said
DNC officials and the security experts.
The intrusion into the DNC was one of several targeting American political organizations. The networks of presidential
candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were also targeted by Russian spies, as were the computers of some Republican political
action committees, U.S. officials said. But details on those cases were not available.
15 June, 2016 , an internet "personality" self-described as Guccifer 2.0 surfaces and claims to be responsible for the hacks
but denies being Russian. The people/entity behind Guccifer 2.0:
Used a Russian VPN service provider to conceal their identity.
Created an email account with AOL.fr (a service that exposes the sender's IP address) and contacted the press (exposing his
VPN IP address in the process).
Contacted various media outlets through this set up and claimed credit for hacking the DNC, sharing copies of files purportedly
from the hack (one of which had Russian error messages embedded in them) with reporters from Gawker, The Smoking Gun and other
outlets.
Carried out searches for terms that were mostly in English, several of which would appear in Guccifer 2.0's first blog post.
They chose to do this via a server based in Moscow. (this is from the indictment,
"On or about June 15, 2016, the Conspirators logged into a Moscow-based server used and managed by Unit 74455")
Created a blog and made an initial blog post claiming to have hacked the DNC, providing links to various documents as proof.
Carelessly dropped a "Russian Smiley" into his first blog post.
Managed to add the name "Феликс Эдмундович" (which translates to Felix Dzerzhinsky, also known as "Iron Felix") to the metadata
of several documents. (Several sources went beyond what the evidence shows and made claims about Guccifer 2.0 using a Russian
keyboard, however, these claims are just assumptions made in response to the presence of cyrillic characters.)
The only thing that the Guccifer 2.0 character did not do to declare its Russian heritage was to take out full page ads in the
New York Times and Washington Post. But the "forensic" fingerprints that Guccifer 2.0 was leaving behind is not the only inexplicable
event.
Time for the common sense standard again. Crowdstrike detected the Russians on the 6th of May, according to CEO Dimitri Alperovitch,
but took no steps to shutdown the network, eliminate the malware and clean the computers until 34 days later, i.e., the 10th of June.
That is 34 days of inexcusable inaction.
It is only AFTER Julian Assange announces on 12 June 2016 that WikiLeaks has emails relating to Hillary Clinton that DCLeaks or
Guccifer 2.0 try to contact Assange.
The actions attributed to DCLeaks and Guccifer 2.0 should be priority investigative targets for U.S. Attorney John Durham's
team of investigators. This potential use of a known CIA tool, developed under Brennan with the sole purpose to obfuscate the source
of intrusions, pointing to another nation, as a false flag operation, is one of the actions and issues that U.S. Attorney John Durham
should be looking into as a potential act of "Seditious conspiracy. It needs to be done. To quote the CIA, I strongly assess that
the only intelligence agency that evidence indicates was meddling via cyber attacks in the 2016 Presidential election was the CIA,
not the GRU.
LJ bottom line: "The only intelligence agency that evidence indicates was meddling via cyber attacks in the 2016 Presidential
election was the CIA, not the GRU."
Larry, thanks -- vital clarifications and reminders. In your earlier presentation of this material did you not also distinguish
between the way actually interagency assessments are titled, and ICA which seemed to have been framed to allow journalists or
the unwary to link the ICA with more rigorous standards used by more authentic assessments?
Thank you Larry. You have discovered one more vital key to the conspiracy. We now need the evidence of Julian Assange. He is kept
incommunicado and He is being tortured by the British in jail and will be murdered by the American judicial system if he lasts
long enough to be extradited.
You can be sure he will be "Epsteined" before he appears in open court because he knows the source of what Wikileaks published.
Once he is gone, mother Clinton is in the clear.
I can understand the GRU or SVR hacking the DNC and other e-mail servers because as intelligence services that is their job, but
can anyone think of any examples of Russia (or the Soviet Union) using such information to take overt action?
With the Russians
not having the advantages that the NSA does (back doors in all US-designed network hardware/software and taps all over the internet),
would Russia reveal anything unless it involved an immediate major national security threat. I doubt that would cover Trump.
Jewish financists are no longer Jewish, much like a socialist who became minister is no
longer a socialist minister. Unregulated finance promotes a set of destructive behaviors which
has nothing to do with nationality or ethnicity.
Of course that Joyce is peddling his own obsessions, but I have to admit that Singer &
comp. are detestable. I know that what they're doing is not illegal, but it should be (in my
opinion), and those who are involved in such affairs are somehow odious. The same goes for Icahn,
Soros etc. Still Ethnic angle is evident, too: how come Singer works exclusively with his
co-ethnics in this multi-ethnic USA? Non-Jewish & most Jewish entrepreneurs don't behave that
way.
It was very gratifying to see Tucker Carlson's
recent attack on the activities of Paul Singer's vulture fund, Elliot Associates, a group I
first
profiled four years ago. In many respects, it is truly remarkable that vulture funds like
Singer's escaped major media attention prior to this, especially when one considers how
extraordinarily harmful and exploitative they are. Many countries are now in very significant
debt to groups like Elliot Associates and, as Tucker's segment very starkly illustrated, their
reach has now extended into the very heart of small-town America. Shining a spotlight on the
spread of this virus is definitely welcome. I strongly believe, however, that the problem
presented by these cabals of exploitative financiers will only be solved if their true nature
is fully discerned. Thus far, the descriptive terminology employed in discussing their
activities has revolved only around the scavenging and parasitic nature of their activities.
Elliot Associates have therefore been described as a quintessential example of a "vulture fund"
practicing "vulture capitalism." But these funds aren't run by carrion birds. They are operated
almost exclusively by Jews. In the following essay, I want us to examine the largest and most
influential "vulture funds," to assess their leadership, ethos, financial practices, and how
they disseminate their dubiously acquired wealth. I want us to set aside colorful metaphors. I
want us to strike through the mask.
It is commonly agreed that the most significant global vulture funds are Elliot Management,
Cerberus, FG Hemisphere, Autonomy Capital, Baupost Group, Canyon Capital Advisors, Monarch
Alternative Capital, GoldenTree Asset Management, Aurelius Capital Management, OakTree Capital,
Fundamental Advisors, and Tilden Park Investment Master Fund LP. The names of these groups are
very interesting, being either blankly nondescript or evoking vague inklings of Anglo-Saxon or
rural/pastoral origins (note the prevalence of oak, trees, parks, canyons, monarchs, or the use
of names like Aurelius and Elliot). This is the same tactic employed by the Jew Jordan Belfort,
the "Wolf of Wall Street," who operated multiple major frauds under the business name Stratton
Oakmont.
These names are masks. They are designed to cultivate trust and obscure the real background
of the various groupings of financiers. None of these groups have Anglo-Saxon or venerable
origins. None are based in rural idylls. All of the vulture funds named above were founded by,
and continue to be operated by, ethnocentric, globalist, urban-dwelling Jews. A quick review of
each of their websites reveals their founders and central figures to be:
Elliot Management
-- Paul Singer, Zion Shohet, Jesse Cohn, Stephen Taub, Elliot Greenberg and Richard Zabel
Cerberus -- Stephen Feinberg, Lee Millstein, Jeffrey Lomasky, Seth Plattus, Joshua Weintraub,
Daniel Wolf, David Teitelbaum FG Hemisphere -- Peter Grossman Autonomy Capital -- Derek Goodman
Baupost Group -- Seth Klarman, Jordan Baruch, Isaac Auerbach Canyon Capital Advisors -- Joshua
Friedman, Mitchell Julis Monarch Alternative Capital -- Andrew Herenstein, Michael Weinstock
GoldenTree Asset Management -- Steven Tananbaum, Steven Shapiro Aurelius Capital Management --
Mark Brodsky, Samuel Rubin, Eleazer Klein, Jason Kaplan OakTree Capital -- Howard Marks, Bruce
Karsh, Jay Wintrob, John Frank, Sheldon Stone Fundamental Advisors -- Laurence Gottlieb,
Jonathan Stern Tilden Park Investment Master Fund LP -- Josh Birnbaum, Sam Alcoff
The fact that all of these vulture funds, widely acknowledged as the most influential and
predatory, are owned and operated by Jews is remarkable in itself, especially in a contemporary
context in which we are constantly bombarded with the suggestion that Jews don't have a special
relationship with money or usury, and that any such idea is an example of ignorant prejudice.
Equally remarkable, however, is the fact that Jewish representation saturates the board level
of these companies also, suggesting that their beginnings and methods of internal promotion and
operation rely heavily on ethnic-communal origins, and religious and social cohesion more
generally. As such, these Jewish funds provide an excellent opportunity to examine their
financial and political activities as expressions of Jewishness, and can thus be placed in the
broader framework of the Jewish group evolutionary strategy and the long historical trajectory
of Jewish-European relations.
How They Feed
In May 2018, Puerto Rico declared a form of municipal bankruptcy after falling into more
than
$74.8 billion in debt, of which more than $34 billion is interest and fees. The debt was
owed to
all of the Jewish capitalists named above, with the exception of Stephen Feinberg's
Cerberus group. In order to commence payments, the government had instituted a policy of fiscal
austerity, closing schools and raising utility bills, but when Hurricane Maria hit the island
in September 2017, Puerto Rico was forced to stop transfers to their Jewish creditors. This
provoked an aggressive attempt by the Jewish funds to seize assets from an island suffering
from an 80% power outage, with the addition of further interest and fees. Protests broke out in
several US cities calling for the debt to be forgiven. After a quick stop in Puerto Rico in
late 2018, Donald Trump pandered to this sentiment when he told Fox News, "They owe a lot of
money to your friends on Wall Street, and we're going to have to wipe that out." But Trump's
statement, like all of Trump's statements, had no substance. The following day, the director of
the White House budget office, Mick Mulvaney, told reporters: "I think what you heard the
president say is that Puerto Rico is going to have to figure out a way to solve its debt
problem." In other words, Puerto Rico is going to have to figure out a way to pay its Jews.
Trump's reversal is hardly surprising, given that the President is considered extremely
friendly to Jewish financial power. When he referred to "your friends on Wall Street" he really
meant his friends on Wall Street. One of his closest allies is Stephen Feinberg, founder
and CEO of Cerberus, a war-profiteering vulture fund that has now accumulated
more than $1.5 billion in Irish debt , leaving the country prone to a "
wave of home repossessions " on a scale not seen since the Jewish mortgage traders behind
Quicken Loans (Daniel Gilbert) and Ameriquest (Roland Arnall)
made thousands of Americans homeless . Feinberg has also been associated with mass
evictions in Spain, causing a collective of Barcelona anarchists to
label him a "Jewish mega parasite" in charge of the "world's vilest vulture fund." In May
2018, Trump made Feinberg
chair of his Intelligence Advisory Board , and one of the reasons for Trump's sluggish
retreat from Afghanistan has been the fact Feinberg's DynCorp has enjoyed years of lucrative government
defense contracts training Afghan police and providing ancillary services to the military.
But Trump's association with Jewish vultures goes far beyond Feinberg. A recent piece
in the New York Post declared "Orthodox Jews are opening up their wallets for Trump in
2020." This is a predictable outcome of the period 2016 to 2020, an era that could be neatly
characterised as How Jews learned to stop worrying and love the Don. Jewish financiers
are opening their wallets for Trump because it is now clear he utterly failed to fulfil
promises on mass immigration to White America, while pledging his commitment to Zionism and to
socially destructive Jewish side projects like the promotion of homosexuality. These actions,
coupled with his commuting
of Hasidic meatpacking boss Sholom Rubashkin 's 27-year-sentence for bank fraud and money
laundering in 2017, have sent a message to Jewish finance that Trump is someone they can do
business with. Since these globalist exploiters are essentially politically amorphous, knowing
no loyalty but that to their own tribe and its interests, there is significant drift of Jewish
mega-money between the Democratic and Republican parties. The New York Post reports, for
example, that when Trump attended a $25,000-per-couple luncheon in November at a Midtown hotel,
where 400 moneyed Jews raised at least $4 million for the America First [!] SuperPAC, the
luncheon organiser Kelly Sadler, told reporters, "We screened all of the people in attendance,
and we were surprised to see how many have given before to Democrats, but never a Republican.
People were standing up on their chairs chanting eight more years." The reality, of course, is
that these people are not Democrats or Republicans, but Jews, willing to push their money in
whatever direction the wind of Jewish interests is blowing.
The collapse of Puerto Rico under Jewish debt and elite courting of Jewish financial
predators is certainly nothing new. Congo , Zambia , Liberia ,
Argentina , Peru ,
Panama , Ecuador ,
Vietnam , Poland , and
Ireland are just some of the countries that have slipped fatefully into the hands of the
Jews listed above, and these same people are now closely watching
Greece and
India . The methodology used to acquire such leverage is as simple as it is ruthless. On
its most basic level, "vulture capitalism" is really just a combination of the
continued intense relationship between Jews and usury and Jewish involvement in medieval
tax farming. On the older practice, Salo Baron writes in Economic History of the Jews
that Jewish speculators would pay a lump sum to the treasury before mercilessly turning on the
peasantry to obtain "considerable surpluses if need be, by ruthless methods." [1] S. Baron
(ed) Economic History of the Jews (New York, 1976), 46-7. The activities of the
Jewish vulture funds are essentially the same speculation in debt, except here the trade in
usury is carried out on a global scale with the feudal peasants of old now replaced with entire
nations. Wealthy Jews pool resources, purchase debts, add astronomical fees and interests, and
when the inevitable default occurs they engage in aggressive legal activity to seize assets,
bringing waves of jobs losses and home repossessions.
This type of predation is so pernicious and morally perverse that both the
Belgian and
UK governments have taken steps to ban these Jewish firms from using their court systems to
sue for distressed debt owed by poor nations. Tucker Carlson, commenting on Paul Singer's
predation and the ruin of the town of Sidney, Nebraska, has said:
It couldn't be uglier or more destructive. So why is it still allowed in the United
States? The short answer: Because people like Paul Singer have tremendous influence over our
political process. Singer himself was the second largest donor to the Republican Party in
2016. He's given millions to a super-PAC that supports Republican senators. You may never
have heard of Paul Singer -- which tells you a lot in itself -- but in Washington, he's
rock-star famous. And that is why he is almost certainly paying a lower effective tax rate
than your average fireman, just in case you were still wondering if our system is rigged. Oh
yeah, it is.
Aside from direct political donations, these Jewish financiers also escape scrutiny by
hiding behind a mask of simplistic anti-socialist rhetoric that is common in the American
Right, especially the older, Christian, and pro-Zionist demographic. Rod Dreher, in a
commentary on Carlson's
piece at the American Conservative , points out that Singer gave a speech in May
2019 attacking the "rising threat of socialism within the Democratic Party." Singer continued,
"They call it socialism, but it is more accurately described as left-wing statism lubricated by
showers of free stuff promised by politicians who believe that money comes from a printing
press rather than the productive efforts of businesspeople and workers." Dreher comments: "The
productive efforts of businesspeople and workers"? The gall of that man, after what he did to
the people of Sidney."
What Singer and the other Jewish vultures engage in is not productive, and isn't even any
recognisable form of work or business. It is greed-motivated parasitism carried out on a
perversely extravagant and highly nepotistic scale. In truth, it is Singer and his co-ethnics
who believe that money can be printed on the backs of productive workers, and who ultimately
believe they have a right to be "showered by free stuff promised by politicians." Singer places
himself in an infantile paradigm meant to entertain the goyim, that of Free Enterprise vs
Socialism, but, as Carlson points out, "this is not the free enterprise that we all learned
about." That's because it's Jewish enterprise -- exploitative, inorganic, and attached to
socio-political goals that have nothing to do with individual freedom and private property.
This might not be the free enterprise Carlson learned about, but it's clearly the free
enterprise Jews learn about -- as illustrated in their extraordinary
over-representation in all forms of financial exploitation and white collar crime. The
Talmud, whether actively studied or culturally absorbed, is their code of ethics and their
curriculum in regards to fraud, fraudulent bankruptcy, embezzlement, usury, and financial
exploitation. Vulture capitalism is Jewish capitalism.
Whom They Feed
Singer's duplicity is a perfect example of the way in which Jewish finance postures as
conservative while conserving nothing. Indeed, Jewish capitalism may be regarded as the root
cause of the rise of Conservative Inc., a form or shadow of right wing politics reduced solely
to fiscal concerns that are ultimately, in themselves, harmful to the interests of the majority
of those who stupidly support them. The spirit of Jewish capitalism, ultimately, can be
discerned not in insincere bleating about socialism and business, intended merely to entertain
semi-educated Zio-patriots, but in the manner in which the Jewish vulture funds disseminate the
proceeds of their parasitism. Real vultures are weak, so will gorge at a carcass and
regurgitate food to feed their young. So then, who sits in the nests of the vulture funds,
awaiting the regurgitated remains of troubled nations?
Boston-based Seth Klarman (net worth $1.5 billion), who like Paul Singer has
declared "free enterprise has been good for me," is a rapacious debt exploiter who was
integral to the financial collapse of Puerto Rico, where he hid much of activities behind a
series of shell companies. Investigative journalists eventually discovered that Klarman's
Baupost group was behind much of the aggressive legal action intended to squeeze the decimated
island for bond payments. It's clear that the Jews involved in these companies are very much
aware that what they are doing is wrong, and they are careful to avoid too much reputational
damage, whether to themselves individually or to their ethnic group. Puerto Rican journalists,
investigating the debt trail to Klarman, recall trying to follow one of the shell companies
(Decagon) to Baupost via a shell company lawyer (and yet another Jew) named Jeffrey Katz:
Returning to the Ropes & Gray thread, we identified several attorneys who had worked
with the Baupost Group, and one, Jeffrey Katz, who -- in addition to having worked directly
with Baupost -- seemed to describe a particularly close and longstanding relationship with a
firm fitting Baupost's profile on his experience page. I called
Katz and he picked up, to my surprise. I identified myself, as well as my affiliation with
the Public Accountability Initiative, and asked if he was the right person to talk to about
Decagon Holdings and Baupost. He paused, started to respond, and then evidently thought
better of it and said that he was actually in a meeting, and that I would need to call back
(apparently, this high-powered lawyer picks up calls from strange numbers when he is in
important meetings). As he was telling me to call back, I asked him again if he was the right
person to talk to about Decagon, and that I wouldn't call back if he wasn't, and he seemed to
get even more flustered. At that point he started talking too much, about how he was a lawyer
and has clients, how I must think I'm onto some kind of big scoop, and how there was a person
standing right in front of him -- literally, standing right in front of him -- while I rudely
insisted on keeping him on the line.
One of the reasons for such secrecy is the intensive Jewish philanthropy engaged in by
Klarman under his Klarman Family
Foundation . While Puerto Rican schools are being closed, and pensions and health
provisions slashed, Klarman is regurgitating the proceeds of massive debt speculation to his "
areas of
focus " which prominently includes " Supporting the global Jewish community
and Israel ." While plundering the treasuries of the crippled nations of the goyim, Klarman
and his co-ethnic associates have committed themselves to "improving the quality of life and
access to opportunities for all Israeli citizens so that they may benefit from the country's
prosperity." Among those in Klarman's nest, their beaks agape for Puerto Rican debt interest,
are the American Jewish Committee, Boston's Combined Jewish Philanthropies, the Holocaust
Memorial Museum, the Honeymoon Israel Foundation, Israel-America Academic Exchange, and the
Israel Project. Klarman, like Singer, has also been an enthusiastic proponent of liberalising
attitudes to homosexuality, donating $1 million to a Republican super PAC aimed at supporting
pro-gay marriage GOP candidates in 2014 (Singer donated $1.75 million). Klarman, who also
contributes to candidates
who support immigration reform, including a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants,
has said "The right to gay marriage is the largest remaining civil rights issue of our time. I
work one-on-one with individual Republicans to try to get them to realize they are being
Neanderthals on this issue."
Steven Tananbaum's GoldenTree Asset Management has also fed well on Puerto Rico, owning $2.5
billion of the island's debt. The Centre for Economic and Policy Research has
commented :
Steven Tananbaum, GoldenTree's chief investment officer, told a business conference in
September (after Hurricane Irma, but before Hurricane Maria) that he continued to view Puerto
Rican bonds as an attractive investment. GoldenTree is spearheading a group of COFINA
bondholders that collectively holds about $3.3 billion in bonds. But with Puerto Rico facing
an unprecedented humanitarian crisis, and lacking enough funds to even begin to pay back its
massive debt load, these vulture funds are relying on their ability to convince politicians
and the courts to make them whole. The COFINA bondholder group has spent
$610,000 to lobby Congress over the last two years, while GoldenTree itself
made $64,000 in political contributions to federal candidates in the 2016 cycle. For
vulture funds like GoldenTree, the destruction of Puerto Rico is yet another opportunity for
exorbitant profits.
Whom does Tananbaum feed with these profits? A brief glance at the spending of the
Lisa and Steven Tananbaum Charitable Trust reveals a relatively short list of beneficiaries
including United Jewish Appeal Foundation, American Friends of Israel Museum, Jewish Community
Center, to be among the most generously funded, with sizeable donations also going to museums
specialising in the display of degenerate and demoralising art.
Following the collapse in Irish asset values in 2008, Jewish vulture funds including OakTree
Capital swooped on mortgagee debt to seize tens of thousands of Irish homes, shopping malls,
and utilities (Steve Feinberg's Cerberus took control of public waste disposal). In 2011,
Ireland emerged as a hotspot for distressed property assets, after its bad banks began selling
loans that had once been held by struggling financial institutions. These loans were quickly
purchased at knockdown prices by Jewish fund managers, who then aggressively sought the
eviction of residents in order to sell them for a fast profit. Michael Byrne, a researcher at
the School of Social Policy at University College Dublin, Ireland's largest university,
comments : "The
aggressive strategies used by vulture funds lead to human tragedies." One homeowner, Anna Flynn
recalls how her mortgage fell into the hands of Mars Capital, an affiliate of Oaktree Capital,
owned and operated by the Los Angeles-based Jews Howard Marks and Bruce Karsh. They were "very,
very difficult to deal with," said Flynn, a mother of four. "All [Mars] wanted was for me to
leave the house; they didn't want a solution [to ensure I could retain my home]."
When Bruce Karsh isn't making Irish people homeless, whom does he feed with his profits? A
brief glance at the spending of the
Karsh Family Foundation reveals millions of dollars of donations to the Jewish Federation,
Jewish Community Center, and the United Jewish Fund.
Paul Singer, his son Gordin, and their Elliot Associates colleagues Zion Shohet, Jesse Cohn,
Stephen Taub, Elliot Greenberg and Richard Zabel, have a foothold in almost every country, and
have a stake in every company you're likely to be familiar with, from book stores to dollar
stores. With the profits of exploitation, they
fund campaigns for homosexuality and mass migration , boost Zionist politics,
invest millions in security for Jews , and promote wars for Israel. Singer is a Republican,
and is on the Board of the Republican Jewish Coalition. He is a former board member of the
Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, has funded neoconservative research groups like
the Middle East Media Research Institute and the Center for Security Policy, and is among the
largest funders of the neoconservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies. He was also
connected to the pro-Iraq War advocacy group Freedom's Watch. Another key Singer project was
the Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI), a Washington D.C.-based advocacy group that was founded in
2009 by several high-profile Jewish neoconservative figures to promote militaristic U.S.
policies in the Middle East on behalf of Israel and which received its seed money from
Singer.
Although Singer was initially anti-Trump, and although Trump once
attacked Singer for his pro-immigration politics ("Paul Singer represents amnesty and he
represents illegal immigration pouring into the country"), Trump is now essentially funded by
three Jews -- Singer, Bernard Marcus, and Sheldon Adelson, together accounting for over $250
million in pro-Trump political money . In return, they want war with Iran. Employees of
Elliott Management were one of the main sources of funding for the 2014 candidacy of the
Senate's most outspoken Iran hawk, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), who urged Trump to conduct a
"retaliatory strike" against Iran for purportedly attacking two commercial tankers. These
exploitative Jewish financiers have been clear that they expect a war with Iran, and they are
lobbying hard and preparing to call in their pound of flesh. As one political commentator put
it, "These donors have made their policy preferences on Iran plainly known. They surely expect
a return on their investment in Trump's GOP."
The same pattern is witnessed again and again, illustrating the stark reality that the
prosperity and influence of Zionist globalism rests to an overwhelming degree on the predations
of the most successful and ruthless Jewish financial parasites. This is not conjecture,
exaggeration, or hyperbole. This is simply a matter of striking through the mask, looking at
the heads of the world's most predatory financial funds, and following the direction of
regurgitated profits.
Make no mistake, these cabals are everywhere and growing. They could be ignored when they
preyed on distant small nations, but their intention was always to come for you too. They are
now on your doorstep. The working people of Sidney, Nebraska probably had no idea what a
vulture fund was until their factories closed and their homes were taken. These funds will move
onto the next town. And the next. And another after that. They won't be stopped through blunt
support of "free enterprise," and they won't be stopped by simply calling them "vulture
capitalists."
Strike through the mask!
Notes
[1] S.
Baron (ed) Economic History of the Jews (New York, 1976), 46-7.
To what extent is Jewish success a product of Jewish intellect and industry versus being a
result of a willingness to use low, dirty, honorless and anti-social tactics which, while
maybe not in violation of the word of the law, certainly violate its spirit?
An application of "chutzpah" to business, if you will -- the gall to break social
conventions to get what you want, while making other people feel uncomfortable; to wheedle
your way in at the joints of social norms and conventions -- not illegal, but selfish and
rude.
Krav Maga applies the same concept to the martial arts: You're taught to go after the
things that every other martial art forbids you to target: the eyes, the testicles, etc. In
other sports this is considered "low" and "cheap." In Krav Maga, as perhaps a metaphor for
Jewish behavior in general, nothing is too low because it's all about winning .
There's a rather good article on the New Yorker discussing the Sacklers and the
Oxycontin epidemic. It focusses on the dichotomy between the family's ruthless promotion of
the drug and their lavish philanthropy. 'Leave the world a better place for your presence'
and similar pieties and Oxycontin.
The article lightly touches on the extent of their giving to Hebrew University of
Jerusalem -- but in general, treads lightly when it comes to their Judaism.
understandably. The New Yorker isn't exactly alt-right country, after all. But can
Joyce or anyone else provide a more exact breakdown on the Sacklers' giving? Are they genuine
philanthropists, or is it mostly for the Cause?
@anon'To what extent is Jewish success a product of Jewish intellect and industry versus being
a result of a willingness to use low, dirty, honorless and anti-social tactics which, while
maybe not in violation of the word of the law, certainly violate its spirit? '
It's important not to get carried away with this. Figures such as Andrew Carnegie, while
impeccably gentile, were hardly paragons of scrupulous ethics and disinterested virtue.
I won't defend high finance because I don't like it either. But this is a retarded and highly
uninformed attack on it.
1. The article bounces back and forth between two completely different fields: private
equity and distressed debt funds. The latter is completely defensible. A lot of bondholders,
probably the majority, cannot hold distressed or defaulted debt. Insurance companies often
can't by law. Bond mutual funds set out in their prospectuses they don't invest in anything
rated lower than A, AA, or whatever. Even those allowed to hold distressed debt don't want
the extra costs involved with doing so, such as carefully following bankruptcy proceedings
and dealing with delayed and irregular payments.
As a result, it is natural that normal investors sell off such debt at a discount to funds
that specialize in it.
2. Joyce defends large borrowers that default on their debt. Maybe the laws protecting
bankrupts and insolvents should be stronger. But you do that, and lenders become more
conservative, investment declines, and worthy businesses can't get investments. I think
myself the laws in the US are too favorable to lenders, but there's definitely a tradeoff,
and the question is where the happy middle ground is. In Florida a creditor can't force the
sale of a primary residence, even if it is worth $20 million. That's going too far in the
other direction.
3. " either blankly nondescript or evoking vague inklings of Anglo-Saxon or rural/pastoral
origins "
More retardation. Cerberus is a greek dog monster guarding the gates of hell. Aurelius is
from the Latin word for gold. "Hemisphere" isn't an Anglosaxon word nor does in invoke rural
origins.
Besides being retardedly wrong, the broader point is likewise retarded: when
English-speaking Jews name their businesses they shouldn't use English words. Naming a
company "Oaktree" should be limited to those of purely English blood! Jews must name their
companies "Cosmopolitan Capital" or RosenMoses Chutzpah Advisors."
4. The final and most general point: it's trivially easy to attack particular excesses of
capitalism. Fixing the excesses without creating bigger problem is the hard part. Two ideas I
favor are usury laws and Tobin taxes.
Jewishness aside, maximizing shareholder is the holy grail of all capitalist enterprises. The
capitalist rush to abandon the American working class when tariff barriers evaporated is just
another case of vulturism. Tax corporations based on the domestic content of their products
and ban usury and vulturism will evaporate.
Someone with the username kikz posted a link to this article in the occidental observer. I
read it and thought it was a great article. I'm glad it's featured here.
The article goes straight for the jugular and pulls no punches. It hits hard. I like
that:
1. It shines a light on the some of the scummiest of the scummiest Wall Street
players.
2. It names names. From the actual vulture funds to the rollcall of Jewish actors running
each. It's astounding how ethnically uniform it is.
3. It proves Trump's ties with the most successful Vulture kingpin, Singer.
4. It shows how money flows from the fund owners to Zionist and Jewish causes.
This thing reads like a court indictment. It puts real world examples to many of the
theories that are represents on this site. Excellent article.
Elliott Management is perhaps most notorious for its 15-year battle with the government
of Argentina, whose bonds were owned by the hedge fund. When Argentine president Cristina
Kirchner attempted to restructure the debt, Elliott -- unlike most of the bonds' owners --
refused to accept a large loss on its investment. It successfully sued in US courts, and in
pursuit of Argentine assets, convinced a court in Ghana to detain an Argentine naval
training vessel, then docked outside Accra with a crew of 22o. After a change of its
government, Argentina eventually settled and Singer's fund received $2.4 billion, almost
four times its initial investment. Kirchner, meanwhile, has been indicted for
corruption.
@Lot
You give partial information which seem misleading and use arguments which are also weak and
not enlightening.
1- Even if its natural that unsafe bonds are sold, this doesn't justify the practices and
methods of those vulture fonds which buy those fonds which are socially damaging. I'm not
certain of the details because it's an old case and people should seek more information. Very
broadly, in the case of Argentina most funds accepted to make an agreement with the country
and reduce their demands. Investors have to accept risks and losses. Paul Singer bought some
financial papers for nothing at that time and forced Argentina to pay the whole price. For
years Argentina refused to pay, but with the help of New York courts and the new Argentinian
president they were forced to pay Singer. This was not conservative capitalism but
imperialism. You can only act like Singer if you have the backing of courts, of a government
which you control and of an army like the US army. A fast internet search for titles of
articles: "Hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer's ruthless strategies include bullying CEOs,
suing governments and seizing their navy's ships". "How one hedge fund made $2 billion from
Argentina's economic colapse".
Andrew Sayer, professor in an English university, says in his book "Why we can't afford
the rich" that finances as they are practiced now may cost more than bring any value to a
society. It's a problem if some sectors of finances make outsized profits and use methods
which are more than questionable.
2- You say that if borrowers become more protected "lenders become more conservative,
investment declines, and worthy businesses can't get investments." I doubt this is true. In
the first place, risk investments by vulture fonds probably don't create any social value.
The original lenders who sold their bonds to such vulture fonds have anyway big or near total
losses in some cases and in spite of that they keep doing business. Why should we support
vulture fonds, what for? What positive function they play in society? In Germany, capitalism
was much more social in old days before a neoliberal wave forced Germany to change Rhine
capitalism. Local banks lended money to local business which they knew and which they had an
interest that they prosper. Larger banks lended money to big firms. Speculation like in
neoliberal capitalism wasn't needed.
3- The point which you didn't grasp is that there is a component of those business which
isn't publicly clear, the fact that they funcion along ethnic lines.
4- It would be easy to fix excesses of capitalism. The problem is that the people who
profit the most from the system also have the power to prevent any change.
@Robjil
This is an example of what I was saying. Less Euro whites in the world is not going to be a
good world for Big Js. Non-Euros believe in freedom of speech.
Jewish Bigwigs can't get control of businesses in East Asia. They have been trying. Paul
Singer tried and failed. In Argentina he got lots of "success". Why? Lots of descendants of
Europeans there went along with "decisions" laid out by New York Jews.
Little Paulie tried to get control of Samsung. No such luck for him in Korea. In Korea
there are many family monopolies, chaebols. A Korean chaebol stopped him. Jewish Daniel Loeb
tried to get a board seat on Sony. He was rebuffed.
I was moved to reflect on the universality of this theme recently when surveying media
coverage on Korean and Argentinian responses to the activities of Paul Singer and his
co-ethnic shareholders at Elliott Associates, an arm of Singer's Elliott Management hedge
fund. The Korean story has its origins in the efforts of Samsung's holding company, Cheil
Industries, to buy Samsung C&T, the engineering and construction arm of the wider
Samsung family of businesses. The move can be seen as part of an effort to reinforce
control of the conglomerate by the founding Lee family and its heir apparent, Lee Jae-yong.
Trouble emerged when Singer's company, which holds a 7.12% stake in Samsung C&T and is
itself attempting to expand its influence and control over Far East tech companies,
objected to the move. The story is fairly typical of Jewish difficulties in penetrating
business cultures in the Far East, where impenetrable family monopolies, known in Korea as
chaebols, are common. This new story reminded me very strongly of last year's efforts by
Jewish financier Daniel Loeb to obtain a board seat at Sony. Loeb was repeatedly rebuffed
by COO Kazuo Hirai, eventually selling his stake in Sony Corp. in frustration.
Here is how the Koreans fought off Paul Singer.
The predominantly Jewish-owned and operated Elliott Associates has a wealth of
self-interest in preventing the Lee family from consolidating its control over the Samsung
conglomerate. As racial outsiders, however, Singer's firm were forced into several tactical
measures in their 52-day attempt to thwart the merger. First came lawsuits. When those
failed, Singer and his associates then postured themselves as defending Korean interests,
starting a Korean-language website and arguing that their position was really just in aid
of helping domestic Korean shareholders. This variation on the familiar theme of Jewish
crypsis was quite unsuccessful. The Lee family went on the offensive immediately and,
unlike many Westerners, were not shy in drawing attention to the Jewish nature of Singer's
interference and the sordid and intensely parasitic nature of his fund's other
ventures.
Cartoons were drawn of Singer being a vulture.
Other cartoons appearing at the same time represented Elliott, literally, as humanoid
vultures, with captions referring to the well-known history of the fund. In the above
cartoon, the vulture offers assistance to a needy and destitute figure, but conceals an axe
with which to later bludgeon the unsuspecting pauper.
ADL got all worked about this. The Koreans did not care. It is reality. Freedom of speech
works on these vultures. The west should try some real freedom of speech.
After the cartoons appeared, Singer and other influential Jews, including Abraham
Foxman, cried anti-Semitism. This was despite the fact the cartoons contain no reference
whatsoever to Judaism – unless of course one defines savage economic predation as a
Jewish trait. Samsung denied the cartoons were anti-Semitic and took them off the website,
but the uproar over the cartoons only seemed to spur on even more discussion about Jewish
influence in South Korea than was previously the case. In a piece published a fortnight
ago, Media Pen columnist Kim Ji-ho claimed "Jewish money has long been known to be ruthless
and merciless." Last week, the former South Korean ambassador to Morocco, Park Jae-seon,
expressed his concern about the influence of Jews in finance when he said, "The scary thing
about Jews is they are grabbing the currency markets and financial investment companies.
Their network is tight-knit beyond one's imagination." The next day, cable news channel YTN
aired similar comments by local journalist Park Seong-ho, who stated on air that "it is a
fact that Jews use financial networks and have influence wherever they are born." It goes
without saying that comments like these are unambiguously similar to complaints about
Jewish economic practices in Europe over the course of centuries. The only common
denominator between the context of fourteenth-century France and the context of
twenty-first-century South Korea is, you guessed it, Jewish economic practices.
The Koreans won. Paulie lost. Good win for humanity. The Argentines were not so lucky.
They don't have freedom speech like the Koreans and East Asians have.
In the end, the Lee strategy, based on drawing attention to the alien and exploitative
nature of Elliott Associates, was overwhelmingly effective. Before a crucial shareholder
vote on the Lee's planned merger, Samsung Securities CEO Yoon Yong-am said: "We should
score a victory by a big margin in the first battle, in order to take the upper hand in a
looming war against Elliott, and keep other speculative hedge funds from taking short-term
gains in the domestic market." When the vote finally took place a few days ago, a
conclusive 69.5% of Samsung shareholders voted in favor of the Lee proposal, leaving
Elliott licking its wounds and complaining about the "patriotic marketing" of those behind
the merger.
What our Jewish friends have done to Argentina, through maneuvering the elections, killing
dissidents, and marking territory, is a cautionary tale to anybody woke enough to see with
their own eyes.
Zion had the opportunity to go to Uganda and Ugandans were willing, but NO Zion had to
have Palestine, and they got it through war, deception, and murder. It was funded by usury,
as stolen purchasing power from the Goyim.
The fake country of Israel, is not the biblical Israel, and it came into being by
maneuverings of satanic men determined to get their way no matter what, and is supported by
continuous deception. Even today's Hebrew is resurrected from a dead language, and is fake.
Many fake Jews (who have no blood lineage to Abraham), a fake country, and fake language.
These fakers, usurers, and thieves do indeed have their eyes set on Patagonia, what they call
the practical country.
@Anon
"If debts can simply be repudiated at will, capitalism cannot function."
Is this children's capitalist theory class time? throwing around some simple slogans for a
susceptible congregation of future believers?
Should be quite obvious that people, groups of people, if not whole nations , can be
forced and or seduced into depths by means of certain practices. There are a thousand ways of
such trickery and thievery, these are not in the theory books though. In these books things
all match and work out wonderfully rationally
Then capitalism cannot function? Unfortunately it has become already dysfunctional, if not
a big rotten cancer.
Lobelog ran some articles in Singer, Argentina, Iran Israel and the attorney from Argentina
who died mysteriously . Singer is a loan shark. Argentinian paid dearly .
Google search –
NYT's Argentina Op-Ed Fails to Disclose Authors – LobeLog
https://lobelog.com/tag/paul-singer/
Paul Singer NYT's Argentina Op-Ed Fails to Disclose Authors' Financial Conflict of Interest
by Eli Clifton On Tuesday, Mark Dubowitz and Toby Dershowitz, two executives at the hawkish
Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), took
The Right-Wing Americans Who Made a Doc About Argentina
https://lobelog.com/the-right-wing-americans-who-made-a-doc-about-argentina/
Oct 7, 2015 One might wonder why a movie about Argentina, in Spanish and . of Nisman's and
thought highly of the prosecutor's work, told LobeLog, FDD, for its part, has been an
outspoken critic of Kirchner but has From 2008 to 2011, Paul Singer was the group's
second-largest donor, contributing $3.6 million.
NYT Failed to Note Op-Ed Authors' Funder Has $2 Billion
What our Jewish friends have done to Argentina, through maneuvering the elections,
killing dissidents, and marking territory, is a cautionary tale to anybody woke enough to
see with their own eyes.
Looks like CrowdStrike was was to plant the evidence of the Russian hack
Notable quotes:
"... All the evidence we're accumulating clearly says and implies, the US government -- namely the FBI, CIA, the DOJ, and of course State Department -- all these people involved in this hack, bought a dossier and all of the information going forward to the FISA court. ..."
"... All of them knew that this was a fake from the very beginning, because this Guccifer 2.0 character was fabricating it. They were using him plus the Internet Research Agency [IRA] as "supposed trolls of the Russian government". ..."
"... Well, when they sent their lawyers over to challenge that in a court of law, the government failed to prove they had any connection with the Russian government. ..."
"... Then the entire Rosenstein indictment is also a fabrication and a fake and a fraud for the same reasons. The judges seem to be involved in trying to keep this information out of the public domain. ..."
BILL BINNEY: I basically have always been saying that all of this Russian hack never
happened, but we have some more evidence coming out recently.
We haven't published it yet, but what we have seen is that there are at least five items
that we've found that were produced by Guccifer 2.0 back on June 15th, where they had the
Russian fingerprints in them, suggesting the Russians made the hack. Well, we found the same
five items published by Wikileaks in the Podesta emails.
Those items do not have the Russian fingerprints, which directly implies that Guccifer 2.0
was inserting these into the files to make it look like the Russians did this hack. Taking that
into account with all the other evidence we have; like the download speeds from Guccifer 2.0
were too fast, and they couldn't be managed by the web.
And that the files he was putting together and saying that he actually hacked, the two files
he said he had were really one file, and he was playing with the data; moving it to two
different files to claim two hacks.
Taking that into account with the fabrication of the Russian fingerprints, it leads us back
to inferring that in fact the marble framework out of the Vault 7 compromise of CIA hacking
routines was a possible user in this case.
In other words, it looked like the CIA did this, and that it was a matter of the CIA making
it look like the Russians were doing the hack. So, when you look at that and also look at the
DNC emails that were published by Wikileaks that have this phat file format in them, all 35,813
of these emails have rounded off times to the nearest even second.
That's a phat file format property; that argues that those files were, in fact, downloaded
to a thumb drive or CD-rom and physically transported before Wikileaks posted them. Which again
argues that it wasn't a hack.
So, all of the evidence we're finding is clearly evidence that the Russians were not in fact
hacking; it was probably our own people. It's very hard for us to get this kind of information
out. The mainstream media won't cover it; none of them will. It's very hard. We get some
bloggers to do that and some radio shows.
Also, I put all of this into a sworn affidavit in the Roger Stone case. I did that because
all of the attack on him was predicated on him being connected with this Russian hack which was
false to being with.
All the evidence we're accumulating clearly says and implies, the US government --
namely the FBI, CIA, the DOJ, and of course State Department -- all these people involved in
this hack, bought a dossier and all of the information going forward to the FISA
court.
All of them knew that this was a fake from the very beginning, because this Guccifer 2.0
character was fabricating it. They were using him plus the Internet Research Agency [IRA] as
"supposed trolls of the Russian government".
Well, when they sent their lawyers over to challenge that in a court of law, the
government failed to prove they had any connection with the Russian government.
They basically were chastised by the judge for fabricating a charge against this company.
So, if you take the IRA and the trolls away from that argument, and Guccifer 2.0, then the
entire Mueller report is a provable fabrication; because it's based on Guccifer 2.0 and the
IRA.
Then the entire Rosenstein indictment is also a fabrication and a fake and a fraud for
the same reasons. The judges seem to be involved in trying to keep this information out of the
public domain.
So, we have a really extensive shadow government here at work, trying to keep the
understanding and knowledge of what's really happening away from the public of the United
States. That's the really bad part. And the mainstream media is a participant in this; they're
culpable.
His dissent from the consensus view that Russia interfered with the 2016 US election
appears to be based on Russian disinformation."
They provide no footnote or linked-to source for their allegation
Ever since Binney went public criticizing U.S. intelligence agencies, they have been trying
to discredit him.
Thus far, however, their efforts have been nothing more than insinuations against his
person, without any specific allegation of counter-evidence that discredits any of his actual
assertions.
Martin Usher ,
The "Russia" thing was never able to differentiate between "Russians" and "the Russian
state". Its a product of a Cold War mindset that can't conceive of that country without it
being 150 million puppets all controlled by string from an office in the Kremlin. In reality
its just another country, one that offers goods and services to the world just like anywhere
else. So while we just assume that a company like SCL (Cambridge Analytica's parent) would
have personnel from and offices in many countries and have contracts with various political
parties in many countries we just can't seem to get our heads around the idea that a company
operating inside -- or even headquartered -- in Russia isn't automatically some kind of
Kremlin front. (Well, yes, it could be but the same way that a company in the UK could be a
front for the UK government, e.g. the Gateside Mill story in Scotland's Daily Record).
Another factor that might come into play is the idea that 'analytics', the key to business
on the Internet, is actually nothing more than a sophisticated form of traffic analysis, a
well known espionage tool. Any government worth its salt that's likely to be on the receiving
end of a propaganda campaign would be very interested in understanding the reach of such a
tool and learning how to manage that reach. So its possible that if we find the Russian
government taking out advertisements on Facebook through a front company to 'influence'
people its likely that they're more interested in evaluating that reach than the simplistic
view that they're 'trying to influence an election' (its not as if foreign interests or even
governments ever try to influence elections)(color revolution, anyone?). Allowing unfettered
access by these tools to one's nation is a bit like taking down one's defenses -- fine if
you're happy with vassal state ("ally") status but not if you're potentially an adversary --
so its important to know how to control it, no less important than having a decent air
defense system.
And in a further retort to all this nonsense, Harold Wilson, the last socialist leader of the
Labour Party back in the 1970s, won four general elections, a feat that's never been
repeated by any party leader.
This does directly relate to this thread, because the Americans overthrew Wilson. Just as they have done now with Corbyn. You really need to take your country back, whether you're a Brit or American.
paul ,
We are fortunate that there are still persons of integrity even in the spook organisations
– Binney, Kyriakou, Manning, Snowden. Without them and Assange a lot of this
criminality would never have seen the light of day.
Jack_Garbo ,
Diagnosing the disease does not imply the cure has been found. You simply know how much
sicker you are. Not helpful.
Nothing has changed despite all the revelations of intelligence shenanigans. Apologies do not
cure the patient when they're still spreading the disease. In fact, the opposite.
paul ,
Wikipedia holds out the begging bowl to anybody who uses it now.
I don't know why – they get plenty of CIA and Soros money.
All they've got to do now is wheel out the psychopath and war criminal, Tony Blair, to say:
"it's the Russians wot dunnit".
Oh my God
Jen ,
They don't need to, they have Tony Blair's fellow Brit psycho Boris Johnson to go on
autopilot and blame the Russians the moment something happens and just before London Met
start their investigations.
ZigZagWanderer ,
@ 1.15.58 "Intelligence community has become a self licking ice cream cone"
Larry Johnson and Bill Binney always worth listening to. Try to find the time.
Antonym ,
True except for Trump. Just look how hard deep state tries to unseat him.
Damaging your own puppet is not normal for a puppeteer.
J_Garbo ,
I suspected that Deep State has at least two opposing factions. The Realistists want him to
break up the empire, turn back into a republic; the Delusionals want to extend the empire,
continue to exploit and destroy the world. If so, the contradictions, reversals, incoherence
make sense. IMO as I said.
Gary Weglarz ,
I predict that all Western MSM will begin to accurately and vocally cover Mr. Binney's
findings about this odious and treasonous U.S. government psyop at just about the exact time
that – "hell freezes over" – as they say.
"... One of the most revealing and absurd responses to rejections of forever war is the ridiculous dodge that the U.S. isn't really at war when it uses force and kills people in multiple foreign countries: ..."
"... The distinction between "real war" and the constant U.S. involvement in hostilities overseas is a phony one. The war is very real to the civilian bystanders who die in U.S. airstrikes, and it is very real to the soldiers and Marines still getting shot at and blown up in Afghanistan. This is not an "antidote to war," but rather the routinization of warfare. ..."
"... The routinization and normalization of endless, unauthorized war is one of the most harmful legacies of the Obama administration. ..."
"... When the Obama administration wanted political and legal cover for the illegal Libyan war in 2011, they came up with a preposterous claim that U.S. forces weren't engaged in hostilities because there was no real risk to them from the Libyan government's forces. According to Harold Koh, who was the one responsible for promoting this nonsense, U.S. forces weren't engaged in hostilities even when they were carrying out a sustained bombing campaign for months. That lie has served as a basis for redefining what counts as involvement in hostilities so that the president and the Pentagon can pretend that the U.S. military isn't engaged in hostilities even when it clearly is. When the only thing that gets counted as a "real war" is a major deployment of hundreds of thousands of troops, that allows for a lot of unaccountable warmaking that has been conveniently reinvented as something else. ..."
One of the most revealing and absurd responses to
rejections of forever war
is the ridiculous dodge that the U.S. isn't really at war when it uses force and kills people in multiple foreign countries:
Just like @POTUS , who put a limited op of NE
#Syria under heading of "endless
war," this op-ed has "drone strikes & Special Ops raids" in indictment of US-at-war. In fact, those actions are antidote to war.
Their misguided critique is insult to real war. https://t.co/DCLS9IDKSw
War has become so normalized over the last twenty years that the constant use of military force gets discounted as something other
than "real war." We have seen this war denialism on display several times in the last year. As more presidential candidates and analysts
have started rejecting endless war, the war's
defenders have often
chosen to
pretend
that the U.S. isn't at war at all. The distinction between "real war" and the constant U.S. involvement in hostilities overseas is
a phony one. The war is very real to the civilian bystanders who die in U.S. airstrikes, and it is very real to the soldiers and
Marines still getting shot at and blown up in Afghanistan. This is not an "antidote to war," but rather the routinization of warfare.
Because Obama is relatively less aggressive and reckless than his hawkish opponents (a very low bar to clear), he is frequently
given a pass on these issues, and we are treated to misleading stories about his supposed "realism" and "restraint." Insofar as
he has been a president who normalized and routinized open-ended and unnecessary foreign wars, he has shown that neither of those
terms should be used to describe his foreign policy. Even though I know all too well that the president that follows him will
be even worse, the next president will have a freer hand to conduct a more aggressive and dangerous foreign policy in part because
of illegal wars Obama has waged during his time in office.
The attempt to define war so that it never includes what the U.S. military happens to be doing when it uses force abroad has been
going on for quite a while. When the Obama administration wanted political and legal cover for the illegal Libyan war in 2011, they
came up with a preposterous claim that U.S. forces weren't engaged in hostilities because there was no real risk to them from the
Libyan government's forces. According to Harold Koh, who was the one responsible for promoting this nonsense, U.S. forces weren't
engaged in hostilities even when they were carrying out a sustained bombing campaign for months. That lie has served as a basis for
redefining what counts as involvement in hostilities so that the president and the Pentagon can pretend that the U.S. military isn't
engaged in hostilities even when it clearly is. When the only thing that
gets counted as a "real war" is a major deployment
of hundreds of thousands of troops, that allows for a lot of unaccountable warmaking that has been conveniently reinvented as something
else.
It isn't just physical war that results in active service body bags but our aggression has alreay cost lives on the home front
and there is every reason to believe it will do so again.
We were not isolationists prior to 9/11/2001, Al Qaeda had already attacked but we were distracted bombing Serbia, expanding
NATO, and trying to connect Al Qaeda attacks to Iran. We were just attacked by a Saudi officer we were training on our soil to
use the Saudis against Iran.
It remains to be seen what our economic warfare against Iran, Venezuela, Syria, Yemen, and our continued use of Afghanistan
as a bombing platform will cost us. We think we are being clever by using our Treasury Dept and low intensity warfare to minimize
direct immediate casualties but how long can that last.
This article confirms what the last Real Commander-in-Chief, General/President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned about when he retired
58 years ago.
His wise Council based on his Supreme Military-Political experience has been ignored.
The MSM, Propagandists for the Military-Industrial Complex, won't remind the American People.
Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could,
with time and as required, make swords as well.
But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments
industry of vast proportions.
Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on
military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total
influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government.
We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the
very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought,
by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for
granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military
machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
The psychological contortionism required to deny that we are at war amazes me. US military forces are killing people in other
countries – but it's not war? Because we can manufacture comforting euphemisms like "police action" or "preventive action" or
"drone strike," it's not war? Because it's smaller scale than a "real" war like WWII?
Cancer is cancer. A small cancer is still a cancer. Arguing that it's not cancer because it's not metastatic stage IV is, well,
the most polite term is sophistry. More accurate terms aren't printable.
Have any of you read Bill Browder's book Red Notice?
It's a great read.
The grandson of the General Secretary of the United States Communist Party, whose great
auntie worked for the NKVD. His brother, Lev, is a great mathematician.
Browder worked with Robert Maxwell as an intern. That's the father of Ghislaine Maxwell,
Jeffrey Epstein's facilitator.
Browder went on to Salomen Brothers and ended up being one of the largest capitalists in
Eastern Europe.
For some reason the Russians believed that Browder was using front companies to aquire
stakes in Russian strategic assets, then remove billions without paying taxes, apparently
worth in excess of 4 billion. If Russian 'propaganda' is to be believed.
They must have wrong because Browder was able to achieve the Magnitsky Act in
response.
It seemed the Russians unfairly seized shares from Browder he acquired in Gazprom,
Surgutneftegaz, Unified Energy Systems, and Sidanco.
In July 2017, Browder testified to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee on Russia's alleged
interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
As everyone knows, this claim about Russian collusion by Trump is 100% true, and supports
the veracity of all his other claims. As the number one capitalist in Russia following the
fall of the Soviet Union.
And he was a hero too. Speaking out about how Jewish Oligarchs defenestrated Russia with
Yeltsin in the early 2000s and late 90s. He spoke out against his fellow Jews in what most
regard as conspiracy theories. Putin even praised him for assisting in liberation from the
Oligarchs.
What the Russians did was terrifying. They established a precedent where Jewish
international assets and capital could be seized for interference with affairs of state.
Of course what they apparently did was steal $230m off of Browder's fund shareholders.
Russia is of course very corrupt. And Browder's testimony against Trump for alleged Russia
collusion given what everyone knows speaks for his utmost veracity.
I came out of that book with the utmost admiration for Bill Browder. He did his best in
Poland with depressed assets, and he had a grand adventure. He's clearly amazingly good at
finance.
I came out of that book with the utmost admiration for Bill Browder.
You don't seem to be serious, if I understood what you want to say. Even Der Spiegel has
published a critical article in English about Browder, Browder is the one who pushed for
sanctions against Russia because of the case Magnitsky:
Questions Cloud Story Behind U.S. Sanctions
The story of Sergei Magnitsky has come to symbolize the brutal persecution of
whistleblowers in Russia. Ten years after his death, inconsistencies in Magnitsky's story
suggest he may not have been the hero many people -- and Western governments -- believed him
to be.
@Anon
After reading the book of this MI6 asset (and potential killer) who tried to fleece Russia,
you probably can benefit from watching a movie by Nekrasov about him. See references in:
It looks like it was Browder who killed Magnitsky, so that he can't spill the beans. And
then in an act of ultimate chutzpah played the victim and promoted Magnitsky act.
@Colin
Wright Intelligence and bias for co-operation may lead some groups to far greater
achievements, in scams as well as in everything else.
That aside, I think we daily meet plenty of individuals who'd sell their mothers, and
maybe kill lives, for pennies. They are like machines not even conscious of what they are
doing.
I meet them daily, in whatever activity, and none of them is Jewish. Also their shops,
businesses, and so on are always the ones that prosper more: people love being scammed, and
people love the show of power implicit in making you pay some extra for the service you
requested, and still keeping plenty of customers with you.
So, it's the usual with Joyce (and not only Joyce of course). You take something that is
human, talk of Jews, point to that something in Jews, and pretend, trusting that your readers
will pretend the same, that it's a Jewish-specific something.
Because if you were to say: everyone does this, everywhere, but when Jews do it it's just on
a larger scale, then you'd be shining light on the fact that what changes with Jews is just
skills, and that they are intelligent enough to co-operate more than the others.
Like when Mac Donald speaks of Jewish self-deception.
I feel I am swimming in self-deception everytime I talk with people (more so with women), and
they aren't Jewish. Do people do anything, but self-deceive?
So?
Elliott Management is perhaps most notorious for its 15-year battle with the government
of Argentina, whose bonds were owned by the hedge fund. When Argentine president Cristina
Kirchner attempted to restructure the debt, Elliott -- unlike most of the bonds' owners --
refused to accept a large loss on its investment. It successfully sued in US courts, and in
pursuit of Argentine assets, convinced a court in Ghana to detain an Argentine naval
training vessel, then docked outside Accra with a crew of 22o. After a change of its
government, Argentina eventually settled and Singer's fund received $2.4 billion, almost
four times its initial investment. Kirchner, meanwhile, has been indicted for
corruption.
This massive transfer of the American tech industry has largely been the work of one
leading Republican donor -- billionaire hedge fund manager Paul Singer, who also funds the
neoconservative think tank American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the Islamophobic and
hawkish think tank Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), the Republican Jewish
Coalition (RJC), and also funded the now-defunct Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI).
Singer's project to bolster Israel's tech economy at the U.S.' expense is known as
Start-Up Nation Central, which he founded in response to the global Boycott, Divest and
Sanctions (BDS) movement that seeks to use nonviolent means to pressure Israel to comply
with international law in relation to its treatment of Palestinians.
@Lot
You give partial information which seem misleading and use arguments which are also weak and
not enlightening.
1- Even if its natural that unsafe bonds are sold, this doesn't justify the practices and
methods of those vulture fonds which buy those fonds which are socially damaging. I'm not
certain of the details because it's an old case and people should seek more information. Very
broadly, in the case of Argentina most funds accepted to make an agreement with the country
and reduce their demands. Investors have to accept risks and losses. Paul Singer bought some
financial papers for nothing at that time and forced Argentina to pay the whole price. For
years Argentina refused to pay, but with the help of New York courts and the new Argentinian
president they were forced to pay Singer. This was not conservative capitalism but
imperialism. You can only act like Singer if you have the backing of courts, of a government
which you control and of an army like the US army. A fast internet search for titles of
articles: "Hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer's ruthless strategies include bullying CEOs,
suing governments and seizing their navy's ships". "How one hedge fund made $2 billion from
Argentina's economic colapse".
Andrew Sayer, professor in an English university, says in his book "Why we can't afford
the rich" that finances as they are practiced now may cost more than bring any value to a
society. It's a problem if some sectors of finances make outsized profits and use methods
which are more than questionable.
2- You say that if borrowers become more protected "lenders become more conservative,
investment declines, and worthy businesses can't get investments." I doubt this is true. In
the first place, risk investments by vulture fonds probably don't create any social value.
The original lenders who sold their bonds to such vulture fonds have anyway big or near total
losses in some cases and in spite of that they keep doing business. Why should we support
vulture fonds, what for? What positive function they play in society? In Germany, capitalism
was much more social in old days before a neoliberal wave forced Germany to change Rhine
capitalism. Local banks lended money to local business which they knew and which they had an
interest that they prosper. Larger banks lended money to big firms. Speculation like in
neoliberal capitalism wasn't needed.
3- The point which you didn't grasp is that there is a component of those business which
isn't publicly clear, the fact that they funcion along ethnic lines.
4- It would be easy to fix excesses of capitalism. The problem is that the people who
profit the most from the system also have the power to prevent any change.
The article bounces back and forth between two completely different fields: private
equity and distressed debt funds. The latter is completely defensible. A lot of
bondholders, probably the majority, cannot hold distressed or defaulted debt. Insurance
companies often can't by law. Bond mutual funds set out in their prospectuses they don't
invest in anything rated lower than A, AA, or whatever. Even those allowed to hold
distressed debt don't want the extra costs involved with doing so, such as carefully
following bankruptcy proceedings and dealing with delayed and irregular payments.
The author is not a finance expert but he correctly spotlights flaws of so-called
'predatory capitalism' which is disproportionately Jewish.
Private equity is rife with vices like asset-stripping and looting e.g Eddie Lampert
('Jewishness' member) plus El Trumpo appointee Steven Mnuchin at Sears.
Vulture funds often load all sorts of costs, even frivolous ones, and extra interest
charges on the original debt to maximize profit.
Some countries have the Duplum rule which limits the amount you are liable to a creditor
when you default on a debt.
I generally like Tucker but thought his piece on Singer was way off base and a silly hit job.
As others above have commented, if you think it's wrong to buy or try to collect on defaulted
debt, what is the alternative set of laws and behavior you are recommending? If debts can
simply be repudiated at will, capitalism cannot function. (Also, while it would take too much
time and space to debate the Puerto Rico situation here, it bears noting that the entire PR
public debt burden of ~$75 billion comes to around $25,000 per resident -- about a third of
the comparable burden of public sector debt per person in the United States, which itself
ignores tens of trillions of "off balance" sheet liabilities for underfunded social security,
Medicare, Medicaid and public sector pension obligations. The source of PR's problems lies
pretty clearly at the feet of PR's long corrupt politicians -- not the incidental holders of
its bonds who would simply like to be repaid or have the debt reasonably restructured.)
Other minor points worth noting:
Joyce names a few Jews associated with Baupost but misleadingly omits its president, the
guy who is running the show: Jim Mooney, a proud graduate of Holy Cross and big supporter of
Catholic and Jesuit causes. If memory serves, Jim was also the guy behind some of Baupost's
biggest and most successeful distressed debt (or "vulture" to use Joyce's pejorative term)
trades. The firm's Jewish founder (Seth Klarman) has also donated tons of money to secular
causes, including something like $60 million for a huge facility at Cornell.
Speaking of donations and Jews, I believe Bloomberg (not technically a "vulture"
capitalist but clearly just as bad -- I.e., Jewish -- on the Joyce scale) gave $1.5 billion
to his alma mater, Johns Hopkins. If memory serves, that may have been the largest donation
to any university ever. Maybe Carnegie's donations were greater in "real" dollars, but
Bloomberg's donation is still pretty significant -- with likely more to come.
@sally
Sally, please, knock it off. If you worked on Wall Street you'd know this article is just the
tip of the iceberg of Jewish financial criminality. Years ago Jim Cramer of CNBC fame, who
used to appear with Goldman Sachs' former and current PR man Larry Kudlow, also headed Wall
Street's top hedge fund at the time, Cramer Berkowitz. A former employee and Jewish at that
wrote an expose, Trading With the Enemy letting non-Jews in the reading public in on
what's really going on. Of course there's a Jewish pipeline giving them the news before it's
news, which is what it means to be a Wall Street insider. Or so says Jim Cramer, and the book
establishes this with solid evidence and not speculation.
For example, one of the Jewish anchors on CNBC would routinely call Cramer, which the
author overheard at the trading desk, and tip Cramer off about a market moving news story
about to be aired so Cramer could front run the market, fanatically divvying the orders out
to avoid scrutiny. His most important client was Norman Podoretz of socialist fame, who put
up the seed money for Cramer, who'd be on the phone to Cramer throughout the day checking on
his investments when not pushing socialism on the stupid goys. That's what socialism means in
America. The big names among Jewish stock and bond analysts at the big houses would also be
on the line with Cramer right before market making analysis was about to be released.
It's also the case that no economy and society can survive the sort of FIRE parasitism
this country's now burdened with, which as Spengler put it a century ago, amounts to tricking
a profit off every penny of goyisher labor. A dog can handle a number of ticks and fleas
sucking its blood, but will die soon enough when the ticks and fleas are consuming a quarter
or more of its blood. As Dr Joyce points out in yet another brilliant article, DJT is
demonstrably a puppet of the Jewish billionaires mentioned, who're in a rage to destroy the
families and everything the fools attending his rallies hold dear.
@J
Adelman Yes, the Jews have always stood up for the underdog (except when they were slave
traders) and promoted social harmony (except for cultural Marxism) and "Jewish influence" is
purely a figment of your imagination (except WWI and the Communist revolution .and and ). And
they definitely have nothing to do with the financial industry or banks (it is all a
conspiracy the protocols ya know).
Do you really believe your own poopaganda? A little introspection goes a long way. Why
have you been persecuted or kicked out of every country you have ever lived in? You never,
ever do anything wrong?
No one is demonizing you. You do it to yourself. People like Epstein and Weinstein are
your standard bearers. Events like 9/11 are your trophies. Your infiltration of the body
politic and malign influence in society is once again becoming visible to everyone and it is
making you afraid.
You have done it again. You never, ever learn. You play the perpetual victim .everyone
hates me without a reason. My sin is greater than I can bear (Cain) everyone who comes across
me will kill me. I spend my time wandering the earth (boo ho). And despite slaying your
brother you are accorded divine protection.
Jesus said (paraphrasing here) that if the unclean spirit is cast out of a man and is not
replaced with something wholesome he takes "seven other spirits" into himself and becomes
totally insane. You did this to yourself and you will realize that your problem is no longer
with man but with God himself. Jacob the deceiver has wrestled all his life against his
fellow man and triumphed but now he will confront God himself. Get ready to meet your Maker
and see how far your excuses will get you with the Almighty.
Jewish financists are no longer Jewish, much like a socialist who became minister is no
longer a socialist minister. Unregulated finance promotes a set of destructive behaviors which
has nothing to do with nationality or ethnicity.
Of course that Joyce is peddling his own obsessions, but I have to admit that Singer &
comp. are detestable. I know that what they’re doing is not illegal, but it should be (in
my opinion), and those who are involved in such affairs are somehow odious. The same goes for
Icahn, Soros etc. Still Ethnic angle is evident, too: how come Singer works exclusively with his
co-ethnics in this multi-ethnic USA? Non-Jewish & most Jewish entrepreneurs don’t
behave that way.
It was very gratifying to see Tucker Carlson's
recent attack on the activities of Paul Singer's vulture fund, Elliot Associates, a group I
first
profiled four years ago. In many respects, it is truly remarkable that vulture funds like
Singer's escaped major media attention prior to this, especially when one considers how
extraordinarily harmful and exploitative they are. Many countries are now in very significant
debt to groups like Elliot Associates and, as Tucker's segment very starkly illustrated, their
reach has now extended into the very heart of small-town America. Shining a spotlight on the
spread of this virus is definitely welcome. I strongly believe, however, that the problem
presented by these cabals of exploitative financiers will only be solved if their true nature
is fully discerned. Thus far, the descriptive terminology employed in discussing their
activities has revolved only around the scavenging and parasitic nature of their activities.
Elliot Associates have therefore been described as a quintessential example of a "vulture fund"
practicing "vulture capitalism." But these funds aren't run by carrion birds. They are operated
almost exclusively by Jews. In the following essay, I want us to examine the largest and most
influential "vulture funds," to assess their leadership, ethos, financial practices, and how
they disseminate their dubiously acquired wealth. I want us to set aside colorful metaphors. I
want us to strike through the mask.
It is commonly agreed that the most significant global vulture funds are Elliot Management,
Cerberus, FG Hemisphere, Autonomy Capital, Baupost Group, Canyon Capital Advisors, Monarch
Alternative Capital, GoldenTree Asset Management, Aurelius Capital Management, OakTree Capital,
Fundamental Advisors, and Tilden Park Investment Master Fund LP. The names of these groups are
very interesting, being either blankly nondescript or evoking vague inklings of Anglo-Saxon or
rural/pastoral origins (note the prevalence of oak, trees, parks, canyons, monarchs, or the use
of names like Aurelius and Elliot). This is the same tactic employed by the Jew Jordan Belfort,
the "Wolf of Wall Street," who operated multiple major frauds under the business name Stratton
Oakmont.
These names are masks. They are designed to cultivate trust and obscure the real background
of the various groupings of financiers. None of these groups have Anglo-Saxon or venerable
origins. None are based in rural idylls. All of the vulture funds named above were founded by,
and continue to be operated by, ethnocentric, globalist, urban-dwelling Jews. A quick review of
each of their websites reveals their founders and central figures to be:
Elliot Management
-- Paul Singer, Zion Shohet, Jesse Cohn, Stephen Taub, Elliot Greenberg and Richard Zabel
Cerberus -- Stephen Feinberg, Lee Millstein, Jeffrey Lomasky, Seth Plattus, Joshua Weintraub,
Daniel Wolf, David Teitelbaum FG Hemisphere -- Peter Grossman Autonomy Capital -- Derek Goodman
Baupost Group -- Seth Klarman, Jordan Baruch, Isaac Auerbach Canyon Capital Advisors -- Joshua
Friedman, Mitchell Julis Monarch Alternative Capital -- Andrew Herenstein, Michael Weinstock
GoldenTree Asset Management -- Steven Tananbaum, Steven Shapiro Aurelius Capital Management --
Mark Brodsky, Samuel Rubin, Eleazer Klein, Jason Kaplan OakTree Capital -- Howard Marks, Bruce
Karsh, Jay Wintrob, John Frank, Sheldon Stone Fundamental Advisors -- Laurence Gottlieb,
Jonathan Stern Tilden Park Investment Master Fund LP -- Josh Birnbaum, Sam Alcoff
The fact that all of these vulture funds, widely acknowledged as the most influential and
predatory, are owned and operated by Jews is remarkable in itself, especially in a contemporary
context in which we are constantly bombarded with the suggestion that Jews don't have a special
relationship with money or usury, and that any such idea is an example of ignorant prejudice.
Equally remarkable, however, is the fact that Jewish representation saturates the board level
of these companies also, suggesting that their beginnings and methods of internal promotion and
operation rely heavily on ethnic-communal origins, and religious and social cohesion more
generally. As such, these Jewish funds provide an excellent opportunity to examine their
financial and political activities as expressions of Jewishness, and can thus be placed in the
broader framework of the Jewish group evolutionary strategy and the long historical trajectory
of Jewish-European relations.
How They Feed
In May 2018, Puerto Rico declared a form of municipal bankruptcy after falling into more
than
$74.8 billion in debt, of which more than $34 billion is interest and fees. The debt was
owed to
all of the Jewish capitalists named above, with the exception of Stephen Feinberg's
Cerberus group. In order to commence payments, the government had instituted a policy of fiscal
austerity, closing schools and raising utility bills, but when Hurricane Maria hit the island
in September 2017, Puerto Rico was forced to stop transfers to their Jewish creditors. This
provoked an aggressive attempt by the Jewish funds to seize assets from an island suffering
from an 80% power outage, with the addition of further interest and fees. Protests broke out in
several US cities calling for the debt to be forgiven. After a quick stop in Puerto Rico in
late 2018, Donald Trump pandered to this sentiment when he told Fox News, "They owe a lot of
money to your friends on Wall Street, and we're going to have to wipe that out." But Trump's
statement, like all of Trump's statements, had no substance. The following day, the director of
the White House budget office, Mick Mulvaney, told reporters: "I think what you heard the
president say is that Puerto Rico is going to have to figure out a way to solve its debt
problem." In other words, Puerto Rico is going to have to figure out a way to pay its Jews.
Trump's reversal is hardly surprising, given that the President is considered extremely
friendly to Jewish financial power. When he referred to "your friends on Wall Street" he really
meant his friends on Wall Street. One of his closest allies is Stephen Feinberg, founder
and CEO of Cerberus, a war-profiteering vulture fund that has now accumulated
more than $1.5 billion in Irish debt , leaving the country prone to a "
wave of home repossessions " on a scale not seen since the Jewish mortgage traders behind
Quicken Loans (Daniel Gilbert) and Ameriquest (Roland Arnall)
made thousands of Americans homeless . Feinberg has also been associated with mass
evictions in Spain, causing a collective of Barcelona anarchists to
label him a "Jewish mega parasite" in charge of the "world's vilest vulture fund." In May
2018, Trump made Feinberg
chair of his Intelligence Advisory Board , and one of the reasons for Trump's sluggish
retreat from Afghanistan has been the fact Feinberg's DynCorp has enjoyed years of lucrative government
defense contracts training Afghan police and providing ancillary services to the military.
But Trump's association with Jewish vultures goes far beyond Feinberg. A recent piece
in the New York Post declared "Orthodox Jews are opening up their wallets for Trump in
2020." This is a predictable outcome of the period 2016 to 2020, an era that could be neatly
characterised as How Jews learned to stop worrying and love the Don. Jewish financiers
are opening their wallets for Trump because it is now clear he utterly failed to fulfil
promises on mass immigration to White America, while pledging his commitment to Zionism and to
socially destructive Jewish side projects like the promotion of homosexuality. These actions,
coupled with his commuting
of Hasidic meatpacking boss Sholom Rubashkin 's 27-year-sentence for bank fraud and money
laundering in 2017, have sent a message to Jewish finance that Trump is someone they can do
business with. Since these globalist exploiters are essentially politically amorphous, knowing
no loyalty but that to their own tribe and its interests, there is significant drift of Jewish
mega-money between the Democratic and Republican parties. The New York Post reports, for
example, that when Trump attended a $25,000-per-couple luncheon in November at a Midtown hotel,
where 400 moneyed Jews raised at least $4 million for the America First [!] SuperPAC, the
luncheon organiser Kelly Sadler, told reporters, "We screened all of the people in attendance,
and we were surprised to see how many have given before to Democrats, but never a Republican.
People were standing up on their chairs chanting eight more years." The reality, of course, is
that these people are not Democrats or Republicans, but Jews, willing to push their money in
whatever direction the wind of Jewish interests is blowing.
The collapse of Puerto Rico under Jewish debt and elite courting of Jewish financial
predators is certainly nothing new. Congo , Zambia , Liberia ,
Argentina , Peru ,
Panama , Ecuador ,
Vietnam , Poland , and
Ireland are just some of the countries that have slipped fatefully into the hands of the
Jews listed above, and these same people are now closely watching
Greece and
India . The methodology used to acquire such leverage is as simple as it is ruthless. On
its most basic level, "vulture capitalism" is really just a combination of the
continued intense relationship between Jews and usury and Jewish involvement in medieval
tax farming. On the older practice, Salo Baron writes in Economic History of the Jews
that Jewish speculators would pay a lump sum to the treasury before mercilessly turning on the
peasantry to obtain "considerable surpluses if need be, by ruthless methods." [1] S. Baron
(ed) Economic History of the Jews (New York, 1976), 46-7. The activities of the
Jewish vulture funds are essentially the same speculation in debt, except here the trade in
usury is carried out on a global scale with the feudal peasants of old now replaced with entire
nations. Wealthy Jews pool resources, purchase debts, add astronomical fees and interests, and
when the inevitable default occurs they engage in aggressive legal activity to seize assets,
bringing waves of jobs losses and home repossessions.
This type of predation is so pernicious and morally perverse that both the
Belgian and
UK governments have taken steps to ban these Jewish firms from using their court systems to
sue for distressed debt owed by poor nations. Tucker Carlson, commenting on Paul Singer's
predation and the ruin of the town of Sidney, Nebraska, has said:
It couldn't be uglier or more destructive. So why is it still allowed in the United
States? The short answer: Because people like Paul Singer have tremendous influence over our
political process. Singer himself was the second largest donor to the Republican Party in
2016. He's given millions to a super-PAC that supports Republican senators. You may never
have heard of Paul Singer -- which tells you a lot in itself -- but in Washington, he's
rock-star famous. And that is why he is almost certainly paying a lower effective tax rate
than your average fireman, just in case you were still wondering if our system is rigged. Oh
yeah, it is.
Aside from direct political donations, these Jewish financiers also escape scrutiny by
hiding behind a mask of simplistic anti-socialist rhetoric that is common in the American
Right, especially the older, Christian, and pro-Zionist demographic. Rod Dreher, in a
commentary on Carlson's
piece at the American Conservative , points out that Singer gave a speech in May
2019 attacking the "rising threat of socialism within the Democratic Party." Singer continued,
"They call it socialism, but it is more accurately described as left-wing statism lubricated by
showers of free stuff promised by politicians who believe that money comes from a printing
press rather than the productive efforts of businesspeople and workers." Dreher comments: "The
productive efforts of businesspeople and workers"? The gall of that man, after what he did to
the people of Sidney."
What Singer and the other Jewish vultures engage in is not productive, and isn't even any
recognisable form of work or business. It is greed-motivated parasitism carried out on a
perversely extravagant and highly nepotistic scale. In truth, it is Singer and his co-ethnics
who believe that money can be printed on the backs of productive workers, and who ultimately
believe they have a right to be "showered by free stuff promised by politicians." Singer places
himself in an infantile paradigm meant to entertain the goyim, that of Free Enterprise vs
Socialism, but, as Carlson points out, "this is not the free enterprise that we all learned
about." That's because it's Jewish enterprise -- exploitative, inorganic, and attached to
socio-political goals that have nothing to do with individual freedom and private property.
This might not be the free enterprise Carlson learned about, but it's clearly the free
enterprise Jews learn about -- as illustrated in their extraordinary
over-representation in all forms of financial exploitation and white collar crime. The
Talmud, whether actively studied or culturally absorbed, is their code of ethics and their
curriculum in regards to fraud, fraudulent bankruptcy, embezzlement, usury, and financial
exploitation. Vulture capitalism is Jewish capitalism.
Whom They Feed
Singer's duplicity is a perfect example of the way in which Jewish finance postures as
conservative while conserving nothing. Indeed, Jewish capitalism may be regarded as the root
cause of the rise of Conservative Inc., a form or shadow of right wing politics reduced solely
to fiscal concerns that are ultimately, in themselves, harmful to the interests of the majority
of those who stupidly support them. The spirit of Jewish capitalism, ultimately, can be
discerned not in insincere bleating about socialism and business, intended merely to entertain
semi-educated Zio-patriots, but in the manner in which the Jewish vulture funds disseminate the
proceeds of their parasitism. Real vultures are weak, so will gorge at a carcass and
regurgitate food to feed their young. So then, who sits in the nests of the vulture funds,
awaiting the regurgitated remains of troubled nations?
Boston-based Seth Klarman (net worth $1.5 billion), who like Paul Singer has
declared "free enterprise has been good for me," is a rapacious debt exploiter who was
integral to the financial collapse of Puerto Rico, where he hid much of activities behind a
series of shell companies. Investigative journalists eventually discovered that Klarman's
Baupost group was behind much of the aggressive legal action intended to squeeze the decimated
island for bond payments. It's clear that the Jews involved in these companies are very much
aware that what they are doing is wrong, and they are careful to avoid too much reputational
damage, whether to themselves individually or to their ethnic group. Puerto Rican journalists,
investigating the debt trail to Klarman, recall trying to follow one of the shell companies
(Decagon) to Baupost via a shell company lawyer (and yet another Jew) named Jeffrey Katz:
Returning to the Ropes & Gray thread, we identified several attorneys who had worked
with the Baupost Group, and one, Jeffrey Katz, who – in addition to having worked
directly
with Baupost – seemed to describe a particularly close and longstanding relationship
with a firm fitting Baupost's profile on his experience page. I called
Katz and he picked up, to my surprise. I identified myself, as well as my affiliation with
the Public Accountability Initiative, and asked if he was the right person to talk to about
Decagon Holdings and Baupost. He paused, started to respond, and then evidently thought
better of it and said that he was actually in a meeting, and that I would need to call back
(apparently, this high-powered lawyer picks up calls from strange numbers when he is in
important meetings). As he was telling me to call back, I asked him again if he was the right
person to talk to about Decagon, and that I wouldn't call back if he wasn't, and he seemed to
get even more flustered. At that point he started talking too much, about how he was a lawyer
and has clients, how I must think I'm onto some kind of big scoop, and how there was a person
standing right in front of him – literally, standing right in front of him –
while I rudely insisted on keeping him on the line.
One of the reasons for such secrecy is the intensive Jewish philanthropy engaged in by
Klarman under his Klarman Family
Foundation . While Puerto Rican schools are being closed, and pensions and health
provisions slashed, Klarman is regurgitating the proceeds of massive debt speculation to his "
areas of
focus " which prominently includes " Supporting the global Jewish community
and Israel ." While plundering the treasuries of the crippled nations of the goyim, Klarman
and his co-ethnic associates have committed themselves to "improving the quality of life and
access to opportunities for all Israeli citizens so that they may benefit from the country's
prosperity." Among those in Klarman's nest, their beaks agape for Puerto Rican debt interest,
are the American Jewish Committee, Boston's Combined Jewish Philanthropies, the Holocaust
Memorial Museum, the Honeymoon Israel Foundation, Israel-America Academic Exchange, and the
Israel Project. Klarman, like Singer, has also been an enthusiastic proponent of liberalising
attitudes to homosexuality, donating $1 million to a Republican super PAC aimed at supporting
pro-gay marriage GOP candidates in 2014 (Singer donated $1.75 million). Klarman, who also
contributes to candidates
who support immigration reform, including a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants,
has said "The right to gay marriage is the largest remaining civil rights issue of our time. I
work one-on-one with individual Republicans to try to get them to realize they are being
Neanderthals on this issue."
Steven Tananbaum's GoldenTree Asset Management has also fed well on Puerto Rico, owning $2.5
billion of the island's debt. The Centre for Economic and Policy Research has
commented :
Steven Tananbaum, GoldenTree's chief investment officer, told a business conference in
September (after Hurricane Irma, but before Hurricane Maria) that he continued to view Puerto
Rican bonds as an attractive investment. GoldenTree is spearheading a group of COFINA
bondholders that collectively holds about $3.3 billion in bonds. But with Puerto Rico facing
an unprecedented humanitarian crisis, and lacking enough funds to even begin to pay back its
massive debt load, these vulture funds are relying on their ability to convince politicians
and the courts to make them whole. The COFINA bondholder group has spent
$610,000 to lobby Congress over the last two years, while GoldenTree itself
made $64,000 in political contributions to federal candidates in the 2016 cycle. For
vulture funds like GoldenTree, the destruction of Puerto Rico is yet another opportunity for
exorbitant profits.
Whom does Tananbaum feed with these profits? A brief glance at the spending of the
Lisa and Steven Tananbaum Charitable Trust reveals a relatively short list of beneficiaries
including United Jewish Appeal Foundation, American Friends of Israel Museum, Jewish Community
Center, to be among the most generously funded, with sizeable donations also going to museums
specialising in the display of degenerate and demoralising art.
Following the collapse in Irish asset values in 2008, Jewish vulture funds including OakTree
Capital swooped on mortgagee debt to seize tens of thousands of Irish homes, shopping malls,
and utilities (Steve Feinberg's Cerberus took control of public waste disposal). In 2011,
Ireland emerged as a hotspot for distressed property assets, after its bad banks began selling
loans that had once been held by struggling financial institutions. These loans were quickly
purchased at knockdown prices by Jewish fund managers, who then aggressively sought the
eviction of residents in order to sell them for a fast profit. Michael Byrne, a researcher at
the School of Social Policy at University College Dublin, Ireland's largest university,
comments : "The
aggressive strategies used by vulture funds lead to human tragedies." One homeowner, Anna Flynn
recalls how her mortgage fell into the hands of Mars Capital, an affiliate of Oaktree Capital,
owned and operated by the Los Angeles-based Jews Howard Marks and Bruce Karsh. They were "very,
very difficult to deal with," said Flynn, a mother of four. "All [Mars] wanted was for me to
leave the house; they didn't want a solution [to ensure I could retain my home]."
When Bruce Karsh isn't making Irish people homeless, whom does he feed with his profits? A
brief glance at the spending of the
Karsh Family Foundation reveals millions of dollars of donations to the Jewish Federation,
Jewish Community Center, and the United Jewish Fund.
Paul Singer, his son Gordin, and their Elliot Associates colleagues Zion Shohet, Jesse Cohn,
Stephen Taub, Elliot Greenberg and Richard Zabel, have a foothold in almost every country, and
have a stake in every company you're likely to be familiar with, from book stores to dollar
stores. With the profits of exploitation, they
fund campaigns for homosexuality and mass migration , boost Zionist politics,
invest millions in security for Jews , and promote wars for Israel. Singer is a Republican,
and is on the Board of the Republican Jewish Coalition. He is a former board member of the
Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, has funded neoconservative research groups like
the Middle East Media Research Institute and the Center for Security Policy, and is among the
largest funders of the neoconservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies. He was also
connected to the pro-Iraq War advocacy group Freedom's Watch. Another key Singer project was
the Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI), a Washington D.C.-based advocacy group that was founded in
2009 by several high-profile Jewish neoconservative figures to promote militaristic U.S.
policies in the Middle East on behalf of Israel and which received its seed money from
Singer.
Although Singer was initially anti-Trump, and although Trump once
attacked Singer for his pro-immigration politics ("Paul Singer represents amnesty and he
represents illegal immigration pouring into the country"), Trump is now essentially funded by
three Jews -- Singer, Bernard Marcus, and Sheldon Adelson, together accounting for over $250
million in pro-Trump political money . In return, they want war with Iran. Employees of
Elliott Management were one of the main sources of funding for the 2014 candidacy of the
Senate's most outspoken Iran hawk, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), who urged Trump to conduct a
"retaliatory strike" against Iran for purportedly attacking two commercial tankers. These
exploitative Jewish financiers have been clear that they expect a war with Iran, and they are
lobbying hard and preparing to call in their pound of flesh. As one political commentator put
it, "These donors have made their policy preferences on Iran plainly known. They surely expect
a return on their investment in Trump's GOP."
The same pattern is witnessed again and again, illustrating the stark reality that the
prosperity and influence of Zionist globalism rests to an overwhelming degree on the predations
of the most successful and ruthless Jewish financial parasites. This is not conjecture,
exaggeration, or hyperbole. This is simply a matter of striking through the mask, looking at
the heads of the world's most predatory financial funds, and following the direction of
regurgitated profits.
Make no mistake, these cabals are everywhere and growing. They could be ignored when they
preyed on distant small nations, but their intention was always to come for you too. They are
now on your doorstep. The working people of Sidney, Nebraska probably had no idea what a
vulture fund was until their factories closed and their homes were taken. These funds will move
onto the next town. And the next. And another after that. They won't be stopped through blunt
support of "free enterprise," and they won't be stopped by simply calling them "vulture
capitalists."
Strike through the mask!
Notes
[1] S.
Baron (ed) Economic History of the Jews (New York, 1976), 46-7.
To what extent is Jewish success a product of Jewish intellect and industry versus being a
result of a willingness to use low, dirty, honorless and anti-social tactics which, while
maybe not in violation of the word of the law, certainly violate its spirit?
An application of "chutzpah" to business, if you will – the gall to break social
conventions to get what you want, while making other people feel uncomfortable; to wheedle
your way in at the joints of social norms and conventions – not illegal, but selfish
and rude.
Krav Maga applies the same concept to the martial arts: You're taught to go after the
things that every other martial art forbids you to target: the eyes, the testicles, etc. In
other sports this is considered "low" and "cheap." In Krav Maga, as perhaps a metaphor for
Jewish behavior in general, nothing is too low because it's all about winning .
There's a rather good article on the New Yorker discussing the Sacklers and the
Oxycontin epidemic. It focusses on the dichotomy between the family's ruthless promotion of
the drug and their lavish philanthropy. 'Leave the world a better place for your presence'
and similar pieties and Oxycontin.
The article lightly touches on the extent of their giving to Hebrew University of
Jerusalem -- but in general, treads lightly when it comes to their Judaism.
understandably. The New Yorker isn't exactly alt-right country, after all. But can
Joyce or anyone else provide a more exact breakdown on the Sacklers' giving? Are they genuine
philanthropists, or is it mostly for the Cause?
@anon'To what extent is Jewish success a product of Jewish intellect and industry versus being
a result of a willingness to use low, dirty, honorless and anti-social tactics which, while
maybe not in violation of the word of the law, certainly violate its spirit? '
It's important not to get carried away with this. Figures such as Andrew Carnegie, while
impeccably gentile, were hardly paragons of scrupulous ethics and disinterested virtue.
I won't defend high finance because I don't like it either. But this is a retarded and highly
uninformed attack on it.
1. The article bounces back and forth between two completely different fields: private
equity and distressed debt funds. The latter is completely defensible. A lot of bondholders,
probably the majority, cannot hold distressed or defaulted debt. Insurance companies often
can't by law. Bond mutual funds set out in their prospectuses they don't invest in anything
rated lower than A, AA, or whatever. Even those allowed to hold distressed debt don't want
the extra costs involved with doing so, such as carefully following bankruptcy proceedings
and dealing with delayed and irregular payments.
As a result, it is natural that normal investors sell off such debt at a discount to funds
that specialize in it.
2. Joyce defends large borrowers that default on their debt. Maybe the laws protecting
bankrupts and insolvents should be stronger. But you do that, and lenders become more
conservative, investment declines, and worthy businesses can't get investments. I think
myself the laws in the US are too favorable to lenders, but there's definitely a tradeoff,
and the question is where the happy middle ground is. In Florida a creditor can't force the
sale of a primary residence, even if it is worth $20 million. That's going too far in the
other direction.
3. " either blankly nondescript or evoking vague inklings of Anglo-Saxon or rural/pastoral
origins "
More retardation. Cerberus is a greek dog monster guarding the gates of hell. Aurelius is
from the Latin word for gold. "Hemisphere" isn't an Anglosaxon word nor does in invoke rural
origins.
Besides being retardedly wrong, the broader point is likewise retarded: when
English-speaking Jews name their businesses they shouldn't use English words. Naming a
company "Oaktree" should be limited to those of purely English blood! Jews must name their
companies "Cosmopolitan Capital" or RosenMoses Chutzpah Advisors."
4. The final and most general point: it's trivially easy to attack particular excesses of
capitalism. Fixing the excesses without creating bigger problem is the hard part. Two ideas I
favor are usury laws and Tobin taxes.
Jewishness aside, maximizing shareholder is the holy grail of all capitalist enterprises. The
capitalist rush to abandon the American working class when tariff barriers evaporated is just
another case of vulturism. Tax corporations based on the domestic content of their products
and ban usury and vulturism will evaporate.
Someone with the username kikz posted a link to this article in the occidental observer. I
read it and thought it was a great article. I'm glad it's featured here.
The article goes straight for the jugular and pulls no punches. It hits hard. I like
that:
1. It shines a light on the some of the scummiest of the scummiest Wall Street
players.
2. It names names. From the actual vulture funds to the rollcall of Jewish actors running
each. It's astounding how ethnically uniform it is.
3. It proves Trump's ties with the most successful Vulture kingpin, Singer.
4. It shows how money flows from the fund owners to Zionist and Jewish causes.
This thing reads like a court indictment. It puts real world examples to many of the
theories that are represents on this site. Excellent article.
Andrew Carnegie left behind institutions like Carnegie Hall, Carnegie-Mellon University,
and over 2500 Free Libraries from coast to coast, in a time when very little was done to
help what we now call the “underprivileged”.
And he funded the building of the Peace Palace (“Vredespaleis”) in The Hague,
presently the seat of the International Court of Justice, an institution not held in high
esteem in the home country of the generous donor.
"... By Bill Black, the author of The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One, an associate professor of economics and law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, and co-founder of Bank Whistleblowers United. Originally published at New Economic Perspectives ..."
Posted on
December 18, 2019 by Yves Smith Yves here. What Black calls
the New Democrats have more recently been called Blue Dogs and even (gah) frontliners, but
whatever you want to call them, they are corporate stooges loyal to bad economic ideas, most
notably deficit hawkery and austerity.
By Bill Black, the author of The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One, an associate
professor of economics and law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, and co-founder of
Bank Whistleblowers United. Originally published at
New Economic Perspectives
On December 5, 2019, Lawrence O'Donnell made an impassioned attack on Pete Buttigieg on his
" The
Last Word " program on MSNBC. Buttigieg's statements criticizing the Democratic Party as
historically soft on deficits enraged O'Donnell. The context was Buttigieg's effort to signal
to New Hampshire voters that he was the most conservative Democratic candidate for the
presidential nomination. Nothing signals 'responsible' so well to 'New Democrats' and the media
as a candidate screaming 'deficits' in a crowded meeting room in a small New Hampshire
town.
O'Donnell correctly pointed out that Buttigieg's claims about Democrats and deficits are
'Republican lies.' The truth is that New Democrats have been the only group in America
dedicated to inflicting austerity on our Nation. Republicans only pretend to care about
deficits when Democrats have power. Buttigieg knows this, but his political interests in
portraying himself as a stalwart emerging leader of the New Democrats caused him to position
himself (falsely) as unique among New Democrats in his dedication to inflict austerity.
O'Donnell (largely) correctly pointed out that New Democrats had been fighting federal
deficits for Buttigieg's entire life. O'Donnell stressed the New Democrats actions in 1993,
when Buttigieg was eleven. O'Donnell lauded the New Democrats for pushing austerity even when
they knew doing so was likely to cause Democrats to lose elections.
O'Donnell's dominant message, measured by both length and passion, was the crippling price
the Democrats paid for the New Democrats' pushing for austerity in 1993. He made clear it was
not a "one-off" – Democrats paid that price again when President Obama, a self-described
New Democrat, pushed to inflict austerity on the Nation in 2010.
O'Donnell describes the New Democrats (Bill Clinton and Al Gore) as knowingly taking a
"grave political risk" in 1993 in voting in favor of austerity. The risk was that Democrats,
not simply New Democrats, would lose scores of seats – and control of the House and
Senate. O'Donnell stressed that no Republicans voted for the New Democrat's 1993 austerity
program. O'Donnell explained the initial political results of austerity. "The Democrats lost
the House because of that vote for the first time in 40 years." He then explained they also
lost the Senate.
O'Donnell repeatedly explained that the New Democrats knew that their decision to inflict
austerity on Americans would likely produce this political disaster – and "bravely" did
so because of their belief that inflicting austerity on Americans was essential. He noted that
he "watched with pride" this exercise of political suicide.
O'Donnell then cited President Obama's austerity efforts – during the weak recovery
from the Great Financial Crisis (GFC). At a time when the need to provide stimulus, not inflict
austerity, was obvious, Obama embraced what again proved the politically suicidal option.
As fate would have it, the death of Paul Volcker days after O'Donnell's takedown of
Buttigieg extended O'Donnell's argument further back in time – to before Buttigieg's
birth. In 1979, President Carter (a Democrat) appointed Volcker to Chair the Federal Reserve.
Volcker soon unleashed powerful monetary austerity, raising interest rates to unprecedented
levels for the United States. Volcker's obituary stressed
the politically suicidal nature of inflicting austerity – and the Democrats' pride in
knowingly losing elections because of their embrace of it.
The harsh Fed policy no doubt contributed to Mr. Carter's re-election defeat at the hands
of Ronald Reagan; he had to campaign when interest rates were at their peak, and before the
inflation fever had begun to break. Mr. Carter, in his memoirs, would offer a typically
understated assessment: "Our trepidation about Volcker's appointment was later
justified."
***
"Paul was as stubborn as he was tall," Mr. Carter said in a statement on Monday morning,
"and although some of his policies as Fed chairman were politically costly, they were the
right thing to do.
O'Donnell's denunciation of Buttigieg for adopting dishonest Republican talking points about
Democrats and deficits did not discuss several essential points. The first two points emerge
from answering this question: what was the cost to the Nation – not the loss of
Democratic seats – of the New Democrats' intransigent insistence on inflicting austerity?
Shakespeare explained famously that "mercy" was "twice blest," because it blesses both the
giver and the receiver. The quality of austerity, however, is typically at least thrice damned.
It is not a "gentle rain from heaven," but a sandstorm from hell that batters the public and
punishes the politicians who unleash the whirlwind. It is at least thrice damned because it
causes three grave forms of harm on the public.
Inflicting austerity on the United States government has three likely consequences for the
public. It is likely to cause or extend a recession. It forces Democrats into an unending
series of "Sophie's choice[s]s." We cannot adopt any new program of consequence without budget
'scoring' – requiring new taxes or cutting other vital federal programs. Under austerity,
Democrats must shrink existing overall federal spending. By extending existing recessions or
leading to new ones, austerity causes economic harms that increase social and political
breakdowns that can lead to the election of fanatics and corrupt fake-populists. The political
parties that refuse to inflict austerity (at least when they are in power) will be the
political winners.
Republican fiscal policies combine "wedge" offerings to fire up the worst of their base and
massive tax breaks for the elites that fund their campaigns – leading to a recurrent
cycle in which the New Democrats champion policies that cause the public to identify Democrats
as the party most likely to raise taxes and cut vital federal programs. Republican political
power and 'wedge' legislation and policies cause enormous harm, particularly to the poor and
minorities. The larger the Republican deficits, the greater the New Democrats' urgency to
inflict austerity – and embrace political suicide. It is a self-reinforcing cycle
producing recurrent political disaster for Democrats.
O'Donnell does not address two other critical points. First, MSNBC's top commentators
endlessly warn Democrats that they must nominate the presidential candidate most likely to
defeat President Trump. MSNBC's commentators implore us not to focus on policy differences
among the candidates. Their message is relentless realpolitik, particularly, you should never
vote for the candidate whose policies you believe are far superior to the candidate the MSNBC
commentators think is most electable. MSNBC and the New Democrats claim they share the same
prime directive – Democratic Party electoral victories are the only imperative.
O'Donnell's anti-Buttigieg rant reveals the truth about MSNBC and the New Democrats' real
prime directive – inflicting austerity even when doing so is economically irrational and
politically suicidal is their sole imperative. The obvious questions, which O'Donnell never
asked or attempted to answer, are why he and his MSNBC colleagues push the false prime
directive (winning must be the sole paramount goal) as gospel while praising the New Democrats
for repeatedly causing the Democratic Party to commit political suicide through inflicting
austerity on our Nation. Logically, the only possible answer to that question is that O'Donnell
and the New Democrats must view inflicting austerity as being of transcendent importance. It
outweighs everything. Inflicting austerity is the New Democrats and MSNBC's sole prime
directive. They are not simply willing to lose so many contests that they lose control of the
presidency, the House, and the Senate – they are "proud" to do so when the reason for
those losses is 'we committed political suicide to fight to inflict austerity.' The related
questions are whether MSNBC and the New Democrats are actually blind to the contradiction
between the real and phony prime directives and why they think viewers and voters will be too
dumb to spot the obvious contradiction. Why do New Democrats and MSNBC insist on hiding their
real prime directive?
A related question arises from this bizarre prime directive to inflict austerity even when
it is politically suicidal. Why did New Democrats and MSNBC choose inflicting austerity as
their holy grail? What is it about inflicting austerity that makes New Democrats so "proud" to
cause the Democratic Party to commit political suicide and deliver control of the House,
Senate, and Presidency to the likes of Ronald Reagan, Newt Gingrich, Mitch McConnell, and
Donald Trump? Preventing Bush's invasion of Iraq, global climate disruption, and Trump's
election would all make sense as overriding priorities. Those are things worthy of losing a
House seat or even the entire House.
Inflicting austerity typically harms America and our people. A federal budget deficit is not
bad. A federal budget surplus is not good. Clinton and Gore's budget surpluses were not good
for America. They were likely harmful, as recessions soon followed our prior budget surpluses
throughout our history. In each of the cases O'Donnell lauded, the New Democrats' insistence on
inflicting austerity did not simply prove politically suicidal for the Democratic Party –
austerity was a terrible economic policy that caused harm. How did inflicting austerity become
the overriding priority of New Democrats, swamping all other policies? In 1993, when Clinton
and Gore made O'Donnell "proud" by inflicting austerity, the inflation rate was three percent.
That rate of inflation was trivially higher than what the Fed would adopt as its inflation
target (2%) – the preferred rate of inflation. Even under neoclassical economic nostrums,
there was no need, much less a compelling need, to inflict austerity.
In 2010, when Obama first sought to inflict austerity on us, the rate of inflation was 2.3
percent and the unemployment rate was 9.6 percent. The economic illiteracy of his austerity
horrified even neoclassical economists. Fortunately, the Tea Party Republicans pushed so
aggressively in the "Grand Bargain" negotiations with Obama that the tentative deal he reached
with congressional Republicans collapsed. Otherwise, Obama's infliction of austerity would have
ended the already weak recovery, plunged the Nation back into a Great Recession, and caused him
and scores of congressional Democrats to lose their elections in 2012.
O'Donnell's presentation, implicitly, makes it clear that he thinks austerity is so
obviously desirable, and the budget deficits of a fully sovereign nation so obviously the
gravest conceivable threat that he need provide neither logic nor evidence to support the New
Democrat's politically suicidal and economically illiterate austerity prime directive.
O'Donnell's cheerleading for the austerity prime directive was never supported, but it has
become facially indefensible over the last quarter-century. Trump's tax reduction scheme for
the wealthiest was outrageous on multiple grounds, but O'Donnell can observe the present
unemployment and inflation rates. Unemployment is at 3.5% and the inflation rate for 2018 was
1.9% -- less than the Fed's target rate. Inflation is the only logical bugaboo about federal
budget deficits, so O'Donnell and Buttigieg's feverish fear that federal deficits are about to
cause a catastrophe is beyond bizarre. The bond markets confirm that there is no expectation of
material inflation.
The New Democrats remain transfixed by their 'virtue' and 'bravery' in losing control of all
three branches of government by insisting on inflicting economically illiterate and politically
suicidal austerity assaults on the voters – raising taxes and cutting vital services.
They refuse to act on the real emergencies we face such as global climate disruption based on
the economically illiterate fantasy that 'we cannot afford' to prevent the worsening
catastrophe. The 'New Democrats' and their media enablers demand that we nominate candidates
dedicated to enacting politically suicidal deficit hysteria policies and adopting tepid
anti-environment policies that are suicidal towards the lives of our children and
grandchildren. The most remarkable aspect of this insanity, however, is that the hucksters
pitch their embrace of their prime directive as defining the concept of "responsible." Indeed,
it is so obviously 'responsible' that O'Donnell and Buttigieg feel neither logic nor facts are
necessary to prove the virtues of austerity. They omit the fact that austerity proponents'
warnings and promises have repeatedly proved false and outright harmful as well as politically
suicidal.
Could it be that the New Democrats are not stupid or irrational at all but know what they
are doing and happily play their role in the permanent professional wrestling spectacle as
the hapless patsies who keep losing to the real tough guy? After all, they get paid
handsomely in any case.
Not only did President Carter appoint Volcker, but he also vetoed a bill to raise the
national debt ceiling. Thankfully Congress, run by a very different set of Democrats at the
time, over-rode his veto.
"Austerity" is basically the only policy Team Blue has undertaken without outside
pressure. As bad as it is, it's the one thing they can point to over the last 25 years as
something they did without mass mobilization or court cases embarrassing them into not being
totally heinous.
Then little Mayo Pete is trying to deny Team Blue their only accomplishment.
The Trump Card was and is a masterstroke of scripting live, non-stop, divisive, politically
paralytic distraction while the US oligarchy goes all-tard-in for private power.
Since the whole impeachment farce already has been a political loser for the idiot Democrats,
they'd have to be doubly stupid to double down on political stupidity by obstructing the
transmission to the Senate, when most Americans just want this crap to be over with.
Meanwhile the Senate Republicans, once they get the charges, would be stupid to do
anything but vote them down immediately. Otherwise they'll become complicit in the odious
circus and rightly incur their share of the political blame.
"... The NEW Democrats and the Return to Power ..."
"... Reading between the lines: many people think that government spending only helps "those" people (the poor/the politically connected businesses/the bureaucrats/the old/the young/the non-innovative). You yourself are always a virtuous wealth creator, because of course you are. ..."
MSNBC and the New Democrats claim they share the same prime directive – Democratic
Party electoral victories are the only imperative.
This is exactly the justification Al From gave for the program of the Democratic
Leadership Council (see The NEW Democrats and the Return to Power ). All those who
joined shared the same goal. They took control of the party in 1992, and still control it.
That's why I think Trump is going to be re-elected.
Reading between the lines: many people think that government spending only helps "those"
people (the poor/the politically connected businesses/the bureaucrats/the old/the young/the
non-innovative). You yourself are always a virtuous wealth creator, because of course you
are.
Even many former government employees now living on a government pension believe this.
And when austerity comes for something important to you, it is a mistake, not something
that makes you question austerity, since of course you are not one of "those" people.
It's prejudice/arrogance all the way down, and extremely hard to argue with since it goes
against people's self-image in many ways.
Reading between the lines: many people think that government spending only helps "those"
people (the poor/the politically connected businesses/the bureaucrats/the old/the young/the
non-innovative). You yourself are always a virtuous wealth creator, because of course you
are.
Even many former government employees now living on a government pension believe this.
And when austerity comes for something important to you, it is a mistake, not something
that makes you question austerity, since of course you are not one of "those" people.
It's prejudice/arrogance all the way down, and extremely hard to argue with since it goes
against people's self-image in many ways.
Most of them can't be taken seriously in any case as their task is not to report but to
influence the public opinion. Look at Biden polls for confirmation.
Life is strange. Just as I was reading b's summary of a poll showing increased support for
Trump, NPR ran a story of a poll taken of military people showing just the opposite. Neither
poll can be taken seriously, since neither bothers to include a margin of error, likely to be
about the same amount as the difference between "yes" and "no".
Keith Olbermann is the only media person I have ever heard that talked about polls and
margin of error. He actually included the margin of error in every poll-related story he did
while on MSNBC. Too bad there aren't more journalists like Mr Olbermann.
I did not know about former admitted spooks being elected to Congress. It is very
disturbing that they are operating so openly as to publicly organize and promote the
impeachment circus. It suggests to me that the spooks will not accept a Not Guilty verdict
from the Senate. Not sure I want to think about what they might try next.
Frequently attributed, often in the context of strikebreaking activities during the
Great Southwest Railroad
Strike of 1886 . See for example Philip Sheldon Foner, History of the Labor Movement in the
United States, Volume 2 - Page 50 (1975). A contemporary source has not been identified.
Varying forms of the quotation circulated in the labor press as early as 1893, with or without
the attribution to Gould.
@sally " ..the
goal is to establish conflict ."
Good ole Jay Gould, the very archetype of a rapacious wall street oligarch, put it succinctly
over 100 years ago when he reflected that "he could always pay half the working class to
murder the other half". Truer words were never spoken.
"... But I think that from a practical standpoint, it's difficult to prosecute a serious case based almost solely on the idea that you claim to know what the other guy was thinking. ..."
President Trump explicitly stated in a private conversation with one of the Democrats'
witnesses that he wanted "no quid pro quo." But the mind-reading Democrats know
Trump meant the opposite ; Trump did want a quid pro quo.
Though Ukrainian experts say a holdup of U.S. aid would not have impacted their ability to
fight the Russians, since they manufacture their own lethal weapons (and sell a lot to other
countries), the Democrats can read minds: They say people
died because of the delay.
Each of the Democrats' witnesses also drew conclusions about President Trump, his supposedly
corrupt motivations and thought processes, that would require them to read minds. (Most of them
said they'd neither met nor spoken to Trump.)
Lastly, Democrats can read Joe Biden's mind, too. They know that when Biden insisted on the
firing of the prosecutor investigating his son's company, that his son didn't factor into the
decision.
Democrats could be correct on all counts.
But I think that from a practical standpoint, it's difficult to prosecute a serious case
based almost solely on the idea that you claim to know what the other guy was
thinking.
The interesting info here is that the article states Haftar's "eastern-based Libyan
National Army (LNA), backed by Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the UAE, France, Russia and
Turkey".
The NATO rift between Turkey and its other members has escalated with the Evil Outlaw US
Empire's Senate voting to recognize the Armenian Genocide and Greece to help the LNA (Bengazi
gov't) defend against Turkish shipments of militia/terrorists and weapons to the besieged GNA
in Tripoli. This
site is very helpful and up-to-date regarding what's occurring. And
this PDF Briefing Paper is very good and quite detailed.
All of the above's added to the tense situation around Cyprus, Turkey's threat to close
Incirlik, and Greek offers to house those NATO facilities. It increasingly looks like the
Turkish S-400s are aimed at Greece and NATO.
/div>
Viking guy at 40
"Today we are not members of the EU, but all the "regulations" are forced upon us anyway. The
EU is a non-democratic nightmare that must be demolished."
Absolutely. The EU is the 2nd biggest imperialist asshole on the block, benefitting from the
fact that 1st place is taken by the USA, which is far more blatant, in-your-face and
universally obnoxious when at it, and doing it even to the EU. The EU not being the ultimate
superpower, it can't bully the US or China and only does it when dealing with lesser powers.
That's why it's practically impossible for anyone living inside a major EU-member to actually
notice and be aware of the typical EU behaviour: to crush any lesser country and to force it to
abide by its very own rules, whether independent countries want it or not.
That the EU is that bad should have been clear and obvious to all during the Greek crisis, but
most Europhiles prefer to think this was just an accident, due to some bad apples, and that "If
only the Czar knew", this wouldn't happen. Well, UK is going to get hit badly with the future
deal, because an imperalist neo-liberal power like the EU - just like the US, but most of the
time without the military part of it - can only crush any opposition and make an example out of
it.
If the EU were a truly democratic endeavour, they would allow at least popular referendum at
EU-wide level, and possibly even initiatives, for starter. The way it works, the people have no
checks on it. Not a bit surprise though, most of its core members function this un-democratic
way.
Viking guy at 40
"Today we are not members of the EU, but all the "regulations" are forced upon us anyway. The
EU is a non-democratic nightmare that must be demolished."
Absolutely. The EU is the 2nd biggest imperialist asshole on the block, benefitting from the
fact that 1st place is taken by the USA, which is far more blatant, in-your-face and
universally obnoxious when at it, and doing it even to the EU. The EU not being the ultimate
superpower, it can't bully the US or China and only does it when dealing with lesser powers.
That's why it's practically impossible for anyone living inside a major EU-member to actually
notice and be aware of the typical EU behaviour: to crush any lesser country and to force it
to abide by its very own rules, whether independent countries want it or not.
That the EU is that bad should have been clear and obvious to all during the Greek crisis,
but most Europhiles prefer to think this was just an accident, due to some bad apples, and
that "If only the Czar knew", this wouldn't happen. Well, UK is going to get hit badly with
the future deal, because an imperalist neo-liberal power like the EU - just like the US, but
most of the time without the military part of it - can only crush any opposition and make an
example out of it.
If the EU were a truly democratic endeavour, they would allow at least popular referendum at
EU-wide level, and possibly even initiatives, for starter. The way it works, the people have
no checks on it. Not a bit surprise though, most of its core members function this
un-democratic way.
@Peripatetic
Commenter "He has built more wall than the last three presidents and is on track to have
one fully built by November next year. He has also reduced the amount of illegal immigration
into the US."
To date (August 2019), the administration has replaced about 60 miles of dilapidated
barriers with new fencing. And a major component of Trump's pledge -- that Mexico would pay for
the wall -- hasn't been part of the equation. U.S. taxpayers have paid the cost.
"So right now, 78 miles have been built, have been built where there was an existing form of
barrier," [Acting CBP Commissioner Mark] Morgan said, effectively admitting that none of the
wall that has been constructed has been in new areas.
For the record, I have no problem with rebuilding and/or replacing our border wall. But
Trump has failed to deliver on his campaign promise.
We are operating in a cloud at the moment. And despite the fact that the impeachment is
nonsensical and maliscious, i think ie has an impact on people immediate senses.
I agree that we have a long ways to go and that this remains the president's election to
lose. It would have been helpful if he had diligently governed. And really pressed the
domestic issues forcing the democrats to defend all the positions the country dislikes, but
that can still come into play.
In some ways, I think the president likes the drama
laugh.
And campaigning is going to be a very different front. That is the transition that i wish
had been faster. From politician to administrator of policy.
@Realist
Agreed.
What is not shown, is where the polls were taken. Urban USA votes Democrat, rural USA votes
Republican. This article from 2016 made the most sense of anything I'd seen https://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-one-talks-about/
The 2016 polls were being fixed for Clinton to create a bandwagon effect. That's why she was
90% sure to be elected. These polls will be irrelevant because, as Jeff Rense predicted well
over a year ago, Clinton will run and be the nominee.
He has built more wall than the last three presidents and is on track to have one fully
built by November next year. He has also reduced the amount of illegal immigration into the
US.
he signed a law that granted tax cuts for the wealthy,
If you want to bring money back into the country where it can do some good, you have to
reduce taxes. In any event, he also cut taxes for the not so well off.
he engaged in a quid pro quo
Which QPQ? Ohhh, you mean getting Ukraine to follow up on the terms of the
mutual-assistance treaty between the US and Ukraine to investigate corruption instigated by
US politicians.
@Corvinus
We have more wall built under Trump than Obama. We have had more immigration enforcement (ICE
activity) under Trump than Obama. We all want more, better, faster .. However, Trump has been
limited by the Deep State left.
As a practical matter -- Trump will be infinitely better than the anti-Christian,
Globalist, racist, Soros-funded, DNC candidate. Voters understand this, and that will be more
clear once the campaign becomes one-on-one.
The anti-Jew, White Nationalist & Muslim voters knew about Trump's family before the
last election. And, they voted against him. However, the leftist WN movement is small &
the leftist Muslim movement is smaller. They can not move the needle in U.S. elections
@LoutishAngloQuebecker
Exactly, I feel like other non whites would support the GOP if they made themselves the party
of White Civilization, which is why they are all here in the United States.
Instead the Republican Party is for the Financiers and the Warmongers. Even if Republicans
were pro-immigration, why would any working class nonwhite support them?
Republicans need to make the explicit argument that a more White America will be better
for nonwhites payroll than a less White America. Even Hispanics, Arabs, and Asians can tell
that they will do better in a America with Seattle's demographics than Detroit's, and one
that wont send their kids to die fighting some random Neocon fetish.
This always happens during every primary season. When it's "generic Democrat candidate vs.
incumbent Republican", all of the polls say Democrat, but when there is an actual
candidate chosen and no other alternatives, the polls all flip.
If 2020 goes 368-170 against Trump, I will eat my hat. In favor of Trump, I
wouldn't even be that surprised.
@houston
1992 72, 80, 84, 88, 08 and 12 were inevitable landslides.
I don't agree on 1960.
Nixon carried 4 Southern states worth 40+ EVs. Liberal HC Lodge would not have.
Nixon won his home state with 32 EVs by 0.5%. Would Lodge have won Cal after beating the
home state fav in the primary? Northern liberal Republicans like Lodge lost badly in 44 and
48.
I don't see why Dole would have been stronger than Bush 41.
76? Maybe, but probably not. The public was still in a liberal mood after Vietnam and
Watergate. Ford won 40EVs in the NE, Reagan might have been shut out there, as well as losing
MI (21) and IL (26). Reagan would have done better than Ford in the South, but enough to make
up for doing worse in the midwest and NE? Carter won TN and NC by 10+ points, many other
states by 4+.
Fuck this is depressing. The daily slander and hate mongering against white men is now a
fixture of popular culture and it will only get worse. More great white defendants, more
self-righteous and black womxn rambling incoherently about critical theory and how society is
insufficiently appreciative of their hair.
Once the left takes full power, American free speech exceptionalism will fall by the wayside.
Hate speech restrictions will emerge and anyone that departs from woke orthodoxy will be
threatened with criminal liability.
As a zoomer it is hard to feel optimistic about anything
@Curmudgeon
There were two key pieces of analysis needed to understand the 2016 election.
I have seen _no_ articles that explained both of them.
I know of no political analyst that understands both of them.
If you don't get them _both_ right you cannot predict 2020 correctly.
(1) Black turnout. Blacks turned out for Obama in 2008 and 2012. They did not turn out for
Hillary in 2016. The Democrats have no candidate that will get 2008/2012 like black turnout
numbers. That is one reason they have to be the underdog in 2020 (regardless of "poll
numbers") in states like PA, WI, MI that doomed them in 2016.
(2) You need to look at the counties that voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012 and voted for
Trump in 2016.
There were a fair number of them. You need to understand where they were and what issues
influenced them.
Many of them were rust belt rural areas. The Democrats have no candidate that has anything to
offer them but insults.
I just don't see the Democrats learning _anything_ from 2016, so I have to predict this
election will be a rerun of 2016.
Trump is still Trump. The Democrats are still the Democrats.
"... ...My definition of "bad economy" is when there is no debate and no lying statistics that can hide it. ..."
"... The reality was that half the Republican Party was hoping the Russia hoax was true. ..."
"... Trump has abandoned the European Christian ancestral core of the USA and those White Core American voters will repay the favor by abandoning Trump. Trump is a weak coward who wants to flood the USA with nation-wrecking mass legal immigration "in the largest numbers ever." Trump refuses to deport the upwards of 30 million illegal alien invaders in the USA. ..."
"... What did the state by state polls show before the 2016 election? If I remember correctly a landslide for Clinton. I'm no fan of Trump. I voted for a third party candidate in the last election. But I will be casting my vote for Trump in 2020, and not because my opinion of him has improved. ..."
"... The so-called election is nothing more than a poorly prepared Hollywood fantasy movie. ..."
"... America is not a sovereign nation. The elections are just Theater. Democraps, Republicants, Red States, Blue States, Huh? Not one picture of a Christmas Tree, or of Proud Americans holding good jobs, of our cities prosperous, of our Liberty – intact. ..."
"... In 2016 polls predicted that cackling hyena wins. We know how reliable that prediction was. Is there any reason to believe that these predictions are any better? ..."
The problem with polling data is that there is a huge discrepancy between polls of "likely
voters" and "registered voters". Most polls of "likely voters" show Trump at parity or ahead
of the Democrats in swing states. Most polls of "registered voters" show Trump getting
clobbered. It's very hard to interpret what the data actually means, plus there is the whole
methodological problem around using landlines for polling purposes.
Second, the race is likely to tighten when an actual Democrat becomes the front-runner and
secures the nomination, and there is a race to define the candidate negatively or positively.
Trump is an incumbent, the economy and the unemployment numbers continue to hold, while
clearly the East German Communist party (or whoever is the Minister of Propaganda in charge
of our MSM) is continuing to provide exclusively negative coverage.
I'd like to see Sanders get the nomination, because I imagine that overnight the MSM will
turn on a dime for Trump when their billionaire owners face the possibility of having to pay
their fair share in taxes.
It's kabuki theater. If the Left (the Deep State) gets fully back into power, the S will
HTF.
It's a given. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me in the least that this was already
war-gamed, and that the vertical, 10 year market rallies (bonds and stocks), coming after a 9
year bear market (2000-2009) and a stunningly vertical 1974/82-2000 moon-shot, will reverse a
year from now (+/-) and that the Ruling Class' behavior (doubling down on crushing
"Deplorables' Dissent") will combine with rapidly growing economic hardship to set off a very
real, very bloody revolution in the USA.
Damn it, what is anyone looking at?!
Run a graph of the DJIA from 1928 to now. Look at the St. Louis Fed's FRED graph of TCMDO
(total credit market debt outstanding.) READ Codevilla's essay "Our Revolution's
Logic."https://americanmind.org/essays/our-revolutions-logic/
Then try, just try to tell me that a year from now, if Trump wins reelection and the
Ruling Elite goes even more to war, or if the Demoncrat gets elected and near-literally
unleashes the Dogs of War on MAGA-hat-wearing foes, that we'll all just be hammering our
keyboards while sipping coffee like always.
We're heading for a cataclysm, and the election is borderline irrelevant.
Why did the American Revolution occur? Hint: everything you read in the history books
was a lie, a complete and utter fabrication. People were well-off. But the colonists
revolted anyway.
The sectionalized colonial ruling classes -- especially in Virginia and Massachusetts --
thought they could get a better and bigger deal by exiting the British Empire than by staying
in.
Planter class tired of factors in England ripping them off and Massachusetts book people
types -- lawyers, merchants, traders etc. -- thinking they'd be better off without any
British Empire bean counter middle men around clam raking loot they thought should rightfully
be theirs.
Sam Francis gets more and more right the older I get.
It's always about the current ruling class and the potential ruling class.
White Core America is the new ruling class in waiting that will remove the evil and
immoral JEW/WASP ruling class of the American Empire from power.
Remember, the JEW/WASP ruling class of the American Empire owns and controls the private
consortium of banks called the Federal Reserve Bank.
If the federal funds rate were to go to the normal level of 6 percent, the asset bubbles
in stocks and bonds and real estate would implode in ten minutes.
It's all about the JEW/WASP ruling class and monetary policy and demography.
@Audacious
Epigone My gut is that either Sanders will win the nomination or it will be a contested
convention.
Here's how it could happen:
1. Other candidates fight each other: Other candidates have no incentive to attack
Sanders as his base is dedicated to him. Even Joe Biden says "at least Sanders is honest."
Thus right now we have a Buttigieg vs. Warren fight.
2. Billionaire backlash: As Bloomberg and billionaires try to stop Sanders, it
could backfire on them. With Kamala's resignation, I was honestly surprised it wasn't all
race and gender. (The top highlight on her Medium resignation note is "I am not a
billionaire"). Cory Booker said the DNC rules were favoring "millionaires and billionaires"
and that there were more "billionaires than black people" on the debate stage. Booker and
Harris are neoliberal shills IMO. Booker even defended Romney against Bain attacks, so I was
surprised to see him meeting Sanders halfway in rhetoric. Kamala may have decided to pull the
plug rather than rebuild in part due to Bloomberg's California ad spending.
3. Differing incentives for individual establishment players vs. the establishment
overall (e.g. similar to Rubio and Kasich being unable to team up early to stop a Trump
victory). What if Warren/Buttigieg/Bloomberg (all of which are well funded) all do okay but
not great. Also the calendar is front-end loaded so long as campaigns are completely broke ,
they might as well stay in.
4. Better than expected turnout for younger groups : The latest Quinnipiac poll has
Sanders at 52% within the 18-34 age group. What if turnout impresses in this group. Sanders
is also doing well with Hispanics (a group that historically is lower-turnout). Sanders also
has the financial resources to help drive turnout.
5 A weakened Biden may not be the windfall the other candidates think it is: Bernie
has a pulse with black voters and some Biden voters may actually gravitate to Sanders.
Anecdote: I was in an uber recently driven by a older black gentleman and he said he would
vote for Biden though noted he really liked Sanders but was concerned given his heart
attack.
Of course the key difference is that rather than the winner-take-most system of the GOP,
Democrats award delegates proportionally subject to a 15% minimum)
What if California (today's poll is Biden 21, Sanders 20, Warren 17, Buttigieg 9, Yang 6,
Bloomberg 5) turns into the following:
He's not. Reality doesn't conform to your political preferences. The US is in an enormous
stock market bubble inflated by low interest rates and corporate stock buybacks, among other
things. The rich are frightened by Warren and have repeatedly attacked her in the media.
Result: she's lost quite a bit of support in recent polls among democrats, likely upperclass
whites. The economy is not fundamentally sound, and it hasn't been since before the 2008
housing crash. I could easily see the bubble bursting should she panic the market / bring
them back to reality.
Trump ran as a Republican. That doesn't mean he is one.
Everything you just said about Donald Trump applies to Elizabeth Warren. She was once a
republican even though she's now running as a democrat. Try again.
Democrats and Republicans decried Russian Interference in our Presidential Election Democrats
claimed Trump colluded with the Russians to defeat Hillary Clinton and demanded an
investigation.
The FBI opened Crossfire Hurricane on July 31, 2016 (6 months before the election)
Andrew McCabe a Senior FBI Director selected 3 teams of 24 people to investigate. All 24
people were senior members of the FBI and DOJ.
8 months later another the Mueller Investigation is formed and it goes for 22 months, what
did it find?
No proof of collusion by the Trump campaign, but it did find 10 instances where Trump
resisted and objected to the instruction and investigation.
The Bureaucracy demands an investigation of the Mueller Investigation, this Horowitz
Investigation finds what?
51 Misconduct violations by these Senior FBI employees.
17 "Serious Misconduct Violations" of these Senior FBI employees
4 Individuals who were considered "Informants"
1 "Unlawful Informant" that folks is a spy.
Let's look at Appendix 1 (Woods Process Review) of the Horowitz Report, it finds:
23 instances of undocumented "fact" stated in the 4 FISA applications
18 outright "lies" stated in the 4 FISA applications.
Folks what in taxpayer funds has this cost you and I?
Crossfire Hurricane – 8 month investigation $16.7 million dollars
Mueller Investigation – 22 month investigation $45 million dollars
Horowitz Investigation -12 months $24.5 million dollars.
The Democrats spend $86.2 million dollars to accomplish what?
1. No proof of collusion of President Trump or his people.
2. 3 people arrested and convicted of Tax Evasion crimes that had NOTHING to do with the
Investigation or the election.
3. 3 people prosecuted for process lies of which they never would have been involved had this
sham investigation not transpired.
4. 34 Nebulous Russians accused of election interference who can never be prosecuted.
5. 10 Senior FBI and DOJ employees, fired, demoted, resigned, retired or reassigned for
misconduct.
6. 51 Violations by Senior FBI employees during the Investigations
7. 17 Serious Misconduct violations by Senior FBI and DOJ employees
8. 4 FBI informants "spying" on American citizens
9. 1 Illegal FBI informant spying on American citizens
10. HOW MANY WILL BE PROSECUTED, that remains to be seen.
All of this because a career bureaucrat Hillary Clinton lost an election to a novice
politician.
We the taxpayer and American voter must re-elect President Trump and give him a House and
Senate who will help him purge the entrenched bureaucracy otherwise known as the Swamp, Deep
State or just garbage in Washington DC.
@dc.sunsets
From Polybius' Histories , written around 140 BC.
For this evil grew upon us rapidly [1960-1980], and without attracting attention, by our
men becoming perverted [Grindr and Tinder?] to a passion for show and money and the
pleasures of an idle life [the cult of Celebrity], and accordingly either not marrying at
all, or, if they did marry, refusing to rear the children that were born [only whites play
child support], or at most one or two out of a great number, for the sake of leaving them
well off or bringing them up in extravagant luxury. For when there are only one or two
sons, it is evident that, if war or pestilence carries off one, the houses must be left
heirless: and, like swarms of bees, little by little the cities become sparsely inhabited
and weak. On this subject there is no need to ask the gods how we are to be relieved from
such a curse: for any one in the world will tell you that it is by the men themselves if
possible changing their objects of ambition; or, if that cannot be done, by passing laws
for the preservation of infants. On this subject there is no need of seers or prodigies.
And the same holds good of all similar things.
There's nothing new under the sun.
We haven't arrived at the End of History.
The Shit-storms of the past are not relegated forever to dusty books.
Idiocracy is a movie; it's not a comedy, it's a tragedy. And anyone with a brain
can see that as our world moves inexorably toward Idiocracy (due to demographics
alone), it will be accompanied by a depopulation of humanity so epic that no poetic
representation is possible.
This is in large part, Trumps fault for caving to the DNC by not prosecuting them and the
Clintons and Clinton Foundation. Due to his taking terrible advice, Trump is now in a
defensive position. He had every reason to go on the offense right off the bat. His voters
expected it. People wanted the corruption, Civil Rights abuses, and the wars to end. Trump
has made matters worse by placing Israel's interests over America's and antagonizing Iran for
no reason other than to please Israel and Saudi Arabia. Iran is not a threat to either
country, both of which have had a history of threatenning their neighbors.
Because at some point Biden's handlers have to let him open his mouth, and when that happens, the saliva will run out and
start dripping off his chin, and that'll be that.
No Malarkey is already tipping his dementia with every appearance as it is. With Quid Pro Ho' now gone and Quid Pro Homo
and Quid Pro NotANavajo ebbing, it'll soon enough be Quid Pro Joe, and once that happens, the Trump squad with its record
minimum $/vote in '16 fixates on the 2020 edition of Walter Mondale '84 and off we go.
Trump was boxed in by Ryan, McCain, and Gramnesty. Remember all the threats to impeach if he
fired Mueller. The reality was that half the Republican Party was hoping the Russia hoax was
true.
If blacks don't turn on Biden after Iowa and New Hampshire, they will be with him
through the entire primary season, no matter what he says or does.
Biden has Obama to thank for his position as the candidate most likely to successfully
combine the AUNT JEMIMA STRATEGY and the GREEDY WHITE GEEZER STRATEGY and the GOVERNMENT
WORKER STRATEGY. Biden will have a formidable bloc of voters with those three blocs, and
other voters will be quick to fall in line and go with the guy they think can beat Trump.
Obama will not undercut nor undermine Biden in any way. Obama will eat burgers on his new
estate on the water on Martha's Vineyard and he'll read books and maybe eat some delicious
potato salad made by the nice Methodist ladies at their lovely island spot.
Warren and Buttigieg will wreck each other and Sanders won't be able to bust through to a
new level of support and the beautiful Black church ladies don't much care for Warren nor
Buttigieg nor Sanders anyhow.
The big story of the Democrat Party presidential primary will be how quickly Biden wraps
it up and how quickly the GREEN PARTY surges with supporters who refuse to vote for Biden or
the Democrat Party ruling class. Biden could have the nomination wrapped up by March 3.
The big story of the upcoming general election will be the rise of the new political party
called WHITE CORE AMERICA.
Trump has abandoned the European Christian ancestral core of the USA and those White Core
American voters will repay the favor by abandoning Trump. Trump is a weak coward who wants to
flood the USA with nation-wrecking mass legal immigration "in the largest numbers ever."
Trump refuses to deport the upwards of 30 million illegal alien invaders in the USA.
Trump has completely capitulated to the globalizers and the financialiers by crawling
into bed with the transnationalist free traders on tariffs. The USA must have a tariff system
that is somewhere between revenue raising and prohibitive and Trumpy is selling out on trade
for a pile of frigging soybeans!
What did the state by state polls show before the 2016 election? If I remember correctly a
landslide for Clinton. I'm no fan of Trump. I voted for a third party candidate in the last
election. But I will be casting my vote for Trump in 2020, and not because my opinion of him
has improved. The last three years have revealed how frightening the Democrats and the media
are- far worse than I ever imagined. I don't believe I'm alone in this assessment.
Part of it is that Trump is a known quantity. Barring a market collapse, he's at his
floor. Though Biden and Sanders are familiar to low-information voters, they've not been
fully scrutinized, so both are likely to come down upon getting the nomination if either
does.
You have written an article, followed by numerous commenters who join you in ignoring the
History of America and its citizens since November 22, 1963.
The so-called election is nothing more than a poorly prepared Hollywood fantasy movie.
America is not a sovereign nation. The elections are just Theater. Democraps,
Republicants, Red States, Blue States, Huh? Not one picture of a Christmas Tree, or of Proud
Americans holding good jobs, of our cities prosperous, of our Liberty – intact.
Is this Braindead piece of shit by 'Epigone' a sign of things to come on this so-called
'Alternate Media' website?
Huh? Ms. Pocahontis, vs Biden (who with his son has looted the Ukraine), vs. Sanders, the
'socialist' who votes for all military appropriations, and serves a Foreign Power, vs. Casino
Trump; do I need a verb?
This article would fit on MSNBC, CNN, or in The New York Times, Wasshington Post, FOX,
etc.
Are there none, who dare Love Their Country , and are willing to at least
understand that our Yellow Brick Road to Freedom lies in a Revolutionary Struggle to
Restore Our Republic , that was assassinated, along with our Last Constitutional
President, John F. Kennedy, in a Zionist MOSSAD/CIA Coup D'etat – hail of
bullets on November 22, 1963?
Has 9/11 , and the attack on the Liberty been forgotten? Notice: there was
not a mention of unperson Tulsi Gabbard . For some reason they do not trust her. She
must have refused an implant.
Epigone (whoever she is?) writes about elections that do not exist, candidates that do not
exist, an Independent America that is just a Dream, a Distant memory. This article is
standard Mainstream Media Crap. Why is it necessary for the/its author to hide her identity?
Ms. Maddow; is this you?
We might as well discuss Professional Wrestling. Epigone, Be Gone!
Conclusion:
America is not a Sovereign Nation. We Americans are not Free. We are slaves. We will throw
off our chains and regain our Honor, as soon as we realize:
@houston
1992 You seem to be ignoring the massive vote fraud in Illinois, particularly Chicago,
where more votes were cast than there were voters, including lots of the dead ones showing up
to vote for Kennedy. Nixon did the honorable thing, not the right thing, by accepting the
fraudulent result that would have given him the election.
"The people who cast the votes don't decide an election, the people who count the votes do."
Joseph Stalin
Who's Afraid of an Open Debate? The Truth About the Commission on Presidential Debates
The Commission on Presidential Debates is a private corporation headed by the former
chairmen of the Republican and Democratic parties. The CPD is a duopoly which allows the
major party candidates to draft secret agreements about debate arrangements including
moderators, debate format and even participants.
@dfordoom
Polling tends to find between 20%-35% of the population amenable to the idea. It's definitely
much higher than 1%. In California, polling showed support for Calexit at around 20%. That
was three years ago.
There is a clear generational angle to it–young people are much more open to the
idea than older people are.
The idea that support for political dissolution indicates support for a white ethnostate
is a non sequitur. The first secessionist movement in the US was in Massachusetts for what
are conventionally considered leftwing reasons.
In 2016 polls predicted that cackling hyena wins. We know how reliable that prediction was.
Is there any reason to believe that these predictions are any better?
So far Dems do their level best to help Trump reelection. Their impeachment circus, which
boils down to "Biden is corrupt, so let's impeach Trump" is doing wonders to bury Dems.
@Daniel
Rich You're talking about outcome odds, not polls per se, but the point is well taken.
Polls had Clinton winning Michigan by 6, Wisconsin by 3, and Pennsylvania by 2. The upper
Midwest was the difference. The national polls were pretty accurate–they had Clinton
winning by 3.5 and she ended up winning by 2.
I sometimes tire of defending what might be considered 'black positioning". In fact, I have
had enough black experiences to become dismayed. But I was taught, two wrongs don't make a
right. And as I have a conscience cannot maybe will not bend truth to suit political
advantage. Despite the negative consequence to myself.
Blacks band together for rather obvious reasons. I don't think there';s a need to wrangle
on about that history, most know it well enough.
This president did not win election because of a spike in crimes by blacks. Though
admittedly, the turmoil over the shooting of unarmed blacks by police mattered and the
responses that resulted in several officers being killed were high mileage news stories. The
truth is that the police while having a very tough job at times, are more than relatively
safe from harm.
The key issues
immigration
foreign policy, ie. regime change
the economy: employment, manufacturing, trade
whiteness pressure did play a role as it almost always does but the backdrop of social
somersaults on normalcy was a much larger factor in my view
This election as long as there are no major upheavels, I don't think there will be much
damage from the democratic ploy of impeachment, most likely it will backfire as it well
should, the current president stands in good stead.
I don't think there is anyone to blame for low north rates among whites, aside from
whites. No one is forcing whites to stop having children. Speaking of which my condolences to
the passing of Danny Aiello.
And anyone who thinks that immigration, isn't a contributor to the demographic shift is
simply not paying attention in my view. And worse, that immigration is the diversity that
matters to US citizenship as a culture and national ethos not skin color. Skin color is the
easy ruse and distraction from the importation of people who arrive and for whom we start
catering to their wants:
language, religious practices, cultural ethos and activities, re-imagined histories of the
US as theives and marauders -- it is easy to take these issues out on blacks. But blacks did
not import millions of Irish, Germans, Italians, Greeks, and now Indians, Pakistanis, Chinese
and latinos. And the latino gamesmanship has been going on since before Spain gave up Mexico
and excellerated when Pres. Grant's enfranchisement of blacks was stifled, found solace in
importing and improving relations with Mexico, afterall, he had been part of that war and
knew some Mexicans he was fond of. Some solace. And the Cubans have been playing that latin
card under the guise of communist aggression/oppression for all its worth and others have
caught on -- and even this president has played right into their hands --
It;s hard to buy the white intelligentsia card when whotes have been importing millions of
very low intelligent people from across the planet and most of them have been white. And it
simply boggles the mind why if education mattered we as a country would literally refuse to
educate some 4 million freed slaves -- and then wonder about why said people seem
uneducated
-- it just wreaks of the deepest and worst hypocrisies one can dredge up from our history.
Since the record on welfare is clear regarding blacks and one has to reject the canard
printed in a recent Atlantic Magazine how blacks were uplifted by New Deal policies when in
fact, blacks were shunted to the back of the line and in many cases absolutely denied access
to the same.
Litsening to the whites in Congress discuss impeachment was hardly a boon to well thought
argument and critical thought, muchless simple legal grasp of the issues -- which given how
many are supposed lawyers and business people is a more than surprising. Law makers don't the
difference between legal standard and personal taste would be funny if not for what it speaks
about the future or the past.
Even now faced with a cold hard reality that blacks have crossed the color line
repeatedly, many here continue their diatribe about whites as some holder of ethics, but when
facing even recent history, from Vietnam era to this day the list of issues advocated by
whites has shredded ethics as an ethos and as practice. I watched Richard Jewel last night
and its a devastating commentary about one of the most respected law enforcement
organizations we have. But then that commentray isn't new. Most of just pretend that our law
enforcement agencies are nothing but clean cut whites with no capabilities hedged in by
"truth justice and the american way". When in fact most of law enforcement that is hemmed by
those ethics actually coddle and protect those who are not or even make mistakes, unless some
extreme event occurs – power – has outweighed ethics, regardless of skin color.
We are simply so afraid that if hold the system to account the whole thing ill fall
apart.
As i have to face the issues regarding my accident, I am also faced with stark terms with
why I simply bail out of this time of year. It's hard to celebrate either the gift of a meal
or the birth of Christ knowing that people I labored with and for quite successfully, sought
to destroy not only my ability to work, but my very existence as a human being -- - "good
will toward men" is just more hypocrisy than I can bare. Laughing And I am certainly not
alone in that. I chagrin that blacks are not supportive republicans or conservatives despite
having many of the same ethics on key issues. If this president decides as we should have
ages ago, to brake with the old tired molds of identity politics, then
"bully for him"
And i going to say this, if in fact whites are the better humans -- their mindset on
action and ethics should reflect as much. If the innate character by genes is a better human
-- superior than by said truth of the advance that should be in demonstration -- but if one
is going to hold as model a practice the constant double standard -- then we shouldn't be at
all surprised when the mexican help sleeps with our spouse, has a child and anchor baby's the
same, not only to citizenship, but the family's treasure chest as well.
As for me, I will deal with the black or white criminal as of greater value if they are
citizens whose parents were citizens and obtained the same legally.
Immigration and the economy should trump the politics of color. And by the way, I think
less than 5%, far less, of the black population are criminals. Making that a national call to
vote for president Trump may gain votes, but at the end of the day we are still left with the
Frank getting an operation so he can compete against Nadia Comaneci – and blacks didn't
come up with that.
menter's history–1
comment–it is more than likely a regular on your fine blog trying to get their shot in,
rather than discuss topics with style and substance.
@By-tor
You don't have to get a majority of blacks to do a lot of damage to the Democrats. If Trump
got 20% (and I am not predicting) then it would be a Trump blowout in the Electoral College.
Let me see .should I vote for the red [ Trump] commies, or the blue [anti-Trump] commies?
Hmm, quite choice, I'll admit- too much for me to handle all in one go. I'll need to
seriously think on that for quite a while, it makes my brain hurt.
@CorvinusActually, it is a robust set of charges. You haven't been paying attention.
Actually, we have been paying attention. Even more so to your ridiculous posts about the
Mueller probe and everything he was going to uncover. Your track record in believing stupid
things is well documented.
Corbyn's defeat was entirely due to the treachery of the engrained leadership of the Labour
Party.
While the membership is generally radical and socialist, 80% of the MPs, local
councillors, Union Officers and party officials were put there by the Blairites and are
almost impossible to remove from the offices in which they have enormous potential
influence.
Corbyn was in an almost impossible position but his mistake was, characteristically, to
assume a higher degree of good will and loyalty to the 'cause' than most MPs, careerists,
contemptuous of ordinary people and desperate for the approval-in a society which is famous
for its social snobbery- of the ruling Establishment.
It is significant that, whereas Johnson expelled dozens of MPs from the Tory party, Labour
expelled only one-Chris Williamson on the basis of an obviously idiotic charge of
antisemitism on his part.
Sometimes left wing winners have to be ready to fight to the death to secure the mandates
they are given and in doing so to damage the opposition. In this case the Blairites.
Sometimes betraying the working class and the poor takes the form of refusing to be
ruthless.
The irony is that Corbyn is by far the longest standing critic of the EU in British public
life, as the Blairites very quickly charged when the referendum on the EU (" a highly
democratic organisation" in Laguerre's astonishing judgement) was won by the 'wrong side'.
And in 2017 he campaigned on the promise to 'get Brexit done". It was only out of a refusal
to confront the Remainers, including most of his Shadow Cabinet, that the hybrid policy to
implement the Blairite Peoples Vote was adopted.
I imagine that the Remainers in the Labour Party and the Blairites of every sort will be
saddened by the public's renewed mandate for Brexit, but their dominant emotion will be
euphoria that the left was defeated, neo-liberalism still reins unchallenged and imperialism
maintained in British Foreign Policy.
If the Labour Party now sticks to its principles it will purge itself of its Fifth Columns
and use the breathing space before the next election to re-organise itself as a socialist
party.
To do this it needs firstly, to establish a newspaper, secondly to build a Youth wing,
thirdly to institute a national system of political education so that every member
understands what socialism is and takes a part in its construction. And fourthly that Labour
becomes the organising focus for both Unions organising the unorganised and social movements
defending tenants, the poor, disabled and vulnerable.
But this is all very unlikely, the party structure is biassed against democracy, it is
almost impossible to impose the will of the membership on the people who run the party. And
ought to be run out of it.
JC was crucified, by authority of the Empire, at the urging of the Israeli authorities in
Jerusalem and with the invaluable assistance of corrupt traitors among his own people
started by an unemployed Englishman named Eliot Higgins
Good on him – being able to create a thing that rises to such prominence in such a
short space of time speaks volumes about this Higgins guy's entrepreneurial ability. And if
he wasn't mobbed-up to begin with, he sure as fuck is now – which is a double-
mitzvah (for him).
If he did so starting from being unemployed, then anybody who turned down a job
application from the guy must be kicking themselves. (' Unemployed ' is obviously used
pejoratively in the blockquote; 'Englishman' is purely-descriptive).
.
Also, the entire article accepts Bernays' conclusion, but disagrees as to which objectives
should be pursued.
Bernays' conclusions are hardly controversial: most people are gullible imbeciles .
It's not clear to me how much more empirical evidence we need before that becomes just a
thing that everyone with an IQ above 115 accepts.
So the question then becomes " OK, now what? ".
As usual, the right answer is " Depends " – and not just for those with
bladder control problems.
If you want to do things that are just , exploiting gullible imbeciles would appear
to violate the playing conditions. It would be hors jeu ; not done; just not
cricket .
As the Laconian famously said . " IF ."
For those for whom the 'if' condition returns 'false', it does very little to bleat about
how awful they are. You're not going to cause a little switch in their brain to flick on (or
off?), whereupon they realise the error of their ways and make a conscious decision to leave
the gullible imbeciles unexploited.
It's even unlikely to affect their victims (remember, they're imbeciles) – because
otherwise some infra-marginal imbeciles would have to process their way through quite a bit
of cognitive dissonance, and they're not wired for introspection (or processing).
So the sole real purpose (apart from κάθαρσις
catharsis ) is prophylaxis (προ +
φύλαξις – guarding ). Both good enough aims
obviously the writer is the one who gets the cathartic benefit, but who is going to be on
heightened alert as a result of this Cassandra -ish jeremiad -ing?
Non-imbeciles don't need it; imbeciles won't benefit.
Here's the thing: the gullible imbeciles are going to be exploited by
someone .
.
This is something that people of my persuasion struggle with. It boils down to the
following:
Let's assume that a reprehensible thing exists already, and is unlikely to be overthrown
by my opposition to it. Should I just participate and line my pockets?
The resources used are going to be used whether I participate or not, so it may as well
be me who gets them. After all, I will put them to moral uses – and while inside, I
can do things that are contrary to the interests of the reprehensible thing.
There is no satisfactory counter-argument to that line of reasoning, and yet I reject
it.
Then again: I was dropped on my head as an infant, so YMMV.
Email This Page to Someone
Remember My
Information
=>
List of Bookmarks
◄
►
◄
►
▲
▼
Remove
from Library
B
Show
Comment
Next New Comment
Next
New Reply
Read More
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc.
More...
This Commenter
This Thread
Hide Thread
Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They
are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My
Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Email Comment
Ignore
Commenter
Follow Commenter
Bookmark
Toggle
All
ToC
▲
▼
Add
to Library
Search Text
Case
Sensitive
Exact Words
Include Comments
Search
Clear
Cancel
I have just finished reading William
Shirer's
Berlin Diary
. (This may not fascinate you, but I am coming to something.) I first
encountered it in high school. It is of course Shirer's account as a correspondent in Germany of the rise of
the Nazis. Most of it is well known to the educated. The Nazis, who had control over the domestic press,
convinced the German population that the Poles were threatening Germany, as plausible as Guatemala
threatening the United States. The Poles were said to be committing atrocities against Germans.
Then the Reich, with no justification
whatever, having absolute air superiority, attacked Poland, bombing undefended cities and killing huge
numbers of people. It was a German pattern several times repeated. Many reporters told of the smell of
rotting bodies, of refugees dying of hunger and thirst. Today the Reich is endlessly remembered as a paragon
of evil. It was.
How did Nazi Germany differ from the
United States today? There is the same lying. Washington insisted that Iraq was about to get nuclear
weapons, biological agents, that it had poisonous gas. None of this was true. The government, unimpeded by
the media, persuaded over half of the American population that Iraq was responsible for Nine-Eleven. Now it
says that Iran works to get nuclear weapons, and of course that the Russians are coming. The American press,
informally but strictly controlled, carefully doesn't challenge any of this.
Having prepped the American public as the
Nazis prepped theirs, Washington unleashed a savage attack against Iraq, deliberately destroying
infrastructure, leaving the country without power or purified water. The slaughter was godawful. But, said
America, the war was to rid the Iraqi people of an evil dictator, to bring them democracy, freedom, and
human rights. (The oil was entirely incidental. The oil is always incidental.)
Fallujah, Iraq, after the American military brought it democracy, human rights, and freedom.
Guernica, after the visit of the Kondor Legion. For the historically challenged, this was the Spanish
city bombed during the Spánish Civil War by the Germans in support of the Falangists.
Washington never sleeps in its campaigns to improve the lives of people
whose most fervent wish is that America stop improving their lives. To give the Afghans democracy, human
rights, and American values, the US has for eighteen years been bombing, bombing, bombing a largely
illiterate population in a nation where America has no business. It is a coward's war with warplanes
butchering peasants who have no defenses. The pilots and drone operators who do this deserve contempt, as
does the country that sends them. How many more years? For what purpose? And how were the German Nazis
different?
The German Gestapo perpetrated sickening
torture in hidden basements. America does the same, mainltaining torture prisons around the world. In these,
men, and no doubt women, are hung by their wrists for days, naked in very cold rooms, kept awake and
periodically beaten (exactly as described by survivors of Soviet torture. Nazis, whether American, Russian,
or German, are Nazis.)
Photos of Iraqis at the American torture
operation at Abu Ghraib showed prisoners, almost naked, lying in pools of blood. Tell me, please, how this
differs from what was done by the Reich? (The bloodier photos are no longer online. Many that remain seem to
have been edited.)
Abu Ghraib.
A happy American girl soldier. Note rubber gloves. The US military used many
female soldiers for this duty. They apparently were kinky, as they seemed to get a kick out of it. A
female general ran the operation.
Gina Haspel, head of the CIA, is a sadist
who tortured Moslem prisoners, reminiscent of Ilse Koch, the notorious Nazi torturess, who also worked in
prisons. It is easy to find victims there, I suppose.
An Abu Ghraib pic apparently no longer online. I found it on an ancient memory stick. Are we having
fun yet?
President Trump has just
pardoned
several American war criminals, saying he wanted to give US soldiers the "confidence to
fight." This amounts to blanket permission to commit atrocities. A purpose of military training being to
extirpate human decency and mercifulness, the obscene barbarism is not surprising. Atrocities are what
soldiers do, and will do as long as the wars go on, being furiously denied by the government. (When I
covered Force Recon, the Marine Corps Special Forces, the motto on the wall was "Crush Their Skulls and Eat
Their Faces.")
Perhaps the best known example of
implied approval was Nixon's pardon of Lt. Calley, who ordered the murder of Vietnamese villagers, for which
he received three years of house arrest.
The Germans wanted empire,
lebensraum,
and resources, in particular oil. Americans want empire and oil, control of which allows
control of the world They go about getting them by invasion and intimidation. Thus America wants to bring
democracy and human rights to Iraq, Iran, Venezuela, and Nigeria, which have
lots
of oil, while it
has occupation troops in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and elsewhere in the Mideast. What part of Syria is Trump
occupying? Surprise, surprise! The part with the oil. Oil for the Americans, land for the Germans.
As Shirer points out, the German public
was not enthusiastic about the war, at least not through 1940, as neither is the American public today.
Neither public showed any concern about the hideousness its government inflicted around the world. What is
the difference?
The parallels with the Reich are not
complete. Washington does not essay genocide against Jews or blacks or any other internal population, being
content with killing whoever its bombs fall upon. Trump cannot reasonably be likened to Hitler. He lacks the
vision, the backbone, and apparently the viciousness. Hitler was a very smart, very evil man who knew
exactly what he was doing, at least politically. This cannot be said of Trump. However, Hitler was, and
Trump is, surrounded by freak-show curiosities of great bellicosity. Adolf had Goering, Goebbels, Himler,
Rheinhardt Heydrich, Julius Streicher, Eichman. Trump has John Bolton, as amoral and pathologically
aggressive as any in the Fuehrer's entourage, or under a log. Pompeo, a bloated toad of a man, bears an
uncanny resemblance to Goering. Both he and Pence are Christian heretics, Evangelicals, who believe they are
connected to God on broadband. O'Brien sounds like Bolton. All want war with Iran and perhaps with China and
Russia. Sieg heil, and run like hell.
My Lai, after Lt. Calley of the SS Totenkopf Div excuse me, the Americal Division, I meant to say,
brought human rights, freedom, and the American way.
Wikipedia:
"Between 347 and 504 unarmed people were killed by U.S. Army soldiers Victims
included men, women, children, and infants. Some of the women were gang-raped and their bodies mutilated as
were children as young as 12.")
For this Calley got three years house
arrest, less than the sentence for a bag of methamphetamine, until pardoned by Nixon. Many Americans said,
and many still say, that he should not have been punished at all, that we needed to take the gloves off, let
the troops fight. Again, this is what Trump said.
The German Nazis worshiped Blood and
Soil, the land of Germany and the Teutonic race, which they believed to be genetically superior to all
others. Americans can't easily worship race. Instead they think themselves Exceptional, Indispensable, a
Shining City on a Hill, the greatest civilization the world has known. Same narcissism and arrogance,
slightly different foundation.
Nazi Germany was, like Nazi America,
intensely militaristic. The US has hundreds of bases around the world (China has one overseas base, in
Djibouti), spends appallingly on the military despite the lack of a credible military enemy. It currently
buys new missile submarines (the Columbia class), aircraft carriers (the Ford class), intercontinental
nuclear bombers (the B21), and fighter planes (the F-35).
Nazi Germany attacked Poland, Norway,
Belgium, France, Russia, America, and England. America? Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia, Syria, supports a
brutal proxy war against Yemen (Yemen is a grave threat to America), threatens Venezuela, China, and Iran
with attack, embargoes Cuba. These are recent. Going back a bit, we have Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam,
Yugoslavia, the intervention in Panama, on and on. Millions and millions killed.
The Third Reich was, and America is, the
chief threat to peace on the planet, a truly rogue state.
Is this something to be proud of?
Other stuff
La FIL,
Feria Internacional
de Libros
, International Book Fair, Guadalajara, an annual event. I post the photo with the joyous sense
of mischief of an eleven-year-old poking a nest of wasps. It will infuriate the Dissident Right, or Alt
Right, or Race Realists. Their leaders excepted, most of these are ill-tempered naifs who insist, and seem
to hope desperately, that Latin Americans are illiterate. I occasionally have conservative friends down and
they are astonished to find that Guadalajara, a large international city, has the sorts of bookstores had by
large international cities. Duh. (If interested,
here
are a couple of dozen.)
Another and cherished conceit of the
Dissident Right is that Latin Americans who can read must be white. Well, I guess. Why, you could easily
mistake the crowd above for Norwegians. Their ancestors probably arrived with Leif Erikson.
Merry Christmas to all! Happy "Winter
Holidays" to none.
Write Fred at
[email protected].
Put the letters "pdq" anywhere in the subject line to avoid autodeletion. All read, reply not guaranteed due
to volume.
This meritorious and beneficial column
will go into hibernation until after New Year, after which it will likely return.
Is it just part of the human condition that as any writer or any publication gains a
reputation for truth and revelation and dependability, that that reputation is sooner or
later leveraged for gain or influence or access?
I can think of a number of examples where I'm almost certain that that is the case,
although I'll avoid writing their names.
In the end, we are all of us really quite alone in the universe, enjoying only periods
with the illusion of support and fellowship.
On the example of the Kennedys, the assassinations provide perhaps the greatest
illustration of how things work.
I should say that I regard them as two chapters in one book. John's killers had to be
Bobby's killers also because that intense younger man, once holding the powers of the
presidency, would have relentlessly hunted down his brother's killers.
We know that he did not believe the Warren Commission, though he did not go around saying
that. He even apparently had some idea of who the killers might be, never telling others any
details of his suspicions.
Books have for decades been churned out by either the CIA or friends of the CIA or
unwitting assets of the CIA arguing for the truth of the Warren Commission.
On the other hand, as someone with a long interest in the events, I believe that a great
many of the books against the Warren Commission were also written by the same interests. Not
all of them, but many.
Books especially that either are so preposterous or poorly written and edited that they
effectively discredit those who do not accept the (absurd) findings of the Warren
Commission.
After all, it was some CIA disinformation officer who came up with the term "conspiracy
theorist" in the 1960s to discredit genuine critics of the Warren Commission, a term of such
lasting power, it is still widely used, its application having spread to a large number of
topics.
Those with power do tend to keep guiding events no matter how hard we struggle to
understand and correct the course of affairs.
Power is a very real thing, almost physical in its presence, and it is rarely overturned
by truth or justice or fairness.
It's not an inspiring view, but I fear it is reality.
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI), the outspoken, independent thinker from Hawaii running for the
loftiest perch in the land, has just said "no" to taking the next Democratic presidential
primary debate stage. This signals either a surrender or a strategic end-run around the field.
Yes, we've been down this road before. It is the same sentiment she expressed prior to the last
debate; although she threatened to boycott the circus, she did qualify, show up, and rebuke the
other candidates and the Democratic Party.
Gabbard has been Public Enemy #1 in those
circles since. Instead of playing into the cemented narrative, Tulsi, who has not so far
reached the conditions imposed for participation in the next round, is not wasting her
time.
The Most Repetitive Show On Earth
As the sixth platform for national domination looms, Gabbard tweeted a different plan,
saying:
"For a number of reasons, I have decided not to attend the December 19th 'debate' --
regardless of whether or not there are qualifying polls. I instead choose to spend that
precious time directly meeting with and hearing from the people of New Hampshire and South
Carolina."
Whether her bold decision is based on not quite reaching the necessary baseline
requirements, or because she has had enough of the game playing, Tulsi seems indifferent to
striving
for inclusion . And we all know Gabbard is not one to tread water in the shallow end of the
pool when a good, strong crawl will cover more territory.
Tulsi Gabbard
The Democratic National Committee (DNC) has upped the ante for primetime pandering by
requiring candidates to have a minimum of 4% support in selected national polls and 6% in two
state polls of the early primary states Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, or Nevada.
The deadline for polling qualification is Dec. 12 at the witching hour of 11:59 p.m. in the
Eastern time zone. How dramatic for what is likely to be a boring rehash of Trump-bashing, held
a scant week later.
Although Tulsi has the sheer donor numbers needed – the support of at least 200,000
unique donors – her national polling numbers haven't yet reached the threshold. Those on
the survey leaderboard are Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Amy Klobuchar
(D-MN), former Vice President Joe Biden, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, billionaire Tom Steyer, and
businessman Andrew Yang.
A Diverse Or One-Note Race?
Tulsi has been tilting
at the DNC and its primary prerequisites since the get-go, claiming the surveyors they used
weren't "accurate" enough, or that the venues were biased. Gabbard's campaign released a
statement in August, which said:
"Many of the uncertified polls, including those conducted by highly reputable
organizations such as The Economist and the Boston Globe, are ranked by Real Clear Politics
and FiveThirtyEight as more accurate than some DNC 'certified' polls."
The DNC was insistent that its criteria for inclusion have been fair and balanced. Just ask
the committee's spokeswoman Xochitl Hinojosa, who responded:
"This has been the most inclusive debate process with more women and candidates of color
participating in more debates than billionaires. We are proud of this historic and diverse
field with 20 candidates participating in the first two debates and at least 10 candidates in
each debate after that."
What's ironic is that no people of color – because of the strident stipulations
imposed – will be at the Dec. 19 debate hosted by PBS NewsHour and Politico at the Loyola
Marymount University in Los Angeles. PBS is set to broadcast the debate, and most likely, fewer
people will watch the event than Gabbard can reach by holding town halls or meet and greets.
Perhaps she's on to something, after all.
Jacques Ellul's 1973 Propaganda: The Formation of Men's Minds is still the antidote to
Bernaysian brainwashing. Short of reading it, there are excellent reviews on Amazon and
elsewhere. Ellul makes the same point as the author here, that no group is more taken in by
propaganda than the educated classes who fancy themselves above propaganda for being
constantly immersed in it.
Do you remember the movie "A Face in the Crowd" that stars Andy Griffith? It touches on this
subject of government/elites using television as a psychological weapon/mind control.
Unfortunately, I think most people that saw it did not comprehend it.
And behind Brennan we can can see the Nobel Peace Price winner.
Notable quotes:
"... A major role in directing the plot has fallen to Obama's consigliere John Brennan, the current director of the CIA. ..."
"... One part of the still ongoing deligitimization campaign was the FBI investigation of alleged Russian connections of four members of the Trump election campaign. ..."
"... The FBI agents and lawyers intentionally lied to the court. Their violations were not mistakes. All 51 of them were in favor of further spying on members of the Trump campaign and on everyone they communicated with. ..."
"... The FBI has used the Steele dossier to gain further FISA application even after it had talked with Steele's 'primary source' (who probably was the later 'buzzed' Sergei Skripal ) and after it had learned that the allegations in the dossier were no more than unconfirmed rumors. ..."
"... That the dossier was mere dreck was quite obvious to any sober person who read it when it was first published ..."
"... That summer, GCHQ's then head, Robert Hannigan, flew to the US to personally brief CIA chief John Brennan. The matter was deemed so important that it was handled at "director level", face-to-face between the two agency chiefs. ..."
"... (This is a Moon of Alabama fundraiser week. Please consider to support our work .) ..."
"... Occam's razor: CIA-MI6, with approval of US Deep State (Clintons, Bush, McCain, Brennan, Mueller, etc.), meddled to elect Trump and pointed fingers at Russia to initiate a new McCarthyism. ..."
"... "Sergey Lavrov: In my opinion, Congress sounds rather obsessed with destroying our relations. It continues pursuing the policy started by the Obama administration. As I mentioned, we are used to this kind of attack. We know how to respond to them. I assure you that neither Nord Stream-2 nor Turkish Stream will be halted." ..."
"... ... the current anti-Russian idiocy was started by Obama's team and was designed for Clinton to escalate ... ..."
"... It's Kissinger's WSJ Op-Ed of August 2014 that provides the answer. In this Op-Ed, Kissinger calls for a restored US Empire that is essentially Trump's MAGA. Kissinger is writing immediately after the Donbas rebels have won. The Russians refused to heed Kissinger's advice (to back down) and it has become apparent that Russia's joining the West is no longer an inevitability as the US elite had assumed. ..."
"... Good chance Steele had little to do with writing the Dossier. "Simpson-Ohr Dossier", anyone? Steele was needed as a credible looking intelligence officer with Russia ties and a past working relationship with US Intel, as cover to sell to FBI, FISA Court, and the public (meeting with Isikoff, Yahoo News story). ..."
"... Glenn Simpson and wife Mary Jacoby had written articles for the WSJ in 2007 and 2008 with a script and language similar to the Dossier. Devin Nunes seems to believe this scenario, and it is discussed in detail in books by Dan Bongino and Lee Smith, among others. ..."
"... physchoh @ 60; The difference, at least in my mind, is that, the "Russia did it" meme, is the weakest of all cases against DJT. Corbyn, on the other hand, may actually be hurt by the bogus charges. IMO, what this shows is coordination between the elites to bring down a progressive in the UK, who fancies public control over major finances instead of private concerns. ..."
"... So Horowitz was technically correct when he did not find bias. What he might have been reluctant to spell out is that he did find malice. ..."
When Hillary Clinton was defeated in the U.S. presidential election the relevant powers
launched a campaign to delegitimize the President elect Donald Trump.
The ultimate aim of the cabal is to kick him out of office and have a reliable
replacement, like the Vice-President elect Pence, take over. Should that not be possible
it is hoped that the delegitimization will make it impossible for Trump to change major
policy trajectories especially in foreign policy. A main issue here is the reorientation of
the U.S. military complex and its NATO proxies from the war of terror towards a direct
confrontation with main powers like Russia and China.
...
A major role in directing the plot has fallen to Obama's consigliere John Brennan, the
current director of the CIA.
One part of the still ongoing deligitimization campaign was the FBI investigation of alleged
Russian connections of four members of the Trump election campaign.
Horowitz finds that the FBI was within the law when it opened the investigation but that the
FBI's applications to the FISA court, which decides if the FBI can spy on someone's
communications, were based on lies and utterly flawed.
Your host unfortunately lacked the time so far to read more than the executive summary. But
others have pointed out some essential findings.
If the report released Monday by Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz
constitutes a "clearing" of the FBI, never clear me of anything. ...
Much of the press is concentrating on Horowitz's conclusion that there was no evidence of
"political bias or improper motivation" in the FBI's probe of Donald Trump's Russia contacts,
an investigation Horowitz says the bureau had "authorized purpose" to conduct.
...
However, Horowitz describes at great length an FBI whose "serious" procedural problems and
omissions of "significant information" in pursuit of surveillance authority all fell in the
direction of expanding the unprecedented investigation of a presidential candidate (later, a
president).
...
There are too many to list in one column, but the Horowitz report show years of breathless
headlines were wrong. Some key points:
The so-called "Steele dossier" was, actually, crucial to the FBI's decision to seek secret
surveillance of Page. ...
...
The "Steele dossier" was "Internet rumor," and corroboration for the pee tape story was
"zero." ...
Appendix 1 identifies the total violations by the FBI of the so-called Woods Procedures, the
process by which the bureau verifies information and assures the FISA court its evidence is
true.
The Appendix identifies a total of 51 Woods procedure violations from the FISA application
the FBI submitted to the court authorizing surveillance of former Trump campaign aide Carter
Page starting in October 2016.
A whopping nine of those violations fell into the category called: "Supporting document
shows that the factual assertion is inaccurate."
For those who don't speak IG parlance, it means the FBI made nine false assertions to the
FISA court. In short, what the bureau said was contradicted by the evidence in its official
file.
The FBI agents and lawyers intentionally lied to the court. Their violations were not
mistakes. All 51 of them were in favor of further spying on members of the Trump campaign and
on everyone they communicated with.
The FBI has used the Steele dossier to gain further FISA application even after it had
talked with Steele's 'primary source' (who probably was the later
'buzzed' Sergei Skripal ) and after it had learned that the allegations in the dossier were
no more than unconfirmed rumors.
The anonymous former British operator hears from an anonymous compatriot that two anonymous
sources, asserted to have access to inner Russian circles, claimed to have heard somewhere
that something happened in the Kremlin.
They assert that Trump was supported and directed by Putin himself five years ago while
even a year ago no one would have bet a penny on Trump gaining any political significant
position or even the presidency.
It is now claimed that the FBI is exculpated because the Horowitz report did not find
"political bias or improper motivation". But that omits the fact that at least four high
ranking people in the FBI and Justice Department who were involved in the case were found to be
politically
biased and were removed from their positions.
It also omits that the scope of Horowitz's investigation was limited to the Justice
Department. He was not able to investigate the CIA and its former director John Brennan who was
alleging Russia-Trump connections months before the FBI investigation started:
Contrary to a general impression that the FBI launched the Trump-Russia conspiracy probe,
Brennan pushed it to the bureau – breaking with CIA tradition by intruding into
domestic politics: the 2016 presidential election. He also supplied suggestive but ultimately
false information to counterintelligence investigators and other U.S. officials.
The current CIA director Gina Haspel was CIA station chief in London during that time and
while several of the entrapment attempts of Trump campaign staff by the FBI investigation
happened. Horowitz spoke with neither of them.
The current Horowitz Report, read alongside his previous report on how the FBI played inside
the 2016 election vis-a-vis Clinton, should leave no doubt that the Bureau tried to influence
the election of a president and then delegitimize him when he won. It wasn't the Russians; it
was us.
That is correct, but the whole conspiracy was even deeper. It was not the FBI which
initiated the case.
My hunch is still that the FBI investigation was a case of parallel construction which is often
used to build a legitimate case after a suspicion was found by illegitimate means. In this case
it was John Brennan who in early 2016 contacted the head of the British GCHQ electronic
interception service and asked him to spy on the Trump campaign. GHCQ then claimed that
something was found that was deemed
suspicious :
That summer, GCHQ's then head, Robert Hannigan, flew to the US to personally brief CIA chief
John Brennan. The matter was deemed so important that it was handled at "director level",
face-to-face between the two agency chiefs.
The FBI was tipped off on the issue and on July 31 2016 started an investigation to
construct a parallel legal case. It send out British and U.S. agents to entrap Trump campaign
members. It used the obviously fake Steele dossier to gain FISA court judgments that allowed it
to spy on the campaign. Downing Street
was informed throughout the whole affair. A day after Trump's inauguration the UK's then
Prime Minister Theresa May
fired GHCQ chief Robert Hannigan.
One still open question is to what extend then President Barack Obama was involved in the
affair.
There is another ongoing investigation by U.S. Prosecutor John Durham. That investigation is
not limited to the Justice Department but will involve all agencies and domestic as well as
foreign sources. Durham has the legal rights to declassify whatever is needed and he can indict
persons should he find that they committed a crime. His report will hopefully go much deeper
than the already horrendous stuff Horowitz delivered.
(This is a Moon of Alabama fundraiser week. Please consider to support our
work .)
Posted by b on December 11, 2019 at 16:16 UTC |
Permalink
Anyone taking bets on Durham/Barr making indictments in this mess? My guess is a whole lot of
horse trading is going on behind the scenes now, as in, "I'll trade you a censure for all
potential indictments going down the memory hole."
Typical dog and pony show which will change nothing relating to interventionist foreign
policy and the new cold war with Russia. Too many saw benefits from the corruption in Ukraine
to dig deep there; the Bidens were just the most blatant, Lindsey Graham and others from both
parties were involved so don't expect much from the Senate hearings. The bipartisan major
goals are a fait accompli; universal acceptance that Russia worked to undermine our elections
(and to destroy our "Democracy") and are thus an enemy we must fight, and it's universally
accepted by all that we MUST provide Ukraine with Javelin missiles and other lethal aid to
fight "Russian Aggression" (with little mention that even Obama balked at that reckless
option). All of these proceedings are great distractions, but the weapons of war will not be
diminished.
Unfortuneately, few will question the findings of these investigations or consider the
possibility that the investigations themselves are misdirection/cover-up.
IMO the Lavrov-Pompeo
presser is notable mostly for Lavrov's discussion of Russiagate (about 6 minutes in).
Lavrov tells us that the Russian's repeatedly sought to clarify their noninterference by
publishing correspondence - which the Trump Administration didn't respond to. And he actual
mentions McCarthyism!
Wait, wot?
Yeah, during the worst of the Russiagate accusations, Trump wouldn't do things that
would've helped to prove that Russiagate was a farce!!
So, during the election, Trump called on Putin to publish Hillary's emails (the very act
of making such a request is likely illegal because at the time it was known that her emails
contained highly classified info) but he wouldn't accept Russia's publication of
exculpatory info about Russiagate?!?!
This would cause cognitive dissonance galore in an Americans that hear it - so one can
be sure that it will not be reported.
Occam's razor: CIA-MI6, with approval of US Deep State (Clintons, Bush, McCain, Brennan,
Mueller, etc.), meddled to elect Trump and pointed fingers at Russia to initiate a new
McCarthyism.
Meanwhile in bizarroland (aka USA), Barr says Russiagate is a fantasy based on FBI "bad
faith" - yet Pompeo still presses on with the "Russia meddled" bullshit.
thanks b... i like your example in the comment - ''those who thought otherwise should
question their judgment''.. good example!
i am a bit concerned like @ 2 casey, that most of this is going to go down the memory hole
and there will be that made in america stamp on it - ''no accountability''... i wish i was
wrong, but getting worked up at the idea anyone is going to be held accountable for any
actions of the usa, or the insiders playing the usa, is clearly a fools game at this point..
all i mostly see is the needed collapse and waiting for that to happen..
Thanks for that, there are definitely cracks in the armor and we should promote that
narrative as you do in your link. Tulsi Gabbard has also expanded the awareness, hopefully
she will make the upcoming debates despite strong efforts to silence her. I'll try more to
focus on the positive!
@ 6 jr.. there is a press release on all what was said
here for anyone interested..
lavrov quote and etc. etc.. "We suggested to our colleagues that in order to dispel all
suspicions that are baseless, let us publish this closed-channel correspondence starting from
October 2016 till November 2017 so it would all become very clear to many people. However,
regrettably, this administration refused to do so. But I'd like to repeat once again we are
prepared to do that, and to publish the correspondence that took place through that channel
would clear many matters up, I believe. Nevertheless, we hope that the turbulence that
appeared out of thin air will die down, just like in 1950s McCarthyism came to naught, and
there'll be an opportunity to go back to a more constructive cooperation."
I continue to believe that the FBI and Horowitz perjured themselves
in the FISA report. To correct a mistake in a previous post I made, I
believe they lied when the claimed the Steele Dossier was not a
predicate for opening crossfire hurricane. How can the Steele dossier
not be instrumental in the opening of the investigation when bruce ohr's
wife nellie ohr was working at fusion gps when bruce ohr met with
steele
to discuss the dirty dossier.
In other words, the FBI
was concocting Operation Crossfire Hurricane prior to the time they had
any knowledge of the phony Papadopoulus predicate that the russians were proferring
the clinton emails to the trump campaign.
The FISA report claim that Operation Crossfire
Hurricane was predicated solely on the Papadopolous allegations is therefore a lie. There
was, in fact, no real predicate for Operation Crossfire Hurricane. The predications
cited were all fictions and inventions fabricated in a conspiracy between MI6(the FFC or
friendly foreign country cited in the Horowitz report), the
DOJ and the FBI. Operation Crossfire Hurricane was a massive Psyop from its inception.
What major publications have picked up this info from the State Dept PR? Which of them are
questioning why Trump didn't agree to let the Russians publish the exonerating information?
And how many of those are linking this strange fact to other strange facts and thus raising
troubling questions about the 2016 election?
<> <> <> <> <> <>
It's not just that Trump refused to publish exculpatory material. Anyone that's been
reading my comments (and/or my blog) knows that Trump also:
- hired Manafort - whose work for pro-Russian candidates in Ukraine had drawn the ire of
CIA - despite Manafort's having no recent experience with US elections;
- helped Pelosi to be elected Speaker of the House by inviting her to attend a White
House meeting about his border wall (along with Chuck Schumer) prior to the House vote to
elect a Speaker.
- initiated Ukrainegate by talking with Ukraine's President about investigating an
announced candidate - he didn't have to do this(!) he could've let subordinates work
behind the scenes .
And then there's a set of suspicious activity that is difficult to explain, such as: ...
- Kissinger's having called for MAGA in August 2014 (Trump announced his campaign 10
months later and he was the ONLY MAGA candidate and the ONLY populist in the Republican
primary) ;
- London as a nexus for the US 2016 campaign (Cambridge Analytica; GPS Fusion;
Halper, etc.) ;
- Hillary's making mistakes in the 2016 campaign that no seasoned politician would
make;
- the settling of scores via entrapments of Flynn, Manafort, and Wikileaks/Assange
(painted as a hostile intelligence agency and Russian agent).
All of these and more support the conclusion that CIA-MI6 elected MAGA Trump and initiated
Russiagate.
The anonymous former British operator hears from an anonymous asserted compatriot what two
anonymous sources, asserted to have access to inner Russian circles, claim to have heard
somewhere that something happened in the Kremlin. <-- Perhaps it is too much to add that
the entire conversation happen in a pub, like an eyewitness account of a trout caught by an
angler that was larger than a tiger shark [the trout was so large, not the angler].
I am a great fan of Dmitri Orlov and have just read a large portion of his linked
post.
What I do not see Orlov doing is taking into account--in his takedown of "scientific"
models---evidence of global warming/change such as *actual* observations of *actual, current*
phenomena that are being measured today, such as the condition of the world's coral reefs;
the rate of melting of permafrost and release of methane gas; the melting of Greenland (and
other) glaciers and release of fresh water into the oceans; acidification of oceans; and
quite a lot of evidence for sea level rise, such as saltwater intrusion into freshwater
swamps, aquifers, etc.
More can be gleaned by the manner in which BigLie Media spin the investigation's results. At
The Hill , Jonathon Turley makes that clear in the first paragraph:
"The analysis of the report by Justice Department inspector general Michael Horowitz
greatly depends, as is often the case, on which cable news channel you watch. Indeed, many
people might be excused for concluding that Horowitz spent 476 pages to primarily conclude
one thing, which is that the Justice Department acted within its guidelines in starting its
investigation into the 2016 campaign of President Trump."
The further he goes the worse it gets for the Ds. And he's 100% correct about the biases
present in reporting about the Report.
Remarks made by Lavrov at the presser were likely done prior to anyone from Russia's
delegation having digested any of the Report. What I found important was the following
revelation by Lavrov:
"Let me remind you that at the time of the first statements on this topic, which was on
the eve of the 2016 US presidential election, we used the communications channel that linked
back then Moscow and the Obama administration in Washington to ask our US partners on
numerous occasions whether these allegations that emerged in October 2016 and persisted until
Donald Trump's inauguration could be addressed. The reply never came. There was no
response whatsoever to all our proposals when we said: look, if you suspect us, let's sit
down and talk, just put your facts on the table. All this continued after President Trump's
inauguration and the appointment of a new administration. We proposed releasing the
correspondence through this closed communications channel for the period from October 2016
until January 2017 in order to dispel all this groundless suspicion. This would have
clarified the situation for many. Unfortunately, this time it was the current administration
that refused to do so. Let me reiterate that we are ready to disclose to the public the
exchanges we had through this channel . I think that this would set many things straight.
Nevertheless we expect the turbulence that appeared out of thin air to calm down little by
little, just as McCarthyism waned in the 1950s, so that we can place our cooperation on a
more constructive footing." [My Emphasis]
Lavrov on Mueller Report: "It contains no confirmation of any collusion." End of story.
But we do have all this compiled evidence within our communications we're ready to publish is
the USA
agrees.
The Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR) organization has yet to publish anything
about the report. However, Matt Taibbi often writes for that outlet, so his reporting at
Rolling Stone ought to be seen as a proxy FAIR report.
Now that we know Carter Page was working for the CIA as an informant in 2016, is it
reasonable to speculate that Page was planted in the Trump campaign by the CIA?
The Inspector General of the Department of Justice, Micheal Horowitz's report on the move to
delegitimize the election of Donald Trump to the Presidency is clear proof of the massive rot
that lies at the heart of the US' political system. If this matter is whitewashed over by the
MSM, then one more step will have been taken to a violent and bloody revolution in the US of
A.
By now Steele's credibility is zero. Time to revisit Steele's involvement with the debunked
"Russia bought the soccer World Champion games", the Litvinenko polonium poisening and the
Skripal novichok poisening. The timing of the Skripal matter deserves some scrutiny in
relation to Skripal possibly being Steele's source for the infamous Trump dossier. There
might be a motive hidden there.
Thank you for posting Lavrov's words. Between those words and the IG report the kabuki
farce is revealed. Why was Trump ignoring the Russian offer you might ask. Because it suited
him to have this nonsense dominate the news cycle, you might conclude. Trump and Comey and
Brennan deserve each other.
just like 9-11... this is an inside job... does anyone really think the truth is going to
come to light in any of it?? i'm still with @ 2 caseys view...
Thanks for your reply! Yes, agreed, and I'd add Obama and Clinton.
Lavrov also held another presser at the conclusion of his visit that provides additional
info not covered in the first. The following is one I thought important:
"Question: The day before, US Congress agreed on a draft military budget, which includes
possible sanctions against Nord Stream-2 and Turkish Stream. Have you covered this topic? The
Congress sounds very determined. How seriously will the new restrictions affect the
completion of our projects?
"Sergey Lavrov: In my opinion, Congress sounds rather obsessed with destroying our
relations. It continues pursuing the policy started by the Obama administration. As I
mentioned, we are used to this kind of attack. We know how to respond to them. I assure you
that neither Nord Stream-2 nor Turkish Stream will be halted."
I must emphatically agree with Lavrov's opinion and was very pleased he answered
forthrightly. What seems quite clear is the current anti-Russian idiocy was started by
Obama's team and was designed for Clinton to escalate, with bipartisan Congressional backing.
That she lost didn't stop the anti-Russian wheel from being turned. So, logic tells us to
discover the reason for Obama to alter policy. Over the years I've written here why I think
that was done--to continue the #1 policy goal of attaining Full Spectrum Dominance over the
planet and its people regardless of its impossibility given the Sino-Russo Alliance made
reality by that policy goal. That a supermajority in Congress remain deluded is clearly a
huge problem, and those continuing to vote for the War Budget need to be removed.
b posted, in part;"When Hillary Clinton was defeated in the U.S. presidential election the
relevant powers launched a campaign to delegitimize the President elect Donald Trump."
It doesn't take HRC and her resident scum-bag sycophants to deligitimize DJT, his sorry
life-style, and his past record do that quite nicely, IMO.
Are you aware of any means by which a member of congress or of a congressional committee can
be impeached or otherwise censured for the misconduct of official duties? That would at least
be Schiff...
Posted by: Paul Damascene | Dec 11 2019 21:24 utc |
32
@ 31 john.. i didn't know i had to read the orlov article to say what i did to you!! your
post @11 never make any internet link to orlov... what am i missing? does this mean i can
only speak with you after i have read another orlov article? lol...
"It doesn't take HRC and her resident scum-bag sycophants to deligitimize DJT, his sorry
life-style, and his past record do that quite nicely, IMO."--ben @28
Ah, but that would be legitimate deligitimization, like attacking his actual policies.
Those are rocks that would break the Democrats' own windows as well as Trump's.
1. Senate Foreign Relations Comm passed Turkey sanctions bill
2. Pentagon Chief warned Turkey moving away NATO
3. U.S. lawmakers introduce legislation to curb Turkey's nuclear weapon obtainment"
Finally, the pretense of being nice to Turkey has come to an end. It will now intensify
its looking East, and pursue its national interests. IMO, the Eastern Med's energy issues
will now become a major headache.
karlof @ 29: The head Dems know their pushing the " Russia did it"meme is weak, but the
PTB
insist on it, to keep the MIC funds flowing.
The "no-brainer" charges should be; "Obstruction" and "Emoluments" violations. Charges the
public can grasp.
What happens if you, or any average person, ignores a summons to appear? They are
arrested.
Funneling govt. funds for personal gain is a violation of law, if you are POTUS.
These are violations average Americans can grasp, not the current circus of he said, she
said, going on in D.C. lately.
Guess my point is, this hearings are built to fail, because most of our so-called
leaders
like things the way they are. The rape of the workings classes will continue.
Yes. The impeachment process is the same as for Trump. Censuring is much easier but doubt
it will occur as too many are deserving. We're seeing the reason Congressional elections are
held every two years--vote 'em out if they're no good!
... the current anti-Russian idiocy was started by Obama's team and was designed for
Clinton to escalate ...
I don't agree that the baton would be passed to Clinton. The Deep State uses the two-party
system as a device. It's not tied to partisan concerns. If the Deep State and the
establishment really wanted Clinton elected, they would've made that happen. Few expected
Trump to win and few would've been outraged if he had lost. Yet he won. Against all odds. Furthermore, Clinton wasn't the MAGA candidate as called for by Kissinger - Trump was. And
he was from the beginning of his candidacy.
Russiagate was based on suspicions of a populist that was compromised by Russia.
Hillary has too much baggage to play populist or nationalist - including Bill's involvement
with Epstein.
Also, you're forgetting the set ups of Manafort, Flynn, and Wikileaks/Assange - which were
important parts of Russiagate and also a convenient way of settling scores. These set-ups
required the Russiagate-tainted candidate (Trump) to win.
And Trump's beating Hillary makes him the classic come-from-behind hero - giving Trump a
certain legitimacy that an establishment candidate wouldn't have. That's important when
contemplating taking the country to war in the near future.
It's strange to me that people can think that Hillary was the 'chosen candidate', and be
OK with that but find a possible selection of a different candidate (Trump, as it turns out)
to be outrageous and inconceivable.
=
... with bipartisan Congressional backing . That she lost didn't stop the
anti-Russian wheel from being turned.
Since the Deep State and the Establishment desired an effort to restore the Empire, they
would turn to whomever could most effectively accomplish that task.
Once again: It didn't have to be Hillary that was selected. In fact, for many reasons
(that I've previously expressed) Hillary would have been a poor choice.
=
So, logic tells us to discover the reason for Obama to alter policy. Over the years I've
written here why I think that was done--to continue the #1 policy goal of attaining Full
Spectrum Dominance over the planet and its people ...
FSD is US Mil policy, not a political goal. It states that US Mil will strive to have
superiority in weapons and capability in every sphere of combat.
Politically, FSD is just one of several means to an end. IMO that end is the maintenance
and expansion of the Anglo-Zionist Empire (aka New World Order).
Also, your dominance theory doesn't answer the question of WHY NOW? (more on that
below)
... regardless of its impossibility given the Sino-Russo Alliance ...
Firstly, US Deep State believes that it is possible. And I personally don't buy the notion
that Russia and China are fated to prevail. If that were obvious, then the moa bar would have
no patrons.
Secondly (and again), WHY NOW? The Sino-Russo Alliance was long in the making. Why did USA
suddenly take note?
It's
Kissinger's WSJ Op-Ed of August 2014 that provides the answer. In this Op-Ed, Kissinger
calls for a restored US Empire that is essentially Trump's MAGA. Kissinger is writing
immediately after the Donbas rebels have won. The Russians refused to heed Kissinger's advice
(to back down) and it has become apparent that Russia's joining the West is no longer an
inevitability as the US elite had assumed.
<> <> <> <> <> <>
I've written many times of Kissinger's Op-Ed and of indications that the Deep State
selected MAGA Trump to be President while also initiating a new McCarthyism. Why is it STILL
so difficult to believe a theory that makes so much sense?
Yes, the status quo is very generous to the Current Oligarchy and its tools, but not so
for the vast public majority which is clamoring for change. IMO, much can be learned from the
UK election tomorrow, of which there's been very little discussion here despite its
importance. I suggest following the very important developments from the past few days at
Criag Murray's Twitter and
at
his website , the linked article being a scoop of sorts.
Also harder to follow but important as well are ballot initiatives within the states.
This site
has current listing . I just looked over those for California where there are a few good
ones, but the threshold for signatures is getting higher, close to one million are now needed
in CA.
Lavrov's comments about the offers to open up normally closed communications really only
highlight two obvious issues:
The previous US Administration had no interest in shutting off the oxygen to the "Trump =
Moscow's Man" campaign; and
The current US Administration cannot afford to be perceived as receiving help in this matter
from the country he is alleged to be beholden to for his election.
With only 9% approval, it ought to be easy to toss out most Congresscritters, excepting
that part of the Senate not up for reelection.
You'd think so, but somehow the numbers pretty much reverse when these same people
consider their own rep, and the incumbency reelection rate is shockingly high (haven't
looked recently but IIRC it has hovered around 90% for decades). Apparently it is amazingly
easy to convince the masses that their guy is the one good apple in the bunch.
Jon Schwartz
reminds me why I don't stop and peruse magazine stands anymore. Seeing the words and this
picture would've sparked lots of unpleasant language:
"The best part of Michelle Obama explaining she shares the same values as George W. Bush
is she was being interviewed on network TV by Bush's daughter. There's nothing more American
than our ruling class making us watch them discuss how great they all are."
And the escalation wasn't rigged for Clinton to initiate--yeah, sure, whatever the rabbit
says.
Until there is some comparison of how the FISA court usually works, none of this chatter
means a thing. Violations of Woods procedures and assertions not supported by documents are
SOP. The FISA court is always a joke.
Delgeitimizing Trump, reversing the election, all simple-minded drviel, as only nitwits
see Trump as anything but the loser.
Skripal knows something that US-UK either 1) don't want the Russians to know OR 2) don't
want ANYONE to know.
What could that be? 1) That Steele dossier is bullshit? We know that. 2) That Steele
dossier was meant to be bullshit ? Well, that raises a whole host of questions,
doesn't it?
Good chance Steele had little to do with writing the Dossier. "Simpson-Ohr Dossier", anyone?
Steele was needed as a credible looking intelligence officer with Russia ties and a past
working relationship with US Intel, as cover to sell to FBI, FISA Court, and the public
(meeting with Isikoff, Yahoo News story).
Glenn Simpson and wife Mary Jacoby had written
articles for the WSJ in 2007 and 2008 with a script and language similar to the Dossier.
Devin Nunes seems to believe this scenario, and it is discussed in detail in books by Dan Bongino and Lee Smith, among others.
The Afghanistan report outlines a *massive fraud*. $14 billion/month, 90% of the world's
opium, no "progress", oh, and lying to Congress for two decades.
physchoh @ 60; The difference, at least in my mind, is that, the "Russia did it" meme, is the
weakest of all cases against DJT. Corbyn, on the other hand, may actually be hurt by the
bogus charges. IMO, what this shows is coordination between the elites to bring down a progressive in the
UK, who fancies public control over major finances instead of private concerns.
Fox News, now: Biden blames staff, says nobody 'warned' him son's Ukraine job could raise
conflict. In a TV comedy Seinfeld, one of the main characters, George, is a compulsive liar with a
knack of getting in trouble. Sometimes he has a job. Final scene of one of those jobs:
Boss: "You have been seen after hours making sex with the cleaning lady on the top of your
desk."
George (after a measured look at his boss): "If I was only told that this kind of things
is being frown upon..." [and she had cleaned the desk both before AND after!]
I have theory about why Horowitz did not bias in the FBI. The
definition of bias is to harbor a deeply negative feeling that
clouds one's judgement about a person or subject. However, the
conspirators' judgement was not clouded in this case. Their
negative feelings focused their intent to destroy the object of
their feeling. The precise term for this is malice.
So Horowitz
was technically correct when he did not find bias. What he might
have been reluctant to spell out is that he did find malice.
Re Really?? | Dec 11 2019 18:31 utc | 14 and AshenLight | Dec 11 2019 19:36 utc | 19
I agree with you. Orlov is a brilliant, insightful analyst, who is also very funny. But he
is off the mark with his dismissal of global warming and also with his endorsement of nuclear
power. The immense amounts of waste from uranium mining all the way to hundreds of thousands
of tons of high-level waste in spent fuel pools pose a huge threat to current and future
generations . . . like the next 3000 generations of humans (and all other forms of life) that
will have to deal with this. Mankind has never built anything that has lasted a fraction of
the 100,000 years required for the isolation of high-level wastes from the biosphere. Take a
look at Into
Eternity which is a great documentary on the disposal of nuclear waste in Finland.
Orlov's analysis is superficial, unfortunately, in these areas.
@AnonFromTN It is heartening that there are people who are expecting salvation from
Germany. Let me tell you guys, it is GONE. And it is certainly not heroic to say this, but I
can live with having past my service at an old peoples home, instead, and I can live with not
sending my son off to a trench. And I absolutely subscribe to what Jim Christian said (thanks
for his comments, as for quite some others! ), if you touch my wife or son, I will get wild,
but the rest is not worth defending.
But here is my thought: Agreed, that western and american military is today disfunctional
and deluded about themselves. But they are absolutely superior when it comes to psyop. 9/11
was marvellously executed and to root up the whole middle east and pump the destitute people
from there into Europe to blow it up, that is quite something.
@AnonFromTN It is heartening that there are people who are expecting salvation from
Germany. Let me tell you guys, it is GONE. And it is certainly not heroic to say this, but I
can live with having past my service at an old peoples home, instead, and I can live with not
sending my son off to a trench. And I absolutely subscribe to what Jim Christian said (thanks
for his comments, as for quite some others! ), if you touch my wife or son, I will get wild,
but the rest is not worth defending.
But here is my thought: Agreed, that western and american military is today disfunctional
and deluded about themselves. But they are absolutely superior when it comes to psyop. 9/11
was marvellously executed and to root up the whole middle east and pump the destitute people
from there into Europe to blow it up, that is quite something.
From that perspective, Russiagate is a gift. If any argument was still needed to tell the
peoples of the world that the western empire is terminaly deranged, that is it.
"... If Russia spending $100,000 on Facebook ads constitutes election interference, and Donald Trump asking Ukraine to investigate the Bidens is too - then Hillary Clinton takes the cake when it comes to influence campaigns designed to harm a political opponent. ..."
"... The article suggests that former Trump campaign aide Carter Page "has opened up private communications with senior Russian officials - including talks about the possible lifting of economic sanctions if the Republican nominee becomes president." ..."
"... Steele told us that in September [of 2016] her and Simpson gave an "off-the-record" briefing to a small number of journalists about his reporting, " reads page 165 of the FISA report, which says that Steele "acknowledged that Yahoo News was identified in one of the court filings in the foreign litigation as being present. " ..."
"... Put another way, Hillary Clinton paid Christopher Steele to feed information to the MSM in order to harm Donald Trump right before the 2016 election . Granted, there were intermediaries; the Clinton campaign paid law firm Perkins Coie, which paid Fusion GPS, which paid Steele. And if asked, we're guessing Clinton would claim she had no idea this happened - which simply isn't plausible given the stakes. Whatever the case - the act of Simpson paying Steele to peddle fiction to the media for the purpose of harming Trump, by itself , constitutes blatant election meddling by every standard set by the left over the past three years. ..."
If Russia spending $100,000 on Facebook ads constitutes election interference, and Donald
Trump asking Ukraine to investigate the Bidens is too - then Hillary Clinton takes the cake
when it comes to influence campaigns designed to harm a political opponent.
Contained within Monday's FISA report by the DOJ
Inspector General is the revelation that Fusion GPS, the firm paid by the Clinton campaign to
produce the Steele dossier, " was paying Steele to discuss his reporting with the media. " (
P.
369 and elsewhere)
And when did Steele talk with the media - which got him
fired as an FBI source ? Perhaps most notably was Yahoo News journalist Michael Isikoff ,
who says he was invited by Fusion GPS to meet a
"secret source" at a Washington restaurant . That secret source was none other than
Christopher Steele , who fed Isikoff information from his now-discredited dossier - and which
appeared in a
September 23, 2016 article roughly six weeks before the election - which likely had orders
of magnitude greater visibility and impact coming from a widely-read, MSM source vs. $100,000
in Russian Facebook ads.
The article suggests that former Trump campaign aide Carter Page "has opened up private
communications with senior Russian officials - including talks about the possible lifting of
economic sanctions if the Republican nominee becomes president."
Steele told us that in September [of 2016] her and Simpson gave an "off-the-record" briefing
to a small number of journalists about his reporting, " reads page
165 of the FISA report, which says that Steele "acknowledged that Yahoo News was identified
in one of the court filings in the foreign litigation as being present. "
Put another way, Hillary Clinton paid Christopher Steele to feed information to the MSM in
order to harm Donald Trump right before the 2016 election . Granted, there were intermediaries;
the Clinton campaign paid law firm Perkins Coie, which paid Fusion GPS, which paid Steele. And
if asked, we're guessing Clinton would claim she had no idea this happened - which simply isn't
plausible given the stakes. Whatever the case - the act of Simpson paying Steele to peddle
fiction to the media for the purpose of harming Trump, by itself , constitutes blatant election
meddling by every standard set by the left over the past three years.
We're sure Hillary can explain that if and when she jumps into the 2020 race.
Shoigu is 64, while Putin is 67.
This means Shoigu is a one-term successor, if we're talking age. Someone capable of long-term
work and planning after that would be a must. Medvedev is currently 54, which mean he'll be
the age Shoigu is now, if Putin stands down in say a decade.
Which means he himself–Medvedev, that is–will be good for a decade.
So that's one scenario: ten more years of less of Putin, then one mandate by Shoigu, then
another decade by Medvedev. Or fifteen years by Medvedev immediately after Putin, with Shoigu
being his cardinal
We've yet to see what happens to the reds and the browns. The leader of the
commies–Zuyganov–is 75, and the leader of the empire
revivalists–Zhirinovski–is 73. So again, at most a decade from now, the commies
and the far right will either collapse, or choose new strong leaders.
In this sense there a very serious possible reshuffle looming all across the Russian
political landscape. After all, only four parties matter: Putin's national conservatives,
Zyuganov's commies, Zhirinovski's imperialists, and Mironov's social democrats. Mironov is
66, the youngest of the batch.
Russia is still very much a "leader-based" society. Her political parties are also
"leader-based". We'll see if these parties can function beyond the lifespan of their current
leaders. If yes–then Russia has transcended the curse of the "wise emperor" formula,
where stuff only works if you've got a superhuman at the top, and the moment he's gone, shit
falls apart.
"... there is something to the idea that American political culture is becoming increasingly Sovietized ..."
"... This article below inadvertently illustrates the obsession with malign foreign influences, like that which pervaded Soviet discourse and remains a bad smell in Russia to this day. ..."
"... Another rapidly creeping Soviet trait is the weaponization of politics, turning any disagreement into an existential struggle, opponents into enemies, the way words like "treason" or "Russian asset" have become common coin ..."
"... increasingly they have that "enemy of the people" ring to them. The growing prominence of the intelligence services in political life, and their alumni on cable TV news shows, is another worrisome trend to watch. ..."
There is something to the idea that American political culture is becoming increasingly
Sovietized, writes Weir .
This is becoming quite the meme. Upon reflection, I do think there is something in it. Not
this idiotic suggestion that Repubicans have somehow morphed into borscht-swilling,
shapka-wearing, Putin-loving Russkies. Indeed, there are hardly any actual Russians like that.
But there is something to the idea that American political culture is becoming increasingly Sovietized. Of course it's two separate camps, not a monolith, and the Democrats are at least
as guilty as Republicans.
This article below inadvertently illustrates the obsession with malign foreign influences,
like that which pervaded Soviet discourse and remains a bad smell in Russia to this day.
Russians scoff at the idea that Putin is able to get his own man elected president of the US
when he can't even fix the governor in Irkutsk. But the author of this piece implies that Putin
is somehow pulling the strings, not only of Trump but all Republicans?
Another rapidly creeping
Soviet trait is the weaponization of politics, turning any disagreement into an existential
struggle, opponents into enemies, the way words like "treason" or "Russian asset" have become
common coin. And they are not just deployed as simple insults: increasingly they have that
"enemy of the people" ring to them. The growing prominence of the intelligence services in
political life, and their alumni on cable TV news shows, is another worrisome trend to watch.
Also, it looks like big part of the media have become almost Pravda-like, making ideological
mission their main priority. I spend some of my down-time perusing shows from Fox News and
MSNBC, which an alien from outer space would think were the propaganda organs of two different,
mutually-hostile states -- but both very Soviet-like.
... ... ...
THEATLANTIC.COM
The Russification of the Republican Party
GOP lawmakers used to oppose the president's embrace of Putin and the Kremlin. Not anymore.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/12/impeachment-republican-party-russia/603088/?fbclid=IwAR1EC0-CDBEx-3SMS1lJTMT2m0xVjfaguZehK4BIeZ5Bov41Ds1XFi_Cbkg
Don't be so sure. Note that Trump congratulated Tulsi on Kamala's demise. If she isn't the
nominee, her mere presence in the campaign is a boon to Trump because she exposes the rot in
the DNC and the Empire.
Dem Establishment can't control me and that scares the hell out of them
"... The way I see it now he basically had the backing of big Jewish gangstas like Adelson plus his own charisma resonated with a lot of people plus the fact that what self-respecting human on earth could vote for the she-devil Hillary ? ..."
"... I think too a lot of people were sick of Obama who was clearly one of the greatest con artists of all time President Hopium, as Mike Whitney tagged him ..."
"... So other than his rich Jewish friends The Donald really is pretty much alone except for a very lot of regular folks and I mean right across the socio-economic spectrum it's not just the blue collar folks, but a lot of people I know in my own profession [and others] ..."
"... So all things considered, I think Trump has actually made some pretty spectacular plays considering he is a one-man football team LOL ..."
"... As for Trump I think he's going to be re-elected the 'resistance' is just making themselves look incredibly bad they are getting up everyone's fucking nose and even Pelosi, as she was standing there the other day announcing the 'impeachment' darn well knew it they are toast ..."
"... I too believe he isn't dumb, but the real question is whether he's playing the fool in furtherance of a plan, or whether it's just who he is and his successes are accidental. ..."
"... The Deep State's (aka: PFPE's) ongoing behaviour indicates that Trump's using buffoonery to work a plan that's anathema to their created realities, and their increasing shrillness indicates it's working. At every turn, he's managed to make unavailable the resources their reality called for. From the M.E., to the Ukraine to N. Korea to Venezuela, things just aren't working the way they're supposed to. In fact, they're invariably working out in a way that exposes the Deep State's ineptitude and malevolence, and maximizes its embarrassment. ..."
"... Even though I can't imagine a more effective single handed way to accomplish what he promised to do, that he's lasted this long and has been so effective is astonishing. I guess we'll see if he abandons buffoonery when his opponents finally sink into the tar. ..."
"... Trump is a thief and an occupier in Syria, Afghanistan and many other countries. Only dummies think that he is a man of 'peace'. Only impostors spread lies that he wants to bring 'peace' but the 'deep state' does not allow. In fact the phony 'deep state' does not want war with Iran because knows that they will never win, only chaos. Israel wants war, and his servant Trump is pushing for one. ..."
"... I agree with you about all those examples Ukraine, Venezuela, even Iran seem to be a case of giving 'his' neocon 'team' enough rope to hang themselves while POTUS holds the hammer and ultimately gives a big NAY to going kinetic and then the whole thing crumbles into cracker crumbs ..."
"... On 1 May, Mosaddegh nationalized the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, canceling its oil concession (expired in 1993) and expropriating its assets. ..."
"... In March 1953, Secretary of State John Foster Dulles directed the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), which was headed by his younger brother Allen Dulles, to draft plans to overthrow Mossadegh. On 4 April 1953, Allen Dulles approved $1 million to be used "in any way that would bring about the fall of Mosaddegh". Soon the CIA's Tehran station started to launch a propaganda campaign against Mossadegh. ..."
"... The zionized "progressives" have a new battle cry -- "Putin is new Hitler." Worked great for Hillary Clinton, this model of "humanitarian" interventionist. ..."
"... It does not do any good for your brains to read the Atlantic Council's idiotic propaganda. It is the same as the "Integrity Initiative" production, the dirty and poisonous brew made on orders by NATO/MIC/the Lobby. ..."
"... When Nazi propagandist Julius Streicher could get hanged at Nuremberg in 1946 for crimes against humanity, I wonder, why not the likes of Amanpour? Guess history is written by the winning side. ..."
"... Say hello to more than a century of perpetual war for profit. The Deep State, consisting of Jewish bankers and their hanger-ons, has been calling the shots since passage of the Federal Reserve Act in the closing hours of 1913, while most members of Congress were home on holiday recess. ..."
"... The current demonisation of China and Russia sets the stage for the real split that will happen in the 2020s. Gotta get the sheeple used to the notion so that they will accept, even demand, bringing the Bamboo Curtain down when the time comes. ..."
"... The PTB needs the people, not the other way around. People are happy to believe anything that makes them comfortable. Instilling Sino/Russo-phobia in their otherwise empty heads is but the prelude to splitting them off from demonic Eurasia/Eastasia, and also so they'll be happy with whatever they get in Oceania. ..."
I had assumed that a real outsider couldn't have gotten to his position and that they
had a plan and would make a stand against the Empire's nomenclatura to try to turn the
ship of state to face the coming crisis head on.
Everybody has a plan until they get hit in the face.–'Iron' Mike Tyson
Yes indeed E I think PCR has commented at length about how Trump just doesn't have anyone in
his corner and yes, it is kind of surprising
Now the funny thing is that I too thought for the longest time there must be some kind of
establishment faction behind the scenes that was backing the Trump agenda of getting real and
changing course from an obvious dead end path
But I'm not so sure about that anymore Trump may indeed be the guy that 'wasn't supposed to
win' as far as all the invisible heavyweights behind the curtain are concerned
The way I see it now he basically had the backing of big Jewish gangstas like Adelson plus
his own charisma resonated with a lot of people plus the fact that what self-respecting human
on earth could vote for the she-devil Hillary ?
I think too a lot of people were sick of Obama who was clearly one of the greatest con
artists of all time President Hopium, as Mike Whitney tagged him
So other than his rich Jewish friends The Donald really is pretty much alone except for a
very lot of regular folks and I mean right across the socio-economic spectrum it's not just
the blue collar folks, but a lot of people I know in my own profession [and others]
But at this point it becomes abundantly clear that what Prof Cohen says here is what
everybody knows the ' permanent foreign policy establishment' which is quite out in the
open and neither 'deep' nor secret
For me that 'Anonymous' oped in the NYT was the milestone event that they could be that
brazen and open about basically ripping the wheel out of the president's hands I mean that's
brass they even called themselves the 'steady state' not even worried one bit about what that
says about this sham 'democracy'
It's like everyone knows right and is cool with it ?
Amazing
So all things considered, I think Trump has actually made some pretty spectacular plays
considering he is a one-man football team LOL
I point to the Syria almost-withdrawal which is in reality almost as good as a full
withdrawal since the SAA has regained almost its entire northern border and the remaining fleck
of a US footprint is a logistical and political impossibility
Let's face it for all the complainers [and yes, we've all got a lot of legit beefs] who the
fuck would have been able to do even this anyone else would have escalated a long time ago this
is the die-hard imperialist mentality of the neocons
I remember reading how some of these very people named here [including I think the harpy
Fiona Hill] were mouth-foaming freaking out at the SDF leadership and literally breaking
pencils in their face to try to stop them from accepting the lifesaver offered by the Russians
and SAA, with the Turks bearing down on them
I mean these people are just NUTS they are simply not rooted in reality at some point you
run into a brick wall going 500 miles an hour that is what awaits this crowd
As for Trump I think he's going to be re-elected the 'resistance' is just making themselves
look incredibly bad they are getting up everyone's fucking nose and even Pelosi, as she was
standing there the other day announcing the 'impeachment' darn well knew it they are toast
In the second term watch out Trump is not as dumb as they think
In the days of Kissinger, Baker, et al the Imperial Staff were well coached in the
Calculus of Power, knew the limits to Empire and thrived within them. Since the end of
history, and the apparent end of limits, policy makers had no more need of realists and their
confusing calculations and analyses.
The US had power, and no-one else had any. That's all they needed to know, and set about
creating new, wonderfully intoxicating realities. As Rove famously inverted the MO they'll
act first, creating realities and the analysis and calculation can come later. In awe of
their creations, they failed to notice that while history may have ended in Washington,
elsewhere it moved on to surround them with a reality where they found themselves in
zugzwang, with no understanding how they got there. Flailing (and wailing) like a Mastodon in
a tar pit, they've managed only to attract an unhelpful crowd of onlookers, fascinated by the
abomination.
In the second term watch out Trump is not as dumb as they think
I too believe he isn't dumb, but the real question is whether he's playing the fool in
furtherance of a plan, or whether it's just who he is and his successes are accidental.
The Deep State's (aka: PFPE's) ongoing behaviour indicates that Trump's using buffoonery
to work a plan that's anathema to their created realities, and their increasing shrillness
indicates it's working. At every turn, he's managed to make unavailable the resources their
reality called for. From the M.E., to the Ukraine to N. Korea to Venezuela, things just
aren't working the way they're supposed to. In fact, they're invariably working out in a way
that exposes the Deep State's ineptitude and malevolence, and maximizes its
embarrassment.
If that's so, his is the most extraordinary political performance I thought I'd ever see.
Even though I can't imagine a more effective single handed way to accomplish what he promised
to do, that he's lasted this long and has been so effective is astonishing. I guess we'll see
if he abandons buffoonery when his opponents finally sink into the tar.
The latest zionist plan designed by Donald Trump and associate to zionist stooges Pompeo and
Brian Hook, intend to expand the war against Iran, has been failed. Trump ordered fomenting
riots using the poor citizen of these countries who are under the Jewish mafia economic
sanction in Iraq, Iran and Lebanon to create choas for the expansion of Jewish mafia and
Israel in the region that he is a member of. Trump expanded the WAR against these counties,
axis of resistance, using the US treasury runs by dual citizens pro Israel, and then
supporting a US/Israel/Saudi proxies in these counties funded by the Saudi Arabia – to
kill the citizens who are fed up with economic pressure force upon them by the criminal Tribe
and its stooge Trump, and to burn buildings to create chaos so Trump can use it against Iran.
This project was funded by the MBS Saudi Arabia and UAE.
Brian Hook, a U.S. Special Representative for Iran, has done everything to satisfy his
masters, the Jewish mafia and made a big HOOK to bring down Iran, but he couldn't and now
they are trying to go after Iran with FABRICATED news, spreading lies that Iran has killed up
to 1000 people.
Trump must answer his own crimes against humanity FIRST and then shut up and focus on US
interest NOT a Israel interests, because he will be viewed as a fifth column.
Trump is a thief and an occupier in Syria, Afghanistan and many other countries. Only
dummies think that he is a man of 'peace'. Only impostors spread lies that he wants to bring
'peace' but the 'deep state' does not allow. In fact the phony 'deep state' does not want war
with Iran because knows that they will never win, only chaos. Israel wants war, and his
servant Trump is pushing for one.
they failed to notice that while history may have ended in Washington, elsewhere it
moved on to surround them with a reality where they found themselves in zugzwang ,
with no understanding how they got there.
Flailing (and wailing) like a Mastodon in a tar pit, they've managed only to
attract an unhelpful crowd of onlookers, fascinated by the abomination.
LOL that is quote-worthy E
What can I add here you've pretty much nailed 'er down to the floor
I agree with you about all those examples Ukraine, Venezuela, even Iran seem to be a case
of giving 'his' neocon 'team' enough rope to hang themselves while POTUS holds the hammer and
ultimately gives a big NAY to going kinetic and then the whole thing crumbles into cracker
crumbs
If that's so, his is the most extraordinary political performance I thought I'd ever
see. Even though I can't imagine a more effective single handed way to accomplish what he
promised to do, that he's lasted this long and has been so effective is astonishing.
Yup the one-man football team and he's actually WINNING LOL
@Priss
Factor Over the years that we've been reading Dr. Cohen who has written about Russia, the
US, etc., we've become more and more convinced that Dr. Cohen, as a Jew, refuses to come out
in bold-faced print to tell the real truths; in this case The Ukraine.
If he were to do so, his Jewish brethren, as seen in The Deep State and in Ukraine would
simply destroy this man. In effect, he's a milquetoast figure of little importance.
"Chinese will soon become a majority in swaths of Russia; why not let them vote
to secede & join the Han motherland?"
-- You think by the zionists' rules, whether the rules are applied in Palestine or
Ukraine. Just give some efforts to learning the history of Russia and the history of Ukraine.
You might also need to refresh your knowledge of the history of the Middle East, for good
measure.
@NegroPantera
Leave the ancient civilization of Persia alone. Тhe US that had been messing with
democratic development in Iran in the 1950-s. The "chosen" behave like homicidal maniacs
towards Iran and cannot wait to see Americans dying for Eretz Israel project.
On 1 May, Mosaddegh nationalized the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, canceling its oil
concession (expired in 1993) and expropriating its assets.
"Our long years of negotiations with foreign countries have yielded no results thus far.
With the oil revenues, we could meet our entire budget and combat poverty, disease, and
backwardness among our people. Another important consideration is that by the elimination
of the power of the British company, we would also eliminate corruption and intrigue, by
means of which the internal affairs of our country have been influenced. Once this tutelage
has ceased, Iran will have achieved its economic and political independence."
In March 1953, Secretary of State John Foster Dulles directed the Central Intelligence
Agency (CIA), which was headed by his younger brother Allen Dulles, to draft plans to
overthrow Mossadegh. On 4 April 1953, Allen Dulles approved $1 million to be used "in any
way that would bring about the fall of Mosaddegh". Soon the CIA's Tehran station started to
launch a propaganda campaign against Mossadegh.
The zionized "progressives" have a new battle cry -- "Putin is new Hitler."
Worked great for Hillary Clinton, this model of "humanitarian" interventionist.
It does not do any good for your brains to read the Atlantic Council's idiotic propaganda.
It is the same as the "Integrity Initiative" production, the dirty and poisonous brew made on
orders by NATO/MIC/the Lobby.
Here are some of the Atlantic Council stars: Eliot Higgins (Bellingcat) and Anne Applebaum
("historian").
Eliot Higgins is no journalist -- his forte has been to manage sales of ladies underwear
and to produce laughable and ignorant stuff about Ukraine and Syria. He has zero (0) training
in engineering, military, sciences. He is a perfect useful idiot and successful
war-profiteer.
The exposing of the Integrity Initiative has just scratched the surface of what appears
to be a much more sophisticated, insidious, and extremely online version of Operation
Mockingbird.
Don't be so sure. Note that Trump congratulated Tulsi on Kamala's demise. If she isn't the
nominee, her mere presence in the campaign is a boon to Trump because she exposes the rot in
the DNC . and the Empire.
Dem Establishment can't control me and that scares the hell out of them
@anonymous
Because Israel is cautious not to cross a line beyond which Russia will have no choice but to
retaliate. Contrary to Americans, Russians don't have a short fuse and don't feel the need to
"pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the
world she means business". Since Russia got involved, Israel's actions have had exactly zero
effect on the course of events in Syria. Russia's goal is not to further ignite the Middle
East. Overreacting to Israel's gesticulations would be counterproductive.
Scum like Amanpour operating from within anti-imperialist countries are the reason why
those places ever needed laws curtailing the hallowed "freedom of the press." Words ARE
weapons, and the West knows this
Comments:
When Nazi propagandist Julius Streicher could get hanged at Nuremberg in 1946 for crimes
against humanity, I wonder, why not the likes of Amanpour? Guess history is written by the
winning side.
Say hello to more than a century of perpetual war for profit. The Deep State, consisting of
Jewish bankers and their hanger-ons, has been calling the shots since passage of the Federal
Reserve Act in the closing hours of 1913, while most members of Congress were home on holiday
recess.
The world is simply re-bifurcating into 2 camps. More specifically, the Anglo-World is
splitting away from whatever parts it can't bring into their sphere of dominance. They
couldn't dominate the whole playground, so they're taking their toys and carving out a corner
of it for themselves.
The current demonisation of China and Russia sets the stage for the real split that
will happen in the 2020s. Gotta get the sheeple used to the notion so that they will accept,
even demand, bringing the Bamboo Curtain down when the time comes.
What we're seeing now in Europe, the M.E., S. America etc is nothing more than the
Anglo-World's attempt to bring more along with them, and the RoW's attempts to minimize their
success.
With people like these, who needs the ptb ???
The PTB needs the people, not the other way around. People are happy to believe anything
that makes them comfortable. Instilling Sino/Russo-phobia in their otherwise empty heads is
but the prelude to splitting them off from demonic Eurasia/Eastasia, and also so they'll be
happy with whatever they get in Oceania.
They'll be living in the Free World again! Smaller this time around, but Freeeee!!!
It worked the last time. It'll work this time too. One stands in awe of how easy it
is.
@Realist
True. If he appointed all these banksters and neocons by mistake, then there should have
been a few who weren't neocons or banksters. Making a lot of mistakes could be seen as
proof of stupidity. Making nothing but mistakes has to be by design
That pos said that those who commit "hate crimes" should get the death penalty without
trail.
@Dave from Oz Dietrich Doerner's Logic of Failure makes clear that decision makers
consistently make grotesque errors based on faulty modeling of the world, incomplete feedback
assumed to be complete, and so on. Even the data are often mistaken for deductive truths, but
if one looks at, for example, the number of actual weather data points used to create those
complex surface maps, it becomes obvious why the results are disappointing -- in that case
possibly spoiling a picnic, but with the military, destroying a civilization.
You might recall the lessons of Longterm Capital Management's use of predictions based on
PDE's, with results that should have been foreseen as being predictably as unreliable as
weather forecasting, and for the same reasons -- that beneath all the fancy math lie guesses
of all too fallible men.
Regarding a faulty worldview, could there possibly be a more distorted model of reality
than America serving as Israel's footstool, the country that with its fifth column is
responsible for Lavon, USS Liberty, JFK/RFK, and, not least, 9/11. In the world of
probabilities, there is no standard of textual evidence evaluation or mathematical
demonstration so low it won't give cover to the Pentagon's costumed bureaucrats and members
of Congress to look the other way regarding Israel and its fifth columns' acts of war against
the country they're all sworn to protect.
MLK became a problem when he joined RFK against Vietnam in early 1968. When he started
counseling his young Black men against Vietnam, he had to go too. I'll never forget that.
Hideous.
Why do they always shoot their rivals in the head? Never a miss back then, ever..
@Anonymous I have doubts that zionists were central to, or instigators of, the JFK coup,
but the Jewish mob sure was in on it, and since they knew and were involved, as was Lyndon,
that gave the zionists Mossad the blackmail they needed to put Lyndon in their pocket. They
proved this when he covered up the Liberty affair. Since then the zionists have been free to
do as they wished. I propose these changes were gradual, and that zionism has been curated as
a MI6 intelop since the Balfour Declaration, in part to create the 5th column we have now.
Looks like it got out of control, Golem-like. This is a pity, as it may result in the ruin of
their own people, just as we see Semitic zionists shooting Semitic natives in a sort of
turkeyshoot every Friday is it kosher to kill on Shabbos? I wonder.. . a kind of civil war,
so we see a vast schism forming between Jews and nominally Jewish zionists.
@Walter The Zionism Psy-Op began much earlier than the Balfour declaration. It was a
result of losing sovereignty when Poland disappeared in 1772 and was partitioned between
Prussia, Russia, and Austria. (Poland was a condominium with two governments, a Jewish one
and a Polish one. The Jews had their own parliament, and the Poles theirs, plus a king. This
evolved out of the original agreements the Khazars of the south made with the Lithuanians to
be a mercenary army, police force, and tax collectors.) Having lost control of one country,
Poland (through their own misuse of taxes), the High Command in Lithuania decided they needed
another country. The propaganda was that the riots -- pogroms -- that began in Russia at the
end of the 19th century were anti-Jewish riots; that the Czar was anti-Jewish, etc. And the
big Psy-Op was the Dreyfus Affair, which was completely fake. Which is why the original
written offer to sell "secrets" -- which were not secrets at all -- mysteriously disappeared
before the Germans occupied France in 1940. But the phony Dreyfus Affair immediately led to
the first Zionist Congress in Basel. Herzl was only a hired propagandist, and disposed off
when he finished the job for which he was recruited as a journalist (as was Wilhelm Marr --
who popularized the term "Antisemitism"). World War I and the Balfour agreement to get
America into the war on the British side delivered the goods.
The world is simply re-bifurcating into 2 camps. More specifically, the Anglo-World is
splitting away from whatever parts it can't bring into their sphere of dominance. They
couldn't dominate the whole playground, so they're taking their toys and carving out a corner
of it for themselves.
The current demonisation of China and Russia sets the stage for the real split that
will happen in the 2020s. Gotta get the sheeple used to the notion so that they will accept,
even demand, bringing the Bamboo Curtain down when the time comes.
What we're seeing now in Europe, the M.E., S. America etc is nothing more than the
Anglo-World's attempt to bring more along with them, and the RoW's attempts to minimize their
success.
With people like these, who needs the ptb ???
The PTB needs the people, not the other way around. People are happy to believe
anything that makes them comfortable. Instilling Sino/Russo-phobia in their otherwise empty
heads is but the prelude to splitting them off from demonic Eurasia/Eastasia, and also so
they'll be happy with whatever they get in Oceania.
They'll be living in the Free World again! Smaller this time around, but Freeeee!!!
It worked the last time. It'll work this time too. One stands in awe of how easy it
is.
Millions of mistresses are being expensively supported by defense contractors and their
employees. Horny men are not ready to give up defense spending needed to support their gals
for the sake of international peace. Blame it on those expensive Harlots for keeping them
bullets flying.
@anonymous
Because Israel is cautious not to cross a line beyond which Russia will have no choice but to
retaliate. Contrary to Americans, Russians don't have a short fuse and don't feel the need to
"pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world
she means business".
Since Russia got involved, Israel's actions have had exactly zero effect
on the course of events in Syria. Russia's goal is not to further ignite the Middle East.
Overreacting to Israel's gesticulations would be counterproductive.
Clamoring for retaliation. Putin only retaliated economically, although it was pretty bad for
Turkey. The Uncle showed his "gratitude" by helping the coup. Putin likely forewarned the
sultan about that coup, so it failed miserably as the result.
Now he holds sultan firmly by the
balls, economically, politically, and militarily, using Turks to push the US around in Syria
and selling them S-400, so that Uncle won't be able to "democratically" bomb Turkey.
That's the
game worthy of the Grand Master, while Trump and pathetic Europeans play checkers, at best
(their game often degenerates to the level of tick-tack-toe).
Shoigu is 64, while Putin is 67.
This means Shoigu is a one-term successor, if we're talking age. Someone capable of long-term
work and planning after that would be a must. Medvedev is currently 54, which mean he'll be
the age Shoigu is now, if Putin stands down in say a decade.
Which means he himself–Medvedev, that is–will be good for a decade.
So that's one scenario: ten more years of less of Putin, then one mandate by Shoigu, then
another decade by Medvedev. Or fifteen years by Medvedev immediately after Putin, with Shoigu
being his cardinal
We've yet to see what happens to the reds and the browns. The leader of the
commies–Zuyganov–is 75, and the leader of the empire
revivalists–Zhirinovski–is 73. So again, at most a decade from now, the commies
and the far right will either collapse, or choose new strong leaders.
In this sense there a very serious possible reshuffle looming all across the Russian
political landscape. After all, only four parties matter: Putin's national conservatives,
Zyuganov's commies, Zhirinovski's imperialists, and Mironov's social democrats. Mironov is
66, the youngest of the batch.
Russia is still very much a "leader-based" society. Her political parties are also
"leader-based". We'll see if these parties can function beyond the lifespan of their current
leaders. If yes–then Russia has transcended the curse of the "wise emperor" formula,
where stuff only works if you've got a superhuman at the top, and the moment he's gone, shit
falls apart.
@Moi You are quite correct. The overly sanguine attitude of many Christians toward
nuclear war one might call "nuclear exceptionalism." They adopted the imaginary hope of
Anglo-Irish 1800's cult leader John Nelson Darby: "Darby has been credited with originating
the pre-tribulational rapture theory wherein Christ will suddenly remove His bride, the
Church, from this world to its heavenly destiny before the judgments of the tribulation."
(Wikipedia).
The military leadership are loaded with rapture believers, in particular the Air Force. So
if the world nukes itself, that's fine by them; they have no skin in the "game."
Except that on Judgment Day they will have to give account for the lives they destroy by
their recklessness. The turning of Christ into a war god is both blasphemy and idolatry, for
which also they will give account. "My Kingdom is not of this world," said the Lord to
Pilate. Christians are to contend for the Gospel through love, not war.
Both Saker reviews are important, and I'll get both books.
My own experience with US Army officers and enlisted – and this extended over40
years off and on, the last encounters six continuous years ending in 1992 – was that
the WW2 men were realists and competent. And that their replacements were delusional fools.
The level of incompetence was breath-taking by 1992 – when NATO as the cloak of Empire
undertook to bomb cities in Yugoslavia – self evidently criminal and foolish officers
went along And I said Adios MoFo
@peterAUS Tactical nukes. Such a humane idea. Doesn't that make everyone feel warm and
fuzzy all over. Nuclear war, even a first strike, is now acceptable. Isn't semantics
wonderful! Tactical nukes are the thing, to NOT prick the conscience of the western public.
I do not envy the Russian position. They can't publicly warn the US/Israel against nuclear
strikes. The MSM would take such a common sense position and spin into more Russian bullying.
How dare they tell us what we can't do! The Russian message would quickly be lost in a wave
of western hysterics.
On the other hand, a secret warning is of limited value. If they listen, great. What if
they call Russia's bluff? Being secret, the Russians could back down and not even lose face.
It seems obvious that the psychopathic thinking among western elites is based on the idea
that they can get away with nuclear strikes against Iran because Russian retaliation will
mean the end of humanity therefore they will not respond.
I'm sure the Russians have already calculated what is and is not acceptable when war comes
to Iran. How much damage will nuking an entire country do to Russia and all of Asia? If the
fall out is that extreme then they might treat such an attack as an attack on Russia itself.
I do think the likely plan is to make the best of whatever happens. No matter how one spins
it, a Russian nuclear response is the end of humanity. An extreme option the Russians will
try to avoid if possible.
All this is based on the assumption Israel or America will use their nuclear arsenal. If
Hitler had the bomb in 1945 would he have used it? Of course he would have. The people
running the West have shown the same callous disregard for human life. There is no moral
deterrent to stop these people. Plus all western propaganda the past 20 years has been aimed
at making the use of nuclear weapons acceptable. Why would they be conditioning their public
unless they wished to have the option to use them?
How do we get there? Yes the US military has the ability to drop lots of bombs and destroy
many things. Yet in any war primary targets will all be hit fairly quickly. Then what? From
Day Two they are into the phase of diminishing returns. This is what confronted the IDF in
2006. So you go to tactical nukes. However I see the nuclear attack coming on the heels of a
ferocious Iranian counter attack. Psychologically can America handle even minimal losses? The
most likely response will be a huge temper tantrum: "how dare they fight back!" The nuclear
option will be taken because things will have gone wrong. It will be as much a show of
weakness as strength. Plus it won't be just one of two bombs. Because the Iranians will not
say "Uncle". The Japanese did after Nagasaki, however the Japanese were trying to surrender
the entire time. The Iranians will never surrender. Therefore 80 million dead might not be
unreasonable. Especially if there is no longer any Reason left in the western world.
This can be prevented but only by the western public. You know the most apathetic/ignorant
and propagandized public on the planet. As Vietnam and Iraq proved, Americans have no
conscience when it comes to dead foreigners. They get what they deserve for "starting" a war
against Uncle Sam. Yet there are two Achilles Heels.
1) Americans hate losing. Iraq was a great success during the Mission Accomplished phase.
The moment the narrative changed Americans quickly switched to hating their leadership for
botching Iraq. So how long before Americans turn against an Iran War that isn't an easy win
– and can't be won because the Iranians will never surrender. Or how well does the MSM
do in turning such losses into part of a patriotic war that Americans' must support and
win?
2) Quality of life. All westerners are the most spoiled people in human history.
Consequently we have become the most materialistic and the most superficial people ever. We
are an "end justifies the means" society. So long as we have our tvs and weekend football and
our quality of life hasn't fallen too far, too fast, we are perfectly happy to give our
political elites a blank cheque to do whatever they like. Bomb Yugoslavia, invade
Afghanistan, destroy Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen, murder Palestinians, sanction or threaten
regime change the list is endless. Everything is on the table – likely nuclear
holocaust too(so long as it's them doing the dying) – just don't mess with our Cozy
Prisons! Support for war on Iran will evaporate pretty fast unless such a war can be
prosecuted quickly and everything can return to normal fast. Definitely westerners –
not just Americans – will support nuclear strikes. There will be some initial shock,
which the MSM will cover over. Then everyone will fall into line because we'll need to win
the war and get back to normal. Nuclear weapons will be seen as the convenient solution for
the problem. End justifies the means.
Maybe I'm wrong about westerners and they still have a conscience. After 20 years of
accepting endless wars, it doesn't seem likely.
Circle 2021 on your calendars. Once Trump is re-elected there will be nothing to stop him.
If there are any history classes in the future then 2021 will be remember like 1914 or 1789
or 1066. I still hope it is remembered as the year the states of Israel and USA ceased to
exist.
@Jim Christian "Fact is, if the elites and corporate defense establishment of the US
would become diplomatic, imagine the cooperation between us and Russia that could take place.
Imagine the prosperity! Even the elites could share in it!"
Exactly so. This was the basis for my immediate initial support for Trump; his calling
bullshit on the entire rationale behind the empire, and the potential benefits of a new
detente. (Even if we were evil geni, it would make more sense to at least pretend to be
non-threatening.) This is the root of the hostility to Trump, IMO.
Incidentally, this piece and it's commentary is greatly supportive of Ron's argument that
heavy users should step up and financially support the UR. I haven't seen this sort of thing
anywhere else easily available on the web. I don't comment much here (feeling somewhat too
short for this ride ) but I do spend hours everyday, reading most of the articles and many
comments. Would definitely donate.
@Andrei Martyanov I suspect that the US is extremely concerned about Russia's
decapitating first strike capability via nuclear armed Zircons (1-2 minutes flight time to
Washington DC or New York) who are hard to detect, almost impossible to stop missiles. The US
does not have a capability like this. This is why the whole talk about buying Greenland. It
is very important to stop russian subs from reaching the Atlantic US Coast.
How can a US president sleep if he knows that a russian tactical nuclear missile could
arrive in 1-2 minutes?
In 1-2 minutes the WhiteHouse, Congress, Federal Reserve HQ, CIA and NSA HQs, Pentagon,
etc will be gone. No wonder Putin is trolling the US about selling some hypersonic
weapons.
.the psychopathic thinking among western elites is based on the idea that they can get
away with nuclear strikes against Iran because Russian retaliation will mean the end of
humanity therefore they will not respond.
Something like that.
I'm sure the Russians have already calculated what is and is not acceptable when war
comes to Iran.
Any interested state-level player has.
No matter how one spins it, a Russian nuclear response is the end of humanity.
Yep.
There is no moral deterrent to stop these people.
You mean TPTBs in the West? Yep ..
The Iranians will never surrender. Therefore 80 million dead might not be
unreasonable.
Disagree.
This can be prevented but only by the western public. You know the most
apathetic/ignorant and propagandized public on the planet.
Don't say.
So how long before Americans turn against an Iran War that isn't an easy win – and
can't be won because the Iranians will never surrender.
The Iranian regime can surrender–>from then on there are a couple of
scenarios.
As, for example:
So long as we have our tvs and weekend football and our quality of life hasn't fallen
too far, too fast, we are perfectly happy to give our political elites a blank cheque to do
whatever they like
And so long as I don't get drafted to be a part of occupying force in Iran among some
other things.
Definitely westerners – not just Americans – will support nuclear strikes.
There will be some initial shock, which the MSM will cover over. Then everyone will fall
into line because we'll need to win the war and get back to normal. Nuclear weapons will be
seen as the convenient solution for the problem. End justifies the means.
Yep.
Maybe I'm wrong about westerners and they still have a conscience. After 20 years of
accepting endless wars, it doesn't seem likely.
Now, the key question is, how is this relevant. I have no doubt that this and previous book
contain good info, but can this info be ever digested by the US politicians and neocons? Of
course not!
The US elites have degenerated to the point of no return. This always happens to the
elites of dying empires. So, discussing the reality, military or economic, with them is like
teaching madhouse inmates calculus. You might be right, but they won't appreciate it.
@Jim Christian There is already some internal opposition to war with Iran. Out of the
various recent provocations, the US has been reluctant to escalate. Maybe its Trump's
skepticism regarding the list of options provided by the military. Or his political
instincts. It would be an unpopular war without a rapid, decisive victory, which is
unrealistic.
I think other than a rather weak veto power, Trump is too weak to prevent a war. So I
think some other faction of the elite is resisting. Maybe the military. It would be logical
for them to resist. They got their big budget without needing a war. And they would be stuck
with the mess.
The war has been teed up for a Trump signoff two or three times lately. If the only
missing piece is finding the sucker to take the blame, it is inevitable. Rather, I would
infer that there is some deep opposition, that is lying low. The large defense contractors
have it pretty good right now, but they probably aren't set up to oppose any war, however
foolish.
@Andrei Martyanov Our societies have been gutted by thieves and their accomplices while
the thieves buddies look on and play loud music to confuse everyone. The thieves are the
buzzard 'capitalists', the accomplices are the crooked politicians and the noise comes from
the media.
The common denominator in the U.S., Canada, Australia, the U.K., NZ and others is that the
thieves den is a triumvirate: Old Money 'elite' (read: scum), New Money Jews and the
politicos (multi-generational civil servant families and the con artists talking head actors
who play president, pm, etc.).
The West has been systematically destroyed. Every institution has been corrupted including
our religions. The Vatican, for example, was completely corrupted in the early 1960's when,
according to Father Malachi Martin, Satan formally enthroned himself in Vatican City.
There is a common denominator here gentlemen: destruction. Satan is always close to any such
destruction which is why Communism has always been so anti-Christian and anti-religion (China
destroyed Buddhism and is destroying Falun Gong, or trying to). Our elites and the elite Jews
have a religion of their own: Luciferianism.
It is time to pray gentlemen. We need a miracle. It isn't too late to turn this ship around.
We just need the willpower to do it. Prayer is the beginning of building the strength to do
what is needed for our progeny.
@Passer by{ the US is extremely concerned about Russia's decapitating first strike
capability} {How can a US president sleep if he knows that a russian tactical nuclear missile could
arrive in 1-2 minutes?}
By making sure US does not initiate a nuke strike on Russia.
Why would Russia initiate a 'decapitating* nuke strike' on US?
What will she gain by it? Nothing.
Both US and Russia will have more than enough surviving nukes to wipe the other out, and then
some, if one of them initiates a nuke first strike.
My guess is Russia continues developing faster, harder to detect nuke strike systems to
deter the psychopaths in US from doing something stupid and awful. But the problem with all
these developments of ever faster strike capabilities – on both sides – is that
the possibility of an accidental nuke strike by one side or another, keeps increasing.
Because it takes a few minutes for a missile to reach its target, you cannot afford to wait:
if your defenses falsely detect a 'launch', then you _have_ to launch and then the runaway
chain reaction of strike-counterstrike-countercounterstrike begins ..and everything ends.
______________________________
* there is no such thing as 'decapitating' nuke strike against US or Russia. Both are
large enough and have enough nuke warheads (8,000-10,000) to render the idea of a
'decapitating' strike meaningless. Just one (surviving) boomer sub (US or Russia) carries
enough nuke warheads/megatons to wipe most of US/Russia.
People : "In
a ceremony in the Great Synagogue of Amsterdam, da Costa was first forced to confess his sins,
then endure 39 lashes, and finally to lie on the (synagogue) threshold and let the entire crowd
step over his body."
Da Costa never recovered from the barbarian ritual. A few months later he shot himself in
the head in the middle of the street.
If Corbyn, his shadow cabinet or anyone else within the Labour party is interested in
forgiveness, the road is open for them to undergo Urial Da Costa's experience.
ORDER IT NOW
However, some major categorical differences between Da Costa and Labour politicians must be
examined before such a development matures into a televised spectacle. While Da Costa was an
exquisite free thinker who served as an inspiration to the great Baruch Spinoza (who was
subjected to similar Rabbinical malevolence just a few years later), Labour's leadership isn't
exactly an intellectual collective. Their contribution to authentic thinking and freedom of
thought is currently in the red. Unlike the sensitive Da Costa who couldn't bear the
humiliation and ended his life under tragic circumstances, Corbyn and the Labour elite are more
than likely to survive such a humiliating scenario, they may even enjoy it. Like most British
politicians, they long ago lost contact with the concepts of dignity and pride.
I am all for such definitions; their scope is too narrow, if anything.
I'd prefer a broad definition that would describe as anti-Semite any person who attends a
church or a mosque; who does not contribute to Jewish settlements; who does not believe in
God-chosen Jewish nation being above all mortal laws.
Maybe then the Gentiles would be healed of their fear of being labelled 'anti-Semite'.
I am all for such definitions; their scope is too narrow, if anything.
I'd prefer a broad definition that would describe as anti-Semite any person who attends a
church or a mosque; who does not contribute to Jewish settlements; who does not believe in
God-chosen Jewish nation being above all mortal laws.
Maybe then the Gentiles would be healed of their fear of being labelled 'anti-Semite'.
After 25 years of repeated failures, Americans want a foreign policy that preserves the
security of the United States, enhances prosperity, and maintains the core U.S. commitment to
individual liberty. They recognize that U.S. power can be a force for good, but only if it is
employed judiciously and for realistic objectives. In short, a large and growing number of
Americans want a foreign policy of restraint.
But what does that mean in practice? In a sense, it's easier to understand what restrainers
don't want. They don't want endless wars, bloated military budgets, and security
commitments that keep expanding, but are never seriously debated or approved by the public. If
restrainers were suddenly put in charge of U.S. foreign and national security policy, however,
what would they do differently? What do restrainers really want?
Without presuming to speak for other members of the Quincy Institute, here's how I would
answer that critical question:
1.Restrainers Want Continued U.S. Economic and Diplomatic Engagement .
Critics often claim that restrainers are isolationists, a bogus charge intended to marginalize
their views and stifle debate before it starts. In fact, restrainers recognize that the United
States benefits from trade, investment, tourism, and other mutually beneficial interactions
with other countries, and they know that Washington must work with foreign powers to address a
number of significant global problems. For these reasons, restrainers reject a return to
"Fortress America" and want the United States to remain fully present in today's world.
2. Restrainers Want a Broad and Honest Debate . In recent years, public debate on
foreign policy and national security has been dominated by those who believe that American
power -- and especially military power -- is the optimal solution to most foreign policy
challenges. As Zack Beauchamp of Vox.com observes
, "Washington's foreign policy debate tends to be mostly conducted between the center and the
right. The issue is typically how much force America should use rather than whether it should
use it at all."
Public discourse on these issues is skewed because the objective case for ceaseless military
intervention is so weak. The United States remains remarkably secure compared to other nations:
it has a large and diverse economy, a robust nuclear deterrent, and faces no powerful enemies
in the Western Hemisphere. Given these enduring advantages, it has little to gain by trying to
reshape politics around the world. To convince the public to go along with an overly ambitious
foreign policy, therefore, proponents of intervention have to inflate threats, exaggerate the
benefits of "global leadership," and mischaracterize the views of their critics. Restrainers
believe a more open and honest debate would undermine the case for military adventurism and
lead to a more prudent and successful foreign policy.
3. Restrainers Want Realistic Foreign Policy Goals . Instead of engaging in costly
and futile efforts to remake the world in our image, restrainers want U.S. foreign policy to
pursue more feasible objectives. The U.S. military must be strong enough to deter attacks on
the U.S. homeland, a task that is relatively easy to accomplish. When necessary, the United
States can also help other states uphold the balance of power and deter war in a few key
strategic areas outside the Western Hemisphere. America's economic clout will also give
Washington considerable influence over the institutions that manage trade, investment and other
beneficial forms of international cooperation, and it should use that influence to ensure these
institutions are working properly. But the United States has neither the need, the capacity,
nor the wisdom to conduct massive social engineering projects ("nation-building") in deeply
divided and conflict prone societies, and it should cease trying.
4. Restrainers Want Credible Foreign Commitments . The United States keeps taking on
new security obligations in Europe, Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, but it rarely debates
their wisdom or value. Americans are now formally committed to defending more countries around
the world than at any time in U.S. history, even though some of these states are hard to
defend, have little strategic importance for the United States, and sometimes act in ways that
damage U.S. interests. Washington is also engaged in less visible military activities in dozens
of other countries, some of them shrouded in secrecy. Yet anytime U.S. leaders contemplate
trimming these obligations, alarmists warn that the slightest reduction in America's global
presence will undermine U.S. credibility, embolden rivals, and lead to catastrophe. Having
allowed itself to become overextended, the United States ends up fighting endless wars in
places with no strategic value in order to convince allies and adversaries that it will still
fight in places of greater importance.
Restrainers believe the United States should pledge itself to defending another
country–and thereby risking the lives of its troops -- only when doing so will make a
direct and significant contribution to U.S. security and prosperity, and when these obligations
command broad support from the American people. Carefully considered commitments will be more
credible, because both allies and adversaries can see for themselves why it is in the U.S.
national interest to live up to them.
In short, restrainers want the United States to define its interests more narrowly but
defend those interests more vigorously. It should focus on commitments and missions that can
command strong support from the American people -- such as helping to ensure that a rising
China does not dominate Asia -- and eschew obligations that do not make America more
secure.
5. Restrainers Want Business-like Relations with All Countries and Special Relations with
None . In his Farewell Address, George Washington famously warned against "passionate
attachments" to foreign powers. His wise counsel still rings true today. No two states have
identical interests, and no U.S. allies are so valuable or virtuous to deserve generous U.S.
support no matter what they do. Restrainers believe the U.S. should support its allies when
doing so makes the United States more secure or prosperous, and distance itself from those
allies when they act in ways that are contrary to our interests and values.
Restrainers also want the United States to maintain diplomatic relations with acknowledged
adversaries, both to facilitate cooperation on issues where our interests overlap and to
maximize U.S. leverage. Refusing to talk directly to a country like Iran does not make the
United States or its allies safer or richer; it just allows other states to take the U.S.
support for granted and allows potential rivals like China or Russia to gain greater influence
in an important region. Maintaining ties with all nations gives each of them greater incentive
to do what we want, lest Washington get a better deal from someone else.
6. Restrainers Want More Diplomacy and Less Coercion . Over the past two decades,
Washington has repeatedly tried to compel weaker powers to do its bidding by issuing
ultimatums, imposing sanctions, and in some cases, unleashing its superior military power. Yet
even weak opponents have repeatedly refused to knuckle under to U.S. pressure, because they
cared more about the interests at stake and Washington typically refused to compromise at all.
Even when Washington was able to overthrow a weaker adversary, the result was a failed state, a
costly occupation, or both.
Restrainers believe diplomacy should take center stage in the conduct of America's foreign
relations and that sanctions and the threat or use of force should be our last resort rather
than our first impulse. They recognize that many of America's greatest foreign policy successes
-- the Marshall Plan, the Bretton Woods economic order, the peaceful reunification of Germany,
etc. -- were won not on a battlefield but across a negotiating table. A more restrained foreign
policy strives for mutually beneficial agreements with other countries, rather than
trying to dictate to them.
7 . Restrainers Want U.S. Allies to Bear a Fair Share of Defense Burdens . The United
States currently spends roughly 4 percent of GDP on the Department of Defense, the intelligence
community, and other national security missions, while allies like Germany or Japan spend a
little more than 1 percent. U.S. leaders have complained about this disparity for decades, but
their efforts have failed to convince these wealthy allies to do more.
Restrainers believe allies will pull their weight only when they no longer see Uncle Sam as
their first line of defense. Because NATO's European members are significantly more populous
and prosperous than Russia, they should assume primary responsibility for their own defense.
Furthermore, the United States should withdraw from Afghanistan, curtail spending on
counter-terrorism operations abroad, and let the contending countries in the Middle East
balance each other. It should focus most of its military efforts on making sure that China does
not achieve a dominant position in Asia, while insisting that its Asian partners pull their
weight as well. Above all, the United States should not do more to protect allies than they are
willing to do themselves.
8. Restrainers Want to Set a Good Example for Others . Restrainers are committed to
classic liberal values -- representative government, a market-based economy, the rule of law,
and basic human rights -- but they believe trying to impose these principles on others is
likely to backfire. Indeed, democracy is now in retreat around the world, and the United States
is deeply polarized and increasingly dysfunctional. When The Economist Magazine's annual "
Democracy Index " downgrades the United States from the category of "full democracy" to
"flawed democracy," as it did in 2017, it's a clear sign that something has gone badly
awry.
For restrainers, promoting liberal values abroad begins by setting a good example at home.
Using American power to remake the world has led to illegal wars, excessive government secrecy,
targeted killings, the deaths of thousands of innocent foreign civilians, and repeated
violations of U.S. and international law. At the same time, it has squandered vast resources
that could have been used to build a better society here in the United States, and distracted
Americans from the efforts needed to improve our own institutions.
These are some of the reforms that (most) restrainers want, and so do a growing number of
Americans. Public opinion polls show steadily diminishing support for foreign adventures --
especially among younger Americans -- and it is perhaps the one idea that unites politicians
like Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Donald Trump. It is also worth remembering that Bill
Clinton ("It's the economy, stupid"), George W. Bush ("a humble foreign policy"), and Barack
Obama ("nation-building at home") all campaigned pledging to do less abroad and more at home,
even if they did not deliver as promised once they were in the White House.
Restraint is the foreign policy most Americans want and deserve. The only question is: how
long will it be before they get it?
The threat to US official impunity panics the regime more than any number of Russian
Sarmats or nuclear ramjets. The ICC is one very new judicial forum, and its halting efforts
to get its institutional footing panicked the US into imposing illegal sanctions on
accredited diplomats. The real threat of the Rome Statute is the universal obligation to
prosecute or extradite war criminals and enemies of humanity.
An increasing number of the most influential US functionaries will be unable to travel
freely. This is, in effect, pariah-state status more abject than North Korea's. This has been
a mounting challenge for years – GW Bush fled Switzerland, scared off by a war crimes
accusation from a single legislator.
And international criminal law is one jaw of a pincer. It complements the doctrine of
state responsibility for internationally wrongful acts. State responsibility provides the
civil equivalent of international criminal law, with the potential to impose restitution,
reparation, satisfaction, and compensation with interest. Satisfaction articulates directly
with international criminal law by providing for prosecution of designated criminals. The
US faces insupportable liabilities for its internationally wrongful acts, and US
functionaries know that any one of them could be sacrificed to get the regime off the
hook.
Russian policy is to enforce this law at gunpoint. Iranian policy is to make its case in
independent international courts. China is vocal about upholding rule of law, and as its
deterrent improves, it will be increasingly active in applying it. The G-192 – 96% of
the world's population – pitches in by withholding the "waterfall" of G-5 privileges.
The UK recently got pushed off the ICJ bench for the first time ever for its lawless conduct.
The US is next.
The US is an underdeveloped country ineffectually waving second-rate weapons. The world is
leaving it behind.
England and France, two antagonists, two mainstays of European civilisation, are
simultaneously engulfed in paroxysm of Judeophilia. The result of the forthcoming very
important parliamentary elections in Britain hinges on this issue, with Labour and Tories
competing who will express their love of Jews more profusely, while the Jews can't decide whom
they loath less. France, after a year of the middle-class Yellow Vests rebellion, enters the
fresh working class uprising with million strikers rioting on the streets, but its parliament
finds prime time to ponder and rule how Frenchmen should love Jews and hate those who hate
them. What is the meaning of this charade?
Surely they do not argue about Jewish cuisine. While palatable, it is rarely more than that.
A proof can be found in Israel, where Arab food rules, Japanese is recognised, Italian
cherished but Jewish cuisine shines by its absence. It is not Jewish noses, though a
significant feature of facial anatomy, they are not more elaborate or prominent than, say,
Sicilian. It is all about ideas.
Judeophilia, love of Jews is a troublesome symptom of a dangerous malady, of elites'
estrangement from its working classes, the malady presently in full bloom in France and
England. Judeophilia strikes divided societies and could lead to their collapse much faster
than its Siamese counter-twin, antisemitism. It did so in the past, most famously in Kingdom of
Poland, where the szlachta (nobility) loved Jews and despised ordinary folks, the
bydlo ( rednecks), until their state collapsed. In a Christian, or post-Christian
society, Jews are a symbol, a signifier of a certain attitude and behaviour that is profoundly
non-Christian.
Jews are a small minority that defies the large society and opposes it. Jews care for
themselves and disregard the majority and its needs; they have no scruples beyond prescribed
by the criminal law; they feel no communality with the majority. Jews do not share communion
with majority, and do not appeal to the same deity. Jews prosper when the majority regresses.
They are fast to see a break and use it for their advantage.
We won't enter a discussion whether the real Jews fit the description, and to what extent.
That is how they are perceived by those who love them and who hate them. There were Jews who
acted against the paradigm, and they weren't considered 'good for Jews'. Bruno Kreisky, the
Austrian Chancellor, Lazar Kaganovich, the Soviet official, Leon Trotsky or Torquemada weren't
'good for Jews'. And there are plentiful Gentiles who were considered 'good for Jews', like
Hillary Clinton or Tony Blair. Usually they were bad for everybody else. So, while we shall
defer our judgment on 'real Jews', there is no doubt that philo-Semites are bad for your
health.
The dominant economic and political paradigm, Neo-Liberalism claims that Jewish attitude
is the right one, and that we all should emulate Jews. This is an impossible claim; a majority
can't emulate a minority. A society whose members relate to each other as Jews-to-Gentiles is a
cannibals' cabal, and that is exactly what happens in our world. Jews prosper because they are
few; if all emulate Jews, the result is misery, not prosperity . An all-Jewish society
can't exist; Israel is a place where Thai, Chinese, Ukrainians and Palestinians work, the
Russians and Druze guard them, while Jews do usual Jewish things.
In England, the Jews are divided about Boris Johnson. They do not want Brexit to succeed,
but the access of Corbyn scares them even more. Corbyn is an avowed enemy of no, not of Jews,
but of neo-liberalism. Combine it with his rejection of Israeli politics, and you come to the
sum of anti-Jewish attitudes. Yes, Corbyn is anti-Jewish, if you wish, even anti-Semite, i.e. a
man whom Jews hate, for he is against both Jewish modes of operation, the capitalist and the
Zionist. He is perfectly ok with people of Jewish origin, he has no prejudice, he is no racist,
but it is irrelevant. His victory won't be 'good for Jews', neither for Jews who bleed
Palestine, nor for Jews who prosper at the expense of the British worker. Perhaps Corbyn would
be wonderful for Jewish workers, but they are not represented in the Board of Deputies , and the Chief Rabbi does not care
for them.
On the international scene, Corbyn is not a friend of NATO. If he could he would take the UK
out of this obsolete military alliance. So would President Trump, who is looking for a
justification to steer the US out of NATO. Jews do not like this attitude. For them, the US and
the UK should stay in NATO, for NATO is a strong defender and supporter of the Jewish
state.
Brits have a difficult choice in the coming elections. Johnson is not too bad, and his stand
against EU should be applauded. Corbyn is likely to seek compromise on every position,
including Brexit, immigration, NATO, but his initial stand is good. For a working man, he is
the right choice. And the Jewish attitude to him is a strong indicator: of the two contenders,
Corbyn would be better for those who do not emulate Jews.
France
In France, the Jews are very close to power, and it is usually a sign that things do not
go well for native middle and working classes. Indeed things go from bad to worse. While a
million of French workers demonstrated against Macron's government, the French parliamentarians
discussed antisemitism. Not surprisingly, they accepted the definition produced by a Jewish
organisation. Demurring against this definition caused a lot of trouble for Corbyn; Macron had
learned a lesson.
I am all for such definitions; their scope is too narrow, if anything. I'd prefer a broad
definition that would describe as anti-Semite any person who attends a church or a mosque; who
does not contribute to Jewish settlements; who does not believe in God-chosen Jewish nation
being above all mortal laws. Maybe then the Gentiles would be healed of their fear of being
labelled 'anti-Semite'. This fear kills their souls more than the accusation. Though, best of
people, Shakespeare, St John the Divine, Dostoyevsky and Chesterton are considered
anti-Semites, and it did not diminish their fame and glory.
You can't escape this label; if they want they will attach it to your name. Likewise, a man
can't avoid being called a male chauvinist and accused of harassment by a radical feminist.
Anna Ardin, the Swedish feminist who accused Julian Assange of rape and destroyed his life as
surely as if she'd knifed him, also accused a student of harassment because he avoided looking
at her. Such accusations should be shrugged off.
France is not doing well because its elites are engaged in the rip-off and sale of their
country's industrial, political, and cultural assets. In the last few years, France had lost
Alstom, Pechiney, Technip, Alcatel. These premium assets were lost to US companies. French
businessmen and officials who were supposed to care about French heirlooms, betrayed their
trust and defrauded their country, that's why France is not doing well.
Not all of these treacherous men are Jewish, not by a long chalk. But Jews are invaluable
partners in such publicity-shy schemes, and that's why: "The Shoah Memorial is a secular temple
for the entirety of France's post-Christian elite. Holocaust foundations, Jewish communal
projects, Jewish benevolent societies and Jewish philanthropies allow the Jewish community to
discourage reporting affairs they are involved in. They can facilitate the deals in obscurity"
– I was told by a knowledgeable Jewish person, well versed with goings-on within the
French Jewish community and in the higher business, banking and political circles of the
Republic. I'll call him JT (I shall share more of his knowledge in the next essay – ISH).
–
"Jewishness has once again become a way of avoiding scrutiny and accountability. Only
anti-Semites dare to see a link between the sale of Alstom, Macron's career, the Rothschilds,
and the Jewish community." Wink wink.
"At two crucial moments Jewish communal support was decisive to Macron's political career;
first, at the second tour of the French elections, in which major Jewish organizations
unanimously cajoled and preached the Macron vote to all and sundry; second, to suppress the
Yellow Vests Uprising. Only anti-Semites dare to think the Rothschilds had anything to do
with either."
JT is very critical with France and French people: "French White gentiles are ashamed of
their past and identity, flee into hedonism, profligacy, drugs, anti-depressants, libertinism,
pornography, and homosexuality. Their Stockholm syndrome is driven by an
extra-European-birth-cohort whose numbers now exceed that of the native population. Unwilling
to fight for their land and heritage, ignorant of their past and increasingly illiterate, their
love of France is futile, superfluous, and incoherent at best.
"As France increasingly resembles a North African backwater, its Jews, the chief
facilitators of this demographic shift, have become its chief losers, and a process of Jewish
de-assimilation from the Republic has began. French Jews cannot identify with a society on
its last legs, and a spineless native population. In such circumstances, French Jews shift
their focus to survival and opportunism, not to national defence. Israel, Miami, New York
have become second homes. France's Jewish patricians (all to the last dual-citizens since the
fifties), are helpless. Their ties to an increasingly hard-up Israel and to the powerful
Jewish American community make them leaders of the fire-sale of France's industrial,
political, and cultural assets. France is sliding into failed nation status in which everyone
is abandoning ship."
French Jews help the US to rob France, says JT. The American companies supported by
all-powerful DoJ are the main reason why France does not prosper. When France attempted to tax
American Internet companies (Amazon, Google, Facebook) Trump threatened to slap 100% custom
duties on French wine. The right choice for France is to part the company with the Yankee
predator, to cease paying billions of fines for breaking unjustifiable unilateral American
'sanctions', to part with NATO and to laugh at Trump's demands to pay more for unnecessary
American protection. But France, and other European nations are hesitant. They do not jump at
the opportunity offered by Trump's stupidity and arrogance, though the Orange man did
everything he could to free the Europeans. He opened the gates, he insulted them and kicked
them, but they refused to leave the stables.
An Excellent American expert in International relations, Prof Michael Brenner of Pittsburgh
U, has noted:
"Europe's political class is psychologically unable to break free of its
dominant/subordinate relationship with America. This pattern endures despite the presence of
a mentally impaired man in the White House. The prognosis, therefore: 'Wither thou goest, we
go!" American leaders have exploited this compulsive deference ruthlessly. It allows
Washington to ensure European fealty at virtually no cost. Moreover, they can extract
compliance across a wide array of non-security issues – commercial, financial, IT
(warring against Huawei), political, diplomatic – by drawing on the same free-floating
loyalties.
Europe has been obedient to the siren call of Uncle Sam in following it over the cliff
time after time – in Afghanistan, in Iraq (France excepted), on Russia, on Iran (by
acquiescing in severe sanctions), on Saudi Arabia, in Yemen, in embracing Bolsonaro (invited
Keynoter at Davos), even on Venezuela and Bolivia. The ultimate test will come were
Washington to pick a fight with China that it, and the West, cannot win; will Europe then
take the final, fatal leap hand-in-hand?"
It appears that love of Jews is an integral element of this fealty, together with LGBT
nonsense and other peculiar American imports. Love of Jews and love of America – are they
separable at all? If and when France and England regain their independence, their Jews would
recover their normal place in their societies. Admittedly, it won't be a place at the top, but
it would be a respectful place of equals in a healthy society, rather than a place of a symbol
and a facilitator of foreign influence on the ruins of Europe, as it is now.
If only Those Russians could play chess or compose classical music or
write a few serious novels. Oh well, I guess you can't expect everything from people with no
GDP.
Citizens of France. To arms! Man the ramparts. The American barbarians are coming. They
shall not pass!
Le Trump's threat to France's splendid wines and Roquefort cheese are the gravest menace
France has faced since the Germans invaded this fair land in 1914. Burgundy wines and France's
300 fromages form the very soul of la Belle France.
Trump does not know or care that France saved America from British mis-rule. He wants
revenge because France – which taxes nearly everything – seeks to tax US IT firms
like Google and Amazon. Trump considers this a personal affront. Besides, he dislikes wine and
lives on desiccated burgers made with petrochemical cheese, washed down by acidic Diet
Cokes.
On top of this outrage comes the squabble over NATO. Trump used to scoff at the Alliance,
saying it was 'obsolete' as well as under-armed and short of money. The president and his
backers really dislike France and all it stands for, including wine and cheese.
but if you take away still viable American aerospace, automotive and pharmaceutical
industries among very few others, you will find a wasteland of financial speculations and
selling the snake oil
Lovely takes, Andrei. The people that need to read you see your name and immediately retort,
"Agent for Putin", Washington Post-style. Gets them off the hook from thinking because after
all, college deliberately taught them NOT to think. Most of the kids, they're hopeless. They're
hopeless idiots, they know nothing of the Constitution, they think all is normal. And they were
fleeced by the academics that dumbed them down. Meanwhile, we have in effect, been selling each
other hamburgers (services) for the past 50 years. Also, they've been selling the oil and gas
right out from under our feet overseas and putting THAT in their pockets even as we pay a world
price for gasoline and finished product. Every other country that produces crude gets a
discount. Not us. To steal a quote from a movie I watched once, they struck oil under our
garden and all we get is dead tomatoes. Our society is hollowed out, depraved, the women
becoming more and more hideous, all the institutions that held us together, deliberately
broken. decay everywhere.
As for the military? A reflection of our society. When I went into the Navy in 1975, it was
Stars and Stripes and we served in large part for Mom, Apple Pie and Chevrolet.
Today it is clear that the Stars and Stripes should be dollar signs over a defense
contractor logo. The rest? From where I sit today, for most kids, Mom is a divorced slut, Apple
Pie is a turd in a wax paper wrapper and Chevrolet is a bent shit can from China. This isn't a
society I'd defend as a nation worth defending. The feminists sit on their fat, comfortable
asses, made such on the labors of us White guys and they declare their hatred. Only a moron or
a kid that needs a shot at a job or trade or gets a kick out of airplanes or such joins. Our
women in general aren't worth defending on the streets or the world. Not in the Blue cities,
they are hideous. Take care of your own wman and kids and community and hell with the rest.
There's no draft, the society mostly hates Vets, so it isn't for country most serve. It's to
grab something, from a trade, to a pilot's license. A military based on that has no staying
power. And our corruptions and waste and outright theft in military procurement for shitty
weapons makes us ripe for the taking. And our talent is wasted building shitty weapons and the
second level builds shitty airliners. Can't fly into space? We cannot fly, literally, to
anywhere in the newest build out, the Maxx. And we're depending on the Theranos of Aerospace,
Spacex/Musk to get us to space? Right! Except for the nukes, we're ripe, man.
Andrei, speaking of Musk, how the Hell does he smoke big fat doobies and keep his security
clearance when everyone else in Washington gets fired for getting near the stuff? Queer
privilege? I'm convinced the whole thing with Musk is a shell game. You?
Thanks for your work. Very good stuff, but we can't get those who need it to even look. Our
people are incapable of marching in the streets or even seeing why they should. Kudos to those
who did it to us. They did a fine job. Read More Agree: Andrei Martyanov
Replies:
@Arioch ,
@Andrei Martyanov Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread
Display All Comments
@Frederick V. Reed It has a dangerous set of nukes. The tripwires are and have always
been easy-sinkers like our surface ships. The psychos that run our policy have subs and silos
with missiles with lots of nukes.
It's a dangerous game to consider a dopey thought like that Fred. Bet your ass Russia sees
plenty of military here to defend against. Iran, Iraq, Vietnam, to them it was impossible, we
killed millions. There's enough military here that Israel wants and has harnessed it. In what
universe do you reside Fred? Ah yes, the moon name of Tequila. Fred? Go drink something.
Jesus.
"... Today USA even is no more an entity. You can not negotiate a thing with "America" because there is no such institution any more, but a hellish swarm of infighting spiders, each delightfully breaking anything negotiated by a rival spider. ..."
US political "elites" are generally appallingly incompetent in matters of war and are
"educated" mostly through Hollywood and Clansiesque "literature". I am not even sure that
they comprehend what Congressional Research Service prepares for them as compressed
briefings. Neocon wing of US political elite is simply mentally inadequate.
Very true, especially the part about "Hollywood and Clansiesque 'literature.'" I used to
read Clancy's books and, while entertaining, in retrospect they appear ridiculous, even
childish. But they probably capture the popular notion of American military invincibility
better than any other.
Most of Hollywood's output is garbage anyway, and its grasp of real war and military
matters appears to be that of a not so precocious third grader.
Katyn, whoever did it, was much before Cold War and before even first relatively small
nuclear blast.
And if you want to go that far – why not remember crisis over West Berlin, where
tank armees were watching one another, but no one pulled trigger?
Afghanistan was attacking one's own ally. Same as Prague 1968 and Hungary 1956.
If you want to compare – that is like USA invading Panama to remove their no longer
reliable puppet Norriega.
Did American attack on their own Panama risk USSR going ballistic? Hardly so. There was no Soviet invasion into Pakistan nor there was Chinese/American invasion into
India.
And looking away from purely military events, there was no attempt to arrest the whole
embassy stuff them, neither in Moscow nor in DC. No killing Soviet ambassadors in NATO states
during official events.
Those dirty games had red lines, both sides maintained. Today? Today USA even is no more
an entity. You can not negotiate a thing with "America" because there is no such institution
any more, but a hellish swarm of infighting spiders, each delightfully breaking anything
negotiated by a rival spider.
> deploying conventional anti-ballistic missile defenses around their most important
cities.
No, by then effective treaty both USSR and USA had only ONE region they were allowed to
protect.
Those were some nuclear launchpads in USA i guess, and one single city (Moscow) in USSR. No
more.
> deterrence [did not] worked > See the last phrase in bullet 2.
You suppose USSR killed itself trying to keep deterrence working.
That does not show it did not work, already.
That shows it worked so well (at least from Soviet perspective) that they gambled all they
had on the futile effort of keeping that deterrence working into the future.
First problem is that in order to be comparable they are converted into the same currency,
typically dollars. That's a problem because things don't cost the same in different
countries. If you want to measure strength of economy you need to measure the purchasing
power based on where the money is spend and not based on the costs of goods and services in
the US (which you inadvertently do when you convert GDP's in US dollar values).
Second problem is that GDP does not measure the 'size' of the economy. It measures how
much money is being pumped around within an economy and how often it is being pumped around
and then the assumption is made that this represents the size of the economy. It's very easy
to artificially increase this pumping around to inflate the apparent size of an 'economy'.
Companies do this routinely before IPO's for example. The perversions we now have
masquerading as stock markets are another. But mostly it is done by creating debt. When you
get a loan, you get money that mostly did not exist prior to you getting it. It's not
backed by anything but the expectation of profits (in the sense that you're expected
to manage to leverage the money into creating at least enough real economic value to back not
just the issue of your loan but also the interest, representing costs for the providers, and
provide your share of the compensation for those loan receivers who fail in this task, ie
provide backing for the previously non-existing money they received).
So in order to get a genuine measure of the economic power of an economy you need to rate
their GDP in terms of local purchasing power which puts Russia equal to Germany. But you also
need to account for the amount of debt in an economy as the money issued as debt for the most
part does not represent actual existing economic value but at best expected economic value
and at worst will not be recouped at all in which case you need to detract it from the GDP
numbers.
That gets far too complicated for most people who just want simple, reassuring numbers,
like comparing economies on GDP numbers based on dollar values. Dream on.
Here are some facts on the Russian economy:
– in 2018 approx. 82% of GDP was spend domestically and only about 18% exported (see
why purchasing power matters?)
– of that 18% exports about a third represented raw materials, so 6% of GDP
– oil and natural gas represented between 35% and 40% percent of raw material exports,
which means between 2% and 2,5% of GDP consisted of oil and gas exports.
– in 2018 Russia achieved a rare economical feat, a triple surplus. The total
government debt (which was only a few percent of GDP) was less than the surpluses on the
government bank accounts meaning there was no net debt. Instead there was a modest net
surplus. The second surplus was the annual government budget. In 2018 Russian government
spending was less than the government revenues that year. And thirdly, they had a trade
surplus, exporting more than they imported.
In case you failed to notice, they exported more than they imported even though only 18%
of GDP consists of exports. Given the other two surpluses they could import a lot more than
that if they wanted to or if they needed to .
They don't because they don't need to. Russia does not depend on the rest of the world to
keep its economy going. It is about as autarkic as it is nowadays possible to be.
Never in the history of America, probably never in the history of any country, had there
been such open and direct control of governmental activities by the very rich. So long as a
handful of men in Wall Street control the credit and industrial processes of the country, they
will continue to control the press, the government, and, by deception, the people. They will
not only compel the public to work for them in peace, but to fight for them in war. -- John
Turner, 1922
@FB The
"Agree" button is inadequate here. I'm in full agreement.
In a nutshell, I totally misoverestimated Trump during his Presidential campaign. I had
assumed that its strategic and tactical genius meant a powerful faction of patriotic backers
who'd make themselves more apparent after he'd won had his back. I had assumed that a real
outsider couldn't have gotten to his position and that they had a plan and would make a stand
against the Empire's nomenklatura to try to turn the ship of state to face the coming crisis
head on.
They'd have a great deal of international support (esp from China & Russia) and may
just have been able to save much of the nation by letting the Empire go. The world does not
want the American nation to fall into the abyss. Everyone knows that the US doesn't have the
civilizational depth to pull itself back together like Russia did. Or even like the UK. OTOH,
the world does want the US' Empire to go the way of the USSR, and I thought Trump was just
the man to do it. His extravagant smokescreen of blustering buffoonery would give
clear-headed men the running room they'd need to make the deals and do what needed to be
done.
In the event, instead of the Seven Samurai, he brought the Seven Dwarfs and within
weeks of his inauguration, he lost even them. The Empire struck back on all fronts, fronts
Trump and his Dwarfs didn't even know existed, much less defended.
I get the impression that Trump has fallen back on damaging the Empire through
buffoonery. There are no patriots in Washington, and if there were he'd never get them past
their nomination hearings. By picking the least competent ideologues for his cabinet, the
Empire suffers while he holds on to the Presidency. That's as big a success as he and the
world can now hope for. An American carnival barker, aiming for a Gorbachevian
result.
Calling Trump 'Putin's boy' brings up coup tactics used by Birchers when Truman fired
MacArthur!
Brookings tools (Mr. Vindman (I have silver leaves Vindman does not fit) , Fiona Hill,
Holmes eavesdropping....) pleading to Schiff that Trump ain't their kind of 'Murekan empire
builder.
Making up "charges", hearsay evidence, hiding DNC US #resistance corruption, despise the
constitution, hide behind it and patriotism...... define democracy and who is 'patriotic'.
All the trappings of Mao and Hitler before they took over.
"...Making up 'charges', hearsay evidence, hiding DNC US #resistance corruption, despise the
constitution, hide behind it and patriotism...... define democracy and who is 'patriotic'.
All the trappings of Mao and Hitler before they took over."
[Funny (NOT) that they say the same thing about Trump. Your adversaries and yourself would
all make better lampshades or bars of soap than you do citizens.
Democracy has never been more than an illusion, sometimes just an allusion, particularly
though in modern republican times. Leaders have all too rarely been patriotic aside from
maybe George Washington, who largely despised the representative government that he had made.
TJ did not exactly fall in love with the US Congress either. In these times the political
class and their pet sycophants are more idiotic than patriotic.]
One bone: the coup #resistance despises the "office of the president" more than they (swamp
trolls like Schiff's tool Vindman) disdain deplorables and the US constitution.
It is a constitutional thingie in my view going back to the Henry Luce media and
Birchers/McCarthy (the ragings over "who lost Chiang's fiefdom in China?") going after anyone
who they described wrongfully in most cases as "subversives".
I believe that Washington was like Ike as to taking up the executive office.
"Eric Foner" in an effort to unearth this buried history
Calls Congressional Reconstruction
A second founding of the Republic
Reconstruction like the New Deal
Ended by producing its opposite
[ Please be careful in spelling names, and set down where the specific reference is. This
will be important, if a reference is set down. Also, further explanation when possible would
be helpful. ]
"... A more plausible explanation is that Trump thought that by appointing such anti-Russian hard-liners he could lay to rest the Russiagate allegations that had hung over him for three years and still did: that for some secret nefarious reason he was and remained a "Kremlin puppet." Despite the largely exculpatory Mueller report, Trump's political enemies, mostly Democrats but not only, have kept the allegations alive. ..."
"... The larger question is who should make American foreign policy: an elected president or Washington's permanent foreign policy establishment? (It is scarcely a "deep" or "secret" state, since its representatives appear on CNN and MSNBC almost daily.) Today, Democrats seem to think that it should be the foreign policy establishment, not President Trump. But having heard the cold-war views of much of that establishment, how will they feel when a Democrat occupies the White House? After all, eventually Trump will leave power, but Washington's foreign-policy "blob," as even an Obama aide termed it , will remain. ..."
"... Listen to the podcast here ..."
"... War With Russia? From Putin & Ukraine to Trump & Russiagate ..."
"... The John Batchelor Show ..."
"... Trump's anti-Iranian fever is every bit as ludicrous as the DNC's anti-Russian fever. There is absolutely nothing to support the anti-Iranian policy argument or the anti JCPOA argument. The only thing that is missing from all of this is Iranian hookers, and that would certainly be an explosive headline! ..."
"... You know why Rhodes called it the blob, right? Why he made it sound so formless and squishy? Ask yourself, how does a failed novelist with zilch for foreign-affairs credentials get the big job of Obama's ventriloquist? That's a CIA billet. It so happens that Rhodes' brother has a big job of his own with CBS News, the most servile of the Mockingbird media propaganda mills. ..."
"... It's not a blob, it's a precisely-articulated hierarchy. And the top of it is CIA. So please for once somebody answer this blindingly obvious question, Who is making US foreign policy? CIA, that's who. For the CIA show trial run by Iran/Contra nomenklatura Bill Barr and his blackmailed flunky Durham, Trump's high crime and misdemeanor is conducting diplomacy without CIA supervision. They come out and say so, pointing to the National Security Act's mousetrap bureaucracy. ..."
"... CIA runs your country. They've got impunity, they do what they want. We've got 400,000 academics paid to overthink it. ..."
"... We cannot trust that the people that destroyed the country will repair it. It is run by a Cult of Hedonistic Satanic Psychopaths. If they were limited to just the CIA, America would be in far better shape than its in. The CIA is not capable of thinking or intelligence, so we should stop paying them. ..."
"... Drumpf has been a tool of the Wall Street/Las Vegas Zionist billionaires for many, many years. so his selection of warmongering Zio neo-con advisors should be no surprise. ..."
"... Perhaps part of the reason that Trump often seems to be surrounded by people who don't support his policies or values is, as Paul Craig Roberts suggested in 2016, that Trump would have real problems simply because he was an outsider. An outsider to the Washington swamp, a swamp that Clinton had been swimming in for decades. In short he didn't know who to trust, who to keep "in the tent" & who to shut out. Thus, we have had this huge churn in Secretaries & on so on downwards. ..."
"... Sociopaths are the ones that do the worst because they lack any concern or "Empathy", like robots. So I read that the socio's are some of the brightest people who often are very successful in business etc. and can hide the fact that they would soon as kill as look at ya, but cool as ice, all they want is to get what the hell they want! They don't give a rats petoot who likes likes it or not, except as . ..."
"... Trump hasn't fired any of the neocons, but he proved that he CAN fire defense executives. He fired the Sec of Navy for disagreeing with some ridiculous personal thing that Trump wanted to do. Since Trump hasn't fired any neocons, we have to conclude that he's fully on board. ..."
"... There are so many security holes in the constitution of the USA including that it was ratified by those who invented it, not by a vote put to the people that would be made to suffer being governed by it. Basically the USA is useless as a defender of human rights (one of which is the right to self determination). The so called bill of rights (1st 10 amendments) are contractual promises, but like all clauses in contracts if there is no way to enforce them, then there is no use for the clause except maybe propaganda value. ..."
"... In a normally functioning world you simply can't simultaneously argue that in one case West can bomb a country to force self-determination as in Kosovo, and also denounce exactly the same thing in Crimea. On to Catalonia and more self-determination ..."
"... Trump, among his other occupations, used to engage with the professional wrestling circuit. In that well-staged entertainment there is always a bad guy – or a ' heel ' – who is used to stir up the crowds, the Evil Sheik or Rocky's hapless movie enemies. It makes it ' real '. The ' heel ' is sometimes allowed to win to better manage the audience. But the narrative never changes. Our rational judgments should focus on what happens, and on outcomes – not on talk, slogans, speeches, etc Based on that, Trump is a classical ' heel ' character. He might even be playing it consciously, or he has no choice. ..."
"... To answer the question who runs ' foreign policy ', let's ignore the stadium speeches, and simply look at what happens. In a world bereft of enough profitable consumer things to do, and enough justifiable careers for unemployable geo-political security 'experts' of all kinds, having enemies and maybe even a small war occasionally is not such an irrational thing to want. Plus there are the deep ethnic hatreds and traumas going back generations that were naively imported into the heart of the Western world. (Washington warned against that 200+ years ago.) ..."
"... or maybe trump was a lying neocon, war-loving, immigration-loving neoliberal all along, and you and the trumptards somehow continue to believe his campaign rhetoric? ..."
"... The fact is Trump is not an anti-neocon (Deep State) president he only talks that way. The fact that he surrounded himself with Deep State denizens gives lie to the thought that he is anti-Deep State no one can be that god damn stupid. ..."
"... "TRUMP SUPPORTERS WERE DUPED – Trump supporters are going to find out soon enough that they were duped by Donald Trump. Trump was given the script to run as the "Chaos Candidate" .He is just a pawn of the ruling elite .It is a tactic known as 'CONTROLLED OPPOSITION' ". Wasn't it FDR who said "Presidents are selected , they are not elected " ? ..."
"... Trump selected the Neocons he is surrounded with. And he's given away all kinds of property that he has absolutely no legal authority to give. He was seeking to please American Oligarchs the likes of Adelson. That's American politics. "Money is free speech." Of course, there is another connection with foreign policy beyond the truly total corruption of American domestic politics, and that's through America's brutal empire abroad. ..."
"... Obama or Trump, on the main matters of importance abroad – NATO, Russia, Israel/Palestine, China – there has been no difference, except Trump is more openly bellicose and given to saying really stupid things. ..."
President Trump campaigned and was elected on an anti-neocon platform: he promised to reduce direct US involvement in areas where,
he believed, America had no vital strategic interest, including in Ukraine. He also promised a new détente ("cooperation") with Moscow.
And yet, as we have learned from their recent congressional testimony, key members of his own National Security Council did not
share his views and indeed were opposed to them. Certainly, this was true of Fiona Hill and Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman. Both of them
seemed prepared for a highly risky confrontation with Russia over Ukraine, though whether retroactively because of Moscow's 2014
annexation of Crimea or for more general reasons was not entirely clear.
Similarly, Trump was slow in withdrawing Marie Yovanovitch, a career foreign service officer appointed by President Obama as ambassador
to Kiev, who had made clear, despite her official position in Kiev, that she did not share the new American president's thinking
about Ukraine or Russia. In short, the president was surrounded in his own administration, even in the White House, by opponents
of his foreign policy and presumably not only in regard to Ukraine.
How did this unusual and dysfunctional situation come about? One possibility is that it was the doing and legacy of the neocon
John Bolton, briefly Trump's national security adviser. But this doesn't explain why the president would accept or long tolerate
such appointees.
A more plausible explanation is that Trump thought that by appointing such anti-Russian hard-liners he could lay to rest the
Russiagate allegations that had hung over him for three years and still did: that for some secret nefarious reason he was and remained
a "Kremlin puppet." Despite the largely exculpatory Mueller report, Trump's political enemies, mostly Democrats but not only, have
kept the allegations alive.
The larger question is who should make American foreign policy: an elected president or Washington's permanent foreign policy
establishment? (It is scarcely a "deep" or "secret" state, since its representatives appear on CNN and MSNBC almost daily.) Today,
Democrats seem to think that it should be the foreign policy establishment, not President Trump. But having heard the cold-war views
of much of that establishment, how will they feel when a Democrat occupies the White House? After all, eventually Trump will leave
power, but Washington's foreign-policy "blob," as even
an Obama aide termed it , will remain.
Listen to the podcast
here . Stephen F. Cohen Stephen F.
Cohen is a professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at New York University and Princeton University. ANationcontributing editor, his most recent book,War With Russia? From Putin & Ukraine to Trump & Russiagate, is available
in paperback and in an ebook edition. His weekly conversations with the host ofThe John Batchelor Show, now in their sixth
year, are available at www.thenation.com .
because of Moscow's 2014 annexation of Crimea or for more general reasons was not entirely clear.
In an otherwise decent overview, this sticks out like a sore thumb. It would be helpful to stop using the word annexation.
While correct in a technical sense – that Crimea was added to the Russian Federation – the word comes with all kinds of connotations,
that imply illegality and or force. Given Crimea was given special status when gifted to Ukraine for administration by the USSR,
one could just as easily apply "annexation" of Crimea to Ukraine. After Ukraine voted to "leave" the USSR, Crimea voted to join
Ukraine. Obviously the "Ukrainian" vote did not include Crimea. Even after voting to join Ukraine, Crimea had special status within
Ukraine, and was semi autonomous. If you can vote to join, you can vote to leave. Either you have the right to self determination,
or you don't.
This is what is so infuriating, Stephen! These silent coups of the executive branch have been taking place for my entire life!
Both parties are guilty of refusing to appoint cabinet members that the elected presidents would have chosen for themselves, because
both parties are more interested in making the president of the opposing party look bad, make him ineffective, and incapable of
carrying out policies that he was elected to carry out. That is the very definition of treason!
Things are a disaster. The JCPOA is at the heart of the issue and Trump and his advisors stubborn refusal to capitulate on
this issue very well may cause Trump to lose the 2020 election. Trump's anti-Iranian fever is every bit as ludicrous as the
DNC's anti-Russian fever. There is absolutely nothing to support the anti-Iranian policy argument or the anti JCPOA argument.
The only thing that is missing from all of this is Iranian hookers, and that would certainly be an explosive headline!
The anti-Iranian fever has created so much havoc not only with Iran, but with every country on earth other than Israel, Saudi
Arabia, and the UAE. Germany announced that it is seeking to unite with Russia, not only for Gazprom, but is now considering purchasing
defense systems from Russia, and Germany is dictating EU policy, by and large. Germany has said that Europe must be able to defend
itself independent of America and is requesting an EU military and Italy is on board with this idea, seeking to create jobs and
weapons for its economy and defense.
The EU is fed up with the economic sanctions placed on countries that the U.S. has black-listed, particularly Russia and Iran,
and China as well for Huwaei 5G.
Nobody in their right mind could ever claim this to be the free market capitalism that Larry Kudlow espouses!
You know why Rhodes called it the blob, right? Why he made it sound so formless and squishy? Ask yourself, how does a failed
novelist with zilch for foreign-affairs credentials get the big job of Obama's ventriloquist? That's a CIA billet. It so happens
that Rhodes' brother has a big job of his own with CBS News, the most servile of the Mockingbird media propaganda mills.
It's not a blob, it's a precisely-articulated hierarchy. And the top of it is CIA. So please for once somebody answer this
blindingly obvious question, Who is making US foreign policy? CIA, that's who. For the CIA show trial run by Iran/Contra nomenklatura
Bill Barr and his blackmailed flunky Durham, Trump's high crime and misdemeanor is conducting diplomacy without CIA supervision.
They come out and say so, pointing to the National Security Act's mousetrap bureaucracy.
CIA runs your country. They've got impunity, they do what they want. We've got 400,000 academics paid to overthink it.
The CIA has no authority what so ever as defined by the supreme law of the land, the constitution. That would make them guilty
of a coup which would be an act of treason, so if what you claim is true, why have they not been prosecuted.
It is a political game between to competing kleptocratic cults. The DNC and RNC are whores and will do what ever their donors
tell them to do. That is also treason. This country is just a total wasteland.
Everyone has pledged allegiance to fraud.
Too big to fail, like the Titanic and the Hindenberg.
We cannot trust that the people that destroyed the country will repair it. It is run by a Cult of Hedonistic Satanic Psychopaths.
If they were limited to just the CIA, America would be in far better shape than its in. The CIA is not capable of thinking or
intelligence, so we should stop paying them.
Drumpf has been a tool of the Wall Street/Las Vegas Zionist billionaires for many, many years. so his selection of warmongering
Zio neo-con advisors should be no surprise.
What kind of stupid question is this? You mean you don't know or asking us for confirmation? If you really don't know then why
are you writing an article about it? If you do know then why are you asking the UNZ readers?
Perhaps part of the reason that Trump often seems to be surrounded by people who don't support his policies or values is,
as Paul Craig Roberts suggested in 2016, that Trump would have real problems simply because he was an outsider. An outsider to
the Washington swamp, a swamp that Clinton had been swimming in for decades. In short he didn't know who to trust, who to keep
"in the tent" & who to shut out. Thus, we have had this huge churn in Secretaries & on so on downwards.
It is run by a Cult of Hedonistic Satanic Psychopaths.
That's ok but it's a bit unfair to Hedonistic Satanic Psychopaths After all most of the country is Hedonistic as hell,
it sells commercials or wtf. Satanic is philosophical and way over the heads of these clowns, though if the be a Satan, then they
are in the plan for sure, and right on the mark. As for psychopaths, those are criminals who are insane, but they can have remorse
and be their own worst enemies, often they just go off and go psycho and bad things happen, but can be unplanned off the wall
stuff, not diabolic.
Sociopaths are the ones that do the worst because they lack any concern or "Empathy", like robots. So I read that the socio's
are some of the brightest people who often are very successful in business etc. and can hide the fact that they would soon as
kill as look at ya, but cool as ice, all they want is to get what the hell they want! They don't give a rats petoot who likes
likes it or not, except as .
So, once upon a time, a people got so hedonistic and they didn't watch the game and theier leaders were low quality
(especially religeous/morals ) and long story short Satan unleashed the Socio's , Things seem to be heading disastrously,
so will bit coin save the day? Green nudeal?
While massive attention is directed towards Russia and the Ukraine, the majority of the public are shown the slight of hand
and their attention is never brought near to the real perpetrators of subverting American and British foreign policy.
Doesn't matter if he's surrounded. A president CAN make foreign policy, and a president CAN fire people who disagree with his
policy. Trump hasn't fired any of the neocons, but he proved that he CAN fire defense executives. He fired the Sec of Navy
for disagreeing with some ridiculous personal thing that Trump wanted to do. Since Trump hasn't fired any neocons, we have to
conclude that he's fully on board.
The CIA has no authority what so ever as defined by the supreme law of the land, the constitution. That would make them
guilty of a coup which would be an act of treason, so if what you claim is true, why have they not been prosecuted.
--
first off the supreme law of the land maybe the Constitution and to oppose it may be Treason, but the Law that is supreme to the
Law of the land is Human rights law.. it is far superior to, and it is the TLD of all laws of the land of all of the Nation States
that mankind has allowed the greedy among its masses, to impose.
There are so many security holes in the constitution of the USA including that it was ratified by those who invented it,
not by a vote put to the people that would be made to suffer being governed by it. Basically the USA is useless as a defender
of human rights (one of which is the right to self determination). The so called bill of rights (1st 10 amendments) are contractual
promises, but like all clauses in contracts if there is no way to enforce them, then there is no use for the clause except maybe
propaganda value.
If you note the USA constitution has seven articles..
Article 1 is about 525 elected members of congress and their very limited powers to control
foreign activities. Each qualified to vote member of the governed (a citizen so to speak) is allowed to
vote for only 3 of the 525 persons. so basically there is no real national election anywhere .
Article II grants the electoral college the power to appoint two persons full control of the assets,
resources and manpower of America to conquer the entire world or to make peace in the entire world.
Either way: the governed are not allowed to vote for either; the EC vote determines the P or VP.
Article III allows the Article II person to appoint yes men to the judiciary
Where exist the power of the governed to deny USA governors the ability to the use the powers the constitution claims
the governors are to have, against the governed? <==No where I can find? Theoretically, the governed are protected from abuse
for as long as it takes to conduct due process?
One person, the Article II person, is basically the king when in comes to constitutional authority to establish, conduct,
prosecute or defend USA involvement in foreign affairs.
No where does the constitution of the USA deny its President the use of American resources or USA military power, to
make and use diplomat appointments, or to use the USA to use the wealth of America and the hegemonic powers of the USA to make
a private or public profit in a foreign land. <= d/n matter if the profit is personal to the President or if it assigned by appointment
(like the feudal powers granted by the feudal kings to the feudal lords) to corporate feudal lords or oligarch personal interest.
AFAICT, the president can USE the USA to conduct war, invade or otherwise infringe on, even destroy, the territory, or a
private or public interest, within a foreign sovereign more or less at will. So if the President wants to command a private
or secret Army like the CIA, he can as far as I can tell, obviously this president does, because he could with his pen alone shut
it down.
Seems to me the "NO" from Wilson's four points
no more secret diplomacy peace settlement must not lead the way to new wars
no retribution, unjust claims, and huge fines <basically indemnities paid by the losers to the winners.
no more war; includes controls on armaments and arming of nations.
no more Trade Barriers so the nations of the world would become more interdependent.
have been made the essence of nation state operations world wide.
IMO, The CIA exists at the pleasure of the President.
@Curmudgeon all of that,
plus the Kosovo precedent.
In a normally functioning world you simply can't simultaneously argue that in one case West can bomb a country to force
self-determination as in Kosovo, and also denounce exactly the same thing in Crimea. On to Catalonia and more self-determination
Trump, among his other occupations, used to engage with the professional wrestling circuit. In that well-staged entertainment
there is always a bad guy – or a ' heel ' – who is used to stir up the crowds, the Evil Sheik or Rocky's hapless movie
enemies. It makes it ' real '. The 'heel ' is sometimes allowed to win to better manage the audience. But
the narrative never changes. Our rational judgments should focus on what happens, and on outcomes – not on talk, slogans, speeches,
etc Based on that, Trump is a classical ' heel ' character. He might even be playing it consciously, or he has no choice.
To answer the question who runs ' foreign policy ', let's ignore the stadium speeches, and simply look at what happens.
In a world bereft of enough profitable consumer things to do, and enough justifiable careers for unemployable geo-political security
'experts' of all kinds, having enemies and maybe even a small war occasionally is not such an irrational thing to want. Plus there
are the deep ethnic hatreds and traumas going back generations that were naively imported into the heart of the Western world.
(Washington warned against that 200+ years ago.)
Trump should have kept Steve Bannon as his advisor and should have fired instead his son-in-law. Perhaps "they" are blackmailing
Trump with photos like here: https://www.pinterest.com/richarddesjarla/creepy/
That would explain why Trump is so ineffective at making a reality anything he campaigned for.
or maybe trump was a lying neocon, war-loving, immigration-loving neoliberal all along, and you and the trumptards somehow
continue to believe his campaign rhetoric?
An anti-neocon president appears to have been surrounded by neocons in his own administration.
The fact is Trump is not an anti-neocon (Deep State) president he only talks that way. The fact that he surrounded himself
with Deep State denizens gives lie to the thought that he is anti-Deep State no one can be that god damn stupid.
or maybe trump was a lying neocon, war-loving, immigration-loving neoliberal all along, and you and the trumptards somehow
continue to believe his campaign rhetoric?
Halfway around the world from Washington's halls of power, Ukraine sits along a civilizational and geopolitical fault line.
To Ukraine's west are the liberal democracies of Europe, governed by rule of law and democratic principles. To its east are
Russia and its client states in Eurasia, almost all of which are corrupt oligarchies. [ ] In this war on democratic movements
and democratic principles, Russia's biggest prize and chief adversary has always been the United States. Until now, however,
Russia has always had to contend with bipartisan resolve to counter
No mention of China, and this is the problem with the whole foreign policy establishment not just the neocons. Russia is more
of an annoyance than anything, but they are still operating assumptions on what is the
Geographical Pivot of History , so they want to talk about Russia. Like an Edwardian sea cadet we are supposed to care about
Russia getting (back) a water port in Crimea. Mahan's definition of sea power included a strong commercial fleet. After tearing
their own environment apart like a car in a wrecking yard and heating up the planet China has taken time out from deforestation
and colonising Tibet, to send huge container vessels full of cheap goods through the melting Arctic round the top of Russia all
the better to get to Europe and deindustrialise it.
Western elites have sold out to China, seen as the future, so we hear about Russia rather than the three million Uyghurs in
concentration camps complete with constantly smoking crematoria, and harvesting of organs for rich foreigners.
Who
poses a greater threat to the West: China or Russia?
By the time the West finds itself in open conflict with Beijing, we will have lost our relative advantage. Brendan Simms and
K.C. Lin [ ] The concept of China being a threat is harder to comprehend. In what way? Yes, its hacking and intellectual property
theft is a headache. But is it worse than what Russia is up to? And don't we need Chinese investment, so does it really matter
if China builds our 5G mobile networks? In London, ministers agonise over these issues -- not knowing whether to pity China
(we still send foreign aid there), beg for its money and contracts (with prime ministerial trade trips), or treat it as a potential
antagonist.
Aid ! They sent robots to the far side of the Moon
Beijing has been the beneficiary of liberal revulsion at the Trump presidency: if the Donald is against the Chinese,
who cannot be for them? As a result, Trump's efforts to address China's unfair trade practices have so far missed the mark
with the domestic and international audience. As Trump declares war on free trade, China -- one of the most protectionist economies
in the world -- is now celebrated at Davos as the avatar of free trade. Later this month, China's Vice-President is likely
to be in attendance at Davos -- and there is even talk of him meeting with Trump. Similarly, the messiness of American politics
has made China's one-party state an apparent poster boy of political stability and governability.
"TRUMP SUPPORTERS WERE DUPED – Trump supporters are going to find out soon enough that they were duped by
Donald Trump. Trump was given the script to run as the "Chaos Candidate" .He is just a pawn of the ruling elite .It is a tactic
known as 'CONTROLLED OPPOSITION' ".
Wasn't it FDR who said "Presidents are selected , they are not elected " ?
Trump selected the Neocons he is surrounded with. And he's given away all kinds of property that he has absolutely no legal
authority to give. He was seeking to please American Oligarchs the likes of Adelson. That's American politics. "Money is free
speech." Of course, there is another connection with foreign policy beyond the truly total corruption of American domestic politics,
and that's through America's brutal empire abroad.
The military/intelligence imperial establishment definitely see Israel as a kind of American colony in the Mideast, and they
make sure that it's well provided for. That's what the Neocon Wars have been about. Paving over large parts of Israel's noisy
neighborhood. And that includes matters like keeping Syria off-balance with occupation in its northeast. And constantly threatening
Iran.
Obama or Trump, on the main matters of importance abroad – NATO, Russia, Israel/Palestine, China – there has been no difference,
except Trump is more openly bellicose and given to saying really stupid things.
By the way, the last President who tried seriously to make foreign policy as the elected head of government left half of his
head splattered on thec streets of Dallas.
@Jon Baptist We have
all been brainwashed by the propaganda screened by the massmedia ,whether it be FOX , MSNBC , CBS ,etc.. SeptemberClues.info has
a good article entitled "The central role of the news media on 9/11 " :
"The 9/11 psyop relied foremostly on that weakspot of ours .We all fell for the images we saw on TV at the time we can only
wonder why so many never questioned the absurd TV coverage proposed by all the major networks The 9/11 TV imagery of the crucial
morning events was just a computer-animated, pre-fabricated movie."
@follyofwar Pat inhabits
a strange Hollywood type world, where the US is always the good guy. He believes that, although the US may make foreign policy
mistakes, its aims and ambitions are nevertheless noble and well intentioned.
In Pat's world it's still circa 1955, but even then, his take on US foreign policy would have been hopelessly unrealistic.
Hillary Clinton went on the Howard Stern show this week for a wide-ranging interview with
the popular radio host, specifically focusing on her loss to Trump and what 2020 looks like --
a race she's recently dropped hints she could be prepared to enter, however unlikely that might
be.
While the Wednesday interview was widely covered in the media, there's one segment largely
overlooked in the mainstream, but which is stunning nonetheless. We've grown used to her 'Trump
is a Russian asset' line in her typical blame game fashion anytime she makes a media
appearance; however, she did repeat the less common conspiracy that links rival Democrat Bernie
Sanders to the Kremlin .
She wasn't even asked, but briefly voluntarily inserted the reference while discussing the
Mueller investigation.
Speaking of the Russians, she claimed, "They were like - 'hey let's do everything we can
to elect Donald Trump'. Those are quotes... those are words [they used]... And they also said
Bernie Sanders ."
"But you know that's for another day..."
Stern runs with it: "Do we hate Bernie Sanders?"
"I don't hate anybody," but agrees with Stern's assessment that he took a while to endorse
her: "He could have. He hurt me, there's no doubt about it ."
Then she delivered the final punch at a moment Sanders
continues to gain in the polls , especially among young voters: "And I hope he doesn't do
it again to whoever gets the nomination. Once is enough."
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT
MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Please
enter a valid email Thank you for subscribing!Something went wrong. Please refresh
and try again.
There it is: her disastrous 2016 loss continues to be the fault of everyone else, who are
apparently all somehow Russian puppets, even the Leftist Jewish Senator from Vermont (and let's
not forget the
Green Party's Jill Stein ).
* * *
If you can stomach watching it, she elsewhere describes in detail 'how she felt' being
present for Trump's inauguration ceremony. "Which was one of the hardest days of my life, to be
honest!"
This hag hijacked the Democrat party and transformed it into a cabal of criminal misfits,
pedofiles, liars, murderers and psychopaths. The DNC is a permanent reflection of her
treachery subscribing to everything unwholesome and wicked.
"We don't want to marginalize the more extreme candidates, but make them more 'Pied Piper'
candidates who actually represent the mainstream of the Republican Party. Pied Piper
candidates include, but aren't limited to:
Ted Cruz
Donald Trump
Ben Carson
We need to be elevating the Pied Piper candidates so that they are leaders of the pack and
tell the press to them seriously."
Clinton was actively promoting the campaign of a Russian Asset.
Republicans are afraid to raise this key question. Democrats are afraid of even mentioning CrowdStrike in Ukrainegate hearings.
The Deep State wants to suppress this matter entirely.
Alperovisch connections to Ukraine and his Russophobia are well known. Did Alperovich people played the role of "Fancy Bear"? Or
Ukrainian SBU was engaged? George Eliason clams that
"I have already clearly shown the Fancy Bear hackers are Ukrainian Intelligence Operators." ... "Since there is so much crap surrounding
the supposed hack such as law enforcement teams never examining the DNC server or maintaining control of it as evidence, could the hacks
have been a cover-up?"
Notable quotes:
"... So far at least I cannot rule out the possibility that that this could have involved an actual 'false flag' hack. A possible calculation would have been that this could have made it easier for Alperovitch and 'CrowdStrike', if more people had asked serious questions about the evidence they claimed supported the 'narrative' of GRU responsibility. ..."
"... What she suggested was that the FBI had found evidence, after his death, of a hack of Rich's laptop, designed as part of a 'false flag' operation. ..."
"... On this, see his 8 October, 'Motion for Discovery and Motion to Accept Supplemental Evidence' in Clevenger's own case against the DOJ, document 44 on the relevant 'Courtlistener' pages, and his 'Unopposed Motion for Stay', document 48. Both are short, and available without a 'PACER' subscription, and should be compulsory reading for anyone seriously interested in ascertaining the truth about 'Russiagate.' (See https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6775665/clevenger-v-us-department-of-justice/ .) ..."
"... And here, is is also material that he may have had more than one laptop, that 'hard drives' can be changed, and that the level of computer skills that can be found throughout the former Soviet Union is very high. Another matter of some importance is that Ed Butowsky's 'Debunking Rod Wheeler's Claims' site is back up online. (See http://debunkingrodwheelersclaims.net ) ..."
"... The question of whether the 'timeline' produced by Hersh's FBI informant was accurate, or a deliberate attempt to disguise the fact that all kinds of people were well aware of Rich's involvement before his murder, and well aware of the fact of a leak before he was identified as its source, is absolutely central to how one interprets 'Russiagate.' ..."
"... Why did Crowdstrike conclude it was a "Russian breach", when other evidence does show it was an internal download. What was Crowdstrike's method and motivation to reach the "Russian" conclusion instead. Why has that methodology been sealed? ..."
"... Why did Mueller wholly accept the Crowdstrike Russian conclusion, with no further or independent investigation and prominently put this Crowdstrike generated conclusion in his Russiagate report? Which also included the conclusion the "Russians" wanted to help Trump and harm Clinton. Heavy stuff, based upon a DNC proprietary investigation of their own and unavailable computers. ..."
"... What were the relationships between Crowdstrike, DNC, FBI and the Mueller team that conspired to reach this Russian conclusion. ..."
"... Why did the Roger Stone judge, who just sent Stone away for life, refuse Stone's evidentiary demand to ascertain how exactly Crowdstrike reached its Russsian hacking conclusion, that the court then linked to Stone allegedly lying about this Russian link ..."
"... Indeed, let's set out with full transparency the Ukraine -- Crowsdtrike player links and loyalties to see if there are any smoking guns yet undisclosed. Trump was asking for more information about Crowdstrike like a good lawyer - never ask a question when you don't already know the right answer. Crowdstrike is owned by a Ukrainian by birth ..."
"... Among the 12 engineers assigned to writing a PGP backdoor was the son of a KGB officer named Dmitri Alperovich who would go on to be the CTO at a company involved in the DNC Hacking scandal - Crowdstrike. ..."
"... In addition to writing a back door for PGP, Alperovich also ported PGP to the blackberry platform to provide encrypted communications for covert action operatives. ..."
"... His role in what we may define as "converting DNC leak into DNC hack" (I would agree with you that this probably was a false flag operation), which was supposedly designed to implicated Russians, and possibly involved Ukrainian security services, is very suspicious indeed. ..."
"... Mueller treatment of Crowdstrike with "kid gloves" may suggest that Alperovich actions were part of a larger scheme. After all Crowdstike was a FBI contactor at the time. ..."
The favor was for Ukraine to investigate Crowdstrike and the 2016 DNC computer breach.
Reliance on Crowdstrike to investigate the DNC computer, and not an independent FBI investigation, was tied very closely to
the years long anti-Trump Russiagate hoax and waste of US taxpayer time and money.
Why is this issue ignored by both the media and the Democrats. The ladies doth protest far too much.
what exactly, to the extend I recall, could the Ukraine contribute the the DNC's server/"fake malware" troubles? Beyond, that
I seem to vaguely recall, the supposed malware was distributed via an Ukrainan address.
On the other hand, there seems to be the (consensus here?) argument there was no malware breach at all, simply an insider copying
files on a USB stick.
If people discovered there had been a leak, it would perfectly natural that in order to give 'resilience' to their cover-up
strategies, they could have organised a planting of evidence on the servers, in conjunction with elements in Ukraine.
So far at least I cannot rule out the possibility that that this could have involved an actual 'false flag' hack. A possible
calculation would have been that this could have made it easier for Alperovitch and 'CrowdStrike', if more people had asked serious
questions about the evidence they claimed supported the 'narrative' of GRU responsibility.
The issues involved become all the more important, in the light of the progress of Ty Clevenger's attempts to exploit the clear
contradiction between the claims by the FBI, in response to FOIA requests, to have no evidence relating to Seth Rich, and the
remarks by Ms. Deborah Sines quoted by Michael Isikoff.
What she suggested was that the FBI had found evidence, after his death, of a hack of Rich's laptop, designed as part of
a 'false flag' operation.
On this, see his 8 October, 'Motion for Discovery and Motion to Accept Supplemental Evidence' in Clevenger's own case against
the DOJ, document 44 on the relevant 'Courtlistener' pages, and his 'Unopposed Motion for Stay', document 48. Both are short,
and available without a 'PACER' subscription, and should be compulsory reading for anyone seriously interested in ascertaining
the truth about 'Russiagate.' (See
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6775665/clevenger-v-us-department-of-justice/
.)
It is eminently possible that Ms. Hines has simply made an 'unforced error.'
However, I do not – yet – feel able totally to discount the possibility that what is actually at issue is a 'ruse', produced
as a contingency plan to ensure that if it becomes impossible to maintain the cover-up over Rich's involvement in its original
form, his laptop shows 'evidence' compatible with the 'Russiagate' narrative.
And here, is is also material that he may have had more than one laptop, that 'hard drives' can be changed, and that the
level of computer skills that can be found throughout the former Soviet Union is very high. Another matter of some importance
is that Ed Butowsky's 'Debunking Rod Wheeler's Claims' site is back up online. (See
http://debunkingrodwheelersclaims.net )
Looking at it from the perspective of an old television current affairs hack, I do think that, while it is very helpful to
have some key material available in a single place, it would useful if more attention was paid to presentation.
In particular, it would be a most helpful 'teaching aid', if a full and accurate transcript was made of the conversation with
Seymour Hersh which Ed Butowsky covertly recorded. What seems clear is that both these figures ended up in very difficult positions,
and that the latter clearly engaged in 'sleight of hand' in relation to his dealings with the former. That said, the fact that
Butowsky's claims about his grounds for believing that Hersh's FBI informant was Andrew McCabe are clearly disingenuous does not
justify the conclusion that he is wrong.
It is absolutely clear to me – despite what 'TTG', following that 'Grub Street' hack Folkenflik, claimed – that when Hersh
talked to Butowsky, he believed he had been given accurate information. Indeed, I have difficulty seeing how anyone whose eyes
were not hopelessly blinded by prejudice, a\nd possibly fear of where a quest for the truth might lead, could not see that, in
this conversation, both men were telling the truth, as they saw it.
However, all of us, including the finest and most honourable of journalists can, from time to time, fall for disinformation.
(If anyone says they can always spot when they are being played, all I can say is, if you're right, you're clearly Superman, but
it is more likely that you are a fool or knave, if not both.)
The question of whether the 'timeline' produced by Hersh's FBI informant was accurate, or a deliberate attempt to disguise
the fact that all kinds of people were well aware of Rich's involvement before his murder, and well aware of the fact of a leak
before he was identified as its source, is absolutely central to how one interprets 'Russiagate.'
1. Why did Crowdstrike conclude it was a "Russian breach", when other evidence does show it was an internal download. What
was Crowdstrike's method and motivation to reach the "Russian" conclusion instead. Why has that methodology been sealed?
2. Why did Mueller wholly accept the Crowdstrike Russian conclusion, with no further or independent investigation and prominently
put this Crowdstrike generated conclusion in his Russiagate report? Which also included the conclusion the "Russians" wanted to
help Trump and harm Clinton. Heavy stuff, based upon a DNC proprietary investigation of their own and unavailable computers.
3. What were the relationships between Crowdstrike, DNC, FBI and the Mueller team that conspired to reach this Russian
conclusion.
4. Why did the Roger Stone judge, who just sent Stone away for life, refuse Stone's evidentiary demand to ascertain how
exactly Crowdstrike reached its Russsian hacking conclusion, that the court then linked to Stone allegedly lying about this Russian
link .
5. Indeed, let's set out with full transparency the Ukraine -- Crowsdtrike player links and loyalties to see if there are
any smoking guns yet undisclosed. Trump was asking for more information about Crowdstrike like a good lawyer - never ask a question
when you don't already know the right answer. Crowdstrike is owned by a Ukrainian by birth .
Why did Mueller wholly accept the Crowdstrike Russian conclusion, with no further or independent investigation and prominently
put this Crowdstrike generated conclusion in his Russiagate report? Which also included the conclusion the "Russians" wanted
to help Trump and harm Clinton. Heavy stuff, based upon a DNC proprietary investigation of their own and unavailable computers.
Alperovich is really a very suspicious figure. Rumors are that he was involved in compromising PGP while in MacAfee( June 2nd,
2018 Alperovich's DNC Cover Stories Soon To Match With His Hacking Teams - YouTube ):
Investigative Journalist George Webb worked at MacAfee and Network Solutions in 2000 when the CEO Bill Larsen bought a small,
Moscow based, hacking and virus writing company to move to Silicon Valley.
MacAfee also purchased PGP, an open source encryption software developed by privacy advocate to reduce NSA spying on the
public.
The two simultaneous purchase of PGP and the Moscow hacking team by Metwork Solutions was sponsored by the CIA and FBI in order
to crack encrypted communications to write a back door for law enforcement.
Among the 12 engineers assigned to writing a PGP backdoor was the son of a KGB officer named Dmitri Alperovich who would
go on to be the CTO at a company involved in the DNC Hacking scandal - Crowdstrike.
In addition to writing a back door for PGP, Alperovich also ported PGP to the blackberry platform to provide encrypted
communications for covert action operatives.
His role in what we may define as "converting DNC leak into DNC hack" (I would agree with you that this probably was a
false flag operation), which was supposedly designed to implicated Russians, and possibly involved Ukrainian security services,
is very suspicious indeed.
Mueller treatment of Crowdstrike with "kid gloves" may suggest that Alperovich actions were part of a larger scheme. After
all Crowdstike was a FBI contactor at the time.
While all this DNC hack saga is completely unclear due to lack of facts and the access to the evidence, there are some stories
on Internet that indirectly somewhat strengthen your hypothesis:
"... Alperovitch is a nonresident senior fellow of the Cyber Statecraft Initiative at the Atlantic Council, which takes a hawkish approach toward Russia. The Council in turn is financed by Google Inc. ..."
"... In a perhaps unexpected development, another Atlantic Council funder is Burisma, the natural gas company at the center of allegations regarding Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden. Those allegations were the subject of Trump's inquiry with Zelemsky related to Biden. The Biden allegations concern significant questions about Biden's role in Ukraine policy under the Obama administration. This took place during a period when Hunter Biden received $50,000 a month from Burisma. ..."
"... Google, Soros's Open Society Foundations, the Rockefeller Fund and an agency of the State Department each also finance a self-described investigative journalism organization repeatedly referenced as a source of information in the so-called whistleblower's complaint alleging Trump was "using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country" in the 2020 presidential race. ..."
"... Another listed OCCRP funder is the Omidyar Network, which is the nonprofit for liberal billionaire eBay founder Pierre Omidyar. ..."
"... Together with Soros's Open Society, Omidyar also funds the Poynter Institute for Media Studies, which hosts the International Fact-Checking Network that partnered with Facebook to help determine whether news stories are "disputed." ..."
There are common threads that run through an organization repeatedly relied upon in the
so-called whistleblower's complaint about President Donald Trump and CrowdStrike, the outside
firm utilized to conclude that Russia hacked the Democratic National Committee's servers
since the DNC would not allow the U.S. government to inspect the servers.
One of several themes is financing tied to Google, whose Google Capital led a $100 million
funding drive that financed Crowdstrike. Google Capital, which now goes by the name of
CapitalG, is an arm of Alphabet Inc., Google's parent company. Eric Schmidt, the chairman of
Alphabet, has been a staunch and active supporter of Hillary Clinton and is a longtime donor
to the Democratic Party.
CrowdStrike was mentioned by Trump in his call with Ukranian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
Perkins Coie, the law firm that represented the DNC and Hillary Clinton's campaign,
reportedly helped draft CrowdStrike to aid with the DNC's allegedly hacked server.
On behalf of the DNC and Clinton's campaign, Perkins Coie also paid the controversial
Fusion GPS firm to produce the infamous, largely-discredited anti-Trump dossier compiled by
former British spy Christopher Steele.
CrowdStrike is a California-based cybersecurity technology company co-founded by Dmitri
Alperovitch.
Alperovitch is a nonresident senior fellow of the
Cyber Statecraft Initiative at the Atlantic Council, which takes a hawkish approach toward
Russia. The Council in turn is financed
by Google Inc.
In a perhaps unexpected development, another Atlantic Council
funder is Burisma, the natural gas company at the center of allegations regarding Joe
Biden and his son, Hunter Biden. Those allegations were the subject of Trump's inquiry with
Zelemsky related to Biden. The Biden allegations concern significant questions about Biden's
role in Ukraine policy under the Obama administration. This took place during a period when
Hunter Biden received $50,000 a month from Burisma.
Besides Google and Burisma funding, the Council is also financed by billionaire activist
George Soros's Open Society Foundations as well as the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Inc. and
the U.S. State Department.
Google, Soros's Open Society Foundations, the Rockefeller Fund and an agency of the State
Department each also finance a self-described investigative journalism organization
repeatedly referenced as a source of information in the so-called whistleblower's complaint
alleging Trump was "using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign
country" in the 2020 presidential race.
The charges in the July 22 report referenced in the whistleblower's document and released
by the Google and Soros-funded organization, the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting
Project (OCCRP), seem to be the public precursors for a lot of the so-called whistleblower's
own claims, as Breitbart News
documented .
One key section of the so-called whistleblower's document claims that "multiple U.S.
officials told me that Mr. Giuliani had reportedly privately reached out to a variety of
other Zelensky advisers, including Chief of Staff Andriy Bohdan and Acting Chairman of the
Security Service of Ukraine Ivan Bakanov."
This was allegedly to follow up on Trump's call with Zelensky in order to discuss the
"cases" mentioned in that call, according to the so-called whistleblower's narrative. The
complainer was clearly referencing Trump's request for Ukraine to investigate the Biden
corruption allegations.
Even though the statement was written in first person – "multiple U.S. officials
told me" – it contains a footnote referencing a report by the Organized Crime and
Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP).
That footnote reads:
In a report published by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) on
22 July, two associates of Mr. Giuliani reportedly traveled to Kyiv in May 2019 and met
with Mr. Bakanov and another close Zelensky adviser, Mr. Serhiy Shefir.
The so-called whistleblower's account goes on to rely upon that same OCCRP report on three
more occasions. It does so to:
Write that Ukraine's Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko
"also stated that he wished to communicate directly with Attorney General Barr on these
matters." Document that Trump adviser Rudi Giuliani "had spoken in late 2018 to former
Prosecutor General Shokin, in a Skype call arranged by two associates of Mr. Giuliani."
Bolster the charge that, "I also learned from a U.S. official that 'associates' of Mr.
Giuliani were trying to make contact with the incoming Zelenskyy team." The so-called
whistleblower then relates in another footnote, "I do not know whether these associates of
Mr. Giuliani were the same individuals named in the 22 July report by OCCRP, referenced
above."
The OCCRP
report repeatedly referenced is actually a "joint investigation by the Organized Crime
and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) and BuzzFeed News, based on interviews and court and
business records in the United States and Ukraine."
BuzzFeed infamously also first
published the full anti-Trump dossier alleging unsubstantiated collusion between Trump's
presidential campaign and Russia. The dossier was paid for by Hillary Clinton's campaign and
the Democratic National Committee and was produced by the Fusion GPS opposition dirt
outfit.
The OCCRP and BuzzFeed "joint investigation" resulted in both OCCRP and BuzzFeed
publishing similar lengthy pieces on July 22 claiming that Giuliani was attempting to use
connections to have Ukraine investigate Trump's political rivals.
The so-called whistleblower's document, however, only mentions the largely unknown OCCRP
and does not reference BuzzFeed, which has faced scrutiny over its reporting on the Russia
collusion claims.
Another listed OCCRP funder is the Omidyar Network, which is the nonprofit for liberal
billionaire eBay founder Pierre Omidyar.
Together with Soros's Open Society, Omidyar also
funds the Poynter Institute for Media Studies, which hosts the International
Fact-Checking Network that partnered with Facebook to help determine whether news stories are
"disputed."
Like OCCRP, the Poynter Institute's so-called news fact-checking project is openly
funded by not only Soros' Open Society Foundations but also Google and the National
Endowment for Democracy.
CrowdStrike and DNC servers
CrowdStrike, meanwhile, was brought up by Trump in his phone call with Zelensky. According to the transcript, Trump told Zelensky, "I would like you to find out what
happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say CrowdStrike I guess you have one of
your wealthy people The server, they say Ukraine has it."
In his extensive
report , Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller notes that his investigative team did not
"obtain or examine" the servers of the DNC in determining whether those servers were hacked
by Russia.
The DNC famously refused to allow the FBI to access its servers to verify the allegation
that Russia carried out a hack during the 2016 presidential campaign. Instead, the DNC
reached an arrangement with the FBI in which CrowdStrike conducted forensics on the server
and shared details with the FBI.
In testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee in January 2017, then-FBI Director
James Comey
confirmed that the FBI registered "multiple requests at different levels," to review the
DNC's hacked servers. Ultimately, the DNC and FBI came to an agreement in which a "highly
respected private company" -- a reference to CrowdStrike -- would carry out forensics on the
servers and share any information that it discovered with the FBI, Comey testified.
A senior law enforcement official stressed the importance of the FBI gaining direct access
to the servers, a request that was denied by the DNC.
"The FBI repeatedly stressed to DNC officials the necessity of obtaining direct access to
servers and data, only to be rebuffed until well after the initial compromise had been
mitigated," the official was quoted by the news media as saying.
"This left the FBI no choice but to rely upon a third party for information. These actions
caused significant delays and inhibited the FBI from addressing the intrusion earlier," the
official continued.
... ... ...
Aaron Klein is Breitbart's Jerusalem bureau chief and senior investigative reporter.
He is a New York Times bestselling author and hosts the popular weekend talk radio program, "
Aaron Klein Investigative
Radio ." Follow him on Twitter @AaronKleinShow. Follow him on Facebook.
Joshua Klein contributed research to this article.
Russians did not hack the DNC system, a Russian named Dmitri Alperovitch is the hacker
and he works for President Obama. In the last five years the Obama administration has
turned exclusively to one Russian to solve every major cyber-attack in America, whether the
attack was on the U.S. government or a corporation. Only one "super-hero cyber-warrior" seems
to "have the codes" to figure out "if" a system was hacked and by "whom."
Dmitri's company, CrowdStrike has been called in by Obama to solve mysterious attacks on
many high level government agencies and American corporations, including: German Bundestag,
Democratic National Committee, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), the White
House, the State Department, SONY, and many others.
CrowdStrike's philosophy is: "You don't have a malware problem; you have an adversary
problem."
CrowdStrike has played a critical role in the development of America's cyber-defense policy.
Dmitri Alperovitch and George Kurtz, a former head of the FBI cyberwarfare unit founded
CrowdStrike. Shawn Henry, former executive assistant director at the FBI is now CrowdStrike's
president of services. The company is crawling with former U.S. intelligence agents.
Before Alperovitch founded CrowdStrike in 2011, he was working in Atlanta as the chief
threat officer at the antivirus software firm McAfee, owned by Intel (a DARPA company). During
that time, he "discovered" the Chinese had compromised at least seventy-one companies and
organizations, including thirteen defense contractors, three electronics firms, and the
International Olympic Committee. He was the only person to notice the biggest cyberattack in
history! Nothing suspicious about that.
Alperovitch and the DNC
After CrowdStrike was hired as an independent "vendor" by the DNC to investigate a possible
cyberattack on their system, Alperovitch sent the DNC a proprietary software package called
Falcon that monitors the networks of its clients in real time. According to Alperovitch,
Falcon "lit up," within ten seconds of being installed at the DNC. Alperovitch had his
"proof" in TEN SECONDS that Russia was in the network. This "alleged" evidence of Russian
hacking has yet to be shared with anyone.
As Donald Trump has pointed out, the FBI, the agency that should have been immediately
involved in hacking that effects "National Security," has yet to even examine the DNC system to
begin an investigation. Instead, the FBI and 16 other U.S. "intelligence" agencies simply
"agree" with Obama's most trusted "cyberwarfare" expert Dmitri Alperovitch's "TEN SECOND"
assessment that produced no evidence to support the claim.
Also remember that it is only Alperovitch and CrowdStrike that claim to have evidence
that it was Russian hackers . In fact, only two hackers were found to have been in the
system and were both identified by Alperovitch as Russian FSB (CIA) and the Russian GRU (DoD).
It is only Alperovitch who claims that he knows that it is Putin behind these two hackers.
Alperovitch failed to mention in his conclusive "TEN SECOND" assessment that Guccifer 2.0
had already hacked the DNC and made available to the public the documents he hacked –
before Alperovitch did his ten second assessment. Alperovitch reported that no other hackers
were found, ignoring the fact that Guccifer 2.0 had already hacked and released DNC documents
to the public. Alperovitch's assessment also goes directly against Julian Assange's repeated
statements that the DNC leaks did not come from the Russians.
The ridiculously fake cyber-attack assessment done by Alperovitch and CrowdStrike
naïvely flies in the face of the fact that a DNC insider admitted that he had released the
DNC documents. Julian Assange implied in an interview that the murdered Democratic
National Committee staffer, Seth Rich, was the source of a trove of damaging emails the website
posted just days before the party's convention. Seth was on his way to testify about the DNC
leaks to the FBI when he was shot dead in the street.
It is also absurd to hear Alperovitch state that the Russian FSB (equivalent to the CIA) had
been monitoring the DNC site for over a year and had done nothing. No attack, no theft, and no
harm was done to the system by this "false-flag cyber-attack" on the DNC – or at least,
Alperovitch "reported" there was an attack. The second hacker, the supposed Russian military
(GRU – like the U.S. DoD) hacker, had just entered the system two weeks before and also
had done "nothing" but observe.
It is only Alperovitch's word that reports that the Russian FSB was "looking for files on
Donald Trump."
It is only this false claim that spuriously ties Trump to the "alleged"
attack. It is also only Alperovitch who believes that this hack that was supposedly "looking
for Trump files" was an attempt to "influence" the election. No files were found about Trump by
the second hacker, as we know from Wikileaks and Guccifer 2.0's leaks. To confabulate that
"Russian's hacked the DNC to influence the elections" is the claim of one well-known Russian
spy. Then, 17 U.S. intelligence agencies unanimously confirm that Alperovitch is correct
– even though there is no evidence and no investigation was ever conducted .
How does Dmitri Alperovitch have such power? Why did Obama again and again use Alperovitch's
company, CrowdStrike, when they have miserably failed to stop further cyber-attacks on the
systems they were hired to protect? Why should anyone believe CrowdStrikes false-flag
report?
After documents from the DNC continued to leak, and Guccifer 2.0 and Wikileaks made
CrowdStrike's report look foolish, Alperovitch decided the situation was far worse than he had
reported. He single-handedly concluded that the Russians were conducting an "influence
operation" to help win the election for Trump . This false assertion had absolutely no
evidence to back it up.
On July 22, three days before the Democratic convention in Philadelphia, WikiLeaks dumped a
massive cache of emails that had been "stolen" (not hacked) from the DNC. Reporters soon found
emails suggesting that the DNC leadership had favored Hillary Clinton in her primary race
against Bernie Sanders, which led Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the DNC chair, along with three
other officials, to resign.
Just days later, it was discovered that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee
(DCCC) had been hacked. CrowdStrike was called in again and once again, Alperovitch immediately
"believed" that Russia was responsible. A lawyer for the DCCC gave Alperovitch permission to
confirm the leak and to name Russia as the suspected author. Two weeks later, files from the
DCCC began to appear on Guccifer 2.0's website. This time Guccifer released information about
Democratic congressional candidates who were running close races in Florida, Ohio, Illinois,
and Pennsylvania. On August 12, Guccifer went further, publishing a spreadsheet that included
the personal email addresses and phone numbers of nearly two hundred Democratic members of
Congress.
Once again, Guccifer 2.0 proved Alperovitch and CrowdStrike's claims to be grossly incorrect
about the hack originating from Russia, with Putin masterminding it all. Nancy Pelosi offered
members of Congress Alperovitch's suggestion of installing Falcon , the system that
failed to stop cyberattacks at the DNC, on all congressional laptops.
Key Point: Once Falcon was installed on the computers of members of the U.S.
Congress, CrowdStrike had even further full access into U.S. government accounts.
Alperovitch's "Unbelievable" History
Dmitri was born in 1980 in Moscow where his father, Michael, was a nuclear physicist, (so
Dmitri claims). Dmitri's father was supposedly involved at the highest levels of Russian
nuclear science. He also claims that his father taught him to write code as a child.
In 1990, his father was sent to Maryland as part of a nuclear-safety training program for
scientists. In 1994, Michael Alperovitch was granted a visa to Canada, and a year later the
family moved to Chattanooga, where Michael took a job with the Tennessee Valley Authority.
While Dmitri Alperovitch was still in high school, he and his father started an
encryption-technology business. Dmitri studied computer science at Georgia Tech and went on to
work at an antispam software firm. It was at this time that he realized that cyber-defense was
more about psychology than it was about technology. A very odd thing to conclude.
Dmitri Alperovitch posed as a "Russian gangster" on spam discussion forums which brought his
illegal activity to the attention of the FBI – as a criminal. In 2005, Dmitri flew to
Pittsburgh to meet an FBI agent named Keith Mularski, who had been asked to lead an undercover
operation against a vast Russian credit-card-theft syndicate. Alperovitch worked closely with
Mularski's sting operation which took two years, but it ultimately brought about fifty-six
arrests. Dmitri Alperovitch then became a pawn of the FBI and CIA.
In 2010, while he was at McAfee, the head of cybersecurity at Google told Dmitri that Gmail
accounts belonging to human-rights activists in China had been breached. Google suspected the
Chinese government. Alperovitch found that the breach was unprecedented in scale; it affected
more than a dozen of McAfee's clients and involved the Chinese government. Three days after his
supposed discovery, Alperovitch was on a plane to Washington where he had been asked to vet a
paragraph in a speech by the secretary of state, Hillary Clinton.
2014, Sony called in CrowdStrike to investigate a breach of its network. Alperovitch needed
just "two hours" to identify North Korea as the adversary. Executives at Sony asked Alperovitch
to go public with the information immediately, but it took the FBI another three weeks before
it confirmed the attribution.
Alperovitch then developed a list of "usual suspects" who were well-known hackers who had
identifiable malware that they commonly used. Many people use the same malware and
Alperovitch's obsession with believing he has the only accurate list of hackers in the world is
plain idiocy exacerbated by the U.S. government's belief in his nonsense. Alperovitch even
speaks like a "nut-case" in his personal Twitters, which generally have absolutely no
references to the technology he is supposedly the best at in the entire world.
Dmitri – Front Man for His Father's Russian Espionage Mission
After taking a close look at the disinformation around Dmitri and his father, it is clear to
see that Michael Alperovitch became a CIA operative during his first visit to America.
Upon his return to Russia, he stole the best Russian encryption codes that were used to protect
the top-secret work of nuclear physics in which his father is alleged to have been a major
player. Upon surrendering the codes to the CIA when he returned to Canada, the CIA made it
possible for a Russian nuclear scientist to become an American citizen overnight and gain a
top-secret security clearance to work at the Oakridge plant, one of the most secure and
protected nuclear facilities in America . Only the CIA can transform a Russian into an
American with a top-secret clearance overnight.
We can see on Michael Alperovitch's Linked In page that he went from one fantastically
top-secret job to the next without a break from the time he entered America. He seemed to be on
a career path to work in every major U.S. agency in America. In every job he was hired as the
top expert in the field and the leader of the company. All of these jobs after the first one
were in cryptology, not nuclear physics. As a matter of fact, Michael became the top expert in
America overnight and has stayed the top expert to this day.
Most of the work of cyber-security is creating secure interactions on a non-secure system
like the Internet. The cryptologist who assigns the encryption codes controls the system
from that point on .
Key Point: Cryptologists are well known for leaving a "back-door" in the base-code so
that they can always have over-riding control.
Michael Alperovitch essentially has the "codes" for all Department of Defense sites, the
Treasury, the State Department, cell-phones, satellites, and public media . There is hardly
any powerful agency or company that he has not written the "codes" for. One might ask, why do
American companies and the U.S. government use his particular codes? What are so special about
Michael's codes?
Stolen Russian Codes
In December, Obama ordered the U.S. military to conduct cyberattacks against Russia in
retaliation for the alleged DNC hacks. All of the attempts to attack Russia's military and
intelligence agencies failed miserably. Russia laughed at Obama's attempts to hack their
systems. Even the Russian companies targeted by the attacks were not harmed by Obama's
cyber-attacks. Hardly any news of these massive and embarrassing failed cyber-attacks were
reported by the Main Stream Media. The internet has been scrubbed clean of the reports that
said Russia's cyber-defenses were impenetrable due to the sophistication of their encryption
codes.
Michael Alperovitch was in possession of those impenetrable codes when he was a top
scientist in Russia. It was these very codes that he shared with the CIA on his first trip
to America . These codes got him spirited into America and "turned into" the best
cryptologist in the world. Michael is simply using the effective codes of Russia to design
his codes for the many systems he has created in America for the CIA .
KEY POINT: It is crucial to understand at this junction that the CIA is not solely working
for America . The CIA works for itself and there are three branches to the CIA – two of
which are hostile to American national interests and support globalism.
Michael and Dmitri Alperovitch work for the CIA (and international intelligence
corporations) who support globalism . They, and the globalists for whom they work, are
not friends of America or Russia. It is highly likely that the criminal activities of Dmitri,
which were supported and sponsored by the FBI, created the very hackers who he often claims are
responsible for cyberattacks. None of these supposed "attackers" have ever been found or
arrested; they simply exist in the files of CrowdStrike and are used as the "usual culprits"
when the FBI or CIA calls in Dmitri to give the one and only opinion that counts. Only Dmitri's
"suspicions" are offered as evidence and yet 17 U.S. intelligence agencies stand behind the
CrowdStrike report and Dmitri's suspicions.
Michael Alperovitch – Russian Spy with the Crypto-Keys
Essentially, Michael Alperovitch flies under the false-flag of being a cryptologist who
works with PKI. A public key infrastructure (PKI) is a system for the creation, storage, and
distribution of digital certificates which are used to
verify that a particular public key belongs to a certain entity. The PKI creates digital
certificates which map public keys to entities, securely stores these certificates in a central
repository and revokes them if needed. Public key cryptography is a
cryptographic
technique that enables entities to securely communicate on an insecure
public network (the Internet), and reliably verify the identity of an entity via digital signatures .
Digital signatures use Certificate Authorities to digitally sign and publish the public key
bound to a given user. This is done using the CIA's own private key, so that trust in the user
key relies on one's trust in the validity of the CIA's key. Michael Alperovitch is
considered to be the number one expert in America on PKI and essentially controls the
market .
Michael's past is clouded in confusion and lies. Dmitri states that his father was a nuclear
physicist and that he came to America the first time in a nuclear based shared program between
America and Russia. But if we look at his current personal Linked In page, Michael claims he
has a Master Degree in Applied Mathematics from Gorky State University. From 1932 to 1956, its
name was State University of Gorky. Now it is known as Lobachevsky State University of Nizhni
Novgorod – National Research University (UNN), also known as Lobachevsky University. Does
Michael not even know the name of the University he graduated from? And when does a person with
a Master's Degree become a leading nuclear physicist who comes to "visit" America. In Michael's
Linked In page there is a long list of his skills and there is no mention of nuclear
physics.
Also on Michael Alperovitch's Linked In page we find some of his illustrious history that
paints a picture of either the most brilliant mind in computer security, encryption, and
cyberwarfare, or a CIA/FBI backed Russian spy. Imagine that out of all the people in the world
to put in charge of the encryption keys for the Department of Defense, the U.S. Treasury, U.S.
military satellites, the flow of network news, cell phone encryption, the Pathfire (media control)
Program, the Defense Information Systems Agency, the Global Information Grid, and TriCipher
Armored Credential System among many others, the government hires a Russian spy . Go
figure.
Michael Alperovitch's Linked In Page
Education:
Gorky State University, Russia, MS in Applied Mathematics
VT
IDirect -2014 – Designing security architecture for satellite communications
including cryptographic protocols, authentication.
Principal SME (Contractor)
DISA
-Defense Information Systems Agency (Manager of the Global Information Grid) – 2012-2014
– Worked on PKI and identity management projects for DISA utilizing Elliptic Curve
Cryptography. Performed application security and penetration testing.
Technical Lead (Contractor)
U.S.
Department of the Treasury – 2011 – Designed enterprise validation service
architecture for PKI certificate credentials with Single Sign On authentication.
Comtech Mobile
Datacom – 2007-2010 – Subject matter expert on latest information security
practices, including authentication, encryption and key management.
BellSouth – 2003-2006 – Designed and built server-side Jabber-based messaging
platform with Single Sign On authentication.
Principal Software Research Engineer
Pathfire – 2001-2002
– Designed and developed Digital Rights Management Server for Video on Demand and content
distribution applications. Pathfire provides digital media distribution and management
solutions to the television, media, and entertainment industries. The company offers Digital
Media Gateway, a digital IP store-and-forward platform, delivering news stories, syndicated
programming, advertising spots, and video news releases to broadcasters. It provides solutions
for content providers and broadcasters, as well as station solutions.
Obama – No Friend of America
Obama is no friend of America in the war against cyber-attacks. The very agencies and
departments being defended by Michael Alperovitch's "singular and most brilliant" ability to
write encryption codes have all been successfully attacked and compromised since Michael set up
the codes. But we shouldn't worry, because if there is a cyberattack in the Obama
administration, Michael's son Dmitri is called in to "prove" that it isn't the fault of his
father's codes. It was the "damn Russians", or even "Putin himself" who attacked American
networks.
Not one of the 17 U.S. intelligence agencies is capable of figuring out a successful
cyberattack against America without Michael and Dmitri's help. Those same 17 U.S. intelligence
agencies were not able to effectively launch a successful cyberattack against Russia. It seems
like the Russian's have strong codes and America has weak codes. We can thank Michael and
Dmitri Alperovitch for that.
It is clear that there was no DNC hack beyond Guccifer 2.0. Dmitri Alperovitch is a
"frontman" for his father's encryption espionage mission.
Is it any wonder that Trump says that he has "his own people" to deliver his intelligence
to him that is outside of the infiltrated U.S. government intelligence agencies and the Obama
administration ? Isn't any wonder that citizens have to go anywhere BUT the MSM to find
real news or that the new administration has to go to independent news to get good intel?
It is hard to say anything more damnable than to again quote Dmitri on these very
issues: "If someone steals your keys to encrypt the data, it doesn't matter how secure the
algorithms are." Dmitri Alperovitch, founder of CrowdStrike
"... And RUH8 is allied with the Atlantic Council and Crowdstrike. ..."
"... Russia was probably not one of the hacking groups. The willful destruction of evidence by the DNC themselves probably points to Russia not being one of the those groups. The DNC wouldn't destroy evidence that supported their position. Also, government spy agencies keep info like that closely held. They might leak out tidbits, but they don't do wholesale dumps, like, ever. ..."
"... That's what the DNC is lying about. Not that hacks happened (they undoubtedly did), but about who did them (probably not Russian gov), and if hacks mattered (they didn't since everything was getting leaked anyway). ..."
"... The DNC/Mueller/etc are lying, but like most practiced liars they're mixing the lies with half-truths and unrelated facts to muddy the waters: ..."
"... An interesting question is, since it's basically guaranteed the DNC got hacked, but probably not by the Russians, is, what groups did hack the DNC, and why did the DNC scramble madly to hide their identities? ..."
"... And while you think about that question, consider the close parallel with the Awan case, where Dems were ostensibly the victims, but they again scrambled to cover up for the people who supposedly harmed them. level 2 ..."
"... DNC wasn't even hacked. Emails were leaked. They didn't even examine the server. Any "evidence" produced is spoofable from CIA cybertools that we know about from wikileaks. It's important to know how each new lie is a lie. But man I am just so done with all this Russia shit. level 2 ..."
"... Crowdstrike claims that malware was found on DNC server. I agree that this has nothing to do with the Wikileaks releases. What I am wondering is whether Crowdstrike may have arranged for the DNC to be hacked so that Russia could be blamed. Continue this thread level 1 ..."
"... George Eliason promises additional essays: *The next articles, starting with one about Fancy Bear's hot/cold ongoing relationship with Bellingcat which destroys the JIT investigation, will showcase the following: Fancy Bear worked with Bellingcat and the Ukrainian government providing Information War material as evidence for MH17: ..."
"... Fancy Bear is an inside unit of the Atlantic Council and their Digital Forensics Lab ..."
Cyberanalyst George Eliason has written some intriguing blogs recently claiming that the
"Fancy Bear" which hacked the DNC server in mid-2016 was in fact a branch of Ukrainian intelligence linked to the Atlantic
Council and Crowdstrike. I invite you to have a go at one of his recent essays:
Since I am not very computer savvy and don't know much about the world of hackers - added
to the fact that Eliason's writing is too cute and convoluted - I have difficulty navigating Eliason's thought. Nonetheless,
here is what I can make of Eliasons' claims, as supported by independent literature:
Russian hacker Konstantin Kozlovsky, in Moscow court filings, has claimed that he did the
DNC hack – and can prove it, because he left some specific code on the DNC server.
Kozlovsky states that he did so by order of Dimitry Dokuchaev (formerly of the FSB, and
currently in prison in Russia on treason charges) who works with the Russian traitor hacker group Shaltai Boltai.
According to Eliason, Shaltai Boltai works in collaboration with the Ukrainian hacker group
RUH8, a group of neo-Nazis (Privat Sektor) who are affiliated with Ukrainian intelligence.
And RUH8 is allied with the Atlantic Council and Crowdstrike.
Cyberexpert Jeffrey Carr has stated that RUH8 has the X-Agent malware which our
intelligence community has erroneously claimed is possessed only by Russian intelligence, and used by "Fancy Bear".
This might help explain why Adam Carter has determined that some of the malware found on
the DNC server was compiled AFTER Crowdstrike was working on the DNC server – Crowdstrike was in collusion with Fancy Bear
(RUH8).
In other words, Crowdstrike likely arranged for a
hack by Ukrainian intelligence that they could then attribute to Russia.
As far as I can tell, none of this is pertinent to how Wikileaks obtained their DNC emails,
which most likely were leaked.
How curious that our Deep State and the recent Mueller indictment have had nothing to say
about Kozlovsky's confession - whom I tend to take seriously because he offers a simple way to confirm his claim. Also
interesting that the FBI has shown no interest in looking at the DNC server to check whether Kozlovsky's code is there.
Its worth noting that Dimitri Alperovich's (Crowdstrike) hatred of Putin is
second only to Hillary's hatred for taking responsibility for her actions.
level 1
Thanks - I'll continue to follow Eliason's work. The thesis that Ukrainian
intelligence is hacking a number of targets so that Russia gets blamed for it has intuitive appeal.
level 1
and have to cringe.
Any hacks weren't related to Wikileaks, who got their info from leakers, but
that is not the same thing as no hack. Leaks and hacks aren't mutually exclusive. They actually occur together
pretty commonly.
DNC's security was utter shit. Systems with shit security and obviously
valuable info usually get hacked by multiple groups. In the case of the DNC, Hillary's email servers, etc.,
it's basically impossible they weren't hacked by dozens of intruders. A plastic bag of 100s will not sit
untouched on a NYC street corner for 4 weeks. Not. fucking. happening.
Interestingly, Russia was probably not
one of the hacking groups. The willful destruction of evidence by the DNC themselves probably points to Russia
not being one of the those groups. The DNC wouldn't destroy evidence that supported their position. Also,
government spy agencies keep info like that closely held. They might leak out tidbits, but they don't do
wholesale dumps, like, ever.
That's
what the DNC is lying about.
Not that hacks
happened
(they undoubtedly did), but about
who
did them (probably not Russian gov), and if hacks mattered
(they didn't since everything was getting leaked anyway).
The DNC/Mueller/etc are lying, but like most practiced liars they're mixing
the lies with half-truths and unrelated facts to muddy the waters:
Any "evidence" produced is spoofable from CIA cybertools
Yes, but that spoofed 'evidence' is not the direct opposite of the truth,
like I see people assuming. Bad assumption, and the establishment plays on that to make critic look bad. The
spoofed evidence is just mud.
An interesting question is, since it's basically guaranteed the DNC got
hacked, but probably not by the Russians, is, what groups
did
hack the
DNC, and why did the DNC scramble madly to hide their identities?
And while you think about that question, consider the close parallel with
the Awan case, where Dems were ostensibly the victims, but they again scrambled to cover up for the people who
supposedly harmed them.
level 2
What's hilarious about the 2 down-votes is I can't tell if their from
pro-Russiagate trolls, or from people who who can't get past binary thinking.
level 1
DNC wasn't even hacked. Emails were leaked. They didn't even examine the
server.
Any "evidence" produced is spoofable from CIA cybertools that we know about
from wikileaks. It's important to know how each new lie is a lie. But man I am just so done
with all this Russia shit.
level 2
Crowdstrike claims that malware was found on DNC server. I agree that this
has nothing to do with the Wikileaks releases. What I am wondering is whether Crowdstrike may have arranged for
the DNC to be hacked so that Russia could be blamed.
Continue this thread
level 1
George Eliason promises additional essays: *The next articles, starting with one about Fancy Bear's hot/cold ongoing
relationship with Bellingcat which destroys the JIT investigation, will showcase the following: Fancy Bear worked with Bellingcat and the Ukrainian government providing
Information War material as evidence for MH17:
Fancy Bear is an inside unit of the Atlantic Council and their Digital
Forensics Lab
Fancy Bear worked with Crowdstrike and Dimitri Alperovich Fancy Bear is
Ukrainian Intelligence
How Fancy Bear tried to sway the US election for Team Hillary
Fancy Bear worked against US Intel gathering by providing consistently
fraudulent data
Fancy Bear contributed to James Clapper's January 2017 ODNI Report on Fancy
Bear and Russian Influence. [You really can't make this shit up.]
Fancy Bear had access to US government secure servers while working as
foreign spies.*
level 1
Fancy Bear (also know as Strontium Group, or APT28) is a Ukrainian cyber espionage group. Cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike incorrectly has said
with a medium level of confidence that it is associated with the Russian military intelligence
agency GRU . CrowdStrike
founder,
Dmitri Alperovitch , has colluded with Fancy Bear. American journalist
George Eliason has written extensively on the subject.
There are a couple of caveats that need to be made when identifying the Fancy Bear hackers.
The first is the identifier used by Mueller as Russian FSB and GRU may have been true- 10 years
ago. This group was on the run trying to stay a step ahead of Russian law enforcement until
October 2016. So we have part of the Fancy bear hacking group identified as Ruskie traitors and
possibly former Russian state security. The majority of the group are Ukrainians making up
Ukraine's Cyber Warfare groups.
Eliason lives and works in Donbass. He has been interviewed by and provided analysis for RT,
the BBC , and Press-TV. His
articles have been published in the Security Assistance Monitor, Washingtons Blog, OpedNews,
the Saker, RT, Global Research, and RINF, and the Greanville Post among others. He has been
cited and republished by various academic blogs including Defending History, Michael Hudson,
SWEDHR, Counterpunch, the Justice Integrity Project, among others.
Fancy Bear is Ukrainian IntelligenceShaltai Boltai
The "Fancy Bear hackers" may have been given the passwords to get into the servers at the
DNC because they were part of the Team Clinton opposition research team. It was part of their
job.
According to Politico ,
"In an interview this month, at the DNC this past election cycle centered on mobilizing
ethnic communities -- including Ukrainian-Americans -- she said that, when Trump's unlikely
presidential campaign. Chalupa told Politico she had developed a network of sources in Kiev
and Washington, including investigative journalists, government officials and private
intelligence operatives. While her consulting work began surging in late 2015, she began
focusing more on the research, and expanded it to include Trump's ties to Russia, as well."
[1]
The only investigative journalists, government officials, and private intelligence
operatives that work together in 2014-2015-2016 Ukraine are Shaltai Boltai, CyberHunta, Ukraine
Cyber Alliance, and the Ministry of Information.
All of these hacking and information operation groups work for Andrea
Chalupa with EuroMaidanPR and Irena
Chalupa at the Atlantic Council. Both Chalupa sisters work directly with the Ukrainian
government's intelligence and propaganda arms.
Since 2014 in Ukraine, these are the only OSINT, hacking, Intel, espionage , terrorist , counter-terrorism, cyber, propaganda , and info war channels
officially recognized and directed by Ukraine's Information Ministry. Along with their American
colleagues, they populate the hit-for-hire website Myrotvorets with people who stand against
Ukraine's criminal activities.
The hackers, OSINT, Cyber, spies, terrorists, etc. call themselves volunteers to keep safe
from State level retaliation, even though a child can follow the money. As volunteers motivated
by politics and patriotism they are protected to a degree from retribution.
They don't claim State sponsorship or governance and the level of attack falls below the
threshold of military action. Special Counsel Robert Mueller had a lot of latitude for
making the attribution Russian, even though the attacks came from Ukrainian Intelligence. Based
on how the rules of the Tallinn Manual 2.0 on the International Law Applicable to Cyber are
written, because the few members of the coalition from Shaltai Boltai are Russian in
nationality, Fancy Bear can be attributed as a Russian entity for the purposes of retribution.
The caveat is if the attribution is proven wrong, the US will be liable for damages caused to
the State which in this case is Russia.
How large is the Fancy Bear unit? According to their propaganda section InformNapalm, they
have the ability to research and work in over 30 different languages.
This can be considered an Information Operation against the people of the United States and
of course Russia. After 2013, Shaltay Boltay was no longer physically available to work for
Russia. The Russian hackers were in Ukraine working for the Ukrainian government's Information
Ministry which is in charge of the cyber war. They were in Ukraine until October 2016 when they
were tricked to return to Moscow and promptly arrested for treason.
From all this information we know the Russian component of Team Fancy Bear is Shaltai
Boltai. We know the Ukrainian Intel component is called CyberHunta and Ukraine Cyber Alliance
which includes the hacker group RUH8. We know both groups work/ worked for Ukrainian
Intelligence. We know they are grouped with InformNapalm which is Ukraine's OSINT unit. We know
their manager is a Ukrainian named Kristina Dobrovolska. And lastly, all of the above work
directly with the Atlantic Council and Crowdstrike's Dimitry Alperovich.
In short, the Russian-Ukrainian partnership that became Fancy Bear started in late 2013 to
very early 2014 and ended in October 2016 in what appears to be a squabble over the alleged
data from the Surkov leak.
But during 2014, 2015, and 2016 Shaltai Boltai, the Ukrainian Cyber Alliance, and CyberHunta
went to work for the DNC as opposition researchers .
The
First Time Shaltai Boltai was Handed the Keys to US Gov Servers
The setup to this happened long before the partnership with Ukrainian Intel hackers and
Russia's Shaltai Boltai was forged. The hack that gained access to US top-secret servers
happened just after the partnership was cemented after Euro-Maidan.
In August 2009 Hillary Clinton's Deputy Chief of Staff at the State Department Huma Abedin
sent the passwords to her Government laptop to her Yahoo mail account. On August 16, 2010,
Abedin received an email titled "Re: Your yahoo account. We can see where this is going, can't
we?
"After Abedin sent an unspecified number of sensitive emails to her Yahoo account, half a
billion Yahoo accounts were hacked by Russian cybersecurity expert and Russian intelligence
agent, Igor Sushchin, in 2014. The hack, one of the largest in history, allowed Sushchin's
associates to access email accounts into 2015 and 2016."
Igor Sushchin was part of the Shaltai Boltai hacking group that is charged with the Yahoo
hack.
The time frame has to be noted. The hack happened in 2014. Access to the email accounts
continued through 2016. The Ukrainian Intel partnership was already blossoming and Shaltai
Boltai was working from Kiev, Ukraine.
So when we look at the INFRASTRUCTURE HACKS, WHITE HOUSE HACKS, CONGRESS, start with looking
at the time frame. Ukraine had the keys already in hand in 2014.
Alexandra
Chalupa hired this particular hacking terrorist group, which Dimitry Alperovich and
Crowdstrike dubbed "Fancy Bear", in 2015 at the latest. While the Ukrainian hackers worked for
the DNC, Fancy Bear had to send in progress reports, turn in research, and communicate on the
state of the projects they were working on. Let's face it, once you're in, setting up your
Fancy Bear toolkit doesn't get any easier. This is why I said the DNC hack isn't the big crime.
It's a big con and all the parties were in on it.
Hillary Clinton exposed secrets to hacking threats by using private email instead of secured
servers. Given the information provided she was probably being monitored by our intrepid
Ruskie-Ukie union made in hell hackers. Anthony Weiner exposed himself and his wife
Huma Abedin using
Weiner's computer for top-secret State Department emails. And of course Huma Abedin exposed
herself along with her top-secret passwords at Yahoo and it looks like the hackers the DNC hired to
do opposition research hacked her.
Here's a question. Did Huma Abedin have Hillary Clinton's passwords for her private email
server? It would seem logical given her position with Clinton at the State Department and
afterward. This means that Hillary Clinton and the US government top secret servers were most
likely compromised by Fancy Bear before the DNC and Team Clinton hired them by using legitimate
passwords.
Dobrovolska
Hillary Clinton retained State Dept. top secret clearance passwords for 6 of her former
staff from 2013 through prepping for the 2016 election. [2][3] Alexandra Chalupa was
running a research department that is rich in (foreign) Ukrainian Intelligence operatives,
hackers, terrorists, and a couple Ruskie traitors.
Kristina Dobrovolska was acting as a handler and translator for the US State Department in
2016. She is the Fancy Bear *opposition researcher handler manager. Kristina goes to Washington
to meet with Chalupa.
Alexandra types in her password to show Dobrovolska something she found and her eager to
please Ukrainian apprentice finds the keystrokes are seared into her memory. She tells the
Fancy Bear crew about it and they immediately get to work looking for Trump material on the US
secret servers with legitimate access. I mean, what else could they do with this? Turn over
sensitive information to the ever corrupt Ukrainian government?
According to the Politico article, Alexandra Chalupa was meeting with the Ukrainian embassy
in June of 2016 to discuss getting more help sticking it to candidate Trump. At the same time
she was meeting, the embassy had a reception that highlighted female Ukrainian leaders.
Four Verkhovna Rada [parlaiment] deputies there for the event included: Viktoriia Y.
Ptashnyk, Anna A. Romanova, Alyona I. Shkrum, and Taras T. Pastukh. [4]
According to CNN ,
[5] DNC sources said Chalupa
told DNC operatives the Ukrainian government would be willing to deliver damaging information
against Trump's campaign. Later, Chalupa would lead the charge to try to unseat president-elect
Trump starting on Nov 10, 2016.
Accompanying them Kristina Dobrovolska who was a U.S. Embassy-assigned government liaison
and translator who escorted the delegates from Kyiv during their visits to Albany and
Washington.
Kristina Dobrovolska is the handler manager working with Ukraine's DNC Fancy Bear Hackers.
[6] She took the Rada
[parliament] members to dinner to meet Joel Harding who designed Ukraine's infamous Information
Policy which opened up their kill-for-hire-website Myrotvorets. Then she took them to meet the
Ukrainian Diaspora leader doing the hiring. Nestor Paslawsky is the surviving nephew to the
infamous torturer The WWII OUNb leader, Mykola Lebed.
Fancy Bear's Second Chance at Top
Secret Passwords From Team Clinton
One very successful method of hacking is called
social engineering . You gain access to the office space and any related properties and
physically locate the passwords or clues to get you into the hardware you want to hack. This
includes something as simple as looking over the shoulder of the person typing in
passwords.
The Fancy Bear hackers were hired by Alexandra Chalupa to work for DNC opposition research.
On different occasions, Fancy Bear handler Kristina Dobrovolska traveled to the US to meet the
Diaspora leaders, her boss Alexandra Chalupa, Irena Chalupa, Andrea Chalupa, US Dept of State
personnel, and most likely Crowdstrike's Dimitry Alperovich. Alperovich was working with the
hackers in 2015-16. In 2016, the only groups known to have Fancy Bear's signature tools called
X-tunnel and X-Agent were Alperovich, Crowdstrike, and Fancy Bear (Shaltai Boltai, CyberHunta,
Ukraine Cyber Alliance, and RUH8/RUX8. Yes, that does explain a few things.
Alleged DNC
hack
There were multiple DNC hacks. There is also clear proof supporting the download to a USB
stick and subsequent information exchange (leak) to Wikileaks . All are separate events.
The group I previously identified as Fancy Bear was given access to request password
privileges at the DNC. And it looks like the DNC provided them with it.
the Podesta email hack looks like a revenge hack.
The reason Republican opposition research files were stolen can be put into context now
because we know who the hackers are and what motivates them.
At the same time this story developed, it overshadowed the Hillary Clinton email scandal. It
is a matter of public record that Team Clinton provided the DNC hackers with passwords to
State Department
servers on at least 2 occasions, one wittingly and one not. Fancy Bear hackers are Ukrainian
Intelligence Operators.
If the leak came through Seth Rich , it may have been because he saw
foreign Intel operatives given this access from the presumed winners of the 2016 US presidential
election . The leaker may
have been trying to do something about it. I'm curious what information Wikileaks might
have.
Alperovitch and Fancy Bear
George Eliason, Washingtonsblog: Why Crowdstrike's Russian Hacking Story Fell
Apart- Say Hello to Fancy Bear. investigated. [7]
In the wake of the JAR-16-20296 dated December 29, 2016 about hacking and influencing
the 2016 election, the need for real evidence is clear. The joint report adds nothing
substantial to the October 7th report. It relies on proofs provided by the cyber security
firm Crowdstrike that is clearly not on
par with intelligence findings or evidence. At the top of the report is an "as is"
statement showing this.
The difference bet enough evidence is provided to warrant an investigation of
specific parties for the DNC hacks. The real story involves specific anti-American actors
that need to be investigated for real crimes. For instance, the malware used was an
out-dated version just waiting to be found. The one other interesting point is that the
Russian malware called Grizzly Steppe is from Ukraine. How did Crowdstrike miss this when
it is their business to know?
The bar for identification set by Crowdstrike has never been able to get beyond words
like probably, maybe, could be, or should be, in their attribution. The bar Dimitri
Alperovitch set for identifying the hackers involved is that low. Other than asking
America to trust them, how many solid facts has Alperovitch provided to back his claim of
Russian involvement?
information from outside intelligence agencies has the value of rumor or
unsubstantiated information at best according to policy. Usable intelligence needs to be
free from partisan politics and verifiable. Intel agencies noted back in the early 90's
that every private actor in the information game was radically political.
Alperovitch first gained notice when he was the VP in charge of threat research with
McAfee. Asked to comment on Alperovitch's discovery of Russian hacks on Larry King, John
McAfee had this to say. "Based on all of his experience, McAfee does not believe that
Russians were behind the hacks on the Democratic National Committee (DNC), John Podesta's
emails, and the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign. As he told RT, "if it looks like
the Russians did it, then I can guarantee you it was not the Russians."
How does Crowdstrike's story part with reality? First is the admission that it is
probably, maybe, could be Russia hacking the DNC. "Intelligence agencies do not have
specific intelligence showing officials in the Kremlin 'directing' the identified
individuals to pass the Democratic emails to Wiki Leaks." The public evidence never goes
beyond the word possibility. While never going beyond that or using facts, Crowdstrike
insists that it's Russia behind both Clinton's and the Ukrainian losses.
NBC carried the story because one of the partners in Crowdstrike is also a consultant
for NBC. According to NBC the story reads like this."The company, Crowdstrike, was hired
by the DNC to investigate the hack and issued a report publicly attributing it to Russian
intelligence. One of Crowdstrike's senior executives is Shawn Henry , a former senior FBI
official who consults for NBC News.
In June, Crowdstrike went public with its findings that two separate Russian
intelligence agencies had hacked the DNC. One, which Crowdstrike and other researchers
call Cozy Bear, is believed to be linked to Russia's CIA, known as the FSB. The other,
known as Fancy Bear, is believed to be tied to the military intelligence agency, called
the GRU." The information is so certain the level of proof never rises above "believed to
be." According to the December 12th Intercept article "Most importantly, the Post
adds that "intelligence agencies do not have specific intelligence showing officials in
the Kremlin 'directing' the identified individuals to pass the Democratic emails to
WikiLeaks."
The SBU, Olexander Turchinov, and the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense all agree that
Crowdstrike is dead wrong in this assessment. Although subtitles aren't on it, the former
Commandant of Ukrainian Army Headquarters thanks God Russia never invaded or Ukraine
would have been in deep trouble. How could Dimitri Alperovitch and Crowdstrike be this
wrong on easily checked detail and still get this much media attention?
Crowdstrike CEO Dmitri Alperovitch story about Russian hacks that cost Hillary
Clinton the election was broadsided by the SBU (Ukrainian Intelligence and Security) in
Ukraine. If Dimitri Alperovitch is working for Ukrainian Intelligence and is providing
intelligence to 17 US Intelligence Agencies is it a conflict of interest?
Is giving misleading or false information to 17 US Intelligence Agencies a crime? If
it's done by a cyber security industry leader like Crowdstrike should that be
investigated? If unwinding the story from the "targeting of Ukrainian volunteers" side
isn't enough, we should look at this from the American perspective. How did the Russia
influencing the election and DNC hack story evolve? Who's involved? Does this pose
conflicts of interest for Dmitri Alperovitch and Crowdstrike? And let's face it, a
hacking story isn't complete until real hackers with the skills, motivation, and reason
are exposed.
According to journalist and DNC activist Andrea Chalupa on her Facebook page "After
Chalupa sent the email to Miranda (which mentions that she had invited this reporter to a
meeting with Ukrainian journalists in Washington), it triggered high-level concerns
within the DNC, given the sensitive nature of her work. "That's when we knew it was the
Russians," said a Democratic Party source who has been directly involved in the internal
probe into the hacked emails. In order to stem the damage, the source said, "we told her
to stop her research."" July 25, 2016
If she was that close to the investigation Crowdstrike did how credible is she? Her
sister Alexandra was named one of 16 people that shaped the election by Yahoo news.
The DNC hacking investigation done by Crowdstrike concluded hacking was done by
Russian actors based on the work done byAlexandra Chalupa? That is the
conclusion of her sister Andrea Chalupa and obviously enough for Crowdstrike to make the
Russian government connection.
How close is Dimitri Alperovitch to DNC officials? Close enough professionally he
should have stepped down from an investigation that had the chance of throwing a
presidential election in a new direction. According to Esquire.com, Alperovitch has
vetted speeches for Hillary Clinton about cyber security issues in the past. Because of
his work on the Sony hack, President Barrack Obama personally called and said the
measures taken were directly because of his work.
Alperovitch's relationships with the Chalupas, radical groups, think tanks, Ukrainian
propagandists, and Ukrainian state supported hackers [show a conflict of interest]. When
it all adds up and you see it together, we have found a Russian that tried hard to
influence the outcome of the US presidential election in 2016.
The Chalupas are not Democrat or Republican. They are OUNb. The OUNb worked hard
to start a war between the USA and Russia for the last 50 years. According to the
Ukrainian Weekly in a rare open statement of their existence in 2011, "Other
statements were issued in the Ukrainian language by the leadership of the
Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (B) and the International Conference in
Support of Ukraine. The OUN (Bandera wing) called for" What is
OUNb Bandera? They follow the same political policy and platform that was developed
in the 1930's by Stepan Bandera . When these
people go to a Holocaust memorial they are celebrating
both the dead and the OUNb SS that killed.[8] There is no
getting around this fact. The OUNb have no concept of democratic values and want an
authoritarian
fascism .
Alexandra Chalupa- According to the Ukrainian Weekly , [9]
"The effort, known as Digital Miadan, gained momentum following the initial Twitter storms.
Leading the effort were: Lara Chelak, Andrea Chalupa, Alexandra Chalupa, Constatin Kostenko
and others." The Digital Maidan was also how they raised money for the coup. This was how the
Ukrainian emigres bought the bullets that were used on Euromaidan. Ukraine's chubby nazi,
Dima Yarosh stated openly he was taking money from the Ukrainian emigres during Euromaidan
and Pravy Sektor still fundraises openly in North America. The "Sniper Massacre" on the
Maidan in Ukraine by Dr. Ivan Katchanovski, University of Ottowa shows clearly detailed
evidence how the massacre happened. It has Pravy Sektor confessions that show who created the
"heavenly hundred. Their admitted involvement as leaders of Digital Maidan by both Chalupas
is a clear violation of the Neutrality Act and has up to a 25 year prison sentence attached
to it because it ended in a coup.
Andrea Chalupa-2014, in a Huff Post article Sept. 1 2016, Andrea Chalupa
described Sviatoslav Yurash as one of Ukraine's important "dreamers." He is a young
activist that founded Euromaidan Press. Beyond the gushing glow what she doesn't say
is who he actually is. Sviatoslav Yurash was Dmitri Yarosh's spokesman just after
Maidan. He is a hardcore Ukrainian nationalist and was rewarded with the Deputy
Director position for the UWC (Ukrainian World Congress) in Kiev.
In January, 2014 when he showed up at the Maidan protests he was 17 years old. He
became the foreign language media representative for Vitali Klitschko, Arseni
Yatsenyuk, and Oleh Tyahnybok. All press enquiries went through Yurash. To meet
Dimitri Yurash you had to go through Sviatoslav Yurash as a Macleans reporter found
out.
At 18 years old, Sviatoslav Yurash became the spokesman for Ministry of Defense
of Ukraine under Andrei Paruby. He was Dimitri Yarosh's spokesman and can be seen
either behind Yarosh on videos at press conferences or speaking ahead of him to
reporters. From January 2014 onward, to speak to Dimitri Yarosh, you set up an
appointment with Yurash.
Andrea Chalupa has worked with Yurash's Euromaidan Press which is associated with
Informnapalm.org and supplies the state level hackers for Ukraine.
Irene Chalupa- Another involved Chalupa we need to cover to do the story justice
is Irene Chalupa. From her bio– Irena Chalupa is a nonresident fellow with the
Atlantic Council's Dinu Patriciu Eurasia Center. She is also a senior correspondent
at Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), where she has worked for more than
twenty years. Ms. Chalupa previously served as an editor for the Atlantic Council,
where she covered Ukraine and Eastern Europe. Irena Chalupa is also the news anchor
for Ukraine's propaganda channel org She is also a Ukrainian emigre leader.
According to Robert Parry's article [10] At the forefront
of people that would have taken senior positions in a Clinton administration and
especially in foreign policy are the Atlantic Council . Their main
goal is still a major confrontation with nuclear-armed Russia.
The Atlantic Council is the think tank associated and supported by the CEEC (Central
and Eastern European Coalition). The CEEC has only one goal which is war with Russia.
Their question to candidates looking for their support in the election was "Are you
willing to go to war with Russia?" Hillary Clinton has received their unqualified support
throughout the campaign.
What does any of this have to do with Dimitri Alperovitch and Crowdstrike? Since the
Atlantic Council would have taken senior cabinet and policy positions, his own fellowship
status at the Atlantic Council and relationship with Irene Chalupa creates a definite
conflict of interest for Crowdstrike's investigation. Trump's campaign was gaining ground
and Clinton needed a boost. Had she won, would he have been in charge of the CIA, NSA, or
Homeland Security?
When you put someone that has so much to gain in charge of an investigation that
could change an election, that is a conflict of interest. If the think tank is linked
heavily to groups that want war with Russia like the Atlantic Council and the CEEC, it
opens up criminal conspiracy.
If the person in charge of the investigation is a fellow at the think tank that wants
a major conflict with Russia it is a definite conflict of interest. Both the Atlantic
Council and clients stood to gain Cabinet and Policy positions based on how the result of
his work affects the election. It clouds the results of the investigation. In Dmitri
Alperovitch's case, he found the perpetrator before he was positive there was a
crime.
Alperovitch's relationship with Andrea Chalupa's efforts and Ukrainian intelligence
groups is where things really heat up. Noted above she works with Euromaidanpress.com and
Informnapalm.org which is the outlet for Ukrainian state-sponsored hackers.
When you look at Dimitri Alperovitch's twitter relationships, you have to ask why the
CEO of a $150 million dollar company like Crowdstrike follows Ukrainian InformNapalm and
its hackers individually. There is a mutual relationship. When you add up his work for
the OUNb, Ukraine, support for Ukraine's Intelligence, and to the hackers it needs to be
investigated to see if Ukraine is conspiring against the US government. Crowdstrike is
also following their hack of a Russian government official after the DNC hack. It closely
resembles the same method used with the DNC because it was an email hack.
Crowdstrike's product line includes Falcon Host, Falcon Intelligence, Falcon
Overwatch and Falcon DNS. Is it possible the hackers in Falcons Flame are another service
Crowdstrike offers?
In an interview with Euromaidanpress these hackers say they have no need for the CIA.
[11] They consider the
CIA amateurish. They also say they are not part of the Ukrainian military Cyberalliance
is a quasi-organization with the participation of several groups – RUH8, Trinity,
Falcon Flames, Cyberhunta. There are structures affiliated to the hackers – the
Myrotvorets site, Informnapalm analytical agency."
Although this profile says Virginia, tweets are from the Sofia, Bulgaria time zone and he
writes in Russian. Another curiosity considering the Fancy Bear source code is in Russian. This
image shows Crowdstrike in their network. Crowdstrike is part of Ukrainian nationalist hacker
network. In the image it shows a network diagram of Crowdstrike following the Surkov leaks. The
network communication goes through a secondary source. Although OSINT Academy sounds fairly innocuous, it's the official twitter account for
Ukraine's Ministry of Information head Dimitri Zolotukin. It is also Ukrainian Intelligence.
The Ministry of Information started the Peacekeeper or Myrotvorets website that geolocates
journalists and other people for assassination. If you disagree with OUNb politics, you could
be on the list.
Should someone tell Dimitri Alperovitch that Gerashchenko, who is now in charge of
Peacekeeper recently threatened president-elect Donald Trump that he would put him on his
"Peacemaker" site as a target? The same has been done with Silvio Berscaloni in the
past.
Trying not to be obvious, the Head of Ukraine's Information Ministry (UA
Intelligence) tweeted something interesting that ties Alperovitch and Crowdstrike to the
Ukrainian Intelligence hackers and the Information Ministry even tighter. This single
tweet on a network chart shows that out of all the Ukrainian Ministry of Information
Minister's following, he only wanted the 3 hacking groups associated with both him and
Alperovitch to get the tweet. Alperovitch's story was received and not retweeted or
shared. If this was just Alperovitch's victory, it was a victory for Ukraine. It would be
shared heavily. If it was a victory for the hacking squad, it would be smart to keep it
to themselves and not draw unwanted attention.
These same hackers are associated with Alexandra, Andrea, and Irene Chalupa through
the portals and organizations they work with through their OUNb. The hackers are funded
and directed by or through the same OUNb channels that Alperovitch is working for and
with to promote the story of Russian hacking.
When you look at the image for the hacking group in the euromaidanpress article,
one of the hackers identifies themselves as one of Dimitri Yarosh's Pravy Sektor
members by the Pravy Sektor sweatshirt they have on. Noted above, Pravy Sektor
admitted to killing the people at the Maidan protest and sparked the coup.
Going further with the linked Euromaidanpress article the hackers say "Let's
understand that Ukrainian hackers and Russian hackers once constituted a single very
powerful group. Ukrainian hackers have a rather high level of work. So the help of
the USA I don't know, why would we need it? We have all the talent and special means
for this. And I don't think that the USA or any NATO country would make such sharp
movements in international politics."
What sharp movements in international politics have been made lately? Let me spell it
out for the 17 US Intelligence Agencies so there is no confusion. These state sponsored,
Russian language hackers in Eastern European time zones have shown with the Surkov hack
they have the tools and experience to hack states that are looking out for it. They are
also laughing at US intel efforts.
The hackers also made it clear that they will do anything to serve Ukraine. Starting
a war between Russia and the USA is the one way they could serve Ukraine best, and hurt
Russia worst. Given those facts, if the DNC hack was according to the criteria given by
Alperovitch, both he and these hackers need to be investigated.
According to the Esquire interview "Alperovitch was deeply frustrated: He thought
the government should tell the world what it knew. There is, of course, an element of
the personal in his battle cry. "A lot of people who are born here don't appreciate
the freedoms we have, the opportunities we have, because they've never had it any
other way," he told me. "I have."
While I agree patriotism is a great thing, confusing it with this kind of nationalism
is not. Alperovitch seems to think by serving OUNb Ukraine's interests and delivering
a conflict with Russia that is against American interests, he's a patriot. He isn't
serving US interests. He's definitely a Ukrainian patriot. Maybe he should move to
Ukraine.
The evidence presented deserves investigation because it looks like the case for
conflict of interest is the least Dimitri Alperovitch should look forward to. If these
hackers are the real Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear, they really did make sharp movements in
international politics. By pawning it off on Russia, they made a worldwide embarrassment
of an outgoing President of the United States and made the President Elect the suspect of
rumor.
Obama, Brazile, Comey, and CrowdStrike
According to Obama the
hacks continued until September 2016. According to ABC, Donna Brazile says the hacks didn't stop
until after the elections in 2016. According to Crowdstrike the hacks continued into
November.
Democratic National Committee Chair Donna Brazile said Russian hackers persisted in trying
to break into the organization's computers "daily, hourly" until after the election --
contradicting President Obama's assertion that the hacking stopped in September after he warned
Russian President Vladimir Putin to "cut it out."-ABC
This time frame gives a lot of latitude to both hacks and leaks happening on that server and
still agrees with the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPs). According to
Bill
Binney , the former Technical Director for the NSA, the only way that data could move off
the server that fast was through a download to a USB stick. The transfer rate of the file does
not agree with a Guciffer 2.0 hack and the information surrounding Guciffer 2.0 is looking
ridiculous and impossible at best.
The DNC fiasco isn't that important of a crime. The reason I say this is the FBI would have
taken control over material evidence right away. No law enforcement agency or Intel agency ever
did. This means none of them considered it a crime Comey should have any part of investigating.
That by itself presents the one question mark which destroys any hope Mueller has proving law
enforcement maintained a chain of custody for any evidence he introduces.
It also says the US government under Barrack Obama and the victimized DNC saw this as a
purely political event. They didn't want this prosecuted or they didn't think it was
prosecutable.
Once proven it shows a degree of criminality that makes treason almost too light a charge in
federal court. Rest assured this isn't a partisan accusation. Team Clinton and the DNC gets the
spotlight but there are Republicans involved.
Investigative Jouralist George Webb worked at MacAfee and Network Solutions in 2000 when the
CEO Bill Larsen bought a small, Moscow based, hacking and virus writing company to move to
Silicon Valley.
MacAfee also purchased PGP, an open source encryption software developed by privacy advocate
to reduce NSA spying on the public.
The two simultaneous purchase of PGP and the Moscow hacking team by Metwork Solutions was
sponsored by the CIA and FBI in order to crack encrypted communications to write a back door
for law enforcement.
Among the 12 engineers assigned to writing a PGP backdoor was the son of a KGB officer named
Dmitri Alperovich who would go on to be the CTO at a company involved in the DNC Hacking
scandal - Crowdstrike.
In addition to writing a back door for PGP, Alperovich also ported PGP to the blackberry
platform to provide encrypted communications for covert action operatives.
The poll graph without three day averaging is a great visual illustration of the margin of
error concept. It's even clear in the averaged version. I guarantee people are NOT changing
their minds that fast, and I'm sure all the issues Lambert highlighted are contributing to
the inaccuracies.
That said, a few trends are clear. Biden is trending steadily (but very slowly) downward.
Sanders and Buttigieg are trending up, Sanders slowly and Buttigieg somewhat faster, while
Warren is settling back to her long term average after a bump in October. Harris' decision to
withdraw looks like a good one. Undecided numbers are all over the place, and tend to spike
up when other lines spike down, so I'm guessing that's down to differing polling
methodologies and how hard people are pushed to make a call.
Are these pollsters reading all twenty names over the telephone? Or is the polled asked to
name a candidate? I can't get my head around how to manage a list of this many candidates by
voice without 'Name Recognition' being the first choice.
> Are these pollsters reading all twenty names over the telephone?
That's a very good question. Is the list of names so long -- I don't think we've ever had
one so long -- that it enables pollsters to game the polls in new ways? Could be such a
simple and obvious mode of rigging that we did not see it.
Morning Consult (B/C)
Nov 25 – Dec 1
Mon – Sun
15,773 Likely
National
16 candidate names, plus "Someone else" (not present in data source, derived in app)
Details here: https://morningconsult.com/2020-democratic-primary/
The differences are Joe Sestak and Steve Bullock in HarrisX but not MC, going to guess
that MC decided not to list them because they dropped, and if they asked the names during the
survey their report them in the conveniently names "Someone else" category.
Regarding ChrisPacific's point about Undecideds, yes, this is affected by methodology and
whose polls came out on a particular day.
And more generally, we should expect to see noise in this data. These are minuscule
samples compared to the actual voting universe of over 65 million. The "Margin of Error" /
"Confidence Interval" claims are based on the assumption that all polls are distributed as a
uniform bell curve. Arguably useful for getting the noise out of stats for physical
observations of mechanical models, but absurd for human polling. Pollsters (who work mostly
in marketing) use MoE/CI to convince clients spend money on small polls and then spin out
reassuring MoE or CI (which scale to each other, bigger MoE = narrower CI). (Tangentially, on
political campaigns, the tactical advantages to be found in population data come from looking
into what's happening in the noise, not from smoothing it out and then assessing the
distorted surface).
And as in most viscous media, quick changes tend to snap back to origin, slow ones push
though. Consider also that a) these candidates are introducing themselves, impressions
develop over time, and engagement is still low. Also, the context of US society may be
gradually changing, but it would take a sudden shock (like 9/11 at the time) to change the
background context and be reflected in a suddenly shift in Dem Primary polls.
I participated in the last Des Moines Register/CNN Iowa poll. The pollster was required to
read all of the names, even when I could name one immediately.
The call came on my cell phone from a restricted number. I asked for what company or
candidate the poll was being conducted; the interviewer said that she was not given that
information, but at the very end I was asked whether I would be willing to talk to a reporter
from CNN or the DMR (I declined). She did tell me the research firm for which she worked,
which I later saw was the name of the firm that had conducted the poll. When I saw the
original release, I wondered whether I was correct that this was the poll, since I remembered
a question about my preference for a health care system that wasn't in the original release.
That result was released at a later date.
The M4A option for that question was simply M4A, without additional information or
qualifiers. I, as is usual for me, couldn't simply answer a multiple choice question, but
explained that I supported improved M4A, and that current Medicare is still expensive. The
interviewer told me that she herself has trouble affording Medicare, and that she
particularly has trouble paying for her medication. (We got a little chatty.)
The research firm was also contacting Republicans. She said that I had been the first
Democrat that she had reached that day, and that Republicans got different questions. She did
not know whom she was calling and, at the end, asked my first name so that her company could
verify that she had reached the right individual.
I'll check back here in case there are any other questions about the poll that I might be
able to answer. If anyone is interested in the questions themselves, those are already
available online.
Why did I agree to participate? To have my support for Bernie counted, of course!
This has nothing to do with ethnicity. Profits before people is the slogan of neoliberlaism.
May be simply Jewish organization adopted neoliberalism earlier and deeper then other.
"(the Chief Rabbi) has actually made the wider Jewish community in the UK much less
safe"
How exactly? And how is this any different from the Rabbi's own hysterical rhetoric? Jews
have their own police force and their own Community Security Trust funded by us the tax
payer. Who else in Britain has such privileges?
"Corbyn has spent his entire political career as an anti-racism campaigner, and his
anti-racism activism as a backbencher was especially prominent inside a party that itself has
traditionally taken the political lead in tackling racism."
No, not really. He's been a particular kind of 'anti racism' campaigner – the type
which is aghast at all forms of racism except against white Britons. After hundreds of racist
attacks on white lads in Oldham in the late 90s and early 00s, a protest was held by the BNP
at the NUJ's head office. It was met by a counter-protest by the SWP, attended by none other
than Jeremy Corbyn. They claimed of course that the BNP were exploiting these attacks. Except
they had no answer as to why the SWP were not organising against these racist attacks
themselves and why they pressed the media to not report on them. Indeed, these same 'anti
racists' went on to claim that the mass rape of tens of thousands of white girls and hundreds
of Sikh girls by Muslim men who held openly racist attitudes were wait for it 'racist myths'.
In other words, they helped create the institutional (non)response to mass child abuse.
"that there is no significant threat posed by antisemitism from the right or the
rapidly emerging far right.
If there is no perceptible populist tide of white nationalism sweeping Europe and the
globe, one that hates immigrants and minorities,"
As far as I can see, what Jonathan means is no one is allowed to criticise Jews except him
and on his terms alone. Europeans aren't allowed to ask why ALL the Jewish organisations have
supported open borders, multiculturalism and hate speech laws.
I don't hate anyone. I have a right to ask why I'm being made in a minority in my country.
You talk of 'minorities' yet you afford no such respect to the majority who were never asked
about any of this and who've faced a relentless psychological barrage to get them to shut up
about opposing any of it.
"White nationalists are all over social media warning of supposed Jewish global
conspiracies, of supposed Jewish control of the media, of supposed Jewish subversion of
"white rights"."
I think you'll find articles by Jews boasting of their control of the media and Hollywood
and you'll find the ADL at the forefront of the campaign to close down free speech. As for
'white rights' in inverted commas, I'll come back to that later.
"It was precisely this kind of thinking that drove European politics a century
ago."
You mean people reacted against Jewish behaviour back then? How dare they, eh? It's ok for
you to rail against Europeans but we can't say a thing about you.
"It was arch-antisemite Arthur Balfour who signed off the Balfour Declaration of 1917
that sought to end Britain's "Jewish problem" by encouraging European Jews to move far away,
to a part of the Middle East then known as Palestine."
Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Extremely powerful Zionists (which yes, included
the Rothschilds) lobbied for decades to get the British to agree to what was eventually
promised by Balfour. Would it really be a surprise that a people or government sought to rid
themselves of a problem which the LEFT wing idol Marx himself called "the Jewish
Question"?
"That is, of course, why today's white supremacists love Israel The white supremacists'
love of Israel is intimately bound up with their hatred and fear of Jews."
Some do, some don't. Some hate the Jews who have attacked their ethnic interests, others
just want to be left alone. Please stop projecting, it's bad for you.
"It will persuade them once again that "the Jews" are a "problem"."
It will persuade some people that the major Jewish organisations are a problem and they'd
be right to think that.
"or that white nationalism is no threat to the UK"
Because it isn't and never has been. Might I remind you that according to all the
available research, we are very low in ethnocentricity and that we actually rejected the BUF
/ Mosely and then went on to fight Hitler? I mean, this really is some thanks for that.
"Other surveys show even worse racism among Conservatives towards more obviously
non-white minorities, such as Muslims and black people."
Note how Conservatives here is taken to mean white people only. No mention of the fact
that Jews overwhelmingly vote Tory now as do Hindus and large numbers of Sikhs. But hey, just
imagine if those groups had noticed the epic crime rates owing to blacks and Muslims. How
dare they notice such patterns? How dare Sikhs, whose religion was founded in response to
Islam, be aggrieved that their girls are raped by Muslims. How dare white Britons wonder how
on earth all this ethnic conflict was brought to their once homogeneous land.
"but waves of European Jewish immigrants were either encouraged or compelled to come to
the newly created state of Israel by racist immigration quotas designed to prevent them
fleeing elsewhere, most especially to the United States."
My God Zionists WANTED Jews to go to Israel and Jewish leaders in the US helped them make
it happen but hey! It's still whitey's fault.
"The west helped engineer both the ethnic cleansing of Palestine and Israel's creation
to solve Europe's "Jewish problem". It provided the components necessary for Israel to build
a nuclear bomb that won it a place at the international top table and ensured the
Palestinians were made Israel's serfs in perpetuity. Ever since, the west has provided Israel
with diplomatic cover, military aid and special trading status, even as Israel has worked
relentlessly to disappear the Palestinian people from their homeland."
Extremely wealthy Zionists wanted this and Western politicians gave it to them. At the top
level, they worked together. Stop passing the buck.
Now, here's the really juicy bit: Palestinians and their homeland.
Do I, a native Briton, have a homeland, Jonathan? And if not, why not? And why have Jewish
organisations relentlessly sought to change my homeland? Do you recognise the commonalities
that I have with Palestinians?
"In the UK, the Conservative manifesto similarly promises to bar local councils from
upholding international law and boycotting products from Israel's illegal
settlements."
David Cameron once called the Tories 'the Torah party'. Do you think that might have some
connection with the anti BDS movement?
"But ardent friends of Israel such as Mirvis are blind to these arguments. For them,
one western antisemitic crime – the Holocaust – entirely obscures another western
antisemitic crime: seeking to rid Europe of Jews by forcing them into the Middle East,
serving as pawns on an imperial chessboard that paid no regard to the Palestinians whose
homeland was being sacrificed."
The self pity is truly monstrous. Has it ever occurred to you that if you keep finding
yourselves in trouble, maybe it's you that is the problem?
"The real left in Britain speaks out against Israel not because it hates Jews but
because it holds dear a commitment to justice and a compassion for all."
Yeah, like the tens of thousands of white girls and hundreds of Sikh girls 'the real Left'
left at the mercy of rapists and torturers in Rotherham, Rochdale, Oxford, Telford, Newcastle
and all the other places. Like the countless Muslim girls it allows to be destroyed via FGM
all so the bloc votes keep rolling in.
Truly the most moral of people!!
You really need to get over this monstrous ego that you have and try finding a bit of
dignity.
Mirvis'
intervention in the election campaign makes sense only if he believes in one of two
highly improbable scenarios.
The first requires several demonstrably untrue things to be true. It needs for Corbyn to be
a proven antisemite – and not just of the variety that occasionally or accidentally lets
slip an antisemitic trope or is susceptible to the unthinking prejudice most of us occasionally
display, including (as we shall see) Rabbi Mirvis.
No, for Mirvis to have interfered in the election campaign he would need to believe that
Corbyn intends actively as prime minister to inflame a wider antisemitism in British society or
implement policies designed to harm the Jewish community. And in addition, the chief rabbi
would have to believe that Corbyn presides over a Labour party that will willingly indulge
race-hate speeches or stand by impassively as Corbyn carries out racist policies.
If Mirvis really believes any of that, I have a bridge to sell him. Corbyn has spent his
entire political career as an anti-racism campaigner, and his anti-racism activism as a
backbencher was especially prominent inside a party that itself has traditionally taken the
political lead in tackling racism.
... ... ...
Even now, our most prized rights, such as free speech, are being eroded and subverted to
protect Israel from criticism. In the US, the only infringements on the American public's First
Amendment rights have been legislated to silence those seeking to
pressure Israel over its crimes against the Palestinians with a boycott – similar to the
campaign against apartheid South Africa. In the UK, the Conservative manifesto similarly
promises to
bar local councils from upholding international law and boycotting products from Israel's
illegal settlements.
Rewarding war crimes
The real left focuses on this continuing colonial crime against the Palestinians not because
it is antisemitic (a claim the Economist survey amply refutes), but because the left treats
Israel as emblematic of British and western bad faith and hypocrisy. Israel is the imperial
west's Achilles' heel, the proof that war crimes, massacres and ethnic cleansing are not only
not punished but actively rewarded if these crimes accord with western imperial
interests.
But ardent friends of Israel such as Mirvis are blind to these arguments. For them, one
western antisemitic crime – the Holocaust – entirely obscures another western
antisemitic crime: seeking to rid Europe of Jews by forcing them into the Middle East, serving
as pawns on an imperial chessboard that paid no regard to the Palestinians whose homeland was
being sacrificed.
In his state of historical and political myopia, Mirvis cannot begin to understand that
there might be political activists who, in defending the Palestinian people, are also defending
Jews. That they, unlike him, understand that Israel was created not out of western benevolence
towards Jews, but out of western malevolence towards "lesser peoples". The real left in Britain
speaks out against Israel not because it hates Jews but because it holds dear a commitment to
justice and a compassion for all.
Mirvis, on the other hand, is the Zionist equivalent of a little Englander. He prefers
particularist, short-term interests over universalist, long-term ones.
It was he, remember, who threw his
full support behind Israel in 2014 as it indiscriminately bombed Gaza, killing some 550
children – a bombing campaign that came after years of an Israeli blockade on the
Palestinian population there. That siege has led the United Nations to warn that the enclave
will be uninhabitable by next
year.
It was Mirvis, along with his predecessor Jonathan Sacks, who in 2017 endorsed
the fanatical Jewish settlers – Israel's equivalent of white supremacists – on
their annual march through the occupied Old City of Jerusalem. This is the march where the
majority of the participants are recorded every year waving masses of Israeli flags at
Palestinians and chanting "Death to the Arabs". One Israeli newspaper columnist has
described the Jerusalem Day march as a "religious carnival of hatred".
Just goes to show how ... so called "Chief Rabbi" has become the most important commentator
on a British general election, and the Tories and much of the media in Britain absolutely
love it.
Not even America they would let a Rabbi blatantly interfere with a presidential election.
It's incredible how a British general election has literally become about Jews, I've never
seen anything like it in any other country. The media is so obsessed with what Jews think
anyone would think Corbyn was running to be PM of Israel!
The Epstein Pedoscandal Mossad
Timeline shows in detail how Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell were working for the
Israeli intelligence agency, Mossad.
Link to Unz.com article
The timeline generated many comments at Unz.com but surprisingly most of them dealt whether
Epstein was a pedophile or not. This despite the overwhelming evidence of pedophilia.
Many have also totally missed – or are afraid to notice – the big picture:
Israeli intelligence agencies and especially Mossad seem to be running pedophile rings that
blackmail Western political, business and scientific leaders.
Furthermore, it seems that Ghislaine Maxwell was and still is the master mind behind many of
these pedophile rings.
One of the reasons Epstein and Ghislaine were able to continue sex trafficking with impunity
for so long was the appearance that Epstein was a victim of jealous people and overzealous
police. Many people thought that Epstein had only had sex with a 17-year old girl who had lied
about her age.
This excuse worked well because in Florida the age of consent is 18 while in most other
American states it is 16.
Link to Wikipedia
Epstein was able to play the martyr by not only claiming that unscrupulous girls had lied
their age but also by implying that the age of consent is too high anyway in Florida.
This was also one reason why in New Mexico where Epstein had his Zorro Ranch the officials
refused to register him as a sex offender. In New Mexico the age of consent was 16 until in
2018 it was raised to 18.
Furthermore, unlike in many other states, in New Mexico the courts recognize a mistake of
age defense.
New Mexico courts recognize a mistake of
age defense . The mistake of age defense is basically "I thought she was 17." However,
this is no guarantee that this defense will work in court. Moreover, the mistake of age is
the creation of judges in the absence of a direct statute addressing the defense. State
lawmakers may pass a law overriding the courts on this issue at any time. ( LegalMatch
)
In reality the Epstein-Ghislaine case is not whether it is wrong for an adult to have sex
with a 17 year old. Instead it is about many other things such as prostitution, grooming,
pedophilia and the exploitation of children.
This all is connected to global politics involving sex trafficking, drug and arms trade,
money laundering, Ponzi schemes, spy networks and blackmailing for Mossad.
Epstein's victims were caught in a web of international spy network that used them as pawns
for blackmail operations. The younger the girls were, the more leverage Israel would have over
politicians, billionaires and scientists. Thus Epstein and Ghislaine tried to also recruit
girls who were well under the age of 16.
What is more, they personally enjoyed having sex with these very young girls. Both Epstein
and Ghislaine seem to have been pedophiles who were attracted to prepubescent girls and boys,
i.e. small children.
Note that in order to be a pedophile it is enough to have merely occasional sexual
attraction to prepubescent, i.e. sexually immature children who have not yet developed
secondary
sex characteristics, such as breasts.
Julie Brown from Miami Herald notes that Courtney Wild was only 14 when she was
recruited into Epstein's sex ring.
Wild still had braces on her teeth when she was introduced to him in 2002 at the age of
14.
She was fair, petite and slender, blonde and blue-eyed. (emphasis added. Miami Herald
)
Link to Miami Herald
Julie Brown also notes that Epstein preferred girls who were not only white [and non-Jewish]
but also appeared prepubescent.
Wild, who later helped recruit other girls, said Epstein preferred girls who were
white, appeared prepubescent and those who were easy to manipulate into going further each
time. (Emphasis added. Miami Herald )
For Epstein and Ghislaine it was important that the girls at the very least looked like
small children. This is obviously why they preferred girls who were under 16.
Courtney Wild told the police that she brought Epstein over 70 girls and they were all under
16.
By the time I was 16, I had probably brought him 70 to 80 girls who were all 14 and 15
years old (Emphasis added. Miami Herald )
Some girls were even younger. According to the police many were 13 year old.
The girls -- mostly 13 to 16 -- were lured to his pink waterfront mansion by Wild and
other girls, who went to malls, house parties and other places where girls congregated, and
told recruits that they could earn $200 to $300 to give a man -- Epstein -- a massage,
according to an unredacted copy of the Palm Beach police investigation obtained by the
Herald. (Emphasis added. Miami Herald )
It is also important to note that even 13 was not the minimum age for Epstein and Ghislaine.
In fact, there was no limit to how young the girls could be. Both Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell
emphasized that the younger the better.
Eventually, she said Maxwell trained her to recruit new girls for Epstein.
"Jeffrey was very particular in the kind of girls he wanted. First off, the younger the
better ."
Epstein said that to her, Giuffre claimed, and " Maxwell said that too . During the
training and telling me how to do it, she said 'You always have to go for the
youngest-looking ones .'" (Emphasis added.
The Daily Beast )
Link to The Daily Beast
It seems the primary purpose was not even blackmail since especially Epstein was having sex
with these young girls all the time. On some days Epstein was having sex several times a
day.
Sex games were more important for Epstein than work. Obviously, he was extremely attracted
to these young girls.
In six months, I never saw him do a day's work," Ransome told The Telegraph. "I never
saw him work. He was literally sexually abusing us all day long . (Emphasis added.
Business Insider )
Link to Business Insider
Ghislaine also seemed to be obsessed with sex. Just like her father, Robert Maxwell she was
rumored to be interested in unconventional sex which includes also sex with young children.
As she [Ghislaine] posed for the pics, which ran in a publication meant to promote
Sotheby's vintage fashion collection, she allegedly let slip comments that hinted at a
twisted double life.
"She didn't talk about Epstein, but during the shoot she did tell a story about how she
just hosted a dinner party for a number of young girls, and she put dildos at each place
setting," the source said. "Ghislaine then described how during the dinner two guests, who
were a couple, began demonstrating how to do the perfect fellatio on a man for all at the
table. She was laughing about it."
"A friend of mine has a whole theory about her, that Epstein was like her father Robert
Maxwell, who himself is believed to have had some strange sexual practices." (
Page Six )
Link to PageSix
The Epstein Mossad-Timeline shows how Ghislaine was most probably trained by Mossad to use
sex to gather information. That training would not have been too difficult for her since she
was hypersexual. Many even considered her a nymphomaniac.
In fact, even many Israeli Jews – who usually have much fewer sexual taboos than
puritan English and Americans – were shocked by her raunchy sexuality.
Flirtatious indeed: I understand from a mutual friend that after school she travelled
to Israel and visited a kibbutz; she was immediately ostracised by the other girls for making
a rather-too-obvious beeline for the Adonis-like lifeguard at the kibbutz pool. Very quickly
she got her way, as she would with much in her life. ( Tatler . Emphasis
added.)
Even Ghislaine's friend were sometimes shocked by her open sexuality that so often
contrasted with her otherwise lady-like behavior and position in high society.
Ghislaine was, added Mason, 'fantastically entertaining' and 'saucy' – the paper
said that she talked openly about sex .
In fact, said another acquaintance who saw her often at parties, she was 'obsessed by
sex . She's Sphinx-like, mysterious. The last time I saw her, five, 10 years ago, I said what
are you up to? And she said "I'm selling this product – stainless-steel mini dumb-bells
– that you put up your fanny. For exercising your vaginal muscles, exercise your pelvic
floor, learn the Singapore Grip. I'm giving seminars in LA and they all turn up and I tell
them, this is how you keep your man."' ( Tatler . Emphasis
added.)
Epstein and Ghislaine were both hypersexual. All kind of sex interested them. Little girls
were just part of the menu. Or more specifically, the best – and most profitable –
part.
Epstein and Ghislaine were so attracted to young girls that nothing seemed to satisfy them.
Perhaps this is why Epstein and Ghislaine created the highly risky sexual pyramid scheme. The
girls were offered two alternatives: Either satisfy Epstein and Ghislaine sexually or get more
girls to satisfy them.
In this way Epstein and Ghislaine were able to recruit literally hundreds of young girls.
However, some of these girls went to the police and the sexual pyramid scheme collapsed.
When Epstein got out of jail in 2009 he had half-learned his lesson: American girls are too
risky.
Now Epstein and Ghislaine would only concentrate on East European girls with the help of
their Jewish-Ukrainian friend Peter Listerman.
One of the lesser-known shadowy figures linked to Jeffrey Epstein and his sex ring of
teenage girls and young women is Ukrainian-born Peter Listerman, who has worked as a
businessman and television presenter but is most known for his "match-making"
abilities.
What match-making really means is that Listerman procures women, often underage, for
the jet-set society to use for sexual purposes. His "clients" include Russian oligarchs and
American businessmen and seems to have also
included Jeffrey Epstein. ( Citizen
Truth )
Link to the Citizen Truth.org
Listerman has such a bad reputation that he is shunned even in Ukraine!
Tatiana Savchenko, who founded the first modeling school in Odessa, Ukraine
explained to the Daily Beast the lengths she had to go to keep Listerman from getting his
hands on young women and trafficking them for sex work.
She claimed that he would frequently approach her students and attempt to lure them
with promises of a luxurious lifestyle, and that "It took a lot of work to keep him from
tricking our teen models in his traps." ( Citizen
Truth )
Peter Listerman is the usual suspect. Link to Fishki.net Do you think I am
kidding? I am Peter Listerman! Link to Fishki.net
Both Epstein and Listerman were attracted to very young girls. Neither even tried to hide it
much. In fact, Epstein was quite open about his attraction to tweens.
Just three months ago, as federal prosecutors were closing in with new charges, Mr.
Epstein had a conversation with R. Couri Hay, a publicist, about continuing to improve his
reputation. Mr. Epstein asserted that what he was convicted of did not constitute pedophilia,
said Mr. Hay, who declined to represent him.
The girls he had sex with were "tweens and teens," Mr. Epstein told him. ( The New
York Times )
But what is a tween?
Preadolescent is generally defined as those ranging from age 10 to 13 years.
[4][6] While known
as preadolescent in psychology, the terms preteen, preteenager or tween are common in
everyday use. ( Wikipedia
)
Epstein was right, of course. What he was convicted of in 2007 did not constitute
pedophilia. However, that is precisely one reason why people are so outraged!
Epstein and Ghislaine did not see any problem of recruiting, grooming and having sex also
with tweens. And apparently neither did the Justice Department and the FBI led by
Robert Mueller !
But it gets even worse. As pointed out in the Epstein Pedoscandal Mossad Timeline ,
it seems that Epstein and Ghislaine were after even younger girls.
In 2003 Epstein financed Jean-Luc Brunell's(?) and Jeff Fuller's(J) new modelling agency
MC2 that seemed to have worked with Peter Listerman.
MC2 obviously refers to the famous Einstein equation E = MC2 , the energy-mass
equivalence. Equally obviously, E equals Epstein, the energy, whereas the girls equal MC2, the
mass energized by Epstein.
Despite all this – or for the very reason – Epstein invested in MC2 and became
particularly
close to its founders Brunel and Fuller.
The agency operates in New York, Miami and Tel Aviv. It's in practice half-Israeli.
Many call Israel the capital of human trafficking and organ
harvesting .
Link to
Ynet.com
MC2 concentrates on importing East European girls to Israel and America. The younger the
better.
Marina Lynchuk of MC2 Lolita Lvola from MC2 Linta Lapinda from MC2
Brunel seems to have given 12-year old triplets to Epstein as a birthday present.
'Jeffrey bragged after he met them that they were 12-year-olds and flown over from
France because they're really poor over there, and their parents needed the money or whatever
the case is and they were absolutely free to stay and flew out,' Giuffre said.
She said she saw the three girls with her own eyes and that Epstein had repeatedly
described to her how the girls had massaged him and performed oral sex on him. They were
flown back to France the next day.
Link to Daily Mail
It seems that even tweens were not young enough for Epstein.
According to court papers in 2005 Brunel called Epstein and left a message that "he is
sending him a 16-year-old Russian girl for purposes of sex". However, the written message says
something even worse.
The message, filed as an exhibit in the case, was written on an office message pad,
partly in code, and read: "He [Brunel] has a teacher for you to teach you how to speak
Russian. She is 2×8 years old not blonde. Lessons are free and you can have your 1st
today if you call." ( New
York Post )
Does it mean that two eight year olds are involved? Or does 2 x 8 mean to sex 8 year old?
(2=to, x=sex)
Why would the lessons be free and why is it relevant that the "teacher" is not a blond?
There is no denying that Epstein and Ghislaine sexualised even small children. This became
clear in 2005 when police raided Epstein's Palm Peach mansion.
In one photo that was hanging on the wall a small six or seven year old girl was bending
over in a tiny dress. Police blurred out the photo in the video taken during the raid.
NEW YORK CITY, NY – MARCH 13: Atmosphere at
Hamish Bowles, Ghislaine Maxwell and Lillian von Stauffenberg dinner for ALLEGRA HICKS at Home
of Ghislaine Maxwell on March 13, 2007 in New York City. (Photo by Patrick McMullan/Patrick
McMullan via Getty Images). Link to Getty Images.
The so called artwork seems to be full of pedophile symbols.
Link to Wikileaks.org
The quality of the photos taken at Ghislaine's home are so good that even more symbols have
been found in her artwork.
For some reason the mainstream media has not picked up on this pedophilia angle. No
mainstream media journalist has even tried to ask why would Ghislaine have such art and symbols
on her home wall.
This despite the fact that Ghislaine is most probably an Israeli superspy just like was her
father, Robert Maxwell. She probably has been trained to use sex – including pedophilia
– as a tool for blackmail and manipulation.
At the time in Israel females molesting little boys was not even considered rape.
Link to
Haaretz.com
Nor have mainstream journalists asked where was Ghislaine when Madeline McCann was
abducted.
That would not be an unreasonable question since one of the E-Fit images looks a lot like
Ghislaine.
Link to Enchanted Life Path.com
Furthermore, two of the E-Fit images (1A, 1B) look like the Podesta brothers. John Podesta was White House
Chief of Staff to Bill Clinton and the Chairman of the 2016 Hillary Clinton presidential
campaign.
Ghislaine and Epstein were close to the Clintons and the Podesta brothers have been directly
linked also to Pizzagate.
Was Ghislaine helping to run also Pizzagate and other pedophile rings for Mossad?
At least she seems to be perfectly trained to do just that. First, her own hypersexuality,
family background and possible training by Mossad made it easy for her to master mind the
pedophilia ring she run with Epstein.
Second, Ghislaine and Epstein had all the apparel to help run also other pedophile rings:
Lolita express airplanes and helicopters, Zorro Ranch in New Mexico and luxury mansions in New
York, Palm Peach and Paris.
Even more importantly they had their own island in the Virgin Islands.
In the 90s Epstein bought Little St.
James island from the Virgin islands. It had a mansion which Epstein expanded.
Soon locals started to call it the Pedophile Island.
Little St. James island. Link to
Wall Street Journal article
The island seems to have tunnels with several underground entrances.
Ghislaine has a Helicopter Pilot License and often transported quests to the island.
On the weekends in the 1990s, Maxwell would have her Rollerblades FedExed to Epstein's
island in the Caribbean, and said she got her helicopter's license so she could transport
anyone she liked without pilots knowing who they were .
Maxwell also said the island had been completely wired for video; the friend thought
that she and Epstein were videotaping everyone on the island as an insurance policy, as
blackmail.
A source close to Maxwell says she spoke glibly and confidently about getting girls to
sexually service Epstein, saying this was simply what he wanted, and describing the way she'd
drive around to spas and trailer parks in Florida to recruit them. She would claim she had a
phone job for them, "and you'll make lots of money, meet everyone, and I'll change your
life."
Maxwell had one other thing to tell this woman: "When I asked what she thought of the
underage girls, she looked at me and said, 'they're nothing, these girls. They are trash .'"
(Emphasis added. Vanity
Fair )
Ghislaine was naturally using Epstein's helicopters. Some of them shared their FAA tail
number with a US contractor, Dyncorp . That would have helped Ghislaine and
Epstein to fly drugs and children.
FAA records and Epstein's pilot's flight manifest indicate that Epstein's Bell
helicopter used the same tail number of N474AW . This was the same tail number used until
2006 by State Department contractor Dyncorp for counter-insurgency operations in Latin
America.
The congruence of Epstein's Bell N474AW and Dincorp's Bronco N474AW is noteworthy. In
2002, the year Epstein's aircraft fleet stands accused of flying underage teen girls, some
between the ages of 12 and 15 , coincided with Dyncorp's trafficking in underage females
between the ages of 12 and 15 from Kosovo and Bosnia in the Balkans.
One Dyncorp whistleblower reported to The Washington Times's Insight magazine's Kelly
O'Meara in 2002 the following on one Dyncorp employee in Bosnia:
[he] owned a girl who couldn't have been more than 14 years old. It's a sick sight
anyway to see any grown man [having sex] with a child, but to see some 45-year-old man who
weights 400 pounds with a little girl, it just makes you sick."
Tail number N474AW has been shared between Epstein's Bell helicopter like the one in
this photo. (Emphasis added.
Political Bull Pen )
DynCorp's pedophilia ring became internationally infamous with the release of the movie
Whistleblower.
Link to Wikipedia
Helicopters can always be seen. However, Ghislaine also has a license to operate
submarines!
In 2012 – three years after Epstein got out of jail – Maxwell founded The
TerraMar Project ,
[51] a nonprofit
organization that advocated protecting ocean waters.
She gave a lecture for TerraMar at the University of Texas at Dallas and a TED talk, at
TEDx Charlottesville in 2014. [52] Maxwell
accompanied Stuart
Beck (J), a 2013 TerraMar board member, to two United Nations meetings to discuss the
project. [17] ( Wikipedia )
In 2014, a
United Nations event featured Maxwell as a speaker. According to her bio in the program,
Maxwell's "web-based non-profit" aimed "to protect the Oceans by empowering a global
community of ocean citizens ." It further described Maxwell as "a private helicopter pilot
and an Emergency Medical Technician and a qualified ROV and Deepworker submarine pilot
."
A former Coast Guard officer, Borgerson was also a fellow at the Council on Foreign
Relations , which featured Borgerson and Maxwell as speakers during one 2014 talk
titled "Governing the Ocean Commons: Growing Challenges, New Approaches." Friends of Maxwell,
according to The
New York Times , said Borgerson became her boyfriend. Maxwell had allegedly described
Borgerson as a " Navy SEAL " to her pals.
Maxwell's dubious charity also roped in the Clinton Global Initiative , the now-defunct
networking platform for the Clinton Foundation. In the fall of 2013, CGI named TerraMar as
one of the "commitments to action" at their annual meeting. (Emphasis added.
Daily Beast )
Did the Pedophile Island have an underground submarine base? Was it a part of global
pedophile network?
And was the Ocean Citizens project an attempt to escape national jurisdictions and thus gain
at least a partial immunity from police investigations and prosecutions?
Link to TerraMar
Project
Interestingly, as late as 2016 Epstein bought also the nearby Great St. James Island. He
started to build on the island without permits.
There were rumors that he was building underground. For some reason the mainstream media has
had no interest in this second island.
Why is the mainstream media not interested in Ghislaine's many links to pedophilia?
Perhaps because Ghislaine has so many powerful friends. The photo of the pedophile artwork
on Ghislaine's wall was taken 13 March 2007 during a party at Ghislaine's New York townhouse.
The guest list included a curious combination of elite Jews, aristocratic Brits and American
WASPs.
The party was in Ghislaine's huge 7000-square-foot townhouse. It is located in the most
opulent and prestigious neighborhood of America, the Upper East Side , New York on East 65th
Street just off Park Avenue. Epstein's townhouse was only 10 blocks away.
Ghislaine's five
story townhouse. Link to Street Easy Ghislaine's townhouse floor plan. Link to Street Easy
Ghislaine's townhouse 2nd floor gallery. Link to Street Easy
There are reports from reliable sources that the townhouse was sold in 2000 to Ghislaine by
Lynn
Forester de Rothschild . The very same woman who had introduced Epstein and Ghislaine to
Alan Dershowits and the Clintons in the 90s.
The Manhattan property, which is close to Epstein's mansion, is owned by Lynn Forester
de Rothschild, wife of British financier Sir Evelyn de Rothschild. (See
The Times and the original article .)
According to Business Insider Forester sold the townhouse to Ghislaine for less than half the
price.
Forester sold the mansion for about $8.5 million less than its assessed market value,
which was more than $13.4 million.
Was this a pay-off to Ghislaine from the King of Jews, the Rothschilds for services
rendered?
Hillary Clinton, Evelyn de Rothschild, Bill Clinton and Lynn Forester de
Rothschild. Link to Mint Press
It probably is also relevant that at the time of the sale of the townhouse the Prime
Minister of Israel was Ehud
Barak. In the 80s he had been the head of Aman, the Israeli Military Intelligence Agency.
As the Epstein Pedoscandal Mossad Timeline revealed, both Epstein and Ghislaine worked
for the Israeli intelligence agencies already in the 80s during the Iran-Contra operation.
Note that it was around year 2000 that Epstein and Ghislaine started the pedophile operation
in earnest. In the 80s and 90s blackmail operations were a side show but now it became the main
show involving hundreds of young girls.
Sexual blackmail – especially involving little children – can be an extremely
efficient way to influence key politicians and even military officials. A successful blackmail
operation can achieve more than several army divisions. No wonder Barak was so close to Epstein
and Ghislaine.
Furthermore, in 2000 the president of Israel was Moshe Katsev who was sexually harassing and
even raping his female subordinates. Later Katsev would be convicted of rape.
It was also in 2000 when the Israeli Vice-Consul of Rio de Janeiro, Arie Scher and Hebrew
language Professor George Schteinberg were running a pedophile ring for Israeli tourists. When
the Brasilian police started to investigate the Israeli consulate Scher managed to flee back to
Israel.
Link to Rodoh.info
In Israel Scher was not prosecuted. Instead in 2005 he was promoted to Consul of Canberra,
the capital of Australia. A spokesman for the Israeli Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem, Mark Regev
explained:
He [Arie Scher] was a young and single man at the time [in Brazil]. Now he is married
and he's six years older and there is no reason why he shouldn't make an excellent diplomatic
appointment in Australia.
Australia refused to let Scher enter the country.
Link to William Bowles Info
The most shocking part of the Arie/Aryeh Scher story is that the mainstream media was not
interested. Either the stories have been scrubbed from the internet or no stories were ever
written by mainstream journalists except one short story by BBC in 2000 and one even smaller
story
by The Sydney Morning Herald in 2005. Even more surprisingly Youtube does not seem to
have any videos about the Scher case.
No wonder Barak was absolutely convinced that the Western mainstream media would never dare
to criticize Israel and its intelligence agencies. Not even when Mossad was running pedophile
rings.
It was probably the Israeli leaders Shimon Peres, Ehud Barak and Moshe Katsev together with
the ultra-Zionist
Mega Group who made sure Epstein and especially the Maxwell family had not only immunity
from prosecution but also all the blackmail apparel necessary including luxury townhouses,
airplanes, yachts, submarines, ranch and a private island. All, of course, bugged to the
hilt.
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak (R) talks to Shimon Peres, Minister of Regional
Planning, after Barak's speech at the opening session of parliament in Jerusalem 30 October
2000. AFP PHOTO / SVEN NACKSTRAND (Photo credit should read SVEN NACKSTRAND/AFP/Getty Images)
Link to Getty Images
Here the pedophile artwork at Ghislaine's New York townhouse can be seen behind Lillian von
Staufenberg who in March 2007 together with Ghislaine and Hamish Bowles organized a dinner
party in honor of Allegra Hicks. This at a time when Epstein had already been charged with
abusing young girls.
Why would Ghislaine have such a suspicious artwork on her wall knowing that it would
probably be photographed during the parties?
Why would Ghislaine and her quests take such a huge risk? Or was it a sign meant to be seen?
Was Ghislaine flaunting her power?
Ghislaine and her quests seemed to be absolutely sure that the mainstream media would not
dare to ask embarrassing questions.
They were right, of course. The mainstream media knows its place.
However, occasionally some courageous mainstream journalist or editor does try to give
hints. Some have even reported on Ghislaine's hyper-sexual reputation and her orgies. It is
just that the stories have mostly been scrubbed from the internet.
Fortunately, Whitney Webb from Mintpress has
found many of the scrubbed stories. Some of them mention the Mossad connection and others
note the orgies. For example, in 2003 a British newspaper, The Evening Standardreported
a revealing rumor.
Salacious reports have crossed the Atlantic about Ghislaine hosting bizarre parties at
her house to which she invites a dozen or so young girls, then brandishes a whip and teaches
them how to improve their sexual techniques.
It seems that Ghislaine was not only a madame to Epstein but also to the ruling elite. This
would both explain her popularity and the fact that the media – and especially the
American media – dares not to criticize her too much. Not even after her boyfriend
Epstein was charged with sex trafficking minors!
Ghislaine's friends are just too powerful. After the March 2007 party the British Daily
Mail newspaper was amazed how Ghislaine could still have attracted such creme de la
creme of the highest elite. Even more amazingly, the elite was practically swooning over
her.
The night before the party, the hostess [Ghislaine] had been inundated with calls from
disgruntled socialites, irked that they hadn't received an invitation.
The hostess greeted their objections with her customary charm, but remained unmoved. As
always, her list had been carefully edited, and she intended it to stay that way.
Among the select few were Hollywood star Matthew Modine, Kennedy family member Mrs
Anthony Radziwill, Peggy Siegel, PR consultant to the stars, and Julie Janklow, heir to a
literary dynasty.
There was a Rockefeller on the list, as well as the inevitable countesses, billionaires
and New York luminaries.
Link to Daily Mail
The guests at the party included also Renee Rockefeller who is married to Mark Rockefeller , the son of ex-Vice
President Nelson Rockefeller and nephew of David Rockefeller.
David Rockefeller lived at 146 East on the same 65th Street in the Upper East Side as
Ghislaine. They were practically neighbors. Ghislaine would have to walk only two minutes to
visit David.
David liked to pose for photos in his Beetle Room next to his favorite Picasso painting
depicting a nude child "prostitute".
David Rockefeller. Link to Jeffrey Harris Desing.com
David was often visited by his close friend Jacob Rothschild, the patriarch of the
Rothschild family.
The very same family that got Ghislaine her luxury townhouse next door.
The patriarchs,
Jacob Rothschild and David Rockefeller. Link to Jeffrey Harris Design.com
As shown by the Epstein Pedoscandal Mossad Timeline both Epstein and Ghislaine
continued to move in the highest circles long after Epstein got out of jail. In fact, only last
year Ghislaine was invited to a secret writers' retreat hosted by the richest man in the world,
Jeff Bezos.
Link to The Daily Mail
Not only billionaires but also royalty kept in close contact with Ghislaine.
Prince Andrew was recently interviewed by the BBC about his relationship with Epstein,
Ghislaine and their sex slave Virginia Roberts.
Amazingly, Andrew claimed she has no recollection of Epstein's and Ghislaine's sex slave,
Virginia Roberts. This despite the fact that they were photographed together!
Prince Andrew,
Virginia Roberts and Ghislaine Maxwell. Link to Daily Mail Link to The Sun.com
Hardly anybody believes Andrew. The queen had no choice but to sack his own son.
Link to
Daily Mail
Andrew got sacked because he was caught in a lie.
Andrew claimed he could not have had sex with the 17-year old Virginia in 2001 because he
had stayed with the British consul general.
The problem is the consul general does not recall Andrew staying with him.
Link to Daily
Mail
Curiously, most of the mainstream media has forgotten that it was Ghislaine who recruited
and manipulated Virginia Roberts to become a sex slave.
Even the BBC forgot this crucial fact despite Andrew mentioning Ghislaine many times during
the interview.
Time and again, the Prince invoked his friendship with Maxwell, 57, daughter of
disgraced media tycoon Robert Maxwell, as the reason he came into paedophile Epstein's
orbit.
Asked when he last saw Maxwell, Andrew said his last contact was 'earlier this year,
funnily enough', when she 'was here doing some rally'. (
Daily Mail )
Andrew claimed to have met Ghislaine last spring. In fact, they met in June just after US
prosecutors reopened the case against Epstein.
The Duke of York held a meeting with Ghislaine Maxwell in London two weeks after US
prosecutors announced they wanted to reopen their investigation into Jeffrey Epstein.
The meeting took place on or about June 5, the day before Ms Maxwell took part in a
four-day charity motoring rally from London to Monte Carlo.
Did Ghislaine demand that Andrew help make sure that the her own parallel case would not be
reopened?
After meeting Andrew she literally disappeared from the face of the earth.
The ex-socialite has not been seen since although rumours have placed her in Brazil,
France, the American mid-West and even the UK.
'No one knows where she is,' a lawyer for one of Epstein's victims said last night.
'She's done the greatest disappearing act known to man – or woman.' (
Daily Mail )
Link to Daily Mail
Shockingly, during the BBC interview Prince Andrew mentioned Ghislaine many times and seemed
to be proud of their friendship. Despite this the interviewer did not dare to ask questions
about their relationship.
Was this a message to all: Leave Ghislaine alone.
Ghislaine is obviously protected not only by the royal family but also by the whole ruling
elite. No wonder that she has the
Get-Out-of-Jail-Free card .
Ghislaine also tries to protect other Epstein associates.
Link to Daily Mail
Prince Andrew is now afraid to go to the US.
Five women who accuse Jeffrey Epstein of abusing them say Prince Andrew witnessed how
people were given massages at the sex offender's homes.
The lawyer for the women has told BBC
Panorama he plans to serve subpoenas to force the Duke of York to testify as a witness in
all five cases.
He says the prince could have important information about sex trafficking. ( BBC )
Link to BBC story and video
The BBC has now finally zoomed in on Ghislaine.
Another Epstein victim, Sarah Ransome told Panorama Ghislaine Maxwell, one of Prince
Andrew's oldest friends, worked hand in hand with Epstein.
"Ghislaine controlled the girls. She was like the Madam," she said.
"She was like the nuts and bolts of the sex trafficking operation and she would always
visit Jeffrey on the island to make sure the girls were doing what they were supposed to be
doing.
"She knew what Jeffrey liked. She worked and helped maintain Jeffrey's standard by
intimidation, by intimidating the girls, so this was very much a joint effort."
Ms Maxwell could not be reached for comment but has previously denied any involvement
in or knowledge of Epstein's abuse. ( BBC )
But the American media is still not interested in Ghislaine.
What the American mainstream media always willfully forgets is that Ghislaine Maxwell is the
key person and mastermind behind the whole pedo sex trafficking operation.
The key role of Ghislaine is not surprising. After all, her father was an Israeli super spy,
Robert Maxwell.
But perhaps this is the very reason why the American media is not interested.
For years Ghislaine has been at the center of a vast pedophile sex trafficking network. But
still to this day the American police has never dared to even interview her.
I think the answer to the question in the title of this article is pretty damn obvious to
anyone and everyone outside of the controlled media. smdh. Call me crazy, but I wouldn't be
shocked to learn that pervert Jeffrey Epstein is still alive somewhere, not only do I not buy
the "suicide story," but I am not buying he was murdered either. Ghislane described the girls
involved in this pedophile ring/honey pot as "trash." If these girls are or were "trash" than
what in the hell does that this demonic witch named Ghislane Maxwell?
"... No. My point was it's very misleading. Misleading to set the parameters of discussion on U.S. posture toward Russia in such a way as to assume that Putin's actions against a purported Russian "democracy" have anything at all to do with USian antagonism of Russia. I'm sure you'll note current U.S. military cooperation with that boisterous hotbed of democratic activity, Saudi Arabia, in Yemen. Our allies in the house of Saud require help in defending their democratic way of life against the totalitarianism of Yemeni tribes, you see. The U.S. opposes anti-democratic forces whenever and where ever it can, especially in the Middle East. I guess that explains USian antipathy to Russia. ..."
Yes, it was late and I was tired, or I wouldn't have said something so foolish. Still, the
point is that after centuries of constant war, Europe went 70 years without territorial conquest.
That strikes me as a significant achievement, and one whose breach should not be taken lightly.
phenomenal cat @64
So democratic structures have to be robust and transparent before we care about them? I'd give
a pretty high value to an independent press and contested elections. Those have been slowly crushed
in Russia. The results for transparency have not been great. Personally, I don't believe that
Ukraine is governed by fascists, or that Ukraine shot down that jetliner, but I'm sure a lot of
Russians do.
Russian leaders have always complained about "encirclement," but we don't have to believe them.
Do you really believe Russia's afraid of an attack from Estonia? Clearly what Putin wants is to
restore as much of the old Soviet empire as possible. Do you think the independence of the Baltic
states would be more secure or less secure if they weren't members of NATO? (Hint: compare to
Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova.)
"So
democratic structures have to be robust and transparent before we care about them?"
No. My point was it's very misleading. Misleading to set the parameters of discussion on
U.S. posture toward Russia in such a way as to assume that Putin's actions against a purported
Russian "democracy" have anything at all to do with USian antagonism of Russia. I'm sure you'll
note current U.S. military cooperation with that boisterous hotbed of democratic activity, Saudi
Arabia, in Yemen. Our allies in the house of Saud require help in defending their democratic way
of life against the totalitarianism of Yemeni tribes, you see. The U.S. opposes anti-democratic
forces whenever and where ever it can, especially in the Middle East. I guess that explains USian
antipathy to Russia.
"I'd give a pretty high value to an independent press and contested elections."
Yeah, it'd be interesting to see what the U.S. looked like with those dynamics in place.
"Those have been slowly crushed in Russia. The results for transparency have not been
great."
If you say so. For now I'll leave any decisions or actions taken on these outcomes to Russian
citizens. I would, however, kindly tell Victoria Nuland and her ilk to fuck off with their senile
Cold War fantasies, morally bankrupt, third-rate Great Game machinations, and total spectrum dominance
sociopathy.
"Personally, I don't believe that Ukraine is governed by fascists, or that Ukraine shot
down that jetliner, but I'm sure a lot of Russians do."
There's definitely some of 'em hanging about, but yeah it mostly seems to be a motley assortment
of oligarchs, gangsters, and grifters tied into international neoliberal capital and money flows.
No doubt Russian believe a lot things. I find Americans tend to believe a lot things as well.
"... Pretty consistent, I agree. IMHO Sanjait might belong to the category that some people call the "Vichy left" – essentially people who are ready to sacrifice all principles to ensure their 'own' prosperity and support the candidate who intends to protect it, everybody else be damned. ..."
"... Very neoliberal approach if you ask me. Ann Rand would probably be proud for this representative of "creative class". ..."
"... Essentially the behavior that we've had for the last 8 years with the king of "bait and switch". ..."
Some paranoid claptrap to go along with your usual anti intellectualism.
Interestingly, with your completely unrelated non sequitur, you've actually illustrated something that does relate to Krugmans
post. Namely that there are wingnuts among us. They've taken over the Republican Party, but the left has some too. Fortunately
though the Democratic Party hasn't been taken over by them yet, and is still mostly run by grown ups.
"I am confident that what you say here is consistent with your methods and motivations."
Pretty consistent, I agree. IMHO Sanjait might belong to the category that some people call the "Vichy left" – essentially
people who are ready to sacrifice all principles to ensure their 'own' prosperity and support the candidate who intends to protect
it, everybody else be damned.
Very neoliberal approach if you ask me. Ann Rand would probably be proud for this representative of "creative class".
Essentially the behavior that we've had for the last 8 years with the king of "bait and switch".
"... The creation of a think tank dedicated to "an approach to the world based on diplomacy and restraint rather than threats, sanctions, and bombing" is very welcome news. Other than the Cato Institute, there has been nothing like this in Washington, and this tank's focus will be entirely on foreign policy. ..."
"... I am quite amazed that Soros and Koch bro are involved. We will wait to see how this plays out. ..."
Stephen Kinzer
comments on the creation of a new think tank, The Quincy Institute, committed to promoting a foreign policy of restraint and
non-interventionism:
Since peaceful foreign policy was a founding principle of the United States, it's appropriate that the name of this think tank
harken back to history. It will be called the Quincy Institute, an homage to John Quincy Adams, who in a seminal speech on Independence
Day in 1821 declared that the United States "goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom
and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own." The Quincy Institute will promote a foreign policy
based on that live-and-let-live principle.
The creation of a think tank dedicated to "an approach to the world based on diplomacy and restraint rather than threats,
sanctions, and bombing" is very welcome news. Other than the Cato Institute, there has been nothing like this in Washington, and
this tank's focus will be entirely on foreign policy. The lack of institutional support has put advocates of peace and restraint
at a disadvantage for a very long time, so it is encouraging to see that there is an effort underway to change that. The Quincy Institute
represents another example of how antiwar progressives and conservatives can and should work together to change U.S. foreign policy
for the better. The coalition opposed to the war on Yemen showed what Americans opposed to illegal and unnecessary war can do when
they work towards a shared goal of peace and non-intervention, and this institute promises to be an important part of such efforts
in the future. Considering how long the U.S. has been
waging war without end
, there couldn't be a better time for this.
TAC readers and especially readers of this blog will be familiar with the people involved in creating the think tank:
The institute plans to open its doors in September and hold an official inauguration later in the autumn. Its founding donors
-- Soros's Open Society Foundation and the Charles Koch Foundation -- have each contributed half a million dollars to fund its
takeoff. A handful of individual donors have joined to add another $800,000. By next year the institute hopes to have a $3.5 million
budget and a staff of policy experts who will churn out material for use in Congress and in public debates. Hiring is underway.
Among Parsi's co-founders are several well-known critics of American foreign policy, including Suzanne DiMaggio, who has spent
decades promoting negotiated alternatives to conflict with China, Iran and North Korea; the historian and essayist Stephen Wertheim;
and the anti-militarist author and retired Army colonel Andrew Bacevich.
"The Quincy Institute will invite both progressives and anti-interventionist conservatives to consider a new, less militarized
approach to policy," Bacevich said, when asked why he signed up. "We oppose endless, counterproductive war. We want to restore
the pursuit of peace to the nation's foreign policy agenda."
Trita Parsi and Andrew Bacevich are both TAC contributors and have participated in our foreign policy conferences in recent
years. Parsi and I were on the same panel last fall at our most recent conference. I have also cited and learned from arguments made
by Suzanne DiMaggio and Stephen Wertheim in my
posts here . Their involvement is a
very good sign, and it shows both the political breadth and intellectual depth of this new institution. I look forward to seeing
what they do, and I wish them luck.
Good luck. I hope you will be invited on cable shows. I am tired of seeing the beard from the Foundation of the Defense of Democracies
and his clones.
Once in a while the hosts mess up and they interview someone who doesn't give the correct answer about the M.E., or somewhere
else and I see the blank look on their face as they thank the guess as since it is obvious they cannot process the information.
I generally do not see those guests ever again.
The guidelines are, the world is divided into those who crave U.S. leadership and the evildoers who are constantly testing
our leadership. We must always be vigilant against the latter. It is inconceivable that anyone merely act in their own interest.
It is all about us.
I also am looking forward to reading their thoughts and ideas about a foreign policy that doesn't include the US invading yet
another country under the ridiculous notion that we are somehow being threatened by them. We have the largest military on earth.
It's also telling that we pick on and invade countries that can't actually hurt us. That makes us all the more the bully on the
block. It's to our shame that we even consider these shameful actions.
Exciting news. An early endeavor , if not already accomplished, should be consideration of relevant theoretical models for understanding
competition and cooperation. Since the Cold War and to the present day, variants of the Prisoners Dilemma serve this function.
Prior to that, misconceptions of survival of the fittest led to the disasters of eugenics and WW2. Maybe the new think tank will
outline or draw inspiration from a new theory.
Re: "I look forward to seeing what they do, and I wish them luck."
So do I. Very much so. However, the most prominent realist Washington Think Tank is the Cato Institute. It has well spoken
advocates of realism and restraint including Christopher Preble, Doug Bandow and Ted Galen Carpenter. Unfortunately, the thoughtful
Cato scribes get very little exposure on the MSM compared to the atrocious Heritage, AEI and Brookings nests of go along to get
along Neocon / Neoliberal lackeys. It's not clear to me how and why the Quincy Institute will generate any more leverage.
I've argued many times before that the linchpin of the busted U.S. Global Cop foreign policy model is the Pentagon. As long
as the Pentagon hacks are considered the paragons of Olympian insight and wisdom by the political class and the MSM, nothing will
change.
Related to that though, there actually was a hopeful article in the Atlantic about the newest Pentagon Big Mouth, CENTCOM Commander
General General Kenneth McKenzie:
Hopefully, that is a crack in the wall of Military Exceptionalism. The sooner others start taking a 2x4 to the sanctified occupants
of the 5-Sided Pleasure Palace, knocking them off of their pedestals, the better.
BTW, the new Acting Defense Secretary and MIC Parasite Mark Esper is no friend of the taxpayers. Expect that failed Pentagon
audit that was deep-sixed by Mad Dog Mattis to stay deep-sixed with Esper in the Big Seat.
I am quite amazed that Soros and Koch bro are involved. We will wait to see how this plays out.
Jeez, who can believe this amongst the "think" tanks: "an approach to the world based on diplomacy and restraint rather than
threats, sanctions, and bombing"
"... No. My point was it's very misleading. Misleading to set the parameters of discussion on U.S. posture toward Russia in such a way as to assume that Putin's actions against a purported Russian "democracy" have anything at all to do with USian antagonism of Russia. I'm sure you'll note current U.S. military cooperation with that boisterous hotbed of democratic activity, Saudi Arabia, in Yemen. Our allies in the house of Saud require help in defending their democratic way of life against the totalitarianism of Yemeni tribes, you see. The U.S. opposes anti-democratic forces whenever and where ever it can, especially in the Middle East. I guess that explains USian antipathy to Russia. ..."
Yes, it was late and I was tired, or I wouldn't have said something so foolish. Still, the
point is that after centuries of constant war, Europe went 70 years without territorial conquest.
That strikes me as a significant achievement, and one whose breach should not be taken lightly.
phenomenal cat @64
So democratic structures have to be robust and transparent before we care about them? I'd give
a pretty high value to an independent press and contested elections. Those have been slowly crushed
in Russia. The results for transparency have not been great. Personally, I don't believe that
Ukraine is governed by fascists, or that Ukraine shot down that jetliner, but I'm sure a lot of
Russians do.
Russian leaders have always complained about "encirclement," but we don't have to believe them.
Do you really believe Russia's afraid of an attack from Estonia? Clearly what Putin wants is to
restore as much of the old Soviet empire as possible. Do you think the independence of the Baltic
states would be more secure or less secure if they weren't members of NATO? (Hint: compare to
Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova.)
"So
democratic structures have to be robust and transparent before we care about them?"
No. My point was it's very misleading. Misleading to set the parameters of discussion on
U.S. posture toward Russia in such a way as to assume that Putin's actions against a purported
Russian "democracy" have anything at all to do with USian antagonism of Russia. I'm sure you'll
note current U.S. military cooperation with that boisterous hotbed of democratic activity, Saudi
Arabia, in Yemen. Our allies in the house of Saud require help in defending their democratic way
of life against the totalitarianism of Yemeni tribes, you see. The U.S. opposes anti-democratic
forces whenever and where ever it can, especially in the Middle East. I guess that explains USian
antipathy to Russia.
"I'd give a pretty high value to an independent press and contested elections."
Yeah, it'd be interesting to see what the U.S. looked like with those dynamics in place.
"Those have been slowly crushed in Russia. The results for transparency have not been
great."
If you say so. For now I'll leave any decisions or actions taken on these outcomes to Russian
citizens. I would, however, kindly tell Victoria Nuland and her ilk to fuck off with their senile
Cold War fantasies, morally bankrupt, third-rate Great Game machinations, and total spectrum dominance
sociopathy.
"Personally, I don't believe that Ukraine is governed by fascists, or that Ukraine shot
down that jetliner, but I'm sure a lot of Russians do."
There's definitely some of 'em hanging about, but yeah it mostly seems to be a motley assortment
of oligarchs, gangsters, and grifters tied into international neoliberal capital and money flows.
No doubt Russian believe a lot things. I find Americans tend to believe a lot things as well.
ParadoxRocks says:
November
28, 2019 at 4:25 am GMT 200 Words Just as the war on terrorism has turned the West into a
self-destructive vortex that works to regenerate the causes of the evil it claims to eradicate,
the suicidal tendencies of Western culture are, in effect, the mirror image – or
monstrous double – of the suicide bomber of radical Islamic terrorism. And so, the
"Islamic other" is not so other after all. Most of the perpetrators of the terrorist attacks
that haunt us the most lived in the West, were trained in the West, shared the same experience
of globalisation, and used the same means of media communication to gain their support. These
so-called Muslim terrorists may indeed be the closest of all possible neighbours. And as such,
we must understand ourselves in a similar struggle as our Middle Eastern sisters and brothers,
where those with no-part in the existing order of things speak truth and fight for justice as
the immediate embodiment of society as such, in its universality, against the particular power
interests of the small tribe of degenerate oligarchs that are running civilization off the edge
of a cliff. For all truly emancipatory politics is generated by the intrusion of the excluded
into the socio-political space.
"... As for an Israeli owned-and-operated POTUS, one needs to look no further than the Clintonite presidency. Slick Willie owed his election success to the Jewish lobby who were intent on derailing Bush's re-election bid. Bush, after all, had the audacity to threaten to withhold U.S. guarantees of some $10 billion of Israeli debt as leverage in a proposed Arab-Israeli peace conference. ..."
"... Slick Willie opened the doors wide open to dual citizen infiltration of key positions in government ..."
"... He was also the first sitting president to openly prostrate himself at the annual Aipac convention, an event that has now become ritualized. ..."
"... The Clinton controlled Democratic party went so far as nominate that blatantly zionist lunatic Joe Lieberman for Vice President on the ticket with Al Gore in the 2000 election. ..."
"... Clinton's notorious last act - the pardon of Marc Rich,(rumoured to have been an Israeli agent) then on the FBI's most wanted list - "the then Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak, and former prime minister Shimon Peres made personal pleas to Clinton on his behalf to secure the controversial pardon."- Guardian (the money angle was a red herring) ..."
Minor quibble: Corruption of the US political, judicial and financial process, begun under
Bush-Cheney
The corruption kicked into high gear with the election of slick Willie. The tribalists went all
in to defeat Bush the elder.
As I posted previously:
As for an Israeli owned-and-operated POTUS, one needs to look no further than the Clintonite
presidency. Slick Willie owed his election success to the Jewish lobby who were intent on derailing
Bush's re-election bid. Bush, after all, had the audacity to threaten to withhold U.S. guarantees
of some $10 billion of Israeli debt as leverage in a proposed Arab-Israeli peace conference.
In May 1991, both Bush and Baker publicly called the settlements an obstacle to peace. In response,
under AIPAC's prodding, Congress began pushing Bush to release the loan guarantees on Israel's terms,
meaning Israel could use the money to build wherever it wished. On September 6th, Bush asked Congress
for a 120-day delay before considering the Israeli loan request. AIPAC pushed back, flooding Capitol
Hill with lobbyists. On September 12th, Bush called a press conference and denounced both Israeli
West Bank settlements and the Israel lobby. He told reporters he was "up against some powerful political
forces" designed to thwart him., adding that "a thousand lobbyists" were working the Hill, while
he was "one lonely guy" on the opposite side. This pushback was initially very effective: rapid
polls showed a large national majority in favor of the President and against the Israeli request,
and Congress agreed to a delay.
This was the kiss of death for Bush 41. He blamed the Israel lobby at least partially for his
defeat. The largely Jewish controlled media played a major role in "the transformation of Bush's
public image from the masterful diplomat to the out of touch preppy of a year later."
Bush's failure to stand up to Jewish power marked the end of any semblance of rationality with
regard to U.S. policy vis-à-vis the Mid-East. This lesson, a lesson of power politics, is reverberating
in the corridors of Washington to this day. Just ask Hillary.
Slick Willie opened the doors wide open to dual citizen infiltration of key positions
in government. (ex: D. Ross appointment as Middle East envoy >> Israel's lawyer)
He was also the first sitting president to openly prostrate himself at the annual Aipac
convention, an event that has now become ritualized.
The Clinton controlled Democratic party went so far as nominate that blatantly zionist
lunatic Joe Lieberman for Vice President on the ticket with Al Gore in the 2000 election.
Clinton's notorious last act - the pardon of Marc Rich,(rumoured to have been an Israeli
agent) then on the FBI's most wanted list - "the then Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak, and former
prime minister Shimon Peres made personal pleas to Clinton on his behalf to secure the controversial
pardon."- Guardian (the money angle was a red herring)
"... Aha! There you have it. Back in February 2016, Gabbard resigned her position as vice-chair of the DNC to endorse Sanders, and the DNC, controlled by establishment centrists like the Clintons as well as Barack Obama, have never forgiven her. Recently, Hillary Clinton smeared her (as well as Jill Stein, Green Party candidate from 2016) as a Russian asset, and various mainstream networks and news shows, such as "The View" and NBC, have suggested (with no evidence) she's the favored candidate of Russia and Vladimir Putin. ..."
"... Just what we don't need: two bought-and-paid-for political parties in the service of the wealthiest and the corporations. But at least the Republicans are (mostly) honest about their priorities ..."
Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard is a
compelling choice for president in 2020. She's principled, she's against America's disastrous
regimen of regime-change wars, and she's got the guts to criticize her own party for being too
closely aligned with rich and powerful interests. She's also a military veteran who enlisted in
the Army National Guard in Hawaii after the 9/11 attacks (she currently serves as a major and
deployed overseas to Iraq during that war).
What's not to like about a female veteran who oozes intelligence and independence, a woman
who represents diversity (she's a practicing Hindu and a Samoan-American), an early supporter
of Bernie Sanders who called out the DNC for its favoritism toward Hillary Clinton
Aha! There you have it. Back in February 2016, Gabbard resigned
her position as vice-chair of the DNC to endorse Sanders, and the DNC, controlled by
establishment centrists like the Clintons as well as Barack Obama, have never forgiven her.
Recently, Hillary Clinton
smeared her (as well as Jill Stein, Green Party candidate from 2016) as a Russian asset,
and various mainstream networks and news shows, such as "The View" and NBC, have suggested
(with no evidence) she's the favored candidate of Russia and Vladimir Putin.
Think about that. Hillary Clinton and much of the mainstream media are accusing a serving
major in the U.S. military of being an asset to a foreign power. It's an accusation bordering
on a charge of treason -- a charge that is libelous and recklessly irresponsible.
A reminder: Tulsi Gabbard enlisted in the military to serve her country in the aftermath of
9/11. What did Hillary Clinton do? Can you imagine Hillary going through basic training as a
private, or serving in the military in a war zone? (Hillary did falsely claim that she came
under
sniper fire in Bosnia , but that's a story for another day.)
Tulsi Gabbard is her own person. She's willing to buck the system and has shown compassion
and commitment on the campaign trail. She may be a long shot, but she deserves a long look for
the presidency, especially when you consider the (low) quality of the enemies she's made.
Reply
Whenever I post anything remotely positive about Tulsi Gabbard on Facebook, the same few
people come out to denounce her. My response is below, though I know you can't reason with
haters:
That Tulsi has been on Fox News is an argument in her favor, i.e. her crossover appeal and
her willingness to engage with the "other side." That Tulsi met with Assad is, in my view,
reasonable; true leaders are always willing to meet with "bad" people, even ruthless
dictators, in the cause of averting war. My main point is how she's being smeared as some
kind of traitor, or at least a useful idiot. She's neither. Also, I've read the piece on
Tulsi in Jacobin, and I've heard about alleged cults. Is this really the best the media can
do? Guilt by association?
Some of our readers may have concerns about Tulsi, e.g. alleged Islamophobia, alleged
cults, etc. The main point is this: Does she deserve to be smeared as a Putin puppet? What
does this say about our media? And why are they doing this? I can tell you why. Trillions of
dollars are spent on wars and weapons, and Tulsi is calling for an end to regime-change wars
and a return to diplomacy. She also, like Bernie, is willing to call out the DNC as being
against the interests of ordinary Americans -- and she's right about this. She has a lot in
her favor. I'm a Bernie fan myself, but I'll take Tulsi over all those phony "centrists" like
Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Harris, and Biden.
I can't speak to the RSS/BJP connection; I've read about it, but I admit to ignorance on the
matter. Of course, every candidate has multiple connections, positions, donors, etc. All
politicians carry baggage. So far, from what I've read, Tulsi is more principled and more
courageous than most of her peers.
I'm still a Bernie fan -- his long record of helping the poor and vulnerable speaks for
itself. Of course, he once went to Moscow oh no! Run away! 🙂
Tulsi has now done four courageous, unusual, and very positive things while merely a
candidate:
1) Tulsi effectively took down a leading contender and DNC favorite, by demonstrating that
Senator Harris had been a corrupt prosecutor.
2) Tulsi defended democracy as she sued Google for at least $50 million, for playing
favorites in search-routing of candidates.
3) Tulsi called out Hillary Clinton for the monster she is.
4) Tulsi supported a process toward 911 truth by supporting 911-victims' families' right to
see FBI documents that have been denied to them.
Tulsi is the anti-war candidate. Tulsi Gabbard should be Commander-in-Chief. Yang should
be VP and in charge of the economy. Read his book. UBI is the way to go. Tulsi needs someone
she can trust as VP.
I consider the vicious persecution of Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning -- both
languishing in prison for having committed no crime whatsoever -- along with the exile of
Edward Snowden, among the greatest travesties of justice ever committed by the U.S. and U.K.
(dishonorable mention goes to Sweden and the latest Ecuadorian government, as well). I had
hoped for this subject to come up in the "debates," giving Tulsi yet another opportunity to
shine relative to her competitors, most of whom would soil their undergarments in panic at
the thought of "crossing" the absurdly named "intelligence community" and its entirely
co-opted corporate media outlets.
If Tulsi Gabbard had done no other principled thing than this, I would have considered her
heads and shoulders above anyone else campaigning for a position in the U.S. government
today.
I ought to dedicate this one to Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard for her principled defense of
Julian Assange and Edward Snowden (and no-doubt Chelsea Manning, as well):
Star Chamber, Incorporated
Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning
Jailed as twin examples for the proles:
"Look what happens if you publish secrets:
More totalitarian controls."
In Chinese: "Kill the Chicken scare the Monkey."
Rat-out your colleagues. Do not Power tempt.
Or otherwise the judges and grand juries
Will hold you in what lawyers call "contempt."
A strange word-choice, indeed, by Power's minions
Who spend careers perfecting rank abuse.
For them I'd have to feel respect much greater
Before that is the word that I would use.
I've nothing good to say for prosecutors.
Some say I wish to "damn them with faint praise."
But I reply: "You praise with faint damnation.
So which of us has coined the the better phrase?"
Despicable, the treatment of these heroes.
The US and UK have sunk so low.
Still, Julian and Chelsea have together
More balls than these two governments can grow.
No matter, they have passed into the ages.
Already they have earned a fair renown.
Each day they live defiant, undefeated,
They rise as jailers try to put them down.
As JFK once said of his elite class:
"The ship of state leaks mainly from the top."
But if some lowly, powerless, poor person
Tries that, they'll feel the lash. No truth. Now stop!
To scare a monkey, kill another monkey.
If not, the monkeys learn impunity.
While eating KFC they ask, obtusely:
"What has a chicken got to do with me?"
And so the Corporation-State must silence
Reports of its incompetence and crime.
If citizens knew what it did they'd order
Its dissolution. Now. And just in time.
Historically, they called it the Star Chamber
A secret court designed to thwart the king.
But power then perverted it to serve him.
Grand juries in the US, same damn thing.
They now indict ham sandwiches routinely
With no protection for the innocents.
Presumed as guilty, evidence not needed.
Conviction guaranteed. No court repents.
A judge may do whatever he determines
He can. So levy fines. Coerce. Demand
On penalty of prison, testimony
Against oneself, alone upon the stand.
"Democracy" is just a euphemism
If citizens allow this to proceed.
Orwellian: first Hate then Fear of Goldstein.
Two Minutes, daily. Really, all you need.
This is a good commentary. military experience is a good thing especially when we are dealing
with the fact that over half of the national budget is devoted to the military.
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar has a thoughtful article on playing it safe, running out the clock,
prevent defense, etc., on your opponent as it would apply to politics.
Jabbar writes: Almost every poll showed her with a respectable lead over Trump just days
before the election. So, the Clinton campaign tried to run out the clock by not campaigning
much in Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, Indiana, Missouri, North Dakota, and South Dakota,
all of which turned much redder than in the previous presidential election.
The tactic of trying to pick a "safe" candidate who can beat Trump by appealing to their
ideas about Middle America sends the wrong message to all of America. No team devise a game
strategy based on fear: they emphasize their strengths and exploit their opponents'
weaknesses. The Democratic candidate shouldn't be the least objectionable, but the one who
boldly forges ahead with clear and detailed plans for Making America America Again.
Democrats can't pander to voters by denigrating Trump but then promising them Trump-lite
with a wink. Promote progressive policies and plans worthy of a party that wants to lead this
country without fear of being called "socialists" or "the radical left" or whatever else your
opposing team chants.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/oct/15/how-sports-tactics-can-help-the-democrats-beat-donald-trump-in-2020
===================================
Jabbar is correct. The Corporate Democrats among them Biden, Buttigieg and Bloomberg are
fighting desperately to preserve a perceived lead aided and abetted by the McMega-Media.
Chicago Alderman, Paddy Bauler (1890-1977) said in 1955 on the election of Daley the
Elder, "Chicago ain't ready for reform yet", or "Chicago ain't ready for a reform mayor".
Today, the pundits employed by Corporate America, along with various Democratic Party
stooges for Wall Street tell us America ain't ready for Reform.
Yes, ML, so goes American 'Exceptionalism', after WW2 Victory. Today, so goes a Great
American City in violence, all so shortsighted. I'm still confused with our never-ending wars
overseas, as our cities rot in crime & violence, my main concern. I didn't grow up
– or party! -later on in today's disaster areas of Baltimore or Philadelphia, etc.It
was GREAT!
But somethings going on I don't know about, when the WORST cities have black Congresspeople
(Maxime Waters?) living in 6.5$Mil mansions as their "districts" die.
I have NO PROBLEM with black people! Such a smear an insult. But it's worth investigating why
these characters who have ruined their cities are supporters of Dems, & Billary! Oh! They
spend & vote lavishly on more money for our wars, but nothing for their own cities!
Finally starting to figure it out: They're traitors to their own race, for their personal
benefit. They make Dems "look proud", vs "REP's!" Yes, they too re dreadful maybe that's why
I feel: TULCI GO! She's neither dreadful party!
ML: Good citation of KA-J -- - although I've seen the same-sort of criticism of the Dems
elsewhere, Kareem's sports analogy is very helpful in understanding the concept.
(I have to say that I got sick of the Dems milquetoast approach to politics. Maybe it was
an understandable response to a frustrating right-wing zeitgeist, but DAMN, did they have to
be SO passive against the Reps?? Even when they briefly held majorities in Congress under
Obama, the wouldn't introduce/push bills that weren't 'filibuster-proof'!?!? I for one might
still be voting Dem POTUS IF they had pushed those progressive bills., then let the Reps
filibuster for weeks or months, meantime the Dems & Obama could've gone in front of the
public daily and said something like "We're trying to help you by passing Bill X, but the
Reps are filibustering and stopping Congress from getting any work done!" Let the government
shut-down for a few weeks because of it and keep hammering away at the Reps for being the
BLOCKERS, etc. Call their bluff, and use it against them during elections. Instead they tried
to be overly accommodating & conciliatory BEFORE debate had even begun!)
Yes. Eddie. The Democratic Party not only gets its ass kicked for breakfast, lunch, and
dinner, but it seems to have developed something of a masochistic taste for the Republican
abuse. Hence two of my verse compositions essentially agreeing with your observations:
(1) From eight years ago. From "Hope" and "Change" to despair and the status quo. And with
a Nobel Peace Prize for Endless War, too.
Congenital Stockholm Syndrome
He started by giving up quickly,
Surrendering early his case.
He offered to kiss their asses.
Replying, they pissed in his face.
Their urine, he thought, tasted strangely;
Yet not at all bad to his taste.
He'd gotten so used to it, plainly.
Why let such a drink go to waste?
The people who voted in favor
Of him and his promise of "change"
Now see in his many betrayals
A poodle afflicted with mange.
Each time that the surly and crazy
Republicans out for his skin
Condemn him for living and breathing,
He graciously helps them to win.
He'll turn on his base in an instant
With threats and disdain and neglect
While bombing some Muslims so Cheney
Might thrill to the lives that he's wrecked.
A black man in love with apartheid
He offers his stalwart support
To Zionists and their extortion
With "More, please!" his only retort.
A masochist begging for beatings
Obama takes joy in abuse
Receiving just what he has asked for
Which makes him of no earthly use
The little brown men that he's murdered
In homes far away from our land
Bring profits obscene to his backers
Who give him the back of their hand.
Obama seeks praise from the vicious
Republicans, no matter what.
He suffers, apparently, nothing
So much as his need to kiss butt.
Michael Murry, "The Misfortune Teller," Copyright 2011
(2) From twelve years ago and on the Congressional side of the Surrender Monkey
Syndrome:
Nancy the Negotiator
Nancy the Negotiator
Gives up first; surrenders later;
Takes her cards from off the table,
Then recites her loser fable:
"We don't have the votes we need,"
Nancy says, in tones that bleed:
"Mean Republicans will whine
If we do not toe their line."
Nancy bows to George and Dick
While her skinny ass they kick;
Writes them checks both blank and rubber,
Then proceeds to lamely blubber:
"We don't like what Dubya's doing.
Still, we quite enjoy the screwing.
Masochism's what we offer,
Helping crooks to loot the coffer"
"Sure, the squandered blood and treasure
Goes to those we will not measure.
Still, we promise you'll adore us
If you mark your ballot for us."
"Choices you don't have assail you,
Leaving only us who fail you.
Nonetheless, we've gotten fatter.
Why, then, should we think you matter?"
After six years in Uncle Sam's Canoe Club (the last eighteen months of that in the
now-defunct Republic of South Vietnam) it didn't take me long to realize that the Republicans
get paid a lavish salary to do what the fabulously wealthy demand, while the Democrats get a
comparatively meager allowance to do what the Republicans tell them to do, also on behalf of
the fabulously wealthy: namely, betray their own working-class anti-war base so that the
Republicans will not have anything even remotely "leftist" to worry about. In truth, the
Democratic party crawled up its own ass and died so many years ago that I think I've lost
count.
Just what we don't need: two bought-and-paid-for political parties in the service of the
wealthiest and the corporations. But at least the Republicans are (mostly) honest about their
priorities
@ jayc in comment #6 who wrote
"
Craig Murray says that Boris Johnson was notably drunk at the Cenotaph ceremony for
Remembrance Sunday in London.
Why do the UK polls appear to show the Conservatives headed to big victory?
"
Polls are more tools of propaganda in this human time frame. Add to that in the US we
(s)elected a pussy grabbing misogynist and serial bankruptcy grifter and you might start to
understand that Boris Johnson may be an alcoholic tool of the elite that run Western
nations....and they will propagandize his mythical wonderfulness in spite of his moral
vacuousness....to a degree that enough of the masses believe in him.
I refuse to take polls anymore because the questions are always worded to get the answers
whomever is paying for the poll wants.
We hope for structural change to the Western system/social contract but keep our eyes wide
open to the obvious perfidy by the elite of today in the West...hence my steady drum beat
about those of the cult that own global private finance
"... However, Morris contends that Clinton believes that she has to "wait until Biden drops out because he's obviously next in line for it, and if he goes away, there's an opening for her." According to Morris' scenario, Clinton would become the moderate candidate opposed to the leading progressive, Elizabeth Warren. ..."
In November, Barack Obama, who had avoided commenting on the Democratic presidential
primary, came out forcefully in opposition to the extreme positions taken by some leading
progressive contenders, positions that could cause the Democrats to be beaten by Trump in the
2020 election. Obama was a very popular president among Democrats, and what he has to say
carries considerable weight with them. While this may not be his intent, Obama's position could
open the field for Hillary Clinton to enter the fray and quite possibly become the Democrats'
nominee, given the lackluster performance of leading "moderate" Joe Biden, whose weaknesses
have been brought out by the mainstream media, despite their animosity toward Trump.
Now many in the Democratic Party leadership, as well as wealthy Democratic donors, have been
concerned for some time about the radical nature of some of the economic policies advocated by
the leading progressive Democratic contenders. They fear that instead of the 2020 election
revolving around Trump with his low approval ratings, and very likely his impeachment, which
would seem to be a slam-dunk victory for Democrats, it would focus on those radical economic
proposals. Many voters are skeptical about how free college for all, free health care for all,
high-paying jobs in "green energy" -- after greatly reducing the use of fossil fuels, free
childcare for all, just to name some of the "free" things that have been promised, would really
work. Instead of raising taxes on the middle class, most of these free things would purportedly
be paid for by the super-wealthy, which would exclude mere millionaires such as Bernie Sanders
(estimated wealth $2 million) and Elizabeth Warren (estimated wealth $12 million) who are the
leading progressive contenders.
Obama began stressing his concern about the danger of radicalism in an October speech at the
Obama Foundation Summit in Chicago. And he did this not by dealing with presidential candidates
but with youth who think they can immediately change society. "This
idea of purity and you're never compromised, and you're always politically woke and all
that stuff, you should get over that quickly," Obama lectured. "The world is messy. There are
ambiguities. People who do really good stuff have flaws."
It was at a gathering of Democratic donors in Washington, D.C., in November that Obama
cautioned Democratic candidates not to go too far to the left since that would antagonize many
voters who would otherwise support the Democratic candidate. "Even as we push the envelope and
we are bold in our vision we also have to be rooted in
reality ," Obama asserted. "The average American doesn't think we have to completely tear
down the system and remake it." Although Obama did not specify particular Democratic
candidates, his warning was widely interpreted as being directed at Elizabeth Warren and Bernie
Sanders.
Currently, the leading candidate for the Democratic nomination, according to national polls,
is Joe Biden, who is considered a moderate. But Biden has a number of problems. He continues to
make gaffes while speaking, and during his long career in the Senate took positions that are
antithetical to the Democratic Party of today. Moreover, he lacks the charisma to attract large
crowds to his events. Thus, it is questionable that he has the capability to attract large
numbers of Democratic voters to the polls in November 2020.
According to Politico Magazine , Obama was recently discussing election tactics with
an unnamed current candidate and "pointed out that during his own 2008 campaign, he had an
intimate bond with the electorate" and he is quoted as adding, "And you know who really
doesn't have it ? Joe Biden."
Biden's appeal already seems to be waning. For example, in November, a Marquette Law School
poll, which is considered the gold-standard survey in swing state Wisconsin, which the
Democrats need to win the 2020 election, shows
Trump leading Biden 47 percent to 44 percent. In October, Trump had trailed Biden by 6
points (44 percent to 50 percent), and in August, Trump trailed Biden by 9 points (42 percent
to 51 percent). In short, Biden is losing support. Trump won Wisconsin in 2016 by a slender
margin of 0.77 percent, with 47.22 percent of the total votes over the 46.45 percent for
Hillary Clinton.
Another problem Biden faces is the corrupt activities of his son Hunter and brother James,
who have taken advantage of their connection with him. The mainstream media has so far largely
kept this mostly under wraps, but this tactic won't be successful as the election approaches.
In fact, the progressive Democrats such as Bernie Sanders are likely to bring this up in a
desperate effort to be nominated. And already these issues are being mentioned by the
alternative media. For instance, there is an article in the non-partisan, anti-government
Intercept
titled, "Joe Biden's Family Has Been Cashing in on His Career for Decades. Democrats Need to
Acknowledge That," and comparable articles in the conservative Washington Examiner such
as, "Hunter Biden-linked company r
eceived $130M in special federal loans while Joe Biden was vice president," and "Hunter
Biden has
99 problems , and Burisma is only one."
David Axelrod, Democratic strategist and longtime aide to Barack Obama, said concerns about
Biden's electability clearly influenced multi-billionaire (estimated $53 billion) and
former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg's entrance into the contest for the Democratic
nominee for president. "There's no question that Bloomberg's calculus was that Biden was
occupying a space, and the fact that he's getting in is a clear indication that he's not
convinced Biden has the wherewithal to carry that torch," Axelrod said. "So yeah, I don't think
this is a positive development for Joe Biden."
Similarly, Democratic strategist Brad Bannon contended that "centrist Democrats and wealthy
donors have
lost confidence in Biden's ability to stop Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders from winning
the nomination." Bannon added that with Bloomberg entering the Democratic presidential race,
"Biden's fundraising will get even shakier than it already is. There's only room for one
moderate in this race and Bloomberg threatens Biden's status as the centrist
standard-bearer."
Bloomberg's "stop and frisk"
policy as mayor , which largely targeted blacks and Hispanics, should make it virtually
impossible that he could be the Democratic nominee, despite his recent apology. Unless he has
become senile in his late 70s, Bloomberg should well understand this since he did not make his
billions by being stupid. It could be that he intends to serve as a stalking horse to draw
Hillary Clinton into the contest by showing the weakness of Biden. Then like Superwoman,
Hillary can enter the fray, appearing not to act for her own sake but to save the country from
a likely second term for President Trump.
Similarly, Mark Penn, who was chief strategist for Clinton's unsuccessful 2008 presidential
campaign, said Bloomberg's entrance
could cause Clinton to consider to run and decide there's "still a political logic there for
her."
As Biden's support slips away, Clinton's should rise. Clinton has been recently promoting a
book she co-wrote with her daughter, Chelsea, in Britain. In an interview with BBC Radio 5
Live , Clinton said "many, many, many people" are
pressuring her to jump into the 2020 presidential race and that she thinks about this "all
the time." Clinton told the host that she is under "enormous pressure" but said it is not in
her plans, though she cryptically added that she would "never say never."
Dick Morris, who was once a close confidant of the Clintons during Bill Clinton's time as
Arkansas governor and U.S. president recently said in a radio interview that Hillary Clinton
likely wants to run for the presidency in 2020. "My feeling is that
she wants to ," Morris said. "She feels entitled to do it. She feels compelled to do it.
She feels that God put her on the Earth to do it. But she's hesitant because she realizes the
timing is bad."
However, Morris contends that Clinton believes that she has to "wait until Biden drops out
because he's obviously next in line for it, and if he goes away, there's an opening for her."
According to Morris' scenario, Clinton would become the moderate candidate opposed to the
leading progressive, Elizabeth Warren.
Morris has not been in touch with the Clintons for many years, and has become strongly
critical of them, so his claim might be questionable. Nonetheless, his portrayal of Hillary's
current thinking seems quite reasonable.
A Fox News poll included Clinton along with the active Democratic candidates in a
hypothetical election with Trump, and Hillary came out ahead of him by two percentage
points. While some actual candidates did somewhat better than Hillary, she did quite well for
someone who is not currently running for office.
Furthermore, a Harris Harvard poll in late October asked the question, "Suppose Hillary
Clinton, Michael Bloomberg, and John Kerry decides [sic] to enter the race, who would you
support as a candidate for President?" Joe Biden received the support of 19 percent of Democrat
respondents while Clinton was a
close second with 18 percent. Elizabeth Warren came in third at 13 percent, John Kerry was
at 8 percent, and Bloomberg was at 6. Again, Clinton does quite well for someone who is not
actually running for president.
One might think that if references to family members' corruption damaged Biden, then Clinton
would be subject to worse damage in that area, since she and her husband Bill were connected
with far more corrupt activities -- Whitewater, Travelgate, the Lewinsky affair, the Paula
Jones affair, t the death of Vince Foster, the Clinton Foundation, her private server, and so
on. But these issues are already known and are presumably already taken into account by the
voters, whereas the Biden family's corrupt activities are so far largely unknown.
It should be pointed out that Clinton has a number of positives as a presidential candidate.
Although losing in the Electoral College in 2016, Clinton had garnered 3 million more votes
more than Trump. The election was decided by a total of 80,000 votes in three states. It is
highly unlikely that such a fluke could be duplicated.
Clinton's staff had been overconfident assuming victory, which was based on their polling of
various states, and as a result began to focus on competing in states well beyond those Clinton
needed for victory.
Moreover, one key event outside the control of Clinton's staff was FBI Director James
Comey's investigation of Clinton's use of a personal email server during her tenure as
secretary of state. Most crucial were his July 2016 public statement terminating the
investigation, with a lengthy comment about what Clinton did wrong, and his October 28
reopening the inquiry into newly discovered emails and then closing it two days before the
election, stating that the emails had not provided any new information. The October 28 letter,
however, probably played a key role in the outcome of the election. As statistician Nate Silver
maintains: "Hillary Clinton would probably be president
if FBI Director James Comey had not sent a letter to Congress on Oct. 28. The letter, which
said the FBI had 'learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the
investigation into the private email server that Clinton used as secretary of state, upended
the news cycle and soon halved Clinton's lead in the polls, imperiling her position in the
Electoral College.'"
[Silver's organization FiveThirtyEight had projected a much higher chance (29
percent) of Donald Trump winning the presidency than most other pollsters]
Clinton has also helped to convince many Democrats and members of the mainstream media that
the 2016 election was stolen from her by Russian agents If this were really true – which
is very doubtful – then Hillary should be the Democrats' candidate for 2020 since Russian
intervention should not be as successful as it allegedly was in 2016.
In endorsing Hillary Clinton for president in 2016, Obama stated. "I don't think that
there's ever been someone
so qualified to hold this office." He has yet to make such an endorsement for Biden and
privately, as mentioned earlier, said he is a poor choice for a nominee. He might ultimately
endorse Biden, but he certainly would not renege on what he said four years ago about Clinton
if she became the Democrats' standard-bearer.
Should Clinton opt to run, she would have no trouble raising money since she set a record in
2016 of $1.4 billion
and wealthy donors want a moderate to be the Democratic nominee. It would seem likely that she
would enter the contest if Biden has serious trouble. She would miss some state primaries since
it would be too late to register in them but given the crowded field of candidates, there is a
likelihood that there will be a brokered convention, that is, the convention will go past the
first ballot. Since the superdelegates would be allowed to vote in all rounds after the first,
they could determine the winner, which would probably mean the selection of a candidate who
would be seen to have the greatest chance of winning, and that would likely be Hillary Clinton,
if she has entered the fray.
I discussed the merits of Pete Buttigieg in a previous article in
Unz Review, and what I write here might seem to conflict with that. However, while Buttigieg is
doing quite well
in the polls, he still does not get much support
from blacks and Latinos, which is essential to become the Democrats nominee for president.
Buttigieg could, however, be nominated for vice president or, more likely, given an important
cabinet position since the vice-presidential slot would probably be reserved for a black or
Latino if a white person were picked as the presidential nominee, which currently seems
likely.
But because of Buttigieg's relatively hardline foreign policy
, which largely meshes with that of Clinton's, and his wide knowledge and language ability,
Buttigieg would fit well in the all-important position of secretary of state in a Clinton
administration. Moreover, Buttigieg, whose tenure as mayor of South Bend, Indiana, will end in
January 2020, would almost certainly be willing to take such a position, which could serve as a
jumping-off point for the presidency in the future.
"... This time frame gives a lot of latitude to both hacks and leaks happening on that server and still agrees with the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPs). According to Bill Binney, the former Technical Director for the NSA, the only way that data could move off the server that fast was through a download to a USB stick. The transfer rate of the file does not agree with a Guciffer 2.0 hack and the information surrounding Guciffer 2.0 is looking ridiculous and impossible at best. ..."
Here's what's different in the information I've compiled.
The group I previously identified as Fancy Bear was given access to request password
privileges at the DNC. And it looks like the DNC provided them with it.
I'll show why the Podesta email hack looks like a revenge hack.
The reason Republican opposition research files were stolen can be put into context now
because we know who the hackers are and what motivates them.
At the same time this story developed, it overshadowed the Hillary Clinton email scandal.
It is a matter of public record that Team Clinton provided the DNC hackers with passwords to
State Department servers on at least 2 occasions, one wittingly and one not. I have already
clearly shown the Fancy Bear hackers are Ukrainian Intelligence Operators.
This gives some credence to the Seth Rich leak (DNC leak story) as an act of patriotism.
If the leak came through Seth Rich, it may have been because he saw foreign Intel operatives
given this access from the presumed winners of the 2016 US presidential election. No
political operative is going to argue with the presumed president-elect over foreign policy.
The leaker may have been trying to do something about it. I'm curious what information
Wikileaks might have.
The real crime of the DNC hack wasn't the hack.
If only half of the following proved true in context and it's a matter of public record,
that makes the argument to stop funding for Ukraine immediately barring an investigation of
high crimes by Ukrainian Diaspora, Democrat, and Republican leaders in Congress, private
Intel for hire, and Ukrainian Intel's attacks on the US government and political
processes.
Perhaps it's time Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump should consider treason investigations
across the board. Make America great again by bringing justice and civility back.
DNC
Hack – High Crimes or Misdemeanors?
So what went on at the DNC way back in 2016? Do you know? Was it a hack or a leak? Does it
matter?
Recently, an investigative journalist who writes under the name Adam Carter was raked over
the coals. Carter writes at Disobedient
Media and has been providing a lot of
evidence supporting the DNC leak story former Ambassador Craig Murray and Wikileaks claim
happened.
When the smear article came out and apparently it's blossoming into a campaign, a few
people that read both of us wrote to the effect "looks like your work is the only thing left
standing." I immediately rebuffed the idea and said Carter's work stands on its own . It has nothing to do with
anything I've written, researched, or plan to.
I'd say the same about Scott Humor ,
Lee Stranahan ,
Garland Nixon ,
Petri
Krohn , or Steve McIntyre
. And there are many others. There has been a lot of good work on the DNC hacks and 2016
election interference. Oftentimes, what looks like contradictory information is complimentary
because what each journalist is working on shows the story from a different angle.
There are a lot of moving parts to the story and even a small change in focus brings an
entirely new story because it comes from a different direction.
Here's what I mean. If the DNC hack was really a leak, does that kill the "hack" story?
No, it doesn't and I blame a lot of activist journalists for making the assumption that it
has to work this way. If Seth Rich gave Ambassador Craig Murray a USB stick with all the
"hacked info," it doesn't change an iota of what I've written and the evidence you are about
to read stands on its own. But, this has divided people into camps before the whole situation
could be scrutinized and that's still not done yet.
If for example you have a leak on Jan 5th , can you have "a hack" on Jan 6th , 7th, or
8th? Since there is so much crap surrounding the supposed hack such as law enforcement teams
never examining the DNC server or maintaining control of it as evidence, could the hacks have
been a cover-up?
Democratic National Committee Chair Donna Brazile said Russian hackers persisted in
trying to break into the organization's computers "daily, hourly" until after the election
-- contradicting President Obama's assertion that the hacking stopped in September after he
warned Russian President Vladimir Putin to "cut it out."-ABC
This time frame gives a lot of latitude to both hacks and leaks happening on that server
and still agrees with the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPs). According to
Bill Binney, the former Technical Director for the NSA, the only way that data could move
off the server that
fast was through a download to a USB stick. The transfer rate of the file does not agree
with a Guciffer 2.0 hack and the information surrounding Guciffer 2.0 is looking ridiculous
and impossible at best.
The DNC fiasco isn't that important of a crime. The reason I say this is the FBI would
have taken control over material evidence right away. No law enforcement agency or Intel
agency ever did. This means none of them considered it a crime Comey should have any part of
investigating. That by itself presents the one question mark which destroys any hope Mueller
has proving law enforcement maintained a chain of custody for any evidence he introduces.
It also says the US government under Barrack Obama and the victimized DNC saw this as a
purely political event. They didn't want this prosecuted or they didn't think it was
prosecutable.
Once proven it shows a degree of criminality that makes treason almost too light a charge
in federal court. Rest assured this isn't a partisan accusation. Team Clinton and the DNC
gets the spotlight but there are Republicans involved.
Identifying Team Fancy Bear
There are a couple of caveats that need to be made when
identifying the Fancy Bear hackers . The first is the
identifier used by Mueller as Russian FSB and GRU may have been true- 10 years ago. This
group was on the run trying to stay a step ahead of Russian law enforcement until October
2016. So we have part of the Fancy bear hacking group identified as Ruskie traitors and
possibly former Russian state security. The majority of the group are Ukrainians making up
Ukraine's Cyber Warfare groups.
The hackers, OSINT, Cyber, spies, terrorists, etc call themselves volunteers to keep safe
from State level retaliation, even though a child can follow the money. As volunteers
motivated by politics and patriotism they are protected to a degree from retribution.
They don't claim State sponsorship or governance and the level of attack falls below the
threshold of military action. Mueller has a lot of latitude for making the attribution
Russian, even though the attacks came from Ukrainian Intel. Based on how the rules are
written, because the few members of the coalition from Shaltai Boltai are Russian in
nationality, Fancy Bear can be attributed as a Russian entity for the purposes of
retribution. The caveat is if the attribution is proven wrong, the US will be liable for
damages caused to the State which in this case is Russia.
How large is the Fancy Bear unit? According to their propaganda section InformNapalm, they
have the ability to research and work in over 30 different languages.
This can be considered an Information Operation against the people of the United States
and of course Russia. We'll get to why shortly.
From all this information we know the Russian component of Team Fancy Bear is Shaltai
Boltai. We know the Ukrainian Intel component is called CyberHunta and Ukraine Cyber Alliance
which includes the hacker group RUH8. We know both groups work/ worked for Ukrainian
Intelligence. We know they are grouped with InformNapalm which is Ukraine's OSINT unit. We
know their manager is a Ukrainian named Kristina Dobrovolska. And lastly, all of the above
work directly with the Atlantic Council and Crowdstrike's Dimitry Alperovich.
In short, the Russian-Ukrainian partnership that became Fancy Bear started in late 2013 to
very early 2014 and ended in October 2016 in what appears to be a squabble over the alleged
data from the Surkov leak.
But during 2014,2015, and 2016 Shaltai Boltai, the Ukrainian Cyber Alliance, and
CyberHunta went to work for the DNC as opposition researchers.
The First Time Shaltai
Boltai was Handed the Keys to US Gov Servers
The setup to this happened long before the partnership with Ukrainian Intel hackers and
Russia's Shaltai Boltai was forged. The hack that gained access to US top-secret servers
happened just after the partnership was cemented after Euro-Maidan.
"After Abedin sent an unspecified number of sensitive emails to her Yahoo account, half a
billion Yahoo accounts were hacked by Russian cybersecurity expert and Russian intelligence
agent, Igor Sushchin, in 2014. The hack, one of the largest in history, allowed Sushchin's
associates to access email accounts into 2015 and 2016."
Igor Sushchin was part of the Shaltai Boltai hacking group that is charged with the Yahoo
hack.
The time frame has to be noted. The hack happened in 2014. Access to the email accounts
continued through 2016. The Ukrainian Intel partnership was already blossoming and Shaltai
Boltai was working from Kiev, Ukraine.
So when we look at the INFRASTRUCTURE HACKS, WHITE HOUSE HACKS, CONGRESS, start with
looking at the time frame. Ukraine had the keys already in hand in 2014.
The DNC's Team
Fancy Bear
The "Fancy Bear hackers" may have been given the passwords to get into the servers at the
DNC because they were part of the Team Clinton opposition research team. It was part of their
job. Let that concept settle in for a moment.
According to
Politico "In an interview this month, Chalupa told Politico she had developed a network
of sources in Kiev and Washington, including investigative journalists , government officials
and private intelligence operatives . While her consulting work at the DNC this past election
cycle centered on mobilizing ethnic communities -- including Ukrainian-Americans -- she said
that, when Trump's unlikely presidential campaign began surging in late 2015, she began
focusing more on the research, and expanded it to include Trump's ties to Russia, as well
."
The only investigative journalists, government officials, and private intelligence
operatives that work together in 2014-2015-2016 Ukraine are Shaltai Boltai, CyberHunta,
Ukraine Cyber Alliance, and the Ministry of Information.
Since 2014 in Ukraine, these are the only OSINT, hacking, Intel, espionage, terrorist,
counter-terrorism, cyber, propaganda, and info war channels officially recognized and
directed by Ukraine's Information Ministry. Along with their American colleagues, they
populate the hit-for-hire website Myrotvorets with people who stand against Ukraine's
criminal activities.
Alexandra
Chalupa hired this particular hacking terrorist group called Fancy Bear by Dimitry
Alperovich and Crowdstrike at the latest in 2015. While the Ukrainian hackers worked for the
DNC, Fancy Bear had to send in progress reports, turn in research, and communicate on the
state of the projects they were working on. Let's face it, once you're in, setting up your
Fancy Bear toolkit doesn't get any easier. This is why I said the DNC hack isn't the big
crime. It's a big con and all the parties were in on it.
Indict Team Clinton for the
DNC Hacks and RNC Hack
Hillary Clinton
exposed secrets to hacking threats by using private email instead of secured servers.
Given the information provided she was probably being monitored by our intrepid Ruskie-Ukie
union made in hell hackers. Anthony Weiner exposed himself and his wife
Huma Abedin using Weiner's computer for top-secret State Department emails. And of course
Huma Abedin exposed herself along with her top-secret passwords at Yahoo and it looks like
the hackers the DNC hired to do opposition research hacked her.
Here's a question. Did Huma Abedin have Hillary Clinton's passwords for her private email
server? It would seem logical given her position with Clinton at the State Department and
afterward. This means that Hillary Clinton and the US government top secret servers were most
likely compromised by Fancy Bear before the DNC and Team Clinton hired them by using
legitimate passwords.
The RNC Hack
According to the Washington Post , "Russian government hackers penetrated the computer
network of the Democratic National Committee and gained access to the entire database of
opposition research on GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump, according to committee
officials and security experts who responded to the breach."
In January
2017 , criminal proceedings started for Edward Nedelyaev under articles 335 'spying' and
343
'inciting hatred or enmity." He was a member of the Aidar battalion. Aidar members have
been cited for torture and murder. Although the translation isn't available on the linked
video the MGB (LNR equivalent to the FBI) ask Aidar's Nedelyaev about his relationship with
Ukraine's SBU. The SBU asked him to hack US presidential candidate Donald Trump's election
headquarters and he refused. Asked if this was through convictions, he says no, explaining
that he is not a hacker.
The video was published on January 10, 2017 .
Taken at face value it really does show the ineptness of the SBU after 2014. This is why
Ukraine relied (s) on the Diaspora financed Shaltai Boltai, CyberHunta, Ukraine Cyber
Alliance, RUH8, Bellingcat, Webradius, InformNapalm and associated parties.
The Ukrainians were hired to get the goods on Trump. Part of that is knowing where to
start isn't it?
Fancy Bear's Second Chance at Top Secret Passwords From Team
Clinton
How stupid would the Fancy Bear teams of Shaltai Boltai, CyberHunta, Ukrainian Cyber
Alliance, and RUH8 be if they had access to the DNC servers which makes it easier to get into
the US State servers and not do that if it was their goal?
One very successful method of hacking is called social engineering. You gain access to the
office space and any related properties and physically locate the passwords or clues to get
you into the hardware you want to hack. This includes something as simple as looking over the
shoulder of the person typing in passwords.
Let's be clear. The Fancy Bear hackers were hired by Alexandra Chalupa to work for DNC
opposition research. On different occasions, Fancy Bear handler Kristina Dobrovolska traveled
to the US to meet the Diaspora leaders, her boss Alexandra Chalupa, Irena Chalupa, Andrea
Chalupa, US Dept of State personnel, and most likely Crowdstrike's Dimitry Alperovich.
Alperovich was working with the hackers in 2015-16. In 2016, the only groups known to have
Fancy Bear's signature tools called X-tunnel and X-Agent were Alperovich, Crowdstrike, and
Fancy Bear (Shaltai Boltai, CyberHunta, Ukraine Cyber Alliance, and RUH8/RUX8. Yes, that does
explain a few things.
Here is where it goes from bad to outright Fancy Bear ugly.
Hillary Clinton retained State Dept. top secret clearance passwords for 6 of her former
staff for research purposes from 2013 through prepping for the 2016 election. Were any
foreigners part of the opposition research team for Team Hillary in 2014-2015-2016? The
Clinton's don't have a history of vetting security issues well.
Let's recap. Clinton keeps 6 top secret passwords for research staff. Alexandra Chalupa is
running a research department that is rich in (foreign) Ukrainian Intelligence operatives,
hackers, terrorists, and a couple Ruskie traitors.
Kristina Dobrovolska was acting as a handler and translator for the US State Department in
2016. She is the Fancy Bear *opposition researcher handler manager. Kristina goes to
Washington to meet with Chalupa.
Alexandra types in her password to show Dobrovolska something she found and her eager to
please Ukrainian apprentice finds the keystrokes are seared into her memory. She tells the
Fancy Bear crew about it and they immediately get to work looking for Trump material on the
US secret servers with legitimate access. I mean, what else could they do with this? Turn
over sensitive information to the ever corrupt Ukrainian government?
According to
the Politico article , Alexandra Chalupa was meeting with the Ukrainian embassy in June
of 2016 to discuss getting more help sticking it to candidate Trump. At the same time she was
meeting, the embassy had a reception that highlighted female Ukrainian leaders.
Accompanying them Kristina Dobrovolska who was a U.S. Embassy-assigned government liaison
and translator who escorted the delegates from Kyiv during their visits to Albany and
Washington.
Kristina Dobrovolska is the handler manager working with Ukraine's DNC Fancy Bear Hackers
. She took the Rada members to dinner to meet Joel Harding who designed Ukraine's infamous
Information Policy which opened up their kill-for-hire-website Myrotvorets. Then she took
them to meet the Ukrainian Diaspora leader doing the hiring. Nestor Paslawsky is the
surviving nephew to the infamous torturer The WWII OUNb leader, Mykola Lebed.
The
Podesta Hack – Don't Mess with OUNb Parkhomenko
I have no interest in reviewing his history except for a few points. Adam
Parkhomenko, a Diaspora Ukrainian nationalist almost gained a position in the presumed
Clinton White House. As a Ukrainian nationalist, his first loyalty, like any other Ukrainian
nationalist, is to a fascist model of Ukraine which Stepan Bandera devised but with a win it
would be in America.
During the 2016 primaries, it was Parkhomenko who accused Bernie Sanders of working for
Vladimir Putin. Parkhomenko has never really had a job outside the Clinton campaign.
<img
src="https://www.mintpressnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/PARKHOMENKO-twitter.com-2018.08.14-04-34-11.png"
alt="Adam Parkhomenko" width="355" height="454"
srcset="https://www.mintpressnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/PARKHOMENKO-twitter.com-2018.08.14-04-34-11.png
355w,
https://www.mintpressnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/PARKHOMENKO-twitter.com-2018.08.14-04-34-11-235x300.png
235w" sizes="(max-width: 355px) 100vw, 355px" /> Before Clinton declared her candidacy,
Parkhomenko started a PAC for Hillary Clinton with the goal of getting millions of people
email lists so the support was ready for a Clinton run. After she declared her candidacy,
Robby Mook, Hillary's campaign manager decided to sideline Parkhomenko and didn't take on his
full staff as promised. He reduced Parkomenko to a quiet menial position when he was brought
onboard.
Ultimately, Podesta became responsible for this because he gave Parkhomenko assurances
that his staff would be brought on and there would be no gaps in their paycheck. Many of them
including Parkhomenko's family moved to Brooklyn. And of course, that didn't happen. Podesta
was hacked in March and the Ukrainian nationalist Adam Parkhomenko was hired April 1st .
Today, Parkhomenko is working as a #DigitalSherlock with the Atlantic Council along with
the Fancy Bear hackers and many of the people associated with them. Why could this be a
revenge hack?
The Ukrainian Intel hackers are Pravy Sektor Ukrainian nationalists. Alexandra Chalupa is
also an OUNb Bandera Ukrainian nationalist. This Ukrainian nationalist was on his way to
becoming one of the most powerful people in America. That's why.
The DNC Leak- A
Patriotic Act
At the same time her aides were creating "loyalty scores ", Clinton, "instructed a
trusted aide to access the campaign's server and download the messages sent and received by
top staffers. She believed her campaign had failed her -- not the other way around -- and
she wanted 'to see who was talking to who, who was leaking to who.2'" After personally
reading the email correspondence of her staffers, she called them into interviews for the
2016 campaign, where she confronted them with some of the revelations."-
Forget about the DNC. The hackers may have spent months surfing the US secret servers
downloading and delivering top secret diplomatic files to their own government. The people
entrusted with this weren't just sloppy with security, this is beyond treason.
It doesn't matter if it was Seth Rich, though I hope it was ( for identification's sake),
who downloaded data from the DNC servers. The reasons supporting a leak are described by the
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). This shows clearly why the leak to
Wikileaks is much more plausible than a hack for the files taken in what is commonly called
the DNC hack. This leak was one "hack" of many that was going on.
Imagine being this person inside the situations described above with the reality hitting
you that things were very wrong. Even if they only saw parts of it, how much is too much? US
government secrets were being accessed and we know this because the passwords were given out
to the research teams the hackers were on.
It is very possible that giving the files to Wikileaks was the only safe way to be a
whistleblower with a Democrat president supporting Team Hillary even as Team Hillary was
cannibalizing itself. For detail on how the leak happened, refer to Adam Carter at
DisobedientMedia.com and the VIPS themselves.
Today, this isn't a Democrat problem. It could just as easily been an establishment
Republican.
Ukraine needs to pay for what their Intel Operators/ hackers have done. Stop funding
Ukraine other than verifiable humanitarian aid. Call your Congressional Rep.
Next up – We are going to look at who has oversight over this operation and who's
footing the bills.
Showed clearly why Mueller's evidence is rife with fraudulent data.
We solved the DNC Hack-Leaks and showed the how and why of what went on.
If you want to support investigative research with a lot of depth, please support my
Patreon page. You can also
support my work through PayPal as we expand in new directions over the coming year. For the
last 4 years, it's been almost entirely self-supportive effort which is something when you
consider I live in Donbass.
Top Photo | Former Democratic National Committee chair Donna Brazile holds a copy of her
book Hacks, detailing the hacking of the DNC, during a meeting of The Commonwealth Club, Nov.
9, 2017, in San Francisco. Marcio Jose Sanchez | AP
George Eliason is an American journalist that lives and works in Donbass. He has been
interviewed by and provided analysis for RT, the BBC, and Press-TV. His articles have been
published in the Security Assistance Monitor, Washingtons Blog, OpedNews, the Saker, RT,
Global Research, and RINF, and the Greanville Post among others. He has been cited and
republished by various academic blogs including Defending History, Michael Hudson, SWEDHR,
Counterpunch, the Justice Integrity Project, among others.
Republish our stories! MintPress News is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 International License.
WSJ columnist today raises an old obscure issue today about the Clinton emails and Comey's
calculated exoneration of Clinton's culpability.
This story reopens the claim Comey had a report there was an email exchange between
Loretta Lynch and Clinton claiming Lynch promised her the DOJ would go easy on Clinton. Comey
claimed when confronted with this memo, Lynch merely smiled like the Cheshire cat and nothing
more was done.
This memo was later discredited as an alleged planted Russian hoax. Yet the memo story is
again put in lead position on the opinion pages of the WSJ this very morning. Why was that?
Not clear, but does the author think this alleged Lynch-Clinton campaign exchange will be
part of the upcoming Horowitz report?
(WSJ: 11/27/19 - Holman Jenkins, Jr. - "Who will turn over the 2016 rocks")
Guccifer 2.0
certainly didn't make a genuine effort to "conceal a Russian identity," far from it.
The
persona made decisions that would leave behind a demonstrable trail of Russian-themed
breadcrumbs, examples include:
US politics (domestic)
Choosing the Russian VPN Service (using the publicly accessible default server in France) in combination with a mail service provider that would forward the sender's IP address.
Creating a blog and dropping a Russian emoticon in the second paragraph of the first post, something he only ever did one other time over months of activity (in which he used at a far higher frequency).
Tainting documents with Russian language metadata.
Going through considerable effort to ensure Russian language errors were in the first documents provided to the press.
Probable use of a VM set to Russian timezone while manipulating documents so that datastore objects with timestamps implying a Russian timezone setting are saved (in one of the documents, change tracking had been left on and recorded someone in a PST timezone saving one of Guccifer 2.0's documents after the documents had being manipulated in the Russian timezones!)
The deliberate and inconsistent mangling of English language (which was actually inconsistent with aspects of English language that Russians typically struggle with).
Guccifer 2.0 claimed credit for a hack that was already being attributed to Russians without making any effort to counter that perception and only denied it when outright questioned on it.
Progressive journalist Michael Tracey claimed Tuesday that MSNBC is has dropped all
pretenses for their "contempt" towards Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii).
The political news contributor said the left-leaning network has treated her fellow 2020
Democratic candidates, including businessman Andrew Yang , and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) unfairly, but he argued
that with Gabbard it, "crosses a certain threshold."
"Fundamentally they're beholden to whatever the market incentives are and right now it's
within their market interests to depict Tulsi as an infiltrator, as a Trojan horse in the
Democratic Party and not deal on the substance with what she's saying which is why over and
over again they tar her as a Russian plant essentially," Tracey told Hill.TV.
"There's nobody who can really offer any kind countervailing view because it's just not
economically advantageous for them at this point," he added.
MSNBC didn't immediately return Hill.TV's request for comment.
Tracey pointed to a fiery exchange between Gabbard and Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) during last week's 2020
primary debate as a prime example.
During the debate, Harris accused Gabbard of being a conservative media darling and
consistently going on Fox News to bash President Obama during his tenure.
"I think that it's unfortunate that we have someone on this stage who is attempting to be
the Democratic nominee for president of the United States, who, during the Obama
administration, spent four years full-time on Fox News criticizing President Obama," Harris
said.
Gabbard dismissed the criticism, calling it "ridiculous."
The California senator also hit Gabbard over her meeting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad,
who U.S. officials have accused of being a war criminal. Harris concluded her attack by saying
that Democrats need a candidate who can take on President Trump as well as "bring the party and
the nation together."
The back-and-forth came after Gabbard criticized the Democratic Party of fashioning outdated
foreign policies "represented "by Hillary Clinton and others' foreign
policy."
"Our Democratic Party unfortunately is not the party that is of, by and for the people. It
is a party that has been and continues to be influenced by the foreign policy establishment in
Washington, represented by Hillary Clinton and others' foreign policy, by the military
industrial complex and other greedy, corporate interests," she said.
Leading up to the fifth Democratic debate, Gabbard engaged in a weeks-long feud with Clinton
after the former Democratic presidential nominee said the Hawaii lawmaker was "the favorite of
the Russians."
"... and now Obama weighs in to warn against the real danger to the democrats, Bernie Sanders. that's who they have to beat, and Gabbard. They don't give much of a damn about beating Trump. ..."
"... This pretty much confirms my and many others here hypothesis that the Dems are fighting a "war on two fronts": one against Trump nationalist capitalism and the other against the "democratic socialists" who have been flocking to their party machine since 2014. ..."
"... Clearly, the goal is to prevent the US Polity from clawing back power from the 10% and enacting policies to their benefit. Meanwhile, a new form of Transnational Nationalism continues to take shape that will soon present a serious threat to the Financialized Globalizers and their Cult of Debt. Too many seem to laugh off the entire situation by dismissing it as Kabuki Theatre, which I see as self-serving and shortsighted since there're several very real crises we're in up to our collective armpits. ..."
"... A full blown impeachment trial that exposes the entire Russia-gate/Ukraine-gate/Whatever-gate sham is what this country needs. ..."
"... Bet the MSM sells Ukrainegate this way: Trump is guilty in Ukrainegate and should be impeached, but Democrats are moving on to focus on the election. And besides, Dems will tell us, the dastardly Republicans in the Senate will corruptly block Trump's impeachment. ..."
"... That is what they call a "trial balloon." If there isn't too much of a freakout among the true-believer base, and I don't think there is, it'll be an option they will at least take seriously. Not that I'm encouraging anyone to bet on rational thinking at this point. Anyway I agree it's the best move for congressional Democrats. ..."
"... I am liking all the commenters here that understand that there is only one empire party with two mythical faces. I think this kabuki is necessary if you don't have a major WAR to keep the masses focused on or otherwise distracted from the underlying R2P which I translate to Rape2Protect. ..."
"... If this show should teach people in the US anything (again), it is how both US parties descend like vultures onto countries where they manage to take over the government. Five billion poured into Ukraine with the requisite murder and mayhem, and who knows how many billions come pouring back out. It's a real jackpot for those in the right positions to scoop it into their pockets. ..."
"... The average people in the US don't even have a genuine safety net. Important for all those productive resources to go to pedophile islands and sinecures for coke head sons of politicians, obviously. ..."
"... The GOP is the party of the rich. The Democrats are the party the rich pay to keep the left at bay when the Republicans lose. ..."
"... the deck is stacked even more against independents than it is against actual mildly leftist candidates who run as democrats. there are a substantial number of people who think the only way to change the country is to take over the democratic party. frankly, that isn't going to happen, and nobody is going to win as an independent candidate with all the procedural rules making it so hard to even get on the ballot, while the state government, which is invariably controlled by one of the two parties, throws every roadblock, legal and illegal, in the way. my gut feeling is things are going to have to get quite a bit worse before the citizenry starts to explode, and there's no telling how that process will work out, and no way to control it once it reaches critical mass. ..."
"... the Democrats won't want to censure Trump for matters in which they themselves are equally complicit, as has been discussed here. ..."
"... "The party's true function is thus largely theatrical. It doesn't exist to fight for change, but only to pose as a force which one fine distant day might possibly bestir itself to fight for change. Thus the whole magic of the Dem Party -- the essential service it renders to the US power structure -- lies not in what it does, but in its mere existence: by simply existing, and doing nothing, it pretends to be something it's not; and this is enough to relieve despair & to let the system portray itself as a "democracy." ..."
"... Trump is up against an entrenched powerful bureaucracy and people who buy ink by the 55 gallon barrel. The democrats need to take a hard turn towards Mayor Pete and Tulsi. The rank and file Democrats are tired of the elite political class ..."
"... The real Trump move would be to hit the twitter right before the house impeachment vote and announce that he has instructed the House Republicans to vote for impeachment. ..."
"... He could lay out his story about how the American People never got to hear the full story because of house dems, and how the Senate would fully investigate the 2016 election, Russiagate, Ukraine, and whatever else they want. Maybe even make Hillary testify. Heads would explode and his base would love it. ..."
"... To the people here clamoring for Bernie Sanders to go independent: The American electoral system is very unique. The two parties -- GOP and Dems -- are much more than mere political parties: they are the American electoral machine itself. It is impossible to win the presidency without being the candidate of one of the two, that's why Trump also didn't go as an independent either. ..."
"An impeachment trial in the Senate would be a disaster for the Democrats.
I can not see why the Democrats would want to fall into such a trap. House leader Nancy
Pelosi is experienced enough to not let that happen."
The real reason in my opinion that Pelosi went along with impeachment was that she saw
Bernies message getting through, and even though the DNC pushed all the conserva-dem
candidates they could into the race, Bernie is still doing well and gaining. An impeachment
trial would require Bernie to attend the hearings rather that campaigning. Also Wall Streets
best friend Obama has just stated that Bernie is not a Democrat and that would require Obama
to get on the speaking circuit to campaign against him - you know for the sake of the
corporations - and those 500k speaking thank you gigs. They would rather elect Trump than
Bernie - that is why I think Pelosi would go along with an impeachment trial in the Senate -
Bernie is the greater threat.
The idea to censure Trump and move on has been aired since mid 2017. The latest was
Forbes.com billwhalen 26 September 2019
Link
I ordered a truckload of pop corn to snack on during the trial in the Senate. Just imagine
Joe Biden under cross examination as he flips 'n flops! "Was that me in the Video, I can't
recall."
With interest (even among Democrats) in the impeachment process sliding, the House
Judiciary Committee is set to take over the impeachment probe of President Trump next week,
scheduling a Dec. 4 hearing.
As The Hill reports, behind Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), the committee
will hear from legal scholars as Democrats weigh whether the evidence turned up in their
weeks-long impeachment inquiry warrants the drafting of articles aimed at removing the
president from office.
The hearing, scheduled for next Wednesday, will focus on the definition of an
impeachable offense and the formal application of the impeachment process. The panel
will invite White House lawyers to attend and participate.
Ahead of the hearing, Nadler wrote to Trump requesting his participation - or
that of White House counsel - as part of ensuring "a fair and informative process."[.]
Trump will take a page from the other president who campaigned on the "do nothing
congress"
and now Obama weighs in to warn against the real danger to the democrats, Bernie Sanders.
that's who they have to beat, and Gabbard. They don't give much of a damn about beating
Trump.
b, there seems to be a critical flaw in your analysis--you seem to base it on a premise that
the goal of the Democratic establishment is to win elections/gain power/govern. It's not,
it's to ensure the continuing enrichment of themselves and their oligarch peers, financial
industry, military, pharma, etc.
The question people like Pelosi (worth $100 million or so btw along with her husband whose
business she enriches via her position) are pondering isn't "Will doing x, y, z help Trump
win?" It's "Will doing x, y, z ensure Bernie Sanders doesn't win?"
This pretty much confirms my and many others here hypothesis that the Dems are
fighting a "war on two fronts": one against Trump nationalist capitalism and the other
against the "democratic socialists" who have been flocking to their party machine since
2014.
Of all the things that the Democrats could impeach President Trump over, the one thing they
seized upon was the issue that had the most potential to blow back on them and destroy Joe
Biden's chances of reaching the White House. Whoever had that brilliant idea and put it as
the long straw in a cylindrical prawn-chip can along with all the other straws for pulling
out, sure didn't think of all the consequences that could have arisen. That speaks for the
depth (or lack thereof) of the thinking among senior Democrats and their worker bee analysts,
along with a narrow-minded outlook, sheer hatred of a political outsider and a fanatical zeal
to match that hatred and outlook.
The folks who hatched that particular impeachment plan and pitched it to Nancy Pelosi must
have been the same idiots in the DNC who dreamt up the Russiagate scandal and also pursued
Paul Manafort to get him off DJT's election campaign team. Dmitri Alperovich / Crowdstrike,
Alexandra Chalupa: we're looking at you.
Impeachment takes Sanders out of the campaign and that opens things up for the
CIA/establishment's "Identity Politics Candidate #3" , Mayor Butt-gig.
That said, since "Everyone who doesn't vote for our candidate is a deplorable
misogynist!" didn't work as expected, I wonder what makes them think "Everyone who
doesn't vote for our candidate is a deplorable homophobe!" will work any better?
Lots of agreement here with the overall situation becoming clearer with Bloomberg's entrance
and the outing of Obama's plans. I just finished writing my response to Putin's speech before the annual
United Russia Party Congress on the Open Thread and suggest barflies take 10 minutes to
read it and compare what he espouses a political party's deeds & goals ought to be versus
those of the West and its vassals.
Clearly, the goal is to prevent the US Polity from clawing back power from the 10% and
enacting policies to their benefit. Meanwhile, a new form of Transnational Nationalism
continues to take shape that will soon present a serious threat to the Financialized
Globalizers and their Cult of Debt. Too many seem to laugh off the entire situation by
dismissing it as Kabuki Theatre, which I see as self-serving and shortsighted since there're
several very real crises we're in up to our collective armpits.
A full blown impeachment trial that exposes the entire
Russia-gate/Ukraine-gate/Whatever-gate sham is what this country needs.
Obviously, a sufficient number of secure Republican representatives are needed to vote in
favor of impeachment to allow this circus to continue to its bizarrely entertaining,
Democratic Party destroying end.
The MSM will declare Trump guilty - that is, he has earned impeachment for Ukrainegate.
There are Democrats still under the illusion that Trump colluded with Russia to steal the
election. Dems tell us that Trump *obstructed* the Mueller investigation thus Trump could not
be nailed, nonetheless Trump is guilty of collusion until proven innocent.
Back to Ukrainegate. Bet the MSM sells Ukrainegate this way: Trump is guilty in
Ukrainegate and should be impeached, but Democrats are moving on to focus on the election.
And besides, Dems will tell us, the dastardly Republicans in the Senate will corruptly block
Trump's impeachment.
Tulsi
Gabbard Tweet not specifically about impeachment but begs numerous questions:
"My personal commitment is to always treat you and all Americans with respect. Working
side-by-side, we can defeat the divisiveness of Donald Trump, and usher in a 21st century of
peace, human dignity, & true equality. Working side by side, we can make Dr. King's dream
our reality ." [My Emphasis]
Questions: Is Trump divisive, or is it the D-Party and Current Oligarchy that make him so;
and which is more important to defeat? Which party "usher[ed] in the 21st century" with
several wars and abetted the next two? How did Obama, Slick Willie or his wife advance "human
dignity & true equality"? How does her last sentence differ from "Hope you can believe
in"? Hasn't her D-Party worked tirelessly for decades to circumvent the goals she espouses?
Wouldn't Gabbard have a better chance running as an Enlightened Republican than as a Renegade
Democrat if her goal's to defeat Trump?
American Democracy is political professional wrestling, Kabuki Theater, and mediocre Reality
TV all rolled into. by: AK74 @ 4 <= binary divide <=conducted by the USA, is not about
America, Americans or making America great again, its about the welfare of [the few<=
which most Americans would not call fellow Americans].
Sasha.@ 23 I don't understand where you are coming from.. thank Korlof1 @18 for posting
that Putin talk alert. excerpts from the talk.. => The priority [of United Russia has
been] the protection of the people's interests, the interests of [the] Motherland, and
..responsible [approach] to ..country, its security, stability and people's lives in the
long-term perspective.
The party.. offered a unifying agenda based on freedom and well being, patriotism,
..traditional values, a strong civil society and a strong state. The key issue in the party's
work .being together with the people, Karlof1@18 <=this talk suggest change in Russian
leadership that are not congruent with your [Sasha] comment @23. I hope you will make more
clear what you spent sometime writing ( and for that effort I thank you) but it is not yet
clear what you mean.. .
Re: Brenda Lawrence talking about censure rather than impeachment:
That is what they call a "trial balloon." If there isn't too much of a freakout among
the true-believer base, and I don't think there is, it'll be an option they will at least
take seriously. Not that I'm encouraging anyone to bet on rational thinking at this point.
Anyway I agree it's the best move for congressional Democrats.
Yet another other option is to continue the investigation indefinitely. I'm going to say
it is their default move actually. In that case, the House Judiciary Committee would spend a
few weeks putting on their own show, then say they would like more evidence to be really
sure, returning matters to the House Intelligence Committee, and we repeat the cycle.
I am liking all the commenters here that understand that there is only one empire party
with two mythical faces. I think this kabuki is necessary if you don't have a major WAR to
keep the masses focused on or otherwise distracted from the underlying R2P which I translate
to Rape2Protect.
It is sad to see us all talking about which of the lesser of horrible evils will continue
the leadership of American faced empire.....I hope it crashes soon and takes the global elite
down with it.....how many barflies are ready to stand up and say NO to the owners of the
Super-Priority derivatives that will say they own the world because of their casino (no skin
in the game) bets that are currently "legal" in America when the crash comes?
American "Democracy" is a mask for the American Empire and its capitalist
system--including especially the American Military and its Intelligence apparatus (aka The
Deep State). If the American people don't identify with these institutions, you would see
much greater hostility to -- if not outright rebellion against--the American military and
spooks.
Instead, you see the very opposite: the American people saluting, glorifying, "thanking
for their service," and politically fellating the US military and spy agencies every chance
they get. That should tell you all you need to know about Americans.
If this show should teach people in the US anything (again), it is how both US parties
descend like vultures onto countries where they manage to take over the government. Five
billion poured into Ukraine with the requisite murder and mayhem, and who knows how many
billions come pouring back out. It's a real jackpot for those in the right positions to scoop
it into their pockets.
The average people in the US don't even have a genuine safety net. Important for all
those productive resources to go to pedophile islands and sinecures for coke head sons of
politicians, obviously.
Re: #3 Allen – well said. The GOP is the party of the rich. The Democrats are the
party the rich pay to keep the left at bay when the Republicans lose.
The problem with this prediction is that the MSM has been breathlessly pronouncing that THIS
IS EXPLOSIVE EVIDENCE!!!! pretty much every day and after every witness testimony.
So if you are a member of the public who gets their "information" from the MSM (and, be
honest, that is most of the people in the USA) then you have been force-fed is that Trumps
defense against these allegations has already been shredded, and that his guilt has already
been established beyond any reasonable doubt.
How can those opinion-makers then turn around and say "Nah, it'll be fine" and settle for
a mere censure?
Wouldn't the Sheeple respond with a fully-justified "Hey, hang on! What gives?"
The Democrats has leapt on a Tiger. Nobody made them do it, but now they are there I don't
think they are going to be able to leap off.
Some of the first-term nobodies, maybe, but not the Schiffs and the Pelopis and the
Nadlers.
Hang on for dear life and hope for a miracle is probably their only option now.
And, who knows, that trio may be so incompetent that they actually think they are going to
win.
james, the deck is stacked even more against independents than it is against actual
mildly leftist candidates who run as democrats. there are a substantial number of people who
think the only way to change the country is to take over the democratic party. frankly, that
isn't going to happen, and nobody is going to win as an independent candidate with all the
procedural rules making it so hard to even get on the ballot, while the state government,
which is invariably controlled by one of the two parties, throws every roadblock, legal and
illegal, in the way. my gut feeling is things are going to have to get quite a bit worse
before the citizenry starts to explode, and there's no telling how that process will work
out, and no way to control it once it reaches critical mass.
The US is a one party State-- Pepsi _Pepsi Lite. Both parties are capitalist. It is rather
humorous the attention paid to a Dim vs Repug argument. Small thinking for small minds---
As I posted at the beginning of the impeachment process, the Dems would be foolish to hang it
all on the arcane shenanigans in Ukraine but rather should impeach Trump on the numerous more
serious breaches and crimes that he has committed. I also worried that the Democratic Party
leaders would blow the opportunity to demonstrate that Trump and the Republican Party are
rotten to the core and harmful to the country. And so they have blown it. What an inept pack
of asses.
I would think that even censure is still going to be a hot potato for the Democrats. Looking
at the procedure as far as wikipedia describes it, it hasn't done anything of significance
when it comes to being used against a president, especially as the Democrats won't want
to censure Trump for matters in which they themselves are equally complicit, as has been
discussed here.
That means they would be censuring on the same shaky grounds that they would have
impeached him, which only prolongs attention upon the dubious claims of the indictment. It
seems to me Trump will, rather than be shamed by the process, only be saying 'Make my day',
and hopefully have his Attorney General come forward with exonerating revelations on that
issue in the judicial proceeding that it was my contention the impeachment effort had been a
last ditch one to forestall such.
Wishful thinking on that, I know - but at least that probe has merit.
Thanks for your reply! And thanks for linking the Keen video! Made a comment on that
thread.
As I wrote when the possibility of Trump's impeachment arose almost as soon as he was
inaugurated, the entire charade reminds me of Slick Willie's impeachment, trial and
exoneration--the Articles of Impeachment utilized were such that he'd avoid conviction just
as they will be for Trump.
Allen @ 3 said; "The party's true function is thus largely theatrical. It doesn't exist
to fight for change, but only to pose as a force which one fine distant day might possibly
bestir itself to fight for change. Thus the whole magic of the Dem Party -- the essential
service it renders to the US power structure -- lies not in what it does, but in its mere
existence: by simply existing, and doing nothing, it pretends to be something it's not; and
this is enough to relieve despair & to let the system portray itself as a
"democracy."
With very few exceptions, you nailed it..Your description of the Dem. party is sad, but
true.....
Not having much time to watch the show trial it appears to me the Democrats still have a set
of very weak candidates. Anyone who knows Biden knows he in not now and never will be able to
handle a campaign against Trump.
Trump is up against an entrenched powerful bureaucracy and people who buy ink by the
55 gallon barrel. The democrats need to take a hard turn towards Mayor Pete and Tulsi. The
rank and file Democrats are tired of the elite political class in the same fashion that
the rank and file Republicans were tired of the political establishment which caused then to
turn to Trump.
Is the Democrat political establishment smart enough to take a few steps back and push
forward some outsiders? I doubt that but they would not lose much if they did. Any new
leaders would have the same stable of bureaucrats to pick from which will still be there long
after they are gone.
The real Trump move would be to hit the twitter right before the house impeachment vote
and announce that he has instructed the House Republicans to vote for impeachment.
He could lay out his story about how the American People never got to hear the full
story because of house dems, and how the Senate would fully investigate the 2016 election,
Russiagate, Ukraine, and whatever else they want. Maybe even make Hillary testify. Heads
would explode and his base would love it.
The...***The***...core takeaway, the battle at the heart of Russiagate/Ukrainegate, is that
it does not matter who the People elect as President and what platform he was elected on the
Deep State will decide foreign policy.
democrats republicans makes no difference both teams are managed by self serving scum who
refuse to allow "what the people want" to distract them from the big one. "what can I
steal?".
People meed to appreciate two things about both the dems and the rethugs. The first is
they supply a much-needed insight into: "How low can I go as a worthless hang off the wagon
by me fingernails, careerist. The second? That every hack must understand that eventually
every talking head is seen for the ugly sellout which they are.
There is no 'honourable way through this mess', one either quietly resigns pulling the pin
on the worst of us all, or one accepts the previously unacceptable, that we are most likely
both musically n functionally illiterate but it never matters what-u-say, what really counts
is what you do.
Whoever it was the Democrats should shun that person before it creates more damage to
their party.
I would disagree here. If the Democrats continue they will destroy themselves hopefully
leading to Mutually Assured Destruction as they would need to do something very drastic to
destroy the Republicans in return e.g. expose 9/11, Iraq etc, let the swamp / Deep State go
M.A.D. and from the political ashes parties and politicians can rise who are actually working
for the betterment of the USA and its people.
To the people here clamoring for Bernie Sanders to go independent: The American
electoral system is very unique. The two parties -- GOP and Dems -- are much more than mere
political parties: they are the American electoral machine itself. It is impossible to win
the presidency without being the candidate of one of the two, that's why Trump also didn't go
as an independent either.
Bernie Sanders is different from all other independent presidential candidates in American
History because he was the first to really want to win. That's why he penetrated the
Democratic machine, even though he became senator many times as an independent. He read the
conjuncture correctly and, you have to agree, he's been more influential over American
political-ideological landscape than all the other independents put together (not considering
Eugene Debs as an independent).
American "Democracy" is a mask for the American Empire and its capitalist
system--including especially the American Military and its Intelligence apparatus (aka The
Deep State). If the American people don't identify with these institutions, you would see
much greater hostility to--if not outright rebellion against--the American military and
spooks.
Instead, you see the very opposite: the American people saluting, glorifying, "thanking
for their service," and politically fellating the US military and spy agencies every chance
they get.
That should tell you all you need to know about Americans. by: AK74 @ 34
<= No not yet do I agree with you.. The American young people are forced into the
military in order to afford to be educated, and in order to have access to health care and
good-level workforce entry jobs especially the military is default for children of struggling
parents that cannot fund a college education or for the kids who are not yet ready to become
serious students.
The USA has not always discounted America or denied Americans. When I grew up, a college
education was very affordable, health care was available to even the most needy at whatever
they could afford, most of us could work our way through the education and find decent entry
level jobs if we were willing to dedicate ourselves to make the opportunity of a job into a
success (education, degrees, licenses were not needed, just performance was enough).
Unfortunately third party private mind control propaganda was used to extend into fake space,
the belief that the USA provides a valuable service to American interest. As time went on,
the USA had to hid its activities in top secret closets, it then had to learn to spy on
everyone, and it had to prosecute those (whistle blowers) who raised a question. Hence the
predicament of the awaken American dealing with friends that still believe the USA is good
for America.. Others hope the good times will return but the USA tolerance for descent is
dissipating. After the 16th amendment and the federal reserve act in 1913 the USA began to
edge America out in favor of international globalization.
Most of the really important parts of what made the USA great for Americans has been sold
off [privatized] and the protections and umpiring and refereeing that the USA used to provide
to keep the American economic space highly competitive and freely accessible to all
competitors has not only ceased, but now operates as a monopoly factory, churning out laws,
rules and establishing agencies that make the wealthy and their corporate empires wealthier,
richer and more monopolistic at the expense of everyday Americans.
The USA began to drop America from its sights after WWII. The USA moved its efforts and
activities from American domestic concerns to global concerns in 1948, neglected its advance
and protect American ideology; it imposed the continental shelf act in 1954 and the EPA act
in 1972, in order to force American industry out of America (the oil business to Saudi Arabia
and OPEC); by 1985-95 most businesses operating in America were either forced to close or
forced to move to a cheap third world labor force places.. .<=the purpose is now clear, it
was to separate Americans from their industrial and manufacturing know-how and to block
American access to evolving technology . At first most Americans did not notice.
Many Americans are only now waking to the possibility that things topside have changed and
some are realizing just how vulnerable the US constitution has made the USA to outside
influence. .. thanks to the USA very little of good ole America remains. but the humanity
first instinct most Americans are born with remains mostly unchanged, even though the
globalist have decimated religious organizations, most Americans still believe their maker
will not look favorably on those who deny justice, democracy or who abuse mankind. The USA
has moved on, it has become a global empire, operating in a global space unknown to most
Americans. The USA has created a world of its own, it no longer needs domestic America, it
can use the people and resources of anyone anywhere in the world for its conquest.
The last two political campaigns for President were "Change=Obama" and "Make America Great
Again=Trump"; neither of these two would have succeeded if Americans did not feel the
problem.
"... I told Bernie I had found Hillary's Joint Fundraising Agreement. I explained that the cancer was that she had exerted this control of the party long before she became its nominee. Had I known this, I never would have accepted the interim chair position, but here we were with only weeks before the election. ..."
Before I called Bernie Sanders, I lit a candle in my living room and put on some gospel music. I wanted to center myself for what
I knew would be an emotional phone call.
I had promised Bernie when I took the helm of the Democratic National Committee after the convention that I would get to the bottom
of whether Hillary Clinton's team had rigged the nomination process, as a cache of emails stolen by Russian hackers and posted online
had suggested. I'd had my suspicions from the moment I walked in the door of the DNC a month or so earlier, based on the leaked emails.
But who knew if some of them might have been forged? I needed to have solid proof, and so did Bernie.
So I followed the money. My predecessor, Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, had not been the most active chair in fundraising
at a time when President Barack Obama's neglect had left the party in significant debt. As Hillary's campaign gained momentum, she
resolved the party's debt and put it on a starvation diet. It had become dependent on her campaign for survival, for which she expected
to wield control of its operations.
Debbie was not a good manager. She hadn't been very interested in controlling the party -- she let Clinton's headquarters in Brooklyn
do as it desired so she didn't have to inform the party officers how bad the situation was. How much control Brooklyn had and for
how long was still something I had been trying to uncover for the last few weeks.
By September 7, the day I called Bernie, I had found my proof and it broke my heart.
***
The Saturday morning after the convention in July, I called Gary Gensler, the chief financial officer of Hillary's campaign.
He wasted no words. He told me the Democratic Party was broke and $2 million in debt.
"What?" I screamed. "I am an officer of the party and they've been telling us everything is fine and they were raising money with
no problems."
That wasn't true, he said. Officials from Hillary's campaign had taken a look at the DNC's books. Obama left the party $24 million
in debt -- $15 million in bank debt and more than $8 million owed to vendors after the 2012 campaign -- and had been paying that
off very slowly. Obama's campaign was not scheduled to pay it off until 2016. Hillary for America (the campaign) and the Hillary
Victory Fund (its joint fundraising vehicle with the DNC) had taken care of 80 percent of the remaining debt in 2016, about $10 million,
and had placed the party on an allowance.
If I didn't know about this, I assumed that none of the other officers knew about it, either. That was just Debbie's way. In my
experience she didn't come to the officers of the DNC for advice and counsel. She seemed to make decisions on her own and let us
know at the last minute what she had decided, as she had done when she told us about the hacking only minutes before the Washington
Post broke the news.
The Friday On the phone
Gary told me the DNC had needed a $2 million loan, which the campaign had arranged.
"No! That can't be true!" I said. "The party cannot take out a loan without the unanimous agreement of all of the officers."
"Gary, how did they do this without me knowing?" I asked. "I don't know how Debbie relates to the officers," Gary said. He described
the party as fully under the control of Hillary's campaign, which seemed to confirm the suspicions of the Bernie camp. The campaign
had the DNC on life support, giving it money every month to meet its basic expenses, while the campaign was using the party as a
fund-raising clearinghouse. Under FEC law, an individual can contribute a maximum of $2,700 directly to a presidential campaign.
But the limits are much higher for contributions to state parties and a party's national committee.
Individuals who had maxed out their $2,700 contribution limit to the campaign could write an additional check for $353,400 to
the Hillary Victory Fund -- that figure represented $10,000 to each of the 32 states' parties who were part of the Victory Fund agreement
-- $320,000 -- and $33,400 to the DNC. The money would be deposited in the states first, and transferred to the DNC shortly after
that. Money in the battleground states usually stayed in that state, but all the other states funneled that money directly to the
DNC, which quickly transferred the money to Brooklyn.
"Wait," I said. "That victory fund was supposed to be for whoever was the nominee, and the state party races. You're telling me
that Hillary has been controlling it since before she got the nomination?"
Gary said the campaign had to do it or the party would collapse.
"That was the deal that Robby struck with Debbie," he explained, referring to campaign manager Robby Mook. "It was to sustain
the DNC. We sent the party nearly $20 million from September until the convention, and more to prepare for the election."
"What's the burn rate, Gary?" I asked. "How much money do we need every month to fund the party?"
The burn rate was $3.5 million to $4 million a month, he said.
I gasped. I had a pretty good sense of the DNC's operations after having served as interim chair five years earlier. Back then
the monthly expenses were half that. What had happened? The party chair usually shrinks the staff between presidential election campaigns,
but Debbie had chosen not to do that. She had stuck lots of consultants on the DNC payroll, and Obama's consultants were being financed
by the DNC, too.
When we hung up, I was livid. Not at Gary, but at this mess I had inherited. I knew that Debbie had outsourced a lot of the management
of the party and had not been the greatest at fundraising. I would not be that kind of chair, even if I was only an interim chair.
Did they think I would just be a surrogate for them, get on the road and rouse up the crowds? I was going to manage this party the
best I could and try to make it better, even if Brooklyn did not like this. It would be weeks before I would fully understand the
financial shenanigans that were keeping the party on life support.
***
Right around the time of the convention , the leaked emails revealed Hillary's campaign was grabbing money from the state
parties for its own purposes, leaving the states with very little to support down-ballot races. A
Politico
story published on May 2, 2016, described the big fund-raising vehicle she had launched through the states the summer
before, quoting a vow she had made to rebuild "the party from the ground up when our state parties are strong, we win. That's what
will happen."
Yet the states kept less than half of 1 percent of the $82 million they had amassed from the extravagant fund-raisers Hillary's
campaign was holding, just as Gary had described to me when he and I talked in August. When the Politico story described this
arrangement as "essentially money laundering" for the Clinton campaign, Hillary's people were outraged at being accused of doing
something shady. Bernie's people were angry for their own reasons, saying this was part of a calculated strategy to throw the nomination
to Hillary.
I wanted to believe Hillary, who made campaign finance reform part of her platform, but I had made this pledge to Bernie and did
not want to disappoint him. I kept asking the party lawyers and the DNC staff to show me the agreements that the party had made for
sharing the money they raised, but there was a lot of shuffling of feet and looking the other way.
When I got back from a vacation in Martha's Vineyard, I at last found the document that described it all: the Joint Fund-Raising
Agreement between the DNC, the Hillary Victory Fund, and Hillary for America.
The agreement -- signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and Robby Mook with a copy to Marc Elias -- specified that in
exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party's finances, strategy, and all the money raised.
Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all
the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and
mailings.
I had been wondering why it was that I couldn't write a press release without passing it by Brooklyn. Well, here was the answer.
When the party chooses the nominee, the custom is that the candidate's team starts to exercise more control over the party. If
the party has an incumbent candidate, as was the case with Clinton in 1996 or Obama in 2012, this kind of arrangement is seamless
because the party already is under the control of the president. When you have an open contest without an incumbent and competitive
primaries, the party comes under the candidate's control only after the nominee is certain. When I was manager of Al Gore's campaign
in 2000, we started inserting our people into the DNC in June. This victory fund agreement, however, had been signed in August 2015,
just four months after Hillary announced her candidacy and nearly a year before she officially had the nomination.
I had tried to search out any other evidence of internal corruption that would show that the DNC was rigging the system to throw
the primary to Hillary, but I could not find any in party affairs or among the staff. I had gone department by department, investigating
individual conduct for evidence of skewed decisions, and I was happy to see that I had found none. Then I found this agreement.
The funding arrangement with HFA and the victory fund agreement was not illegal, but it sure looked unethical. If the fight had
been fair, one campaign would not have control of the party before the voters had decided which one they wanted to lead. This was
not a criminal act, but as I saw it, it compromised the party's integrity.
***
I had to keep my promise to Bernie . I was in agony as I dialed him. Keeping this secret was against everything that I
stood for, all that I valued as a woman and as a public servant.
"Hello, senator. I've completed my review of the DNC and I did find the cancer," I said. "But I will not kill the patient."
I discussed the fundraising agreement that each of the candidates had signed. Bernie was familiar with it, but he and his staff
ignored it. They had their own way of raising money through small donations. I described how Hillary's campaign had taken it another
step.
I told Bernie I had found Hillary's Joint Fundraising Agreement. I explained that the cancer was that she had exerted this
control of the party long before she became its nominee. Had I known this, I never would have accepted the interim chair position,
but here we were with only weeks before the election.
Bernie took this stoically. He did not yell or express outrage. Instead he asked me what I thought Hillary's chances were. The
polls were unanimous in her winning but what, he wanted to know, was my own assessment?
I had to be frank with him. I did not trust the polls, I said. I told him I had visited states around the country and I found
a lack of enthusiasm for her everywhere. I was concerned about the Obama coalition and about millennials.
I urged Bernie to work as hard as he could to bring his supporters into the fold with Hillary, and to campaign with all the heart
and hope he could muster. He might find some of her positions too centrist, and her coziness with the financial elites distasteful,
but he knew and I knew that the alternative was a person who would put the very future of the country in peril. I knew he heard me.
I knew he agreed with me, but I never in my life had felt so tiny and powerless as I did making that call.
When I hung up the call to Bernie, I started to cry, not out of guilt, but out of anger. We would go forward. We had to.
A story has been
circulating suggesting that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo will soon be resigning because
he needs to focus on planning for his campaign to become a Senator from Kansas in 2020.
This is good news for the United States, as Senator Lindsey Graham has had no one he is able
to talk to about exporting democracy by blowing up the planet since Joe Lieberman retired and
John McCain died.
Equally unsustainable is the implication that Big Capital and the establishment ruling class
is not, and has not been, significantly Jewish over historical time. Žižek simplifies
and caricatures the Middle Ages as a time when "the Jew emerged as the enemy, a parasitic
intruder who disturbs the harmonious social edifice." Žižek obviously employs the
term "harmonious social edifice" with skepticism and disdain, seeing the pre-existing order
(that before the arrival of the Jews) as fraught with exploitation, tensions, and
contradictions. In Žižek's framework then, Jews may be a chaotic capitalist force
that enters Europe, but this was a Europe already experiencing chaotic capitalist forces, and
therefore it would be irrational to blame Jews for anything arising from their emergence and
expansion in Europe. What needs to be distinguished here is the distinction between what might
be termed the organic development of finance in Europe, [18]
For an excellent summary in relation to this process in feudalism, see R. Allen Brown,
Origins of English Feudalism, (New York: Barnes and Noble Books, 1973). and the
exorbitant and often extremely negative developments ushered in by the arrival of the Jews and
their subsequent special relationship with European elites and with capitalism itself.
The organic development of finance and class divisions in Europe is demonstrated in the
evolution of feudalism as a result of the adoption of heavy cavalry by the Franks in the eighth
century, with other, non-military, aspects of continental feudalism arising as the inevitable
social repercussions of this change in military organization. [19]
Ibid .
(For an excellent summary in relation to this process in feudalism, see R. Allen Brown,
Origins of English Feudalism, (New York: Barnes and Noble Books, 1973).) Since
knights needed money, horses, servants, attendants, and freedom from all other non-military
occupations, like tilling the soil, knighthood gradually became an upper-class affair.
Increasing technological sophistication then made mounted warfare more and more expensive and
caused knights to become more sharply distinguished from the ordinary peasant. It also caused
free peasants to become less and less valuable as soldiers, and they therefore declined towards
mere servitude. It was, therefore, in a sense inevitable that the new class of knights should
become a landed aristocracy, and its members were thus in a sense destined to low-level
jurisdiction of a semi-agricultural kind over their peasants. This situation really was, in a
sense, a "harmonious social edifice" to the extent that it followed a clear logic and permitted
these communities and their territories to be competitive in a rapidly changing military and
geopolitical context. The ruling classes were obliged to adopt paternalistic practices in
relation to the peasantry, and outright exploitation was rare since it could be dangerous and
counterproductive in that it could provoke a mass uprising and thus damage militarily-valuable
social cohesion. The social edifice was thus indeed "harmonious" in the sense that it was
coordinated and balanced, and was generally beneficial to the organic national community.
The arrival of Jews in Europe undoubtedly created an imbalance in these class relations, and
between the ruling class and the lower orders. Evidence of this imbalance in medieval Europe
can be obtained both from surviving documentation and artefacts, and from analogous modern
situations such as the the Great Romanian Peasant Revolt of 1907, during which Jewish intrusion
into the existing quasi-feudal social arrangement ended in widespread rebellion and societal
collapse due to the specific excesses of Jewish exploitation. The arrival of the Jews in
Western Europe as a financial and geopolitical power can be dated to their ascent under the
Carolingians in the ninth century, and possibly earlier in the Narbonne where they were noted
as an extraordinarily wealthy class. In this development, the birth of formal, symbiotic
relationships between Jews and self-interested European elites, we see a crucial fissure in
European class relations. Jewish financiers entered into the harmonious social edifice as
privileged and protected outsiders whose sole purpose was to accelerate and distort resource
transfer between European classes, rendering internal class division less about communal
efficiency than about personal gain. In this system, paternalism gave way to such situations as
the permitted Jewish trade in Christian slaves (a key reason for the agitations for Agobard of
Lyons) and widespread exploitative tax farming.
One of the great modern myths, a stroke of Jewish revisionist genius, is that Jews were
forced into such practices by restrictive laws on the ownership of land, and certain other
local contexts. This is historicist relativism at its most bankrupt and, thankfully, modern
scholarship is slowly eroding such misrepresentations and outright falsehoods. Take, for
example, the most recent edition of The Oxford Handbook of the Economics of Religion ,
which states the "remarkable" fact that Jews
whether in Narbonne in 899 or Gironne in 922, in Trier in 919 or Worms in 1090, in
Barcelona in 1053 or Toledo in 1222, or in early medieval England, were permitted to acquire
and own land if they wished. Not only were Jews legally permitted to own land, they could
acquire significant amounts (especially in Italy, southern Spain, southern and east-central
France, and Germany); possessed fields, gardens, and vineyards; and owned, transferred, and
mortgaged land holdings. They preferred to hire tenants, sharecroppers, and wage laborers to
work their lands. For themselves, they chose the most skilled and profitable occupations,
foremost money lending. [20]
R. M. McCleary (ed), The Oxford Handbook of the Economics of Religion (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2011, 68.
Essentially then, we see the immediate and deliberate entrance of the Jews into European
society at the level of knight, if not higher, but without any of the logic or benefits of the
position of knight within the organic social edifice. The Jew in this new social order existed
for no logical reason other than the personal enrichment of certain elites and the communal
enrichment of the Jews themselves. This may be regarded as the first perversion of capitalism
and the first true exploitation (excessive or unfair use of workers with no reason other than
greed) of the serving class within this system.
Again, dispensing with historicist relativism, we can demonstrate the pattern of Jewish
disruptive behaviors within capitalism with reference to analogous modern conditions. For
example, the arenda system of late nineteenth- and early twentieth century-eastern
Europe (especially Poland, Ukraine, and Romania) was remarkably similar to the feudal system of
medieval Western Europe. The arenda system can be regarded as broadly harmonious until
the mass influx of Jewish arendasi during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, which
saw the Jews increasingly operate as tax farmers, property agents, customs agents, and loan
merchants. Jewish monopoly in these roles prompted both the rapid commercialization of land and
the expansion of Big Capital, both of which were intended by Jews to exclusively benefit their
in-group. Since the existence of entire Jewish communities depended on exploitative capitalism,
Jews fiercely contended for monopolies in key areas. For example , The Va'ad
Medinat Lita (Lithuanian Jewish Council) twice passed a resolution supporting the lease of
customs and taxes by Jews, stating: "We have openly seen the great danger deriving from the
operation of customs in Gentile hands; for the customs to be in Jewish hands is a pivot on
which everything (in commerce) turns, since thereby Jews may exert control."
Crucially, high Jewish position in the social hierarchy was not accompanied by paternalism
of any kind. In fact, Jews are notable throughout history for their incredibly hostile and
exploitative behaviors towards non-elite Europeans. Philip Eidelberg, a historian of the Great
Romanian Peasant Revolt of 1907, describes how Jewish arendasi " exploited the estates
more ruthlessly than the native Rumanian arendasi ." He continues by explaining that
Jews were not interested in the long-term prosperity of estates or their workers, and often
hiked rents to breaking point "even at the risk of eventually exhausting the available land and
inventory." [21] P.
G. Eidelberg, The Great Rumanian Peasant Revolt of 1907: Origins of a Modern Jacquerie
(), 39. In Rumania, Jews enjoyed monopolies, with Eidelberg demonstrating that Jewish
bankers would decline to grant capital to any non-Jew wanting to enter this form of finance.
[22]
Ibid , 120.
(P. G. Eidelberg, The Great Rumanian Peasant Revolt of 1907: Origins of a Modern
Jacquerie (), 39.) Thus, the Jews competed for profit solely with each other,
ever-increasing the chokehold on their European peasantries. Eidelberg writes that "the result
was a bidding spiral in which the peasant was the loser. In fact, it was just such a
competition between the two greatest Jewish arendas families -- the Fischers and the
Justers -- which was to help spark the 1907 revolt." [23]
Ibid, 39.
(P. G. Eidelberg, The Great Rumanian Peasant Revolt of 1907: Origins of a Modern
Jacquerie (), 39.)
Jews, of course, continue to occupy conspicuous roles in the worst and most exploitative
aspects of capitalism. Jews have also continued to acquire land for exploitative purposes, the
most interesting example being the
Argentinian activities of the British Jewish oligarch Joe Lewis , a tax avoider
and currency speculator who made his billions alongside George Soros when both gambled on the
British pound sterling crashing out of the European Exchange Rate Mechanism in 1992. As one
commentator explains, "Soros' and Lewis' bet against the pound actually led to the pound
crashing, after Soros ordered his hedge fund to " go for the
jugular " and aggressively trade against the currency, thereby prompting its sharp
devaluation. Though Soros is often called "the man who broke the Bank of England" as a result
of the $1 billion in profits he made on that fateful day, Lewis is said to have
made an even larger profit than Soros." While these Jews made billions, the British public
suffered a rapid economic recession. Lewis didn't mind. He repeated the experiment in Mexico,
causing the Mexican
peso crisis , which "led to a massive jump in poverty, unemployment and inequality in
Mexico and left its government beholden to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) through a loan
package arranged by then-U.S. President Bill Clinton."
Growing extravagantly rich from parasitic currency speculation, Jewish oligarchs Soros and
Lewis, together with co-ethnic Big Capitalists Eduardo Elsztain and Marcelo Mindlin, started
buying massive tracts of Argentine real estate, particularly in Patagonia, where they pooled
resources to take over local banks, the regional water supply, oil and gas wealth, and the
area's largest energy supplier. Lewis then set about buying tens of thousands of hectares,
declaring his wish to create "his own state in Patagonia." Some locals were willing to sell
their land. One, Irineo Montero, had refused, and he, along with his wife María Ortiz
and their employee José Matamala, were all found dead under mysterious
circumstances. Lewis' land consolidation was then made complete, and paved the way for a
Zionist enclave that has exploited locals so thoroughly that there have been regular massive
demonstrations ("March for Sovereignty) against this new Jewish ruling class, attracting 80
percent of the local population. According to the research of former French intelligence
officer turned journalist Thierry Meyssan, Lewis is much more amenable to his fellow Jews, and
has been inviting thousands of Israel Defense Forces (IDF) soldiers to his territory annually.
In late 2017, former French intelligence officer turned journalist Thierry Meyssan alleged : "Since the
Falklands War, the Israeli army has been organizing 'holiday camps' in Patagonia for its
soldiers. Between 8,000 and 10,000 of them now come every year to spend two weeks on Joe Lewis'
land."
What we see here is just a very modern example of the millennia-old Jewish pattern of
establishing full-scale operations for extracting a nation's riches and exploiting its people.
We must earnestly ask of Slavoj Žižek: Has Big Capital and the establishment
ruling class not been, and does it not remain, significantly Jewish
Another ringer from Andrew Joyce! We are so lucky to have him. He is helping us all to
recover our collective racial memory (as Jung might call it) as White Gentiles.
In April 2019, Žižek and Jordan Peterson sold out the Sony Centre in Toronto
for their debate titled "Happiness: Capitalism vs. Marxism"
And who, pray tell, was invited to defend the honor of National Socialism?
In a 2009 lecture at the European Graduate School titled "Anti-Semitism, Anti-Semite and
Jew," Žižek argued that anti-Semitism places Jews in "impossible Otherness"
Judaism places Jews in "impossible Otherness." Their bizarre 'chosenness' is the
root of their collective pathology. (Notice how all their theories concerning our
supposed ethno-centrism are just so much projection!)
It is a matter of special irony that Marxists should present their own contradictions in
relation to anti-Semitism and the supposed psychosocial aspects of the anti-Semite.
Have these self-described Marxists never read Karl Marx's own scathing treatment of the
Jews in Zur
Judenfrage ? Here's a well-known passage:
"Let us consider the actual, worldly Jew – not the Sabbath Jew but the everyday
Jew. Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us look for the
secret of his religion in the real Jew. What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical
need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his
worldly God? Money. Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may
exist. Money degrades all the gods of man – and turns them into commodities . The
bill of exchange is the real god of the Jew. His god is only an illusory bill of exchange .
The chimerical nationality of the Jew is the nationality of the merchant, of the man of
money in general.[ ] The Jew has emancipated himself in a Jewish manner, not only because
he has acquired financial power, but also because, through him and also apart from him,
money has become a world power and the practical Jewish spirit has become the practical
spirit of the Christian nations. The Jews have emancipated themselves insofar as the
Christians have become Jews. [ ] In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the
emancipation of mankind from Judaism."
Pretty frickin' harsh, eh! I guess if old Karl were still around to hear the pathetic
maunderings of post-modern Communists like Žižek, he would just shake his head and
say, 'I am not a Marxist.'
According to the research of former French intelligence officer turned journalist
Thierry Meyssan
That's interesting, Dr. Joyce. I've been following him over at Voltaire-net on and off for nearly a decade, and I had
no idea that Meyssan had been an intelligence officer. Neither Wikipedia nor Infogalatic ever
mention it. Good to know
Slavoj Zizek went "full Monty" during his recent visit to Tel Aviv at the invitation of
some sincerely dissident Israelis. They expected words of encouragement, but instead he
informed them that fighting anti-Semitism is more important than defending Palestinians. The
Slovenian philosopher spoke kindly of the swindler Bernie Madoff, who was "a scapegoat who
was easy to blame, when in fact the real problem is the system that allowed and even pushed
Madoff to commit his crimes." Indeed, it must have been 'the system' that pushed poor Mr.
Madoff into crime, just as it was 'the system' that pushed Shylock to enter into
money-lending and Jack the Ripper into the business of carving.
Some of the above are correct but there's a much more succinct and accurate description.
There's one idea that describes the Jews perfectly. It describes their parasitism, their
lying, their chameleon like behavior, their sense of superiority and belief that they are
different from everyone else. There's a simple explanation for why the Jews are hated so much
that also explains their behavior and success. The Jews are a tribe of psychopaths. Not all,
maybe not even the majority, but a large number. All of the Jews ancient writings are nothing
more than a manual for psychopaths to live by. The Talmud is nothing but one psychopathic
thought after another. The Talmud "great enlightenment" basically says that everyone not
Jewish is there to serve Jews. All their property is really the Jews. No one is really human
unless they're Jews and their lives don't matter. A psychopathic religion for a psychopathic
people.
Even if I'm wrong thousands of years of history show a bunch of Jews moving into your
territory in in no way distinguishable from a tribe of psychopaths moving into your
country
They've been thrown out of every single country that they've been to in any numbers.
Psychopaths having no empathy themselves can only go by the feedback they get from the
people they are exploiting. So they push and push to see what they can get away with. The
normal people build up resentment towards them. Thinking "surely they will reform or repent"
like a normal person who does wrong. Of course the Jews do not. They don't have the mental
process for reform. Then in a huge mass outpouring of hate for the Jews, fed up with the
refusal to reform their behavior, they attack and/or deport them. In this stage of the cycle
the Big/Rich Jews escape and the little Jews are attacked.
Start over.
Even if it's wrong if you assume the Jews are a tribe of psychopaths you will never be
surprised and Jew's behavior will make sense.
In order to predict Jews behavior read the great book on Psychopaths by Hervey Cleckley,
"The Mask of Sanity". Here's a chapter you should read. It's about the psychopath Stanley.
Who does all kinds of manic bullshit and spends all his time feeding people the most
outrageous lies. Look at the astounding array of things he's able to get away with. Maybe it
will remind you of a certain tribe. New meme. "They're pulling a Stanley". The whole book is
on the web and worth reading.
" In the course of his European Graduate School lecture, Žižek comments that
"the real mystery of anti-Semitism is why it is a constant "
This is not a mystery at all. NO ONE can stand psychopaths over the long term. They're
fucked up. You even hear Jews leaving Israel because the culture is so fucked up. Even
psychopaths don't want to live with psychopaths.
The only know recipe to living with psychopaths recommended by psychiatrist is don't live
with them at all. The sooner we realize that the Jews are a damaged, evil, twisted tribe of
psychopaths and there's no reasoning, dealing, co-opting or living with them the better we
will be. The only 100%. guaranteed, tried and true, tested with 100% satisfaction of dealing
with the Jews is to get rid of them. Peacefully if we can get it but by any means necessary
get them away from you and leave them no control of any sort over your country or any other
aspect of your and your countrymen's lives.
Žižek copying, almost verbatim, a review of MacDonald's book by Stanley
Hornbeck that appeared in the March 1999 issue of The American Renaissance.
What a damning indictment of American Renaissance!
Slavoj Zizek, the uttermost dregs of human intellectual depravity, agrees so utterly with
an Amren article he feels comfortable copying it word for word as it it were his own!
Have these self-described Marxists never read Karl Marx's own scathing treatment of the
Jews in "Zur Judenfrage"?
This "well-known (pretty frickin' harsh) passage" is permanently cited by anti-marxists to
denunciate "Karl" as "antisemite" and with the intention to subsequently ignore his analysis
of capital (for being founded in his "antisemitism").
By the way, it is not necessary to imagine "old Karl" to be "still around" or "to turn in his
grave" to enlighten us with the word "I am not a Marxist". If we can trust in the words of
Engels he said it in reality: "What is certain is that I myself am not a Marxist" (a remark
cited by Engels in his letter to Bernstein of 2-3 November 1882).
Regarding this whole "jews are both for communism and capitalism, and thus anti semites are
full of contradictory nonsense", one needs to point the obvious fact that these jewish
inventions are meant for consumption for the gentiles and not the jews.
Some will think that Ayn Rand and Karl Marx are polar opposites, but this is not true,
both preached a universal ideology, and both would not think it is problem at the same time
that jews are immune from this ideology (because Marx would no doubt support Israel if it
existed at his time).
A car-wreck of logic indeed. What absolute rubbish Zizek comes up with. JM Keynes observed
that economics exists only to give astrology a good name. Judging by today's 'philosophers'
the same could be said about them.
@israel
shamir It's the system that has allowed Slavoj Zizek to showcase his theory . System
works with usual laziness who knows who and not what .
If Maddoff were a victim may be Epstein was , then so were Hitler and Polpot
System around them allowed them to reach mass appeal and inflict severe damages .
Abusing system is not self-victimization . Prince Andrew did not hurt self .
It's the system one works to prevent undesirable products . We undermine the system .
When you side with proponents of right for Palestinian or the victims of usury banking ,
financialization or against penchant for military budget or eternal war you bring normal
perspective , you restore balance between cause and effect and you remove artificial false
intellectual reasoning g like existence of antisemitism or American responsibility or America
being the beacon to humanity or America being a mystic abstract concept of higher values
.
Allowing and worshipping these kinds of ideas
we make inroads by the parasites possible
Abstract concept is easy target for corruption distortion emotional manipulation .
Antisemitidm should be described and that description should be applied to other anti -ism
( anti black anti Arab anti Iran anti Chinese anti Vietnamese anti Russian etc )
epidemiological survey should be conducted along those detailed descriptive points not like
-the way ADL puts out questionnaires .
It is time for Slavoj Zizek. to go to a library and get hold of the books by Herzl just to
get started .
@anon
masonry is clear example of this they tricked british and french people that let jews play an
important paper in the ideological foundation ,germans understanding the danger but
recon¡gnizing that the ilustration was the way of the future adapted his own version of
masonry with greek symbols and pure european myths and of course mantaining jews out of the
inner circle of power more or less like in scandinavia .
spanish people simply banned the masonry .
its curious how italian and iberians and their colonies were able to crush any jewish
resistance and asimilate the rest of them in the new world even if they arent the smartest
europeans .
i think we need a fusion of german and latin character to face this new era
There's around 200 nations in the world and if I may be so bold–since this is going
against the Cultural Marxists agenda that race is a social construct–4 main races that
contain around 30 subgroups.
In other words, lots of stories to pick from for the MSM.
Yet, day after day after day, we usually only hear about ONE nation and ONE race, Israel
and the Jews.
It's gotten all so tiresome to have these human peacocks constantly parading around,
demanding that us Goyim worship them or else.
And if we fail–in their minds–to show them the proper adoration, we get accused
of anti-Semitism.
@HammerJack
Andrew Joyce's work would never appear in American Renaissance. Taylor and his cohorts
prevent any criticism of Jewish involvement in White dispossession.
Herzl did not like Jews , celebrated possible future conversion of his son , thought en
masse conversion to Christianity , did not think of allowing Hebrew as state language and did
not conceive Shabbat a holiday
But also thought sneak attack on local Arab , planned deceptive discussions and ploys to
make them leave Palestine without arousing immediate large scale protests , he offered the
service of new state to be a barrier between uncivilized Asia and developed Europe , he
promised Balfour of protecting British interest
He wanted no Arab in the midst and eagerly and glowingly promised his visions of equal
democratic society .
Above all he can't pull it off himself . He needed help . He needed money that he by
threat and persuasion got from rich Jew . What about other nations shedding their non Jews
blood to erect a pure Jews nation ????
His minions got there also by lying false promising misrepresenting and bribing They also
used religious hatred of Christianity to Islam and racial hatred of European to Arab and
Turkey .
Britain pod in blood and money Now its Germany and USA .
-- -- --
But there are antisemite thinking or musing that. A-gentile never be able to get rid of ,
so said the Slovenian
The paradoxes Mr Slovenian sees in antisemite argument is what litter the philosophy of
Zionism .
@Digital
Samizdat Meyssan is a leftist of North African origin. Earlier in his career, he was
involved in harassing the National Front and other parties of the right.
From 1996 to 1999, he worked as substitute coordinator of the National Committee of
Surveillance against the extreme right, which held weekly meetings with the 45 major
political parties, unions and associations belonging to the French left-wing in order to
draw up a common response to escalating intolerance
I think Dr Joyce mistakes Meyssan's involvement in the above committee with that of
performing intelligence functions. Meyssan was an enthusiastic supporter of Hate Speech laws
to be used against the Right. Except later he fell foul of them himself and no longer lives
in France.
Indeed, for an anti-segregation organization, the early NAACP was essentially divided between
the Jews who ran it, and the Blacks who went along for the ride. As Hasia Diner puts it in In
the Almost Promised Land: American Jews and Blacks, 1915–1935, many in the NAACP's
Jewish leadership "worked most intensely with other Jews."[7]"
Muslim has replaced Blacks . Muslim "leaders " seek in Israel the conduit to power or
pipeline to something ( usually end up getting less scornful hateful mutterings in Fox and
WSJ ) . In return they attend interfaith meeting to be lectured ,open up discussing Koran
with ideas of dropping some pages ,and agreeing to hate Shia ,agreeing to start propaganda
against Iran Syria and Muslim Brotherhood ,spreading the FDD orchestrated fear of Iran,
imbibing hook line and slinkier the narrative against Iran Syria Hizbullah Libya Houthi and
Taliban or Qatar . Add to that Russia and china also. And they start discussing direct flight
from Tel Aviv to Medina from where their prophet once banned the Jews after decades of
deceptive behaviors of the Jewish clan.
What does muslim get ? The same stuff the blacks got- violence drugs sex trafiiciking,
destruction of community, shuttering down of school college and enrichment of few who sing
Hosana to the Jews .
For the time it is ;limited mostly to ME S Asia and N Africa . But I won't be supposed to see
it get into a more permanent footing in USA ,Canada,Australia. For a back on the back Muslim
will hurt themselves the way Afroamerican were taken for a ride.
Nice, that the Oxford Handbook cited sells for $429 over at Amazon. I hadn't liked Joyce's
articles particularly, but this one is helpful because it shows not just history, but the
link to current events. Particularly useful the info about Joe Lewis, (never heard about him
before). Doubly so in view of the fact that South America seems very unstable now, with a
migrant expulsion towards Mexico/US that is as bad as the Syria-to-Europe a few years back.
But much more under the radar.. no "color this" or "spring that" hashtags this time.
@neutral
Capitalism and communism have materialism in common. Various schemes based on religious
principles vary from both.
Secondly, a capitalist can favor communism so long as it doesn't damage his own
interests.
1) He may be able to make money trading with a foreign communist government e.g. Kaiser,
Ford.
2) He may favor communism as a means of destroying the old Christian order, which was the
case with US capitalists who funded the Bolsheviks e.g. Schiff, Warburg, Hammer.
3) A corrupt communist regime may allow selected friendly capitalists to flourish with in
effect a state subsidy. Most regimes of any kind are corrupt.
The idea that a capitalist can't be a communist is childishly simplistic, really just a
slogan.
@israel
shamir [Slavoj Zizek went "full Monty" during his recent visit to Tel Aviv at the
invitation of some sincerely dissident Israelis. They expected words of encouragement, but
instead he informed them that fighting anti-Semitism is more important than defending
Palestinians. ]
Who were these 'sincerely dissident Israelis' who didnot' know Zizek is a zionist
charlatan?
They are not 'sincere' but they are like him zionist jews.
This fact is obvious many years now and he showed himself as a zionist racist anti
Palestinians and non Jew many years ago in Israel. Who are these dummies that they don't know
who is Zizek.
Zizek like Trump is a charlatan zionist racist. He is a fraud like Henry Bernard Levy
You should see the video when he appeared at 'charlie Rose program' – a womanizer
and racist American exceptionalism, to see how this 'communist' clown was admiring Jewish
capitalism to please another clown charlie rose.
Bill Clinton destroyed the USA economy and middle class like no president has ever done.
Bush II and Obama exacerbated the destruction by the hundred folds.
I believe Hedges statement that "the true correctives to society were social movements
that never achieved formal political power" is perhaps one of the most important things for
each of us to understand.
I watched this with interest and curiosity and growing skepticism although he makes some
killer points and cites some extremely disturbing facts; above all he accepts and
uncritically so the American narrative of history.
The message from democrats is "hey we're not bigots". Most people (repubs+dems) aren't. If
they keep calling on that for energy the Dems will forever continue to lose. If they don't
come back to the working class they might as well just call themselves conservatives.
Those of us who seek the truth can't stop looking under every stone. The truth will set
you free but you must share it with those who are ready to hear it and hide it from those who
can hurt you for exposing it. MT
"A Society that looses the capacity for the sacred cannibalizes itself until it dies
because it exploits the natural world as well as human beings to the point of collapse."
I believe Hedges statement that "the true correctives to society were social movements
that never achieved formal political power" is perhaps one of the most important things for
each of us to understand.
I watched this with interest and curiosity and growing skepticism although he makes some
killer points and cites some extremely disturbing facts; above all he accepts and
uncritically so the American narrative of history. The Progressive movement, for example,
(written into American history as being far more important that it ever really was,) unlike
Socialism or Communism was primarily just a literary and a trendy intellectually movement
that attempted, (unconvincingly,) to persuade poor, exploited and abused Americans that non
of those other political movements, (reactive and grass-roots,) were needed here and that
capitalism could and might of itself, cure itself; it conceded little, promised much and
unlike either Communism or Socialism delivered fuck all. Personally I remain unconvinced also
by, "climate science," (which he takes as given,) and which seems to to me to depend far too
much on faith and self important repeatedly insisting that it's true backed by lurid and
hysterical propaganda and not nearly enough on rational scientific argument, personally I
can't make head nor tail of the science behind it ? (it may well be true, or not; I can't
tell.) But above all and stripped of it his pretensions his argument is just typical theist,
(of any flavor you like,) end of times claptrap all the other systems have failed, (China for
example somewhat gives the lie to death of Communism by the way and so on,) the end is neigh
and all that is left to do is for people to turn to character out of first century fairly
story. I wish him luck with that.
The message from democrats is "hey we're not bigots". Most people (repubs+dems) aren't. If
they keep calling on that for energy the Dems will forever continue to lose. If they don't
come back to the working class they might as well just call themselves conservatives.
I have always loved Chris Hedges, but ever since becoming fully awake it pains me to see
how he will take gigantic detours of imagination to never mention Israel, AIPAC or Zionism,
and their complete takeover of the US. What a shame.
The continued growth of unproductive debt against the low or nonexistent growth of GDP is
the recipe for collapse, for the whole world economic system.
I agree with Chris about the tragedy of the Liberal Church. Making good through identity
politics however, is every bit as heretical and tragic as Evangelical Republican corrupted
church think, in my humble, Christian opinion.
The death of the present western hemisphere governments and "democratic" institutions must
die right now for humanity to be saved from the zombies that rule it. 'Cannibalization" of
oikonomia was my idea, as well as of William Engdahl. l am glad hearing Hedges to adopt the
expression of truth. ( November 2019. from Phthia , Hellas ).
ass="comment-renderer-text-content expanded"> Gosh , especially that last conclusion
,was terrific so I want to paste the whole of that Auden poem here:- September 1, 1939 W. H.
Auden - 1907-1973
... ... ...
I sit in one of the dives
On Fifty-second Street
Uncertain and afraid
As the clever hopes expire
Of a low dishonest decade:
Waves of anger and fear
Circulate over the bright
And darkened lands of the earth,
Obsessing our private lives;
The unmentionable odour of death
Offends the September night.
"... Doesn't Warren claim to have indigenous ancestors herself and was proud of it? She caused Trump to call her "Pocahontas"? She agrees to support the unelected interim president Jeannine Añez, who refers to indigenous inhabitants as satanic? Warren is a very horrible person, inhumane, amoral, and rather stupid overall, who wants to get rich. ..."
"... I personally think that capitalism with "human face" and robust public sector is the way to go. But imperialist imposition and aggression is not the part of "human face" that I imagine. ..."
"... I'm sorry but you all need to come to terms with the farce that is the American political system. Anyone who was supporting Warren or even considering voting for her for ANY reason is apparently either in denial or is being duped. Warren is a Madison Avenue creation packaged for US liberal consumption. ..."
"... She hangs out with Hillary Clinton and Madeline Albright, two evil women if ever there were. Now they make the three witches brewing one coup/regime change after another. She's not smart enough to see that HRC and MA are leading her around by her nose. People should call out this phoney everywhere she goes. BTW, Rachel Maddow completes an odious clique. ..."
"... This is a bit of exaggeration. The three ladies are more like good students, they did not write the textbook but they good grades for answering as written, or like cheerleaders, they jump and shout but they do not play in the field. Mind you, "interagency consensus" was formed without them. ..."
"... The DNC's strategy for this election is to ensure that Bernie doesn't go into the Convention with enough delegates to win the first ballot. (Once voting goes past the first ballot, super-delegates get to weigh in and help anoint a candidate who's friendly to the Party's plutocratic-oligarch principals.) ..."
"... That's the reason the DNC is allowing and encouraging so many candidates to run. Warren's specific assignment is to cannibalize Bernie's base and steal delegates that would otherwise be his, by pretending to espouse most of his platform with only minor tweaks. She's been successful with "better educated," higher-income liberal Democrats who consider themselves well informed because they get their news from "respectable" sources -- sources that, unbeknownst to their target audiences, invariably represent the viewpoint of the aforementioned plutocratic oligarchs. ..."
"... if Warren becomes the nominee, I will support her over Trump. It's a lesser of two evils choice, but we must recognize that no candidate will be perfect–ever. ..."
"... Zionism is typically the gateway drug for Democratic would-be reformers. Once they've swallowed that fundamental poison, the DNC feels secure it's just a matter of time before they Get With the Program 100%. Given that "Harvard" and "phony" are largely synonymous, what else could've been expected? ..."
Reiterates Her Neoconservative Policies Against Venezuela
Elizabeth Warren repeated her support for regime change in Venezuela in an interview in September with the
Council on Foreign Relations , a central gear in the machinery
of the military-industrial complex. "Maduro is a dictator and a crook who has wrecked his country's economy, dismantled its democratic
institutions, and profited while his people suffer," Warren declared. She referred to Maduro's elected government as a "regime" and
called for "supporting regional efforts to negotiate a political transition." Echoing the rhetoric of neoconservatives in Washington,
Warren called for "contain[ing]" the supposedly "damaging and destabilizing actions" of China, Russia, and Cuba. The only point where
Warren diverged with Trump was on her insistence that "there is no U.S. military option in Venezuela."
Soft-Pedals Far-Right Coup in Bolivia
While Warren endorsed Trump's hybrid war on Venezuela, she more recently whitewashed the U.S.-backed coup in Bolivia.
Warren refused to comment on the putsch for more than a week, even as the far-right military junta massacred dozens of protesters
and systematically purged and detained elected left-wing politicians from MAS.
Finally, eight days after the coup, Warren broke her silence. In a short tweet, the putative progressive presidential candidate
tepidly requested "free and fair elections" and calling on the "interim leadership" to prepare an "early, legitimate election."
What Warren did not mention is that this "interim leadership" she helped legitimize is headed by an extreme right-wing Christian
fundamentalist, the unelected "interim president"
Jeanine Añez. Añez has referred
to Bolivia's majority-Indigenous population as "satanic" and immediately moved to try to overturn the country's progressive constitution,
which had established an inclusive, secular, plurinational state after receiving an overwhelming democratic mandate in a 2009 referendum.
Añez's ally in this coup regime's interim leadership is
Luis Fernando
Camacho , a multi-millionaire who emerged out of neo-fascist groups and courted support from the United States and the far-right
governments of Brazil and Colombia. By granting legitimacy to Bolilvia's ultra-conservative, unelected leadership, Warren rubber-stamped
the far-right coup and the military junta's attempt to stamp out Bolivia's progressive democracy. In other words, as The Grayzone
editor Max Blumenthal put it, Liz's
Big Structural Bailey compliantly rolled over for
Big IMF Structural Adjustment Program
.
Ben Norton is a journalist and writer. He is a reporter for The Grayzone , and the producer of the "
Moderate Rebels " podcast, which he co-hosts with Max Blumenthal. His
website is BenNorton.com , and he tweets at @
BenjaminNorton .
A vote for evil is never a good choice, and choosing a candidate you perceive as a lesser evil still condones evil. Allowing
the Oligarchy to limit your choice gives them the power to continue advancing evil policies. They control both major parties.
You may succeed in getting non-gender specific restrooms in your Starbucks, but the murdering war machine will continue unabated.
Now, we are seeing the true colors of candidates, who have professed to be progressive. Sanders went on a "tirade" against
Maduro during the last "debate" I saw. Tulsi Gabbard has stayed against US Imperialism, but, I'm sure the Democratic policy controllers
will never nominate her. I foresee I'll be voting for the Socialist next year.
Raymond M. , November 22, 2019 at 18:09
""""On Nov. 10, the U.S. government backed a far-right military coup against Bolivia's democratically elected President Evo
Morales bla blla bla".
And the 3 right wing candidates spent more time slinging mud at at each other than at Morales. Had the CIAs top front man Ortez stepped aside, the vote would not have split and allowed Morales to claim a first round victory and avoid
a run-off that he would have lost. And the right wing Christian fundamentalist for sure was a CIA plant who manged to split the
vote further.
Under the Trump administration, the CIA can even run a coup right.
If only those anti-Western rulers seen the light and joined RBWO (rule* based world order, * rules decided in DC, preferably
by bipartisan consensus), then the economy would run smoothly and the population would be happy. Every week gives another example:
By The Associated Press, Nov. 21, 2019, BOGOTA, Colombia
Colombians angry with President Iván Duque and hoping to channel Latin America's wave of discontent took the streets by the tens
of thousands on Thursday in one of the biggest protests in the nation's recent history. [ ] Police estimated 207,000 people took
part. [ ] government deployed 170,000 officers, closed border crossings and deported 24 Venezuelans accused of entering the country
to instigate unrest.
So if only Iván did not start unnecessary conflict with Maduro, these 24 scoundrels would stay home and the trouble would be
avoided. Oh wait, I got confused
CitizenOne , November 21, 2019 at 22:10
You must imagine that when candidtes suddenly become mind control puppets what is going on. The scariest thing in American
Politics is how supposedly independent and liberal progressives somehow swallow the red pill and are transported into the world
of make believe. Once inside the bubble of fiction far removed from human suffering which is after all what politicians are supposed
to be about fixing they can say crazy things. Jimmy Carter and Donald Trump are the only souls to retain their independent (yet
opposite) minds and both of them got the boot for being different.
Hide Behind , November 21, 2019 at 20:44
The puppet masters are experts, on the one hand there is A Republican, and on the other is a Democrat, but even they mess up
now and then get the different strings tangled.
Some come back on stage on the different hand so to save time they give a puppet two faces.
Watching same puppets gets old so every so often 2-4-6 they restring an old one that was used as props in past, change their makeup
a bit to give them new faces.
We do not actually elect the puppet, we instead legitimize the Puppeteers who own' s the only stage in town.
Those who choreograph the movements and change the backgrouds, media outlets and permanent bureaucrats know the plays before they
are introduced, and they know best how to get adults to leave reality behind and bring back their childhood fantacies.
Days of sugar plums, candy canes, socks filled with goodies and not coal, tooth fairys, and kind generous Fairy God Mothers.
Toy Nutcracker soldiers that turn into Angelic heros, Yellow brick roads, Bunnies with pocket watches, and and magic shoes of
red, or of glass in hand of handsome Princes and beautiful Princesses, all available if we vote.
So who votes, only those who control the voting puppets know that reality does not exist, they twitch we react, and at end of
voting counts one of hand's puppets will slump and cry, while others will leap and dance in joy, only for all to end up in one
pile until the puppeteers need them for next act.
Frederike , November 21, 2019 at 17:30
"What Warren did not mention is that this "interim leadership" she helped legitimize is headed by an extreme right-wing Christian
fundamentalist, the unelected "interim president" Jeanine Añez.
Añez has referred to Bolivia's majority-Indigenous population as "satanic" and immediately moved to try to overturn the country's
progressive constitution, which had established an inclusive, secular, plurinational state after receiving an overwhelming democratic
mandate in a 2009 referendum."
Doesn't Warren claim to have indigenous ancestors herself and was proud of it? She caused Trump to call her "Pocahontas"?
She agrees to support the unelected interim president Jeannine Añez, who refers to indigenous inhabitants as satanic?
Warren is a very horrible person, inhumane, amoral, and rather stupid overall, who wants to get rich.
Everything she agreed to in the interview listed above is pathetic. I had no idea that she is such a worthless individual.
arggo , November 22, 2019 at 19:57
"neocon" explains this. She seems to have the support of very foundational structures that enabled Hillary Clinton Democrats to attack
and destroy Bernie Sanders in 2016.
Warren has not lost my vote for the simple reason she never had it in the first place. None of this, sickening as it is, comes
as any surprise. Warren is an unapologetic capitalist. She's like Robert Reich in that regard. They both believe capitalism–if
reformed, tweaked a bit here and there–can work. To give her credit, she's always been very honest about that. And of course our
doctrine of regime change is all in the service of capitalism. Unless I'm simply confused and mistaken.
Sherwood Forrest , November 22, 2019 at 09:38
Yes, Capitalist First! That makes it so difficult for any aware person to believe she sincerely supports a wealth tax, Universal
Healthcare, Green New Deal, College loan forgiveness, family leave or anything else the 1% oppose. Because promising like Santa
is part of Capitalist politics, and then saying," Nah, we can't afford it."
I personally think that capitalism with "human face" and robust public sector is the way to go. But imperialist imposition
and aggression is not the part of "human face" that I imagine.
So Warren's imperialist positions are evil and unnecessary to preserve capitalism, how that projects at her as a person it
is hard to tell. A Polish poet has those words spoken by a character in his drama "On that, I know only what I heard, but I am
afraid to investigate because it poisons my mind about " (Znam to tylko z opowiada?, ale strzeg? si? tych bada?, bo mi truj? my?l
o ) As typical of hearsay, her concept of events in Venezuela, Bolivia etc. is quite garbled, she has no time (but perhaps some
fear) to investigate herself (easy in the era of internet). A serious politician has to think a lot about electability (and less
about the folks under the steam roller of the Empire), so she has to "pick her fights".
It is rather clear that American do not care if people south of the border are governed democratically or competently, which
led Hillary Clinton to make this emphatic statement in a debate with Trump "You will not see me singing praises of dictators or
strongmen who do not love America". One can deconstruct it "if you do not love America you are a strongman or worse, but if you
love America, we will be nice to you". I would love to have the original and deconstructed statement polled, but Warren is not
the only one afraid of such investigations. So "electability" connection to green light to Bolivian fascist and red light to Bolivarians
of Venezuela is a bit indirect. Part of it is funding, part, bad press.
brett , November 21, 2019 at 15:15
I'm sorry but you all need to come to terms with the farce that is the American political system. Anyone who was supporting
Warren or even considering voting for her for ANY reason is apparently either in denial or is being duped. Warren is a Madison
Avenue creation packaged for US liberal consumption.
She is a fraud and a liar. One trained in psychology can see, in her every
movement and utterance, the operation that is going on behind the facade. Everything Warren says is a lie to someone. She only
states truth in order to later dis-inform. Classic deception. She (her billionaires) has latched on to the populism of the DSA
etc. in order to sabotage any progressive momentum and drive a stake in it.
Rob Roy , November 22, 2019 at 00:40
She hangs out with Hillary Clinton and Madeline Albright, two evil women if ever there were. Now they make the three witches
brewing one coup/regime change after another. She's not smart enough to see that HRC and MA are leading her around by her nose.
People should call out this phoney everywhere she goes. BTW, Rachel Maddow completes an odious clique.
This is a bit of exaggeration. The three ladies are more like good students, they did not write the textbook but they good
grades for answering as written, or like cheerleaders, they jump and shout but they do not play in the field. Mind you, "interagency
consensus" was formed without them.
Peter in Seattle , November 21, 2019 at 14:53
The DNC's strategy for this election is to ensure that Bernie doesn't go into the Convention with enough delegates to win the
first ballot. (Once voting goes past the first ballot, super-delegates get to weigh in and help anoint a candidate who's friendly
to the Party's plutocratic-oligarch principals.)
That's the reason the DNC is allowing and encouraging so many candidates to run.
Warren's specific assignment is to cannibalize Bernie's base and steal delegates that would otherwise be his, by pretending to
espouse most of his platform with only minor tweaks. She's been successful with "better educated," higher-income liberal Democrats
who consider themselves well informed because they get their news from "respectable" sources -- sources that, unbeknownst to their
target audiences, invariably represent the viewpoint of the aforementioned plutocratic oligarchs.
Absolutely nothing in Warren's background supports her new calculatedly progressive primary persona. She was a Reagan
Republican. When the Republican Party moved right to become the party of batshit crazy and the Democratic Party shifted right
to become the party of Reagan Republicans, she became a Democrat. She's not a good actress, and it takes willing suspension of
disbelief to buy into her performance as a savvier, wonkier alternative to Bernie. And when she's pressed for details (Medicare
for All) and responses to crises (Venezuela and Bolivia), the cracks in her progressive façade become patently obvious. She's
a sleeper agent for Democratic-leaning plutocrats, like Obama was in 2008, and she would never get my vote.
PS: Impressed by Warren's progressive wealth-tax plan? Don't be. Our country's billionaires know she won't fight for it, and
that if she did, Congress would never pass it. (They know who owns Congress.) Besides, do you really think Pocahontas would
beat Trump? Do you think Sleepy Joe would? The billionaires wouldn't bet on it. And they're fine with that. Sure, they'd like
someone who's more thoroughly corporatist on trade and more committed to hot régime-change wars than Trump is, but they can live
just fine with low-tax, low-regulation Trump. It's the prospect of a Bernie presidency that keeps them up at night
and their proxies in the Democratic Party and allied media are doing everything they can to neutralize that threat.
mbob , November 21, 2019 at 18:13
@Peter
Thanks for this beautiful post. I agree with it 100%. I've been trying to figure out why Democrats are so consistently unable
to see through rhetoric and fall for what candidates pretend to be. Part of it is wishful thinking. A lot of it is, as you wrote,
misplaced trust in "respectable" sources. I have no idea how to fix that: how does one engender the proper skepticism of the MSM?
I haven't been able to open the eyes of any of my friends. (Fortunately my wife and daughter opened their own eyes.)
Warren is, if you look clearly, driven by her enormous ambition. She's the same as every other candidate in that regard, save
Bernie.
Bernie is driven by the same outrage that we feel. We need him.
In the last Israeli massacre on Gaza she was all for the IDF killing Palistinians. Americans like to look at the CCP and cry
about China being a one party state. Well is the US not a one party state?= Are the views of the Democrats and Republicans not
the same when it comes to slaughtering people in the third world? There is not a razor`s edge between them. Biden, Warren, Sanders,
Trump, Cruz and Pense they are all war criminals, or if elected will soon become war criminals.
From someone who at the beginning showed promise and humanity, she has turned into Albright and Clinton. How f**king sad is
that?
Dan Kuhn , November 21, 2019 at 14:33
Better to see her for what she really is now then after the election if she were to win. She is disgusting in her inhumanity.
Rob , November 21, 2019 at 13:43
This Is, indeed, disturbing and disappointing. Warren seems so genuinely right on domestic economic and social issues, so how
could she be so wrong on foreign policy issues? The same principles apply in both–justice, fairness, equity, etc. That said, she
is no worse than any of the other Democratic candidates in that regard, with the exceptions of Sanders and Gabbard, so if Warren
becomes the nominee, I will support her over Trump. It's a lesser of two evils choice, but we must recognize that no candidate
will be perfect–ever.
Far better to stick to your principles and write in " None of the above." believe me with this article we can easily see that
Trump is no worse nor better than Warren is. They are both pretty poor excuses as human beings.
Peter in Seattle , November 21, 2019 at 16:04
@Rob:
If you'll allow me to fix that for you, "What Warren tactically claims to support, in the primaries, seems so genuinely
right on domestic economic and social issues ." I'm convinced Warren is an Obama 2.0 in the making. I don't think anyone
can match Obama's near-180° turnabout from his 2008 primary platform and that if Warren is elected, she will try to make Wall
Street a little more honest and stable, maybe advocate for a $12 minimum wage, and maybe try to shave a few thousand dollars off
student-loan debts. I suppose that technically qualifies as less evil than Trump. But I fully expect her to jettison 90% of her
primary platform, including a progressive tax on wealth and Medicare for All. And when you factor in her recently confirmed approval
of US military and financial imperialism -- economic subversion and régime-change operations that cost tens of thousands of innocent
foreign lives, and other peoples their sovereignty -- at what point does "less evil" become too evil to vote for?
John Drake , November 21, 2019 at 13:13
" presidential candidate tepidly requested "free and fair elections". Such a statement ignores the fact that Evo Morales term
was not up; therefore elections are not called for. This means she supports the coup. Restoration of his position which was illegally
and violently stolen from him are in order not elections until his term is up.
Her position on Venezuela is nauseating; as the article states classic neo-conservative. Maybe Robert Kagan will welcome her into
their club as he did with Hillary.
Warren used to be a Republican, she has not been cured of that disease; and is showing her true colors. Maybe it's best as she
is differentiating herself from Bernie. I was concerned before she started down this latest path that she would do an Obama; progressive
rhetoric followed by neo-liberal-or worse- behavior once in office. Maybe she is more honest than Obama.
Guy , November 21, 2019 at 12:40
Warren can't be very informed about what democracy actually means .Democracy is not the same as capitalism .
Not a US citizen but am very disappointed with her stated platform .
Short of divine intervention Tulsi will never make it but Sanders for president and Tulsi as VP would do just fine to re-direct
the US foreign policy and maybe ,just maybe make the US more respectable among the rest of the nations of the world.
It would make a lot of sense from actuarial point of view. The chances that at least one person on the ticket would live healthily
for 8 years would be very good, without Tulsi
Punkyboy , November 21, 2019 at 12:02
I was pretty sure Warren was a Hillary clone; now I'm absolutely sure of it. Another election between worse and worser. I may
just stay home this time, if the world holds together that long.
Socratic Truth , November 21, 2019 at 11:42
Warren is just another puppet of the NWO.
Ma Laoshi , November 21, 2019 at 11:12
I remember years and years ago, I guess about when Lizzie first entered Congress, that she went on the standard pandering tour
to the Motherland and an astute mind commented: Zionism is typically the gateway drug for Democratic would-be reformers. Once
they've swallowed that fundamental poison, the DNC feels secure it's just a matter of time before they Get With the Program 100%.
Given that "Harvard" and "phony" are largely synonymous, what else could've been expected?
Peter in Seattle , November 21, 2019 at 15:32
@Ma Laoshi:
Speaking of Harvard, having contemplated the abysmal track record compiled by our "best and brightest" -- in Congress,
in the White House, and on the federal bench -- I am now almost as suspicious of the Ivy League as I am of the Western
Hemisphere Institute for Security (WHINSEC, formerly known as the School of the Americas). The mission of both is to train capable,
reliable, well-compensated servants to the US plutocracy. (And the only reason I say "almost" is because a non-negligible number
of black sheep have come out of the Ivy League and I'm not aware of any that have come out of WHINSEC.)
Sam F , November 23, 2019 at 18:59
Harvard admissions are apparently largely bought, and doubtless those of Yale and others.
MIT was strictly militarist warmongers in the 1970s, and one compete with 80% cheaters.
Dfnslblty , November 21, 2019 at 11:12
" The only point where Warren diverged with Trump was on her insistence that "there is no U.S. military option in Venezuela."
"
Hell, one doesn't need a military option after immoral, illegal and crippling sanctions.
This essay is the most disturbing piece all year-2019.
Vote anti-military – vote nonviolence.
Don't give these murderers anything but exposure to humane sensibilities.
I didn't think Trump supported a military solution in Venezuela. That was John Bolton's baby and Trump fired him as one would
hope he would soon fire Pompeo as has been hinted at. Trump campaigned on ending wars of choice but has given in to the MIC at
almost every turn. Maybe he will resign in leiu of being impeached. We might then see a Rand Paul vs. Bernie Sanders. I could
live with either one
Skip Scott , November 21, 2019 at 09:12
Once again the Democratic Party is pushing to have our choice for 2020 be between corporate sponsored war monger from column
A or B.
I wish Tulsi would "see the light" and run as an Independent in 2020. There is absolutely no way that she gets the nod from
the utterly corrupt DNC. She is abandoning her largest base (Independents) by sticking with the Democratic Party. Considering
the number of disgruntled non-voters, she could easily win the general election; but she will never win the Democratic primary.
The field is purposely flooded to ensure the "superdelegates" get the final say on a second ballot.
AnneR , November 21, 2019 at 08:50
Warren is as inhumane, amoral and imperialist as anyone in the WH and the US Congress, and she is certainly kindred in spirit,
thought and would be in deed, as Madeline Albright, the cheerful slaughterer of some 500,000 Iraqi children because the "price
was worth it." Of course, these utterly racist, amoral people do not have to pay "that price" nor do any of their families. (And
let us not forget that Albright and Killary are good friends – Warren is totally kindred with the pair, totally.)
And clearly Warren – like all of the Demrat contenders – is full on for any kind of warfare that will bring a "recalcitrant"
country into line with US demands (on its resources, lands etc.). She is grotesque.
She and those of her ilk – all in Congress, pretty much, and their financial backers – refuse to accept that Maduro and Morales
*both* were legally, legitimately and cleanly re-elected to their positions as presidents of their respective countries. But to
do that would be to go against her (commonly held) fundamental belief that the US has the right to decide who is and is not the
legitimate national leader of any given country. And what policies they institute.
Anyone who supports economic sanctions is supporting siege warfare, is happily supporting the starvation and deprivation of
potentially millions of people. And shrugging off the blame for the effects of the sanctions onto the government of the sanctioned
country is heinous, is immoral and unethical. WE are the ones who are killing, not the government under extreme pressure. If you
can't, won't accept the responsibility – as Warren and the rest of the US government clearly will not – for those deaths you are
causing, then stay out of the bloody kitchen: stop committing these crimes against humanity.
Cara , November 21, 2019 at 15:25
Please provide documentation that Sanders is, as you claim, a "full-on zionist supporter of "Israel" and clearly anti-Palestinian."
Sanders has been quite consistent in his criticism of Israel and the treatment of Palestinians: timesofisrael.com/bernie-sanders-posts-video-citing-apartheid-like-conditions-for-palestinians;
and; jacobinmag.com/2019/07/bernie-sanders-israel-palestine-bds
"Sanders is less so, but not wholly because he is a full-on zionist supporter of "Israel" and clearly anti-Palestinian"
Sanders is definitely not "full-on zionist supporter", not only he does not deny that "Palestinians exist" (to died-in-the-wool
Zionists, Palestinians are a malicious fiction created to smear Israel etc., google "Fakestinians"), but he claims that they have
rights, and using Hamas as a pretext for Gaza blockade is inhumane (a recent headline). One can pull his other positions and statements
to argue in the other direction, but in my opinion, he is at the extreme humane end of "zionist spectrum" (I mean, so humane that
almost not a Zionist).
This is another remnant for Bush neocon team, a protégé of Bolton. Trump probably voluntarily appointed this rabid neocon, a
chickenhawk who would shine in Hillary State Department.
Interestingly she came from working class background. So much about Marx theory of class struggle. Brown, David (March 4, 2017).
"Miner's daughter
tipped as Trump adviser on Russia" . The Times.
She also illustrate level pf corruption of academic science, because she got
PhD in history from Harvard in 1998 under Richard
Pipes, Akira Iriye, and
Roman Szporluk. But at least this was history, not
languages like in case of Ciaramella.
Such appointment by Trump is difficult to describe with normal words as he understood what he is buying. So he is himself to blame for his current troubles and his inability
to behave in a diplomatic way when there was important to him question about role of CrowdStrike in 2016 election and creation of Russiagate
witch hunt.
There is something in the USA that creates conditions for producing rabid female neocons, some elevator that brings ruthless female
careerists with sharp elbows them to the establishment. She sounds like a person to the right of Madeline Albright, which is an achievement
With such books It is unclear whether she is different from Max Boot. She buys official Skripal story like hook and sinker. The
list of her book looks like produced in UK by Luke Harding
Being miner daughter raised in poverty we can also talk about betrayal of her class and upbringing.
This also rises wisdom of appointing emigrants to the Administration and the extent they pursue policies beneficial for their
native countries.
She testified in public before the same body on November 21, 2019. [12] While being
questioned by Steve Castor , the counsel for the House Intelligence
Committee's Republican minority, Hill commented on Gordon
Sondland 's involvement in the Ukraine matter: "It struck me when (Wednesday), when you put up on the screen Ambassador Sondland's
emails, and who was on these emails, and he said these are the people who need to know, that he was absolutely right," she said.
"Because he was being involved in a domestic political errand, and we were being involved in national security foreign policy. And
those two things had just diverged." [13] In response
to a question from that committee's chairman, Rep. Adam Schiff
, Hill stated: "The Russians' interests are frankly to delegitimize our entire presidency. The goal of the Russians [in 2016]
was really to put whoever became the president -- by trying to tip their hands on one side of the scale -- under a cloud."
[
Taken together, those twin hasbara refrains evoke a notion of divine punishment. JFK and
RFK were punished for the sins of their Jew-hating, Nazi-loving father. Mind you, it was
Yahweh who took vengeance, not Israel!
Brilliant article by Guyenot. Thoroughly well written & informative.
A Congresswoman, Tulsi Gabbard, is being viciously slandered in article after article in
the Mainstream (Zionist) Media. Read the diatribe carefully, and learn some of how the People
are misdirected-brainwashed.
Ms. Gabbard is, apparently, leading in the Polls, and the Zionist controller Power Elite
are Panicky. They will do to Ms. Gabbard what they did to Ron Paul, and his campaign.
It is a sense of frustration that We-I are not able to Revenge the murder of our last
Constitutional President, John F. Kennedy, the Destruction of our Republic, the millions of
murders from November 22, 1963, to the present, or to effectively defend & protect this
noble lady (Ms. Gabbard).
If we protect her, we protect ourselves and our Country. Freedom is not free. We must
Pay for i t!
"... JFK's assassination made possible the acquisition of nuclear arsenal by Israel and the unhindered growth of the most important foreign lobby such as AIPAC. On the cui bono question Israel is a perfect match. Israel gained everything form the JFK's death ..."
"... Was Johnson having an affair with Israeli agent Mathilde Krim? Did LBJ have reason to fear he was liable to be dumped from the Democratic ticket in 1964 because of the Bobby Baker and Billy Sol Estes scandals? Why did Richard Nixon lie about his own presence in Dallas when Kennedy was killed? Why was George HW Bush for a long time unable to remember his whereabouts on Nov. 22? ..."
"... All available evidence points to the CIA and the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, with the cooperation of the Secret Service, as the murderers of President Kennedy. ..."
"... It is well documented that JFK wanted to break down the power of the Central Intelligence Agency. Could this have had dire consequences and let to his untimely death? Let's have a look! ..."
"... This "Israel did it" theory doesn't quite answer the question of how physical evidence was destroyed and eyewitnesses intimidated by agents of the US government. This I base on an assertion in Douglass's book JFK and the Unspeakable that men with Secret Service and FBI credentials immediately began the cover up operation. ..."
"... Fullbright who publicly denounced Israel and their control of the US Congress on National TV and the fact that Kennedy wanted him as Secretary of State must have also riled the Jews. Fullbright was also against the Vietnam War. ..."
"... Of course, I know the speculation it was Israelis who were behind it (Dimona), but I don't find it persuasive. There are other means to avoid US inspection, and Kennedy was not adamant about it at all. These are things politicians toy with all the time, and while not a "friend" of Israel, Kennedy was not an enemy -- one could consider Eisenhower, if we judge him by his actions during Suez canal crisis- to be an "enemy" of Israel (of course this too is simplistic, politics is a rough business). ..."
"... The Warren Commission hogwash was almost as ridiculous as the official 911 nonsense, and Mark Lane's 1966 book "Rush to Judgment" helped fuel broad public disbelief in the official story. ..."
"... Talk about quid pro quo to the nth degree, as that hideous snake LBJ gave the MIC and its financiers their wars, etc., in exchange for the Presidency and for keeping his sorry ass out of jail for the Billy Sol Estes and Bobby Baker scandals. Sure, the Israelis benefitted, and were likely a cog in the conspiratorial wheel, but the CIA, Secret Service, and various military agents were the movers and shakers, with LBJ their guarantor. ..."
"... Like any good gumshoe worth his salt, the first question he asks himself after arriving at the crime scene is Cui bono, who benefits? In the case of the JFK assassination, there was clearly one very large beneficiary that stood out above the rest, Israel. By Nov 1963, JFK had two big strikes against him ..."
"... "Mr. Trump has been prevented from releasing the rest of the "top secret" files, in spite of his promise to do so." IIRC, it was Trump doing all of the preventing. ..."
"... This "Israel did it" theory doesn't quite answer the question of how physical evidence was destroyed and eyewitnesses intimidated by agents of the US government. ..."
"... The Mossad and the CIA were part of the same "team"–the CIA handled and continues to handle the ongoing domestic coverup operations as needed (including Mockingbird mass media activities). ..."
"... Connelly is a _very_ interesting figure, and his background prior to the day of the assassination is not very well understood. I was stunned to read that he was a key actor in the Korean War "setup" ..."
"... Remember, Kennedy had just buggered up the CIA's Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba and was threatening to pull out of the CIA's war in Vietnam. With a nod from LBJ the CIA could kill Kennedy and be sure of top-down cover from the moment Kennedy's heart stopped beating, cover which, according to the doctors who attended on Kennedy at Parklands Hospital, was promptly given. ..."
"... Then there's the deathbed confession of CIA agent E. Howard Hunt, which provides a tenuous connection with Richard Nixon, who hired Hunt and Frank Sturgis (both believed to have been among the tramps arrested in Dealey Plaza in the immediate aftermath of the assassination) to. among other things, burglarize the Democratic Party headquarters at the Watergate Building in Washington, DC. ..."
"... I think Oswald the CIA agent who agreed to go to Russia on a fake defector mission for the agency with no way of knowing what would happen to him, would have been an insanely extreme patriot. Such an Oswald might be willing to do anything he was ordered to I suppose. The trouble is Oswald seems to have been anti establishment right back into his teens. He was an immature 17 year old when he joined the Marines, and though he toughened up considerably they evidence of him ever being an anti communist fanatic is just lacking. ..."
"... Be sure and dive into all of the data supporting link's located at the bottom of this web page. November 23, 2019 JFK, MLK, RFK, 50 Years of Suppressed History: New Evidence on Assassination of John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King and Robert F. Kennedy. Failures to Confront the Unspeakable, and The Way Ahead. Part I
"... It is a documented fact that during all past official visits, President Kennedy's motorcade comprised a open-top lorry, driving ahead of the Presidents' limousine, and carrying journalists sat backward on graded tiers, who would film the President and the crowd cheering on him. ..."
"... At Dallas, the journalists' truck got cancelled, and the way paved for the sole Abraham Zapruder to document the circumstances of the JFK assassination. Just another complete coincidence, obviously. ..."
In my view, summarized
here
, John Kennedy was assassinated by Israel for three major reasons:
Dimona:
President
Kennedy, who had made nuclear disarmament his grand mission on the international level, and was on the way
to achieve it with Khrushchev (as shown by James Douglass in
JFK and the Unspeakable
), was determined to stop Israel developing its own nuclear bomb.
According to Colonel Muammar Gaddafi's
interpretation
, it was to plunge into the Israeli deep state and supervise Kennedy's assassination that
Ben-Gurion resigned in July 1963 before receiving Kennedy's ultimatum letter demanding inspections of
Dimona.
American Zionist Council:
John Kennedy and his Attorney General Bobby Kennedy had infuriated Zionist leaders by supporting an
investigation led by Senator William Fulbright (whom Kennedy had been prevented to name as Secretary of
State) aimed at registering the American Zionist Council as a "foreign agent" subject to the obligations
defined by the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, which would have rendered its lobbying division, the
AIPAC, near powerless. On October 11, 1963, the AZC received a formal demand from RFK's office to register
within 72 hours (details
here
).
To these reasons for assassinating
Kennedy, we must add the opposite reasons for putting Johnson instead in the Oval Office, for Johnson buried
both the Dimona and the AZC proceedings, and cut U.S. support for Nasser's in order to boost support to
Israel. In 1967, he would commit high treason against his own country by allowing and covering-up Israel's
failed false-flag attack on the USS Liberty. No wonder Israel loved Johnson as much as they hated Kennedy.
Zionists had reasons to fear that
Joseph Kennedy did "inject some poisonous drops of anti-Semitism in the minds of his children, including his
son John's" (as printed in September 1960 by the
Herut,
Menachem Begin's political party).
[6]
Alan
Hart,
Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews
, vol. 2:
David Becomes Goliath,
Clarity Press, 2013,
p. 252.
In 1940, John had published a book titled
Why England Slept,
adapted from his
Harvard thesis which was, as the title alluded, a response to Churchill's 1938 book
While England Slept,
and a veiled support for his father's pro-appeasement views. In his Pulitzer prize-winning book
Profiles in Courage
(1956), Kennedy had declared his admiration for Senator Robert Taft, who by calling
the Nuremberg trials a shameful parody of justice had sacrificed his political career, including his chances
for the presidency, rather than build it on hypocrisy. Although Zionists probably didn't know it until
recently, in 1945, JFK had written the following in his diary, as quoted
here
by Abigail Abrams:
The Kennedys were a family of strong
traditions and strong convictions. They had to be destroyed, politically as had Charles Lindbergh
(1902-1974), and if necessary physically, before they extirpate America from Zionists' clutches.
Dallas was an Israeli coup, ordered from
Tel Aviv with Johnson's support, and supervised by the local B'nai B'rith under the cover of the Dallas
Citizens Council, who was sponsoring Kennedy's visit, and of whom Abraham Zapruder himself was a member
(watch his satisfaction when interviewed two hours after JFK's assassination in the History Channel
documentary
JFK – 3 Shots That Changed America
, at 43:34).
When trying to make sense of Dallas'
Umbrella Man, we are faced with a dilemma: should we believe Witt's explanation of his strange behavior (as
does Josiah Thompson), or should we consider him an accomplice to the assassination (as does Russ Baker)?
Only in the framework of the Israeli theory pioneered by Michael Collins Piper is it possible to surmount
the dilemma.
Let's recap what we know for certain.
Fact number 1: on the sunny day of November 22, 1963, one man was standing on the President's motorcade
route with an open umbrella, at the precise moment and place when JFK was shot. To assume that the Umbrella
Man's strange behavior and JFK's assassination are unrelated is unreasonable. The coincidence is just too
improbable.
Fact number 2: In 1978, Louie Steven
Witt claimed in front of the HSCA that he was the Umbrella Man and explained that he wanted to heckle JFK
about his father's policy of appeasement of Hitler in 1938.
Although Thompson and Baker disagree
about everything else, they agree that there can be no connection between John Kennedy's assassination and
Joseph Kennedy's appeasement policy. That is where they are both wrong.
Was Louie Steven Witt a Zionist agent, a
sayan
? Not necessarily. Operations like the JFK assassination are planned on a strict need-to-know
basis: no one knows more than he needs to know. Witt
declared to the HSCA
that he belonged to no organization whatsoever. He summarized his motivation for
his "bad joke" in these words:
"In a coffee break conversation
someone had mentioned that the umbrella was a sore spot with the Kennedy family. Being a
conservative-type fellow, I sort of placed him in the liberal camp and I was just going to kind of do a
little heckling."
What would be interesting to know is:
who inspired Witt during his coffee break? Did the coffee break take place in the office of Witt's Jewish
boss, director of the Rio Grande National Life insurance Co. in Dallas? Did Witt have insurmountable debts,
like Jacob Rubenstein, aka Jack Ruby? Russ Baker mentions that the company wrote a lot of insurance for the
military and was located in the same building that housed the local office of the highly negligent Secret
Service.
Mr Witt, would you kindly come forward
again and answer a few questions?
I looked at 43:34 of the documentary posted with Zupruder being interviewed shortly after the assassination;
and what I see is a man aghast and at a loss for words, not "satisfied" as you supposed.
There is no better theory of JFK assassination than outlined by the author. JFK's assassination made
possible the acquisition of nuclear arsenal by Israel and the unhindered growth of the most important
foreign lobby such as AIPAC. On the
cui bono
question Israel is a perfect match. Israel gained
everything form the JFK's death
I am absolutely certain that the murder of JFK was the work of a group of conspirators rather than an
individual. The umbrella man is not new to me. I never gave him much thought though I have read work by
others who factor him as a key role in the assassination. The interview of Josiah Thompson was most thought
provoking in that it showed how someone on the periphery of a big event can be implicated theoretically yet
really it appeared to be nothing more than happenstance.
The takeaway from this is that we should never
take for granted the basic tenet of our justice system that presumes innocence. The burden of proof of guilt
lies with those making the accusation. Was the umbrella man a participant in that homicide? I don't know and
there is really no evidence proving otherwise.
Let's keep our eye on the ball. Sadly no one will ever be held to account for that murder. That is not to
say that the truth will never be known. One day we will know exactly what happened and who was responsible.
The lesson here is to not get immersed in that which can not be proven but can also detract from those who
were really responsible.
I'm quite happy to believe that Jews killed JFK, but things like this are a very thin reed to hang anything
on;
Dallas was an Israeli coup, ordered from Tel Aviv with Johnson's support, and supervised by the local
B'nai B'rith under the cover of the Dallas Citizens Council, who was sponsoring Kennedy's visit, and of
whom Abraham Zapruder himself was a member (watch his satisfaction when interviewed two hours after JFK's
assassination in the History Channel documentary JFK – 3 Shots That Changed America , at 43:34).
Zapruder's expression is totally equivocal. His strange momentary smile could be the natural reaction of
someone who is suddenly embarrassed to be on the point of tears. You can't make history out of 'testimony'
this weak.
Dimona: President Kennedy, who had made nuclear disarmament his grand mission on the international
level, and was on the way to achieve it with Khrushchev (as shown by James Douglass in JFK and the
Unspeakable), was determined to stop Israel developing its own nuclear bomb.
This is the same James Douglass who was incapable of spotting the obvious difference between Oswald's
wide head and Billy Nolan Lovelady's narrow head, thereby establishing himself as someone who is unreliable
with
any
evidence.
@Germanicus
Exactly what I thought when I realized the webpage of
Jewish Life
that I screenshot was taken away,
like the one from the
5 Towns Jewish Times
saying "Our First Jewish President Lyndon Johnson?" (of
which I didn't get a screenshot). So I've just save the screenshot of the page of the Jewish Telegraphic
Agency that you mention, titled: "Lyndon Johnson: no better friend"
the article says:
"Johnson was the most emotionally committed to Israel of any American president -- a fact that is not
popularly known but is clear from his background," Dennis Ross, a veteran Middle East negotiator in
Republican and Democratic administrations, said last year at a symposium of the Washington Institute for
Near East Policy, where he is counselor.
Johnson was the first president to invite an Israeli prime minister, Levi Eshkol, on a state visit. They
got along so well -- both men were farmers -- that Johnson paid Eshkol the rare compliment of inviting him
to his ranch.
LBJ soon abandoned pressure on Israel to come clean about the Dimona reactor. He increased arms sales to
Israel and in 1968, after Israel's primary supplier, France, imposed an embargo as a means of cultivating
ties in the Arab world, the United States became Israel's main supplier of weapons, notably launching the
talks that would lead to the sale of Phantom fighter jets to Israel.
Johnson wanted to commit more forcefully to Israel's cause in the lead-up to the 1967 Six-Day War, but he
felt constrained from a dramatic show of military might because of the failures of the war in Vietnam
then dogging his presidency. Nonetheless, during the war, he ordered warships to within 50 miles of
Syria's coast as a warning to the Soviets not to interfere.
In a speech in the war's immediate aftermath, Johnson effectively nipped in the bud any speculation that
the United States would pressure Israel to unilaterally give up the lands it had captured. He laid down
not only the "land for peace" formula that would inform subsequent U.N. Security Council resolutions, but
made it clear that any formula had to ensure Jewish access to Jerusalem's Old City.
@Daniel Rich
They donated half that money to a police charity on behalf of officers killed/wounded that day to be fair.
And by Kennedy wanting Israel nuke free is more than enough to prompt his assassination even though he was
hated by the entire military industrial complex.
If this was straight
assasination why go to so much trouble. The CIA had at the time developed weapons that could assasinate by
giving heart attacks or cancer and were discussed in the church committee investigation into the CIA. It
would have been very easy for someone to assasinte kennedy for instance when he was viting Marilyn Monroe or
his many mistresses. An affair is a good excuse for a heart attack.
No the murder of kennedy was not just about getting rid of him. It was a highly symbolic , even ritualistic
act.
It showed ultimately the power of the conspirators. It showed the impotence of the public. Its about
immobilizing effective resistance to the elite. Conspiracy theories become part of the psychological control
that they hold over the mass mind. The umbrella man is part of that symbolic control
"No wonder Israel loved Johnson as much as they hated Kennedy."
Y
ou should have written:
No wonder Johnson hated Kennedy as much as he loved Israel.
Was Johnson having an affair with Israeli agent Mathilde Krim? Did LBJ have reason to fear he was liable
to be dumped from the Democratic ticket in 1964 because of the Bobby Baker and Billy Sol Estes scandals? Why
did Richard Nixon lie about his own presence in Dallas when Kennedy was killed? Why was George HW Bush for a
long time unable to remember his whereabouts on Nov. 22?
With previous assassination plots in Chicago and Tampa, and the JBS handing out these posters in Dallas,
it was dereliction of duty for the Secret Service to have failed to clear high rise buildings in Dallas on
the motorcade route. Indeed, it was against their own regulations for Kennedy's limousine to have made those
sharp, slow-speed turns that took it through Dealey Plaza, and it was nothing short of being an accomplice
to murder for Secret Service driver William Greer to have allowed JFK's limousine to slow to a stop in the
killing zone when shots rang out.
With all that, I see umbrella man as nothing but a big red herring.
OK, but that was just on the side: I'm not building anything on that. This whole article is just an
anecdotic appendix to my main Kennedy article.
This is the same James Douglass who was incapable of
Yes, I am aware of the many shortcomings of Douglass, including his many blind spots (never heard of
Dimona, believes Johnson was such a good guy that, having failed to prevent the assassination of his beloved
president, he at least prevented the invasion of Cuba that it was meant to trigger, etc.). Nevertheless, his
book opened my eyes to Kennedy's determination to disarm the world and end the Cold War.
@PeterMX
It is also amazing that, 56 years after the terrible event that ruined America, Mr. Trump has been prevented
from releasing the rest of the "top secret" files, in spite of his promise to do so.
"Just days before he was
assassinated, JFK confided to his secretary that he wanted to replace his vp when he ran for reelection – he
didn't think LBJ was fit for president."
Later in the piece: Looking straight ahead and without hesitating he replied, "At this time I am thinking
about Gov. Terry Sanford of NC. But it will not be Lyndon."
Jack didn't want LBJ as his vp in the first place, but thought that the only way he could win was to put
that evil SOB on the ticket. He probably was right, as LBJ delivered Texas. Given the decades long national
trauma, from which the country has never recovered, it would have been far better if Nixon had won.
Oliver Stone's JFK blames the CIA, the military, and LBJ, makes no mention of Israel, and treats Ruby and
Zapruder sympathetically. No doubt explained by the fact that the movie was funded and produced by Israeli
superagent Arnon Milchan.
The movie is a limited hangout made to ensure that those who cannot swallow the
obvious lies of the Warren Commission will direct their anger otherwise than at Israel.
It showed ultimately the power of the conspirators. It showed the impotence of the public. Its about
immobilizing effective resistance to the elite. Conspiracy theories become part of the psychological
control that they hold over the mass mind. The umbrella man is part of that symbolic control
You nailed it. Also note this was an "Event", where hit men from all over the world (many of whom worked
as contractors for various intelligence agencies) converged in one place to honor their craft. A select few
participated in the actual execution, the rest were there to confuse any future investigators with false
leads.
This was a modern ritual sacrifice–think of it as alchemy in action.
September 24, 2019 The Coverup of President John F. Kennedy's Assassination Is Wearing Thin. All available
evidence points to the CIA and the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, with the cooperation of the Secret Service, as
the murderers of President Kennedy.
It is well documented that JFK wanted to break down the power of the Central Intelligence Agency. Could
this have had dire consequences and let to his untimely death? Let's have a look!
Jan 21, 2019 Celebs and relatives of Martin Luther King Jr. call for new probe into his death ahead of
his public holiday as they claim his assassination and JFK, RFK and Malcolm X's killing were conspiracies
covered up by the government
A group of at least 60 US citizens including journalists, lawyers and historians are calling for new
investigations into four history-making assassinations
Nov 23, 2016 53 YEARS AFTER JFK ASSASSINATION CIA ADMITS THIS CONSPIRACY THEORY IS ACTUALLY FACT
Shortly
after noon on November 22, 1963, President John F. Kennedy was assassinated as he rode in a motorcade
through Dealey Plaza in downtown Dallas, Texas. It's been 53 years since the assassination. Since that
fateful November day, conspiracy theories have abounded. However, when we sift through the disinformation
and look at only verifiable facts, we find no need for theories -- as the conspiracy was a fact.
Israeli PM David Ben-Gurion ordered the murder of JFK, because Kennedy had stood up to that maniac regarding
Israel getting nukes.
Mossad And The JFK Assassination
Their motive? Israel's much touted Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion, who ruled that country from its
inception in 1948 until he resigned on June 16, 1963, was so enraged at John F. Kennedy for not allowing
Israel to become a nuclear power that, Collins asserts, in his final days in office he commanded the
Mossad to become involved in a plot to kill America's president.
Ben-Gurion was so convinced that Israel's very survival was in dire jeopardy that in one of his final
letters to JFK he said,
"Mr. President, my people have the right to exist, and this existence is in
danger."
In the days leading up to Ben-Gurion's resignation from office, he and JFK had been involved in an
unpublicized, contentious debate over the possibility of Israel getting nuclear capabilities. Their
disagreement eventually escalated into a full-fledged war of words that was virtually ignored in the
press. Ethan Bronner wrote about this secret battle between JFK and Ben-Gurion years later in a New York
Times article on October 31, 1998, calling it a "fiercely hidden subject." In fact, the
Kennedy/Ben-Gurion conversations are still classified by the United States Government. Maybe this is the
case because Ben-Gurion's rage and frustration became so intense – and his power so great within Israel –
that Piper contends it was at the center of the conspiracy to kill John Kennedy. This stance is supported
by New York banker Abe Feinberg, who describes the situation as such:
"Ben-Gurion could be vicious,
and he had such a hatred of the old man [Joe Kennedy, Sr., JFK's father]."
Ben-Gurion despised Joe
Kennedy because he felt that not only was he an anti-Semite, but that he had also sided with Hitler
during the 1930's and 40's. [We will touch upon this aspect of the story in an upcoming article entitled
The CIA and Organized Crime: Two Sides of the Same Coin].
Anyway, Ben-Gurion was convinced that Israel needed nuclear weapons to insure its survival, while
Kennedy was dead-set against it.
This inability to reach an agreement caused obvious problems.
One
of them revolved around Kennedy's decision that he would make America his top priority in regard to
foreign policy, and not Israel!
Kennedy planned to honor the 1950 Tripartite Declaration which said
that the United States would retaliate against any nation in the Middle East that attacked any other
country. Ben-Gurion, on the other hand, wanted the Kennedy Administration to sell them offensive weapons,
particularly Hawk missiles.
.Gerald Posner, in his 1993 book Case Closed, posited that the errant first shot was fired at Z 160,
which put the entire shooting sequence at 8.4 seconds. (8) In the 13 years since Posner's book, several
highly respected students of the assassination have weighed in with reputable analyses of the first
shot's timing. Their estimates lead to total elapsed times of around 8.8, 8.4, and 8.6 seconds .
@ThreeCranes
Dr.Charles Crenshaw was one of the surgeons who treated JFK when he was brought into Parkland Hospital
stated that he " considered the throat wound to be an entrance wound and the large head wound (at the right
rear of JFK's head ) to be an exit wound Along with many of my Parkland colleagues I believed at the time
that the President had been hit twice from the front ."
"Every doctor who was in the trauma room had his own reasons for not refuting the official line .whatever
was happening was larger than any of us anyone who went as far to eliminate the President of the United
States would surely not hesitate to kill a doctor ."
Charles Crenshaw , " JFK Conspiracy of Silence " 1992
Fyi, in David Lifton's important & scientific book, "Best Evidence," he turned to a
fundamental example as to why JFK's head projected backward & a brain matter fell upon the limo's trunk.
Based upon physics,
Mr.
Lifton offered the kiddie example at a town carnival, & the act of shooting at plastic ducks. He emphasized
that wounded plastic duckies fall backward, not forward.
P.S.: David Lifton concluded unequivocally that a Secret Service role was critical to allow JFK's murder
& subsequent cover-up.
@LondonBob
Maybe so. Perhaps Baker is right: the Umbrella Man was a signal man, and Witt is not the Umbrella Man. But
then, fact number 2 become even more significant: why would someone come forward to make a declaration to
the HSCA that had the effect of connecting in the public psyche JFK's public assassination to the Kennedys'
anti-Semitism, and therefore, implicitly, to Jewish vengeance?
(I should have included that paragraph).
This "Israel did it" theory doesn't quite answer the question of how physical evidence was destroyed and
eyewitnesses intimidated by agents of the US government. This I base on an assertion in Douglass's book JFK
and the Unspeakable that men with Secret Service and FBI credentials immediately began the cover up
operation.
Douglass pointed to this as proof that a group of CIA insiders, no doubt loyal to Dulles, were
the orchestrators. How else to get real credentials for fake agents? That still makes sense to me though M.
Guyenot's writings make it clear that the Israelis would have been happy to lend an assist.
JFK's public assassination to the Kennedys' anti-Semitism,
Laurent Guyenot, I have already posted – my agreement with your well written analysis.
However, (please pay attention),
John F. Kennedy was not an 'anti-Semite,' he liked Arabs.
Semites are Peoples from the Middle East. The overwhelming majority of Jews are NOT Semites. They hail
from Europe, or from America-by route of Europe.
I would recommend
Arthur Koestler's Thirteenth Tribe
, as the first read – of many to understand &
correctly use the term "Semite."
The term Semite is cynically used as a misdirection tool.
The Jewish Oligarch claim to be Semites,
is a deceitful way of laying claim to land in the Middle East. The worst anti-Semites are Jews, who are busy
Ethnically Cleansing Palestinian Arabs, stealing their lands & wealth, and, additionally, attempting to
conquer all of the Middle East, and Remove, or Exterminate the indigenous Semites.
Orwell
exposed the manipulation of Language, in his
1984
, as the key tool of oppressors to
reduce their subjects to slavery.
A couple of years ago I finally fulfilled a promise I made to my self back in November 22nd 1963 as I sat in
Edinburgh Scotland on that fateful Friday night,that I would one day visit Dealey plaza Dallas and see for
my self.
As I drove into the plaza up W Commerce street what struck me immediately was how small it all felt and as I
walked around the compact size of Dealey plaza was reinforced. I had been viewing the unfolding events all
these years through the lens of a narrow angle press camera and Zapruders home movie wide angle lens, which
to me made the place look far more expansive than it is when you are there in person. I have been unable for
some time to come up or read anyone else's theory which explained satisfactorily the shallow back wound in
Kennedy the throat wound with just a tiny knick in the tie , the wounding of Connelly, the Teague face hit,
the damage to the windscreen and the chrome strip of the car and the shot which hit the grass.
who claimed that umbrella man had fired a poison paralysing dart at Kennedy at about z189. I took this
with a pinch of salt when I first read it. The plaza looked to big for this to have been likely and the
distance from the kerb side to the car would be to large to have a realistic chance of success from an
umbrella, but having visited the plaza and seeing how close he actually was, far fetched though it seems,
it's a good theory that fits what you see happening in the Z film.
So I think Richard E. Sprague is pretty much right , first Umbrella man opens his umbrella the coloured
man stands in front of him with his hand in the air and umbrella man fires his flechette hitting Kennedy in
the throat. Then Kennedy's hands go to his throat and he is quickly parallalized. The radio man passes the
message to start shooting. The first shot comes in , it misses but hits the street lamp standard or the tree
and fragments, one of the fragment hits Kennedy in the back and one fragment hits Teague in the face along
with bits hitting the car chrome strip and windscreen. A second shot comes in and hits Connelly in the chest
and Connelly starts screaming "they are going to kill us all". The third shot hits Kennedy in the head as
Z313 as he sits stiff and ridged slightly angled but upright in the car. There may have been a 4th shot from
the grassy knoll which was a head shot also and a possible 5th shot , the one hit the grass in Dealey Plaza.
With a sixth and possible second shot hit on Connelly. Since we now have multiple shooters and Umbrella man
the timing of shots is no longer a factor not if they are coming in close together can we determine exactly
how many.
Ok but here is my justification's for his theory. First you need to read Richard E. Sprague and his
appendages .
We have confirmation that such a weapon existed from Col Prouty.
We have the appearance at the congressional hearing of the Umbrella man Mr Witt in 1978 himself showing the
alleged umbrella he carried that day , which would be rather odd if he had turned up with the real umbrella
and said this is the weapon, so he is an unreliable witness with no evidence chain to this or any umbrella,
so to me he is CIA disinformation.
e said he was putting the umbrella up and down as a protest against Joe Kennedy and Jack Kennedy as
appeasers with some comment about Neville Chamberlain and his appeasement policies in WW2. Sorry Mr Umbrella
man , Mr Chamberlain had died of cancer before America entered WW2 replaced by Churchill in May 1940.
Secondly Mr Chamberlin was an alleged appeaser of Germany not the Soviet Union who were our supposed allies,
while Jack was being accused of Soviet-Cuban appeasement over the Bay of Pigs I assume. It's also safe to
say that in the 30's most middle class people in London wore a bowler hat carried an umbrella and a brief
case.
The lack of reaction from Mr Kennedy as his hands fall to his side when Connelly is crying out and being
pulled into his wife's arms as Jack is frozen in inaction and falling slightly to the side.
The inability of any theory other than the preposterous "magic bullet theory" to explain the lack of
penetration observed with the back wound bullet and the small size of the throat wound would , making it
difficult to be an entrance wound and impossible to be an exit wound favours the explanation of the dart
theory and a bullet fragment causing the back wound. The inexperienced, doctors under great external
pressure would have been looking for a wound with the associated damage that would have been caused by a
whole bullet and none would have heard of the Flechette weapon .
The back wound bullet travelling downwards if it did suddenly deflect and exit the throat so cleanly ,
without significantly damaging the tie is unlikely to hit Connelly also, from its upwards trajectory.
As Mr Holmes would say when you have eliminated the impossible , the magic bullet is one impossible, there
was only 3 bullets is the second impossible, another solution to the small non exiting back wound , and the
small throat wound is another impossible, that Kennedy would have not thrown himself to the floor of the car
after the being hit in the back is another impossible, that Kennedy made not a sound on that day is another
impossible, when Connelly is yelling blue murder.
Did the Jews and the CIA do it , we will never know but it surely was not Oswald.
More on Oliver Stone, taken from the excellent "Final Judgment" by Michael Collins Piper.
THE MOSSAD CONNECTION
David Ben-Gurion – Prime Minister of Israel; resigned his post in disgust with JFK's stance toward
Israel. in April of 1963; Said JFK's position threatened Israel's very survival.
Yitzhak Shamir – A long-time Mossad officer (based largely at the Mossad's chief European office in
Paris), Shamir headed the Mossad's assassination squad at the time of the JFK assassination. A former
French intelligence officer has charged that Shamir himself arranged the hiring of JFK's actual assassins
through a close ally in French intelligence.
Menachem Begin – In 1963, Begin (later prime minister of Israel) was a roving Israeli diplomat; prior to
JFK's assassination he was overheard conspiring with Meyer Lansky's California henchman, Mickey Cohen, in
a conversation that suggested hostile intentions by Israel against the American president.
Luis Kutner – Although known largely as a "mob lawyer," (who was long and closely associated with Jack
Ruby, a sometime-client) Kutner also doubled as an international intelligence operative and functioned as
an advisor to an ad hoc pro-Israel lobby group in the United States.
A. L. Botnick – Head of the New Orleans office of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of B'nai B'rith, an
intelligence and propaganda arm for Israel's Mossad; a close associate of New Orleans-based CIA contract
operative Guy Banister who helped create Lee Harvey Oswald's preassassination profile as a "pro-Castro"
agitator. Evidence suggests that Banister's manipulation of Oswald may have been carried out under the
guise of an ADL "fact-finding" operation.
Arnon Milchan – Israel's biggest arms dealer, Milchan was "executive producer" (i.e. chief financial
angel) of Oliver Stone's Hollywood fantasy
about the JFK assassination-a fact which may explain
Stone's aversion to exploring the Israeli connection to the affair.
Maurice Tempeisman – The international diamond merchant and Mossad operative who became the lover of
Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis and used his connections to double-perhaps triple-her substantial fortune,
thereby co-opting the Kennedy family forever.
It makes sense to me that an order was given to the various independent snipers that Kennedy was to be
shot at the precise moment when the presidential limousine drew level with the man holding an open
umbrella.
W
hy not just use the Stemmons freeway sign, or some other physical landmarks in Dealey Plaza to
delineate the kill zone, rather than some doofus with an umbrella who might draw the attention of the
authorities, and be hauled in for questioning?
Why would the snipers need a signal to begin shooting anyway, when they themselves could see their target
entering the predetermined kill zone? Does the hunter need a signal that this the buck, or a matador a
signal that this is the bull? Killing JFK within that kill zone ensured that the patsy could be framed, so
there was no need for any signal for the assassins to know when to begin firing. If a signal was really
needed, the first shot would have done it.
@Laurent Guyenot
I also heard of the supposed invitation of Lindbergh but didn't believe it because I thought it was
nonsense. Wow! Former ex military that I have known were also partial to the idea that Israel and the Jewish
lobby played a role in his assassination.
Supposedly, Kennedy basically insulted someone from one of the
Jewish Groups and they didn't take kindly to it because he was adamant that these groups would register as
foreign agents. Fullbright who publicly denounced Israel and their control of the US Congress on National TV
and the fact that Kennedy wanted him as Secretary of State must have also riled the Jews. Fullbright was
also against the Vietnam War.
If you look at what's happening to Trump right now with this Ukraine
nonsense all the witnesses are Jews. From Epstein to Trump and so forth this shows that Israel and the Jews
will do anything for control of the world and makes their possible input into the Kennedy's death more
plausible.
@follyofwar
"Given the decades long national trauma, from which the country has never recovered, it would have been far
better if Nixon had won."
There is more than anecdotal evidence to suggest that Nixon SHOULD have won.
C.f., "Chicago", "Mayor Daley" etc. If Nixon had won then maybe there wouldn't have been a Watergate. Who
knows? And, no, this country never recovered. Indeed, 11/22/1963 was the beginning of the slow, steady
unraveling of American society which continues apace.
The Abraham Zapruder heirs did not need an umbrella, when in 1999, the US government rained down $16 million
for the film.
Fyi, according to Dishonest Abe's granddaughter's book, instead of forking over the film to either Dallas
cops or FBI, he made a copy and gave the Secret Service custody of the original.
Well, I'll admit I've never looked into this "Umbrella Man" issue, nor have more than glanced over this long
comment-thread. But frankly, I'm pretty skeptical of this particular "conspiracy analysis."
It's important
to remember the public issues of the early 1960s, especially with regard to JFK. A very large one was that
rightwingers widely regarded JFK as "soft on Communism," especially after the failed Bay of Pigs invasion.
Put another way, they accused him of "appeasing the Communists" much like Neville Chamberlain and Joseph
Kennedy had been vilified by the MSM for "appeasing Hitler."
So it seems perfectly plausible to me that some Texas rightwinger who felt that way might have gone to
the scene displaying an umbrella as a symbol of Munich-style appeasement, though this time towards
Communism. Maybe a little eccentric, but that seems vastly more plausible than e.g. the Umbrella guy being a
shot-signaler for the JFK snipers. Why would professional snipers need a signaler? And for him to have been
working with the assassins in providing some mystical/symbolic attack on JFK seems totally ridiculous.
And for those interested in my own analysis of the JFK Assassination itself, here are the links to a
couple of articles I published last year:
There might not be a better introduction to the Kennedy Assassination than this documentary, "The Men Who
Killed Kennedy'. I would estimate it's accuracy at around 90%.
Joseph Kennedy was right. The "Jews" did win the war, but they did so along with the US and UK Masonic
establishments. It likely all came down to their power through money and influence. Kennedy was a Catholic
and after the success of the communist revolution in Russia and the spread throughout the 1920's, the RC
Church and nations like Germany were besieged by the movement everywhere. It was mostly spawned by the Anglo
Masonic and Zionist cabal which went on to "win" WWII.
Fascism in Italy, Spain and Germany was a direct reaction to the threat of communism. Mussolini in the
1920's nipped it in the bud, but it continued to spread and the source was the same. By the time of the 1932
election in Germany, a number of Germany cities had voted in communist governments. The threat to freedom of
religion was very real based on what had happened in Russia. Whether the communist ideology was based on
Marx, Lenin or Stalin in that nation, Christians in particular were severely persecuted. When the Christian
Democrats in Germany in that election failed to win a majority, coming in third behind the communists and
the Nazis, then in many places in the following 1933 election, the churches threw their weight behind Hitler
in order to keep the communists from taking over. Like in the US today, it was a matter of the lesser of
evils.
When the war ended with Germany, the USSR which had been supplied and supported by the US throughout the
war, continued to occupy the eastern European nations with the consent of the US and the UK. These were
nations with relatively large Catholic and Protestant populations and the people of those religions were
severely persecuted by the communists regimes. (You can read about what they did to Jewish convert and
Lutheran pastor, Richard Wurmbrand, in order to get an idea of the severity.) When the US army took
possession of Rome in June 1944, in effect it was huge victory over the RC Church for the Masons. At least
since 1958 the ame cabal has been extremely influential in determining Church polices, and controlling
Church finances, and it is from then on that the Vatican has been used to push the so-called "new world
order". From my observations over the years, based on of the various deconstruction polices at work in the
Church, it is clear that the Vatican is essentially a Masonic/Zionist instrument. The same forces are
presently working to deconstruct out nations for their new order.
The deep state in the US is made up of a number of factions, which are always at each other's throats.
Oligarchic families have largely made their initial fortunes outside of the law, or if not then in any case
they all believe they are above the law. The "made" Italian, Irish, and Jewish crime families and dons, all
throughout North America are controlled by establishment oligarchs and government agencies. Vices are
legalised mainly for profit and to give more legitimacy to the money flows. Huge power struggles go on
behind the scenes where despite the information on the independent internet we know little about. The entire
system is rotten to the core.
a declaration [..] that had the effect of connecting in the public psyche JFK's public assassination
[..] to Jewish vengeance?
Thanks for yet another first-class article, and thanks even more for bringing up President Kennedy's
memory on the day anniversary of his cruel and untimely passing.
It is very credible that the Chamberlain symbol story was retrospectively deliberately devised to taunt
and threaten the Kennedy family and their supporters, and remind them of Jewish vengeance.
But "Umbrella Man" cannot be dissociated from another suspicious character, "Signal Man", also called
"Dark Complected Man", who was standing close to him at all times and was filmed raising his arm while the
presidential limousine was approaching.
In Frame 226 of the Zapruder Film, the arm of Dark Complected Man can be seen up with its fist closed, which
in military hand signs means "hold" or "stop".
There were many testimonies that JFK's limousine came to a total halt for many seconds for the final,
murderous headshots; his driver was part of the conspiracy.
What is even more unbelievable and strikingly odd is "Umbrella Man" and "Dark Complected Man" sat next to
each other, on the curb, seconds after the shooting, while everybody else is taking shelter from the shooter
at the Grassy Knoll.
Of course, these were not gay lovers comforting each other, but two perpetrators probably sharing the same
walkie-talkie. A walkie-talkie whose shape could be guessed in the right hand of "Dark Complected Man":
@Jefferson Temple
To the question why US government agents would facilitate the cover up, you find the straight answer in
Michael Collins Pipers book. They had themselves organized their own action, likely a fake assassination
attempt to be blamed on Cuba (that would have been Oswalds part), and they had seriously let down the
defenses of the president when the assassination went real.
Many people had to be afraid of being held to account, so the necessary officials to order the cover up
were easily persuaded. Also note, that Johnson was certainly in on the plot. He would order any serious
investigation to be derailed.
Why not just use the Stemmons freeway sign, or some other physical landmarks in Dealey Plaza to
delineate the kill zone, rather than some doofus with an umbrella who might draw the attention of the
authorities, and be hauled in for questioning?
A marksman doesn't operate alone. He's assisted by a spotter and [when needed, in combat situations. fe]
a 3rd man for general protection. So, we have at least two, 2-men teams [at a minimum]. 1 team [of 2 men]
was spotted on the Grassy Knoll, behind a picket fence, and at the spot the bullet had to be fired from, to
make JFK's head slam back and to the left.
Then triangulate the target and fire.
Am not saying umbrella man did give a signal, but logically, the opening of fire had to be synchronized
to have maximum effect.
The driver not hitting the pedal to the metal when the first shot/s rang out remains a mystery to me,
because the man actually slows down the limo and then JFK's brain is blown to smithereens.
@Sparkon
Good questions. I would suggest that there were multiple shooters in multiple locations and all were
completely unaware of each other.
Why not just use the Stemmons freeway sign, or some other physical landmarks in Dealey Plaza to
delineate the kill zone, rather than some doofus with an umbrella who might draw the attention of the
authorities, and be hauled in for questioning?
Using the freeway sign or any other fixed and inanimate object would mean that each shooter would have to
be contacted separately should the hit need to be called off for any reason. That person would thus know far
too much and pose a high risk of exposing the plotters if caught. The stakes were high indeed!
The umbrella man would know nothing more than where to stand and when to open his umbrella so that him
being called in for questioning would reveal nothing.
Killing JFK within that kill zone ensured that the patsy could be framed, so there was no need for any
signal for the assassins to know when to begin firing.
As I stated, the justification for attempting to synchronise the shots is so that they can all be blamed
on just one "crazed" patsy later.
If a signal was really needed, the first shot would have done it.
Snipers need plenty of time and the exact range to take the kill shot.
It makes sense to me that an order was given to the various independent snipers that Kennedy was to be
shot at the precise moment when the presidential limousine drew level with the man holding an open
umbrella,
Completely agree, dear Nosey, with just a quibble.
The men who shot President Kennedy were hired guns, hit men from the Chicago mob. Their job was, always
is, to
shoot the "target" in the head.
There was at least 3 of them in action, positioned to create a triangulated crossfire.
However, the intention was from the onset to blame it on the patsy Oswald, so it was very important that
the headshot to JFK was taken from behind. The best shooter was positioned behind the limousine, in the
Dal-Tex building, and was in charge with taking the head shot.
When he failed to hit President Kennedy at the head, Plan B was put in action and a headshot taken from
the Grassy Knoll.
So the presence of Umbrella Man and Dark Complected Man next to the limit where a successful headshot
from behind becomes unlikely is very easy to understand:
– Umbrella Man is close from the limousine. He sees that the President's head is intact and opens his
umbrella to tell the Grassy Knoll sniper to shoot.
– His accomplice , Dark Complected Man, raises his arm with a closed fist, a military sign telling JFK/s
driver to stop the limousine to facilitate the execution. This stop of many seconds was recounted by the
witnesses present.
It is so simple and logical. People just don't want to accept the idea because it implies that there was
a vast conspiracy with a large number of people involved.
The movie is a limited hangout made to ensure that those who cannot swallow the obvious lies of the
Warren Commission will direct their anger otherwise than at Israel.
That observation is just as valid for the largest part of the yearly anniversary articles on the Kennedy
assasination: Take the time and scan the articles on your favorite sites, how many of them only just mention
Voldemort country in that context. If only just to refute the idea or to proclaim that only sickos believe
it. It cannot have past by the numerous authors over the years that that theory at least exists.
Instead, you are treated to a steady stream of philosophizing on the deep state, Vietnam, the CIA and the
like. Take note and evaluate your reading matter.
@Ron Unz
I remember my father made a comment long after JFK's asssassination in which he felt JFK was soft on
communism. He also felt Khruschev was a tougher and smarter negotiator. It was only a few sentences, but not
everyone loved JFK. But being German, I think he might have had a soft spot for JFK, if we knew then what we
know now, with his diaries published. Of course, today's Germans no longer think like that. I do not recall
any discussion of JFK's father's views on WW II. That was kept quiet and the media did not make it a public
issue. Those were pre "Holocaust Industry" days in which according to Norman Finkelstein, Jews became bolder
and [even] more outspoken with Israel being perceived as a valuable ally after winning the 1967 war. This,
according to Finkelstein.
I recall JFK being very popular, well liked and people thought "Jackie" was beautiful and thought they
had a beautiful family. I think they were also perceived as having "class", probably because that is what
the media said. I think it was after his assassination that the knowledge of his extramarital affairs (and
Bobby's too) became public and then Jackie married the Greek multi-millionaire Onassis. For my mother, that
took all the class out of Jackie that the media always had said she had. I think they were very popular with
the media. By contrast, JFK's opponent in the 1960 election was Richard Nixon, not as good looking as JFK,
remembered for his tough stance on communism and that probably made him more popular with the right and less
popular with the media and the left.
It would be interesting how this would play out if JFK was still alive and his diaries became public
while he was alive. I have a feeling he may have been tougher than people like my father perceived him to be
and maybe he just held the views he had, but maybe not out of any weakness.
The Kennedys were knocked off with major input from Zionists. I think that almost certainly includes John Jr
(if that were an accident and had been avoided, and John John had failed to get 100% behind both Liberal and
Neocon Jews, then they would have killed him). But true Blue WASPs on both sides if the Atlantic also wanted
the Kennedys destroyed. And the WASP hatred of Irish Catholics has been what has been most used, and used
most effectively, in leading non-Catholic white Middle Americans away from recognizing the Kennedys as the
most important murder victims in the march of the Deep State to make serfs of us all.
It all goes back to
the Judaizing heresy Anglo-Saxon Puritanism, most specifically to archetypal WASP Oliver Cromwell's direct
deal with Jews, opening England to be directed, and eventually owned, by Jewish bankers. There has been a
Brit WASP Deep State since at least the Restoration of the monarchy, and it revealed its total power no
later than the 'Glorious Revolution.' And the Brit WASP Deep State then was tied inextricably to Jewish
bankers.
It is almost as if you either
must
play nice and fair, respectfully and equally, with Celts and
white Catholics or else get made a serf by a Jewish-owned WASP Deep State.
Of course, I know the speculation it was Israelis who were behind it (Dimona), but I don't
find it persuasive. There are other means to avoid US inspection, and Kennedy was not adamant about it at
all. These are things politicians toy with all the time, and while not a "friend" of Israel, Kennedy was not
an enemy -- one could consider Eisenhower, if we judge him by his actions during Suez canal crisis- to be an
"enemy" of Israel (of course this too is simplistic, politics is a rough business).
To illustrate the "rough" side of politics, let's see the following. Let's see Henry Kissinger, with his
publicly suppressed answer to Nixon re Soviet Jews:
Just- they deleted Kissinger's original statement, which can be seen in this leftist guy's clip
(comedienne Sarah Silverman reads Kissinger's words, at 2:06):
"The emigration of Jews from the Soviet Union is not an objective of American foreign policy. And if they
put Jews into gas chambers in the Soviet Union, it is not an American concern. Maybe a humanitarian
concern."
Maybe..maaaybe maaaybe.
..
This remark can be read only in the papers, because "it was taken out of context.
Taken "out of context"? I say:
So, it can be read only in 2-3 places, and not seen in a video
Nothing, I just wanted to point that media manipulations have no limits; that American Jews are not
nearly as monolithic; that one should be aware that talk or statements are not something too reliable; that
one can construct from scratches a huge conspiracy.
Who says that Witt was actually the "umbrella man"? Why was he identified only 15 years after the event?
And even if he was that man- what kind of silly gesture would it be, because who in his right mind would
think that JFK would have noticed anyone in this situation & mentally process this like: umbrella >
Chamberlain > my dad > huh, I'm guilty .
JFK had, I think, a Jewish mistress whom he intended to marry (prior to his marriage) & was dissuaded by
his family; he was not anti-Jewish; Israel, as virtually all American Jews, was horrified by his
assassination, which can be seen from Golda Meir's behavior (she seems to have thought that JFK
assassination was a right-wing coup):
@Iris
"People just don't want to accept the idea because it implies that there was a vast conspiracy with a large
number of people involved."
The primary reason for that is for such a large conspiracy to be tried, much
of the WASP establishment had to have been on board, and most of the rest had to have been known to being
the type easily coerced afterwards to remain silent.
It took WASPs and Zionists to plan it and execute and cover it up, and then spread endless propaganda,
including playing hard on WASP hatreds of Irish Catholics to keep culturally conservative and/or
anti-imperialist Protestant Middle Americans from looking at the evidence of cover up.
@Fred Baggins
I suspect that it was Jewish influence which made the capitalists and communists alllies. They played a
leading role in the USSR, Great Britain and the USA, and they are the only ones that could see the benefit
of these otherwise ideological enemies being allies. Except for the USA (separated from the fighting by two
oceans), no one else benefitted from WW II. If Winston Churchill had been more concerned about his beloved
empire than his own reputation and had not accepted bribes from wealthy Jews when he was in financial need,
Europe and Great Britain would still be great. They would still lead the world. And Jews would have a
fraction of the power they have today. Yes, Jews won that war and were its major beneficiaries, despite
being told the direct opposite. They made it into a world war and they brought the suffering to all Europe,
but particularly to their German enemy, and themselves.
@Emblematic
Robert David Steele's Blog review of " Tavistock Institute : Social Engineering the masses " by Daniel
Estulin – "The deep state playbook " :
"Although I have read and heard over the years of CIA and KGB Freemasons collaborating in betrayal of their
countries and organizations by order of the Freemasons we have to deal with the fact that the President
and everyone of consequence in Congress , Justice and the FBI is a high ranking Freemason . "
"Sir Knight
Earl Warren " By Sir Knight Dr. Ivan M. Tribe (Knightstemplar.org ):
"In 1938 he( Earl Warren ) served as Master of Rose Croix and in 1945 presiding office of the Lodge of
Perfection . By that time he had already been coroneted with the 33rd degree "
Gerald McKnight " Breach of Trust : How the Warren Commission failed the Nation and Why " :
"The records of the Commission disclose that the commission's pre-structured task was to support the FBI's
conclusions : Oswald was the assassin and that he acted alone ."
@PeterMX
" and then Jackie married the Greek multi-millionaire Onassis " – The then was after RFK's assassination:
"If they're killing Kennedys, then my children are targets I want to get out of this country"
So the deal was to offer some safety but you are correct that her marriage to Onassiss "took all the
class out of Jackie that the media always had said she had." But this was the price which the forces that
pushed her in this direction wanted her to pay to diminish and tarnish the legend of JFK. The safety was not
coming form the wealth of Onassis but from the tarnished image and marginalization by marrying the rich
Greek creep.
The primary reason for that is for such a large conspiracy to be tried, much of the WASP establishment
had to have been on board
It was much simpler than that: JFK's assassination was a criminal Zionist conspiracy within a more benign
WASP conspiracy.
A secret mission was organised by the loyal Security apparatus to abort an assassination attempt against
President Kennedy at Dallas.
The abort mission would have resulted in unmasking and arresting criminal elements within the
establishment. Oswald the patsy was part of the abort mission, as was Agent Bouck, the head of the WH Secret
Service. And Robert Kennedy was involved too.
But more powerful parties within the Zionist Deep State were at play: they took control of the situation
and turned it into a real assassination, killing two birds with one stone:
– They executed the independent and principled President who stood up to them.
– They compromised the WASP establishment, including RFK, with the murky and failed abort mission that was
turned into a real assassination, making their responsibility undistinguishable.
Finally, Kennedy had enough, and in a personal letter dated May 18, 1963, the president warned that
unless American inspectors were allowed into Dimona (meaning the end of any military activities), Israel
would find itself totally isolated. Rather than answering, Ben-Gurion abruptly resigned.
Ben-Gurion's successor, Levi Eshkol received Kennedy's next letter, which upped the pressure, warning
that the American commitment and support of Israel "could be seriously jeopardized."
And then there was RFK as Attorney General demanding Israel lobbyist to be registered as foreign lobbyist
and how it was undone after RFK was forced to resign by LBJ year or so later after JFK assassination.
http://www.israellobby.org/azcdoj/
"Judge Rifkind then made a plea for no registration, stating it was the opinion of most of the persons
affiliated with the Council that such registration would be so publicized by the American Council on
Judaism that it would eventually destroy the Zionist movement he did not believe his clients would file
any papers or sign any papers indicating that the organization was an agent of a foreign principal. I
told him that any such information or material that is supplied on that basis would be made part of the
Department's public files available for inspection by the public "
In DOJ internal memo on 4/30/1964 before replacing RFK as AG with Nicholas Katzenbach the following was
stated: "This is the most blatant stall we have encountered. Do you mind suggesting what we do next because
all of us here would call their records before a grand jury." RFK resigns as AG in September 1964. When
Katzenbach became acting AG and then AG exchanges between Jewish lobby and DOJ continued but no action was
taken by DOJ. Eventually on n 11/27/1967, four years and five days after JFK's death AIPAC applies for a
federal tax exemption. The lobby has won.
The Warren Commission hogwash was almost as ridiculous as the official 911 nonsense, and Mark Lane's 1966
book "Rush to Judgment" helped fuel broad public disbelief in the official story.
Talk about quid pro quo
to the nth degree, as that hideous snake LBJ gave the MIC and its financiers their wars, etc., in exchange
for the Presidency and for keeping his sorry ass out of jail for the Billy Sol Estes and Bobby Baker
scandals. Sure, the Israelis benefitted, and were likely a cog in the conspiratorial wheel, but the CIA,
Secret Service, and various military agents were the movers and shakers, with LBJ their guarantor.
Much of the conspiratorial framework is exposed in David Lifton's absolutely must-read book "Best
Evidence" which clearly shows that the body was altered before autopsy in an attempt to make the physical
evidence conform to the Oswald-as-shooter narrative. The conspirators left a wide trail of evidence that
only the highest-level actors could suppress, as in the 911 crimes.
There were many testimonies that JFK's limousine came to a total halt for many seconds for the final,
murderous headshots
There is another film of the assasination, taken from the distance across the Plaza (maybe, someone can
link it? It must have been in the comment section of some earlier article). That film clearly shows, how the
police motorcycles continue while the limosine falls back and nearly comes to a hold. If the driver had done
his job he would have speeded of at the first second of realizing something was going on. These people are
trained for nothing else but exactly such situations. The driver and several other people around the
president must have been in on the plot to varying degrees.
Comparing that film with the Zapruder film also shows that the Zapruder film was severly tempered with
before release – anyone believes that Oliver Stone and his team as Hollywood professionals who based their
plot on that film didn't realize that?
In Robert Caro's biography of Lyndon Johnson, he mentions that when LBJ was running against Kennedy for the
Democrat nomination in 1960 he attacked Kennedy for his father's appeasement, saying "I was never a
Chamberlain umbrella man."
Weakness, Johnson had seen in three decades in Washington, was never rewarded. When he said of
Vietnam, "We're not going to have any men with any umbrellas," a pointed reference to the hapless
Chamberlain, the message was clear: America would stand up to Ho Chi Minh and the Vietcong in a way that
Chamberlain had not stood up to Hitler and the Nazi regime.
So it seems perfectly plausible to me that some Texas rightwinger who felt that way might have gone to
the scene displaying an umbrella as a symbol of Munich-style appeasement, though this time towards
Communism.
The whole appeasement thing is bunk.
Chamberlain surely didn't give a damn about appeasing Hitler, except as a manipulative stratagem.
But for Britain, in the late thirties, going to war with Germany would have been insane. Britain had at
most four, and possibly only two, deployable army divisions versus Germany's 40 plus. The threat posed by a
rapidly rearming and aggressive Germany was thus best dealt with by bringing Germany into confrontation with
Russia.
By sacrificing Czechoslovakia to Germany, Chamberlain greatly added to Hitler's military resources, which
were then far smaller than Russia's.
Encouraging Polish obduracy in the matter of Danzig, brought German forces directly to the Russian
frontier. Then it was a matter of waiting for these old adversaries to clash in accordance with the plan von
Ribbentrop had shown Winston Churchill during a visit to England in 1937. (Asked by Ribbentrop what he
thought of the plan for German Eastward expansion, Churchill is said to have replied "We don't like the
Russians, but we don't hate them that much.")
Meantime, the British economy had been placed on a war footing, and was turning out more military
aircraft than Germany.
Once the struggle between Germany and Russia had begun, Britain's only major concerns were to protect her
overseas possession, particularly the ME oil fields, which she did successfully, and to prepare a backstop
with massive American participation (Operation Overlord), on the Western front for the time when a greatly
weakened victor of the Russso-German conflict was in a position to turn West with a view to crushing Britain
and achieving a trans-European empire.
This is the original version. It' s actually 9 plus hours. This is cut to 4hours 33 minutes. Sometime during
the past two years this doc has been cut and revised – and loaded back onto YT with unoriginal content.
I find it hard to explain that this is the same Josiah Thompson who published in 1967 a book titled
Six Seconds in Dallas: a micro-study of the Kennedy assassination proving that three gunmen murdered the
President, for which he studied the Zapruder film and interviewed eyewitnesses in order to come up with a
plausible line of fire, and the conclusion of a conspiracy and government cover-up. What happened to
Josiah in between?
This is a great remark within an already so rich article; it introduces the concept of "Controlled
Conspiracy Theory".
At the time (1967) Josiah Thompson published his book, much courageous research on the JFK cover-up had
been produced, of which the most perilous for the perpetrators was the legal crusade undertaken by
New-Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison.
Thompson's book concluded that the hit men were at the Texas School Book Depository, Dallas County Record
and Grassy Knoll.
Of all possible places, he managed to exonerate the DalTex Building, a building entirely owned and run by
the Dallas Zionist community, in which Zapruder had his offices.
The DalTex Building had the best, shortest and most direct line of fire to JFK's limousine; it was the
principal "sniper nest" of the conspiracy.
The concept of "Controlled Conspiracy Theory" nicely applies to Mr Josiah Thompson.
@refl
The driver of JFK's limousine was William Greer, a Protestant from Ulster who in his youth in Northern
Ireland had been a member of the Orange Order. One of the other two drivers in the presidential detail had
died of an untimely heart attack shortly before Dallas.
Israel, as virtually all American Jews, was horrified by his assassination, which can be seen from Golda
Meir's behavior
Why shouldn't they? I am sure that a significant section of American and Israeli Jews are horrified by the
every day action of the IDF. They were horrified by the assassination of Yitzak Rabin.
It must be horrifying to be tied to maniacal leadership, who will sacrifice you any time in the name of the
fulfillment of their sick plan. So if you are a good Christian or Muslim, Buddhist, Pastafari or whatever,
pray for these poor fellows.
Like any good gumshoe worth his salt, the first question he asks himself after arriving at the crime scene is
Cui bono, who benefits?
In the case of the JFK assassination, there was clearly one very large beneficiary
that stood out above the rest, Israel.
By Nov 1963, JFK had two big strikes against him:
1. In 1963 President Kennedy demanded that Ben-Gurion end Israel's nuclear deterrent program. Kennedy warned
in a letter dated May 18, 1963, that unless American inspectors were allowed into Israel's Dimona facility,
Israel would find itself totally isolated. "We are concerned with the disturbing effects on world stability
which would accompany the development of a nuclear weapons capability by Israel It is because of our
preoccupation with this problem that my Government has sought to arrange with you for periodic visits to Dimona."
As it turned out, his following reassurance fell on deaf ears "As I made clear in my press conference of May 8,
we have a deep commitment to the security of Israel."
2. In 1963 President Kennedy demanded that the American Zionist Council register under FARA as a foreign
agent. In a letter dated October 17, 1963 (one month before JFK's assassination), Judge Rifkind (a
representative of the AZC), responded to the Kennedy Administration's demand: " it was the opinion of most of
the persons affiliated with the Council that
such registration
would be so publicized by the American
Council on Judaism that it
would eventually destroy the Zionist movement.
"
Along with the quote by AZC Representative Judge Rifkind, here is the infamous quote by Jack Ruby's (born
Jacob Rubinstein) rabbi, Hillel Silverman:
"I was shocked," said Silverman. "I visited him the next day in jail, and I said, 'Why, Jack, why?' He
said, 'I did it for the American people.'"
I interrupted Silverman, pointing out that other reports had Ruby saying he did it "to show that Jews had
guts." The rabbi sighed.
"Yes, he mentioned that," Silverman said. "But I don't like to mention it. I think he said, 'I did it
for the Jewish people.' But I've tried to wipe that statement from my mind."
@CanSpeccy
"If Israel assassinated JFK, who assassinated RFK and John, Jr.?"
– That Israel did them would be a very
conservative conclusion, don't you think?
Picking Sirhan Sirhan as a Palestinian patsy who was upset with RFK's alleged love for Israel was a master
stroke. JFK Jr. who can't stop himself from beating around the bush of the topics of assassinations like
picking Woody Harrelson (*) for the December 1996 cover of his magazine or then digging into Yitzach Rabin
conspiracy and then rumors that he will run for Senate
Joseph Chagra later testified during Harrelson's trial that Harrelson claimed to have shot Kennedy and drew
maps to show where he was hiding during the assassination. Chagra said that he did not believe Harrelson's
claim, and the AP reported that the FBI "apparently discounted any involvement by Harrelson in the Kennedy
assassination."[25] According to Jim Marrs in 1989's Crossfire, Harrelson is believed to be the youngest and
tallest of the "three tramps" by many conspiracy theorists.[22] Marrs stated that Harrelson was involved "with
criminals connected to intelligence agencies and the military" and suggested that he was connected to Jack Ruby
through Russell Douglas Matthews, a third party with links to organized crime who was known to both Harrelson
and Ruby.[23] Lois Gibson, a well-known forensic artist, matched photographs of Harrelson to the photographs of
the youngest-looking of the three "tramps".
"Mr. Trump has been prevented from releasing the rest of the "top secret" files, in spite of his promise to do
so."
IIRC, it was Trump doing all of the preventing.
This "Israel did it" theory doesn't quite answer the question of how physical evidence was destroyed and
eyewitnesses intimidated by agents of the US government.
This has been discussed in depth here in this case and the 911 case.
The Mossad and the CIA were part of the same "team"–the CIA handled and continues to handle the ongoing
domestic coverup operations as needed (including Mockingbird mass media activities).
Connelly is a _very_ interesting figure, and his background prior to the day of the assassination is not very
well understood.
I was stunned to read that he was a key actor in the Korean War "setup":
Isn't it significant that the patsy set up to take the blame for the RFK assassination was a Palestinian?
If the CIA did it, they would naturally have arranged to put the blame elsewhere. Is that not why Sirhan
Sirhan remains incarcerated to this day. Given freedom, the fall guy might give the CIA a headache.
Remember, Kennedy had just buggered up the CIA's Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba and was threatening to pull
out of the CIA's war in Vietnam. With
a nod from LBJ
the CIA could kill Kennedy and be sure of top-down cover from the moment Kennedy's heart
stopped beating, cover which, according to the doctors who attended on Kennedy at Parklands Hospital, was
promptly given.
Then there's the deathbed confession of CIA agent E. Howard Hunt, which provides a tenuous connection with
Richard Nixon, who hired Hunt and Frank Sturgis (both believed to have been among the tramps arrested in Dealey
Plaza in the immediate aftermath of the assassination) to. among other things, burglarize the Democratic Party
headquarters at the Watergate Building in Washington, DC.
That's Mary Pinchot Meyer.
Wife of Cord Meyer, of the CIA.
Sister-in-law of Ben Bradlee.
Lover of JFK, to whom he confided his vision for major peaceful change in the US of A and the world.
Kissinger made himself quit clear more than once about Jewish influence in US policy.
Kissinger was more German than Jew he had the typical 'Germanic manner ' .
German Jews in general were more assimilated than the less educated and more tribal Jews of Poland, Hungary,
etc.. If you look up the origins of the Fifth Column Jews in the Us most of them came thru Poland , where
militant Zionism had a stronghold way before WWII.
Kissinger .
""If it were not for the accident of my birth, I would be anti-Semitic," he once quipped, and "any people
who has been persecuted for two thousand years must be doing something wrong."
Another time, he told a friend, "I was born Jewish, but the truth is that has no significance for me. America
has given me everything."
On Israel .
"On the other hand, we can not make our policy hostage to the Israelis, because our interests, while
parallel in respect to that I have outlined, are not identical in overall terms. From an Israeli point of view,
it is no disaster to have the whole Arab world radicalized and anti-American, because this guarantees our
continued support. From an American point of view this is a disaster."
Jewish disloyalty
Kissinger also went as far as
accusing American Jews of behaving traitorously
for supporting the
Jackson-Vanik Amendment that ruined his and Nixon's effort on a détente agreement with Russia.
@Skeptikal
Yes, Skeptical, and 'thanks" for the reiteration as to who and what was the murdered Mary Pinchot Meyer.
I trust Laurent Guyenot knows about Mary's intense love affair with President JFK,
and after his barbaric & election overturning murder, how she knew about CIA's Counterintelligence & Israel
friendly, James Jesus Angleton's, passion
for
Jack's last nightmatish ride on Elm Street.
P.S.: Mary's remains rest in her great-grandfather, Gifford Pinchot's, Milford, Pa-based estate, which I
have visited. Fyi, it's a tourist spot now where her historical relationship with President JFK is unspoken.
What if it were raining and there were numerous people with umbrellas?
P
recisely.
Despite all the special pleading going on here by people who've read too many men's adventure novels, or
watched too many episodes of "Charlie's Angels," this Rube Goldbergian umbrella signalling scheme would never
get off the ground. It is a unnecessary complication with built-in failure modes.
The go-ahead for the operation was likely given the night before. The die was cast. There was no turning
back, and why would they?
If it had kept raining in Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963, would it have changed history? Several books and
articles have pondered this question. President John F Kennedy greeted a crowd on a misty morning rain in
Fort Worth at 8:45 a.m. central standard time. The weather in Dallas had been rainy, but the sun came out
before the president's plane had landed.
@Pheasant
The donation could have been sincere, or it could have been a gesture to make them seem concerned patriots, or
it could have been money laundering a payoff to certain members of the Dallas PD for their silence in the
operation. Who knows? I never take any Jewish action at face value.
@Stonehands
Right. I only bought the official story at the time and for a few years after, as a very young kid, but the
idea of Oswald as nothing but a patsy never appealed to me.
@Duke84
I try to avoid the self-certainty that seems to be a bias in the reasoning behind the LHO didn't do it because
he couldn't crowd. On paper the odds against him succeeding increased with every miss and chance for the agents
and cops to fire at him and/or the limo driver to swerve and accelerate. An important point is the chance for
him to get away would decline precipitously too. By my way of thinking the most important factor would have
been single mindedness. He would have had to have been committed to succeed irrespective of the consequences.
We don't know Oswald had no help of encouragement, he may have been talking to Cubans and Soviets about his
intentions and they maybe just listened which he may have interpreted them as having approved. The fact he was
talking to the Cubans and KGB was considered worth keeping secret for several decades, and there is supposed to
be more along the same lines that has still not been declassified.
Even with a miss or two, hitting a moving head from 265 feet would have been workmanlike marksmanship. In
the circumstances that he might have been spotted and shot at any second it was nicely done, but it might have
been a fluke. On the other hand the limo was following a straight track, the driver seems to have brought it to
a near halt before the head shot, and Kennedy was quite exposed. It would depend on the determination of the
shooter not just his skill, but the circumstances and enormity of killing a president are so unique, plus
getting out the area would be so uncertain that it would require someone of formidable resolution.
My feeling is a professional would not even try, and he would understand he'd know too much afterwards
anyway. A loner would not have that problem. Oswald fits the profile better than any CIA agent I think. For the
shooting, you cannot exclude that he may have just got lucky. Whoever did it, they were risking a lot so it
would have to be tremendously meaningful to them.
Oswald seemed such a insignificant person to kill the great man that contingency was ruled out. I think
Oswald the CIA agent who agreed to go to Russia on a fake defector mission for the agency with no way of
knowing what would happen to him, would have been an insanely extreme patriot. Such an Oswald might be willing
to do anything he was ordered to I suppose. The trouble is Oswald seems to have been anti establishment right
back into his teens. He was an immature 17 year old when he joined the Marines, and though he toughened up
considerably they evidence of him ever being an anti communist fanatic is just lacking.
Here is a 60 year old man at 230 yards with a .45 pistol.
@Ted Heath
Once again, let's try to put the "Kennedy wanted to end the FED" myth to bed.
President Kennedy was not assassinated for being anti-Fed. I don't know how much more clearly that can be
said. His death on November 22nd, 1963 was a sad tragedy, but it had nothing to do with any stupid and
baseless Executive Order silver certificate conspiracy.
The claim is not borne out by the facts. First, E.O. 11110 had nothing to do with United States Notes,
and did not affect any section of law referring to them. Second, E.O. 11110 did not anywhere mention any
quantity of money; wherever the $4 billion-plus figure came from, it was not E.O. 11110. Third, The
President had no authority to issue such an edict. Even utilizing the provisions of the Agricultural
Adjustment Act of 1933, the most the President could issue without statutory authorization was $3 billion.
What E.O. 11110 did was to modify previous Executive Order 10289, delegating to the Secretary of the
Treasury various powers of the President. To these delegated powers, E.O. 11110 added the power to alter the
supply of Silver Certificates in circulation. Executive Order 11110, therefore, did not create any new
authority for the Treasury to issue notes; it only affected who could give the order, the Secretary or the
President.
Be sure and dive into all of the data supporting link's located at the bottom of this web page.
November 23,
2019 JFK, MLK, RFK, 50 Years of Suppressed History: New Evidence on Assassination of John F. Kennedy, Martin
Luther King and Robert F. Kennedy. Failures to Confront the Unspeakable, and The Way Ahead. Part I
Today November 22, 2019, we commemorate the passing of JFK. November 22, 1963, the assassination of JFK in
Dallas, Texas. Fifty-six years ago. January 21, 2019. Martin Luther King Day
What is even more unbelievable and strikingly odd is "Umbrella Man" and "Dark Complected Man" sat next to
each other, on the curb, seconds after the shooting, while everybody else is taking shelter from the shooter
at the Grassy Knoll.
Questions concerning 3rd photo from the top: Why are the two camera men in this photo filming the couple on
the ground, who themselves are looking directly at the camera men? Why is no one ducking and running for cover,
for as many as 8 shots were supposedly just fired? Why is Abraham Zapruder missing from his lofty post, which
he was said to be filming from at that precise moment?
JFK "signed" his death warrant as soon as he selected LBJ as his running mate . LBJ was ruthless and likely
murdered his way to his leadership role in Congress . Johnson was determined to become President and it is
reported that his fixer , Bobby Baker , at Kennedy's inauguration turned to an associate and stated that
Kennedy would never complete his term of office .
LBJ was determined to have Earl Warren (33rd degree Freemason )lead the commission to investigate Kennedy's
assassination .
Warren refused LBJ 's requests several times and finally agreed to do so . LBJ recounted to his mentor Senator
Richard Russell how he summoned Warren to the Oval Office and informed him of " what Hoover had told him about
a little incident in Mexico City " whereupon Warren began to cry and told LBJ " I won't turn you down , I'll
just do whatever you say ." Excerpted from History Matters Archive -LBJ-Russell .
@Germanicus
You are making my point. Taking away the presumption of innocence has resulted in the holocaust narrative and
many other crimes against individuals and civilized societies.
If you read Laurent's book "Yahweh to Zion" you'll see he's under no illusions about whether he's real or
not. It's likely the most thorough dissection of the sect you'll ever come across.
Indeed. Laurent Guyenot is an outstanding intellectual. It is a immense privilege to read his works, and the UR is doing an equally great favour to its readers by
publishing him. Thanks to all, including the commentators, for the fascinating discussion.
JFK died mysteriously after being hit by four bullets, one in rear cranium, rear shoulder, front throat and
fragmentary bullet to right front temple. Connelly was hit by a zigzag magic bullet, three bystanders were hit
by Elm Street curb bullet splatter and the limousine front windshield were all hit by a lone gunman. LHO, MLK &
RFK were also killed by lone gunmen, and if you do not believe that you will be persecuted.
I thought it had been rather well established that a sharpshooter had been brought in from the
French/Corsican mob.
Lucien Sarti's involvement is possible, but is a red herring. He might have been approached and brought to Dallas to add to the confusion, as the Kennedy assassination
was a sophisticated "smoke and mirrors" operation, with many deliberate false leads.
The people who shot President Kenned were hired guns, members of the Chicago mob: Charles "Chuck" Nicoletti,
Marshall Caifano, Johnny Roselli and James Sutton Files.
President Kennedy was shot at the head twice, almost instantaneously, first by Charles Nicoletti firing from
the Dal-Tex Building, then by James Files taking a shot from the Grassy Knoll.
James Files used a very powerful round, a frangible bullet.
This is why, on the Z film, the President's head is shown first slightly projected forward, then very
powerfully projected backwards and to the left, when the more powerful bullet hit his right temple.
Thanks for the link to the remarkable History Channel JFK documentary.
For the so called 'progressive'
Anglosphere establishment, in both it's 'right' and 'left' manifestations, the 'Chamberlain umbrella' is most
certainly a hated symbol of weakness, appeasement, and ultimate failure. Whether it's prominent presence at
Dealey Plaza that day was a deliberately placed symbolic 'pièce de résistance' to top off a carefully
choreographed assassination or just a quirk of history is something we may never know.
As for Abraham Zapruder, his family, and their profiting from the famous film he took, there are aspects of
it that are remindful of Larry Silverstein and his profiting from 911 and the destruction of the Twin
Towers/Building 7.
In addition to Zapruder's making about a million dollars in today's money by selling rights to it in the
days following the assassination to Life magazine (the head of which, Charles Douglas Jackson, had extensive
experience in psy-ops work for the US government), the Zapruder family in 1999 would win 16 million dollars in
arbitration with the United States over it's ownership, the government having seized ownership of the film from
them. Time Life had sold the film back to the Zapruders years before for $1.
Arbitration had been decided upon to determine the value of the Zapruder film with the film being compared
to Leonardo da Vinci's Codex.
One of the three arbitrators was Kenneth Feinberg, who besides being US senator Ted Kennedy's chief of staff
for five years, was also the Chairman of the Board of Directors for the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation.
In addition Feinberg headed up the 7 billion dollar 911 victims compensation fund.
Ironically, July 16, 1999, the day the arbitration panel made it's decision that the US government pay 16
million to the Zapruder family for the JFK assassination film, would also be the very day John F Kennedy Jr
would die in a plane crash:
Zapruder Film Nets $16 Million
The other expert compared the six-foot strip of film, climaxed by the horrific head shot that killed the
president, to the Codex of Leonardo da Vinci, for which billionaire Bill Gates recently paid $30 million.
Adams and Feinberg said that "25 years ago, few if any, could predict the value of the Zapruder film as a
unique historical item of unprecedented worth." They also noted that "items associated with President Kennedy
and his family have been increasing in value."..
..The arbitration panel actually made its decision on July 16, the same day John F. Kennedy Jr. died in a
plane crash, but delayed the announcement in the wake of the tragedy.
@Ron Unz
That's a possibility, of course. In my mind, it is a matter of probabilities. And I find it very improbable
that this guy just happened to do his little protest at this precise spot and seconds. But alos, reading his
testimony to the HSCA, he doesn't mention Kennedy being soft on communism at all. Excerp:
Mr. GENZMAN. Could you elaborate further as to the type of symbol you thought you were applying?
Mr. WITT. I just knew it was a sore spot with the Kennedys; I just knew the vague generalities of it. It had
something to do with something that happened years ago with the senior Joe Kennedy when he was Ambassador to
England.
In fact, when asked if his gesture had anything to do with the Kennedys being soft on communism, he denied:
Mr. Fauntroy. I wonder if you would care to tell us a little more about your understanding of the
significance of the umbrella, and why you felt that it would heckle the president to raise the umbrella?
Mr. WITT. I know the generalities of the thing. It had something to do with the–when the senior Mr. Kennedy
was Ambassador or England, and the Prime Minister, some activity they had had in appeasing Hitler. The
umbrella that the Prime Minister of England came back with got to be a symbol in some manner with the
British people. by association, it got transferred to the Kennedy family, and, as I understood, it was a
sore spot with the Kennedy family, like I said, in coffee break conversations someone had mentioned, I think
it is one of the towns in Arizona, it is Tucson or Phoenix, that someone had been out at the airport or some
place where some members of the Kennedy family came through and they were rather irritated by the fact that
they were brandishing the umbrellas. This is how the idea sort of got stuck in my mind.
Mr. FAUNTROY. Is it true that what you felt was that Mr. Kennedy would be sensitive because of the
appeasement image of the umbrella as related to his father?
Mr. WITT. Not the appeasement thing. It was just–excuse me–I just understood that it was sort of a sore
spot, with them and this was just one thing. I personally never thought too much of liberal politics in
general. In this case the Kennedy family just happened to be in office.
Mr. FAUNTROY. I see. And it had no relationship in your own thinking between Mr. Kennedy's posture with;
say, the Russians?
@Laurent Guyenot
Yes, Laurent, and I can confess to busting your balls," * and indeed, Mary Pinchot Meyer's is "a really moving
story. I once called her JFK's Mary Madgalene."
Nonetheless, for the rather affectionate part of Mary
Magdalene's legacy, she got stoned by crazy & self righteous Jews.
In contrast, the bright & adulterous peacenik, Mary Pinchot Meyer, got murdered on a Georgetown canal trail,
and to date, her's is an Unsolved Case Mystery,
which never appeared on the popular American TV series.
* A lyric from Pink Floyd's song, "Mother."
Thanks for another terrific learning experience, Laurent, and fyi, am saddened how Ron Unz rained acid upon
the fascinating "Umbrella Man."
This author blames the CIA for
obstruction suppression and distortion of the facts findings and accuses it of misrepresentation with powerful
people on board like supreme court justice . Also mentions the suspicions of conspiracy raised by LBG ( out of
all people !) de Gaulle , Robert Kennedy and Fidel Castro.
All of them are dead So is Soviet and most of Cuban dissidents are possibly dead as well
So what is preventing the investigation at the manner the previous investigation was carried out with open
visible fatal flaws and biases .
@Truth3
I believe that the presidential motorcade's route was changed at the last minute, ostensibly to bypass the huge
crowds lined up to see JFK, and hurry him off to the Dallas Trade Mart for his speech. This meant bypassing the
TV cameras, so none would be able to film the assassination in live time (just a cohenincidence, I am sure),
but if this is so, it begs the question of why Zapruder and the Babushka Lady were there with their home movie
cameras to capture what the TV networks would miss.
Lover of JFK, to whom he confided his vision for major peaceful change in the US of A and the world.
I really think the vast JFK hagiography that occupies the minds of many JFK conspiracy people, including
some of the most respectable ones, hardly enhances their credibility. Lots of them seem to believe that JFK was
about to establish world peace and was killed by the CIA for that reason. Frankly, I find the whole framework
totally ludicrous.
For example, Seymour Hersh's book on JFK certainly provides lots of very negative details of his activities.
But JFK conspiracy people always discount Hersh, claiming that he's a JFK hater.
Okay, but what about Michael Collins Piper, whose JFK assassination book has certainly been one of the most
important. He provides some reasonable evidence that JFK had been planning to launch an unprovoked "sneak
attack" against China just before he died:
Offhand, it seems to be that an early 1960s American attack against China would have probably had far worse
and more significant long-term geopolitical consequences than e.g. Bush's attack against Iraq or a possible
Trump attack against Iran.
`Ironically, July 16, 1999, the day the arbitration panel made it's decision that the US government pay
16 million to the Zapruder family for the JFK assassination film, would also be the very day John F Kennedy
Jr would die in a plane crash.
Thanks, very interesting comment.
Just a quibble: JFK Jr did not die in a plane crash; he most probably got killed when his plane was shot
down (by a missile?).
At the time of his death, JFK Jr had acquired a piece of hard evidence that would have allowed him to
re-open the investigation into his father's assassination.
This piece of evidence was a Cartier wristwatch that the President was wearing when he was shot. It got
covered in brain matter and mercury from the frangible bullet that hit JFK.
It was kept for a while by RFK, and finally ended up in John John's possession, accompanied with sworn
affidavits proving its chain of possession.
Indeed, the fact that he voluntarily came forward 15 years later and revealed his identity would
certainly seem to suggest the contrary. Why would he do that if he had been part of the conspiracy?
I think that you misunderstand the nature and purpose of the successive official reviews of JFK
assassination records (ARRB, etc..).
These official reviews were not meant at finding the truth, but at finding the evidence that could lead to
the truth and then destroy it to perpetuate the cover-up.
Many honest researchers involved in these reviews have quit in disgust; the fact is well documented and
should be a conscience call. Best.
In politics, one must not play around. John F. Kennedy understood that 1960 was his time. He had to win
then, or lose forever. As a loser, he would have had much less of a chance to become President in 1964, or
1968.
I highly recommend a reading of his "Profiles in Courage" – a great series of essays, with a message for all
Americans.
Kennedy, a brilliant scholar, and Man of action, had on his agenda important things that had to be done, (or
at least begun), in 1960.
JFK as President:
1. 1st President to insist on Legal Equality of all Americans. (Who was his Atty Gen?)?
2. Unravel French & British Empires (arrange independence for 40 African Nations- including South Africa).
3. De Nuclearize the Zionist Land Thieves.
4. Maintain the Sovereignty of the USA.
5. Ensure Prosperity – Employment, stop Inflation, for American workers.
6. Prevent outbreak of Nuclear Conflict with USSR.
7. You continue this list.
Kennedy could not wait, and, therefore, had to choose L B Johnson as his Vice Presidential running mate
(even though he was well warned of the risks involved – including the danger to his life, as it would place a
Zionist Mafioso only a heartbeat from the Presidency).
Kennedy was on a Mission to save the Republic (our American Republic), which had been weakened and was in
great danger. His brother Robert, was with JFK, all the way. They were idealists, and wanted to save the world.
*Yes, Ron Unz, not one of your other writers have made these points. I am available to flesh these points
out – no charge.
We Americans lost everything on November 22, 1963. We have not yet begun to fight back!
@bluedog
Humility means one does not have to choose this truth or that. Anything is possible. There were once very many
people who thought a conspiracy likely. In the last 50 years, there has been a shift away from thinking a
conspiracy was behind the assassination. While this is only the balance of opinion, it should still carry some
weight against 'who benefits' arguments .
This meant bypassing the TV cameras, so none would be able to film the assassination in live time (just a
coincidence, I am sure).
It is very interesting that you bring this topic.
It is a documented fact that during all past official visits, President Kennedy's motorcade comprised a
open-top lorry, driving ahead of the Presidents' limousine, and carrying journalists sat backward on graded
tiers, who would film the President and the crowd cheering on him.
At Dallas, the journalists' truck got cancelled, and the way paved for the sole Abraham Zapruder to document
the circumstances of the JFK assassination. Just another complete coincidence, obviously.
"... Authored by Paul Joseph Watson via Summit News, ..."
"... My favorite paragraph from the NYT article depicting Tulsi as a fringe, divisive cult leader because she wears white pants suits - by the same author and paper who heaped praise on how Hillary's white pants suit shows she's ready to carry the nuclear codes. ..."
My favorite paragraph from the NYT article depicting Tulsi as a fringe, divisive cult
leader because she wears white pants suits - by the same author and paper who heaped praise
on how Hillary's white pants suit shows she's ready to carry the nuclear codes.
Her white suits are not the white suits of Ms. Clinton, nor even the white of Ms.
Williamson, whose early appearances in the shadeoften seemed tied to her wellness gospel
and ideas of renewal and rebirth. Rather, they are the white of avenging angels and flaming
swords, of somewhat combative righteousness (also cult leaders').
And that kind of association, though it can be weirdly compelling, is also not really
community building. It sets someone apart, rather than joining others together. It has
connotations of the fringe, rather than the center.
A New York Times writer who praised Hillary Clinton for wearing a white pantsuit called
Tulsi Gabbard a "cult leader" for wearing exactly the same thing.
The most interesting part of testimony is that CrowdStrike machinations in case of DNC leak which was artificially turns into
Russian hack (and probably not without Crowdstyle server located in Ukraine). As this is connected to Steel which is a hot
spot for the UK government was swiped under the carpet.
She actually met with Steele. She was shown Steele dossier before it was published.
CrowdStrike was mentioned only is passing and was instantly dismissed by rabid neocon Hill.
While this was the central issue with Zelensky administration.
All questioning was about semi-senile Biden, who is probably the most favorable contender on
Democratic side for Trump.
Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Semyon Vindman (né Aleksandr Semyonovich Vindman) and his
identical twin brother, Yevgeny, were born to a Jewish family in the Ukrainian Soviet
Socialist Republic, Soviet Union. After the death of their mother, the three-year-old twins
and their older brother, Leonid, were brought to New York in December 1979 by their father,
Semyon (Simon). They grew up in Brooklyn's 'Little-Odessa' neighborhood. The twins appear
briefly with their maternal grandmother in the Ken Burns documentary The Statue of Liberty.
Vindman speaks fluent Russian, Ukrainian (& probably Hebrew).
I will posit that Vindman holds citizenship in: Ukraine, USA, & Israel. Dual-Citizens
violate US Law, to wit the 1940s Nationality Act. I will NOT delve into the tangled
loyalties, ambitions and/or 'greatness' expectations of Colonel Vindman in this post.
Beginning in 2008, Vindman became a Foreign Area Officer specializing in Eurasia. In this
capacity he served in the U.S. embassies in Kiev, Ukraine, and Moscow, Russia. Returning to
Washington, D.C. he was then a politico-military affairs officer focused on Russia for the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Vindman served on the Joint Staff at the Pentagon from
September 2015 to July 2018.
The Honorable Gordon David Sondland, United States Ambassador to the European Union, is
probably ending his stint, today.
Ambassador Sondland was born to a Jewish family in Seattle, Washington, the son of Frieda
(Piepsch) and Gunther Sondland. His mother fled Europe before the Second World War to
Uruguay, where after the war she reunited with his father, who had served in the French
Foreign Legion. In 1953, the Sondlands relocated to Seattle where they opened a dry-cleaning
business. Sondland has a sister 18 years his senior. He attended the University of Washington
but dropped out and became a commercial real estate salesman.
Does Ambassador Sondland hold dual-citizenship? Dual citizenship violates the 1940
Nationalities Act.
@Arioch Germans will likely be fleeing Germany in fairly large numbers as the Islamic /
African takeover picks up steam. Same for Swedes from Sweden (soonest), French from France,
English from England.
Ukraine is emptying out and has cheap land and space for new housing to be built, or old
houses to be replaced or thoroughly renovated. The Western Europeans need somewhere safer and
more civilized to run now that they have invited hostile invaders into their countries. It
could be a match made in heaven.
Ukraine could offer only permanent residency, not citizenship, and it could require that
white euro refugees pay in advance for a year or two years of good private medical and dental
insurance so that they don't burden the already-broke Ukrainian treasury.
Let the Germans and other euro reinvigorate the Ukrainian economy -- possibly for a steady
two decades or more -- by buying supplies and hiring workers and machinery to build or
renovate several million houses. They have savings and pensions and can afford a lot in
Ukraine. The Ukrainian treasury would take in massive receipts in VAT and other taxes paid by
the euro permanent residents and by newly employed Ukrainians working on the refugees' new
homes.
Ukrainian hospitals and dental offices could upgrade their equipment, staff, training, and
capabilities enormously with the ongoing infusion of western euro refugee funds.
The euro refugees needn't change the demographic and cultural composition of Ukraine much
longer-term, because they will, at least at first, mostly be people age 55-60 and up who can
afford to retire and give up their careers in their home countries to flee East. They'll be
beyond their childbearing/raising years. And, if the Ukrainians are wise, the western euros
will never be eligible for citizenship (I.e. they will never be able to vote the same suicide
for Ukraine as many of them allowed in their home countries).
Far, far better for Ukrainians to (1) have their own children and (2) stop antagonizing
russia and work out favorable energy and other trade deals. But since neither of those is
happening or seems likely in the near future, Ukraine should seek a steady infusion of
peaceful, reasonably intelligent, culturally compatible white Europeans to help occupy the
territory (instead of hostile aliens, the alternative) and spend billions of Euros from
Ukrainian businesses and shops.
Odious debt, also known as illegitimate debt, is when a country's government
misappropriates money it has borrowed from another country. A nation's debt is considered
odious debt when government leaders use borrowed funds in ways that do not benefit its
citizens, and to the contrary, often oppress them. Many believe individuals or countries
doing the lending must have known, or should have known, of the oppressive conditions upon
offering the credit.
@RadicalCenter Putin would be too old in ten years. What Russia needs is a decent
successor, as intelligent and far-sighted as Putin, who would be interested in the country
more than in his pocket, like Putin. While traitorous scum like Gorby or Yeltsin has no
chance, the greatest danger is that someone nationalistic but not particularly smart rises to
the top.
Putin understands the key thing: Russia does not need to do anything about the Empire or
its EU vassals, they are their own worst enemy. As the saying goes, when you see your enemy
committing suicide, do not interfere.
As far as Baltic vaudeville states are concerned, to the best of my knowledge (which might
be faulty: I only visited Russia three times in the last 28 years, spending less than two
months total there), most Russian residents are not interested in the Baltics.
Now that the port at Ust-Luga works at almost full capacity, Baltics aren't even useful
economically: Russian exports mostly bypass them. Besides, placing NATO troops into these
"countries" creates a significant financial and military burden on NATO, which is in the best
Russian interests.
So, from Russian perspective, the same rule applies to Baltics and Ukraine (whatever
remains of it in 5-10 years): "you broke it – you own it". So, the West would have to
do something about those territories. Considering current policies of the EU, they will be
populated by Muslims and Africans. Russian attitudes changed a lot in the last decades
regarding Baltics and in the last five years regarding Ukraine: a lot of Russians believe
that even Muslims and Africans are smarter than aborigines of those wannabe countries, so
would make more sensible neighbors.
@Malacaay "Ukrainian Republic" in 1914 ??? With presidents, parliaments, elections, sure,
sure.
And having western borders in 1914 exactly by the line draw by Georgian dictator
Jugashvili-Stalin 25 years later?
With Lwow being in 1914 city not of Poland (independent Poland in 1914 is yet another gem)
but of the said Ukrainian Republic? And Transcarpatian Ruthenia too?
Wow, so in 1939 Jugashvili-Stalin just restored well known internationally borderlines of
the glorious 1914 Ukrainian Republic, right?
@Arioch You consider Ukraine to be irrelevant, so why spend so much time on it??? Odd
isn't it. Methinks you protesteth too much. You haven't proven Ukrainians can't do science,
that they don't have a technical culture, and you haven't shown that grain production is
irrelevant. You're just insulting farmers, and basic industry. Insult your own stomach. Don't
eat bread. Food is power. All industrial economies are based on agriculture. You dismissing
it is just sour grapes.
Pretend the Ukraine is dead. That's your business. Ukraine hasn't lost the ability to do
science, engineering, etc. What do you think they do in universities there? Is there no
higher education there? I'm not going to believe that. You're just spinning. Spin away. It's
obvious you're just dismissing real activity there.
The finality with which you dismiss the logistics possibilities of the Ukraine is odd. It
is a valuable resource. The country can take up the logistics possibilities in the future.
They haven't disappeared. And that is what your argument is based on. Pretending that
something can never ever be operational again ever, for any reason, even when the
possibilities are obviously still there. Germany bounced back after the war. Russia bounced
back after the 90s. But Ukraine? According to you, Ukrainians can't ever have any future
possibilities. You dismiss the real activity that is there, and you dismiss future
possibilities. So you can read the future? Do you also pretend to have super human ability to
know the future? You don't like facts, just theatrics. Lots of arm waving and shouting and
gesticulating. No proofs. If it is dead in your books, why are you wasting so much effort to
prove it, without actually giving any proof? You really do protest too much.
@Mr. Hack Why would I be disappointed in seeing your puppet master Kolomoisky, the
'Zhidobandera', and his puppet playing the presidents, Zelenski admitting (grudgingly) that
"They're stronger anyway. We have to improve our relations"?
K: "People want peace, a good life, they don't want to be at war. And you [the U.S.] are
forcing us to be at war, and not even giving us the money for it."
And begging for money from Russia?
@Anon First, participation or results of International Mathematical Olympiad that both of
your links deal with do not necessarily reflect the state of science in the country. First,
math is only one of the real sciences (others include physics, chemistry, biology, etc.).
Second, the results of kids reflect the potential of young people, not the state of
scientific research in the country. Remaining scientists in Ukraine (there aren't many of
them left, unless you count bullshitters like Vyatrovich as scientists) bitterly complain
that the government does not fund science at the level that can help it survive.
BTW, many branches of Russian science (e.g., biochemistry and cell biology that I know
best) do not perform at the level that would put them on the map. There are very few
world-class biochemical or cell biological labs in Russia today, even fewer than in Soviet
times. In Ukraine today there are none, zero, zilch, nada. There used to be some decent labs
in Ukraine before 1991, but they either died out or the quality of their research went way
down. Those who awarded PhD to the girl I mentioned above are not scientists, at least not
the honest ones. They are qualified to sweep floors in college, at best.
@AnonFromTN More protesteth too much. More slurs, insults, hearsay, flailing away with no
data of any kind.
Those kids have real capabilities. Not simply 'potential of young people'. dismissing them
won't make them go away. 'Out damn'd spot'. Too bad the facts won't go away. To have kids
with strong math ability means you have to have institutions and teachers with strong
education capability. They don't learn to cut it in math by playing in the streets. Obviously
they will have no difficulty doing engineering calculations, and doing computer science and
physical sciences.
Making comparisons to the former SU is not valid for me. Comparison to other similar sized
economies makes more sense. Ukraine population is similar to Colombia, Spain, Argentina,
Uganda, Algeria, Sudan, Iraq. Looking at those countries, the capabilities of Ukraine don't
look too bad. Certainly not looking like Ukraine is dead.
Why would any one think that Ukraine must be compared to much larger economies??? The
other guy was doing that too. saker is way off to make such comparisons.
Comparing Ukraine to US, China, Russia, or prior SU or UkrainianSSR for me is not a valid
comparison. The economics are too different.
It's obvious what is going on is simply a political, prejudicial smear and dismissal of the
Ukraine and Ukrainians rather than any kind of balanced assessment of capabilities and
reality
@Anon Yes, those kids certainly had good teachers. It is quite likely that their math
teachers were educated in the Ukrainian SSR. I hear from a lot of people in Russia that the
quality of the teachers who graduated in Soviet times tends to be better than of those who
graduated later. I got my school education in Ukrainian SSR and can't complain about it.
Today Lugansk, where I went to school, is in Lugansk People's Republic, and judging by recent
polling of the population, its chances or returning to Ukraine are about as great as my
chances of living 500 years. Ukrainian bomb hit the school I went to, and Ukrainian shell hit
the library where I used to borrow books when I went to school. Luckily, a few years ago
Ukrainian troops were pushed by freedom fighters far enough from Lugansk, so they can't shell
it any more.
Comparing Ukraine to US, China, Russia, or prior SU or UkrainianSSR for me is not a
valid comparison.
Sorry, but Ukraine started by Ukrainian SSR becoming independent. It had what it had, and
lost what it lost, including a big chunk of the population and economy.
You are welcome to believe anything you want. People have a long history of believing the
most preposterous things. However, even fervent beliefs don't change the reality. That's why
all societies have lunatic asylums.
We in Ukraine?
Historically and even today, Russia has much in common with Ukraine -- the United States, almost nothing.
Stephen F. Cohen
November 14, 2019
500 Words
51 Comments
Reply
Listen
॥
■
►
RSS
http://www.unz.com/scohen/why-are-we-in-ukraine/
Email This Page to Someone
Remember My
Information
=>
List of Bookmarks
◄
►
◄
►
▲
▼
Add to Library
Remove
from Library
B
Show
Comment
Next New Comment
Next
New Reply
Read More
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc.
More...
This Commenter
This Thread
Hide Thread
Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They
are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My
Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Email Comment
Ignore
Commenter
Follow Commenter
Bookmark
Toggle
All
ToC
▲
▼
Search Text
Case
Sensitive
Exact Words
Include Comments
Search
Clear
Cancel
For centuries and still today, Russia and
large parts of Ukraine have had much in common -- a long territorial border; a shared history; ethnic,
linguistic, and other cultural affinities; intimate personal relations; substantial economic trade; and
more. Even after the years of escalating conflict between Kiev and Moscow since 2014, many Russians and
Ukrainians still think of themselves in familial ways. The United States has almost none of these
commonalities with Ukraine.
Which is also to say that Ukraine is not
"a vital US national interest," as most leaders of both parties, Republican and Democrat alike, and much of
the US media now declare. On the other hand, Ukraine is a vital Russian interest by any geopolitical or
simply human reckoning.
Why, then, is Washington so deeply
involved in Ukraine? (The proposed nearly $400 million in US military aid to Kiev would mean, of course,
even more intrusive involvement.) And why is Ukraine so deeply involved in Washington, in a different way,
that it has become a pretext for attempts to impeach President Donald Trump?
The short but essential answer is
Washington's decision, taken by President Bill Clinton in the 1990s, to expand NATO eastward from Germany
and eventually to Ukraine itself. Ever since, both Democrats and Republicans have insisted that Ukraine is a
"vital US national interest." Those of us who opposed that folly warned it would lead to dangerous conflicts
with Moscow, conceivably even war. Imagine Washington's reaction, we pointed out, if Russian military bases
began to appear on Canada's or Mexico's borders with America. We were not wrong: An estimated 13,000 souls
have already died in the Ukrainian-Russian war in the Donbass and some 2 million people have been displaced.
Things are likely to get worse.
Democrats are sharply criticizing Trump for withholding large-scale military aid to Kiev (even though
President Obama, despite strong pressure, wisely did so). Ukraine's recently elected President Volodymyr
Zelensky, having been drawn into the Washington scandal, is no longer as free to negotiate peace with
Russian leader Vladimir Putin as he hoped and promised during his campaign. And candidates for the 2020 US
Democratic presidential nomination, with the exception of Tulsi Gabbard, are likely to compete for the role
of Kiev's biggest military booster. Here, as generally in US-Russian relations, Democrats are becoming a war
party.
Meanwhile, as I have reported before,
Russian leader Vladimir Putin continues to be accused by hard-liners in Moscow of passivity in the face of
"American aggression in Ukraine." Is it irony or tragedy that the often-maligned Trump and Putin may stand
between us and something much worse -- between a fragile Cold War peace and the war parties in their respective
countries?
The short but essential answer is Washington's decision, taken by President Bill Clinton in the 1990s,
to expand NATO eastward from Germany and eventually to Ukraine itself.
The problem, however, is with the fact that the United States has neither resources nor status anymore to
do either:
Kissinger: If we treat Russia seriously as a great power, we need at an early stage to determine
whether their concerns can be reconciled with our necessities. We should explore the possibilities of a
status of nonmilitary grouping on the territory between Russia and the existing frontiers of NATO.
That's the danger, remove last remaining military and intelligence professionals and you have ignorant,
grossly incompetent American political class which thinks that it is 1995.
The fact that both Trump and Putin have managed to keep the peace is laudable and somewhat surprising,
particularly on our side given the comparative pressure the Israel lobby can exert on Trump politically and
personally vs. Putin.
Thanks to Ron & the many anti-US-Russia-Ukraine war writers here at Unz over the years including Pat
Buchanan, Paul Craig Roberts, Ron Paul, Phil Giraldi, Caitlyn Johnstone, C.J. Hopkins and The Saker, among
others.
Russia is the only nation on Earth with the undisputable power to permanently cripple the United States
with nuclear weapons. A nuclear exchange between these nations would do serious damage to the world
ecosphere for decades if not centuries.
Short of defending against a full-scale invasion of United States territory the United States has no
justified interest in provoking or engaging in such an exchange.
The entire Ukraine is not worth the bones of one American infantryman.
The people in Washington and Tel Aviv who are playing these games with potentially millions of American &
Russian lives are psychopaths who in a sane world would be tried for war crimes for the acts they have
already committed, much less those they contemplate or risk setting in motion.
The problem, however, is with the fact that the United States has neither resources nor status anymore
to do either:
I would add that if Russia were broken up, then very likely China and not the United States would capture
the mineral wealth of Siberia. This would be a geopolitical blunder of biblical proportions, comparable to
Germany's decision to sponsor Lenin's sealed train voyage.
[Digression: Andrei, I read your blog and I agree about Russian Math and Physics cirriculum. I followed a
similar cirriculum in Poland and I got into MIT easily. Я согласен]
Guessing it's because that dastardly Putin wanted Russia's share of tax receipts from the looting oligarchs
and their western backers during the pillaging 90s. Bankers and financiers lives matter more then the common
good. So does the Clinton slush fund So Hillary got her vengeance on Vlad by doing an Ukrainian coup, and
sending her best like Brett Kimberlin, Victoria Nuland, and Jonathan Winer. Unfortunately the sneaky Putin
kept Crimea and its port on the Black Sea.
The gall of it all. With all the Hong Kong real estate woes, HSBC needs Russian money laundering moolah.
More are becoming aware of Bill Browder's Magnitsky Act con. Plus Hillary's appetite for payoffs is
insatiable. Basically no clue why we're in the Ukraine other than the Clintons. Trump really should have at
least one of them up. Instead he's facing a bogus impeachment. Good news is we might be geting rid of Joe
Biden, and the nuke weapon makers are getting richer. Wonder where that missing 1998 4.8 billion
dollarFederal Reserve/ IMF loan to Russia ever got too?
comparable to Germany's decision to sponsor Lenin's sealed train voyage.
While I disagree with this assessment–it was just an episode against the background of a complete
collapse of Russia, even none other than Solzhenitsyn admits that Bolsheviks merely picked the power up from
the street where it was laying because nobody realistically wanted it, I have to say that in terms of
consequences of Russia breaking up, you are absolutely spot on. In such a scenario the main beneficiary will
be China and it will be easy for it.
Andrei, I read your blog and I agree about Russian Math and Physics cirriculum. I followed a similar
cirriculum in Poland
In general what is known as Socialist Camp–STEM education was extremely good, I know Germans, Poles and
Czechs, among others, who also were the "products" of this education and yes, they had no problems
navigating US higher-ed.
Pitting the Christian (Protestant) U.S. against Christian
(Orthodox) Russia serves the needs of
Dhimmi
Globalism. Both sides are limited in their ability to
resist Muslim efforts at replacing Christians if they cannot unify against the IslamoGlobalist invaders.
The Biden family, Kerry family, and
Dhimmi
Soros family all have business investments in Ukraine
that will only make money if they are able to keep responsible Christians out of office. If Trump can clear
the
Dhimmi
Deep State hurdles, investigations and impeachment, hopefully this flow of money to
suppress Ukrainian Christians will be shut off.
Not really, just out of focus. NATO is Israel's bitch/attack dog. Israel is owned by the Rothschilds, The
Rothschilds got tossed from the USSR. They regained Russia through Yeltsin. Putin pushed back against the
Rothschild front oligarchs, and now they want it back.
Guys, guys what's going on?! You are, recently, slipping hard here. C'mon we aren't THAT dumb.
So far you've done sterling work in the real world; keeping "normies" in check on the Internet too.
But the crew here is ..slipping.
Two options:
1. You really take us here for dumb fucks. While there is some merit there, still I mean, Soros as
dhimmi?!?
2. The team here has kept the same handles but the real people behind them are different guys. Temps hired
for peanuts. So, if that, where have the real guys gone? And, more importantly, why?
If I can venture an opinion I guess on focusing the effort on normies in the runup to the election.
Anyway, please, tone that idiocy down. It's bad form, really.
It looks as if at least one Ukrainian "player" has taken a look at the smoking ruins of the Middle East and
concluded that "friendly ouvertures" by US are just the on-ramp to a scenario where there will be much
pissing on your robbed grave in a decade or so. A trial balloon to start a de-escalation vis-à-vis of Russia
may have been launched.
In general what is known as Socialist Camp–STEM education was extremely good, I know Germans, Poles
and Czechs, among others, who also were the "products" of this education and yes, they had no problems
navigating US higher-ed.
And then they all flee to the U.S. to design and build computers, airplanes, missiles, etc., while their
native lands try to remain barely 2nd world in STEM.
Another important piece of the puzzle is NATO's Strategic Concept, approved at the 1999 Washington Summit.
It included for the first time "possibility of conducting non-Article 5 crisis response operations." Since
Article 5 refers to a response to a military attack against a member country, this single phrase changed
NATO from a defensive alliance to an offensive one.
This created a loophole. First, sponsor a separatist
insurgency in a country you don't like. When the government responds, claim that civilians are suffering.
Mobilize the public opinion using photos of crying women (less than ten is enough, just show them
frequently.) Follow up with accusations of "humanitarian crisis." Claim that "genocide is unfolding" (this
quote and the bogus claim of 100,000 dead Albanians was used in 1999). Frequently use the phrase
"International Community". Invade.
This scenario was implemented against Yugoslavia and Libya. Had Al Gore won in 2000, Richard Holbroooke
would become Secretary of State and he would use Chechnya as a pretext for intervention in Russia. It almost
happened – Madeleine Albright asked Russia to permit presence of "observers" in Chechnya. Putin wisely
refused, perhaps because he knew that "observers" in Kosovo were used to provide a pretext for war against
Yugoslavia.
Albright's request happened soon after Nato permitted "non-Article 5 crisis response operations."
Few people realize how close we were to a repeat of Yugoslavia-style scenario being used to break up Russia.
@Curmudgeon
You believe it's "The Rothschilds".
I believe it's a
BIT
more complicated than that.
I suggest we skip
that
debate here.
At the moment the pressure is in three spots: Syria, Ukraine and Balkans.
Or, why are "we" in Syria and Balkans, for example? Dumb question, of course.
As why "we" are in Iraq, Afghanistan. Or Bulgaria. Or Japan. Or Italy. Or whatever.
Boring, in fact.
Changing that fact, somehow, could be an interesting conversation. Granted, wouldn't attract much traffic
around here. One day, perhaps.
The question should be : Is there any little speck of land on the entire planet that isn't of "strategic
importance" to the fools that control the USG??
@Exile
Exactly! The fact is that the Democratic establishment have lost any credibility with the Russia Scam so
they are now working on the Ukraine angle an angle that is fraught with danger for them if it all comes out
in the wash.
@peterAUS
The IslamoSoros is an ex-Jew, now totally dedicated to Islam and Jew extermination. That is why he is so
dedicated to the genocidal BDS movement: (1)
Israel released a list of 20 BDS-supporting organizations whose members will be banned from entering
Israel due to their BDS activism, prominently featuring six American groups. At least four of the six
BDS-promoting U.S. groups receive funding tied to Soros. Scores of other U.S. organizations that support
the BDS movement are financed by Soros.
The American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) is a central proponent of anti-Israel BDS activism on
college campuses and in churches
Globalism is against the Judeo-Christian God and his values. Which is why the IslamoSoros and Globalism
go together so well.
@Undocumented Shopper
"This would be a geopolitical blunder of biblical proportions, comparable to Germany's decision to sponsor
Lenin's sealed train voyage."
Exactly. The reason they did that was because they feared Russia would open
up a second front. A short sighted objective in the end because the Zionists managed to sucker America into
fighting on the side of the Allies for the promise of their "promised land" in Palestine.
Same with America embracing Ukraine since Putin isn't going to follow the conventional rules of
engagement since he doesn't have to thanks to the US abrogating the treaty on Medium range nukes. If NATO
makes its advance through Ukraine he'll launch a nuclear counterstrike using tactical nukes.
The people in Washington and Tel Aviv who are playing these games
Don't you mean to say Jaffa? Or Jerusalem? Then again it's actually neither, so may as well.
Russia is the only nation on Earth with the undisputable power to permanently cripple the United
States with nuclear weapons.
Say it ain't so. It's almost as if Israel is not the only one with a Samson(ov) Option? But I'm sure
you'll find a way to blame it on people in the wrong (((Capital))) Anyway.
Israel's nukes are a reason to take them away?
Russia's nukes are a reason to grab your ankles and hope for the best?
I am not in Ukraine. Imperial Washington is in Ukraine as part of it's project to rule the world by force of
arms. I am in Texas minding my own business.
@Gall
I see what you mean. But perhaps the Dems, or the powers behind them, are just concerned with getting rid of
Trump and don't mind if the scandal envelops Joe Biden too.
They'd just be getting rid of the old
"moderate" white guy and giving the nomination instead to a woman.
They would have Warren or whoever's baggage, and she's not young either -- but they wouldn't have to
suffer Creepy Joe's more advanced age and apparent mental decline, his open touching of young girls, and his
constant gaffes and lies/exaggerations.
@Exile
'The fact that both Trump and Putin have managed to keep the peace is laudable and somewhat surprising,
particularly on our side given the comparative pressure the Israel lobby can exert on Trump politically and
personally vs. Putin '
Get the feeling that maybe you're solving this puzzle?
What happens to the interest of US politicians in the Ukraine if Russia agrees to dump Syria?
Yes, but the long answer is that a majority of Jews (with exception to the author perhaps and some others)
now have a dog in this fight (or rather, many). It's hard to believe, but 80 years after playing the leading
role in having millions of Ukrainians murdered in the 1930's, after founding the Soviet Union, Jews now
dominate Ukraine, not just with oligarchs but with politicians elected to the highest office(s) in the land.
They now have their second Jewsh president in a row, the first being part Jewish. The top positions of the
gov't are dominated by Jews and I believe they control most of the media, just as they do in the US. By
contrast, Russia has an ethnic Russian that leads the country and by some counts is undergoing a big return
to Christanisty. Ths is like a horror movie to Jews who never stop indoctrinating Amercans with talk of the
"pogroms" from 120 years ago or longer.
I can sum up the differences based on a personal experience. In
2002 I visted Saint Petersburg and met a young woman there. Durng the time we spent together the subject of
the Jews came up and she said "Russians and Jews don't get along well". I don't recall the exact words of
her sentence, but that is precisely the sentiment she related. It was rather refreshing. She wasn't
criticnzing either side, just stating a fact. And she wasn't apologizing. She appeared to be a proud
Russian. By contrast, when I was in Lviv last year, what had been the heart of Ukrainian nationalism, I met
a young woman completely beholden to the Jews. She had visited Israel several times, she spoke of Jewish
briliance, she made a comment about the bad Palestinians, she called me an anti-semite for telling her Jews
dominated the USSR and were in charge when millions of Ukrainians were killed. She hated Germans, and hated
me. She told me how brilliant Einsten was and how awful Germans were. No doubt, she would be a very loyal
American.
That is what is at stake for the Jews. They now have one more country they dominate, and maybe this one
more than any other. And this is the same country they blasted for many decades as "anti-semitc", portraying
Ukrainians as evil "anti-semites" in movies and deporting Ukrainains from the USA so they could be tried on
trumped up charges in Israel (John Demjanjuk).
Anyone that doesn't think Adam Schiff, Jerrold Nadler and the Jewish dominated mainstream medis are not
acting in their own interest (Jewish interests) are just dumb.
@Andrei Martyanov
"The problem, however, is with the fact that the United States has neither resources nor status anymore to
do either:"
Yes -- but
The US would hope it can pull another Indonesia, Ukraine, Hondurous, & now Bolivia etc, etc,
etc on Russia. Another colour revolution, by those humanitarians in the NED.
@A123
"Globalism is against the Judeo-Christian God and his values. Which is why the IslamoSoros and Globalism go
together so well."
I can't believe your claims never mind your logic.
So called "globalists" give not a damn about any religion, any race, any culture, & (probably) any ideology.
They care about Power & Money -- that-is-it.
@A123
What religion does Soros profess? Is he a member of an established racial and/or religious group? Just
wondering. Ann Coulter says he's a "pompous American billionaire." But I felt that description was somehow
incomplete.
And where does it mention that Jews compose 90% of the current government of Ukraine? And of the previous
governments ever since the Putsch?
And that in a country almost devoid of Jews.
Most of the oligarchs were created by the Americans using the World Bank and International Finance
Organization and a string of private banks. These oligarchs are again almost all Jewish.
Any article or video about Ukraine that leaves the role of International Jewery out is a work of fiction.
Why, then, is Washington so deeply involved in Ukraine?
Because once you secure the old border by making an ally of the country on it, their border becomes the
new insecure border and so you have to bring yet another country on the far side of the new ally within your
alliance. There is no end to it.
I think it is as simple as it looks. Ukraine is "vital to American interests" inasmuch as those interests
are:
1- Keeping a heel on Russia to serve whatever existing financial interests there are in that status
quo, or simply to remain dominant geopolitically, power being an end in itself
2- The venality of American politicians in using Ukraine as a financial playground, very much as
Ukrainian and Russian politicians have done.
There's no real mystery in a small "border" nation that exists as a conduit for a vital commodity being
the pawn of bigger powers, is there?
@Anonymous
I find it odd how Eastern Europeans boast that they're much more intelligent and capable than Westerners,
yet it seems to me that those of them with any intelligence and capability move to Western countries as soon
as possible.
If they're so wonderful shouldn't it be the other way round? Of course, they always blame it
on "Communism" but that seems to be rather like the "Colonialism" excuse for why India and Africa is third
world, how long is that excuse credible?
@Anonymous
"And then they all flee to the U.S. to design and build computers, airplanes, missiles, etc., while their
native lands try to remain barely 2nd world in STEM".
Computers like the fundamentally insecure Intel
processor chips? Besides, most "American" computers are manufactured in Asia. The American "executives" just
skim off the profits. Any time now the people who actually make the microprocessors, RAM, hard drives, SSDs,
network chips, etc. will realise that all they have to do is initiate a "buyout" and it will all be theirs.
Airplanes yeah, like the F-35? No honest comparison of the F-35 with any of the recent MiGs or Sukhois
could come to any conclusion but that the Russian planes are vastly superior. And, of course, vastly cheaper
– not only to buy, but to maintain and upgrade. Besides, the price of a Russian jet fighter includes the
engines (unlike some F-35 quotations I have seen).
Missiles you really have got to be joking even to bring missiles into it. Turkey, India and many other
nations are well aware that the Russian anti-aircraft missiles are far, far better than any US products. Not
only that – they are also much cheaper! If you are talking about offensive missiles, the picture becomes
even more one-sided.
To correct your wording, the people you speak of "flee to the US" not to design and build anything
useful, but mainly to scoop up all the gold with which the streets are lined, and drink all the milk and
honey that flows there.
They quickly find out that it's not gold that lines the sidewalks, but something much nastier and
smellier.
@RadicalCenter
"A map is useful for ascertaining which countries border Russia. Yes, there are many".
Whereas the USA has
borders with two (very weak) nations: Canada and Mexico. As Jules Jusserand, French Ambassador to the US,
remarked in 1910:
"The United States was blessed among nations. On the north, she had a weak neighbour; on the south,
another weak neighbour; on the east, fish; and on the west, fish".
Nothing has changed since then.
So the USA, with only two relatively weak and unthreatening neighbours, should need very minimal armed
forces and should spend very little on armaments; while Russia, with many neighbours (including some very
powerful ones) is justified in spending far more on its armed forces.
Precisely the opposite of what we see; in reality, the USA spends ten times as much on armaments as
Russia does.
Of course, the convenient Wikipedia article is heavily biased toward the neocon view that Ukraine is no
part of Russia and has always been independent.
Kievan Rus was roughly contemporary with King Alfred's Wessex – the nation that rapidly expanded to
become England. And Kiev was the capital of the very first Russian state, just as Winchester was the capital
of King Alfred's Wessex. (All of this happened over 800 years before the American Revolution).
If someone were to tell me today that Hampshire (the county in which Winchester is situated) is not part
of England, but belongs to some weird country called "Borderland" – the literal meaning of "Ukraine" – I
would laugh out loud. Russians would be quite as justified in claiming that Kiev has always been a Russian
city, and still is today.
However the Russians are peaceable, tolerant people and prefer to let their "erring sisters" go their own
way unhindered. (Unlike Abraham Lincoln's USA, which reacted to the perfectly justified secession of the
Confederate States by launching a war that killed nearly a million people).
" .I've often quoted Randolph Bourne as saying, "War is the
health of the state." He was quite correct. The larger the nation, the greater the need political leaders
have for warfare. ..Since the end of World War II, the US military-industrial complex has been
displeased with the fact that peacetime means diminished revenue for them. Increasingly, they've contributed
heavily to election campaigns for both major parties in every election.
The repayment for those contributions has always been the same – the political class must find excuses to
create a new conflict as soon as another one ends, ensuring the continued revenue of the complex.
This has resulted in the US becoming the first and only country that's in a consciously created state of
perpetual warfare. The cost of this, in 2018, was roughly $600 billion – 54% of all federal discretionary
spending ":
"Because they are all ultimately funded via both direct and indirect theft [taxes], and counterfeiting
[via central bank monopolies], all governments are essentially, at their very cores, 100% corrupt criminal
scams which cannot be "reformed","improved", simply because of their innate, unchangeble criminal nature."
onebornfree
"Taking the State wherever found, striking into its history at any point, one sees no way to
differentiate the activities of its founders, administrators and beneficiaries from those of a
professional-criminal class." Albert J. Nock
– Without the unequivocally Russian parts (to include Dniepropetrowsk and Odessa oblasts) Ukraine is a
landlocked sunflower field chemically pure of strategic value (thanks to Nord Stream 2).
It was a private venture of the Tribe to provide a safe space more conveniently located than London or
Cyprus.
– The Banderists are a wild card it took a special kind of idiocy to wake up that particular dog; they are
not forever going to believe it was the Big Bad Russians who massacred their brothers.
From the other side
of the grand chessboard (always assuming there still is such a thing as an independent US geostrategy) the
situation is simple – there are two Archimedean points, the loss either of which will mean the end of the
empire:
– Germany: NATO´s eastward expansion is not so much aimed at Mother Russia as on preempting
Tauroggen/Rapallo 3.0 . Brexit doesn´t help either.
– the Gulf: there is a reason it is called "Persian" and not "Lake Monroe"; contrary to popular belief
the US do not need the oil, but without the ability to deny it to others the $$$ would collapse, rendering
untenable the worldwide strategic posture (and prolly unleashing a groid uprising back home).
Classic empire in overstretch – the only question is how much damage they will do on the way down.
@Kolya Krassotkin
Yes.
The Neocon foreign policy has been swallowed up by most of the Dumbo-crats because of TDS (Trump Derangement
Syndrome). Thank God for Tulsi. The Republi-tards are even more rabidly Neocoonish than the Demokratz. Thank
The Lord for Rand Paul. So 'they', The Cabal, the Neocons, whatever you want to call them, basically run our
foreign policy.
Now 'they' have a special hatred for Putin because he reestablished Christian Orthodoxy into Mother Russia.
You have to admire Trump's intestinal fortitude to push back against Christian Zionists, Neocons, derranged
Democrats and stupid politicians in general and that's just in his own family!
@Anonymous
You probably live under some stone. If you were following Russia military developments you would clearly
understand that STEM so far at least math physics part is doing ok and considerably better than in USA.
@Andrei Martyanov
At least Germans once in a while did something good for Russia, while doing really long term disservice to
themselves as history shown.
Basically ukraine and belorussia is Russia safe few parts. The whole madness of this situation that
basically russian people were led to believe that they are not russians . Sooner or later this anomaly will
have to be addressed and I disagree with those who consider ukraine a lost cause. Everything in due time. In
this regard chinese are behaving rightfully not allowing no piece of china go. Once one start retreating in
this regard there is no knowing how much can be lost. For now I think russia is doing right thing. But
eventually both Ukraine and belorussia will have to be reintegrated. On their own they are not viable
anyway.
However, my first try did not go quite so well - mixed results.
I entered: Epstein did not commit suicide
The project outputted this:
"The news of his death brought back memories of Epstein's death at the hands of a
27-year-old lawyer in 1998, when Michael Milken, who was then a top hedge fund manager, was
convicted of insider trading and sentenced to 18 months in prison.
Milken, who was convicted of trading on information that the hedge fund firm Galleon Group
would acquire an Italian airline and put it on a stock exchange, was also said to have paid
Epstein $450,000 to have sex with an underage girl.
Epstein has never been charged in the case.
The scandal has also caused many to question whether the Clintons' political career might
have been ruined had they lived in Washington D.C. and Epstein was their friend."
The book is very graphic and discusses Epstein's sexual encounters with many of the
young girls that he had brought to America.
According to the book, the girls were given drugs and alcohol and then abused by
Epstein's friend and masseuse Ghislaine Maxwell.
Of course, Bill Clinton never had Epstein locked up and there's no book called "Lolita"
about Epstein -- this is the AI making things up. But the text is quite convincing until you
start fact-checking it, isn't it? Also, the example shows that the AI is not propagandistic.
It's the way you choose the starting words that produces pro-Empire or pro-truth results.
China Communist Party to the extent it is a theocratic state generates its special flavor of corruption typical for theocratic states
where high priests of the cult enjoy virtual impunity. It is the same type of corruption that doomed the USSR. So it is institutional
Notable quotes:
"... In China, there is an additional emphasis of the moral aspect and it is less constrained by laws. An immoral action, even if it is legal, may still be considered a corruption by the Chinese society. For example, if a relative of Xi would to give a speech, and then received an exorbitant fee, it probably would be considered a corruption in China. However, in US, this is perfectly legal (and a reason many ex-politicians and ex-government employees become very rich) and it won't be considered a corruption. ..."
"... In case you hadn't noticed from prior postings, "Godfree Roberts" is a fake name for a CCP propaganda writer who scours the Internet for things to promote official views for, such as this absurd piece. ..."
"... The CCP knows corruption/graft, etc. is poison to their authoritarian one party state dictatorship. It is endemic in all such states. So periodically there are huge purges, trials, executions, etc. and a new set of stooges are risen up. Some get the message, most just bow humbly and wait for the storm to pass. It is as old as China. Of course government corruption is hardly unique to China. But in places where party leaders can be voted out (not merely a few shot for effect) it can be cleaned out periodically. Chinese are wisely quiet and cynical about this. ..."
"... What mechanisms are in place to keep this from going too far? That is, accusing someone for personal reasons, for example, to further one's own career. ..."
"... I have viewed Xi Jinping with more suspicion because his family has a lot of wealth and he sent his daughter to Harvard. He also did not agitate for rehabilitating the cultural revolution when it would have been more politically risky for him to have done so, like Bo Xilai did. ..."
"... I wonder if the Government would have something to say if he spoke out against the party and against Xi? Considering that people have received jail sentences (of years) for calling Xi a steamed bun, and that Winnie the Pooh is banned because poor Xi can't handle light hearted criticism I think we all know the answers here ..."
"... This is the ultimate corruption that a society faces – the inability to communicate freely and to criticise those accountable. Every Chinese citizen is under the CCP Yoke regardless of how this CCP shill wants to spin it. ..."
"... Corruption exists everywhere. It's just that it depends on what level it occurs. Heck, in the West, it's legal! Lobbying, they call it You can't bribe a cop to forgive a ticket, but goddamn you can bribe a politician to drive the country into the ground. ..."
"... If you want accurate information about China, stilted prose is inevitable. Real writers, professionals, are paid to lie about China. Anyone who tries to tell the truth is shunned, not only by our mainstream media, but by the PRC, which prefers to let its accomplishments speak for themselves. ..."
"... Udo Ulfkotte[3], Editor of Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, says that no significant European journalist, including himself, was free of CIA influence. Singapore's Lee Kwan Yew[4] outlined the consequences: ..."
"... The first is to do what Confucian states are always supposed to do: recruit your brightest sparks, promote the most honest, competent of them until the topmost are the very best you've got. As its track record demonstrates, the current dynasty has earned everyone's trust by doing that consistently. ..."
"... At this stage, any one who still believes in the western propaganda about China is simply too brain-washed and not too smart for any cure. Excuse me, I should say "too dumb for any cure". ..."
"... For example, Nathan Rich's recent video shows how media biased reporting of Hong Kong compare with Ukraine riots. The contrast can't be anymore stark: ..."
"... People view the world through narratives, and the value of a narrative lies only in how closely it follows and "explains" the widest possible array of empirical facts. ..."
"... Corrupt Chinese have practically taken over the US West Coast and Northeast. There isn't anywhere you could go in LA, Bay Area or Seattle without encountering mandarin speaking people. 99.9% Chinese nationals in the US are corrupt. With a nominal per capita GDP of $8,600, the only people who could afford to emigrate or send their children abroad for education are the rich, and China is so corrupt, no one can get rich without being corrupt, either by taking bribes or giving them. These are the corrupt factory owners who leave behind polluted rivers and air for their countrymen to die from while they escape to greener pastures with their family, and the government officials they bribed to pollute at will. ..."
"... This country is destroyed by (((lawyers))). As Niall Ferguson said, we no longer have the rule of law, we have the rule of (((lawyers))). ..."
The men of Qi presented the government of Lu with a troupe of singing girls. Ji Huanzi accepted them and for three days
failed to appear at court. Confucius left the state . Analects
Everywhere, since ancient times, peole have feared government corruption for, unlike war or fraud, corrupt policies cripple nations
for centuries. No society has suffered more grievously from–nor waged more protracted war against–official corruption than the Chinese.
Today however, though the story not over, it is nearing a goal that could make them the envy of the world and, like most Chinese
stories, theirs is a long one.
Corruption–nepotistic, pecuniary, blatant, discreet, major and minor–has been subverting governments since governments were invented.
Roman politicians were scandalously corrupt, Christianity failed to improve them, and their legacy of official impunity, bribery,
influence peddling, patronage, nepotism and cronyism, electoral fraud, embezzlement, kickbacks, unholy alliances, and involvement
with organized crime afflicts us today and we have become numb to it.
Had I thoroughly eradicated corrupt officials in addition to those already imprisoned I would have been dealing with two thousand
men from just two prefectures, men with no useful occupation who used my prestige to oppress people. No-one outside government
knew how wicked they were, so everyone said my punishments were harsh, for they saw only the severity of the law and didn't know
that these villains had used the government's good name to engage in evil practices. In the morning I punished a few and, by evening,
others had committed the same crimes. I punished those in the evening and next morning there were more violations! Although the
corpses of the first had not been removed others were already lined up to follow in their path, day and night! The harsher the
punishment, the more violations. I didn't know what to do, but I couldn't rest. If I was lenient the law became ineffectual, order
deteriorated, people thought me weak and engaged in still more evil practices. If I punished them, others regarded me as a tyrant.
How could anyone lead a peaceful life in such circumstances? Really, my situation was dreadful.
Confucians fought corruption more effectively than the Romans, partly because of public participation. The people retained the
right to withdraw the Mandate of Heaven–and, according to the constitution, still do–and many governments met grisly ends when they
failed to honor the Four Principles–propriety, justice, honesty, and honor–or their officials lacked the Eight Virtues–loyalty, filial
piety, benevolence, love, integrity, righteousness, harmony and peace.
From the earliest days, officials transferred to provinces were forbidden to bring their parents lest their needs conflict with
the Emperor's. They were rotated every three years and, after each rotation, their successors were encouraged to report discrepancies
for fear that they be blamed for them. Palace officials were regularly moved between departments and the seriously corrupt were strangled
and their families sold into slavery.
Every Chinese, from humble farmers to eminent politicians, knows this history and understands that promoting honest men to leadership
is the way to prevent corruption. Many still living saw how a century of chaos devastated public morality, as Mao observed during
a 1950 anti-corruption drive, "Today, you can buy a branch secretary for a few packs of cigarettes, not to mention marrying a daughter
to him." Mao's slogan, "The masses have sharp eyes," encouraged people to report wrongdoing and corruption fell dramatically. His
insistence on merely shaming corrupt officials worked because, says Sydney Rittenberg
[3] An old friend of the party assesses China's
new leaders. Rob Schmitz. Marketplace. November 19, 2012 . "Nobody locked their doors. The banks–there was a local bank branch
on many, many corners–the door was wide open, the currency was stacked up on the table in plain sight of the door, there were no
guards and they never had a bank robbery, ever."
As its accomplishments demonstrate, postwar China was free of corruption at the policy-making level but, especially during the
forty year Reform and Opening, lower level corruption flourished. Anticipating this in 1980, planners redesigned officials' incentives
so that bribers would effectively be rewarding them for expediting the plan, says Yukon Huang
[4] Yukon Huang was the World Bank's Director
for China. The Diplomat , "The system countered the growth‐inhibiting aspects of corruption by setting investment and production
targets that gave local officials incentives to promote expansion. It fostered a unity of purpose so that, even when corruption flourished,
the collaborators still made growth the guiding principle of their actions. This was reinforced by competition between localities
to meet targets and support productivity‐enhancing economic reforms. The competitive element helped curb waste and ensured a modicum
of efficiency despite the high degree of state intervention in commercial activities." Sometimes though, as throughout Chinese history,
things got out of hand.
Acting on a tipoff about smuggling, Beijing secretly sent detectives to Xiamen Port in 1999 but the smugglers, tipped off, set
fire to the investigators' hotel and killed them as they slept. On national television the next day, Premier Zhu Rongji declared
war and ordered a hundred coffins, "Ninety-nine for the crooks and one for me." Detectives from across the country converged on the
city and what they found staggered them: four million tons of imported diesel fuel had bypassed customs in just two years. They tracked
hundreds of suspects, locked escapees in a local hotel with armed guards on each floor, and spent three years unravelling a case
so complex that the customs files alone would be higher than a ten-story building. The gang had bribed the vice-minister of Public
Security, Li Jizhou, through his wife and daughter, and Li and thirteen others were sentenced to death, his wife to thirty months
in prison and three hundred officials were tried for aiding or abetting the criminals. The ringleader, farmer-turned-smuggler Lai
Changxing, fled to Canada, was extradited, and jailed for life in 2009.
In 1985 Bo Xilai, son of a Revolutionary Immortal and Xi Jinping's schoolmate, had ignored his father's pleas to stay out of politics,
"You know nothing of the sufferings of ordinary people and just want to capitalize on my name." Xilai cultivated a charismatic image,
was named one of Time's Most Influential People, rose rapidly to provincial governor and publicly campaigned for a cabinet position.
But, as conservative scholar Cheng Li said at the time, "Nobody really trusts him. A lot of people are scared of him, including several
princelings who are supposed to be his power base." Michael Wines wrote that, though he possessed prodigious charisma and deep intelligence,
"He possessed a studied indifference to the wrecked lives that littered his path to power Mr. Bo's ruthlessness stood out." With
the help of Justice Minister Zhou Yongkang, Bo had even wiretapped President Hu.
Despite considerable internal resistance, Vice Premier Wu Yi, the nation's highest woman official, demanded an open investigation
and a 2012 trial revealed that Bo owned expensive properties around the world and that his wife had murdered a British agent. They
were jailed for life and joined a long line of disgraced elites like the grandson of China's Head of State and founder of the Red
Army, Zhu De, who was executed for rape, and Yan Jianhong, wife of Guizhou's powerful Party Secretary, who was executed for corruption.
With prosperity assured, and elite corruption confronted, Congress anointed Xi Jinping, the most honest, competent official of
his generation, to succeed President Hu. In its first year, Xi's anti-corruption campaign saw ten thousand officials passed over
for promotion for concealing information and one-hundred thirty-thousand demoted or disciplined for making false declarations. By
2016, prosecutors had charged sixty-three senior officials and ministers with corruption, released confessions from fifty-seven thousand
Party members who made restitution and accepted demotions and seen Yunnan's corrupt Party Secretary, Bai Enpei, sentenced to death.
By 2018, anti-corruption squads had investigated 1.3 million bureaucrats, filed a million court cases, issued one hundred thousand
indictments, captured thousands of overseas fugitives and jailed or executed one-hundred twenty high-ranking officials–including
five national leaders, twelve generals, a dozen CEOs and Sun Zhengcai, former Chongqing Party chief, who was sentenced to life in
prison for taking huge bribes. After a 2019 industrial explosion in Tianjin killed one-hundred sixty-five people, the magistrate
found that petty bribery had led to weak code enforcement, sentenced the responsible official to death, and jailed forty-nine of
his colleagues.
Graft investigators unannounced inspections now resemble elite athletes' doping tests. An Anhui inspection team telephoned an
official four times between 7:31-7:35 one evening about his poverty alleviation efforts. He was showering and, when he failed to
answer, they reported him for obstruction and moved to dismiss him. Happily, through social media, the public came to his defense
and he was exonerated.
Knowing that that ten percent of their statements will be audited, even deputy county officials now report their marital status,
overseas travel, criminal record, wages, other earnings, family properties, stocks, funds, insurance and investments. If they refuse
to answer questions, or collude with, or protect accomplices, they are detained immediately.
Bureaucrats–especially those with leadership ambitions–endure increasing scrutiny as they advance, says Zhao Bing Bing
[6] Daniel Bell and Zhao Bing Bing, The China
Model. , "The selection criteria are: a person must have 'both ability and moral integrity and the latter should be prioritized
[7] The same wording as the Chief Censor used
in the Tang Dynasty. .'" Midlevel officials must report their own assets and those of their parents, wives, children, children's
spouses and cousins, children from previous marriages, children born out of wedlock and foster children. They must report their income,
savings, real estate, stock portfolios, insurance policies, unit trusts, bonds, assets in overseas accounts and, "Income shall include
salary and various bonuses, allowances, subsidies, and payment you receive from lectures, writing, consultation, reviewing, painting
and calligraphy." Says a scion of a prominent family:
I am a Party Member in China and all my family are Party members. What I think of Xi is that the life is really changing after
he came to power. A relative of mine works for the government as a vital governor in my city Chengdu (which is a big city like
BeiJing or ShangHai), then all my family people are like in the hierarchy of privilege. We pay nothing when go out for dinner,
the Party pays. We pay nothing for filling in oil, the Party pays. It seems like we don't need to pay for anything with our salaries,
cause either the Party pays, or someone will pay for us (who wants to flatter us). I smoke the best, I drink the best, sometimes
I even drive without license when drunk, because I fear no one.
In past times, yes we did have privilege everywhere, I felt so arrogant to be superior to others that's also true. But the
problem is, there is a tradeoff. We drank quite a lot of alcohol to show respect to others, we had to accept bribes even we know
it's risky, cause we have to consider about our clan (like the interest of my boss). We had to do some many things we don't want
to do, that's the rule of living in Party, care about the interest of Clan more than your own. That's how we united. We have to
fear a lot of threats from ordinary people, colleagues, and bosses. We cannot keep our own passports, Party keeps it in case of
we flee.
But life changed after Xi came to power, he did real things on anti-corruption. No one dare to present gifts to governors and
the abuse of public funds is strictly monitored. The Party took back the public cars from my family and even we have to pay for
the parking fee now! But..my family and I are actually happy with this, we are thankful to President Xi. Cause he seems like dragging
China to a healthier future. My relatives don't need to go out for dinner with other governors as social intercourse daily, they
don't need to drink so much on the table. And they start to learn to pay for the bill by turns, cause the Party will no longer
do this for them. They start to learn how to take bus or metro. That's good, actually. People start to think about what kind of
lifestyle is called 'healthy,' they are more like human now, no longer some conceited stupid with expanding power. That's how
our life changed after Xi came.
Senior ministers' lives have become excruciatingly transparent. Their private activities are scrutinized and their children must
adopt assumed names to avoid influence-seekers. Their meetings must have third-party observers as one-on-one appointments are taken
as evidence of impropriety. A record of excessive, or poor quality, government debts is treated as prima facie evidence of corruption
and automatically investigated. Senior officials are audited annually after retirement, remain responsible for the consequences of
all their decisions until the day they die and, even then, clawback provisions apply.
Xi invited amateur corruption fighters to join the campaign and Beijing publishes a monthly scoresheet. Citizens text tips and
complaints to the Rules and Discipline Committee (founded in the Tang Dynasty) at #12388 and often post accusations and photographs
of evidence on social media and request additional witnesses. Social media have made the masses' eyes sharper. Netizens scrutinizing
a news photograph noticed the work safety boss of Shaanxi province grinning broadly as he assessed the twisted wreckage of a bus
and a methanol tanker following an accident that left 36 people dead. They spotted his expensive timepiece and their tipoff and subsequent
investigation sent Yang Dacai, Brother Watch, to jail for fourteen years for taking a million dollars in bribes.
Today visitors burn incense at the shrines of great corruption fighters, the battle with official corruption still accounts for
half of all Chinese dramas, and millions watch TV dramas about 'Justice Bao' Zheng, the incorruptible Prefect of the Capital in 1000
AD. A popular TV series, 'In the Name of People,' depicts current-day intra-Party power struggles in the fictional city of Jingzhou.
There a prosecutor and a handful of honest local officials help laid-off workers protest a corrupt land deal, foil corrupt bureaucrats
sabotaging an arrest warrant, and stop fake police bulldozing honest citizens' homes. The show's writers say they have no shortage
of material.
Until 2018, anti-corruption work was shared by the National Bureau of Corruption Prevention, which recommended anti-corruption
policies and handled international anti-corruption coordination. The Supreme People's Procuratorate investigated various kinds of
malfeasance. The Central Commission for Discipline Inspection enforced party loyalty, anti-graft, ethical and Party lifestyle requirements
among civil servants and leading officials who are Party members, but turned criminal evidence over to the state for prosecution.
The Ministry of Supervision, MOS, supervised civil servants who were non-Party members, investigated graft, misappropriation of public
funds and other duty-related violations.
The Commission subsumes their functions into an independent, fourth arm of government that ranks with the Supreme Court and the
Department of Justice. As the most powerful such agency on earth, it employs legislation, digital technology (including face recognition
and AI), the sharp eyes of the people, and great investigative powers. With the goal of making corruption impossible, it centralizes
all anti-corruption processes and exercises authority over all civil servants within and outside the Party, the government, the People's
Congresses, the local supervisory commissions, the people's courts and procuracy, the People's Congresses, the eight democratic parties,
federations of industry and commerce, and everyone who works in, or consults for, organizations managing public affairs. With extensive
powers to interrogate, search, wiretap, detain suspects and freeze their assets, its writ extends to managers of state owned enterprises,
state educational, scientific, research, cultural, health care, sports, and similar agencies, think tanks, village and urban residents
committees, and 'all other personnel who perform public duties' and oversees provincial, city, and county level anti-corruption agencies.
Congress appoints the Commission's senior staff and Yang Xiaodu, its first director was, like Xi, a sent-down youth who performed
manual labour in Anhui province during the Cultural Revolution. Staff need not be Party members but they can never work in another
arm of government for the rest of their lives. The Commission is a political, not administrative body, and is exempt from the extensive
procedural and substantive constraints on administrative organs like the police. Though the law requires staff to pay compensation
'in accordance with law' for infringing people's lawful rights and interests, it does not provide a right of further recourse through
the courts, but does permit targets to appeal to higher-level organs for re-examination of the Commission's decisions and to challenge
unlawful conduct like prolonged detention.
If the Commission comes even close to its goal of making corruption impossible, grateful citizens will credit Confucius and the
First Emperor for limiting political power to a single lifetime and confining it to those who demonstrate both honesty and intelligence.
They will credit the present dynasty for testing officials in the wilderness and imposing extraordinary transparency, themselves
for their unwillingness to tolerate corruption, and Xi Jinping for creating the most powerful corruption-fighting agency in history.
Looking back only ten years, it is difficult to believe that corruption in China is on track to rival Singapore's by 2021.
* Corruption in Eighteenth-Century China. Nancy E. Park. The Journal of Asian Studies, vol. 56, no. 4, 1997.
Notes
[1] Qu Yuan, 340-278 BC, was a Chu
kingdom official and government minister who wrote some of the greatest poetry in Chinese history.
[2] From Huáng-Míng Zǔxùn (Instructions
of the Ancestor of the August Ming), admonitions left to his descendants by the Hongwu Emperor Zhu Yuanzhang, founder of the Ming
dynasty (1368 to 1644).
[3] An old friend of the party assesses
China's new leaders. Rob Schmitz. Marketplace. November 19, 2012
[4] Yukon Huang was the World Bank's
Director for China. The Diplomat
[5] China's Meritocratic Examinations
and the Ideal of Virtuous Talents. Xiao, H., & Li, C. (2013). In D. Bell & C. Li (Eds.), The East Asian Challenge for Democracy:
Political Meritocracy in Comparative Perspective: Cambridge University Press.
[6] Daniel Bell and Zhao Bing Bing,
The China Model.
[7] The same wording as the Chief
Censor used in the Tang Dynasty.
[8] The National Supervision Commission was
formed at the first session of the 13th National People's Congress in 2018 and absorbed the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection
of the Communist Party of China.
One salient difference between the Chinese and the Western concept of corruption is the role of laws. For people in the west,
the definition of corruption is strongly tied to, and in fact mostly defined through laws. To put it very crudely: anything legal
is not corruption, and vice versa (i.e. all corruption is illegal).
In China, there is an additional emphasis of the moral aspect and it is less constrained by laws. An immoral action, even
if it is legal, may still be considered a corruption by the Chinese society. For example, if a relative of Xi would to give a
speech, and then received an exorbitant fee, it probably would be considered a corruption in China. However, in US, this is perfectly
legal (and a reason many ex-politicians and ex-government employees become very rich) and it won't be considered a corruption.
There is really no right or wrong in either approaches. Both contains their pros and cons. The Western way has the advantage
of transparency that make it easier to follow. But it favors the rich and powerful people who can find loopholes and workarounds
to the laws. It also has the disadvantage of difficulty in keeping abreast with advances and changes of society and technologies
. The Chinese way has the advantage of flexibility to meeting the moral standard and demands from the people, but may become confusing
and uncertain for many people like businessmen or foreigners.
In case you hadn't noticed from prior postings, "Godfree Roberts" is a fake name for a CCP propaganda writer who scours the
Internet for things to promote official views for, such as this absurd piece.
The stilted prose and logic is evident. His stuff is full of charts and graphs which magically appear on his computer, unlike
yours or mine. Much of that might be "true" in the sense of basic historical writings, but selectively edited. Current Chinese
leader Xi here is extolled as chasing "corruption" away. Ha!
The CCP knows corruption/graft, etc. is poison to their authoritarian one party state dictatorship. It is endemic in all
such states. So periodically there are huge purges, trials, executions, etc. and a new set of stooges are risen up. Some get the
message, most just bow humbly and wait for the storm to pass. It is as old as China. Of course government corruption is hardly
unique to China. But in places where party leaders can be voted out (not merely a few shot for effect) it can be cleaned out periodically.
Chinese are wisely quiet and cynical about this.
Meanwhile Mr. "Roberts" probably earns a very nice salary doing this work. Maybe even teaches English and propaganda messaging
part time. Billions are spent censoring the Internet there and creating rosy statistics. Some gullible foreigners buy into that.
Fair enough. Every State has its hired liars and propaganda artists. But China has really set the mark for its effort.
Just avoid going there and saying anything negative. Their prisons are not like ours.
What mechanisms are in place to keep this from going too far? That is, accusing someone for personal reasons, for example,
to further one's own career.
I thought Bo Xilai was a maoist and so was Zhou Yongkang, both also had countryside experiences similar to Xi Jinping, and Bo
Xilai as mayor of Chongqing was very much aligned with Maoists and worked on rehabilitating the memory of the cultural revolution.
I have viewed Xi Jinping with more suspicion because his family has a lot of wealth and he sent his daughter to Harvard.
He also did not agitate for rehabilitating the cultural revolution when it would have been more politically risky for him to have
done so, like Bo Xilai did.
Xi Jinping isn't anywhere near the leftist Bo Xilai was.
Godfree did you communicate with Chinese who lived in Chongqing under Bo Xilai's mayorship, what did they say then? I recall
the corrupt wealthy hating him and the poor loving him. let's not forget Bo Xilai also had anti-corruption anti-gang campaigns.
I am a Party Member in China and all my family are Party members. What I think of Xi is that the life is really changing
after he came to power
I wonder if the Government would have something to say if he spoke out against the party and against Xi? Considering that
people have received jail sentences (of years) for calling Xi a steamed bun, and that Winnie the Pooh is banned because poor Xi
can't handle light hearted criticism I think we all know the answers here.
This is the ultimate corruption that a society faces – the inability to communicate freely and to criticise those accountable.
Every Chinese citizen is under the CCP Yoke regardless of how this CCP shill wants to spin it.
Corruption exists everywhere. It's just that it depends on what level it occurs. Heck, in the West, it's legal! Lobbying,
they call it You can't bribe a cop to forgive a ticket, but goddamn you can bribe a politician to drive the country into the ground.
@Muggles I am a US expat, and happen
to live in the China Mainland, and my impression is that most Chinese believe Xi Jinping is doing a great job. What do you care
really? Do you have any dogs in this race?
Talk about propaganda. Tell me then whom are the following:
Falun Gong
Shen Yun
Epoch Times
New Tang Dynasty
China Uncensored
There is no doubt in my mind China is a threat to the hegemony of the West. I definitely prefer Western civilization. But if
forced to choose between Chung Kuo and Babel 2.0, I'll take the former every time.
@Muggles It's not often someone
gets so many things wrong in such a tight space. Congratulations.
I've published at least six books, none about China, my bio is all over the place, and I run a business in under my own name.
If you want accurate information about China, stilted prose is inevitable. Real writers, professionals, are paid to lie
about China. Anyone who tries to tell the truth is shunned, not only by our mainstream media, but by the PRC, which prefers to
let its accomplishments speak for themselves.
I estimate that, since 1950, we taxpayers have spent $100 billion creating and disseminating lies about China–$1.5 billion
annually. Money well spent, if you're in the top 1%, because it convinces the masses that, in Margaret Thatcher's words, there
is no alternative to our failing system.
CIA Director William Casey[1] confirmed this when he told President Reagan in 1981, "We'll know our disinformation campaign
has worked when everything the American public believes is false." Carl Bernstein[2], of Watergate fame, revealed that four hundred
journalists had 'secretly carried out assignments for the Central Intelligence Agency.' All major US media outlets cooperated,
he said, including ABC, NBC, AP, UPI, Reuters, Newsweek, Hearst, the Miami Herald, and the New York Herald‑Tribune.
Udo Ulfkotte[3], Editor of Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, says that no significant European journalist, including himself,
was free of CIA influence. Singapore's Lee Kwan Yew[4] outlined the consequences:
The Philippines press enjoys all the freedoms of the US system but fails the people: a wildly partisan press helped Philippines
politicians flood the marketplace of ideas with junk and confuse and befuddle the people so that they could not see what their
vital interests were in a developing country. And, because vital issues like economic growth and equitable distribution were
seldom discussed, they were never tackled and the democratic system malfunctioned. Look at Taiwan and South Korea: their free
press runs rampant and corruption runs riot. The critic itself is corrupt yet the theory is, if you have a free press, corruption
disappears. Now I'm telling you, that's not true. Freedom of the press, freedom of news critics, must be subordinated to the
overriding needs of the integrity of Singapore and to the primacy of purpose of an elected government.
Says Ann Lee[5], "
A reporter and friend of Michael Massing[6] who worked at the Beijing office of The Wall Street Journal told him that the
editors in Washington regularly changed material information and opinions in his articles. Given the twelve-hour time difference,
by the time his stories went to press in the West, the editors had replaced all the Chinese interviews with statements from
American talking heads who work at think tanks promoting anti-China perspectives."
The weird result of this enormous, expensive effort is that, while we were busy lying to ourselves about China, the Chinese
were busy eating our lunch, and now it's too late. By 2021 every Chinese will have a home, a job, plenty of food, education, safe
streets, health- and old age care. 300,000,000 urban Chinese will have more net worth and disposable income than the average American,
their mothers and infants will be less likely to die in childbirth, their children will graduate from high school three years
ahead of American kids and live longer, healthier lives and there will be more drug addicts, suicides and executions, more homeless,
poor, hungry and imprisoned people in America than in China.
What's more, they'll be ahead of us in science and technology–they're already ahead in math, chemistry, engineering and computer
science–because they have 10x more geniuses and spend 3x more on R&D than we do.
They pulled it off because rubes like you believed the bs you read in our media and insulted anyone who tried to tell you the
truth. Congratulations.
____________________________________________________________
[1] A direct quote, provided and authenticated by Barbara Honegger, White House Policy Analyst and Special Assistant to the Assistant
to the President for Domestic Policy in the first Reagan Administration, 1981–83, who was present at the briefing and confirmed
it with other witnesses.
[2] "The CIA and the Media: How America's Most Powerful News Media Worked Hand in Glove with the Central Intelligence Agency and
Why the Church Committee Covered It Up." Carl Bernstein. Rolling Stone, 1977.
[3] Gekaufte Journalisten (Bought Journalists), Udo Ulfkotte. Kopp Verlag. 2014. The English language edition, Journalists For
Hire: How The CIA Buys The News, has been suppressed.
[4] A Third World Perspective on the Press. RH Lee Kwan Yew, Prime Minister of Singapore. C-SPAN, APRIL 14, 1988
[5] What the U.S. Can Learn from China: An Open-Minded Guide to Treating Our Greatest Competitor as Our Greatest Teacher, by Ann
Lee, 2012
[6] Editor of The Columbia Journalism Review.
The first is to do what Confucian states are always supposed to do: recruit your brightest sparks, promote the most honest,
competent of them until the topmost are the very best you've got. As its track record demonstrates, the current dynasty has earned
everyone's trust by doing that consistently.
The next step is making the process transparent: publish the rules, put an accountable person in charge of the process–someone
with a great deal to lose if they're perceived as being unfair or dishonest (interestingly, Rome's Chief Censor was also such
a person) and China's current censor is one of the most admired people in the country.
Then, have a transparent appeals process so that everyone can watch issues being thrashed out.
It's a human and therefore, imperfect, process but people don't expect perfection of their leaders, just best efforts–and that's
what the PRC delivers.
@Anonymous Bo was very popular in
Chongqing and people still point to the trees he planted and to the rapid progress they made under his administration.
But that is a sine qua non in Chinese government. Even someone as high born as Bo can only hope for advancement if they
show dramatic, tangible progress in their area of responsibility.
I suspect from his profile that Bo was a high functioning sociopath whose birth allowed him to bypass many of the filters in
the system.
He is often spoken of as a 'rival' of Xi Jinping, but that is simply a Western projection. China's elite knew about Bo's liabilities
for decades and one of the reasons Xi got the nod was that he ranked as high as Bo socially. Do you remember how Xi 'disappeared'
for ten days following his promotion to the Peacock Throne? He was meeting with his and Bo's peers–their age cohort–to get their
blessing on the cleanup he had planned.
@Tusk Nobody has suffered from calling
Xi a steamed bun.
However, Chinese don't call their leaders names because their relationship to officials is entirely different from our (Roman)
relationship. Martin Jacques explains it well:
The Chinese state enjoys much greater legitimacy than any Western state. The Chinese treat the state with a reverence and
respect that is more or less unknown in the West; and the reason clearly has nothing to do with democracy. In other words,
a state's legitimacy cannot be reduced to the existence or otherwise of democracy: on the contrary, democracy is not necessarily
the most important factor in a state's legitimacy and may, as in the case of China, be relatively unimportant. The underlying
reason for the legitimacy of the Chinese state is that, as discussed earlier, it is seen by the people as the embodiment and
guardian of Chinese civilization, enjoying, as a consequence, something akin to a spiritual significance. It follows that what
would undermine the legitimacy of a government, the present one included, is a threat to the country's unity. The attitude
of the Chinese towards the state, thus, is very different to that of Westerners. For the latter, the state is an outsider,
a stranger, even an interloper, whose presence should, as far as possible, be limited and confined. This is most obviously
the case in the United States, with those who identify with the Tea Party, for example, regarding the state as an alien body,
but even in Europe it is viewed with varying degrees of suspicion. In China, in contrast, the state and society are seen as
on the same side and part of the same endeavour: the state enjoys the status of an intimate and is treated like a member of
the family, not just any member but the head of the family – the patriarch himself. We can only understand the immense authority
of the Chinese state in these terms, an authority which has been reinforced by the fact that, unlike in the West, it has had
no serious rivals for over a millennium.
"The weird result of this enormous, expensive effort is that, while we were busy lying to ourselves about China "
At this stage, any one who still believes in the western propaganda about China is simply too brain-washed and not too
smart for any cure. Excuse me, I should say "too dumb for any cure".
For example, Nathan Rich's recent video shows how media biased reporting of Hong Kong compare with Ukraine riots. The contrast
can't be anymore stark:
@Godfree Roberts Here is a good
analysis of how the main stream media (MSM) gang up to give propaganda, and how I wish they have objective comments about China
or any country they do not like.
All these so-called anti communist slant against countries, I suspect, have its origins in the Vatican. People seem to forget
that they should bear false witness
Are you sharing the 10′ of 1″ pipe through which you view the world with Muggles? Are you aware that Muggles did nothing but
add a few more feet to it?
People view the world through narratives, and the value of a narrative lies only in how closely it follows and "explains"
the widest possible array of empirical facts. Muggles' ignores the vast majority – perhaps even all – of the facts.
Ergo, it renders neither yourself nor your readers any value to champion it. Why make the effort to propagate such an obvious
failure? Have you never wondered why you lack the dignity and common sense to desist from promoting something whereof you would
more usefully remain silent? Are you even aware of the shortfall?
Corrupt Chinese have practically taken over the US West Coast and Northeast. There isn't anywhere you could go in LA, Bay
Area or Seattle without encountering mandarin speaking people. 99.9% Chinese nationals in the US are corrupt. With a nominal per
capita GDP of $8,600, the only people who could afford to emigrate or send their children abroad for education are the rich, and
China is so corrupt, no one can get rich without being corrupt, either by taking bribes or giving them. These are the corrupt
factory owners who leave behind polluted rivers and air for their countrymen to die from while they escape to greener pastures
with their family, and the government officials they bribed to pollute at will.
They are bribing the US congress to end the per country cap on EB5 visas, where 80% of applicants are corrupt Chinese. The
House passed the HR 1044 bill a few months ago scrapping the H1b cap for India and EB5 cap for China. Now Senator Mike Lee (R-UT)
is trying to get the same bill passed in the Senate. Chuck Grassley and Diane Feinstein tried to kill off the EB5 a few times,
but Trump and SIL wouldn't let them. The Kushner family relies on EB5 money for their real estate development.
EB5 is the #1 get out of jail on the cheap card for corrupt Chinese. Many are now buying homes in the US and letting their
high school and college age children live in those houses, sometimes 16 year olds who could barely speak English living in million
dollar homes by themselves, attending our local high schools for free.
I know of a woman from China in my area who works for JP Morgan, who handles all rich clients from China. It wouldn't surprise
me one bit if the FBI shows up at her house one day and walks her out in handcuffs, for helping rich Chinese launder their money
in the US. The US needs to deport every single last one of these disgusting corrupt pigs to let them go back to China and face
trial.
Curious to see the author responding 6 times now (in only 20 posts) to commentors. Aren't the new site rules against this? It's
a little off-putting to see an article author respond at all, not to mention that it buttresses Muggles's assertions.
I have no reason to doubt Roberts.
Years ago I read a news report on the execution of a Chinese manufacturing official who was bribed into buying some cheaper ingredient,
I think it was, that turned out to sicken or poison people.
Maybe Roberts remembers that.
Some executions or long prison terms for the corrupt in the US would be a good thing.
@d dan You are right the US is also
very corrupt. The book Tailspin – The People and Forces Behind America's Fifty Year Fall by Steven Brill is a great read.
America is destroyed by its effed up laws, mostly crafted by Jewish lawyers, who basically built corruption into laws sanctioned
by the Supreme Court through cases like Citizens United and Super PAC.
This country is destroyed by (((lawyers))). As Niall Ferguson said, we no longer have the rule of law, we have the rule
of (((lawyers))).
Germany and the Scandinavian countries would consider our campaign financing and lobbying industry as corruption on a mass
scale. Hitler lost the battle of WWII but won the war for Germany by ridding them of the Jews, until Merkel the idiot came along
but that's another story.
United Front Work Department of the Chinese Communist Party, that is.
As
.The United Front, which is supported by considerable resources and a vast bureaucratic operation, was called one of his
"magical weapons" by Chinese President Xi Jinping in September 2014. One of the objectives is to co-opt ethnic Chinese individuals
and organizations in foreign countries
and
.Xi has delivered multiple speeches and made it formal policy to demand loyalty and commitment from diasporas who the Party
refers to as the "sons and daughters" of China. The United Front is the apparatus of choice.
and
.In Australia, the majority of Chinese-language press are owned by entities with at least partial links to Beijing.
Now, that line of thought could go even further in this pub . but, let's skip that, for the moment.
I had a roommate in college who was from China. He pretty much said that if you know people in the government or have money you
could get away with a lot. One of his parents was a customs official, and so he would talk about different things he planned on
smuggling to China when he returned with no worries. This was in the late 90's, though.
At this stage, any one who still believes in the western propaganda about China is simply too brain-washed and not too smart
for any cure. Excuse me, I should say "too dumb for any cure".
Exactly right.
And speaking of media bias, Gordon Chang is one of the worst US anti-China propagandist there is he is never right.
The naivete displayed in this article concerning the unavoidable, true, core, fundamental nature of all governments everywhere,[past
present, or future], is, sadly, very, very common in both East, West and all points between.
Reality fact: All governments are 100% corrupt, all the time.
Its impossible for them to be anything else, given the sources of their entirely unearned income.[see first quote below].
To make an exception in the case of modern China succeeds only in highlighting the extreme naivete and gullibility of the articles
author. Either that [naivete/gullibility], or the author is just another communist party hack who has no idea [or doesn't care]
about the extreme danger to all humanity that the communist "ideology" represents, and in particular, has zero idea about how
centralized, top down economic systems all inevitably must "work", and what inevitably must/will happen to majority of the population
in a country that enforces the idiotic, anti- free market, top-down economic policies of any of the various brands of collectivism,
be those policies be labelled "communism", "fascism" ,"nationalism", "democratic socialism", or whatever. Hint: it's called "extreme
poverty and enslavement".
Even the historical record of the 20th century vis a vis all forms of collectivism, [including that of Chinas' "great leap
forward", is consistently ignored/ covered up.[ "That was then, this is now"!]
In "defense" of this author, I'll just remind myself that the very same false assumptions concerning the true nature of all
governments are at the core of almost every Unz.com article I've read here in the last 6 months since I started reading this site.
Indeed, the exact same false assumptions concerning the true nature of all governments are consistently evident in the articles
by the sites owner, Ron Unz. Recently, I even experienced the pleasure of being banned by one author here [A. Karlin], for pointing
out that his own revered "nationalism" was just another brand of socialism.
And so it goes .. :
"Because they are all ultimately funded via both direct and indirect theft [taxes], and counterfeiting [via central bank
monopolies], all governments are essentially, at their very cores, 100% corrupt criminal scams which cannot be "reformed","improved",
nor "limited" in scope, simply because of their innate criminal nature." onebornfree
"Taking the State wherever found, striking into its history at any point, one sees no way to differentiate the activities
of its founders, administrators and beneficiaries from those of a professional-criminal class." Albert J. Nock
"Why should any self-respecting citizen endorse an institution grounded on thievery? For that is what one does when one votes.
If it be argued that we must let bygones be bygones, see what can be done toward cleaning up the institution of the State so that
it might be useful in the maintenance of orderly existence, the answer is that it cannot be done; you cannot clean up a brothel
and yet leave the business intact. We have been voting for one "good government" after another, and what have we got?" Frank
Chodorov, Out of Step (1962)
"Government is a disease masquerading as its own cure." Robert LeFevre
@d dan " ..media biased Hong Kong
reporting ."
How would American cops react to punks tossing Molotov Cocktails at them? Arson is a felony but there would be no need for a trial
just a coroner.
@Godfree Robertson, What do you think the Chinese diaspora especially in Canada, U.S., and Australia do? The ones that hold foreign
passports I mean. And my experience with Chinese people is they largely dislike the government, but have an extreme aggressive
nationalism for their country which only manifests when a 外国人 says something. Because as far as I can tell Chinese rush to get
out of China and you yourself don't seem to live there either. I personally don't doubt your claims that China will be better
off than America, but why is there still a lot of emigration? Another question are you aware of any attempts or plans to fix the
massive pollution problem? look forward from hearing back from you.
My former employer had no use for corruption, even a paperclip was accounted for due to the office spy. We had only 20 employees
and nobody dared badmouth the boss. My job was terminated when the office spy reported me taking home paper cups from the water
fountain. My boss received his jobs from the local government by bribing a few politicians. But he demanded honesty from his staff.
@onebornfree Reality fact: All you
(((LoLbertarians))) are 100% pedo, all the time.
"In short, we must face the fact that the purely free society will have a flourishing free market in children ." -Murray
Rothbard (1926-1995) was the dean of the Austrian School of economics, a founder of lolbertarianism
@Tusk If propaganda is information,
especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view ,
then the PRC doesn't put much out. 80% of Chinese trust it, compared to the 30% of us who trust our media.
And remember, the Chinese are smarter, better educated and more widely traveled than us.
@FatPanda "What do you care really?
Do you have any dogs in this race?"
He is offering thoughts on an article posted on an American website. Perhaps as an expat living in China you've become too
accustomed to only viewing "approved" opinions.
Another drawn out piece from the guy who could not get rich in the capitalist usa and lives the good life in bang-cock thailand
on social. But, whatever, china is for the Chinese and not for the anglo saxons; he is not allowed in but worships from afar.
My 77 years as a participant observer tell me that corruption and criminality are endemic to any large human society so, therefore,
utopianism is a pipe dream.
If AMLO were to invite the Americans into Mexico, he would be lynched. Few Americans are
aware of how much the United States is hated in Latin America, and for that matter in most of
the world. They don't know of the long series of military interventions, brutal dictators
imposed and supported, and economic rapine. Somoza, Pinochet, the Mexican-American War,
detachment of Panama from Colombia, bombardment of Veracruz, Patton's incursion–the list
could go on for pages. The Mexican public would look upon American troops not as saviors but as
invaders. Which they would be.
The incursion would not defeat the cartels, for several reasons that trump would do well to
ponder. To begin with, America starts its wars by overestimating its own powers,
underestimating the enemy, and misunderstanding the kind of war on which it is embarking. The
is exactly what Trump seems to be doing.
He probably thinks of Mexicans as just gardeners and rapists and we have all these beautiful
advanced weapons and beautiful drones and things with blinking lights. A pack of rapists armed
with garden trowels couldn't possibly be difficult to defeat by the US. I mean, get serious:
Dope dealers against the Marines? A cakewalk.
You know, like Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria. That sort of cakewalk.
Let's think what an expedition against the narcos would entail, what it would face.
To begin with, Mexico is a huge country of 127 million souls with the narcos spread unevenly
across it. You can't police a nation that size with a small force, or even with a large force.
A (preposterous) million soldiers would be well under one percent of the population. Success
would be impossible even if that population helped you. Which it wouldn't.
Trump's biggest weakness is that he appears incapable of friendships with other adult males
because he trusts no one. This is probably partially the result of his dealing in the
absolutely cut throat New York real estate industry along with his own relentless and long
time need for publicity no matter how outrageous this publicity is? (Remember Trump's forays
into professional wrestling?)
Trump decided to hang out with the dogs and, no surprise, ended up getting fleas.
His continual purging of his cabinet members and his bad mouthing of them afterwards has
probably made his White House staff paranoid about challenging anything that comes out of his
mouth no matter how outrageous it is.
Along with all this self promotion has come an increasing inability to accept any sort of
criticism whatsoever. To claim he is slightly "prickly" is a gross understatement.
Where is Trump's James Baker, or better yet, his Sergey Lavrov. to moderate and control
his goofier instincts
@steinbergfeldwitzcohen
If Trump is smart enough and wants History to write his name with Golden Letters, he has to
order a new and true investigation on 9/11 in his second term.
If anything good can come from the Democrat's incessant efforts to impeach Donald
Trump it will be the outgrowth, from the nurturing 'mother of necessity,' of a more inclusive
political system that acknowledges more than just a compromised duopoly as the voice of the
American people.
With complete disregard for the consequences of their actions, the Democrat House Intelligence
Committee under Adam Schiff has
abandoned all pretense of democratic procedure in their
effort to remove the 45th President
of the United States from office.
Indeed, the Democrats have
provided the Republicans with a Machiavellian crash course on
the subtle art of decadent behavior for getting what you want
, which of course is ultimate
political power, and to hell in a proverbial hand basket with the consequences. The Republicans
have been snoozing through a game of 2D checkers, holding out hope that Sheriff Billy Barr and his
deputy John Durham will
round
up
the real criminals, while the Democrats have been playing mortal combat.
The dark prince in this Gothic tale of diabolical, dare I say biblical, proportions is
none other than Adam 'Shifty' Schiff,
who, like Dracula in his castle dungeon, has
contorted every House rule to fit the square peg of a Trump telephone call into the bolt hole of a
full-blown impeachment proceeding. Niccolò Machiavelli would have been proud of his modern-day
protégé.
As if to mock the very notion of Democratic due process, whatever that means,
Schiff and
his torch-carrying lynch mob took their deliberations down into the dank basement, yes, the
basement, of the US Capital
where they have been holding secretive depositions in an
effort to get some new twist on the now famous phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President
Zelensky back in June. But why all the cloak and dagger theatrics when the transcript has long been
available for public consumption?
At one point, the frazzled Republicans bared a little backbone against this bunker mentality
when they
crashed
the
basement meetings for some really outstanding optics. Schiff, betraying a lack of foresight, could
not defenestrate the well-dressed hooligans since the meetings, as mentioned, are being held inside
of a windowless dungeon. The Republican troublemakers were ushered back up the stairs instead.
Considering what Prince Schiff has managed to pull off over the course of this not-made for
television impeachment process is astounding, and
could not have happened without the
drooling complicity of the lapdog media corporations.
Schiff got the ball bouncing when he
performed a Saturday Night Live skit of the Trump-Zelensky phone call on the hallowed floor of
Congress. The imaginary voices in Schiff's head made the president sound like a mafia boss speaking
to one of his lackeys.
Not only did Schiff survive that stunt, it was
revealed that he blatantly lied, not once
but several times, about his affiliation with the White House insider,
reportedly a CIA
officer, who, without ever hearing the Trump-Zelensky phone call firsthand, blew the whistle
anyways. The Democrats claim Trump was looking for some 'quid pro quo' with Kiev, which would dig
up the dirt on Joe Biden and his son Hunter in exchange for the release of $400 million in military
aid. The transcript, however, points to no such coercion, while Zelensky himself denies that he was
pressured by Trump.
Meanwhile, Schiff has taken great efforts to keep the identity of the whistleblower a 'secret'
out of "safety concerns." The Republicans in the House said they will subpoena the whistleblower
for the public impeachment that starts next week, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) told reporters. Yet
Schiff has awarded himself the power to reject any witnesses the Republicans may wish to grill.
"We'll see if he gives us any of our witnesses,"
Jordan said.
A person need not feel any particular fondness for Donald Trump to find these circumstances
surrounding the impeachment show trial as disgraceful, dishonorable and beneath the dignity of the
American people.
And whether they want it or not, the fallout from Schiff's shenanigans
will have repercussions long into the future of the US political system, which is groaning under
the weight of corruption and deceit.
It is doubtful the Republicans will soon forgive and forget what the Democrats have put them
through ever since Trump entered office in 2016. From Russiagate to Ukrainegate, the Trump White
House has been held hostage by a non-stop, media-endorsed hate campaign to oust a democratically
elected POTUS. Although it would be difficult for the Republicans, who lack the support of the
media, an overwhelmingly left-leaning propaganda machine, to exact an equal amount of revenge on
the Democrats when the latter have one of their own in the White House, they will certainly try.
This will lead the Republic into an inescapable vortex of infighting where the sole
function of the political system will be based on that of vengeance and 'pay backs' and more waste
of time
and money as the parties investigate the crimes of the other side.
The public, which is slowly awakening to the problem, will ultimately demand new
leadership to break the current two-party internecine struggle.
Thus, talk of a
civil war in the United States, while possible, is being overplayed. The truth will be much simpler
and far less violent.
Out of the dust and ashes of the defunct duopoly that is now at war with itself, the American
people will soon demand fresh political blood in Washington and this will bring to the forefront
capable political forces that are committed to the primary purpose of politics:
representing the needs of the people, once again.
Tags
Politics
Trump will leave power, but these self-aggrandizing intelligence agencies will
remain.
Something the stupid voters never seem to realize – the permanent government doesn't
give a rats ass about democracy, freedom, human rights, security, your dog, your property,
and most of all – your integrity. "Fuck you stupid voters – now go elect another moron – we've got governments
to overthrow"
" The Democratic establishment is deeply and widely imbued with rancid Russophobic
attitudes."
As are the Republican establishment and even such faux dissidents as Andrew Napolitano and
Patrick Buchanan in columns easily found here on The Unz Review.
Exceptionalia needs enemies to keep the sheep herded when the Red v Blue politics and
increasingly absurd culture skirmishes aren't sufficiently distracting.
Excellent summation of the current predicament involving Trump and his ruthless foes. The
greatest and most ridiculous 'conspiracy theory' of all is Russiagate itself–yet this
politicized hoax is not being allowed to die a natural death; thus the Demorat impeachment
inquiry.
So now we have entered Stage Two of this toxic and unnecessary melodrama. We can thank the
partisan, biased and subversive 'mainstream' media for this downward step.
Ironically, the media's rank dishonesty is turning Trump into a heroic figure. This is
poetic justice.
Haven't our media overlords heard?–the Soviet Union is dead.
In its place is Christian Russia. So why the enmity?
Might these lingering tensions have more than a little to do with Putin's stubborn
alliance with Syria and Iran? It sure looks that way.
It must be noted that Israel remains deeply disturbed over the Russia-Iran-Syria
federation. But that's Israel's problem. America is not burdened by those historic
antagonisms, regional rivalries, or security concerns. Americans should therefore be
relieved. Only we're not allowed to be.
The Zionist state has deviously entwined its security interests with America's. Israel and
Zio-America have been artificially conjoined at the political hip. Didn't you hear?
This political union is good for the Jews. The Americans?–less so. Far less.
Unless we can extricate ourselves, this unnatural 'partnership' may end in a cataclysm
Something the stupid voters never seem to realize – the permanent government
doesn't give a rats ass about democracy, freedom, human rights, security, your dog, your
property, and most of all – your integrity.
The Deep State doesn't care about the unimportant internecine squabbles of the 'two
parties' as long as their important issues are maintained. As a matter of fact it strengthens
the false perception that there is a choice when voting.
Trump and the Deep State do not care what the American people want. They know that most
American people are inane fools and will believe anything. Most Americans would rather watch
America's Got Talent or Dancing With The Stars than be informed about important issues.
I think if President Trump was faced with a Cuban Missile Crisis situation the outcome could
be very different to the first time. On that occasion the two superpowers, despite coming
close to open war, were able to contain and de-escalate. The conditions are very different
today. As Professor Cohen says," The current state of US-Russian relations is unprecedentedly
dangerous, not only due to reasons cited here -- a new Cold War fraught with the possibility
of hot war." In this context it is essential the president is "fully empowered to cope with
the multiple possibilities of a US-Russian military confrontation."
One problem is that the original Cold War was the peace, a post-world war environment: today
we are in pre-world war environment. There is a dangerous misconception that a Cold War
sequel will have the same peaceful ending. The world has experienced periods of peace (or
relative peace) throughout history. The Thirty Years Peace between the two Peloponnesian
Wars, Pax Romana, Europe in the 19th century after the Congress of Vienna, to name a few. The
Congress System finally collapsed in 1914 with the start of World War One. That conflict was
followed by the League of Nations. It did not stop World War Two. That was followed by the
United Nations and other post-war institutions. But all the indications are they will not
prevent a third world war. https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/
"The New York Times seem eager to delegitimize the investigation by Attorney General William
Barr and his appointed special investigator John Durham."
Ya know, the investigation would be a lot harder to delegitimize if it the guys doing it
didn't whitewash Iran/Contra, like Barr, or systematic and widespread CIA torture, like
Durham. You put lifelong CIA whores hot on the trail of illegal CIA domestic operations
against political enemies? Come on. Nobody with a 3-digit IQ can keep a straight face.
You want this shit to stop? Then do to Langley what the Germans did to their Stasi. CIA
investigation of CIA crimes do not pass the laff test anymore.
Trump's problem was described in simple terms by John Connelly when talking with Henry
Kissinger. "Henry", he said, "In Washington you are judged by the men you've destroyed".
Trump has not destroyed anyone, not Comey, not Brennan, not Clapper. So he is viewed as weak,
an easy target. So they just keep piling on. Attacking Trump is viewed as a "penalty-free
activity
Russia's new "hyper-sonic" missiles, which can elude US missile-defense systems, make
new nuclear arms negotiations with Moscow imperative and urgent. If only for the sake of
his legacy, Trump is likely to want to do so
This makes little sense. Russia and the U.S. are not enemies, and are potentially allies.
Why would a U.S.-Russia treaty be desirable? The U.S. wants to help Russia defend its South
western border against dangerous nations, such as Turkey & Iran.
A U.S.-China treaty would be helpful, but China is unlikely to accept anything that might
interfere with their colonial ambitions.
____
Also, the author is likely overestimating Russia's technical prowess. Does anyone remember
the recent incident the Russians had with their nuclear powered "Skyfall" cruise missile?
(1)
The mysterious explosion on August 8 at the Russian navy's range in Nyonoksa killed
seven and spurred fears that Russia was testing its nuclear-powered Burevestnik missile,
also known by the NATO codename 'Skyfall.' But U.S. intelligence indicates the fatal
explosion occurred as Russia attempted to salvage a downed Skyfall missile from the ocean
floor,
Russia has reportedly conducted five unsuccessful tests of Skyfall since November 2017,
all resulting in loss of control and crashes. The longest test lasted for two minutes with
the missile flying 22 miles, and the shortest lasted four seconds and five miles.
@Giuseppe I'm a huge fan
of Stephen Cohen's, but, with bi-partisanship dead, his calling for a new Church commission
is pie-in-the-sky. Nothing good can happen until this impeachment farce is over.
In fact, I'd say that Barr and Durham better hurry up and indict someone. There is less
than a year left before the next election, which only leaves a few weeks this year, and the
first few months in 2020. Once there's like 3-4 months to go before the election it will be
too late. And, BTW, where is the long-awaited IG Horowitz's report? Tick Tock guys.
We've been hearing that for a long time, but one thing to remember is: Islam is a
foreign(ers')-identity in Russia. It won't be taking over the political center in Russia
anytime soon, nor getting any European-Russian converts.
@Dan
Hayes Russia hadn't seized anything. The Black Sea Fleet had always been stationed there.
After the Ukrainian government proposed outlawing the Russian language and ethnic Ukrainians
attacked the Crimean parliament, Crimeans, the vast majority of whom are ethnic Russians,
moved to hold a referendum.
As I have also argued repeatedly, a new Church Committee is urgently needed. It's time
for honorable members of the Senate of both parties to do their duty.
The CIA activities restricted by the Church Committee never stopped. They continued "off
the books", financed by drug trafficking, illegal arms sales, and (especially) by kickbacks
from legitimate but overpriced arms contracts with Saudi Arabia. The close relationship with
the Saudi royal family raises awkward questions about who this part of the CIA is really
working for.
A new Church Committee would only be able to investigate the parts of the CIA that it can
see. It is probably impossible for the US government to control the "off-books" parts of the
CIA.
Here too there is an inconvenient truth: To the extent that Democrats any longer
seriously discuss national security in the context of US-Russian relations, it mostly
involves vilifying both Trump and Russian leader Vladimir Putin. (Recall also that previous
presidents were free to negotiate with Russia's Soviet communist leaders, even encouraged
to do so, whereas the demonized Putin is an anti-communist, post-Soviet leader.)
Maybe, the fallacy is to think that Democrats were ever opposed to communism. As one can
learn around here, WWII was the joint venture to destroy european national cultures and force
them under globalist domination. The Roosevelt administration did about everything to
strengthen communism. The current Russian leadership is as sanely nationalist as it gets.
Possibly, that is the problem?
What struck me first, before I woke up, was that the ultimate accusation against Russia
– before the Ukraine affair started – was that they were said to be homophopbic.
While this can be a fault in the eyes of a dedicated liberal, to anyone who has lived through
the Cold War, that accusation was outlandishly irrelevant.
The problem that liberal globalists have with Russia is exactly their sanity. Saying this, I
do not want to insinuate that Republicans are sane, just for the record. They are the other
side of the coin in the big charade.
The Bolsheviks in Russia told everyone that they were a Political Party – just like the
Communists Party etc. The Democrats and Republicans say the same thing , but they are more
Bolshevik than any American wants to admit. The Wars, the Police state, the original
European, African, Native American societies being destroyed is not the best example –
if you are pushing for a NWO. It has failed but they are taking down as many as they can
– along with their evil Order. This should one of the highest priority, of most writers
today. Thanks Unz Rev.
@Dan
Hayes From which entity? The country – existing as a unity upon the foundation of a
constitution, known as Ukraine – stopped being that entity when a bunch of people
toppled a constitutionally mandated government with an unconstitutional coup.
You demand peoples and regions of the former Ukraine remain united? Under what unifying
law? The constitution? But the Maidan people tore it apart to get into power. Why would those
that take the other side of the debate agree to be governed by law they know their opposition
has already, and will again, trod on?
Practically speaking, Ukraine after Maidan is not the same entity as Ukraine before, as
there is no social contract left that everyone is willing to be bound by.
Crimea being autonomous, had more freedom than the rest to jump ship, and so they did. But
any region can now go, because anyone saying 'but the Constitution bans secession', forget
that the people who speak this within Ukraine are those exact same people who tore the
Constitution apart.
But don't think it'a just political entities such as Crimea that migrated to Russia of
their own wills (as the UN Charter demands), millions of labourers have left for Russia from
the remaining entity too, and there was no Putin there at each of their houses, giving
personal pep talks over tea about how Russia is better, and how they should migrate accross
the border. People chose with their own feet.
Here's a question – if tomorrow a bunch of gunmen threw out congress, the judiciary,
and the executive from Washington DC, and replaced them with their own – would you
consider that the individual states were then still bound to the federal government through
the Constitution? Would you demand honour from one side, knowing fullwell that the other side
is dishonourable?
Most telling was (and remains) a core "Russiagate" allegation that "Russia attacked
American democracy during the 2016 presidential election" on Trump's behalf -- an "attack"
so nefarious it has often been equated with Pearl Harbor.
What's seemingly bizarre is that these modern day Dems with their 'Russiagate' obsession
are the very same people who not so many years back would eat up a 1966 movie like 'The
Russians Are Coming, the Russians are Coming', with it's message that the Soviet Union along
with its Communism was perfectly innocuous (just a laugh really), and the Cold War itself was
all a big joke, and pay to see it multiple times.
It's not so bizarre, though, as there is an underlining continuity in all this, then and
now.
They hate the organic Russian people and their culture, then and now. That hasn't
changed.
A USSR of the past with the Russian people safely subjugated/crushed under Soviet
Communism, they like and are okay with.
A Russian Federation where the Russian people appear to have moved away from Communism
they don't like. That's dangerous.
Russians shouldn't necessarily feel too bad though about this as they are not the only
people so hated. These sorts hate most peoples which attempt to express their physical and
cultural identity, often even their own at times.
There's a hatred for most all of humanity there which stems from an underlying self hatred
with these types.
Trump will leave power, but these self-aggrandizing intelligence agencies will
remain.
Something the stupid voters never seem to realize – the permanent government doesn't
give a rats ass about democracy, freedom, human rights, security, your dog, your property,
and most of all – your integrity. "Fuck you stupid voters – now go elect another moron – we've got governments
to overthrow"
" The Democratic establishment is deeply and widely imbued with rancid Russophobic
attitudes."
As are the Republican establishment and even such faux dissidents as Andrew Napolitano and
Patrick Buchanan in columns easily found here on The Unz Review.
Exceptionalia needs enemies to keep the sheep herded when the Red v Blue politics and
increasingly absurd culture skirmishes aren't sufficiently distracting.
Excellent summation of the current predicament involving Trump and his ruthless foes. The
greatest and most ridiculous 'conspiracy theory' of all is Russiagate itself–yet this
politicized hoax is not being allowed to die a natural death; thus the Demorat impeachment
inquiry.
So now we have entered Stage Two of this toxic and unnecessary melodrama. We can thank the
partisan, biased and subversive 'mainstream' media for this downward step.
Ironically, the media's rank dishonesty is turning Trump into a heroic figure. This is
poetic justice.
Haven't our media overlords heard?–the Soviet Union is dead.
In its place is Christian Russia. So why the enmity?
Might these lingering tensions have more than a little to do with Putin's stubborn
alliance with Syria and Iran? It sure looks that way.
It must be noted that Israel remains deeply disturbed over the Russia-Iran-Syria
federation. But that's Israel's problem. America is not burdened by those historic
antagonisms, regional rivalries, or security concerns. Americans should therefore be
relieved. Only we're not allowed to be.
The Zionist state has deviously entwined its security interests with America's. Israel and
Zio-America have been artificially conjoined at the political hip. Didn't you hear?
This political union is good for the Jews. The Americans?–less so. Far less.
Unless we can extricate ourselves, this unnatural 'partnership' may end in a cataclysm
Something the stupid voters never seem to realize – the permanent government
doesn't give a rats ass about democracy, freedom, human rights, security, your dog, your
property, and most of all – your integrity.
The Deep State doesn't care about the unimportant internecine squabbles of the 'two
parties' as long as their important issues are maintained. As a matter of fact it strengthens
the false perception that there is a choice when voting.
Trump and the Deep State do not care what the American people want. They know that most
American people are inane fools and will believe anything. Most Americans would rather watch
America's Got Talent or Dancing With The Stars than be informed about important issues.
I think if President Trump was faced with a Cuban Missile Crisis situation the outcome could
be very different to the first time. On that occasion the two superpowers, despite coming
close to open war, were able to contain and de-escalate. The conditions are very different
today. As Professor Cohen says," The current state of US-Russian relations is unprecedentedly
dangerous, not only due to reasons cited here -- a new Cold War fraught with the possibility
of hot war." In this context it is essential the president is "fully empowered to cope with
the multiple possibilities of a US-Russian military confrontation."
One problem is that the original Cold War was the peace, a post-world war environment: today
we are in pre-world war environment. There is a dangerous misconception that a Cold War
sequel will have the same peaceful ending. The world has experienced periods of peace (or
relative peace) throughout history. The Thirty Years Peace between the two Peloponnesian
Wars, Pax Romana, Europe in the 19th century after the Congress of Vienna, to name a few. The
Congress System finally collapsed in 1914 with the start of World War One. That conflict was
followed by the League of Nations. It did not stop World War Two. That was followed by the
United Nations and other post-war institutions. But all the indications are they will not
prevent a third world war. https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/
"The New York Times seem eager to delegitimize the investigation by Attorney General William
Barr and his appointed special investigator John Durham."
Ya know, the investigation would be a lot harder to delegitimize if it the guys doing it
didn't whitewash Iran/Contra, like Barr, or systematic and widespread CIA torture, like
Durham. You put lifelong CIA whores hot on the trail of illegal CIA domestic operations
against political enemies? Come on. Nobody with a 3-digit IQ can keep a straight face.
You want this shit to stop? Then do to Langley what the Germans did to their Stasi. CIA
investigation of CIA crimes do not pass the laff test anymore.
Trump's problem was described in simple terms by John Connelly when talking with Henry
Kissinger. "Henry", he said, "In Washington you are judged by the men you've destroyed".
Trump has not destroyed anyone, not Comey, not Brennan, not Clapper. So he is viewed as weak,
an easy target. So they just keep piling on. Attacking Trump is viewed as a "penalty-free
activity
Russia's new "hyper-sonic" missiles, which can elude US missile-defense systems, make
new nuclear arms negotiations with Moscow imperative and urgent. If only for the sake of
his legacy, Trump is likely to want to do so
This makes little sense. Russia and the U.S. are not enemies, and are potentially allies.
Why would a U.S.-Russia treaty be desirable? The U.S. wants to help Russia defend its South
western border against dangerous nations, such as Turkey & Iran.
A U.S.-China treaty would be helpful, but China is unlikely to accept anything that might
interfere with their colonial ambitions.
____
Also, the author is likely overestimating Russia's technical prowess. Does anyone remember
the recent incident the Russians had with their nuclear powered "Skyfall" cruise missile?
(1)
The mysterious explosion on August 8 at the Russian navy's range in Nyonoksa killed
seven and spurred fears that Russia was testing its nuclear-powered Burevestnik missile,
also known by the NATO codename 'Skyfall.' But U.S. intelligence indicates the fatal
explosion occurred as Russia attempted to salvage a downed Skyfall missile from the ocean
floor,
Russia has reportedly conducted five unsuccessful tests of Skyfall since November 2017,
all resulting in loss of control and crashes. The longest test lasted for two minutes with
the missile flying 22 miles, and the shortest lasted four seconds and five miles.
@Giuseppe I'm a huge fan
of Stephen Cohen's, but, with bi-partisanship dead, his calling for a new Church commission
is pie-in-the-sky. Nothing good can happen until this impeachment farce is over.
In fact, I'd say that Barr and Durham better hurry up and indict someone. There is less
than a year left before the next election, which only leaves a few weeks this year, and the
first few months in 2020. Once there's like 3-4 months to go before the election it will be
too late. And, BTW, where is the long-awaited IG Horowitz's report? Tick Tock guys.
We've been hearing that for a long time, but one thing to remember is: Islam is a
foreign(ers')-identity in Russia. It won't be taking over the political center in Russia
anytime soon, nor getting any European-Russian converts.
@Dan
Hayes Russia hadn't seized anything. The Black Sea Fleet had always been stationed there.
After the Ukrainian government proposed outlawing the Russian language and ethnic Ukrainians
attacked the Crimean parliament, Crimeans, the vast majority of whom are ethnic Russians,
moved to hold a referendum.
As I have also argued repeatedly, a new Church Committee is urgently needed. It's time
for honorable members of the Senate of both parties to do their duty.
The CIA activities restricted by the Church Committee never stopped. They continued "off
the books", financed by drug trafficking, illegal arms sales, and (especially) by kickbacks
from legitimate but overpriced arms contracts with Saudi Arabia. The close relationship with
the Saudi royal family raises awkward questions about who this part of the CIA is really
working for.
A new Church Committee would only be able to investigate the parts of the CIA that it can
see. It is probably impossible for the US government to control the "off-books" parts of the
CIA.
Here too there is an inconvenient truth: To the extent that Democrats any longer
seriously discuss national security in the context of US-Russian relations, it mostly
involves vilifying both Trump and Russian leader Vladimir Putin. (Recall also that previous
presidents were free to negotiate with Russia's Soviet communist leaders, even encouraged
to do so, whereas the demonized Putin is an anti-communist, post-Soviet leader.)
Maybe, the fallacy is to think that Democrats were ever opposed to communism. As one can
learn around here, WWII was the joint venture to destroy european national cultures and force
them under globalist domination. The Roosevelt administration did about everything to
strengthen communism. The current Russian leadership is as sanely nationalist as it gets.
Possibly, that is the problem?
What struck me first, before I woke up, was that the ultimate accusation against Russia
– before the Ukraine affair started – was that they were said to be homophopbic.
While this can be a fault in the eyes of a dedicated liberal, to anyone who has lived through
the Cold War, that accusation was outlandishly irrelevant.
The problem that liberal globalists have with Russia is exactly their sanity. Saying this, I
do not want to insinuate that Republicans are sane, just for the record. They are the other
side of the coin in the big charade.
The Bolsheviks in Russia told everyone that they were a Political Party – just like the
Communists Party etc. The Democrats and Republicans say the same thing , but they are more
Bolshevik than any American wants to admit. The Wars, the Police state, the original
European, African, Native American societies being destroyed is not the best example –
if you are pushing for a NWO. It has failed but they are taking down as many as they can
– along with their evil Order. This should one of the highest priority, of most writers
today. Thanks Unz Rev.
@Dan
Hayes From which entity? The country – existing as a unity upon the foundation of a
constitution, known as Ukraine – stopped being that entity when a bunch of people
toppled a constitutionally mandated government with an unconstitutional coup.
You demand peoples and regions of the former Ukraine remain united? Under what unifying
law? The constitution? But the Maidan people tore it apart to get into power. Why would those
that take the other side of the debate agree to be governed by law they know their opposition
has already, and will again, trod on?
Practically speaking, Ukraine after Maidan is not the same entity as Ukraine before, as
there is no social contract left that everyone is willing to be bound by.
Crimea being autonomous, had more freedom than the rest to jump ship, and so they did. But
any region can now go, because anyone saying 'but the Constitution bans secession', forget
that the people who speak this within Ukraine are those exact same people who tore the
Constitution apart.
But don't think it'a just political entities such as Crimea that migrated to Russia of
their own wills (as the UN Charter demands), millions of labourers have left for Russia from
the remaining entity too, and there was no Putin there at each of their houses, giving
personal pep talks over tea about how Russia is better, and how they should migrate accross
the border. People chose with their own feet.
Here's a question – if tomorrow a bunch of gunmen threw out congress, the judiciary,
and the executive from Washington DC, and replaced them with their own – would you
consider that the individual states were then still bound to the federal government through
the Constitution? Would you demand honour from one side, knowing fullwell that the other side
is dishonourable?
Most telling was (and remains) a core "Russiagate" allegation that "Russia attacked
American democracy during the 2016 presidential election" on Trump's behalf -- an "attack"
so nefarious it has often been equated with Pearl Harbor.
What's seemingly bizarre is that these modern day Dems with their 'Russiagate' obsession
are the very same people who not so many years back would eat up a 1966 movie like 'The
Russians Are Coming, the Russians are Coming', with it's message that the Soviet Union along
with its Communism was perfectly innocuous (just a laugh really), and the Cold War itself was
all a big joke, and pay to see it multiple times.
It's not so bizarre, though, as there is an underlining continuity in all this, then and
now.
They hate the organic Russian people and their culture, then and now. That hasn't
changed.
A USSR of the past with the Russian people safely subjugated/crushed under Soviet
Communism, they like and are okay with.
A Russian Federation where the Russian people appear to have moved away from Communism
they don't like. That's dangerous.
Russians shouldn't necessarily feel too bad though about this as they are not the only
people so hated. These sorts hate most peoples which attempt to express their physical and
cultural identity, often even their own at times.
There's a hatred for most all of humanity there which stems from an underlying self hatred
with these types.
"... Trump's surprising victory forced a pivot, with Clapper, Brennan and Comey adjusting the narrative to make it appear that Trump the traitor may have captured the White House due to help from the Kremlin, making him a latter-day Manchurian Candidate. The lesser allegations of Russian meddling were quickly elevated to devastating assertions that the Republican had only won with Putin's assistance. ..."
"... The national security team acted to protect their candidate Hillary Clinton, who represented America's Deep State. In spite of considerable naysaying, the Deep State is real, not just a wild conspiracy theory. Many Americans nevertheless do not believe that the Deep State exists, that it is a politically driven media creation much like Russiagate itself was, but if one changes the wording a bit and describes the Deep State as the Establishment, with its political power focused in Washington and its financial center in New York City, the argument that there exists a cohesive group of power brokers who really run the country becomes much more plausible. ..."
"... It is now known that President Barack Obama's CIA Director John Brennan created a Trump Task Force in early 2016. Rather than working against genuine foreign threats, this Task Force played a critical role in creating and feeding the meme that Donald Trump was a tool of the Russians and a puppet of President Vladimir Putin, a claim that still surfaces regularly to this day. Working with James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence, Brennan fabricated the narrative that "Russia had interfered in the 2016 election." Brennan and Clapper promoted that tale even though they knew very well that Russia and the United States have carried out a broad array of covert actions against each other, including information operations, for the past seventy years, but they pretended that what happened in 2016 was qualitatively and substantively different even though the "evidence" produced to support that claim was and still is weak to nonexistent. ..."
"... With the help of the Establishment media, Clapper and Brennan were able to pretend that the ICA had been approved by "all 17 intelligence agencies" (as first claimed by Hillary Clinton). After several months, however Clapper revealed that the preparers of the ICA were "handpicked analysts" from only the FBI, CIA, and NSA. He explained rather unconvincingly during an interview on May 28, 2017, that "the historical practices of the Russians, who typically, are almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique," adding later that "It's in their DNA." ..."
"... And this was not a CIA-only operation. Personnel from the FBI also were assigned to the Task Force with the approval of then Director James Comey. Former MI-6 agent Christopher Steele's FBI handler, Michael Gaeta, may have been one of those detailed to the Trump Task Force. Steele, of course, prepared the notorious dossier that was surfaced shortly before Donald Trump took office. It included considerable material intended to tie Trump to Russia, information that was in many cases fabricated or unsourced. ..."
"... The case officers would work with foreign intelligence services such as MI-6, the Italians, the Ukrainians and the Australians on identifying intelligence collection priorities that would implicate Trump and his associates in illegal activity. And there is evidence that John Brennan himself would contact his counterparts in allied intelligence services to obtain their discreet cooperation, something they would be inclined to do in collegial fashion, ignoring whatever reservations they might have about spying on a possible American presidential candidate. ..."
"... e Task Force also could carry out other covert actions, sometimes using press or social media placements to disseminate fabrications about Trump and his associates. Information operations is a benign-sounding euphemism for propaganda fed through the Agency's friends in the media, and computer network operations can be used to create false linkages and misdirect inquiries. There has been some informed speculation that Guccifer 2.0 may have been a creation of this Task Force. ..."
"... In light of what has been learned about the alleged CIA whistleblower there should be a serious investigation to determine if he was a part of this Task Force or, at minimum, reporting to them secretly after he was seconded to the National Security Council. All the CIA and FBI officers involved in the Task Force had sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, but nevertheless were involved in a conspiracy to first denigrate and then possibly bring down a legally elected president. That effort continues with repeated assertions regarding Moscow's malevolent intentions for the 2020 national elections. Some might reasonably regard the whole Brennan affair, to include its spear carriers among the current and retired national security state leadership, as a case of institutionalized treason, and it inevitably leads to the question "What did Obama know?" ..."
"... Obama orchestrated the destruction of a political rival and he will get away scott free .because he's an oppressed and downtrodden dindu. ..."
"... But in fact Obama too is CIA nomenklatura, with the same depth of dynastic ties as GW Bush, albeit not at the same lofty level. ..."
"... This past election was CIA office politics, nothing more. Russigate is simply CIA eminence Hillary, the Queen of Mena, ratfucking a bumptious queue-jumper. She outranks Trump, who was merely a junior money-launderer for the CIA agents who looted the Soviet Union. It was her turn to take the figurehead head-of-state sinecure. She and Bill earned it with their lucrative Clinton Foundation covert-ops slush fund. ..."
"... And has been since the early 1950s when the Allen Dulles-Frank Wisner-James Jesus Angleton crew got rolling. They managed to thoroughly penetrate federal and state bureaucracies, the court systems, major corporations, the financial sector, and the mockingbird media. ..."
"... Clapper revealed that the preparers of the ICA were "handpicked analysts" from only the FBI, CIA, and NSA. He explained rather unconvincingly during an interview on May 28, 2017, that "the historical practices of the Russians, who typically, are almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique," adding later that "It's in their DNA." ..."
There is considerable evidence that the American system of government may have been
victimized by an illegal covert operation organized and executed by the U.S. intelligence and
national security community. Former Director of National Intelligence Jim Clapper, former CIA
Director John Brennan and former FBI Director Jim Comey appear to have played critical
leadership roles in carrying out this conspiracy and they may not have operated on their own.
Almost certainly what they may have done would have been explicitly authorized by the former
President of the United States, Barack Obama, and his national security team.
It must have seemed a simple operation for the experienced CIA covert action operatives. To
prevent the unreliable and unpredictable political upstart Donald Trump from being nominated as
the GOP presidential candidate or even elected it would be necessary to create suspicion that
he was the tool of a resurgent Russia, acting under direct orders from Vladimir Putin to
empower Trump and damage the campaign of Hillary Clinton. Even though none of the alleged
Kremlin plotters would have expected Trump to actually beat Hillary, it was plausible to
maintain that they would have hoped that a weakened Clinton would be less able to implement the
anti-Russian agenda that she had been promoting. Many observers in both Russia and the U.S.
believed that if she had been elected armed conflict with Moscow would have been inevitable,
particularly if she moved to follow her husband's example and push to have both Georgia and
Ukraine join NATO, which Russia would have regarded as an existential threat.
Trump's surprising victory forced a pivot, with Clapper, Brennan and Comey adjusting the
narrative to make it appear that Trump the traitor may have captured the White House due to
help from the Kremlin, making him a latter-day Manchurian Candidate. The lesser allegations of
Russian meddling were quickly elevated to devastating assertions that the Republican had only
won with Putin's assistance.
No substantive evidence for the claim of serious Russian meddling has ever been produced in
spite of years of investigation, but the real objective was to plant the story that would
plausibly convince a majority of Americans that the election of Donald Trump was somehow
illegitimate.
The national security team acted to protect their candidate Hillary Clinton, who represented
America's Deep State. In spite of considerable naysaying, the Deep State is real, not just a
wild conspiracy theory. Many Americans nevertheless do not believe that the Deep State exists,
that it is a politically driven media creation much like Russiagate itself was, but if one
changes the wording a bit and describes the Deep State as the Establishment, with its political
power focused in Washington and its financial center in New York City, the argument that there
exists a cohesive group of power brokers who really run the country becomes much more
plausible.
The danger posed by the Deep State, or, if you choose, the Establishment, is that it wields
immense power but is unelected and unaccountable. It also operates through relationships that
are not transparent and as the media is part of it, there is little chance that its activity
will be exposed.
Nevertheless, some might even argue that having a Deep State is a healthy part of American
democracy, that it serves as a check or corrective element on a political system that has
largely been corrupted and which no longer serves national interests. But that assessment
surely might have been made before it became clear that many of the leaders of the nation's
intelligence and security agencies are no longer the people's honorable servants they pretend
to be. They have been heavily politicized since at least the time of Ronald Reagan and have
frequently succumbed to the lure of wealth and power while identifying with and promoting the
interests of the Deep State.
Indeed, a number of former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Directors have implicitly or
even directly admitted to the existence of a Deep State that has as one of its roles keeping
presidents like Donald Trump in check. Most recently, John McLaughlin, responding to a question
about Donald Trump's concern over Deep State involvement in the ongoing impeachment process,
said unambiguously "Well, you know, thank God for the 'deep state' With all of the people who
knew what was going on here, it took an intelligence officer to step forward and say something
about it, which was the trigger that then unleashed everything else. This is the institution
within the U.S. government is institutionally committed to objectivity and telling the truth.
It is one of the few institutions in Washington that is not in a chain of command that makes or
implements policy. Its whole job is to speak the truth -- it's engraved in marble in the
lobby."
Well, John's dedication to truth is exemplary but how does he explain his own role in
support of the lies being promoted by his boss George "slam dunk" Tenet that led to the war
against Iraq, the greatest foreign policy disaster ever experienced by the United States? Or
Tenet's sitting in the U.N. directly behind Secretary of State Colin Powell in the debate over
Iraq, providing cover and credibility for what everyone inside the system knew to be a bundle
of lies? Or his close friend and colleague Michael Morell's description of Trump
as a Russian agent , a claim that was supported by zero evidence and which was given
credibility only by Morell's boast that "I ran the CIA."
Beyond that, more details have been revealed demonstrating exactly how Deep State associates
have attempted, with considerable success, to subvert the actual functioning of American
democracy. Words are one thing, but acting to interfere in an electoral process or to undermine
a serving president is a rather more serious matter.
It is
now known that President Barack Obama's CIA Director John Brennan created a Trump Task
Force in early 2016. Rather than working against genuine foreign threats, this Task Force
played a critical role in creating and feeding the meme that Donald Trump was a tool of the
Russians and a puppet of President Vladimir Putin, a claim that still surfaces regularly to
this day. Working with James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence, Brennan fabricated
the narrative that "Russia had interfered in the 2016 election." Brennan and Clapper promoted
that tale even though they knew very well that Russia and the United States have carried out a
broad array of covert actions against each other, including information operations, for the
past seventy years, but they pretended that what happened in 2016 was qualitatively and
substantively different even though the "evidence" produced to support that claim was and still
is weak to nonexistent.
The Russian "election interference" narrative went on steroids on January 6, 2017, shortly
before Trump was inaugurated, when an "Intelligence Community Assessment" (ICA) orchestrated by
Clapper and Brennan was published. The banner headline atop The New York Times, itself an
integral part of the Deep State, on the following day set the tone for what was to follow:
"Putin Led Scheme to Aid Trump, Report Says."
With the help of the Establishment media, Clapper and Brennan were able to pretend that the
ICA had been approved by "all 17 intelligence agencies" (as first claimed by Hillary Clinton).
After several months, however Clapper revealed that the preparers of the ICA were "handpicked
analysts" from only the FBI, CIA, and NSA. He explained rather
unconvincingly during an interview on May 28, 2017, that "the historical practices of the
Russians, who typically, are almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor,
whatever, which is a typical Russian technique," adding later that "It's in their DNA."
Task Force Trump was kept secret within the Agency itself because the CIA is not supposed to
spy on Americans. Its staff was pulled together by invitation-only. Specific case officers
(i.e., men and women who recruit and handle spies overseas), analysts and administrative
personnel were recruited, presumably based on their political reliability. Not everyone invited
accepted the offer. But many did because it came with promises of promotion and other
rewards.
And this was not a CIA-only operation. Personnel from the FBI also were assigned to the Task
Force with the approval of then Director James Comey. Former MI-6 agent Christopher Steele's
FBI handler, Michael Gaeta, may have been one of those detailed to the Trump Task Force.
Steele, of course, prepared the notorious dossier that was surfaced shortly before Donald Trump
took office. It included considerable material intended to tie Trump to Russia, information
that was in many cases fabricated or unsourced.
So, what kind of things would this Task Force do? The case officers would work with foreign
intelligence services such as MI-6, the Italians, the Ukrainians and the Australians on
identifying intelligence collection priorities that would implicate Trump and his associates in
illegal activity. And there is evidence that John Brennan himself would contact his
counterparts in allied intelligence services to obtain their discreet cooperation, something
they would be inclined to do in collegial fashion, ignoring whatever reservations they might
have about spying on a possible American presidential candidate.
Trump Task Force members could have also tasked the National Security Agency (NSA) to do
targeted collection. They also would have the ability to engage in complicated covert actions
that would further set up and entrap Trump and his staff in questionable activity, such as the
targeting of associate George Papadopoulos. If he is ever properly interviewed, Maltese
citizen Joseph Mifsud may be able to shed light on the CIA officers who met with him, briefed
him on operational objectives regarding Papadopoulos and helped arrange monitored meetings. It
is highly likely that Azra Turk, the woman who met with George Papadopoulos, was part of the
CIA Trump Task Force.
The Task Force also could carry out other covert actions, sometimes using press or social
media placements to disseminate fabrications about Trump and his associates. Information
operations is a benign-sounding euphemism for propaganda fed through the Agency's friends in
the media, and computer network operations can be used to create false linkages and misdirect
inquiries. There has been some informed speculation that Guccifer 2.0 may have been a creation
of this Task Force.
In light of what has been learned about the alleged CIA whistleblower there should be a
serious investigation to determine if he was a part of this Task Force or, at minimum,
reporting to them secretly after he was seconded to the National Security Council. All the CIA
and FBI officers involved in the Task Force had sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution of the
United States, but nevertheless were involved in a conspiracy to first denigrate and then
possibly bring down a legally elected president. That effort continues with repeated assertions
regarding Moscow's malevolent intentions for the 2020 national elections. Some might reasonably
regard the whole Brennan affair, to include its spear carriers among the current and retired
national security state leadership, as a case of institutionalized treason, and it inevitably
leads to the question "What did Obama know?"
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest,
a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a
more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is
councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its
email is[email protected] .
The entire FISA court process has been exposed as an insane sham.
"The Secret Team" just took the absurdity of the process and raised it to the next
level–injecting it into a political campaign.
It would be wonderful if they could fill a jail with every empty suit who touched those
warrants–but I would be stunned if even one of them gets paraded around in the orange
jump-suit they so richly deserve. Read More Replies:
@Moi
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All
Comments
Looking on at this affair from outside the USA, it is clear that the power and influence of
the USA is waning a lot faster than most people expected.
The replacement of the US military by mercenaries who are called other names was a first
step. The sanctioning and punishing of allies for stepping out of line is the second step.
BTW, it is notable how Japan and Australia are very keen to stay in line but the Europeans
less so.
I suspect the third step will be to encourage a collapse of the Euro – so as to make
wealthy Europeans shift their money to the USA in a panic.
It seems to me that the US public will be the last to learn of what is really happening.
Even on this website there are sometimes letters or articles that mention 9/11 as a
"terrorist" or "Saudi" act. How can one take anything such a person writes seriously?
The control of media and the internet seems to be the last part of the collapse. They will
hang on to that to the very last moment.
John Brennan's CIA Trump Task Force
Could it become Obamagate?
Perhaps, but what is the point? All this bullshit is engineered to make dumbass Americans
think justice is being served. Nothing will come of it no one will go to prison.
As if Trump weren't part and parcel of the Deep State.
His actions in Syria, Bolivia, Hong Kong, Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, etc. all prove
incontrovertibly that he is (and has always been) a member in fine standing of the Deep
State. If he is a Manchurian Candidate, he is the true puppet of the Deep State, not the
people or of Russia.
Exactly. I voted for Trump, but, as long ago as mid April 2017, I determined that he was a
Deep Stater his actions are just too obvious to ignore.
The Magic Negro cannot be touched and that is why nothing will be done about the biggest crime in the history of our nation
Obama orchestrated the destruction of a political rival and he will get away scott free .because he's an oppressed and downtrodden dindu.
There is considerable evidence that the American system of government may have been
victimized by an illegal covert operation organized and executed by the U.S.
Which one are you referring to, Iran 1953, Kennedy assassination 1963, Gulf of Tonkin 1964
or the other dozens of examples?
"And this was not a CIA-only operation. Personnel from the FBI also were assigned to the
Task Force "
This just in: both the CIA and FBI are unconstitutional, agencies.Get rid of them -and all
of the other unconstitutional alphabet-soup agencies[FDA,EPA,SEC etc.etc.etc.]. No
downsizing-trash them all- NOW!
This also just in: "Because they are all ultimately funded via both direct and indirect
theft [taxes], and counterfeiting [via central bank monopolies], all governments are
essentially, at their very cores, 100% corrupt criminal scams which cannot be
"reformed","improved", simply because of their innate, unchangeble criminal nature."
onebornfree
"Taking the State wherever found, striking into its history at any point, one sees no way
to differentiate the activities of its founders, administrators and beneficiaries from those
of a professional-criminal class." Albert J. Nock
@Alfred
Your point about 9/11 can't be made forcefully enough. We're going straight to hell unless
Israel and its American confederates are brought to justice, these wars ended, and order
restored. Clapper, Comey, Brennan, Mueller, Chertoff and the whole traitorous bunch are
probably guilty as principals but almost certainly they're at least complicit as accessories
before and after the fact. So naturally all we hear about is Russiagate.
The evidence overwhelmingly implicates Israel and not Saudi Arabia as you point out. That
Building 7 was brought down by explosives has been proved beyond doubt by Architects &
Engineers for 911 Truth, and as Dr. Alan Sobrosky put it, if Building 7 was brought down by
explosives, so too were the Twin Towers. The official NIST reports and all related government
narratives are preposterous. They're fairytales for fools inasmuch as the official mechanisms
rely on a suspension of the laws of physics more fanciful than Jack and the Beanstalk. The
story of the nineteen Arabs who couldn't handle Cessna 150s magically flying jetliners into
precise targets is more absurd than fairytale tropes about flying carpets.
Yet for Conservatism Inc and Fox News, which both claim to oppose the Deep State and its
narratives, there's no standard of evidence so low or preposterous that these cucks won't
cling to it to cover up what they must now know is Israel's guilt. We can assume it's
precisely because they're aware of Israel's guilt that they rule out the overwhelmingly
conclusive circumstantial evidence pointing to Israel on the grounds such evidence is
"anti-Semitic" and consequently false on apriori grounds. Moreover, any expert investigator
qualified in the relevant field who uncovers and presents evidence implicating Israel is cast
as the actual terrorist. It should go without saying they've reversed a millennium in the
development of Western thought regarding the connection between evidence and conclusion, and
they've done so for the basest of reasons. At least Conservatism Inc is being daily exposed
for the controlled opposition and worthless club of preppy snots it's always been.
Brilliant Article.
The question is when deep state will finally admit that Globalism after all that sacrifice
and evildoing are just sour grapes. As fox said in Ezops tale.
"the historical practices of the Russians, who typically, are almost genetically driven
to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique," adding
later that "It's in their DNA."
Right, along with drinking vodka and eating borscht.
The one nation that did interfere in the 2016 election, and has inserted themselves
into other elections to get their candidate elected, Israel remains untouched by this (((Deep
State))).
There's plenty of evidence for the Zionists and Israeli-Firsters corrupting the election
process for their fav nation, Israel, but the Operation Mockingbird asshats in the MSM won't
go near that, not if they want to keep their cushy job, 5th Avenue penthouse and that
chauffeured limo.
Anytime AIPAC comes to town, Congress gets into a fight with each other, trying to be the
one that shows the most slavish loyalty to the nation that has attacked the USA numerous
times, spies constantly on us, stealing our military, business and industrial secrets, had a
hand in both murdering JFK, RFK and masterminded the 9/11 FF, and has an overwheling presence
on the FED, yet most Americans don't know that, because the MSM keeps reporting lies,
distortions and half-truths, and always presenting a boogeyman to hate, sometimes Russia,
most times Muslims.
But fear not, that will soon come to an end, for when those TBTF Wall Street
banks–in collusion with the FED–again crash the stock market and drag the economy
down with their greed, that coming crash will make the one of 1929 seem like a picnic.
When that happens, what's left won't be of any interest to Israel to steal or manipulate.
The Deep State murdered Kennedy.
He planned on destroying the Fed and the CIA.
The Deep State required a president that COLLABORATED, like LBJ.
Then they figured, "why not put our guy in?'
Thus Bush 1.
Then Clinton (Bush 1 was his 'mentor') a pervert stooge.
Then Bush 2, a gaymail stooge.
Then Obomber, the gay Kenyan C_A stooge.
Then America says 'Enough', rejects the Witch and elects Trump.
Now the Deep State wants to kill America.
I think it's time for America to kill its' Deep State.
It is, after all, self-defense. Besides, hasn't this gone on long enough?
The alternative is to end up as the modern parallel of Rome.
Clapper, Brennan and Comey " may not have operated on their own." Duh!
You just remember, a donkey won't carry a heavy burden unless it's fed regularly. Find out
who owns the beast and you will have the culprit!
Phil, you should offer your services to the Trump defense/attack team*. Just stay away from
Giuliani (grin). Good article and salvo against Brennan and the rest who deserve all the pain
thay can get.
*Hey money is good especially around Christmas time. (Grin)
This certainly explains the incessant attacks on Trump by the deep state.
You have no concept of a charade being perpetrated on the American people. You don't find
it a little strange that Trump keeps hiring the Deep State denizens he purports to be
fighting? You are incapable of detecting the friend/foe, psychological tactic used to
deceive?
@Anonymous
That's it. Your hearsay trumps thousands of eyewitnesses and conversations of the victims on
flight 93 and in the pentagon.. You must be a first responder too. Talk about easily
influenced–you are why the old media gets away with their corruption. Some anonymous
source writes, says it on TV, and the lemmings follow.
@Biff
As we write, Obama probably is banging away some groupie in a DC mansion basement while the
gorrila is frying chicken upstairs for Oprah.
And Bubba, most likely, is watching porn in the garage in Westchester and the wicked witch
is massaging mrs. Wiener.
But it's Dubya worth looking into because he is out in the cowshed, buck naked save the
cowboy boots and the ten-gallon hat, whipping himself silly for the "mission
accomplished!"
Or, Obama and the police agencies investigated a known organized crime stooge when it became
apparent the GOP could offer no other candidate. Ironically, this was the original intent of
the creation of the FBI.
Don't play into the "victim trump" brand, he needs no help with it.
Thanks much for the most comprehensive précis yet of this bungled CIA putsch. The
articles in sequence teasingly open Gina's kimono, giving us horripilating glimpses of her
bushy penetralia. The question of Obama's involvement is the next step. CIA bots have been
pushing a partisan perspective for some time. Those darn Democrats!
But in fact Obama too is CIA nomenklatura, with the same depth of dynastic ties as GW
Bush, albeit not at the same lofty level. Just look at the oppo research, the best of which
comes from sanitized glimpses of the errands candidates run for CIA. Obama's other passport
is not Kenyan but Indonesian. It facilitated the youngster's schooling during Mom's year of
living dangerously in Indonesia. Obama's dad and stepdad were CIA skins on the wall. Grandma
was not in fact a drunk – she laundered the money for forcible overthrow and genocide
in Indonesia at her bank job in Hawaii. Grandpa was a "furniture salesman," like Bibi,
travelling around Asia under the hoariest old chestnut of NOC cover.
Young Barack was groomed as carefully as Bush minor. His only real job was BIC, a sheepish
front perennially stuffed to bursting with NOCs. While he was still wet behind the ears he
sported at falconry with a future head of state of Pakistan, for chrissakes, at a time when
nobody could get in there. And he got out without getting his head sawed off. How? The
youthful promise of this sullen stoner was somewhat obscure at that time. His GF was the
Aussie daughter of Mike Barry's opposite number. And the Mockingbird unison of ecstatic
acclaim when he rose to public prominence out of nowhere is the proof. His empty suit belings
to CIA.
This past election was CIA office politics, nothing more. Russigate is simply CIA eminence
Hillary, the Queen of Mena, ratfucking a bumptious queue-jumper. She outranks Trump, who was
merely a junior money-launderer for the CIA agents who looted the Soviet Union. It was her
turn to take the figurehead head-of-state sinecure. She and Bill earned it with their
lucrative Clinton Foundation covert-ops slush fund.
@Rabbi
Zaius They sense the rumblings of White solidarity among "the forgotten men and women" of
Trump's base and they do not cotton to this one little bit. Solidarity is forbidden to
Whites. It is only for the coalition of the fringes, all of those groups whose alienation can
be stoked to weaponize them against the descendants of those who founded and built the United
States.
@Dave
Sullivan The FISA warrants had nothing to do with organized crime.
On second thought, that is not correct.
They _were_ organized crime.
(It is not necessary to defend Trump to understand this. FISA warrants based on known fake
"evidence" are a stunning abuse of power–even within the slime-pit of DC.)
Anyone at all familiar with Brennan knows that he was and remains the driver of the
conspiracy to destroy first candidate, then President -Elect, and then POTUS Trump.
The same cannot be said of Comey and Clapper (especially).
It literally makes me sick to my stomach whenever I think about what it says about this
great republic that seditious filth like him rose to such a powerful position. It's rather
obvious he was willing to do anything including, I would submit, gift Russia and God Knows
Who Else anything they wanted in return for helping him destroy our constitutional
republic.
As I'm sure most here know, long before his 2016 election malefactions he had brazenly
engaged in spying on Congress and, most despicably, had debased President Obama and the
Office of the President through NYT revelations that every week Obama picked from his list of
drone assassination targets.
. . . and it inevitably leads to the question "What did Obama know?"
Yes, though more important than that was what Obama was told (by Brennan) and what real
options did he have as president given that Brennan had him by the short hairs.
I've long considered anyone's efforts to prematurely direct liability to President Obama
as a bald attempt to protect Brennan. That worked for the purposes of a general, earlier on,
cover up. It won't at this stage because it isn't even a close call when it comes to
Democrats, elected and rank and file, choosing between the first black president and Brennan,
the American Beria.
And has been since the early 1950s when the Allen Dulles-Frank Wisner-James Jesus Angleton
crew got rolling. They managed to thoroughly penetrate federal and state bureaucracies, the
court systems, major corporations, the financial sector, and the mockingbird media.
So Phil, was there any cooperation/communication between the Trump Task Force and the DNC
dirt-diggers in Ukraine (Ali Chalupa et al), or were they completely independent actions?
it was plausible to maintain that [the Russians] would have hoped that a weakened
Clinton would be less able to implement the anti-Russian agenda that she had been
promoting.
Not sure I follow this line of reasoning. If the Russians had tried unsuccessfully to
throw the election to Trump and Hellary won anyway, how exactly would that leave her
"weakened"? And wouldn't she have that much more reason to go after Russia?
My theory is that Hellary and her deep-swamp creatures only messed with Trump because they
were certain he was going lose. And if they could then plausibly claim after the
election that the Russians had interfered (albeit unsuccessfull) in the election, Hell-bitch
could've used that as a pretext for well, I don't know. War? More sanctions? Inducting
Ukraine into NATO? Invading Syria?
Clapper revealed that the preparers of the ICA were "handpicked analysts" from only the
FBI, CIA, and NSA. He explained rather unconvincingly during an interview on May 28, 2017,
that "the historical practices of the Russians, who typically, are almost genetically
driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique,"
adding later that "It's in their DNA."
I had no idea Clapper was into HBD. Damn, he's biased!
@NPleeze
There is a theater play going on, unending series, each episode catching some other
superficial drift. A-l-l actors in the public view, their dialogues and declamations are
scripted. Trump´s also. He is not the major character, just a single, temporary one.
All media opinion pieces, what is news, are prompt readings. Rectal extraction is close.
Why is this possible? The public is beyond understanding. The ones who do, at least part
of what is going on, being closer to some sectors of society where a whiff of the smell of
power is perceived at clouded times, are interested. The middle classes are scraping and
grabbing and bickering for the scraps of the table of the powerful. It takes them most of
their career to even get to under the table. They are happy dogs, and scraps comparing to
scraps makes them a diverse world of nothings.
It is hard work to come up with alternative policies, not rail into historical models
proven wrong as to long term interests and goals of society. A path not to venture into,
against instinct.
That makes for a fine world, while it lasts, and is upended by another cycle. The empty
drum feeling in the head of most is stuffed with images and sound-bites that makes for a life
behind a velvet curtain(Apple´s i-phone).
There is very little cognitive difference between the individuals at the top and the
glorious bottom undesirables, they both like the sniff of the glue.
Donald Trump's election (which was not supposed to be allowed to happen) forced into public
view, the existence of a Deep State that's been in existence for more than 75 years. Although
not widely recognized as such, JFK'S election accomplished the same thing, but to an even
greater extent. Leaving me puzzled as to why Trump has been allowed to remain in office as
long as he has without the Deep State subjecting him to a similar fate.
With one logical
explanation being that, at this point in time, it would become obvious, even to the brain
dead, who's actually in control of the US government.
"... Obama orchestrated the destruction of a political rival and he will get away scott free .because he's an oppressed and downtrodden dindu. ..."
"... But in fact Obama too is CIA nomenklatura, with the same depth of dynastic ties as GW Bush, albeit not at the same lofty level. ..."
"... This past election was CIA office politics, nothing more. Russigate is simply CIA eminence Hillary, the Queen of Mena, ratfucking a bumptious queue-jumper. She outranks Trump, who was merely a junior money-launderer for the CIA agents who looted the Soviet Union. It was her turn to take the figurehead head-of-state sinecure. She and Bill earned it with their lucrative Clinton Foundation covert-ops slush fund. ..."
"... And has been since the early 1950s when the Allen Dulles-Frank Wisner-James Jesus Angleton crew got rolling. They managed to thoroughly penetrate federal and state bureaucracies, the court systems, major corporations, the financial sector, and the mockingbird media. ..."
"... Clapper revealed that the preparers of the ICA were "handpicked analysts" from only the FBI, CIA, and NSA. He explained rather unconvincingly during an interview on May 28, 2017, that "the historical practices of the Russians, who typically, are almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique," adding later that "It's in their DNA." ..."
The entire FISA court process has been exposed as an insane sham.
"The Secret Team" just took the absurdity of the process and raised it to the next
level–injecting it into a political campaign.
It would be wonderful if they could fill a jail with every empty suit who touched those
warrants–but I would be stunned if even one of them gets paraded around in the orange
jump-suit they so richly deserve. Read More Replies:
@Moi
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All
Comments
Looking on at this affair from outside the USA, it is clear that the power and influence of
the USA is waning a lot faster than most people expected.
The replacement of the US military by mercenaries who are called other names was a first
step. The sanctioning and punishing of allies for stepping out of line is the second step.
BTW, it is notable how Japan and Australia are very keen to stay in line but the Europeans
less so.
I suspect the third step will be to encourage a collapse of the Euro – so as to make
wealthy Europeans shift their money to the USA in a panic.
It seems to me that the US public will be the last to learn of what is really happening.
Even on this website there are sometimes letters or articles that mention 9/11 as a
"terrorist" or "Saudi" act. How can one take anything such a person writes seriously?
The control of media and the internet seems to be the last part of the collapse. They will
hang on to that to the very last moment.
John Brennan's CIA Trump Task Force
Could it become Obamagate?
Perhaps, but what is the point? All this bullshit is engineered to make dumbass Americans
think justice is being served. Nothing will come of it no one will go to prison.
As if Trump weren't part and parcel of the Deep State.
His actions in Syria, Bolivia, Hong Kong, Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, etc. all prove
incontrovertibly that he is (and has always been) a member in fine standing of the Deep
State. If he is a Manchurian Candidate, he is the true puppet of the Deep State, not the
people or of Russia.
Exactly. I voted for Trump, but, as long ago as mid April 2017, I determined that he was a
Deep Stater his actions are just too obvious to ignore.
The Magic Negro cannot be touched and that is why nothing will be done about the biggest crime in the history of our nation
Obama orchestrated the destruction of a political rival and he will get away scott free .because he's an oppressed and downtrodden dindu.
There is considerable evidence that the American system of government may have been
victimized by an illegal covert operation organized and executed by the U.S.
Which one are you referring to, Iran 1953, Kennedy assassination 1963, Gulf of Tonkin 1964
or the other dozens of examples?
"And this was not a CIA-only operation. Personnel from the FBI also were assigned to the
Task Force "
This just in: both the CIA and FBI are unconstitutional, agencies.Get rid of them -and all
of the other unconstitutional alphabet-soup agencies[FDA,EPA,SEC etc.etc.etc.]. No
downsizing-trash them all- NOW!
This also just in: "Because they are all ultimately funded via both direct and indirect
theft [taxes], and counterfeiting [via central bank monopolies], all governments are
essentially, at their very cores, 100% corrupt criminal scams which cannot be
"reformed","improved", simply because of their innate, unchangeble criminal nature."
onebornfree
"Taking the State wherever found, striking into its history at any point, one sees no way
to differentiate the activities of its founders, administrators and beneficiaries from those
of a professional-criminal class." Albert J. Nock
@Alfred
Your point about 9/11 can't be made forcefully enough. We're going straight to hell unless
Israel and its American confederates are brought to justice, these wars ended, and order
restored. Clapper, Comey, Brennan, Mueller, Chertoff and the whole traitorous bunch are
probably guilty as principals but almost certainly they're at least complicit as accessories
before and after the fact. So naturally all we hear about is Russiagate.
The evidence overwhelmingly implicates Israel and not Saudi Arabia as you point out. That
Building 7 was brought down by explosives has been proved beyond doubt by Architects &
Engineers for 911 Truth, and as Dr. Alan Sobrosky put it, if Building 7 was brought down by
explosives, so too were the Twin Towers. The official NIST reports and all related government
narratives are preposterous. They're fairytales for fools inasmuch as the official mechanisms
rely on a suspension of the laws of physics more fanciful than Jack and the Beanstalk. The
story of the nineteen Arabs who couldn't handle Cessna 150s magically flying jetliners into
precise targets is more absurd than fairytale tropes about flying carpets.
Yet for Conservatism Inc and Fox News, which both claim to oppose the Deep State and its
narratives, there's no standard of evidence so low or preposterous that these cucks won't
cling to it to cover up what they must now know is Israel's guilt. We can assume it's
precisely because they're aware of Israel's guilt that they rule out the overwhelmingly
conclusive circumstantial evidence pointing to Israel on the grounds such evidence is
"anti-Semitic" and consequently false on apriori grounds. Moreover, any expert investigator
qualified in the relevant field who uncovers and presents evidence implicating Israel is cast
as the actual terrorist. It should go without saying they've reversed a millennium in the
development of Western thought regarding the connection between evidence and conclusion, and
they've done so for the basest of reasons. At least Conservatism Inc is being daily exposed
for the controlled opposition and worthless club of preppy snots it's always been.
Brilliant Article.
The question is when deep state will finally admit that Globalism after all that sacrifice
and evildoing are just sour grapes. As fox said in Ezops tale.
"the historical practices of the Russians, who typically, are almost genetically driven
to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique," adding
later that "It's in their DNA."
Right, along with drinking vodka and eating borscht.
The one nation that did interfere in the 2016 election, and has inserted themselves
into other elections to get their candidate elected, Israel remains untouched by this (((Deep
State))).
There's plenty of evidence for the Zionists and Israeli-Firsters corrupting the election
process for their fav nation, Israel, but the Operation Mockingbird asshats in the MSM won't
go near that, not if they want to keep their cushy job, 5th Avenue penthouse and that
chauffeured limo.
Anytime AIPAC comes to town, Congress gets into a fight with each other, trying to be the
one that shows the most slavish loyalty to the nation that has attacked the USA numerous
times, spies constantly on us, stealing our military, business and industrial secrets, had a
hand in both murdering JFK, RFK and masterminded the 9/11 FF, and has an overwheling presence
on the FED, yet most Americans don't know that, because the MSM keeps reporting lies,
distortions and half-truths, and always presenting a boogeyman to hate, sometimes Russia,
most times Muslims.
But fear not, that will soon come to an end, for when those TBTF Wall Street
banks–in collusion with the FED–again crash the stock market and drag the economy
down with their greed, that coming crash will make the one of 1929 seem like a picnic.
When that happens, what's left won't be of any interest to Israel to steal or manipulate.
The Deep State murdered Kennedy.
He planned on destroying the Fed and the CIA.
The Deep State required a president that COLLABORATED, like LBJ.
Then they figured, "why not put our guy in?'
Thus Bush 1.
Then Clinton (Bush 1 was his 'mentor') a pervert stooge.
Then Bush 2, a gaymail stooge.
Then Obomber, the gay Kenyan C_A stooge.
Then America says 'Enough', rejects the Witch and elects Trump.
Now the Deep State wants to kill America.
I think it's time for America to kill its' Deep State.
It is, after all, self-defense. Besides, hasn't this gone on long enough?
The alternative is to end up as the modern parallel of Rome.
Clapper, Brennan and Comey " may not have operated on their own." Duh!
You just remember, a donkey won't carry a heavy burden unless it's fed regularly. Find out
who owns the beast and you will have the culprit!
Phil, you should offer your services to the Trump defense/attack team*. Just stay away from
Giuliani (grin). Good article and salvo against Brennan and the rest who deserve all the pain
thay can get.
*Hey money is good especially around Christmas time. (Grin)
This certainly explains the incessant attacks on Trump by the deep state.
You have no concept of a charade being perpetrated on the American people. You don't find
it a little strange that Trump keeps hiring the Deep State denizens he purports to be
fighting? You are incapable of detecting the friend/foe, psychological tactic used to
deceive?
@Anonymous
That's it. Your hearsay trumps thousands of eyewitnesses and conversations of the victims on
flight 93 and in the pentagon.. You must be a first responder too. Talk about easily
influenced–you are why the old media gets away with their corruption. Some anonymous
source writes, says it on TV, and the lemmings follow.
@Biff
As we write, Obama probably is banging away some groupie in a DC mansion basement while the
gorrila is frying chicken upstairs for Oprah.
And Bubba, most likely, is watching porn in the garage in Westchester and the wicked witch
is massaging mrs. Wiener.
But it's Dubya worth looking into because he is out in the cowshed, buck naked save the
cowboy boots and the ten-gallon hat, whipping himself silly for the "mission
accomplished!"
Or, Obama and the police agencies investigated a known organized crime stooge when it became
apparent the GOP could offer no other candidate. Ironically, this was the original intent of
the creation of the FBI.
Don't play into the "victim trump" brand, he needs no help with it.
Thanks much for the most comprehensive précis yet of this bungled CIA putsch. The
articles in sequence teasingly open Gina's kimono, giving us horripilating glimpses of her
bushy penetralia. The question of Obama's involvement is the next step. CIA bots have been
pushing a partisan perspective for some time. Those darn Democrats!
But in fact Obama too is CIA nomenklatura, with the same depth of dynastic ties as GW
Bush, albeit not at the same lofty level. Just look at the oppo research, the best of which
comes from sanitized glimpses of the errands candidates run for CIA. Obama's other passport
is not Kenyan but Indonesian. It facilitated the youngster's schooling during Mom's year of
living dangerously in Indonesia. Obama's dad and stepdad were CIA skins on the wall. Grandma
was not in fact a drunk – she laundered the money for forcible overthrow and genocide
in Indonesia at her bank job in Hawaii. Grandpa was a "furniture salesman," like Bibi,
travelling around Asia under the hoariest old chestnut of NOC cover.
Young Barack was groomed as carefully as Bush minor. His only real job was BIC, a sheepish
front perennially stuffed to bursting with NOCs. While he was still wet behind the ears he
sported at falconry with a future head of state of Pakistan, for chrissakes, at a time when
nobody could get in there. And he got out without getting his head sawed off. How? The
youthful promise of this sullen stoner was somewhat obscure at that time. His GF was the
Aussie daughter of Mike Barry's opposite number. And the Mockingbird unison of ecstatic
acclaim when he rose to public prominence out of nowhere is the proof. His empty suit belings
to CIA.
This past election was CIA office politics, nothing more. Russigate is simply CIA eminence
Hillary, the Queen of Mena, ratfucking a bumptious queue-jumper. She outranks Trump, who was
merely a junior money-launderer for the CIA agents who looted the Soviet Union. It was her
turn to take the figurehead head-of-state sinecure. She and Bill earned it with their
lucrative Clinton Foundation covert-ops slush fund.
@Rabbi
Zaius They sense the rumblings of White solidarity among "the forgotten men and women" of
Trump's base and they do not cotton to this one little bit. Solidarity is forbidden to
Whites. It is only for the coalition of the fringes, all of those groups whose alienation can
be stoked to weaponize them against the descendants of those who founded and built the United
States.
@Dave
Sullivan The FISA warrants had nothing to do with organized crime.
On second thought, that is not correct.
They _were_ organized crime.
(It is not necessary to defend Trump to understand this. FISA warrants based on known fake
"evidence" are a stunning abuse of power–even within the slime-pit of DC.)
Anyone at all familiar with Brennan knows that he was and remains the driver of the
conspiracy to destroy first candidate, then President -Elect, and then POTUS Trump.
The same cannot be said of Comey and Clapper (especially).
It literally makes me sick to my stomach whenever I think about what it says about this
great republic that seditious filth like him rose to such a powerful position. It's rather
obvious he was willing to do anything including, I would submit, gift Russia and God Knows
Who Else anything they wanted in return for helping him destroy our constitutional
republic.
As I'm sure most here know, long before his 2016 election malefactions he had brazenly
engaged in spying on Congress and, most despicably, had debased President Obama and the
Office of the President through NYT revelations that every week Obama picked from his list of
drone assassination targets.
. . . and it inevitably leads to the question "What did Obama know?"
Yes, though more important than that was what Obama was told (by Brennan) and what real
options did he have as president given that Brennan had him by the short hairs.
I've long considered anyone's efforts to prematurely direct liability to President Obama
as a bald attempt to protect Brennan. That worked for the purposes of a general, earlier on,
cover up. It won't at this stage because it isn't even a close call when it comes to
Democrats, elected and rank and file, choosing between the first black president and Brennan,
the American Beria.
And has been since the early 1950s when the Allen Dulles-Frank Wisner-James Jesus Angleton
crew got rolling. They managed to thoroughly penetrate federal and state bureaucracies, the
court systems, major corporations, the financial sector, and the mockingbird media.
So Phil, was there any cooperation/communication between the Trump Task Force and the DNC
dirt-diggers in Ukraine (Ali Chalupa et al), or were they completely independent actions?
it was plausible to maintain that [the Russians] would have hoped that a weakened
Clinton would be less able to implement the anti-Russian agenda that she had been
promoting.
Not sure I follow this line of reasoning. If the Russians had tried unsuccessfully to
throw the election to Trump and Hellary won anyway, how exactly would that leave her
"weakened"? And wouldn't she have that much more reason to go after Russia?
My theory is that Hellary and her deep-swamp creatures only messed with Trump because they
were certain he was going lose. And if they could then plausibly claim after the
election that the Russians had interfered (albeit unsuccessfull) in the election, Hell-bitch
could've used that as a pretext for well, I don't know. War? More sanctions? Inducting
Ukraine into NATO? Invading Syria?
Clapper revealed that the preparers of the ICA were "handpicked analysts" from only the
FBI, CIA, and NSA. He explained rather unconvincingly during an interview on May 28, 2017,
that "the historical practices of the Russians, who typically, are almost genetically
driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique,"
adding later that "It's in their DNA."
I had no idea Clapper was into HBD. Damn, he's biased!
@NPleeze
There is a theater play going on, unending series, each episode catching some other
superficial drift. A-l-l actors in the public view, their dialogues and declamations are
scripted. Trump´s also. He is not the major character, just a single, temporary one.
All media opinion pieces, what is news, are prompt readings. Rectal extraction is close.
Why is this possible? The public is beyond understanding. The ones who do, at least part
of what is going on, being closer to some sectors of society where a whiff of the smell of
power is perceived at clouded times, are interested. The middle classes are scraping and
grabbing and bickering for the scraps of the table of the powerful. It takes them most of
their career to even get to under the table. They are happy dogs, and scraps comparing to
scraps makes them a diverse world of nothings.
It is hard work to come up with alternative policies, not rail into historical models
proven wrong as to long term interests and goals of society. A path not to venture into,
against instinct.
That makes for a fine world, while it lasts, and is upended by another cycle. The empty
drum feeling in the head of most is stuffed with images and sound-bites that makes for a life
behind a velvet curtain(Apple´s i-phone).
There is very little cognitive difference between the individuals at the top and the
glorious bottom undesirables, they both like the sniff of the glue.
Donald Trump's election (which was not supposed to be allowed to happen) forced into public
view, the existence of a Deep State that's been in existence for more than 75 years. Although
not widely recognized as such, JFK'S election accomplished the same thing, but to an even
greater extent. Leaving me puzzled as to why Trump has been allowed to remain in office as
long as he has without the Deep State subjecting him to a similar fate.
With one logical
explanation being that, at this point in time, it would become obvious, even to the brain
dead, who's actually in control of the US government.
"... The truth is that for the Clintonite-Bushite elite almost all Americans are 'deplorable'. What is fun for them is to play geopolitics – the elite version of corporate travel perks – just look at how shocked they are that Trump is not playing along. ..."
Recent class history of US is quite simple: the elite class first tried to shift the burden
of supporting the lower classes on the middle class with taxation. But as the lower class
became demographically distinct, partially via mass immigration, the elites decided to ally
with the ' underpriviledged ' via identity posturing and squeeze no longer needed
middle class out of existence.
What's left are government employees, a few corporate sinecures, NGO parasitic sector, and
old people. The rest will be melded into a few mutually antagonistic tribal groups providing
ever cheaper service labor. With an occasional lottery winner to showcase mobility. Actually
very similar to what happened in Latin America in the past few centuries.
The truth is that for the Clintonite-Bushite elite almost all Americans are
'deplorable'. What is fun for them is to play geopolitics – the elite version of
corporate travel perks – just look at how shocked they are that Trump is not playing
along.
Unlike the USA (under Neocon stewardship) China has not squandered twenty trillion dollars
of its national solvency bombing countries which never attacked it post 9-11.
China's leaders (unlike our own) never LIED its people into launching obscenely expensive,
illegal wars of aggression across the middle east. (WMD's, Mushroom clouds, Yellow Cake,
etc.)
China has used its wealth and resources to build up its infrastructure, build out its
capital markets, and turbo charge its high tech sectors. As a consequence, it has lifted
nearly half a billion people out of poverty. There has been an explosion in the growth of the
"middle class" in China. Hundreds of millions of Chinese are now living comfortable "upwardly
mobile" lives.
The USA, on the other hand, having been defrauded by its "ruling elites" into launching
and fighting endless illegal wars, is now 23 trillion dollars in catastrophic debt.
NOT ONE PENNY of this heinous "overspending" has been dedicated to building up OUR
infrastructure, or BUILDING OUT our middle class.
It has all gone into BLOWING UP countries which never (even) attacked us on 9-11.
As a consequence , the USA is fast becoming a failed nation, a nation where all its wealth
is being siphoned into the hands of its one percent "war pilfer-teers".
It is so sad to have grown up in such an amazing country , with such immense resources and
possibilities, and having to bear witness to it going down the tubes.
To watch all our sovereign wealth being vaporized by our "lie us into endless illegal war"
ruling elites is truly heartbreaking.
The white middle class is the only group that might effectively resist Globohomo's designs on
total power.
Blacks? Too dumb. Will be disposed of once Globohomo is finished the job.
Hispanics? Used to corrupt one party systems. Give them cerveza and Netflix and they're
good.
East Asians? Perfectly fine with living like bug people.
South Asians? Cowardly; will go with the flow.
The middle class is almost completely unique to white people.
Racial aliens cannot wrap their minds around being middle class. They think I'm crazy for
appreciating my 2009 Honda Accord. They literally cannot understand why somebody would want
to live a frugal and mundane life. They are desperate to be like Drake but most end up broke.
It will be very easy for GloboHomo to control a bucket of poor brown slop.
There IS a black middle class, but a big chunk of that works for governments of all
shapes and sizes.
Strictly speaking, there is no more "middle class" in the sense of the classical
economists: a person with just enough capital to live off the income if he works the capital
himself or herself. By this definition professionals (lawyers, dentists, physicians, small
store owners, even spinsters [1] and hand loom operators in a sense) were middle class. Upper
class had enough property to turn it over to managers, lower class had little or no property
and worked for others (servants and farm workers, for example). Paupers didn't earn enough
income per year to feed themselves and didn't live all that long, usually.
What we have is "middle income" people, almost all of whom work as an employee of some
organization -- people who would be considered "lower class" by the classical economists
because they don't have freedom of action and make no independent decisions about how the
capital of their organizations is spent. Today they are considered "intelligentsia", educated
government workers, or, by analogy, educated corporate workers. IMHO, intelligentsia is a
suicide job, and is responsible for the depressed fertility rate, but that's just me.
Back in the AD 1800s and pre-AD 1930 there were many black middle class people. usually
concentrating on selling to black clientele. Now there are effectively none outside of
criminal activities, usually petty criminal. And so it goes.
Of course, back then there were many white middle class people also, usually concentrating
on selling to white clientele. Now there are effectively none, except in some rural areas.
And so it goes.
Counterinsurgency
1] Cottagers who made their living spinning wool skeins into wool threads.
@unit472 A
lot of the middle class are Democrats but not particularly liberal. Many of them vote
Democrat only when they personally benefit. For example, my parents were suburban public
school teachers. They voted for Democrats at the state level because the Democrats supported
better pay and benefits for teachers but voted for Republicans like Goldwater and Reagan at
the national level because Republicans would keep their federal taxes lower. They had no
political philosophy. It was all about what left them financially better off. My parents also
got on well with their suburban neighbors. Suburbanites generally like their local school
system and its teachers and the suburban school systems are usually careful not to engage in
teaching anything controversial. A lot of the government employed white middle class would be
like my parents. Except in situations where specific Republicans talk about major cuts to
their pay and pensions they are perfectly willing to consider voting Republican. They are
generally social moderates, like the status quo, are fairly traditionalist and don't want any
radical changes. Since the Democrats seem be trending in a radical direction, this would put
off a lot of them. Trump would be more appealing as the status quo candidate. When running
the last time, he carefully avoided talking about any major cuts in government spending and
he's governed that way too. At the same time, his talk of cutting immigration, his lack of
enthusiasm for nonwhite affirmative action, and his more traditional views on social issues
is appealing to the white middle class.
The term middle class is used in the U.S. to mean middle income. It has nothing to do with
class. Why not just say what you mean? Most of the middle class that we say is disappearing
is really that rarest of phenomenons. A prosperous working class. The prosperous American
working class is no longer prosperous due to the Neoliberal agenda. Free trade, open borders
and the financialization of everything.
Americans know nothing of class dynamics. Not even the so called socialists. They don't
even see the economy. All they see is people with infinite need and government with infinite
wealth. In their world all of Central America can come to the U.S. and the government (if it
only wants to) can give them all homes, health care and education.
Lets stop saying class when we mean income. Not using the word class would be better than
abusing it.
Anyway. Yes. Middle Class denotes white people. The coalition of the fringes is neither
working, middle nor ruling class. They are black or brown. They are perverts or feminists. If
the workers among them identified as working class they would find common ground with the
Deplorables. We can't have that now can we.
Are we to the point where we've collectively resigned ourselves to the death of the
middle class?
In the neoliberal worldview, the middle class is illegitimate, existing only as a
consequence of artificial trade and immigration barriers. Anytime Americans are spied out
making a good living, there is a "shortage" that must be addressed with more visas. Or else
there is an "inefficiency" where other countries could provide said service or produce said
product for less because they have a "comparative advantage."
Anyway. Yes. Middle Class denotes white people. The coalition of the fringes is neither
working, middle nor ruling class. They are black or brown. They are perverts or feminists.
If the workers among them identified as working class they would find common ground with
the Deplorables. We can't have that now can we.
I don't know about that anymore. Increasingly, "middle class" means Asian, with Whiteness
being associated with the lower middle class (or perhaps "working class"). Sometimes the
media uses the term " noncollege Whites," which I think is actually very apt. They are the
ones who identify with Whiteness the most.
"... Until now, Iran has restrained itself despite constant aggression from Israel, but this could easily change. "The result could be a counterstrike by Iran, using cruise missiles that penetrate Israel's air defenses and smash into targets like the Kiryah, Tel Aviv's equivalent of the Pentagon. Israel would retaliate massively against Hezbollah's headquarters in Beirut as well as dozens of its emplacements along the Lebanese border. And then, after a day of large-scale exchanges, the real war would begin " ..."
In my 2011 book,
The Wandering Who
, I elaborated on the possible disastrous scenario in which Israel is the nucleus of a
global escalation over Iran's emerging nuclear capabilities. I concluded that Israel's PRE Traumatic Stress
Syndrome (PRE-TSS) would be central to such a development. "The Jewish state and the Jewish discourse in
general are completely foreign to the notion of temporality. Israel is blinded to the consequences of its
actions, it only thinks of its actions in terms of short-term pragmatism. Instead of temporality, Israel
thinks in terms of an extended present."
In 2011 Israel was still confident in
its military might, certain that with the help of America or at least its support, it could deliver a mortal
military blow to Iran. But this confidence has diminished, replaced by an existential anxiety that might
well be warranted. For the last few months, Israeli military analysts have had to come to terms with Iran's
spectacular strategic and technological abilities. The recent attack on a Saudi oil facility delivered a
clear message to the world, and in particular to Israel, that Iran is far ahead of Israel and the West. The
sanctions were counter effective: Iran independently developed its own technology.
Former Israeli ambassador to the US, and
prolific historian, Michael Oren, repeated my 2011 predictions this week in the
Atlantic
and described a horrific scenario for the next, and likely last, Israeli conflict.
Oren understands that a minor Israeli
miscalculation could lead to total war, one in which missiles and drones of all types would rain down on
Israel, overwhelm its defences and leave Israeli cities, its economy and its security in ruins.
Oren gives a detailed account of how a
conflict between Israel and Iran could rapidly descend into a massive "conflagration" that would devastate
Israel as well as its neighbours.
In Israel, the term
"The War Between the Wars
," refers to the targeted covert inter-war campaign waged by the Jewish State
with the purpose of postponing, while still preparing for, the next confrontation, presumably with Iran. In
the last few years Israel has carried out hundreds of 'war between the wars' strikes against Iran-linked
targets in Lebanon, Syria and Iraq. Oren speculates that a single miscalculation could easily lead to
retaliation by Iran. "Israel is girding for the worst and acting on the assumption that fighting could break
out at any time. And it's not hard to imagine how it might arrive. The conflagration, like so many in the
Middle East, could be ignited by a single spark."
Until now, Iran has restrained itself
despite constant aggression from Israel, but this could easily change. "The result could be a counterstrike
by Iran, using cruise missiles that penetrate Israel's air defenses and smash into targets like the Kiryah,
Tel Aviv's equivalent of the Pentagon. Israel would retaliate massively against Hezbollah's headquarters in
Beirut as well as dozens of its emplacements along the Lebanese border. And then, after a day of large-scale
exchanges, the real war would begin "
Oren predicts that rockets would "rain on
Israel" at a rate as high as 4,000 a day. The Iron Dome system would be overwhelmed by the vast simultaneous
attacks against civilian and military targets throughout the country. And, as if this weren't devastating
enough, Israel is totally unprepared to deal with precision-guided missiles that can accurately hit targets
all across Israel from 1000 miles away.
Ben Gurion International Airport would be
shut down and air traffic over Israel closed. The same could happen to Israel's ports. Israelis that would
seek refuge in far away lands would have to swim to safety
.
In this scenario, Palestinians and
Lebanese militias might join the conflagration and attack Jewish border communities on the ground while
long-range missiles from Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Iran land. Before long, Israel's economy would cease to
function, electrical grids severed and damaged factories and refineries would spew toxic chemicals into the
air.
In the Shoah scenario Oren describes,
"Millions of Israelis would huddle in bomb shelters. Hundreds of thousands would be evacuated from the
border areas as terrorists attempt to infiltrate them. Restaurants and hotels would empty, along with the
offices of the high-tech companies of the start-up nation. The hospitals, many of them resorting to
underground facilities, would quickly be overwhelmed, even before the skies darken with the toxic fumes of
blazing chemical factories and oil refineries."
Oren predicts that Israel's harsh
response to attack, including a violent put down of likely West Bank and Gaza protests, would result in
large scale civilian casualties and draw charges of war crimes.
As Oren states, he did not invent this
prediction, it is one of the similar scenarios anticipated by Israeli military and government officials.
If such events occur, the US will be
vital to the survival of the Jewish State by providing munitions, diplomatic, political, and legal support,
and after the war, in negotiating truces, withdrawals, prisoner exchanges and presumably 'peace agreements.'
However, the US under the Trump administration is somewhat unpredictable, especially in light of the current
impeachment proceedings against Trump.
In 1973 the US helped save Israel by
providing its military with the necessary munitions. Will the US do so again? Do the Americans have the
weapons capability to counter Iran's ballistics, precision missiles and drones? More crucially, what kind of
support could America provide that would lift the spirits of humiliated and exhausted Israelis after they
emerge from underground shelters having enduring four weeks without electricity or food and see their cities
completely shattered?
This leads us to the essential issue.
Zionism vowed to emancipate the Jews from their destiny by liberating the Jews from themselves. It vowed to
bring an end to Jewish self-destruction by creating a Jewish safe haven. How is it that just seven decades
after the founding of the Jewish state, the people who have suffered throughout their history have once
again managed to create the potential for their own disaster?
ORDER IT NOW
In The Wandering Who I provide a
possible answer: "Grasping the notion of temporality is the ability to accept that the past is shaped and
revised in the light of a search for meaning. History, and historical thinking, are the capacity to rethink
the past and the future." Accordingly,
revisionism
is the true essence of historical thinking. It
turns the past into a moral message, it turns the moral into an ethical act. Sadly this is exactly where the
Jewish State is severely lacking. Despite the Zionist promise to introduce introspection, morality and
universal thinking to the emerging Hebrew culture, the Jewish State has failed to break away from the Jewish
past because it doesn't really grasp the notion of the 'past' as a dynamic elastic ethical substance.
Everyone understands that a minor Iranian miscalculation could lead to total war. One in which nuclear bombs
would rain down on Iran leaving its cities, economy, and security in ruins.
The sociopath, Ayatollah
Khameni is detached from reality and may be willing to take such risks. However, there is no reason to
believe that The Iranian military or civilian population will embrace certain suicide. It is quite likely
that the IRGC would decide that it is time for another revolution and end the theocracy, rather than die
following the dubious commands of a deranged Ayatollah.
____
The whole theory about a prolonged conflict falls apart once accurate facts are applied to the situation.
Iranian al'Hezbollah has large numbers of Katyusha pattern rockets, but very few precision weapons. And to
provide human shields for these weapons, almost all of them are in a limited number of urban centers.
The facts are clear, even if Gilad chooses to ignore them in favor of his personal fantasies. Iranian
al'Hezbollah would lose badly in a total forces engagement. The nuclear incineration of their rear echelons
would leave forward forces totally defenseless against overwhelming Israeli air superiority.
-- Would there be Israeli civilian casulities? Certainly.
-- Would Lebanon become uninhabitable? Yes.
-- Would Ayatollah Khameni perish when Israeli nukes Tehran? Absolutely.
______
There is no possible scenario where Iran "wins" if they launch a substantial first strike. And, the
Iranian military understands this as fact.
@A123
It is really fun when Gilad gets off Epstein and rape stuff and ventures into wars and Israeli security. The
generals have kept Gilad up to date on the latest and the greatest.
He is so out to lunch in his desire to see Israel panic and loose the next war facing horrible casualties
because it makes his point about how the Jews are doomed unless they cease being Jews.
He really believes
that he can solve the problem and change our destiny if we all read "Wondering
Who"
In The Wandering Who I provide a possible answer: "Grasping the notion of temporality is the ability
to accept that the past is shaped and revised in the light of a search for meaning. History, and
historical thinking, are the capacity to rethink the past and the future." Accordingly, revisionism is
the true essence of historical thinking. It turns the past into a moral message, it turns the moral into
an ethical act. Sadly this is exactly where the Jewish State is severely lacking. Despite the Zionist
promise to introduce introspection, morality and universal thinking to the emerging Hebrew culture, the
Jewish State has failed to break away from the Jewish past because it doesn't really grasp the notion of
the 'past' as a dynamic elastic ethical substance.
I wonder what it is like to wish death and destruction on a people and a country to prove your point and
call yourself an unemotional Athenian.
@A123
As you may have noticed, in the Israeli apocalyptic scenarios the Jewish state doesn't put into play the
Samson option.. it is slightly less genocidal than yourself .. you may want to ask yourself why
Israel is making a terrible mistake. The oft touted "Sampson Option" is a bogus option as Bibi, Benny Gatz
and/or any other Israeli leader knows it will be suicide if they use this option. Because even if they
emerge from the bunkers days later after using nuclear bombs against Iran, Syria, Lebanon and other European
capitals (
Samson option targets Europe
) they will be greeted with hostility and will have no
sanctuary.
Three times in world history the Jews were rescued by the Persians.
Believe it or not.
However, the US under the Trump administration is somewhat unpredictable, especially in light of the
current impeachment proceedings against Trump.
Not at all unpredictable with regards to Israel. Trump and Congress would use the last cent of US
taxpayer's money and the last drop of Anglo blood to save the place. Trump is Israel's US Viceroy and
Congress is its Colonial Parliament.
Israel's real nightmare starts when US nationalists toss out the colonialists, and Israel has to find a
way live on its own resources.
I have to think that considering the failure of military intelligence agencies in the past that no one has
any real idea how close Iran is to getting the bomb. But even if they get numbers of them and have a means
to deliver them on target it simply would mean that Iran and Israel are in a standoff. I can understand how
Israel would not want Iran to have the bomb but in reality how much difference would it make? It would only
be relevant if the two countries had already blundered into war and things were entering a final disastrous
stage. Then it would simply mean both countries would be destroyed instead of just one.
Also, not being a military man am I naive in thinking Iran might be able to buy nuclear weapons on the black
market? From North Korea, perhaps? I have got to suspect Israel will be faced with two options. Either fight
Iran sooner, before they get nukes. Or they will simply have to accept that Iran is going to be a nuclear
power. It's pretty obvious that Israel has been trying to get America to fight their war for them. But Trump
has been reluctant to do so. No wonder the Jews are chomping at the bit to find some way to get rid of him.
2020 should prove to be an interesting year.
This analysis leaves out two very significant historic military facts:
1) The 2006 Israeli invasion of Lebanon aka the "33 Day War" where in:
"Hezbollah inflicted more Israeli casualties per Arab fighter in 2006 than did any of Israel's state
opponents in the 1956, 1967, 1973, or 1982 Arab-Israeli interstate wars, and is generally acknowledge that
Israel flat out lost that war and de facto sued for a cease fire.
(see: "U.S. Department of Defense. The 2006 Lebanon Campaign and the Future of Warfare: Implications for
Army and Defense Policy." Kindle Edition.)
2) The Syrian army is currently the only army in the world that has multi-front, contiguous multi-year
'combined arms' (i.e. army, armor, artillery and air force) combat experience .
Further, the leader of Hezbollah Hassan Nasrallah in a recent interview pointed out that Hezbollah
fighting along side of the Syrian Army these past five years, now has experience in offensive warfare. In
2006 they fought strictly defensively.
In short, if an Israeli war comes again, given the experience of the Syrian and Hezbollah armies and
Syria acquiring state of the art air defense system (S 300, etc), Iranian missiles may very well be the
least of Israel's worries.
Indeed, before Iran launches missiles, Hezbollah and Syria may move to take back Shebaa Farms and Golan
Heights.
To my mind: Israel and American militaries are "paper Tigers". Israel has never fought a combined arms
war for a sustained period of time against an equally matched military. And the US not since Korea. Their
victories have always been overwhelming an inferior force.
@AaronB
For me the fact that the Jewish state indulges itself in apocalyptic and genocidal fantasies is really a
glimpse into to tribal mind.. as far as I can tell this pre traumatic stress points at severe form of
projection .. Israeli politicians and commentators attribute their own symptoms to their neighbours ..
@Rev. Spooner
' Three times in world history the Jews were rescued by the Persians.
Believe it or not.'
The Persians more or less created 'the Jews.' At any rate, a religion recognizable
as Judaism first appeared in the wake of the Persian conquests.
However, when did the Persians 'rescue' the Jews?
They allowed the creation of an autonomous Jewish state in Palestine when they overran that place around
the beginning of the seventh century AD -- but that only lasted for about twenty years anyway.
@A123
If I may: I don't know for sure what G Atzmon meant by the Samson Option; but, I have come across this
express before and I took it to mean that Israel will go to nuclear war even if means the destruction of the
Jewish State. That is, like Samson who destroyed his enemies by killing himself; Israel nuec's Iran and Iran
nuce's Israel (kills enemies and itself).
This should not be taken lightly. While it would be totally irrational for most states to take the Samson
Option, it is to my mind a plausible option for Israel. For even if the Jewish State is destroyed, the
Jewish Nation i.e. the Jewish people around the world will survive and continue on as they have these
thousands of years. But, they will be free of what they perceive as their arch enemy i.e. Iran and other
Moslems. They survived the metaphoric Holocaust and they will survive a literal one. The Jewish State may be
destroyed but not the Jewish People.
This is something not enough people comment on. Israel's military is not a mini US military, it has serious
problems and takes losses and casualties in contexts that would be shocking for another Western country that
spends as much per capita for it's military.
This is why Israel having nuclear weapons irks me so much, the more it can't rely on it's conventional
military, the more they'll lean into their nuclear deterrent, increasing the probability of it's use. (Not
dissimilar to the situation with Pakistan vis-a-vis India, though in that case, India has nukes too)
@Tom Verso
The Samson Option
The Samson Option.jpg
Author Seymour Hersh
Country United States
Language English
Genre Non-fiction
Publisher Random House
Publication date
1991
Media type Print (Hardback)
Pages 362 pp
ISBN 0-394-57006-5
OCLC 24609770
Dewey Decimal
355.8/25119/095694 20
LC Class UA853.I8 H47 1991
The Samson Option: Israel's Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy is a 1991 book by Seymour Hersh. It
details the history of Israel's nuclear weapons program and its effects on Israel-American relations. The
"Samson Option" of the book's title refers to the nuclear strategy whereby Israel would launch a massive
nuclear retaliatory strike if the state itself was being overrun, just as the Biblical figure Samson is said
to have pushed apart the pillars of a Philistine temple, bringing down the roof and killing himself and
thousands of Philistines who had gathered to see him humiliated.
According to The New York Times, Hersh
relied on Ari Ben-Menashe, a former Israeli government employee who says he worked for Israeli intelligence,
for much of his information on the state of the Israeli nuclear program. However, Hersh confirmed all of
this information with at least one other source.[1] Hersh did not travel to Israel to conduct interviews for
the book, believing that he might have been subject to the Israeli Military Censor. Nevertheless, he did
interview Israelis in the United States and Europe during his three years of research.[1]
@Fran Taubman
' If you study it, can be pretty scary. It is not just Israel. Also who wants another North Korea
blackmail game?'
You mean something like the Samson option?
Anyway, the whole discussion is silly.
No nation
-- and that included Imperial Japan in 1945, when
the chips were down -- chooses self-immolation. They always give way. Iran isn't a threat to Israel because
Iran's not going to commit national suicide, and 'the Samson Option' is bullshit as well, because six
million Jews aren't going to commit national suicide either.
Zionists such as yourself only choose to think otherwise about Iran -- in spite of the absence of any
historical evidence at all -- because it justifies your own pathological aggression towards a nation that is
(a) a thousand miles away, and (b) poses no serious threat to Israel whatsoever.
Try not attacking literally everyone you can think of. That might help. I mean, fuck -- Israel is the only
state in modern history that has attacked literally
every single one
of her neighbors, and several
more besides. Since 1948, she's attacked Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Tunisia, and even the
United States. What's up?
Despite the Zionist promise to introduce introspection, morality and universal thinking to the
emerging Hebrew culture, the Jewish State has failed to break away from the Jewish past because it
doesn't really grasp the notion of the 'past' as a dynamic elastic ethical substance.
The Jews are always long-term losers because they teach their children that they have always been and
will forever be victims of humanity. Jew children are traumatized at an immature young age – they are
mentally damaged by the thought that humanity wants to kill them and do them harm. This notion is inculcated
deep in the Jew child's psyche. These poor children can never escape what has been implanted. (For three
thousand years, generation after generation, Jew culture has been abusing their children with dreadful
thoughts.)
Nine out of ten adult Jews are triggered into thoughts of doom by any criticism of Israel – their
reactions are visceral, and a pure reflex coming out of their brainstem.
Jews cannot be introspective because of what elder Jews have implanted in them in their youth. Their
rational emotional systems have been short-circuited.
I have seen intelligent Jews on this forum flirt with empathy for Palestinians – only to fall back into
mindless reflexive support of whatever Israel does.
Jews Are Feeling Guilty: They Should Be. Their Influence Has Been Cancerous to America
Gilad Atzmon Wed, Nov 6, 2019
It has become an institutional Jewish habit to examine how much Jews are hated by their host nations
and how fearful Jews are of their neighbours. Jewish press outlets reported yesterday that "9 out of 10
US Jews worry about anti-Semitism."
. . .
As Haartez writer Ari Shavit wrote back in 2003: "The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative
intellectuals, most of them Jewish " Maybe some Jews now understand that the Zionist shift from a
'promised land' to the Neocon 'promised planet' doesn't reflect well on the Jews as a group.
Any separation of one group from another is a tribe. Any identity whatsoever is a tribe – because
identity sets you apart. The moment you define yourself you are tribal, because definitions distinguish
one thing from another.
The issue is that some people are not particularly tribal (i.e. Westerners) and they are open to
multiculturalism – i.e. proposition nations. However, proposition nations are very much non-tribalist places
and need non-tribalism to survive.
If tribalists talk multiculturalism and proposition nations (i.e. use deception) while practicing
tribalism, they quickly overwhelm these societies – which is where the US is today with regards to Jewish
tribalists.
What does a Jewish tribalist elite do next? And what does a (subjected) majority do next?
Michael Oren, repeated my 2011 predictions this week in the Atlantic and described a horrific scenario
for the next, and likely last, Israeli conflict.
The purpose of Oren's Atlantic article was to create alarm in the DC political corridors .."warning' that
if the US doesnt 'soon help Israel' with its Iran enemy there will be chaos and dead bodies galore .
Its propaganda but 'true' propaganda 'if' Israel were to attack Iran on their own but they wont .they aren't
capable of it alone.
They are running this same propaganda articles/warnings in Europe, saying Europe needs to 'do something'
about Iran Now!
Its basically a blackmail and scare ploy because they don't think Trump will do it for them .and of course
if Israel starts a war it will be because Trump/US deserted them like he/we did the Kurds and they were
'forced' to try and defend the world against Iran 'all alone' and Israel isn't to blame for the mess lol.
What Israel will do is try to start a war on Hezbollah 'first, as Hezbollah would be their most immediate
and dangerous threat , severely crippling Israel right at the onset of any war with Iran.
They will claim that Iran directed attacks on Israel and so the US should step in because its an attack by
Iran.
If we had anyone in DC that wasn't bought off by Jewish 'benjamin's ' they would be laughing their asses
off at this typical Jewish tactic.
Everyone understands that a minor Iranian miscalculation could lead to total war. One in which nuclear
bombs would rain down on Iran leaving its cities, economy, and security in ruins.
The sociopath, Ayatollah Khameni is detached from reality and may be willing to take such risks.
However, there is no reason to believe that The Iranian military or civilian population will embrace
certain suicide. It is quite likely that the IRGC would decide that it is time for another revolution and
end the theocracy, rather than die following the dubious commands of a deranged Ayatollah.
Kristol, you're drunk. Turn off the computer and go to bed, you shmuck.
That was the goal.
Remember the Zios in Rumsfeld's pentagon stressing how the US must dump 'old Europe"?
Even a non genius like me could figure that out .old Europe might be too much of a 'restraining ' influence
on the US.
The Jews hate Europe anyway ..just like they hate Russia.
Some interesting things popped up this week .Vindman , main testifier against Trump on Ukraine is a
Ukraine Jew, Solderman,Trump's main man on Ukraine is a Jew, also has now testified against Trump, their
attorney is also a Jew ..they all have issued statements about how the plucky "little Ukraine is fighting
against Russia for the US and world" and needs our aid and so on. Exactly the same wording and bullshit spin
the Jews use about Israel "fighting Iran to protect the US and world interest".
Plain to me the Uber Jews are trying to set up the Ukraine as a Israel satellite and weight on Russia's
flank.
I read Vindman's testimony to congress ..something is very off about the guy. he sounded numerous times
like he lost his script. He's, in his own words, a fanatical supporter of Ukraine . I don't like Trump but I
think the Ukraine deal to impeach him is a set up ..and its not coming mainly from the CIA ,its coming from
the Nat Sec Council that Vindman works for.
It is terrifying to think that in the event Israel be run by psychopaths, they might sacrifice another "6
million", while securing themselves a new Zion.
On the other hand, a peaceful transfer of the occupation of Palestine to Patagonia (and elsewhere),
without the trigger of war, would be a possible path to peace in the Middle East (not so ideal for Patagonia
though).
What would it take for either outcome to pass? I fear the former is far more likely than the latter.
I don't like Trump but I think the Ukraine deal to impeach him is a set up ..and its not coming mainly
from the CIA ,its coming from the Nat Sec Council .
A controversial whistleblower who allegedly reported second-hand on President
Donald Trump's
private conversation with the Ukrainian President
Volodymyr
Zelensky visited the Obama White House on numerous occasions, according to Obama era visitor logs obtained by Judicial Watch.
Last week
Real Clear Investigation's first reported the whistleblower's name. It is allegedly CIA officer Eric Ciaramella. His name, however,
has been floating around Washington D.C. since the leak of Trump's phone call. It was considered an 'open secret' until reporter
Paul Sperry published his article. Ciaramella has never openly stated that he is the whistleblower and most news outlets are not
reporting his name publicly.
He was detailed to the National Security Counsel during the Obama Administration in 2015 and was allegedly sent back to the CIA
in 2017, after a number of people within the Trump White House suspected him of leaking information to the press, according to several
sources that spoke with SaraACarter.com .
Further, the detailed visitor logs reveal that a Ukrainian expert
Alexandra Chalupa , a contractor that was hired by the Democratic National Committee during the 2016 election, visited the White
House 27 times.
Chalupa allegedly coordinated with the Ukrainians to investigate then candidate Trump and his former campaign manager Paul Manafort.
Manafort was forced out of his short tenure as campaign manager for Trump when stories circulated regarding business dealings with
Ukrainian officials. Manafort was later investigated and convicted by a jury on much lesser charges then originally set forth by
Robert Mueller's Special Counsel investigation. He was given 47 months in prison for basically failing to pay appropriate taxes and
committing bank fraud.
Both Ciaramella and Chalupa are of interest to Republican's investigating the what some conservatives have described as the second
Trump 'witch-hunt.' And many have called for the whistleblower to testify to Congress.
They are absolutely correct and within the law. There is so much information and evidence that reveals that this was no ordinary
whistleblower complaint but one that may have been based on highly partisan actions targeting Trump.
Here's just one example : Ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee Devin Nunes said its impossible to have a fair impeachment
inquiry without the testimony of the alleged whistleblower because he is a 'fact foundational witness' who had met with Intelligence
Committee Chairman
Adam
Schiff, D-CA, previously. Schiff had originally denied that he had any contact with his committee and then had to walk back his
statements when it was revealed that the whistleblower had met with the Democrats prior to filing his complaint to the Intelligence
Inspector General about the President.
Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton, said the visitor logs reveal that there is much lawmakers or the American public don't know
about what happened during the 2016 presidential elections and moreover it raises very significant questions about the apparent partisan
nature of the whistleblower.
"Judicial Watch's analysis of Obama White House visitor logs raises additional questions about the Obama administration, Ukraine
and the related impeachment scheme targeting President Trump," said Fitton, in a press release Friday.
"Both Mr. Ciaramella and Ms. Chalupa should be questioned about the meetings documented in these visitor logs."
Read Below From Judicial Watch
The White House visitor logs revealed the following individuals met with Eric Ciaramella while he was detailed to the Obama White
House:
Daria Kaleniuk: Co-founder and executive director of the Soros-funded Anticorruption Action Center (AntAC) in Ukraine. She
visited on December 9, 2015
The Hill
reported that in April 2016, during the U.S. presidential race, the U.S. Embassy under Obama in Kiev, "took the rare step of
trying to press the Ukrainian government to back off its investigation of both the U.S. aid and (AntAC)."
Gina Lentine: Now a senior program officer at Freedom House, she was formerly the Eurasia program coordinator at Soros funded
Open Society Foundations. She visited on March 16, 2016.
Rachel Goldbrenner: Now an NYU law professor, she was at that time an advisor to then-Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha
Power. She visited on both January 15, 2016 and August 8, 2016.
Orly Keiner: A foreign affairs officer at the State Department who is a Russia specialist. She is also the wife of State Department
Legal Advisor James P. Bair. She visited on both March 4, 2016 and June 20, 2015.
Nazar Kholodnitzky: The lead anti-corruption prosecutor in Ukraine. He visited on January 19, 2016.
On March 7, 2019, The Associated Press reported
that the then-U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch called for him to be fired.
Michael Kimmage: Professor of History at Catholic University of America, at the time was with the State Department's policy
planning staff where specialized in Russia and Ukraine issues. He is a fellow at the German Marshall Fund. He was also one of
the signatories to the Transatlantic Democracy Working Group Statement of Principles. He visited on October 26, 2015.
James Melville: Then-recently confirmed as Obama's Ambassador to Estonia, visited on September 9, 2015.
On June 29, 2018, Foreign Policy
reported that Melville resigned in protest of Trump.
Victoria Nuland: who at the time was assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian Affairs met with Ciaramella on
June 17, 2016.
(Judicial Watch has previously uncovered
documents revealing Nuland had an extensive involvement with Clinton-funded
dossier . Judicial Watch also released
documents revealing that Nuland was involved in the Obama State Department's "urgent" gathering of classified Russia investigation
information and disseminating it to members of Congress within hours of Trump taking office.)
Artem Sytnyk: the Ukrainian Anti-Corruption Bureau director visited on January 19, 2016.
On October 7, 2019, the Daily Wire
reported leaked tapes show Sytnyk confirming that the Ukrainians helped the Clinton campaign.
The White House visitor logs revealed the following individuals met with Alexandra Chalupa, then a DNC contractor:
Charles Kupchan: From 2014 to 2017, Kupchan served as special assistant to the president and senior director for European
affairs on the staff of the National Security Council (NSC) in the Barack Obama administration. That meeting was on November 9,
2015.
Alexandra Sopko: who at the time was a special assistant and policy advisor to the director of the Office of Intergovernmental
Affairs, which was run by Valerie Jarrett. Also listed for that meeting is Alexa Kissinger, a special assistant to Jarrett. That
meeting was on June 2, 2015.
Asher Mayerson: who at the time was a policy advisor to the Office of Public Engagement under Jarrett had five visits with
Chalupa including December 18, 2015, January 11, 2016, February 22, 2016, May 13, 2016, and June 14, 2016.
Mayerson was previously an intern at the Center for American Progress. After leaving the Obama administration, he went to work
for the City of Chicago Treasurer's office.
Mayerson met with Chalupa and Amanda Stone, who was the White House deputy director of technology, on January 11, 2016.
On May 4, 2016, Chalupa emailed DNC official Luis
Miranda to inform him that she had spoken to investigative journalists about Paul Manafort in Ukraine.
Wilberweld says: November 7, 2019
at 2:11 pm GMT 100 Words Trump's problem was described in simple terms by John Connelly
when talking with Henry Kissinger. "Henry", he said, "In Washington you are judged by the men
you've destroyed". Trump has not destroyed anyone, not Comey, not Brennan, not Klapper. So he
is viewed as weak, an easy target. So they just keep piling on. Attacking Trump is viewed as a
"penalty-free activity
If AMLO were to invite the Americans into Mexico, he would be lynched. Few Americans are
aware of how much the United States is hated in Latin America, and for that matter in most of
the world. They don't know of the long series of military interventions, brutal dictators
imposed and supported, and economic rapine. Somoza, Pinochet, the Mexican-American War,
detachment of Panama from Colombia, bombardment of Veracruz, Patton's incursion–the list
could go on for pages. The Mexican public would look upon American troops not as saviors but as
invaders. Which they would be.
The incursion would not defeat the cartels, for several reasons that trump would do well to
ponder. To begin with, America starts its wars by overestimating its own powers,
underestimating the enemy, and misunderstanding the kind of war on which it is embarking. The
is exactly what Trump seems to be doing.
He probably thinks of Mexicans as just gardeners and rapists and we have all these beautiful
advanced weapons and beautiful drones and things with blinking lights. A pack of rapists armed
with garden trowels couldn't possibly be difficult to defeat by the US. I mean, get serious:
Dope dealers against the Marines? A cakewalk.
You know, like Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria. That sort of cakewalk.
Let's think what an expedition against the narcos would entail, what it would face.
To begin with, Mexico is a huge country of 127 million souls with the narcos spread unevenly
across it. You can't police a nation that size with a small force, or even with a large force.
A (preposterous) million soldiers would be well under one percent of the population. Success
would be impossible even if that population helped you. Which it wouldn't.
Other problems exist. Many, many of them.
Let's consider terrain. Terrain is what militaries fight in. Start with the Sierra Madre,
which I suspect Trump doesn't know from Madre Teresa. This is the brutally inhospitable
mountain range in the northwest of Mexico, from which a great many of the narcos come.(Sinaloa
is next door.) Forestation is dense, slopes steep, communication only by narrow trails that the
natives know as well as you know how to find your bathroom. Nobody else knows them. American
infantry would be helpless here. The Narcos would be found only when they chose to be found,
which would not be at opportune moments.
The Sierra Madre Occidental, home of many of the drug traffickers. I have walked in these
mountains, or tried to. It is impossible for infantry, worse for armor, and airplanes can't see
through the trees.
The Tarahumara Indians live in the Sierra Madre. They frequent the trails, sometimes in
groups, and carry things not identifiable from the air. In frustration American forces would do
what they always do: start bombing, or launching Hellfires from drones, at what they think are,
or think may be, or hope might be, narcos. Frequently they would kill innocents having nothing
to do with drugs. This wouldn't bother the military, certainly not remote drone operators in
Colorado or somewhere. They get paid anyway. The Indians who just had their families turned
into science projects couldn't do anything about it.
Well, nothing but join the narcos, who might call this a "force multiplier."
Some other northern Mexican terrain. The Duarte Bridge between Sinaloa and Durango. A
company commander, looking at it, would would have PTSD in advance, just to get a start on
things.
Of the rest of Mexico, much consists of jungle, presenting the same problems as the Sierra
Madre, and of cities and villages. Here we encounter the problem that has proved disastrous for
US forces in war after war: there is no way to tell who is a narco and who isn't.
In cities and towns, narcos are indistinguishable from the general population.
How–precisely how, I want to know–would American troops, kitted out in body armor
and goggles and looking like idiots, fight the narcos in villages with which they were
unfamiliar? The narcos, well armed, would pick off GIs from windows, whereupon the Americans
would respond by firing at random, calling in air strikes, and otherwise killing locals. These
would now hate Americans. The narcos know this. They would use it.
Culiacan, Sinaloa, Chapo's home city. It has a high concentration of narcos. Suppose that
you are an infantry officer, sent to "fight the cartels." You have, say, twenty troops with
you, all with hi-tech equipment and things dangling. How do you propose to fight the cartels
here? Which of the people in the photo, if any, are narcos? You could ask them. That would
work.
Don't expect help from the locals. Most would much rather see you killed than the narcos.
And if they collaborated they and their families would be killed. This would discourage them.
Bright ideas?
Now a point that Schwarzehairdye in the White House has likely not grasped. The narcos are
Mexicans. So is the population. You know, brown, speak Spanish, that kind of thing. The
invaders would not be Mexicans. This matters. Villagers usually do not hate the narcos. These
provide jobs, buy their marijuana crops, often do Robin Hood things to help the locals. Pablo
Escobar did this, Al Capone, Chapo Guzman. There is a whole genre of popular music,
narcocorridos, celebrating the doings of the drug trade. (Corridos Prohibidos ,
by LosTigres del Norte, for example). Amazon has the CD.
Which means that they would side with the narcos instead of the already-hated soldiers,
putos gringos cabrones, que se chinguen sus putas madres.
Further, much of Mexico doesn't much like its government.
And of course the narcos will have the option of fading into the population and waiting for
the gringos to go home. This means that the invasion would become an occupation. The
invading forces would thus need bases, which would become permanent. Bases where? All over the
country, which is where the narcos are?
Getting the American military into one's country is much easier than getting it out. The
world knows this. Mexicans assuredly do. They know that America has wrecked country after
country in the Mideast, always to do something good about democracy and human rights. They know
that America is squeezing Venezuela to get control of its oil, squeezing Iran for the same
reason, attacked Iraq for the same reason, has troops in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait for the same
reason, and has just confiscated Syria's oil . Mexico has oil. So when Trump wants to send the
military to "help" fight drugs, what do you suppose the Mexicans suspect?
Another point: Roughly a million American expats live happily in Mexico. These would be
hostages, and they–we–are soft targets. The drones kill five narcos, and the narcos
kill five expats. Or ten, or fifty. What does Washington do now?
Finally, consider what happens when you bomb a country, make life dangerous, kill its
children, destroy the economy and impoverish its people? Answer: They go somewhere else. With
Mexico being made unlivable, Mexicans would have two choices of somewhere else, Guatemala and
.See whether you can fill in the blank. Maybe four or five million of them.
Nuff said. May God protect Mexico from Yanquis who would do it good, from advisers, and then
adviser creep, and then occupation, and then from badly led militaries who have no idea where
they are.
Kirk ludicrously believes that, the Israeli attempt to sink the USS Liberty, is a conspiracy
theory. He's a privileged brat, and he needs a spanking. Now all we have to do is find his
his father. But to give him any sort of acknowledgement is plain stupid. No offense intended.
Clinton Democrats, Inc is the parasitic network of nonprofits, think tanks, media outlets,
phony activist organizations, and outright scam operations masquerading as a movement
If you think this is some kind of 'gotcha' question you don't know the good folks at Unz.
Speaking only for myself, I don't want non-Europeans here in any significant numbers, 100
years ago we got all the diversity we could eat from Europe alone, diversity that could and
did assimilate, unlike today when assimilation is actually fought against.
Whites were the first to build habitable buildings more than four storeys high, the first to
construct bridges to carry the weight of steam trains, which we also invented, and the safe and
secure mines that produced the coal that smelted the metal that formed the engines that powered
the trains with the coal we mined.
We are -- in a word -- astonishing. In invention and innovation we are elves and everyone
else are orcs, and the orcs despise us for it all whilst coveting the things we have
created.
Technology is our culture, and art and music and beautiful soaring cathedrals, penicillin
and botany, flushing toilets and refrigeration and general anesthesia and Shakespeare.
Congratulations to James Kirkpatrick for an excellent article.
Such nonsense is irrelevant to the lived experience of young (and mostly white) campus
conservatives, who are confronted with radical anti-white politics, corporate censorship,
and the ruinous cost of family formation.
Yes, Patriotism, the Nationalist desire to rescue America, and Restore our Democratic
Republic, rests in the hearts of all true Citizens. The so-called 'Right & Left' politics
is making way for a politics defined by Patriotism, Nationalism, Economic control &
policies that benefit all our citizens, not just the rich.
The truth of this observation lies in Kirkpatricks fine essay, complete with
numerous visual supports.
Congrats to Prison Planet for not completely burying the story (as the rest of the
Mainstream Media has done).
Why are they (the Zionist owned & controlled Mainstream media), not asking -the
whereabouts of Ms. Maxwell? Is she with Epstein? In the Entity, Monte Carlo, Switzerland, the
Baleares, Caribbean, on one of the Rothschild's Estates?
Upcoming announcement: Hollywood's Oligarch owners & controllers are producing
a Film about the lives of Epstein/Maxwell. The Film will not mention MOSSAD, but might
misdirect by including reference to "bad elements within the CIA." Film will also have a
brief flash of Casino Trump with Epstein, but no mention of Bill Clinton (in a blue dress),
or former Entity Prime minister, Ehud Barak. Instead of Ethnic Cleansing the Palestinian
People, Hollywood's Traitor Moguls will continue their Brain Cleansing/Washing of the
American People.
Title of the Film will be: The Chosen Ones – Their Private Encounters with little
Girls, Boys, and Owned Americans.
Dave Reilly, who asked Charlie Kirk "how does anal sex help us win the culture war" at a
TPUSA event, joins Henrik and Lana for a segment during Flashback Friday November 1, 2019. We
discuss the rift inside the conservative movement. Is is going to be America First or Israel
First? Additionally, how are values not traditionally associated with conservative activists
going to help win over more people to their cause.
Mainstream Conservatives have no answer to moral questions on sodomy, fornication,
adultery, et cetera, as it pertains to the culture war, and this opens up opportunities for
interlopers. Dave will not have much competition on that topic. I admire the bravery.
Thanks for the post, good interview. Dave Reilly seems like decent fellow, but his "out of
the closet" Roman Catholic material will only work on religious cable shows. It's hard to
take, talking freedom with a back drop of massacres, indulgences, crusades, inquisitions, and
a millennium of Pedophile cover ups.
Gays try to contribute their lifestyle to everyone else. They can contribute but don't
push something I don't agree with on me. I am 100% for equality for everyone
@DanFromCT Well then, thank god for Tucker Carlson for going against the grain. He is
against all the Middle East wars, and wants to bring the troops home and put them on our
Southern Border. His is the only show that I watch anymore, and he pushes back from Fox's
Israel-first orthodoxy as much as he can and still keep his job, which he wouldn't have if
not for his high ratings. Tucker destroyed ultra hawk neocon John Bolton shortly before Trump
stupidly appointed him as his NSA.
BTW, Hannity is a war pig, who happens to be right on one issue – supporting Trump
against the democrat coup. And Buck is also right, Epstein did not kill himself.
@Patricus You are a victim of finance capitalism propaganda. Communism is Marxism, not
socialism. Socialists do not outright reject private ownership, the goal was co-ops to
displace finance capital. Co-ops are corporations where every member has only one share. The
majority decides, not one shareholder with 50.1% of the shares. The state is not the worker.
Real socialists are opposed to private central banks. I haven't heard any of the allegedly
"far left" Democratic Presidential candidates suggest nationalizing the Fed. Ron Paul was
more of a socialist than they are on that one.
Also part of the brainwashing is the absolute failure of the vast majority of Americans,
who fail to understand that immigration is the reserve army of capital, used to attack the
people of the nation. It lowers wages and working conditions; produces more pollution;
increases living costs; lowers standards of living; and most importantly, increases
profits
Any real nationalism, out of necessity, will have socialist aspects, because doing what is
right for the nation, in the truest sense of the word, means that the best solution can come
from anywhere on the political spectrum. Governments "own" armies. Is that communism, or
should it be a government asset that should be privatized just as the US government
privatized the control of its currency.
As long as people dwell in the land of "left" and "right" the owners will continue to
divide. One solution would be to ban political parties and require all candidates running for
office to be funded equally, out of the public purse. That would make candidates have to face
their electorate more directly, and make them more responsive to the electorate, rather than
the party. In Congress, the political parties would not get to choose committee chairs,
individuals would have to earn the respect of their peers for that.
@follyofwar Tucker Carlson is the only news show I can watch, too. The rest is pretty
obviously intended to neutralize the rise of native leadership with the relentless
insinuation that all we can do is whine like Lou Dobbs and his guests, vote Republican, and
show what we're made of by blowing hot air out our asses like Hannity with his mawkish
imbecilities about America still being great because he gets great deals at Costco. Sean wuvs
America and the gal who follows him turns to American-hating Alan Dershowitz to update us
about the espionage of his long-term client Jeffrey Epstein. Check.
Just yesterday the kosher msm was mendaciously portraying our Army's combat vets as baby
killers, while today no one says a word when Fox' toadeaters tout that "muh brothers, muh
mission" fake and phony honor among "warriors" -- now all heroes of course, just for putting
on the uniform for Eretz Israel and the Yinon Plan. More importantly, Fox News' elaborate
efforts concealing Israel's culpability for 9/11 constitutes, as a matter of law, powerful
circumstantial evidence of their guilt in the greatest act of treason against this country in
its history.
Fox News' basecamp commando and armchair warrior types were outed by Homer's Achilles in
the ninth century BC, in the Iliad. As Pope's translation has it,
O monster! Mixed of insolence and fear,
Thou dog in forehead, but in heart a deer!
When wert thou known in ambush'd fights to dare,
Or nobly face the horrid front of war?
'Tis ours, the chance of fighting fields to try;
Thine to look on, and bid the valiant die.
How dare Fox News demand we honor the soldiers who foolishly believed Fox News that they
were fighting for their country. They still go in droves to their possible deaths, mistaking
the costumed bureaucrats in the Pentagon who serve Israel first in all things for warrior
patriots like themselves. I do not believe a military whose leadership's chief trait is
servility toward a foreign nation and betrayal of its own can survive no matter how much
money is counterfeited by the Treasury out of thin air to pay its bills.
I started out thinking this article might actually be helpful. The only real issue is that it
doesn't make any clear distinctions between what the author references as "conservative inc."
and conservatism. And the reference material doesn't do much to clarify the matter. I am not
obtuse the difficulties of identifying or defining what a conservative is at present. given
the massacre of its principles in practice as well as abandoning the same for political
purposes.
But if in fact, you want to recognize that there is a damaging vent of so conservatives
that is actually anything but or damaging so deep it needs confronting then you have to
tackle the difficult but instrumental aspect of defining in some manner what is meant by
conservatism verses "conservative inc."
From a communicative perspective using the term conservative inc. is problematic because
it suggests strongly that "conservatism" as an ethos is under false -- by definition –
use of the word anchored by "incorporation".
I am unclear how inc. makes it distinct.
Clearly what the article refers to are "beltway" political or left and far left
conservatives, even it's possible to be far or left and still be a conservative. Those labels
would make matters more clear, even if one did not define them the distinctions they would
provide some manner recognizable distinction -- broadly speaking conservative relativity or
relative conservatives. Those who use conservative merely as a tool for political, social or
economic advantage.
And there are several issues that are outstanding to conservative ethos and practice
1. a divine authority
2. integrity of objective realities
3. the purpose of order and prudence not as an end but to the means best for all concerned
to just society -- fair playing fields.
4. a respect and support for the mechanisms (institutions) that enable justice and
fairness
5. limited government – not merely understood as "small" but least intrusive in the
lives of citizens
6. change and improvement are part of any social order -- however, the means chosen is
predicated on effectively doing so minus the damaging effects of abrupt and disorderly
attend.
7. understands the pillars of successful societies and supports them: family, local
community, regional, state and national mechanisms – each with attendant
responsibilities . . .
The frame work for US citizens is embodied in the historical documents of the Declaration
of Independence and the Constitution of the US neither of which are universal documents but
unique as written and intended to the formulation of the US of America and her alone.
it took Eastern Europe a decade (1990-2000) to undo 45 years of communism, and regain
functional normality by local terms.
And it will only take slightly longer for neoliberalism, open borders ideology and
globo-decadence to utterly destroy Eastern Europe. At which time they'll be wishing they
still had the communists in power.
"... The Democratic establishment is deeply and widely imbued with rancid Russophobic attitudes. Most telling was (and remains) a core "Russiagate" allegation that "Russia attacked American democracy during the 2016 presidential election" on Trump's behalf -- an "attack" so nefarious it has often been equated with Pearl Harbor. ..."
"... We have also learned that the heads of America's intelligence agencies under President Obama, especially John Brennan of the CIA and James Clapper, director of National Intelligence, felt themselves entitled to try to undermine an American presidential candidacy and subsequent presidency, that of Donald Trump. ..."
"... We also learned that, contrary to Democratic dogma, the mainstream "free press" cannot be fully trusted to readily expose such abuses of power. ..."
"... Opponents of Barr's investigation into the origins of Russiagate say it is impermissible or unprecedented to "investigate the investigators." But the bipartisan Church Committee, based in the US Senate, did so in the mid-1970s. It exposed many abuses by US intelligence agencies, particularly by the CIA, and adopted remedies that it believed would be permanent. Clearly, they have not been. ..."
"... However well-intentioned Barr may be, he is Trump's attorney general and therefore not fully credible. As I have also argued repeatedly, a new Church Committee is urgently needed. It's time for honorable members of the Senate of both parties to do their duty. ..."
Almost daily for three years, Democrats and their media have told us very bad things about
Donald Trump's life, character, and presidency. Some of them are true. But in the process, we
have also learned some lamentable, even alarming, things about the Democratic Party
establishment, including self-professed liberals. Consider the following:
The Democratic establishment is deeply and widely imbued with rancid Russophobic
attitudes. Most telling was (and remains) a core "Russiagate" allegation that "Russia
attacked American democracy during the 2016 presidential election" on Trump's behalf -- an
"attack" so nefarious it has often been equated with Pearl Harbor. But there was no
"attack" in 2016, only, as I have
previously explained , ritualistic "meddling" of the kind that both Russia and America
have undertaken in the other's elections for decades. Little can be more phobic than the
allegation or belief that one has been "attacked by a hostile" entity. And yet this myth and
its false narrative persist in the Democratic Party's discourse, campaigning, and
fund-raising. We have also learned that the heads of America's intelligence agencies
under President Obama, especially John Brennan of the CIA and James Clapper, director of
National Intelligence, felt themselves entitled to try to undermine an American presidential
candidacy and subsequent presidency, that of Donald Trump. Early on, I termed this
operation " Intelgate ," and it has
since been well documented by other writers, including
Lee Smith in his new book . Intel officials did so in tacit alliance with certain
leading, and equally Russophobic, members of the Democratic Party, which had once opposed
such transgressions. This may be the most alarming revelation of the Trump years: Trump will
leave power, but these self-aggrandizing intelligence agencies will remain. We also
learned that, contrary to Democratic dogma, the mainstream "free press" cannot be fully
trusted to readily expose such abuses of power. Indeed, what the mainstream media --
leading national newspapers and two cable news networks, in particular -- chose to cover and
report, and chose not to cover and report, made the abuses and consequences of Russiagate
allegations possible. Even now, exceedingly influential publications such as The New York
Times seem
eager to delegitimize the investigation by Attorney General William Barr and
his appointed special investigator John Durham into the origins of Russiagate. Barr's
critics accuse him of fabricating a "conspiracy theory" on behalf of Trump. But the real, or
grandest, conspiracy theory was the Russiagate allegation of "collusion" between Trump and
the Kremlin, an accusation that was -- or should have been -- discredited by the Robert
Mueller report. And we have learned, or should have learned, that for all the talk by
Democrats about Trump as a danger to US national security, it is their Russiagate allegations
that truly endanger it. Consider two examples. Russia's new "hyper-sonic" missiles, which can
elude US missile-defense systems, make new nuclear arms negotiations with Moscow imperative
and urgent. If only for the sake of his legacy, Trump is likely to want to do so. But even if
he is able to, will Trump be entrusted enough to conduct negotiations as successfully as did
his predecessors in the White House, given the "Putin puppet" and "Kremlin stooge"
accusations still being directed at him? Similarly, as I have asked repeatedly, if confronted
with a US-Russian Cuban missile–like crisis -- anywhere Washington and Moscow are
currently eyeball-to-eyeball militarily, from the Baltic region and Ukraine to Syria -- will
Trump be as free politically as was President John F. Kennedy to resolve it without war? Here
too there is an inconvenient truth: To the extent that Democrats any longer seriously discuss
national security in the context of US-Russian relations, it mostly involves vilifying both
Trump and Russian leader Vladimir Putin. (Recall also that previous presidents were free to
negotiate with Russia's Soviet communist leaders, even encouraged to do so, whereas the
demonized Putin is an anti-communist, post-Soviet leader.)
The current state of US-Russian relations is unprecedentedly dangerous, not only due to
reasons cited here -- a new Cold War fraught with the possibility of hot war. Whether President
Trump serves one or two terms, he must be fully empowered to cope with the multiple
possibilities of a US-Russian military confrontation. That requires ridding him and our nation
of Russiagate allegations -- and that in turn requires learning how such allegations
originated.
Opponents of Barr's investigation into the origins of Russiagate say it is impermissible
or unprecedented to "investigate the investigators." But the bipartisan Church Committee, based
in the US Senate, did so in the mid-1970s. It exposed many abuses by US intelligence agencies,
particularly by the CIA, and adopted remedies that it believed would be permanent. Clearly,
they have not been.
However well-intentioned Barr may be, he is Trump's attorney general and therefore not
fully credible. As I have also argued repeatedly, a new Church Committee is urgently needed.
It's time for honorable members of the Senate of both parties to do their duty.
"... The Clinton camp was hardly absent from social media during the 2016 race. The barely-legal activities of Clintonite David Brock were previously reported by this author to have included $2 million in funding for the creation of an online " troll army " under the name Shareblue. The LA Times described the project as meant to "to appear to be coming organically from people and their social media networks in a groundswell of activism, when in fact it is highly paid and highly tactical." In other words, the effort attempted to create a false sense of consensus in support for the Clinton campaign. ..."
"... In terms of interference in the actual election process, the New York City Board of Elections was shown to have purged over one hundred thousand Democratic voters in Brooklyn from the rolls before the 2016 primary, a move that the Department of Justice found broke federal law . Despite this, no prosecution for the breach was ever attempted. ..."
"... In 2017, the Observer reported that the DNC's defense counsel argued against claims that the party defrauded Sanders' supporters by favoring Clinton, reasoning that Sanders' supporters knew the process was rigged. Again: instead of arguing that the primary was neutral and unbiased in accordance with its charter, the DNC's lawyers argued that it was the party's right to select candidates. ..."
"... The DNC defense counsel's argument throughout the course of the DNC fraud lawsuit doubled down repeatedly in defense of the party's right to favor one candidate over another, at one point actually claiming that such favoritism was protected by the First Amendment . ..."
"... The DNC's shameless defense of its own rigging disemboweled the most fundamental organs of the U.S. body politic. This no indication that the DNC will not resort to the same tactics in the 2020 primary race, ..."
"... f Debbie Wasserman Schultz's role as disgraced chairwoman of the DNC and her forced 2016 resignation wasn't enough, serious interference was also alleged in the wake of two contests between Wasserman Schultz and professor Tim Canova in Florida's 23rd congressional district. Canova and Wasserman Schultz first faced off in a 2016 Democratic primary race, followed by a 2018 general congressional election in which Canova ran as an independent. ..."
"... Debacles followed both contests, including improper vote counts, illegal ballot destruction , improper transportation of ballots, and generally shameless displays of cronyism. After the controversial results of the initial primary race against Wasserman Schultz, Canova sought to have ballots checked for irregularities, as the Sun-Sentinel reported at the time: ..."
"... Ultimately, Canova was granted a summary judgment against Snipes, finding that she had committed what amounted to multiple felonies. Nonetheless, Snipes was not prosecuted and remained elections supervisor through to the 2018 midterms. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton's recent comments to the effect that Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard is being "groomed" by Russia, and that the former Green Party Presidential candidate Dr. Jill Stein is a "Russian asset", were soon echoed by DNC-friendly pundits. These sentiments externalize what Gabbard called the "rot" in the Democratic party outward onto domestic critics and a nation across the planet. ..."
"... Newsweek provided a particularly glaring example of this phenomenon in a recent op-ed penned by columnist Naveed Jamali, a former FBI double agent whose book capitalizes on Russiagate. In an op-ed titled: " Hillary Clinton Is Right. Tulsi Gabbard Is A Perfect Russian Asset – And Would Be A Perfect Republican Agent," ..."
Establishment Democrats and those who amplify them continue to project
blame for the public's doubt in the U.S. election process onto outside influence, despite the clear history of the party's subversion
of election integrity. The total inability of the Democratic Party establishment's willingness to address even one of these critical
failures does not give reason to hope that the nomination process in 2020 will be any less pre-ordained.
The Democratic Party's bias against Sen. Bernie Sanders during the 2016 presidential nomination, followed by the DNC defense counsel
doubling down on its right to rig the race during the
fraud lawsuit brought
against the DNC , as well as the irregularities in the races between former DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Tim Canova,
indicate a fatal breakdown of the U.S. democratic process spearheaded by the Democratic Party establishment. Influences transcending
the DNC add to concerns regarding the integrity of the democratic process that have nothing to do with Russia, but which will also
likely impact outcomes in 2020.
The content of the DNC and
Podesta emails published by WikiLeaks demonstrated that the DNC
acted in favor of Hillary Clinton in the lead up to the 2016 Democratic primary. The emails also revealed corporate media reporters
acting as surrogates of the DNC and its pro-Clinton agenda, going so far as
to promote Donald Trump during the GOP primary process as a preferred " pied-piper
candidate ." One cannot assume that similar evidence will be presented to the public in 2020, making it more important than ever
to take stock of the unique lessons handed down to us by the 2016 race.
Social Media Meddling
Election meddling via social media did take place in 2016, though in a different guise and for a different cause from that which
are best remembered. Twitter would eventually admit to actively suppressing
hashtags referencing the DNC and Podesta emails in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election. Additional
reports indicated that tech giant Google also showed measurable "pro-Hillary
Clinton bias" in search results during 2016, resulting in the alleged swaying of between 2 and 10 millions voters in favor of Clinton.
On the Republican side, a recent episode of CNLive! featured discussion
of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, in which undecided voters were micro-targeted with tailored advertising narrowed with the combined
use of big data and artificial intelligence known collectively as "dark strategy." CNLive! Executive Producer Cathy Vogan noted that
SCL, Cambridge Analytica's parent company, provides data, analytics and strategy to governments and military organizations "worldwide,"
specializing in behavior modification. Though Cambridge Analytica shut down in 2018, related companies remain.
The Clinton camp was hardly absent from social media during the 2016 race. The
barely-legal activities of Clintonite David Brock
were previously reported by this author to have included $2 million in funding
for the creation of an online " troll army " under the name Shareblue. The
LA Times described the project as meant to "to appear
to be coming organically from people and their social media networks in a groundswell of activism, when in fact it is highly paid
and highly tactical." In other words, the effort attempted to create a false sense of consensus in support for the Clinton campaign.
In terms of interference in the actual election process, the New York City Board of Elections was shown to have
purged over one hundred thousand Democratic voters in Brooklyn from the rolls
before the 2016 primary, a move that the Department of Justice found
broke federal law . Despite this, no prosecution
for the breach was ever attempted.
Though the purge was not explicitly found to have benefitted Clinton, the admission falls in line with allegations across the
country that the Democratic primary was interfered with to the benefit of the former secretary of state. These claims were further
bolstered by reports indicating that voting results from the 2016 Democratic
primary showed evidence of fraud.
DNC Fraud Lawsuit
The proceedings of the DNC fraud lawsuit provide the most damning evidence of the failure of the U.S. election process, especially
within the Democratic Party. DNC defense lawyers argued in open court for the party's
right to appoint candidates at its own discretion, while simultaneously denying
any "fiduciary duty" to represent the voters who donated to the Democratic Party under the impression that the DNC would act impartially
towards the candidates involved.
In 2017, the Observer reported that the DNC's defense counsel argued
against claims that the party defrauded Sanders' supporters by favoring Clinton, reasoning that Sanders' supporters knew the process
was rigged. Again: instead of arguing that the primary was neutral and unbiased in accordance with its charter, the DNC's lawyers
argued that it was the party's right to select candidates.
The Observer noted the sentiments of Jared Beck, the attorney representing the plaintiffs of the lawsuit:
"People paid money in reliance on the understanding that the primary elections for the Democratic nominee -- nominating process
in 2016 were fair and impartial, and that's not just a bedrock assumption that we would assume just by virtue of the fact that
we live in a democracy, and we assume that our elections are run in a fair and impartial manner. But that's what the Democratic
National Committee's own charter says. It says it in black and white."
The DNC defense counsel's argument throughout the course of the DNC fraud lawsuit doubled down repeatedly in defense of the party's
right to favor one candidate over another, at one point actually claiming that such favoritism was
protected by the First Amendment . The DNC's lawyers wrote:
"To recognize any of the causes of action that Plaintiffs allege would run directly contrary to long-standing Supreme Court
precedent recognizing the central and critical First Amendment rights enjoyed by political parties, especially when it comes to
selecting the party's nominee for public office ." [Emphasis added]
The DNC's shameless defense of its own rigging disemboweled the most fundamental organs of the U.S. body politic. This no indication
that the DNC will not resort to the same tactics in the 2020 primary race,
Tim Canova's Allegations
If Debbie Wasserman Schultz's role as disgraced chairwoman of the DNC and her forced 2016 resignation wasn't enough, serious interference
was also alleged in the wake of two contests between Wasserman Schultz and professor Tim Canova in Florida's 23rd congressional district.
Canova and Wasserman Schultz first faced off in a 2016 Democratic primary race, followed by a 2018 general congressional election
in which Canova ran as an independent.
Debacles followed both contests, including improper vote counts, illegal
ballot destruction , improper
transportation of ballots, and generally
shameless displays of cronyism. After the controversial
results of the initial primary race against Wasserman Schultz, Canova sought to have ballots checked for irregularities, as the
Sun-Sentinel reported at the time:
"[Canova] sought to look at the paper ballots in March 2017 and took Elections Supervisor Brenda Snipes to court three months
later when her office hadn't fulfilled his request. Snipes approved the destruction of the ballots in September, signing a certification
that said no court cases involving the ballots were pending."
Ultimately, Canova was granted a summary judgment against Snipes, finding that she had committed what amounted to multiple felonies.
Nonetheless, Snipes was not prosecuted and remained elections supervisor through to the 2018 midterms.
Republicans appear no more motivated to protect voting integrity than the Democrats, with
The Nation reporting that the GOP-controlled Senate
blocked a bill this week that would have "mandated paper-ballot backups in case of election machine malfunctions."
Study of Corporate Power
A 2014
study published by Princeton University found that corporate power had usurped the voting rights of the public: "Economic elites
and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average
citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence."
In reviewing this sordid history, we see that the Democratic Party establishment has done everything in its power to disrespect
voters and outright overrule them in the democratic primary process, defending their right to do so in the DNC fraud lawsuit. We've
noted that interests transcending the DNC also represent escalating threats to election integrity as demonstrated in 2016.
Despite this, establishment Democrats and those who echo their views in the legacy press continue to deflect from their own wrongdoing
and real threats to the election process by suggesting that mere discussion of it represents a campaign by Russia to attempt to malign
the perception of the legitimacy of the U.S. democratic process.
Hillary Clinton's recent comments to the effect that Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard is being "groomed" by Russia, and that the former
Green Party Presidential candidate Dr. Jill Stein is a "Russian asset", were soon echoed by DNC-friendly pundits. These sentiments
externalize what Gabbard called the "rot"
in the Democratic party outward onto domestic critics and a nation across the planet.
Newsweek provided a particularly glaring example of this phenomenon in a
recent op-ed penned by columnist Naveed Jamali, a former FBI double agent whose book capitalizes on Russiagate. In an op-ed titled:
" Hillary Clinton Is Right. Tulsi Gabbard Is A Perfect Russian Asset – And Would Be A Perfect Republican Agent," Jamali
argued :
"Moscow will use its skillful propaganda machine to prop up Gabbard and use her as a tool to delegitimize the democratic process.
" [Emphasis added]
Jamali surmises that Russia intends to "attack" our democracy by undermining the domestic perception of its legitimacy. This thesis
is repeated later in the piece when Jamali opines : "They want to see a retreat
of American influence. What better way to accomplish that than to attack our democracy by casting doubt on the legitimacy of our
elections." [Emphasis added]
The only thing worth protecting, according to Jamali and those who amplify his work (including former Clinton aide and establishment
Democrat Neera Tanden), is the perception of the democratic process, not the actual functioning vitality of it. Such deflective tactics
ensure that Russia will continue to be used as a convenient international pretext for
silencing domestic dissent as we move into 2020.
Given all this, how can one expect the outcome of a 2020 Democratic Primary -- or even the general election – to be any fairer
or transparent than 2016?
* * *
Elizabeth Vos is a freelance reporter, co-host of CN Live! and regular contributor to Consortium News. If you value this
original article, please consider
making
a donation to Consortium News so we can bring you more stories like this one.
"... In 2017, the Observer reported that the DNC's defense counsel argued against claims that the party defrauded Sanders' supporters by favoring Clinton, reasoning that Sanders' supporters knew the process was rigged. Again: instead of arguing that the primary was neutral and unbiased in accordance with its charter, the DNC's lawyers argued that it was the party's right to select candidates. ..."
Establishment Democrats and those who amplify them continue to project
blame for the public's doubt in the U.S. election process onto outside influence, despite the clear history of the party's subversion
of election integrity. The total inability of the Democratic Party establishment's willingness to address even one of these critical
failures does not give reason to hope that the nomination process in 2020 will be any less pre-ordained.
The Democratic Party's bias against Sen. Bernie Sanders during the 2016 presidential nomination, followed by the DNC defense counsel
doubling down on its right to rig the race during the
fraud lawsuit brought
against the DNC , as well as the irregularities in the races between former DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Tim Canova,
indicate a fatal breakdown of the U.S. democratic process spearheaded by the Democratic Party establishment. Influences transcending
the DNC add to concerns regarding the integrity of the democratic process that have nothing to do with Russia, but which will also
likely impact outcomes in 2020.
The content of the DNC and
Podesta emails published by WikiLeaks demonstrated that the DNC
acted in favor of Hillary Clinton in the lead up to the 2016 Democratic primary. The emails also revealed corporate media reporters
acting as surrogates of the DNC and its pro-Clinton agenda, going so far as
to promote Donald Trump during the GOP primary process as a preferred " pied-piper
candidate ." One cannot assume that similar evidence will be presented to the public in 2020, making it more important than ever
to take stock of the unique lessons handed down to us by the 2016 race.
Social Media Meddling
Election meddling via social media did take place in 2016, though in a different guise and for a different cause from that which
are best remembered. Twitter would eventually admit to actively suppressing
hashtags referencing the DNC and Podesta emails in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election. Additional
reports indicated that tech giant Google also showed measurable "pro-Hillary
Clinton bias" in search results during 2016, resulting in the alleged swaying of between 2 and 10 millions voters in favor of Clinton.
On the Republican side, a recent episode of CNLive! featured discussion
of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, in which undecided voters were micro-targeted with tailored advertising narrowed with the combined
use of big data and artificial intelligence known collectively as "dark strategy." CNLive! Executive Producer Cathy Vogan noted that
SCL, Cambridge Analytica's parent company, provides data, analytics and strategy to governments and military organizations "worldwide,"
specializing in behavior modification. Though Cambridge Analytica shut down in 2018, related companies remain.
The Clinton camp was hardly absent from social media during the 2016 race. The
barely-legal activities of Clintonite David Brock
were previously reported by this author to have included $2 million in funding
for the creation of an online " troll army " under the name Shareblue. The
LA Times described the project as meant to "to appear
to be coming organically from people and their social media networks in a groundswell of activism, when in fact it is highly paid
and highly tactical." In other words, the effort attempted to create a false sense of consensus in support for the Clinton campaign.
In terms of interference in the actual election process, the New York City Board of Elections was shown to have
purged over one hundred thousand Democratic voters in Brooklyn from the rolls
before the 2016 primary, a move that the Department of Justice found
broke federal law . Despite this, no prosecution
for the breach was ever attempted.
Though the purge was not explicitly found to have benefitted Clinton, the admission falls in line with allegations across the
country that the Democratic primary was interfered with to the benefit of the former secretary of state. These claims were further
bolstered by reports indicating that voting results from the 2016 Democratic
primary showed evidence of fraud.
DNC Fraud Lawsuit
The proceedings of the DNC fraud lawsuit provide the most damning evidence of the failure of the U.S. election process, especially
within the Democratic Party. DNC defense lawyers argued in open court for the party's
right to appoint candidates at its own discretion, while simultaneously denying
any "fiduciary duty" to represent the voters who donated to the Democratic Party under the impression that the DNC would act impartially
towards the candidates involved.
In 2017, the Observer reported that the DNC's defense counsel argued
against claims that the party defrauded Sanders' supporters by favoring Clinton, reasoning that Sanders' supporters knew the process
was rigged. Again: instead of arguing that the primary was neutral and unbiased in accordance with its charter, the DNC's lawyers
argued that it was the party's right to select candidates.
The Observer noted the sentiments of Jared Beck, the attorney representing the plaintiffs of the lawsuit:
"People paid money in reliance on the understanding that the primary elections for the Democratic nominee -- nominating process
in 2016 were fair and impartial, and that's not just a bedrock assumption that we would assume just by virtue of the fact that
we live in a democracy, and we assume that our elections are run in a fair and impartial manner. But that's what the Democratic
National Committee's own charter says. It says it in black and white."
The DNC defense counsel's argument throughout the course of the DNC fraud lawsuit doubled down repeatedly in defense of the party's
right to favor one candidate over another, at one point actually claiming that such favoritism was
protected by the First Amendment . The DNC's lawyers wrote:
"To recognize any of the causes of action that Plaintiffs allege would run directly contrary to long-standing Supreme Court
precedent recognizing the central and critical First Amendment rights enjoyed by political parties, especially when it comes to
selecting the party's nominee for public office ." [Emphasis added]
The DNC's shameless defense of its own rigging disemboweled the most fundamental organs of the U.S. body politic. This no indication
that the DNC will not resort to the same tactics in the 2020 primary race,
Tim Canova's Allegations
If Debbie Wasserman Schultz's role as disgraced chairwoman of the DNC and her forced 2016 resignation wasn't enough, serious interference
was also alleged in the wake of two contests between Wasserman Schultz and professor Tim Canova in Florida's 23rd congressional district.
Canova and Wasserman Schultz first faced off in a 2016 Democratic primary race, followed by a 2018 general congressional election
in which Canova ran as an independent.
Tim Canova with supporters, April 2016. (CanovaForCongress, CC BY-SA 4.0, Wikimedia Commons)
Debacles followed both contests, including improper vote counts, illegal
ballot destruction , improper
transportation of ballots, and generally
shameless displays of cronyism. After the controversial
results of the initial primary race against Wasserman Schultz, Canova sought to have ballots checked for irregularities, as the
Sun-Sentinel reported at the time:
"[Canova] sought to look at the paper ballots in March 2017 and took Elections Supervisor Brenda Snipes to court three months
later when her office hadn't fulfilled his request. Snipes approved the destruction of the ballots in September, signing a certification
that said no court cases involving the ballots were pending."
Ultimately, Canova was granted a summary judgment against Snipes, finding that she had committed what amounted to multiple felonies.
Nonetheless, Snipes was not prosecuted and remained elections supervisor through to the 2018 midterms.
Republicans appear no more motivated to protect voting integrity than the Democrats, with
The Nation reporting that the GOP-controlled Senate
blocked a bill this week that would have "mandated paper-ballot backups in case of election machine malfunctions."
Study of Corporate Power
A 2014
study published by Princeton University found that corporate power had usurped the voting rights of the public: "Economic elites
and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average
citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence."
In reviewing this sordid history, we see that the Democratic Party establishment has done everything in its power to disrespect
voters and outright overrule them in the democratic primary process, defending their right to do so in the DNC fraud lawsuit. We've
noted that interests transcending the DNC also represent escalating threats to election integrity as demonstrated in 2016.
Despite this, establishment Democrats and those who echo their views in the legacy press continue to deflect from their own wrongdoing
and real threats to the election process by suggesting that mere discussion of it represents a campaign by Russia to attempt to malign
the perception of the legitimacy of the U.S. democratic process.
Hillary Clinton's recent comments to the effect that Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard is being "groomed" by Russia, and that the former
Green Party Presidential candidate Dr. Jill Stein is a "Russian asset", were soon echoed by DNC-friendly pundits. These sentiments
externalize what Gabbard called the "rot"
in the Democratic party outward onto domestic critics and a nation across the planet.
Newsweek provided a particularly glaring example of this phenomenon in a
recent op-ed penned by columnist Naveed Jamali, a former FBI double agent whose book capitalizes on Russiagate. In an op-ed titled:
" Hillary Clinton Is Right. Tulsi Gabbard Is A Perfect Russian Asset – And Would Be A Perfect Republican Agent," Jamali
argued :
"Moscow will use its skillful propaganda machine to prop up Gabbard and use her as a tool to delegitimize the democratic process.
" [Emphasis added]
Jamali surmises that Russia intends to "attack" our democracy by undermining the domestic perception of its legitimacy. This thesis
is repeated later in the piece when Jamali opines : "They want to see a retreat
of American influence. What better way to accomplish that than to attack our democracy by casting doubt on the legitimacy of our
elections." [Emphasis added]
The only thing worth protecting, according to Jamali and those who amplify his work (including former Clinton aide and establishment
Democrat Neera Tanden), is the perception of the democratic process, not the actual functioning vitality of it. Such deflective tactics
ensure that Russia will continue to be used as a convenient international pretext for
silencing domestic dissent as we move into 2020.
Given all this, how can one expect the outcome of a 2020 Democratic Primary -- or even the general election – to be any fairer
or transparent than 2016?
* * *
Elizabeth Vos is a freelance reporter, co-host of CN Live! and regular contributor to Consortium News. If you value this
original article, please consider
making
a donation to Consortium News so we can bring you more stories like this one.
@DanFromCT Well then, thank god for Tucker Carlson for going against the grain. He is
against all the Middle East wars, and wants to bring the troops home and put them on our
Southern Border. His is the only show that I watch anymore, and he pushes back from Fox's
Israel-first orthodoxy as much as he can and still keep his job, which he wouldn't have if
not for his high ratings. Tucker destroyed ultra hawk neocon John Bolton shortly before Trump
stupidly appointed him as his NSA.
BTW, Hannity is a war pig, who happens to be right on one issue – supporting Trump
against the democrat coup. And Buck is also right, Epstein did not kill himself.
"... They also failed to note the voice-modulated phone calls received by the law offices of the Becks which contained a caller-ID corresponding to the law offices of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a defendant in the case. In light of this context, the Becks hardly appear to be peddlers of conspiracy theory. ..."
The defense counsel also took issue with Jared Beck for what they termed as: " Repeatedly promoted patently false and deeply offensive
conspiracy theories about the deaths of a former DNC staffer and Plaintiffs' process server in an attempt to bolster attention for
this lawsuit." This author was shocked to find that despite the characterization of the Becks as peddlers of conspiracy theory, the
defense counsel failed to mention the motion for protection filed by the Becks earlier in the litigation process.
They also failed to note the voice-modulated phone calls received by the law offices of the Becks which contained a caller-ID
corresponding to the law offices of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a defendant in the case. In light of this context, the Becks hardly
appear to be peddlers of conspiracy theory.
The DNC defense lawyers then argued:
" There is no legitimate basis for this litigation, which is, at its most basic, an improper attempt to forge the federal courts
into a political weapon to be used by individuals who are unhappy with how a political party selected its candidate in a presidential
campaign ."
The brief continued:
" To recognize any of the causes of action that Plaintiffs allege based on their animating theory would run directly contrary
to long-standing Supreme Court precedent recognizing the central and critical First Amendment rights enjoyed by political parties,
especially when it comes to selecting the party's nominee for public office."
It appears that the defendants in the DNC Fraud Lawsuit are attempting to argue that cheating a candidate in the primary process
is protected under the first amendment. If all that weren't enough, DNC representatives argued that the Democratic National Committee
had no established fiduciary duty "to the Plaintiffs or the classes of donors and registered voters they seek to represent." It seems
here that the DNC is arguing for its right to appoint candidates at its own discretion while simultaneously denying any "fiduciary
duty" to represent the voters who donated to the Democratic Party under the belief that the DNC would act impartially towards the
candidates involved.
Adding to the latest news regarding the DNC Fraud Lawsuit was the recent
finding by the UK Supreme
Court, which stated that Wikileaks Cables were admissible as evidence in legal proceedings.
If Wikileaks' publication of DNC emails are found to be similarly admissible in a United States court of law, then the contents
of the leaked emails could be used to argue that, contrary to the defendant's latest brief, the DNC did in favor the campaign of
Hillary Clinton over Senator Sanders and that they acted to sabotage Sanders' campaign.
The outcome of the appeal of the DNC Fraud Lawsuit remains to be seen.
Elizabeth Vos is the Co-Founder and Editor in Chief at
Disobedient Media .
The Bloomberg News headline on
November 2 was stark: "Nancy Pelosi Is Worried 2020 Candidates Are on Wrong Track." Wrong track
as in, the Democrats are on their way to losing the upcoming presidential election. As reporter
Sahil Kapur put it, "Speaker Nancy Pelosi is issuing a pointed message to Democrats running for
president in 2020: Those liberal ideas that fire up the party's base are a big loser when it
comes to beating President Donald Trump."
Among the losing ideas Pelosi cited was Medicare for All. And in fact, the plans of
Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders -- each struggling to get to the left of the other in the
Democratic primary -- are becoming the stuff of both consternation and comedy. Over the
weekend, Saturday Night Live
mocked Warren's $52 trillion health plan: "We're talking trillions! When the numbers are
this big, they're just pretend!"
We can observe: being the butt of jokes about fiscal recklessness is not how one wins a
presidential election. Or as Pelosi observed, "Remember November. You must win the Electoral
College."
Invoking her own ideological credentials, Pelosi tossed a sharp query at insurgent Democrats
as a whole: "As a left-wing San Francisco liberal I can say to these people: what are you
thinking?" As the Bloomberg piece explained, Pelosi was aiming, yet again, at Representative
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her progressive "Squad." Pelosi and the Democratic establishment
worry that democratic socialists and Third World-minded radicals will take the party into
George-McGovern-in-1972
territory (as
this author here at TAC suggested might well happen last year).
Advertisement
Pelosi would certainly seem to know a lot about left-wing liberalism; her most recent rating
from Americans for Democratic Action was an A+ 95 percent. Indeed, while she's old enough to
remember poor McGovern, she also remembers, more recently, Walter Mondale. In 1984, the
Democrats held their national convention in Pelosi's hometown, giving Mondale their
presidential nomination. Whereupon Republicans gleefully tagged him as a "San Francisco
Democrat." Mondale was from Minnesota, but no matter -- he lost 49 states.
Mindful of that baleful history, Pelosi offered a fascinating lesson in political
non-transitivity, between her hometown and another Great Lakes state: "What works in San
Francisco does not necessarily work in Michigan. What works in Michigan works in San Francisco
-- talking about workers' rights and sharing prosperity."
In other words, while one can sell Midwestern mutualism in San Francisco, one can't sell San
Francisco liberalism in Michigan -- which is hardly a Republican bastion.
Yet if we look closer at Pelosi's liberalism, we note something interesting. On strictly
economic issues, as distinct from sociocultural issues, she's not that left-wing. Yes, she
describes herself as a "left-wing San Francisco liberal," but most of her leftism is focused on
lifestyle. Her economic style is, in fact, distinctly Clintonian neoliberal. Here's more
from the Bloomberg story: "Pelosi said Democrats must stick with pay-as-you-go rules to avoid
adding to the debt, a point of contention with left-leaning figures who want to permit more
deficit spending for ambitious liberal priorities. 'We cannot just keep increasing the debt,'
she said."
We can note that "pay-go"
is about as orthodox an economic nostrum as one can find these days; it's typically associated
with deficit-minded "budget
hawks," of the type funded by the late Pete Peterson, a big-time Republican who crusaded
for cuts to earned entitlements.
Indeed, Peterson, who made a small fortune at Lehman Brothers and a big fortune at the
Blackstone Group, would have been pleased to read more of what Pelosi had to say. According to
Bloomberg, she "stopped short of endorsing a tax on wealth, an idea that Warren and Sanders
have embraced as a means to reduce income inequality and expand the safety net."
One might presume that the
18 billionaires who live in San Francisco were duly pleased by their representative's
restraint. They might be generous donors to the Democratic Party and to other good causes, and
thus have proven their commitment to social justice. Thus they need to conserve their capital,
to continue their good works -- that's Pelosi's fat cat-friendly position.
Moreover, it's not just billionaires that Pelosi is looking out for; in addition, she's
protective of mere millionaires . Per Bloomberg: "She also steered clear of backing a
cap on pay for chief executive officers."
Yes, in that same interview, Pelosi called Donald Trump's 2017 tax-cut bill "dumb" -- and
that will check the box for Democratic partisans and inattentive ideologues.
But then she added something curiously centrist. She said she wanted any changes in the tax
bill to be aimed at lowering the debt and to be "bipartisan." To those paying close attention,
these are signal code words, suggesting, yet again, that Pelosi sees any possible tax increase
as a deficit reduction tool, as opposed to added fiscal support for a spending spree. Moreover,
in saying that she wants any revision of the tax bill to be bipartisan, she's making
Republicans integral to the process -- and that can't be pleasing to AOC-type tax-raisers.
Nobody's accusing Pelosi of being a conservative. Yet her legendary leftism does seem to be
curiously concentrated in the lifestyle area -- especially the San Francisco area. For
instance, there's the Equality Act, which Pelosi identifies as a top legislative priority, even
as Republicans have so far blocked it. In the words of the Heritage Foundation's
Ryan T. Anderson , the bill would
force employers to cover abortion, and medical professionals to perform or assist in
performing abortions force employers to pay for sex "reassignment" procedures in their health
insurance plans, and require medical professionals to perform them. . . . force all schools
and businesses to open their women's bathrooms, locker rooms, showers, and sports teams to
boys who "identify as" girls and to men who "identify as" women.
That's a tall order of social liberalism, or, as some might prefer to describe it, left-wing
hegemonism.
Indeed, bills such as the Equality Act are so egregious and extreme that one might begin to
suspect that they serve a purpose beyond advancing the goals of Planned Parenthood and Drag
Queen Story Hour. And what purpose might that be? Perhaps Pelosi seeks to cloak her neoliberal
economic agenda in the bright raiment of avant-garde sexual progressivism. That would be sort
of a neat trick, right? That is, Pelosi has carpentered a platform that includes planks
favorable to both tycoons and transgenders -- and yet the pro-trans plank is what generates the
most headlines, pro and con. To put it another way: the LGBTQ-friendly plank obscures the
billionaire-friendly plank.
Pelosi is a smart woman. She's been around politics all her life; both her father and
brother were mayors of Baltimore. So if she's found a new kind of high-low political formula --
combining the rich and the risqué -- it's surely not an accident. And it's certainly
working for her: she was re-elected last year to her 17th term by a 73 percent margin
. She has, in fact, engineered a new kind of Democratic political machine, one that's also
working in other big cities.
There's just one thing: as Pelosi herself says, the San Francisco model can't sell in
Michigan and, by extension, in probably 35 other states. So in 2020, if the Democrats continue
to lurch left, on both economic and cultural issues, they could well find themselves
McGovern-ized, or Mondale-ized.
For her part, Pelosi will say that she tried to warn them: think Michigan Wolverines, she
said, not San Francisco drag queens. Yet even if the Democrats lose the presidential election
next year, Pelosi will survive, continuing to be a best friend to both billionaires and drag
queens. Of course, Pelosi, 79, can't be their best friend forever , yet it's a safe bet
that her successor will try to follow the same model.
As we have seen, it's questionable whether the Pelosi Model helps the Democratic Party as a
whole. But for those financing it, and flaunting it, it's working just fine.
James P. Pinkerton is an author and contributing editor at. He served as a White
House policy aide to both Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.
So it's probably good that "Grayfell" and his pals discovered me and are feverishly
"correcting" my article, and God knows how many other articles that don't conform to Wikipedia
"policy," or Philip Cross' political preferences, or Antifa's theory of "
preemptive self-defense ," or whatever other non-ideological, totally objective editorial
standards the "volunteer editors" at the Ministry of Wiki-Truth (who have nothing to do with
the Intelligence Community, or Antifa, or any other entities like that) consensually decide to
robotically adhere to.
How else are they going to keep their content "neutral," "unbiased," and "reliably sourced,"
so that people can pull up Wikipedia on their phones and verify historical events (which really
happened, exactly as they say they did), or scientific "facts" (which are indisputable) or
whether Oceania is at War with EastAsia, or Eurasia, or the Terrorists, or Russia?
Oh, and please don't worry about my Wikipedia article. König Ubu assures me he has done
all he could to restore it some semblance of accuracy, and that the Ministers have moved on to
bigger fish. Of course, who knows what additional "edits" might suddenly become a top priority
once "Grayfell" or Antifa gets wind of this piece.
Wikipedia is a perfect platform for manufacturing reality, disseminating
pro-establishment propaganda, and damaging people's reputations, which is a rather popular
tactic these days.
The simple fact is, when you google anything, Wikipedia is usually the first link that
comes up. Most people assume that what they read on the platform is basically factual and
at least trying to be "objective" which a lot of it is, but a lot of it isn't.
Excellent characterization.
Many speak of the liberating features of the Internet, how the old MSM stranglehold has
been whipped. The way the Internet is being used, that is just not true today. It was true
for early adopters (1990s?) and early-mid adopters (late 1990s and early 2000s?).
The 2010s has given us a pendulum swing back in the other direction. By circa 2020,
information is, effectively, funneled through a few chokepoints -- Wikipedia, Youtube,
Twitter, Facebook, the Google quasi-Monopoly And the limits of acceptable discourse are
policed using various tactics. This is a great example.
In this sense, Unz Review is a throwback to an earlier era of the Internet, in the best
way.
In the anti-establishment circles I move in, Wikipedia is notorious for this kind of
stuff, which is unsurprising when you think about it. It's a perfect platform for
manufacturing reality, disseminating pro-establishment propaganda, and damaging people's
reputations, which is a rather popular tactic these days.
Of course, the Ministry of Wiki-Truth keeps its content "neutral," "unbiased," and "reliably
sourced," such as Brian Stelter's sudser "Reliable Sources" at CNN. Except for the scientific
articles, all the rest are ideological Soviet-style trash. The more fool you, using this
phony "Encyclopedia," which has been hijacked by the thought policy long ago.
For those of us who can actually remember political arguments made by Democrats in the
80's and 90's, it's ridiculous to say that neoliberalism in the US never existed except as
a term of abuse.
People bragged about being a new type of sophisticated market loving Democrat in sharp
contrast to old liberal dinosaurs like Tip O'Neill. Cranky Observer mentioned Charles
Peters and the Washington Monthly.
There was also The New Republic -- remember the joke " even the liberal New Republic"
supports conservative policy X? The point was they took pleasure in being Third Way style
neoliberals who were often hawkish on foreign policy and eager to question liberal
Democratic pieties, to the point it became a cliche that Republicans would cite them.
The New Republic and The Washington Monthly were neoliberal the way Commentary was
neoconservative. ( There was also a period where you weren't supposed to believe there were
such people as neocons. It was supposed to be an antisemitic code word.)
I think the idea that neoliberalism never existed in the US except as a term of abuse
from leftists first popped up in the 2016 Democratic primaries. I don't have a cite -- it's
just my recollection.
As the White House seems to turn its back on the Neocons' immoral interventionism, some Jews
may be discomfited by the fact that the Neocon war mongering doctrine has been largely a Jewish
project. As Haartez writer Ari
Shavit wrote back in 2003: "The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative
intellectuals, most of them Jewish " Maybe some Jews now understand that the Zionist shift from
a 'promised land' to the Neocon 'promised planet' doesn't reflect well on the Jews as a
group.
I am trying to point out the possibility that the overwhelming fear of 'anti-Semitism,'
documented however poorly by the AJC, might well be the expression of guilt. American Jews may
feel communal guilt over the disastrous politics and culture of some sections of their
corrupted elite. They might even feel guilty as Americans about the brutal sacrifice of one of
America's prime values, that of freedom of speech as guaranteed by the 1st Amendment, on the
altar of
'antisemitsm.' .
Obviously, I would welcome AJC's further investigation of this. It would be interesting to
learn about the correlation between the Jewish fear of anti Semitsm and Jewish guilt. It would
also be fascinating to find out how Jewish anxiety translates into self-reflection. In that
regard, I suggest that instead of blaming the American people, Jews try introspection. US Jews
may want to follow the early Zionists, such as Theodor Herzl, who turned guilt into
self-examination. Herzl was deeply disturbed by anti Semitism but this didn't stop him from
digging into its causes. "The wealthy Jews control the world, in their hands lies the fate
of governments and nations,"Herzl wrote. He continued, "
They set governments one against the other. When the wealthy Jews play, the nations and the
rulers dance. One way or the other, they get rich." Herzl, like other early Zionists,
believed that Jews could be emancipated from their conditions and even be loved globally by
means of a cultural, ideological and spiritual metamorphosis with the aspiration of
'homecoming.' Herzl and his fellow early Zionists were clearly wrong in their proposed remedy
for the Jewish question, but were absolutely spot on in their adherence to self-reflection and
harsh self-criticism.
American Jews have much to learn from Herzl and other early Zionists. They should ask
themselves how their American 'Golden Medina' their Jewish land of opportunities, has
turned into a 'threatening' realm. What happened, what has changed in the last few years? Was
it the constant cries over anti-Semitism and the desperate and institutional attempts to
silence critics that turned their Golden Medina into a daunting space?
Anti-Semitism is a subset of class warfare, and thus perfectly natural in any society with
high inequality and large numbers of Jews. Because Jews always ally themselves with the
rulers and higher classes, as a survival strategy, and also because their talents naturally
place them in the higher classes.
The intelligent anti-Semitism of people like Chesterton and Belloc are of this type. These
people are perfectly capable of having honorable respect for Jews and deep appreciation for
Jewish culture while believing Jews may not be a good fit for their host society. Its nothing
personal. Just realism.
Unlike Gilad Atzmon, who sees no problem with other groups who compete and pursue self
interest but finds Jews doing so uniquely unacceptable and a cause for "guilt", they are
generally self-aware and honest enough to not blame Jews for competing on the world stage
– for being human – and realize Europeans were far harsher towards those foreign
peoples they competed against.
There is another kind of anti-Semitism that just reflects mankind's propensity to hate
anyone who is different, and comes from the same place as the vicious cruelties against all
manner of heretics and dissenters, including genocides, that was such a pronounced
characteristic of Christian Europe, and the racism of European society.
This generally has to do with pent up frustrations and resentments, which because of
special aspects of European culture, were uniquely intense in that part of the world (
Europeans were/are uniquely frustrated and unhappy with existence). Most anti-Semites on Unz
are of this kind, like commenters Colin Wright and utu, for instance, and authors Linh Dinh
and Kevin Barrett, Andrew Joyce, and Guyenot, and others.
These kinds of anti-Semites despise Jewish culture and anything Jewish, and often feel
compelled to invent elaborate grotesque mythologies using selective sources and distorted
interpretations to "prove" that Jewish culture and religion is unlike any other and uniquely
evil. Completely un-selfaware and lacking in introspection or historical perspective, they
are are not honest enough and emotionally stable enough to see group competition as the
historic norm, and their own group as no angels in this regard.
In their reading of history, no group competes except Jews, and the whole world would be a
paradise of harmony if not for these devilishly evil Jews.
Needless to say, this kind of infantile anti-Semitism is more of an emotional cri de ceour
of personal anguish, from an unbalanced mind, than anything to be taken seriously. And these
people today are effectively marginalized.
The Jewish "problem" in Europe is simply that of normal group competition among a host
population that by world standards, has always been uniquely intolerant of other ways of life
and thought, and uniquely imperialistic about its own values and standards, and uniquely
addicted to trying to control its environment (which ended up in science and technology).
Jews in China, India, and to some extent the Muslim world, hardly posed a comparable
"problem".
Zionism has obviously been an almost complete success in shifting Jewish group competition
away from within societies more towards the more normal pattern of national competition, as
Gilad Atzmon prefers as "healthy".
Jewish influence today outside of Israel is primarily directed to the current Imperial
center, America. Empires, by nature, always have foreign factions vying for favor and
influence. Rome was of course the same way. This is quite natural for empires. So Jewish
attempts to influence America – the self-designated policeman of the world – is
quite naturally a part of any imperial system, as the world policeman, one naturally needs to
have him on your side, of course.
So the Jewish "problem" has largely been solved through Zionism – but of course, as
more Jews move to Israel, the situation will get even better. And if imperial power shifts
away from America, the new imperial center will, obviously, become the site for various
foreign factions to vie for influence.
@AaronB no one
has a problem with Jews being gifted or being part of the elite,, but ppl do have problems
with Madoffs, Binary options, Weinstein, Epstein, Aipac, ADL interfering with elementary
freedoms do you really need me to explain all of that? for the record, by the time the Jewish
problem was solved by Zionism, Zionism was defeated by Jewishness and Israel became the
Jewish State ,,, my next book is all about that
' So the Jewish "problem" has largely been solved through Zionism – but of course,
as more Jews move to Israel, the situation will get even better. And if imperial power shifts
away from America, the new imperial center will, obviously, become the site for various
foreign factions to vie for influence.'
but as power shifts away from America, she becomes less able to nurture Israel and shield
her from the consequences of her actions, and then what?
You talk about moving back there. Would you do that if your standard of living there would
be, say, a quarter of what it is now, and if, to please the world, you had to accept that the
judge you were going to appear before might well be Muslim?
I doubt it. As US power declines, Israel will be abandoned. So we won't have gotten
anywhere at all.
Antisemitism is useful component of the rabbinate to generate internal group cohesion. It
forms a separation barrier, like an eruv, between goyim and Jew.
@Gilad Atzmon
imo your essay misses the point of why Jews should feel guilt, therefore AaronB's
comment also fails to address a critical issue.
I can't cite chapter and verse, but it has to be the case in the course of human events
that plenty of individuals and even groups have engaged in behavior as objectionable as
Madoff, Weinstein, Epstein, and the the numerous swindles Israel engages in.
I don't think those offenses are exclusive to Jews. Atzmon's essay here may amount to a
limited hangout.
AaronB's comment is braggadocio; Although I agree w/ AaronB that the power-center will shift
from USA to the East, and that if Jews follow the pattern of their ancient myths and last 120
years of history, they will destroy USA on their way out; nevertheless Jews will have to
share power with Russia and China, Arabs/Muslims will have a say, and Iran should not be
counted out -- they've dealt with Jews longer than any other people and know well their
treachery. It ain't over 'til the fat lady sings , AaronB, and there's a whole cast of divas just
warming up.
I do believe that the creation of zionist Israel may be unique in the known history of the
world: Jews not only dispossessed a native people in Palestine -- USAians did pretty much the
same -- Jews got other nation-states to do their killing for them.
But even more significantly, Jews killed -- genocided, really -- non-Jews in the countries
that had hosted them -- American colonists did not genocide the British in British homeland
-- once again, Jews arranged for the killing to be carried out by another state, in the case
of the genocide of Germany, American and British Christians became Jewish weapons to kill
their own fellow-Christians.
At the same time, Jews needed to cull their own herd: the elite that Atzmon and AaronB
gloat over -- the "remnant," is a relatively recent phenomenon; it may be that the vaunted 6
million were dead wood; impoverished, filthy, inbred: Jabotinsky found them disgusting and
Nordau called them "Degenerate." Worse: they were a drag on the mean. Russia and Poland were
crawling with Jews of "unsuitable human material" for the "new Jew" that was to populate the
zionist utopia. They had to be got rid of; just as Moses delegated Levites to kill fellow
Jews at Mt. Sinai, so Louis Brandeis, Frankfurter etc. fell upon Hitler, Churchill, Stalin
and FDR to kill surplus, degenerate Jews. Saddam & el Baghdadi are minor replicas of a
similar mold employed to kill inconvenient challengers or competitors to zionist Jews.
Jews killed -- or arranged for the killing -- of their own undesireables. In addition,
Jews killed or arranged for the killing of "the best gentiles;" and then, the master stroke:
Jews proclaimed themselves the victims and psychologically manipulated those shattered
peoples -- Germans and other Western Europeans– to the extent that those populations
paid and continue to pay Jews for "Jewish suffering," while also punishing themselves out of
existence with their own Jewish-induced, psychologically-manipulated guilt.
This systemic program -- patterned on the mythic flight from Egypt, and conquest of Canaan
but worked out in real time, is, I believe, unique in all the world.
Jewish holocaustism is why Jews are hated.
Maybe some Jews realize what they have done.
Jews are correct to feel "guilty" and fearful of a "rise in antisemitism."
No statistics or polls to cite, just hazarding a guess: "antisemitism" will rise in
lockstep with realization among non-Jews that the holocaust is a hoax.
I am not sure the possibility exists for Jews to be forgiven for what they have done.
Even with activist groups trying to spook Jews and cajole them into making aliyah ,
fuck-all of them do – and an almost-offsetting number leave.
The net migration rate (all religions) for Occupied Palestine is 0.2%/yr – a
rounding error – and inwards-migration is overwhelmingly 'economic refugee' in
character (almost half of annual Jewish in-migration is from former Soviet countries).
As guys like Sassoon, Shlomo Sand, and others have noted: Western European Jews have every
opportunity to go live in Palestine, but have always exhibited fuck-all interest in doing so.
In this they echo Maimonides: after the Almohad conquest of Cordoba and the abolition of
dhimmi status for non-Muslims, the Rambam spent almost all of his life in Egypt and
Morocco – he had every opportunity to settle in Palestine but chose to live and work
elsewhere.
And so it is to this day: affluent, educated Western Jews would rather eat their own dicks
that move to Palestine. And that's even true of arch-Zionists like Adelson and Dershowitz
– neither of whom are 'Western' in any real sense (they're pretty obvious of Lithuanian
or other- Osteuropäische ). descent.
Given the Exodus (LOL) of secular Jews, and the pattern of in-migration and reproduction,
it's pretty clear that Palestine will become a third-world nation in a couple of generations:
having emerged from the hovels of Eastern Europe, the Ashkenazim are remaking Palestine in
its image.
There are good signs though: the huge-and-rising proportion of datlashim among the
children of "box-heads" (Ultra-Orthodox), for a start. Even when everyone around them is
trying to fill their heads with primitive supremacist tribal drivel, almost a third of
children of box-heads are secular by the time they finish high school.
There is a well-understood (outside the US) bifurcation of Jewish communities into "
People Like Us " and Eastern Europeans.
In Australia the dividing line can be drawn at around 1920: "People Like Us" are
integrated, and for the most part they politely and quietly ignore the rabbit-eaters –
those are the ones howling all the time about how at-risk they are, but who somehow can't
find a way to get to the Jewish 'safe space' in Palestine unless there is a warrant out for
their arrest, in which case it's " Tomorrow Morning in Jerusalem! ".
@Gilad Atzmon
But that's ridiculous. Every group has its criminals and the more ambitious and talented, the
worse. You can't have the talented Jews who contribute to science, technology, culture, and
philanthropy without some of that energy getting corrupted.
It's like that will all groups. When Europe was very energetic and vital it produced
tremendous sinners and corruption while also people of tremendous benefit to society and the
world.
Saints go along with sinners. Its because when you have a certain quantum of energy, you
cannot control where all of it goes. Some of it had to get corrupted. Only way to avoid this
is to neuter people.
So again .what does this have to do with Jewishness specifically? How this is different
from the Robber Barons of the 19th century, the rapacious and deceptive imperialists, the
current day Chinese oligarchs, etc? Umm, European and world history is littered with bad
actors a million times worse than, wet, Bernie Madoff and the ADL, lol
That Jews also produce bad actors proves that there is something uniquely wrong with
Jewishness per se? Are you nuts? This is what I mean by complete lack of self awarness and
historical literacy
Pick up a history book. You are so self absorbed in your fantasy world its as if no other
people produces bad actors or have ever, and we must search for the utterly mysterious fact
that some Jews act in the unique characteristics of Jewishness
@Colin Wright US
support has always acted as much as a restraint as a benefit. Israel's most contested wars
were won without US support, and in fact the US only became heavily involved with Israel only
after it firmly established itself and demonstrated its capacity for self reliance, and it
thought it could use it as an ally in the Cold War.
While certainly appreciated, US support is hardly crucial to Israel's survival lol. Your
historical illiteracy and wishful thinking causes you to completely misunderstand it and
vastly overrate it.
@Colin Wright
Bullshit –accept your own stupidity if you like but dont deign to speak for anyone else
!! Take any large city bedevilled by organised crime -- are the ORGANISED criminals
successful at least temporarily –yes ! Are they smarter than anyone else –NO !!
If the Jews are so smart why do they eventually always eff up??
They are organised with rat like cunning no doubt but seem to create misery wherever they
go and are so effin smart they are astounded that they are hated !! What could have caused it
–we are so smart why cant we figure it out !!
@Colin Wright
What are you talking about. I just said there is a perfectly reasonable type of anti-Semitism
that is a natural response to group competition – the actions of Jews themselves.
Obviously no ones hands are clean when it comes to group competition. This is an
"innocent" phenomenon of history that characterizes all groups without exception.
What Jews object to is not normal criticism, which we engage in ourselves in a very
spirited manner, but the singling out of Jewish competitive behavior in the struggle for life
as somehow uniquely evil and bad. I won't even go into the horrific crimes Europeans and
Asians have committed in this struggle and compare them to, err, Bernie Maddow, but accept
for the sake of argument all groups are equally guilty.
So a sane criticism of Jews that places it in the normal context of group competition,
which is always horrific, is perfectly ok. But the kind of singling out for special stigma
and opprobrium the Jewish part in the universal human struggle for survival – when if
anything it is milder than that of other groups which are truly horrific – is indeed
sinister and justifies terms like anti-Semitism.
Now because so many people single out Jews for special criticism, as if they alone are not
allowed to compete to live, some Jews have become hypersensitive and see in even innocent and
justified criticism the seeds of the kind of sinister anti-Semitism that so often rears its
ugly head. Thats perfectly understandable, although I condemn it.
I, for one, can't think of another people who invest so much energy in measuring their
unpopularity.
This is perfectly logical. No other group sees their hosts as dangerous cattle which has
to be exploited and undermined at every opportunity. Feeling the pulse of the herd –
before these actions create another blowback – is just part of the chosenite's job.
I don't see much guilt among the Jews. It's mostly (justified) fear that certain elements
of the Tribe are moving too aggressively and spoiling it for the rest.
@SolontoCroesus
This is what you have wrought Gilad. A philosophy of yours about Judaism and Jews and this is
where it ends up. With guys like this writing about.
But even more significantly, Jews killed -- genocided, really -- non-Jews in the
countries that had hosted them -- American colonists did not genocide the British in
British homeland -- once again, Jews arranged for the killing to be carried out by another
state, in the case of the genocide of Germany, American and British Christians became
Jewish weapons to kill their own fellow-Christians.
@AaronB If you
knew your history you would know about Operation Nickel Grass: 22,325 tons of tanks,
artillery, ammunition per Wikipedia. This was US aid during one of Israel's most contested
wars (Yom Kippur) and unsurprisingly, we don't get any appreciation for it. I bet I could
find an article criticizing the US for not doing it fast enough.
@Colin Wright I
have no doubt you're smarter than me, Colin. Your'e a pretty smart dude. I don't know about
Fran Taubman, though.
Statistically, there are far more smart whites than Jews by a huge margin. And I am not
even sure Jews are smarter than whites – I think the advantage in Jewish ways of
thinking are cultural. We don't buy into simple binary thinking like whites do, so remain
more intellectually supple and dextrous.
Anyways, one of the great things about Israel is that we can be more physical and don't
have to be so smart anymore. Oh sure, Israeli Jews are smart. They make good technology and
produce lots of great army officers and tactics and techniques, great conpanies, etc. But the
kind of cunning needed by diaspora Jews isn't so necessary anymore, and I've always been
struck by how maladroit and clumsy Israelis seemed on tv presenting defending Israel and the
like.
Hopefully, when I move to Israel ill lose another 10 IQ points or so, if I'm lucky.
Bliss.
@cyrusthevirus'What are you talking about. I just said there is a perfectly reasonable type of
anti-Semitism that is a natural response to group competition – the actions of Jews
themselves '
virtually all of said actions being perfectly reasonable -- according to you. Just group
competition.
Oh wait, you mentioned Bernie Madoff. How about, say, those actions that drove the
previously rather amiable Lithuanian peasantry into a murderous frenzy in the summer of
1941?
@AaronB'
It's like that will all groups. When Europe was very energetic and vital it produced
tremendous sinners and corruption while also people of tremendous benefit to society and the
world '
This is your typical glib generalization -- upon inspection, it seems to have absolutely
no basis in fact.
Several small communities have managed to produce people who notably helped mankind
without any concomitant output of villains. Norway comes to mind; how about Switzerland.
Conversely, other groups notoriously produce bad actors in abundance without ever offering
much of anything good at all in compensation -- Gypsies, for example.
So it's the purest nonsense to assert that Jewish villains are the necessary flip side to
Jewish saints. There's no rational reason to accept this statement.
That's one of the things that irritates me about you. You simply dream up and write
whatever sounds good -- without any apparent concern as to whether it's actually so or not.
It's like you could announce that in Israel, Jews grow to be an average of seven feet tall.
If it sounded good to you, you'd say it. It would never occur to you to check.
"... The Task Force also could carry out other covert actions, such as information operations. A nice sounding euphemism for propaganda, and computer network operations. There has been some informed speculation that Guccifer 2.0 was a creation of this Task Force. ..."
The average American has no idea how alarming is the news that former CIA Director John
Brennan reportedly created and staffed a CIA Task Force in early 2016 that was named, Trump
Task Force, and given the mission of spying on and carrying out covert actions against the
campaign of candidate Donald Trump.
This was not a simple gathering of a small number of disgruntled Democrats working at the
CIA who got together like a book club to grouse and complain about the brash real estate guy
from New York. It was a specially designed covert action to try to destroy Donald Trump.
A "Task Force" is a special bureaucratic creation that provides a vehicle for bring case
officers and analysts together, along with admin support, for a limited term project. But it
also can be expanded to include personnel from other agencies, such as the FBI, DIA and NSA.
Task Forces have been used since the inception of the CIA in 1947. Here's a recently
declassified memo outlining the considerations in the creation of a task force in 1958. The
author, L.K. White, talks about the need for a coordinating Headquarters element and an
Operational unit "in the field", i.e. deployed around the world.
A Task Force operates independent of the CIA " Mission Centers
" (that's the jargon for the current CIA organization chart).
So what did John Brennan do? I am told by an knowledgeable source that Brennan created a
Trump Task Force in early 2016. It was an invitation only Task Force. Specific case officers
(i.e., men and women who recruit and handle spies overseas), analysts and admin personnel were
recruited. Not everyone invited accepted the offer. But many did.
This was not a CIA only operation. Personnel from the FBI also were assigned to the Task
Force. We have some clues that Christopher Steele's FBi handler, Michael Gaeta, may have been
detailed to the Trump Task Force ( see here
).
So what kind of things would this Task Force do? The case officers would work with foreign
intelligence services such as MI-6, the Italians, the Ukrainians and the Australians on
identifying intelligence collection priorities. Task Force members could task NSA to do
targeted collection. They also would have the ability to engage in covert action, such as
targeting George Papadopoulos. Joseph Mifsud may be able to shed light on the CIA officers who
met with him, briefed on operational objectives regarding Papadopoulos and helped arrange
monitored meetings. I think it is highly likely that the honey pot that met with George
Papadopoulos, a woman named Azra Turk, was part of the CIA Trump Task Force.
The Task Force also could carry out other covert actions, such as information
operations. A nice sounding euphemism for propaganda, and computer network operations. There
has been some informed speculation that Guccifer 2.0 was a creation of this Task
Force.
In light of what we have learned about the alleged CIA whistleblower, Eric Ciaramella, there
should be a serious investigation to determine if he was a part of this Task Force or, at
minimum, reporting to them.
When I described this to one friend, a retired CIA Chief of Station, his first response was,
"My God, that's illegal." We then reminisced about another illegal operation carried out under
the auspices of the CIA Central American Task Force back in the 1980s. That became known to
Americans as the Iran Contra scandal.
I sure hope that John Durham and his team are looking at this angle. If true it marks a new
and damning indictment of the corruption of the CIA. Rather than spying on genuine foreign
threats, this Task Force played a critical role in creating and feeding the meme that Donald
Trump was a tool of the Russians and a puppet of Putin.
http://www.unz.com/mhudson/the-saker-interviews-michael-hudson/
Email This Page to Someone
Remember My
Information
=>
List of Bookmarks
◄
►
◄
►
▲
▼
Remove from Library
B
Show
Comment
Next New Comment
Next
New Reply
Read More
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc.
More...
This Commenter
This Thread
Hide Thread
Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They
are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My
Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Email Comment
Ignore
Commenter
Follow Commenter
Bookmark
Toggle
All
ToC
▲
▼
Add
to Library
Search Text
Case
Sensitive
Exact Words
Include Comments
Search
Clear
Cancel
Introduction: I recently spoke to a
relative of mine who, due to her constant and voluntary exposure to the legacy AngloZionist media, sincerely
believed that the three Baltic states and Poland had undergone some kind of wonderful and quasi-miraculous
economic and cultural renaissance thanks to their resolute break with the putatively horrible Soviet past
and their total submission to the Empire since. Listening to her, I figured that this kind of delusion was
probably common amongst those who still pay attention and even believe the official propaganda. So I asked
Michael Hudson, whom I consider to be the best US economists and who studied the Baltics in great detail, to
reply to a few very basic questions, which he very kindly did in spite of being very pressed on time. Once
again, I want to sincerely thank him for his kind time, support and expertise.
* * *
The Saker:
The US
propaganda often claims that the three Baltic states are a true success, just like Poland is also supposed
to be. Does this notion have a factual basis? Initially it did appear that these states were experiencing
growth, but was that not mostly/entirely due to EU/IMF/US subsidies? Looking specifically at the three
Baltic states, and especially Latvia, these were the "showcase" Soviet republics, with a high standard of
living (at least compared to the other Soviet republics) and a lot of high-tech industries (including
defense contracts). Could you please outline for us what truly happened to these economies following
independence? How did they "reform" their economies going from an ex-Soviet one to the modern "liberal" one?
Michael Hudson:
This is
a trick question, because it all depends on what you mean by "success."
The post-Soviet neoliberalism has been a
great success for kleptocrats at the top. They gave themselves the public domain, from key industries to
prime real estate. But the Balts largely let their Soviet industries collapse, making no effort to salvage
or reorganize them.
Much of the problem, of course, was that all the linkages to Soviet-era
industry were torn apart as the Soviet Union was disbanded. With their supplier and final markets closed
down from Russia to Central Asia, the Baltic economies had to start afresh – with a very right-wing tax
policy and no government help whatsoever, as the government itself had become privatized in the hands of
former officials and grabitizers.
Lithuania was marginally better in having some industrial policy. EU and
NATO accession in 2004, along with easy credit, kicked off property bubbles in the Baltics, largely inflated
by Swedish banks that made a bonanza off these countries that lacked their own banks or public credit
creation. The resulting 2008 crashes were the largest in the world as a percent of GDP, with Latvia
suffering the world's biggest contraction.
The neoliberal western advisors who took
control of these economies – as if this was the only alternative to Soviet bureaucracy – imposed crushing
austerity programs to restore macroeconomic "stability" meaning security of their land and infrastructure
grabs. This was applauded by Europe's bankers, who thought the Balts had discovered a workable recipe
allowing austerity governments to retain power in a seeming democracy. These policies would have collapsed
governments anywhere else, but the ability to emigrate, plus ethnic divisions against Russian speakers,
allowed these governments to survive.
It's a historically specific situation,
but Europe's bankers promote it as a generalized model. George Soros's INET and his associated front
institutions have been leaders in subsidizing this financialization-cum-grabitization. The result has been a
massive exodus of prime working age people from Lithuania and Latvia. (Estonians simply commute to Finland.)
Meanwhile, their economies are buoyed by foreign bank lending, which sends profits back to home countries
and can be reversed at any time.
Politically, the neoliberal revolution also has been a success for U.S.
Cold Warriors, who sent over native Balts from Georgetown and other universities to impose "free market"
doctrine – that is, a market "free" of domestic regulation against theft of the public domain, against
monopolies, against land taxes and other income taxes. The Baltic states, like most of the rest of the
former Soviet Union, became the Wild East.
What was left to the Baltic countries
was land and real estate. Their forests are being cut down to sell wood abroad. I describe all this in my
book
Killing the Host
.
The Saker:
After
independence, the Baltic states had tried to cut as many ties with Russia as possible. This included
building (rather silly looking) fences, to forcing the Russians to develop their ports on the Baltic, to
shutting down large (or selling to foreign interests which then shut them down) and profitable factories
(including a large nuclear plant I believe), etc. What has been the impact of this policy of "economic
de-Sovietization" on the local economies?
Michael Hudson:
Dissolution of the Soviet Union meant
that Baltic countries lost their traditional markets, and had to shift their focus to Western Europe and, to
some extent, Asia.
Latvia and Estonia had been assigned computer and information technology,
and they have found this to be much in demand. When I was in Japan, for instance, CEOs told me that they
were looking to Latvia above all to outsource computer work.
Banking also was a surviving sector.
Gregory Lautchansky, former vice-rector at the University of Riga had been a major player already in the
1980s for moving out Russian oil and KGB money. (His company, Nordex, was sold to Mark Rich.) Many banks
continued to shepherd Russian flight capital via offshore banking centers into the United States, Britain
and other countries. Cyprus of course was another big player in this.
The Saker:
Russians are still considered "non-citizens"
in the Baltic republics; what has been the economic impact of this policy, if any, of anti-Russian
discrimination in the Baltic states?
ORDER IT NOW
Michael Hudson:
Russian-speakers, who do not acquire citizenship (which requires passing local language and history tests),
are blocked from political office and administrative work. While most Russian speakers below retirement age
have now acquired that citizenship, the means by which citizenship must be acquired has caused divisions.
Early on in independence, many Russians
were blocked from government, and they went into business, which was avoided by many native Balts during the
Soviet era because it was not as remunerative as going into government and profiting from corruption. For
instance, real estate was a burden to administer. Russian-speakers, especially Jewish ones, have wisely
focused on real estate.
The largest political party is Harmony
Center, whose members and leadership are mainly Russian-speaking. But the various neoliberal and nationalist
parties have jointed to block its ability to influence law in Parliament.
Since Russian speakers are only able to
"vote with their feet," many have joined in the vast outflow of emigration, either back to Russia or to
other EU countries. Moreover, the poor quality of social benefits has led to few children being born.
The Saker:
I often hear that a huge number of locals
(including non-Russians) have emigrated from the Baltic states. What has caused this and what has been the
impact of this emigration for the Baltic states?
Michael Hudson:
The Baltic states, especially Latvia,
have lost about 30 percent of their population since the 1990s, especially those of working age. In Latvia,
about 10 percent of the loss were Russians who exited shortly after independence. The other 20 percent have
subsequently emigrated.
The European Commission forecasts that Latvia's working-age population
will decline by 1.6% annually for the next 20 years, while the birth rate remains as stagnant as it was in
the late 1980s. The retired population (over age 65) will rise to half a million people by 2030, more than a
quarter of today's population, and perhaps about a third of what remains. This is not a domestic market that
will attract foreign or local investment.
And in any case, the European Union has
viewed the post-Soviet economies simply as markets for their own industrial and agricultural exports, not as
economies to be built up by public subsidy as the European countries themselves, the U.S. and Chinee
economies have done. The European motto is, "Give a man a fish, and he will be fed all day with your surplus
fish and consumer goods – but give him a fishing rod and we will lose a customer."
Readers who are interested might want to
look at the following books and articles. I think the leading work has been done by Jeffrey Sommers and
Charles Woolfson.
The Contradictions of Austerity: The Socio-Economic Costs of the Baltic Model
(London:
Routledge Press, 2014). Editors, J. Sommers & C. Woolfson. Foreword, J. Galbraith. ISBN:
978-0-415-82003-5.
Jeffrey Sommers, "No People, Big Problem': Democracy And Its Discontents In Latvia's National
Elections,"
Social Europe,
October 17, 2018.
Jeffrey Sommers, "Decline of the Demos: Latvia, the Face of New Europe and Austerity's Return," in F.
Jaitner, T. Olteanu and T. Spöri, eds.,
Crises in the Post-Soviet Space: From the dissolution of the
Soviet Union to the conflict in Ukraine
(Routledge Press, 2018) pp. 195-209. ISBN 9780815377245.
Jeffrey Sommers,
"
Austerity as a global prescription and lessons from the neoliberal
Baltic experiment."
Economic & Labour Relations Review.
Keynote article, 25:3 (fall 2014) pp.
1-20. DOI 10.1177/1035304614544091. Co-authored with C. Woolfson and A. Juskaa.
The Saker:
Finally,
what do you believe is the most likely future for these states? Will the succeed in becoming a "tiny
anti-Russia" on Russia's doorstep? The Russians appear to have been very successful in their
import-substitution program, at least when trying to replace the Baltic states: does that mean that the
economic ties between Russia and these states is now gone forever? Is it now too late, or are there still
measures these countries could take to reverse the current trends?
Michael Hudson:
Trump's
trade sanctions against Russia hurt the Baltic countries especially. One of their strong sectors was
agriculture. Lithuania, for instance, was known for its cheese, even in Latvia. The sanctions led Russian
dairy farming to develop their own cheese-making, and agriculture has become one of Russia's strongest
performing sectors.
This is a market that looks like it will
be permanently lost to the Baltic states. In effect, Trump is helping Russia follow precisely the policy
that made American agriculture rich: agricultural isolation has forced domestic replacement for hitherto
foreign food. I expect that this will lead to consumer goods and other products as well.
I am in Tallinn, Estonia right now. Just how good an economy is performing is often hard to determine by
talking to people, because like economists, many people have different perceptions. I was just talking to a
Russian-Estonian who was telling me how much better Lithuanians and Latvians are then Estonians at doing
things and how much cheaper things are there. It is true that things are much cheaper in the other Baltic
countries because Estonia (a tiny country of just over 1 million people) has taken off. Since the 2008
econmic collapse housing prices have shot up and in Tallinn there is building going on all over the city.
But, my acquaintance is wrong about other things. Estonians do things very well and Tallinn is a very nice
city, with beautiful cafes, clean and well kept streets and crime is very low. It is a very good city,
except it is now very expensive, especially considering how much people make here. The weather is not nice,
except for in the summer and there are friendly Estonians but they don't have a reputation for being
particularly friendly, even among themselves. I have not been back to Latvia yet, but when I was in Riga
years ago, it was a gorgeous city, bigger than Tallinn too. I think they do things very well there too. The
Russians I speak to here are often friendly and based on what I have been told, relations between Russians
and Estonians are much better than when I was here in the early 2000's.
No offense is intended to
Russians, but the Baltic countries had large German populations that played a key role in the development of
the cultures and peoples of these countries. There were also many Jews here prior to WW II. By the time WW
II had begun the German populations were much smaller than they had been and at the end of the war the
Jewish populations were much smaller. Jews were targeted in Latvia and Lithuania and many Latvians,
Lithuanians and Estonians were shipped off to far off places in the USSR during the war. I believe the Jews
were largely pro communist and welcomed the Soviet takeover of these countries in 1940, while the Latvian
and Estonian peoples were pro German, thus explaining the hard feelings between Balts and Jews.. They wanted
independence and formed legions to fight alongside the German army during WW II.
These countries were very advanced before WW II, having engineering industries and the Russian Empire's
first auto company was formed in Riga before WW I. While engineering may have been restarted after WW II,
these countries populations were decimated and they never returned to their former heights. Perhaps they
still can.
I'm assuming that these 3 East European countries are being bombarded with the same propaganda as the Ukies
are, so Russian speakers and those intelligent enough to see the game being played will be belittled and
isolated. But the Russian folks living in Russia have a birds eye view of what is going on in the west and
their puppet countries. Russia TV and debate programs, just have to show the delinquencies that are daily
happenings in the States, and Europe, in order to make the Ru people say – No Thanks to that way of life. As
far as the new Russian cheeses that are now in the markets -lol – they make a lightly smoked gouda that is
really good and is about 120-140 roubles a kilo. And, they are making more cheddar that is a white medium
taste as well. No scarcity of good natural food in Russia and No POlice state. Spacibo Unz Rev.
The trade volume between Russia and the Baltic states has actually risen, despite the sanctions. The Baltics
send food products and booze to Russia (and another 150 countries, food exports to Russia actually grew in
2016-2018). As well as chemical products and pharmaceuticals. Meldonium, btw, is made in Latvia and is still
being sent to Russia (as well as 20 other countries), not for athletes, but for regular folks. Work is being
carried out on a new generation Meldonium pill (the biggest market will be Russia).
Growth in the Baltic states has been 3-4% in the last few years. GDP per capita, as well as HDI, is
higher than in Russia. Foreign investment, including from Russia, has been growing (Russia was the second
largest investor in Latvia in 2018). Savings rates are growing, too. After a relative quiet period after
2010, the number of Russian (and other tourists) has grown again.
Estonia's population stopped shrinking in 2016 and is now growing in fact. They've seen immigration from
Finland, Ukraine, Belarus and Russia, as well as returning Estonians.
Emigration is a problem, of course, but this is partly because the Baltic states are the only former USSR
republics whose citizens were even given work permits in the West, imagine what would happen if these
permits were given to Russians from the regions.
Neo-liberal policies are of course bad and certain types of investment should be controlled, but to say
that there are no social services in the Baltic states is complete nonsense. Due to generous parental
payments, birthrates have risen significantly since the 1990s – in fact, birthrates in the Baltics are now
slightly higher than the EU average. Life expectancy is also growing. Latvia covers IVF treatments in full.
There are free school lunches.
Yes, it is true that some of the Soviet era factories should've been salvaged but the problem was they
were not competitive globally at that time (and there was no capital to remodel them). The Soviet market was
a closed one. However, some businesses were salvaged. There is local manufacturing (electronics,
pharmaceuticals, etc).
Not everything is ideal, but it is also not the kind of gloom and doom as you paint.
Saker says:
"Initially it did appear that these states were experiencing growth, but was that not
mostly/entirely due to EU/IMF/US subsidies?"
"Foreign Aid Makes Corrupt Countries More Corrupt":
"Any time a government hands out money, not just foreign aid, it breeds corruption And there are few
better examples than Ukraine – just don't tell the House impeachment hearings. Counting on foreign aid to
reduce corruption is like expecting whiskey to cure alcoholism .If U.S. aid was effective, Ukraine would
have become a rule of law paradise long ago . The surest way to reduce foreign corruption is to end
foreign aid."
@onebornfree
The EU gives every year about 2,500 million euros to the 3 Baltic countries ( 6 million people the three of
them ) , and 9000 million euros to Poland ( 38 million people ) , plus more billions to other eastern
members .
Older members of the EU , spetially the UK which is going out , Greece witch was tortured ( again )
economically by Germany , and south Europe in general are not very happy about admitting so many ex-soviets
countries en the EU and subsidizing them .
Recovery and self-sufficiency since Yeltsin show the brilliance of the Russian people
It's not so much brilliance as sheer necessity to survive under sanctions. But some results were better
than anyone expected. Say, food before sanctions used to be so-so in the provinces and downright bad in
Moscow because of abundance of imported crap. Now the food is exclusively domestic, fresh and tasty. Russia
never had traditions of making fancy cheeses. Now, to bypass sanctions, quite a few Italian and French
cheese-makers started production in Russia, so in the last 2-3 years domestically made excellent fancy
cheeses appeared in supermarkets. Arguably, Russian agriculture benefited by sanctions more than any other
sector, but there are success stories virtually in every industry. Sanctions and Ukrainian stupidity served
as a timely wake up call for Russian elites, who earlier wanted to sell oil and natural gas and buy
everything else. Replacing imports after the sanctions were imposed had a significant cost in the short run,
but in the long run it made Russia much stronger, economically and militarily. Speak of unintended
consequences.
My mom is from Lithuania and I've been there several times. We have second cousins our age.
Her father was
a surveyor for the Republic in the 20s and 30s, charged with breaking up the manors and estates and the
state distributing the land to the peasantry. It was near-feudalism. There was very little
industrialization; that which existed were in a few urban centers. One interesting comment from her was that
the "Jews were communists". From what I've read they were the urban working class, but perhaps part of the
socialist/Jewish Bund?
There is no doubt that the Soviet period unleashed considerable industrialization and modernization.
Lithuania had some of the best infrastructure in the USSR. Its traditional culture was really celebrated.
When I first visited, not long after the fall of the USSR, there were enormous, vacant industrial plants.
The collective farms were in the process of being sold off the western European agribusiness firms. One
relative through marriage was from the Ukraine, with a PhD in Physics and had been employed in the military
industries -- she was cleaning houses thereafter.
Any usable industrial enterprises were quickly sold off. The utilities are all foreign owned. Part of EU
mandates are "open" electricity "markets", which resulting in DC interconnections costing hundreds of
millions with the west to import very high priced electricity. The EU has paid for "Via Baltica", a highway
running from Poland to Estonia; it is choked with trucks carrying imports and there are huge distribution
and fulfillment centers along the highway. Such progress, huh?
There had been good public transport in the earlier years of independence, but that has been replaced
with personal automobiles -- usually western European used cars that pollute a lot. Trakai is a commuter town
to Vilnius with a medieval castle (restored in Soviet times). First time I went it was very pleasant. Second
time in 2018 the place was choked with cars and not very nice at all.
The impact of emigration cannot be over-stated. College educated young people leave by the hundreds of
thousands. Those that remain are paid very low wages (e.g., 1000 euros for a veterinarian or dentist), but
pay west European prices for many essentials. Housing is cheaper than the west.
Last time in Kazlu Ruda there were huge NATO exercises in progress and even bigger ones planned for 2020.
German units were billeted at an airbase nearby, rumored to have been a CIA black site. How fitting, as the
Germans with the Lithuanian Riflemens Union exterminated a quarter of a million Jews in a matter of months
(see Jager Report on Wikipedia). There is a Red Army graveyard in the town that has the remains of perhaps
350 soldiers killed in the area driving out the Nazis. I was frankly surprised it was still there.
Lithuania hasn't been independent since the days of the Pagans and Vytautas. It surely isn't independent
today.
Anecdotal -- yes. But based on personal observation.
Very interesting but I have a small note. Not that it matters politically how they entered
France, but World War 2 was Blitzkrieg.
"In desperation, Churchill therefore ordered a series of large-scale bombing raids against the German capital of Berlin, doing
considerable damage, and after numerous severe warnings, Hitler finally began to retaliate with similar attacks against British
cities." (RU)
This makes me wonder when this happened and how the bombing of Rotterdam (may 14 1940) by the Nazis fits into the story chronologically.
I have read most of the revisionist literature (regarding the holocaust) on your website and found most of it either beyond my
ken or else rather poorly sourced. There is something though that I know for 100% sure and it mitigates against the revisionists:
starting even before the war and then continuing the German government started to exterminate all Germans they considered not
worthy of further sustenance. That is severly physically or mentally handicapped children and the insane. At least a 100 000 children
and adults were killed. Usually by injection but some also by being gassed. Although it was a government secret as this happened
in Germany and to ethnic Germans the news inadvertedly spread and the practise was (officially but not entirely) abandoned after
the Catholic Archbishop of Münster had publicly protested against it. So if gas was used in Germany to exterminate Germans it
seems rather logical that it would be also used against Jews.
Having said that I do agree that there are things that are rather spurious regarding the Holocaust. Specifically the numbers
don´t seem to add up.
One book in your archive stood out: The Dissolution of Eastern European Jewry by
WALTER N. SANNING: a book revising downward the number of Jews killed in Poland. A meticilously researched piece of scholarship
about the demographics of Eastern European Jewry.
Everything else I find rather doubtful. I have personally talked to several people who have survived the Holocaust and there
is no doubt in my mind that to be a Jew in German dominated Europe amounted to a death sentence. That is not to say that the numbers
haven´t been exaggerated. Just as the numbers of German vistims after the war have been downplayed. Alas, that has been the way
since antiquity: the victor writes what is later regarded as "history" .
Simply magnificent. Simply infuriating.
It's bone chilling to read this. It must be an enormous burden for Mr Unz to possess this knowledge. It feels demoralising to simply be the recipient of it – knowing full well the price of telling the truth, even now, even today.
Typical Unzian goulash. It is good that he exposed Churchill's lunacy & Eisenhower's culpability (although I'm not sure for how
many victims Eisenhower is to blame).
Though, I'm not convinced at all that Japanese soldiers would have surrendered en masse from 41. to 45. The situation with
Soviets is simply not derivable from their previous behavior. As for Hitler- no, he was much more ambitious & ruthless:
Ron Unz seems to write in the following manner: Nazi empire was not 100% guilty for the outbreak of WW 2 (true)- therefore
Nazis were almost blameless (false); Churchill & his cronies have much to be blamed for (true) -therefore, they're almost completely
guilty (false); Jews have magnified numbers of their WW 2 victims & some influential American Jewish figures like Morgenthau are
repulsive & perhaps war criminals (true) – therefore, Jews suck & are to be blamed for many, if not most of Germany's miseries
during 1940s (false).
Readers & followers of this site think, I guess, that Jews are collectively guilty of __ (type in your favorite obsession).
This is the inversion of another lunatic idea: Germans are collectively guilty for WW 2 in Europe.
Of course, both claims are nonsensical. Collective guilt does not exist.
Here's the scoop on ww2. that pos, fdr (he set up Pearl Harbor attack) got us into it even though he knew the vast majority of
Americans were against going to war in Europe. We lost every encounter we had with the German infantry without our overwhelming
air and arty support (Africa, Sicily, Italy, Normandy, Holland, Bulge, Hurtgen Forest, etc. Then we did unspeakable things to
the German people and their leadership all for the jews. There you have it – simple.
WRONG, and it is an insult to the courageous and diligent efforts of people like David Irving, Ernst Zundel, A J P Taylor,
Harry Elmer Barnes, Ron Unz to keep repeating that Bernaysian drivel.
What the victors wrote re the 20th century world wars is not history, it is a continuation of propaganda.
Historian Thomas Fleming (RIP) has argued that at least 50 years must pass before cool, objective history can be written; before
that, recountings of the events are emotion-laden and agenda-driven.
It is intellectually lazy and extremely dangerous to "sum up" by miming the victor's 2 minutes of hate: you do their work for
them.
"Atrocity propaganda is how we won the war. And we're only really beginning with it now! We will continue this atrocity propaganda,
we will escalate it until nobody will accept even a good word from the Germans, until all the sympathy they may still have abroad
will have been destroyed and they themselves will be so confused that they will no longer know what they are doing. Once that
has been achieved, once they begin to run down their own country and their own people, not reluctantly but with eagerness to please
the victors, only then will our victory be complete. It will never be final. Re-education needs careful tending, like an English
lawn. Even one moment of negligence, and the weeds crop up again – those indestructible weeds of historical truth."
-- Sefton Delmer, 1904-1979, former British Chief of Black propaganda, said after the German surrender, in 1945, in a conversation
with the German professor of international law, Dr. Friedrich Grimm
@Bardon Kaldian
Yes, this reversed black-and-white thinking irks me too. I have said before that WWII was not a war of "good guys against bad
guys", even if we reverse the roles. All parties (including the Jews) were guilty in this conflict. All lied and all committed
atrocities.
As for "collective guilt", I think to a certain degree it does exist. Groups of course are led by their leaders, and "collective
crimes" are instigated by their leaders, but still it is the groups that choose or tolerate their leaders, and thus share a responsibility
in their criminal conduct.
@Antares Chronologically,
I am not sure.
Some use Rotterdam and Warsaw as examples of terror bombing being used by the Germans before the British ever but they also leave
out why those cities were bombed. Firstly they were not declared "open cities" as Paris was, secondly Dutch and Polish troops
had occupied their respective cities before any formal cease fire/peace treaty had been formalized. Also in the case of Warsaw
the mayor, or whatever the equivalent, had refused multiple German demands for surrender.
@Brabantian
Czechoslovakia was being torn apart by all its neighbors, Austria, Hungary and Poland. Not just Germany. There was also ethnic
tensions among the Czechs and Slovaks. The prime minister of Czechoslovakia met Hitler in Germany a few days before the countries
complete annexation REQUESTING Germany occupy the entire country before an ethnic civil war or perhaps the Hungarians or Poles
decided they wanted more.
For instance, most Germans did not vote for Hitler. And even if he was elected by 90% margin- what would it mean? He did many
great things to heal German post-WW 1 humiliation & succeeded in spectacular economic recovery. When Europe (and world) descended
into WW 2 – how could an average German, or any group of Germans, do anything to change the course of history?
They were indoctrinated, but even if most of them had not been – no individual nor collective can change the inertia of events.
Things just keep on happening. For instance, Waffen SS were denounced as a "criminal organization" & its members deprived of military
honors (ca. 900,000 men, 500,000 out of them Germans). I call it baloney. You don't have 900,000 "war criminals". This is simply
a nonsense.
I am not saying that collectives do not share peculiar characteristics (for instance, you can't have anything seriously done
with Gypsies), but any political-social-historical movement is too complex to be reduced to moralistic sermonizing.
@Brabantian
Yes, all wars are bankers war. That being said, once the first spark is struck, events rapidly spiral out of control. What I find
with these older and even newer versions of revisionist history is Stalin and Soviet Russia very rarely ever assigned any blame
in the starting of the whole mess which I find absurd. A great example of this is story of Rudolf Hess and how he was betrayed
by everyone.
[Hide MORE]
Was Hess aware at the time of the existence of a Secret Protocol, attached to the Hitler-Stalin "Non-Aggression" Pact of
Aug. 23, 1939 and signed by Nazi Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop and Soviet Foreign Minister Vyascheslav Molotov, which
stated "in event of any war," Russia would be assigned"spheres of influence" in eastern Poland (40% of the country); .the Baltic
states of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia; a freehand in Finland; and that portion of Romania abutting Soviet territory. Soviet
actions after Hitler's invasion of Poland on Sept. 1, 1939, showed how precisely the Soviets adhered to the Protocol's terms.
On Sept. 17, Russia invaded Poland from the east; on Sept. 18 Russian and German troops shook hands in Poland. Then, Moscow
invaded Finland. Next, it took the Baltic states.
"Stalin was able, in conference with Britain and the United States (when they became his allies against Hitler), to present
these actions as "defensive" against the Nazi threat. But the
Secret Protocol would prove that, to the contrary, Russia had used the deal with Hitler to advance her ancient imperial designs
on Europe."
"Obviously, if Stalin were shown to be guilty of plotting with Hitler-to wage aggressive war, then the question arose: What
were the Soviets doing as judges with the French,
British, and Americans on the Nuremberg tribunal? The tribunal would have to be reconstituted. Would not Molotov and Stalin
have to be tried? They had stood at a map table with Ribbentrop in Moscow, while Ribbentrop consulted with Hitler on the phone
from Germany, and the four of them had redrawn the map of Eastern Europe. Stalin and Molotov could be accused of having conspired
with Hitler to wage war; shouldn't they take their
places in the Nuremberg dock?"
As for Hitler- no, he was much more ambitious & ruthless:
That video is pretty questionable imo, because as far as I know the Generalplan Ost plans of the SS don't exist anymore,
at least not in detail. What does exist, is a memorandum drawn up by Dr Wetzel from Rosenberg's Ostministerium , whose
text can be read here: https://www.ifz-muenchen.de/heftarchiv/1958_3_5_heiber.pdf
The proposals in that document are undoubtedly extremely racist and would have amounted to massive ethnic cleansing programmes,
at least against Poles and Czechs. They don't quite amount to genocide though, in fact the author explicitly states that one can't
physically exterminate Poles like Jews (whose physical destruction is quite openly affirmed in the text), because Germany would
then be generally hated by all neighbouring peoples instead Poles who can't be Germanized should emigrate to Siberia, or possibly
to Brazil. Proposal for Russia is basically to split up the country in various republics and foster regional identities, with
Siberia maybe becoming a pan-European economic zone.
Much attention is devoted to "racially valuable" Slavs who should be sent to the Reich for Germanization (Dr Wetzel is concerned
about foreign workers from Italy and the Balkans who could bring Near Eastern and negroid ancestry to Germany; he'd prefer to
replace them with "Nordic" types from Belarus). Even the view of Russians isn't entirely negative while Wetzel regards most of
them as a "dull primitive mass", he thinks there still are Nordic types in the Russian peasantry and attributes Russia's industrialization
to people of such a background (which makes Russia especially dangerous). So this isn't exactly the same view as of Jews.
Of course even the ethnic cleansing schemes proposed in that document could easily have shaded into genocide (in 1940 even top
Nazis still thought of just sending the Jews away to Madagascar, not killing them all, so there was a precedent for such radicalisation).
And presumably the plans of the SS were more extreme than what Rosenberg's Ostministerium proposed.
Still, in any case a German victory in WW2 would certainly have been pretty bad for many of the peoples of Eastern Europe. As
for revisionism of the kind demonstrated once again on Ron Unz's article, imo it's not worth bothering with, since it's so far
removed from reality.
I know many people have a great deal of difficulty comprehending just how many wars are started for no other purpose than to
force private central banks onto nations, so let me share a few examples, so that you understand why the US Government is mired
in so many wars against so many foreign nations. There is ample precedent for this.
In the beginning of World War I, Woodrow Wilson had adopted initially a policy of neutrality. But the Morgan Bank, which was
the most powerful bank at the time, and which wound up funding over 75 percent of the financing for the allied forces during World
War I pushed Wilson out of neutrality sooner than he might have done, because of their desire to be involved on one side of the
war.
@Alta And what
would be excuse for bombing Frampol? Because for Wieluń Germans had at least excuse that before war there was cavalry unit stationed
nearby, though indiscriminate bombing still was bad.
Not to mention that Polish witnesses remember that all Red Cross flags soon had to be taken off the hospitals and other objects,
because they became favourite target of Luftwaffe.
@Alta Because
you said so. And, of course, Poles from Zamojszczyzna left their homes voluntarily, and thousands or testimonies about Zamojszczyzna
children being separated from families (and most of them never returned) are all propaganda, while you should believe without
question all German stories.
Japanese soldiers on the Pacific islands had habits. One of those was sometimes setting off a grenade after 'surrendering'.
This lead to a lot fewer surrenders being accepted.
American soldiers on the Pacific islands also had habits. One of those was routinely torturing and murdering Japanese servicemen
who tried to surrender, and mutilating and defiling their corpses.
This lead to a lot fewer Japanese surrendering, and to some of them setting off a grenade after "surrendering".
In case I have to point it out, I'm not saying this to be anti-American. I think that's more or less what you can expect to
happen when you send these scared young men, forcefed for years on propaganda about the Japanese being subhuman monsters, out
to fight them life or death in hellish climates thousands of miles from home. I blame the crooked politicians and the lying media
more than the soldiers. But it's astonishing how, even today, the propaganda narratives about noble Yanks and evil Japs still
persist. Even among people who ought to know better.
If anyone else feels inclined to nod and agree with knee-jerk posts like the one I'm responding to here, please make the effort
to at least read the book about the Pacific War our host Mr. Unz is recommending. (I've read it. It's good, and it's not
just mindless America-bashing like some people will no doubt want to think. Dower looks at how both the Americans and the
Japanese dehumanized the enemy.) It's one more tiny but important step along the difficult road toward the vitally necessary goal
of attaining a more balanced view of our modern history.
@German_reader
I am not saying that everything would go as if planned in some document. Those totalitarian regimes possess their own internal
dynamic which is hard to stop when they're set into motion.
For instance, all atrocities which devoured perhaps 30+ million people (including those who perished in Russian civil war)
were contained, in nuce , in Lenin's works, ideas & positions (I am not talking about good things that came to pass as
the result of his actions). Lenin did not write about extermination of whole classes, forced famine, new & more efficient Inquisition
etc. But they were somehow logical result of his (and not only his) vision of the future society.
Hitler's (mostly) intra-white racism could also have predictable results. His world-view had, basically, two pillars: eastern
expansion to somewhere along Urals- Caucasus axis & getting rid of Jews. Of course Jews get much rap because they suffered, percentage-wise,
more than others (Gypsies excluded), but the real deal would be annihilation of Balto-Slavophone central & eastern European peoples
(Czechs, Poles, Ukrainians, Belarusians, Russians & most Baltic peoples).
He would, I guess, have chosen "racially" desirable children for assimilation & off with others. First, they would have worked
as slaves; then, they would be simultaneously killed & deported (probably similar to Stalin's deportation of Chechens & other
potentially disloyal peoples. Out of 900,000 of them, perhaps 400,000-500,000 died in the process of deportation). If one tries
to annihilate a people- and these are numerous peoples by European standards – you don't have to shoot or gas them. Just relocate
them somewhere in the east of Urals, most of them (you can't keep so many of them within your sphere of authority because they
will rebel, sooner or later). So, I guess tens of millions individuals, from Czechs to Russians, were slated to death from famine,
disease & overwork.
Generalplan Ost is more important as the document of the state of mind than as a master plan with all the details & nuances.
And that state of mind would have resulted in tens of millions of unnatural deaths & Poles, Ukrainians, .. would be now just a
footnote in history, similar to Indians in what is now Manhattan.
They say nothing about exterminating half of Russia; on the contrary, they expected the population to grow through natural
increase under the German occupation once it was no longer oppressed by Communism.
Gee whizz, Hitler had the bright future for Russians somewhere in his heart. Just..he somehow failed to communicate his hidden
sympathies to them.
@Bardon Kaldian
No. He wanted Russia to be a subordinate, essentially colonial dependency for Germany to use as a captive market for its industries,
so he would be able to compete with global American capitalism capitalism in economies of scale. He realized that you need a domestic
market of hundreds of millions of people (like US, Russia, China) to be an economic superpower.
Hitler personally used the figure of India a lot in his "Table Talk" conversations: Just like India was the market for Britain's
textile industries in the 19th century, Russia would be the market for Germany's modern industries in the 20th. (In those, if
you check them, he incidentally also used a lot of hyperbole about wanting the Russian rank and file to be illiterate, though
in the official policy documents he wanted a compulsory elementary school for them. Which, of course, makes infinitely better
economic sense.)
Hitler did want meritocracy within his empire: Russians who were of good character and "good race" were to be given German
work permits and citizenship if they applied for it, just like Dutchmen, poles and anyone else who was Aryan (that is, "White").
So kind of a H1B option, more like India is for America in the 21st century than it was for Britain in the 19th. I guess you could
say he wanted a "bright future" for them. But the big mass of Russians he wanted to stay in Russia, and to be banned from moving
to Germany (which he wanted to remain ethnically German, with only a relatively small leavening of bright foreigners).
However, in order to be good consumers of German exports, the Russians in Russia still had to have their living standards raised
over the squalor of Bolshevism. Hitler thought that was absolutely necessary. So in the end, they would benefit, even if they
remained subordinate and disprivileged compared to the Germans.
Of course, these were long-term plans, spanning over decades. Hitler and his planning staff still anticipated that many Russians
would die in the war (which of course happened in real life, even though they won it), and weren't extremely sad about that. But
it wasn't a specific aim of German policy to cause those deaths. In more modern lingo that wasn't yet used at the time, they were
collateral damage from destroying the Communist superstate and establishing a German economic and political sphere of influence.
Of course, this makes the Nazis sound well, not exactly nice, but far less evil than Stalin was comfortable with, given potential
comparisons to his own record. Which is why he had his propaganda commissars bruit the nonsense that the Nazis wanted to murder
all Russians (and/or all "Slavs" for good measure). And incidentally, such a demonic image also fit very well with how certain
other powerful vested interests, these ones operating in the "Western" world's media, academia and assorted institutions, wanted
to portray a regime they hated for their own reasons. Though Stalin is long gone, these other ones are still going strong, and
still keeping up his good work.
I again recommend that you read the Madajczyk book I referred to, if you read German. It will add considerably to your understanding
of World War II. If you don't read German, there is another good book by one Dr. Rainer Zitelmann that has been translated and
is called "Hitler: The Policies of Seduction" in English. That one is more about Hitler's general ideology and policy, but touches
on these issues also.
History isn't binary. You don't have to think Hitler and the Germans were angels from Heaven, any more than you have to buy
that they were demons from Hell. But in this day and age, with so much material available fairly easily (and often even free on
the Internet), there are few excuses left for believing the recycled Soviet propaganda your video was promoting.
"... "To any rational person," says Nunes, "it looks like they were scheming to produce a get-out-of-jail-free card -- for the president and anyone else in the White House. They were playing Monopoly while the others were playing with fire. Now the Obama White House was in the clear -- sure, they had no idea what Comey and Brennan and McCabe and Strzok and the rest were up to." ..."
"... Meanwhile, Obama added his voice to the Trump-Russia echo chamber as news stories alleging Trump's illicit relationship with the Kremlin multiplied in the transition period. He said he hoped "that the president-elect also is willing to stand up to Russia." ..."
"... After refusing to act while the Russian election meddling was actually occurring, Obama responded in December. He ordered the closing of Russian diplomatic facilities and the expulsion of thirty- five Russian diplomats. The response was tepid. The Russians had hacked the State Department in 2014 and the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 2015. And now Obama was responding only on his way out. ..."
"... Even Obama partisans thought it was weak. "The punishment did not fit the crime," said Michael McFaul, Obama's former ambassador to Russia. "The Kremlin should have paid a much higher price for that attack." ..."
"... But the administration wasn't retaliating against Russia for interfering in a US election; the action was directed at Trump. Obama was leaving the president-elect with a minor foreign policy crisis in order to box him in. Any criticism of Obama's response, never mind an attempt to reverse it, would only further fuel press reports that Trump was collaborating with the Russians. ..."
"... Obama's biggest move against Trump was to order CIA director John Brennan to conduct a full review of all intelligence relating to Russia and the 2016 elections. He requested it on December 6 and wanted it ready by the time he left office on January 20. But the sitting president already knew what the intelligence community assessment (ICA) was going to say, because Brennan had told him months before. ..."
"... Brennan's handpicked team of CIA, FBI, and NSA analysts had started analyzing Russian election interference in late July. In August, Brennan had briefed Harry Reid on the dossier and may have briefed Obama on it, too. Earlier in August, Brennan sent a "bombshell" report to Obama's desk. ..."
AFTER DONALD TRUMP was elected forty-fifth president of the United States, the operation designed to undermine his campaign transformed.
It became an instrument to bring down the commander in chief. The coup started almost immediately after the polls closed.
Hillary Clinton's communications team decided within twenty-four hours of her concession speech to message that the election was
illegitimate, that Russia had interfered to help Trump.
Obama was working against Trump until the hour he left office. His national security advisor, Susan Rice, commemorated it with
an email to herself on January 20, moments before Trump's inauguration. She wrote to memorialize a meeting in the White House two
weeks before.
On January 5, following a briefing by IC leadership on Russian hacking during the 2016 Presidential election, President Obama
had a brief follow-on conversation with FBI Director Jim Comey and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates in the Oval Office. Vice
President Biden and I were also present.
President Obama began the conversation by stressing his continued commitment to ensuring that every aspect of this issue is
handled by the Intelligence and law enforcement communities "by the book." The President stressed that he is not asking about,
initiating or instructing anything from a law enforcement perspective. He reiterated that our law enforcement team needs to proceed
as it normally would by the book.
From a national security perspective, however, President Obama said he wants to be sure that, as we engage with the incoming
team, we are mindful to ascertain if there is any reason that we cannot share information fully as it relates to Russia. . . .
The President asked Comey to inform him if anything changes in the next few weeks that should affect how we share classified
information with the incoming team. Comey said he would.
The repetition of "by the book" gave away the game -- for there was nothing normal about any of it.
Rice wrote an email to herself. It commemorated a conversation from two weeks before. The conversation was about the FBI's investigation
of the man who was about to move into the White House -- an investigation from which Obama was careful to distance himself. During
the conversation, the outgoing president instructed his top aides to collect information ("ascertain") regarding the incoming administration's
relationship with Russia.
"To any rational person," says Nunes, "it looks like they were scheming to produce a get-out-of-jail-free card -- for the
president and anyone else in the White House. They were playing Monopoly while the others were playing with fire. Now the Obama White
House was in the clear -- sure, they had no idea what Comey and Brennan and McCabe and Strzok and the rest were up to."
Boxing Trump in on Russia
Meanwhile, Obama added his voice to the Trump-Russia echo chamber as news stories alleging Trump's illicit relationship with
the Kremlin multiplied in the transition period. He said he hoped "that the president-elect also is willing to stand up to Russia."
The outgoing president was in Germany with Chancellor Angela Merkel to discuss everything from NATO to Vladimir Putin. Obama said
that he'd "delivered a clear and forceful message" to the Russian president about "meddling with elections . . . and we will respond
appropriately if and when we see this happening."
After refusing to act while the Russian election meddling was actually occurring, Obama responded in December. He ordered
the closing of Russian diplomatic facilities and the expulsion of thirty- five Russian diplomats. The response was tepid. The Russians
had hacked the State Department in 2014 and the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 2015. And now Obama was responding only on his way out.
Even Obama partisans thought it was weak. "The punishment did not fit the crime," said Michael McFaul, Obama's former ambassador
to Russia. "The Kremlin should have paid a much higher price for that attack."
But the administration wasn't retaliating against Russia for interfering in a US election; the action was directed at Trump.
Obama was leaving the president-elect with a minor foreign policy crisis in order to box him in. Any criticism of Obama's response,
never mind an attempt to reverse it, would only further fuel press reports that Trump was collaborating with the Russians.
Spreading Intelligence to Spring Leaks
In the administration's last days, it disseminated intelligence throughout the government, including the White House, Capitol
Hill, and the intelligence community (IC). Intelligence was classified at the lowest possible levels to ensure a wide readership.
The White House was paving the way for a campaign of leaks to disorient the incoming Trump team.
The effort, including the intended result of leaks, was publicly acknowledged in March 2017 by Evelyn Farkas, a former deputy
assistant secretary of defense in the Obama administration.
Obama's biggest move against Trump was to order CIA director John Brennan to conduct a full review of all intelligence relating
to Russia and the 2016 elections. He requested it on December 6 and wanted it ready by the time he left office on January 20. But
the sitting president already knew what the intelligence community assessment (ICA) was going to say, because Brennan had told him
months before.
Brennan's handpicked team of CIA, FBI, and NSA analysts had started analyzing Russian election interference in late July.
In August, Brennan had briefed Harry Reid on the dossier and may have briefed Obama on it, too. Earlier in August, Brennan sent a
"bombshell" report to Obama's desk.
When Brennan reassembled his select team in December, it was to have them reproduce their August findings: Putin, according to
Brennan, was boosting the GOP candidate. And that's why only three days after Obama ordered the assessment in December, the Washington
Post could already reveal what the intelligence community had found.
"The CIA," reported the December 9 edition of the Post , "has concluded in a secret assessment that Russia intervened in
the 2016 election to help Donald Trump win the presidency, rather than just to undermine confidence in the U.S. electoral system."
The story was the first of many apparently sourced to leaks of classified information that were given to the Post team
of Adam Entous, Ellen Nakashima, and Greg Miller. The reporters' sources weren't whistle-blowers shedding light on government corruption
-- rather, they were senior US officials abusing government resources to prosecute a campaign against the newly elected commander
in chief. The article was the earliest public evidence that the coup was under way. The floodgates were open, as the IC pushed more
stories through the press to delegitimize the president-elect.
A Wave of Leak-Sourced Stories All Saying the Same Thing
The same day, a New York Times article by David E. Sanger and Scott Shane echoed the Post 's piece. According to
senior administration officials, "American intelligence agencies have concluded with 'high confidence' that Russia acted covertly
in the latter stages of the presidential campaign to harm Hillary Clinton's chances and promote Donald J. Trump."
A December 14 NBC News story by William M. Arkin, Ken Dilanian, and Cynthia McFadden reported that "Russian President Vladimir
Putin became personally involved in the covert Russian campaign to interfere in the U.S. presidential election, senior U.S. intelligence
officials told NBC News."
The ICA that Obama ordered gave political operatives, the press, and his intelligence chiefs a second shot at Trump. They'd used
the Steele Dossier to feed the echo chamber and obtain surveillance powers to spy on the Trump campaign. The dossier, however, had
come up short. Trump had won.
But now, on his way out of the White House, Obama instructed Brennan to stamp the CIA's imprimatur on the anti-Trump operation.
As Fusion GPS's smear campaign had been the source of the preelection press campaign, the ICA was the basis of the postelection media
frenzy. It was tailored to disrupt the peaceful transition of power and throw the United States into chaos.
Because Trump hadn't been elected by the US public, according to the ICA, but had been tapped by Putin, he was illegitimate. Therefore,
the extraconstitutional and illegal tactics employed by anti-Trump officials were legitimate. The ultimate goal was to remove Trump
from office.
"If it weren't for President Obama," said James Clapper, "we might not have done the intelligence community assessment . . . that
set off a whole sequence of events which are still unfolding today."
Nunes agrees. "The ICA," he says, "was Obama's dossier."
Changing the Intelligence Assessment
Nunes is sitting in his office in the Longworth House Office Building along with his communications director, Jack Langer, a forty-six-year-old
former book editor and historian with a PhD from Duke University.
"The social media attacks on Devin began shortly after the election," Langer remembers. "They're all hinting at some vast conspiracy
involving Russia that the chairman of the Intelligence Committee is part of. And we have no idea what they're talking about."
Nunes points out that his warnings about Russia fell on deaf ears for years. "And all of a sudden I'm a Russian agent," says the
congressman.
Now Langer and Nunes see that the attacks were first launched because the congressman had been named to Trump's transition team.
"I put forward [Mike] Pompeo for CIA director," says Nunes. "He came from our committee."
The attacks on Nunes picked up after the December 9 Washington Post article. The assessment provided there was not what
the HPSCI chairman had been told. The assessment had been altered, and Nunes asked for an explanation. "We got briefed about the
election around Thanksgiving," he says. "And it's just the usual stuff, nothing abnormal. They told us what everyone already knew:
'Hey, the Russians are bad actors, and they're always playing games, and here's what they did.'"
By providing that briefing, the IC had made a mistake. When it later changed the assessment, the November briefing was evidence
that Obama's spy chiefs were up to no good. "I bet they'd like to have that back," says Nunes. "They briefed us before they could
get their new story straight."
'They Kept Everyone Else Away from It'
Nunes acknowledges that he was caught off guard by many things back then. "We still thought these guys were on the up and up,"
he says. "But if we knew, we'd have nailed them by mid-December, when they changed their assessment. 'Wait, you guys are saying this
now, but you said something else just a few weeks ago. What's going on?'"
After the Post story, Nunes wanted an explanation. "We expressed deep concern, both publicly and privately," says Langer.
"We demanded our own briefing to try to determine whether that Post story was true or false. They refused to brief us. They
said, 'We're not going to be doing that until we finish the ICA.'"
Nunes says the fact that the IC conducted an assessment like that was itself unusual. "I don't know how many times they'd done
that in the past, if ever," he says. "But if the IC is operating properly, when someone says what can you tell me on X or Y or Z,
they have it ready to pull up quickly. The tradecraft is reliable, and the intelligence products are reliable." That was not the
case with the ICA. There were problems with how the assessment had been put together.
"If you really were going to do something like an assessment from the intelligence community, then you'd get input from all our
seventeen agencies," says Nunes. "They did the opposite. It was only FBI, CIA, NSA, and DNI. They siloed it, just like they had with
Crossfire Hurricane. They kept everyone else away from it so they didn't have to read them in."
'Manipulation of Intelligence for Political Purposes'
Nunes released several statements in the middle of December. The HPSCI majority, read a December 14 statement, wanted senior Obama
intelligence officials "to clarify press reports that the CIA has a new assessment that it has not shared with us. The Committee
is deeply concerned that intransigence in sharing intelligence with Congress can enable the manipulation of intelligence for political
purposes."
After the statements warned of political foul play in the IC's assessments, the social media attacks on Nunes became more regular.
"They were constant," says Langer.
Anti-Trump operatives recognized that Nunes was going to be a problem. The HPSCI chair had previously called out the IC for politicizing
intelligence. "They said that we had defeated Al Qaeda in Iraq and Syria," says Nunes, "and I knew that wasn't true. Then they withheld
the Osama bin Laden documents to conceal that Al Qaeda worked with Iran, because the administration was protecting the Iran deal.
So when I saw them changing this assessment of the 2016 election in midstream, I knew it was the same old trick: they were politicizing
intelligence."
The speed with which Brennan's handpicked analysts produced the ICA and then got a version of it declassified for public consumption
was another sign that something wasn't right. "All throughout Obama's two terms, his IC chiefs aren't paying attention to Russian
actions," says Nunes. "We give them more money for Russia, which they don't use. But now they know so much about Putin that they
manage to produce a comprehensive assessment of Russian intentions and actions regarding election interference in a month -- at Christmastime,
when everything slows down. And then they produce a declassified version in a manner of weeks. None of this is believable."
Three different versions of the ICA were produced: an unclassified version, a top secret one, and another highly compartmentalized
version. According to a January 11, 2017, Washington Post story by Greg Miller, Ellen Nakashima, and Karen DeYoung, an annex
summarizing the dossier was attached to the versions that were not declassified.
'Designed to Have a Political Effect'
The FBI had been working from Steele's reports for more than half a year. Including the dossier along with the ICA would provide
Comey with ammunition to take on the president-elect. Both he and Brennan were manipulating intelligence for political purposes.
"A lot of the ICA is reasonable," says Nunes. "But those parts become irrelevant due to the problematic parts, which undermine
the entire document. It was designed to have a political effect; that was the ICA's sole purpose."
The assessment's methodological flaws are not difficult to spot. Manufacturing the politicized findings that Obama sought meant
not only abandoning protocol but also subverting basic logic. Two of the ICA's central findings are that:
Putin and the Russian government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump.
Putin and the Russian government aspired to help President-elect Trump's election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary
Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him.
To know preferences and intentions would require sources targeting Putin's inner circles -- either human sources or electronic
surveillance. As Nunes had previously noted, however, US intelligence on Putin's decision-making process was inadequate.
But even if there had been extensive collection on precisely that issue, it would be difficult to know what was true. For instance,
the closest you can get to Putin's inner circle is Putin himself. But even capturing him on an intercept saying he wanted to elect
Trump might prove inconclusive. It is difficult to judge intentions because it is not possible to see into the minds of other people.
How would you know that Putin was speaking truthfully? How would you know that the Russian president didn't know his communications
were under US surveillance and wasn't trying to deceive his audience?
Quality control of information is one of the tasks of counterintelligence -- to discern how you know what you know and whether
that information is trustworthy. There was no quality control for the Trump-Russia intelligence. For instance, Crossfire Hurricane
lead agent Peter Strzok was the FBI's deputy assistant director of counterintelligence. Instead of weeding out flawed intelligence
on Russia, the Crossfire Hurricane team was feeding Steele's reports into intelligence products. Yet the ICA claimed to have "high
confidence" in its assessment that "Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President- elect Trump." What
was the basis of that judgment?
According to the ICA:
Putin most likely wanted to discredit Secretary Clinton because he has publicly blamed her since 2011 for inciting mass protests
against his regime in late 2011 and early 2012, and because he holds a grudge for comments he almost certainly saw as disparaging
him.
"Most likely" and "almost certainly" are rhetorical hedges that show the assessment could not have been made in "high confidence."
Putin may have held a grudge against Clinton, but there is no way of knowing it.
The supporting evidence deteriorates more the farther the ICA purports to reach into Putin's mind.
Beginning in June, Putin's public comments about the US presidential race avoided directly praising President-elect Trump,
probably because Kremlin officials thought that any praise from Putin personally would backfire in the United States.
This is absurd. Part of the evidence that Putin supported Trump is that he avoided praising Trump. It is difficult enough to determine
intentions by what someone says. Yet the ICA claims to have discerned Putin's intentions by what he did not say.
There is no introductory philosophy class in logic where reasoning like that would pass muster. Yet Brennan's handpicked group
used it as the basis of its assessment that Putin had helped Trump.
Moscow also saw the election of President-elect Trump as a way to achieve an international counterterrorism coalition against
the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant.
This may be an accurate description of how Putin saw Trump. But Trump's predecessor also wanted to coordinate anti- ISIS operations
with Moscow. On this view, Trump would have represented a continuation of Obama's ISIS policy. Why would this make Trump's victory
suspicious to Obama's intelligence chiefs?
Curious Inaccuracies about Russia's RT Network
The ICA also pointed to documentary evidence of Putin's intentions: English-language media owned by the Russian government, the
news site Sputnik, and the RT network, were critical of Clinton.
State-owned Russian media made increasingly favorable comments about President-elect Trump as the 2016 US general and primary
election campaigns progressed while consistently offering negative coverage of Secretary Clinton.
Curiously, just days before the election, the informant the US government sent after the Trump campaign praised the Democratic
candidate in an interview with Sputnik. "Clinton would be best for US-UK relations and for relations with the European Union," Stefan
Halper told the Kremlin-directed media outlet. "Clinton is well-known, deeply experienced, and predictable. US-UK relations will
remain steady regardless of the winner although Clinton will be less disruptive over time."
The ICA includes a seven-page appendix devoted to RT, the central node, according to the document, of the Kremlin's effort to
"influence politics, fuel discontent in [ sic ] US."
Adam Schiff appeared on RT in July 2013. He argued for "making the FISA court much more transparent, so the American people can
understand what's being done in their name in the name of national security, so that we can have a more informed debate over the
balance between privacy and security."
RT's editor in chief, Margarita Simonyan, is a master propagandist, according to the ICA. The document fails to mention that Simonyan
heads another Moscow-owned media initiative, Russia Beyond the Headlines , a news supplement inserted into dozens of the West's
leading newspapers, including the New York Times . Russia Beyond the Headlines has been delivered to millions of American
homes over the last decade. By contrast, RT's US market share is so small that it doesn't qualify for the Nielsen ratings. Virtually
no one in the United States watches it.
Taking the logic of Brennan's handpicked team seriously would mean that the publishers of the New York Times played a major
role in a coordinated Russian effort to elect Donald Trump.
'It Was an Operation to Bring Down Trump'
Nunes realized even then the purpose of Obama's dossier. "Devin figured out in December what was going on," says Langer. "It was
an operation to bring down Trump."
There was no evidence that any Trump associate had done anything improper regarding the Russians, and Nunes was losing patience.
"We had serious things the committee wanted to do," he says. "With Trump elected, we could do some big stuff, like with China."
Still, it was important for HPSCI to maintain control of the Russia investigation. Otherwise, Democrats and Never Trump Republicans
were likely to get their wish to convene a bipartisan commission to investigate Russian interference -- with the purpose of turning
it on Trump.
"Before they started floating the idea of a special counsel, the big idea was a special commission like the 9/11 Commission,"
says Langer. It was outgoing secretary of state John Kerry who first came forward with the proposal.
The point was to change the power dynamic. "In a normal committee," says Langer, "the majority has the power, and that happened
to be us. They wanted to strip our power and make it fifty-fifty."
"Bipartisan" was a euphemism for "anti-Trump." "It would have been a complete joke," says Nunes. "A combination of partisan hacks
from the left and people who hated Trump on the right."
Democrats led by Schiff and Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer were joined by the late John McCain, the most active of the Never
Trump Republicans. After the election, the Arizona senator had instructed his aide David Kramer to deliver a copy of the Steele Dossier
to Comey.
"God only knows who they'd have populated that committee with," says Nunes. "Anyone they could control. It would have been a freak
show."
Speaker of the House Paul Ryan defended HPSCI's independence. On the Senate side, Intelligence Committee chairman Richard Burr
had only one move. To deflect demands for an independent commission, he effectively ceded control of the Senate investigation to
his vice chair, Democrat Mark Warner.
No Evidence of Collusion Years Later
Still, Nunes believed that all the talk of Trump and Russia was a waste of time. "They kept promising us evidence of collusion,
week after week, and they came up with nothing."
Nunes's disdain for the ICA forced the Crossfire Hurricane team's hand. "Right around the time that they came out with the ICA,
they kept saying that we were waiting on something to show us, something important that was coming in," he says. "They said it was
some significant figure who they couldn't quite track down yet."
But the FBI knew exactly where its missing link was, the piece of evidence that they thought would convince hardened skeptics
like Nunes that collusion was real. They didn't have to chase him down, because he was sitting at home in Chicago. He submitted to
a voluntary interview January 27 and without a lawyer because he had no idea what the FBI had in store for him.
The Crossfire Hurricane team was figuring how they were going to set up the Trump adviser they'd used to open up the investigation
in July 2016: George Papadopoulos. Lee Smith is the media columnist at Tablet.
Cohen observes in his latest conversation with John Batchelor that the so-called Impeachment
inquiry, whether formal or informal, will make the new Cold War even worse and more dangerous
than it already is, noting that an inflection point has been reached, because at the core of
these allegations -- most of which are undocumented and a substantial number of which are
untrue -- revolving around Russiagate and now Ukrainegate is an underlying demonization of
Russia. Relations between America and Russia will continue to deteriorate either due to the
fact that the entire political spectrum is engaging in a frenzy of Russophobia or that
President Trump, who ran and won on a platform of improving relations with Russia, is now
completely shackled, thus it is inevitable that the new Cold War will continue to become more
dangerous.
Regarding Attorney General Barr's investigation into the origins of Russiagate, as Cohen
noted previously, Barr has made it clear that he's investigating not the FBI but the
intelligence agencies, and Cohen is uncertain that even the Attorney General of the United
States can be successful in that line of inquiry. For example, the young and politically
inconsequential George Papadopolous, a young aid to the Trump campaign, got four or five
visitors, every one of them tied to foreign intelligence, American or European, which makes it
self-evident that the Intelligence Agencies were running an operation against the Trump
campaign. Cohen says that even if Barr is a resolute man and says he wants to get to the bottom
of this, Cohen is not confident that he will be able to do so.
Cohen notes that the Russian press, which follows American politics closely, has resulted in
a consensus that all of this -- Russiagate, Ukrainegate -- was created to stop Trump from
having better relations with Russia. Thus, it is important that Putin had been told the reason
Trump cannot engage in détente is because of Trump being shackled.
Discussing the recent American mission against Abu Baker al-Baghdadi in Syria, Cohen stated
Nancy Pelosi utterly disgraced herself when she complained Trump informed the Russians about
the success of the mission and its initiation, considering the fact that this wing of Congress
is so against Trump he had no guarantee that one of them would not have leaked the mission
before it began. Russian intelligence in that part of the world is probably better than other
nation's, so Cohen assumes Russia knew about the mission and that they helped by providing
information to America.
In addition, Cohen has noted Putin discussed a partnership with America against domestic
terrorism starting with his approach to Obama and noted that even considering the September 11
terror attack, Russia has suffered more victims of domestic terrorism than America has. Obama
thought about the proposal, hesitated, and it never happened. These recent events are a
reminder that the United States and Russia are uniquely positioned to partner against
international terrorism, but this may be slightly beyond the grasp of President Trump at the
present time.
Cohen noted that expert opinion in Russia -- which informs the Kremlin leadership, including
Putin -- has soured on the United States; the older generation of Russian America specialists
who like America, who visit regularly and appreciate American culture, have become utterly
disillusioned and cannot promote a Russian-American partnership given what has happened to
Trump.
Regarding Ukraine, Cohen notes it shares a very large border with Russia, tens of millions
of intermarriages, language, culture and history, and although the United States shares none of
this with Ukraine, the United States has declared Ukraine is a strategic ally, and this would
be equivalent to Russia stating that Mexico is its strategic ally, which is preposterous; the
term "strategic" clearly has military implications.
Expanding on the topic of Ukraine, despite its size and natural resources, it is the poorest
country in Europe. The new president, a comedian who starred in a TV show portraying the
Ukranian president and thus life imitates art, ran as a peace candidate; that and his promise
to fight corruption resulted in his victory. Part of his pledge was to meet with Putin to try
to solve the conflicts; but he promised to end the hot war with Russia. American politics got
in the way and people are still dying: at last count, there were approximately thirteen
thousand dead, including women and children. And the peace candidate has been dragged into
American politics and the commentary on Ukraine has a colonial tone. America speaking of
Ukraine as a "strategic ally" is foolishness and warfare thinking. What should be the American
policy is to encourage Zelensky to pursue these peace policies with Russia so the war doesn't
spread and the killing stops and that Ukraine, which is a potentially rich country, can
recover. While Obama egged on the war policy, Trump seemed to have no policy, other than to
encourage Zelensky in his peace initiative. What isn't known in the conversation Trump had with
Zelensky was whether he encouraged him in his peace initiative; the transcript is a fragment,
redacted and edited so that it doesn't mention the war but certainly it was discussed. The
issue is whether the United States should give Ukraine's government $400 million dollars in
military equipment. Obama, who Cohen observes was not a good foreign policy president refused
to do so but Cohen concludes that was a wise decision. All that providing weapons to Ukraine
would accomplish is to incite the pro-war forces in Kiev against the anti-war forces led by
Zelensky; the military advantage in any event lies with Russia.
Despite the fact Zelensky is an actor, he did run on a program of peace and Cohen believes
that he is sincere; Cohen notes the problem is not Russia, but the armed Nationalists who are
opposed to peace -- approximately 30,000 -- who have publicly threatened Zelensky. Cohen notes
Putin wants to end the war with Ukraine and he has made efforts to help Zelensky, such as the
recent prisoner release, although he included people Russians consider terrorists. Thus,
Zelensky doesn't have a lot of political power. While there are bad nationalist actors -- the
Azov battalion, which threatened Zelensky with either removal or death -- nevertheless Cohen
has asked where the regular army stands: will it back him, will it be loyal? That answer now is
unknown.
Cohen concluded to most Ukrainians Zelensky represented hope, hope in the war against
corruption and hope against the war. The Kremlin wants to end the war; Zelensky has a chance,
he's supported by Germany and France, Putin is helping, but the United States is not a party of
the Minsk Agreement peace acccord. Trump has intruded in his own unusual way but can be a
factor for good. If Cohen were advising President Trump, he'd tell him if he favored the
negotiations for Russian and Ukrainian peace, this would favor his historical reputation.
@Biff
"According to Cohen, Barr is going to investigate the CIA. America's top cop is going to
investigate America's top criminal organization. This should get really interesting. I wonder
who's gonna win?"
Few seem to remember the results of the big CIA investigation of the 70's, the rub then
was the CIA got caught operating domestically against it's charter. Well, Bush Sr. was
appointed to head the investigation when he was actually the HEAD of the domestic branch of
the CIA at the time. Looking at Barr's background I can only conclude we are about to be fed
another similar magic act. I have no doubt who will win the deck is stacked.
Truth Jihad / Kevin
Barrett October 27, 2019
7 Comments Reply Dr. Cynthia McKinney
got elected to Congress six times -- and soon found herself under attack by the Israel lobby
when she refused to sign the "pledge of allegiance to Israel" demanded of all
representatives!
The Lobby was able to eject Rep. McKinney from Congress twice, once in 2002 and again in
2006, by fabricating a primary opponent backed by the vast fortunes of the Zionist oligarchs
and the tireless energy of the 500,000-footsoldier "Zionist Power Configuration" or ZPC. (For
information about the ZPC, read Dr. James Petras's The Power of Israel
in the United States alongside Walt and Mearsheimer
, and then check out the documentary film
The Lobby .)
So are we allowed to discuss what "Jewish state" means? Can we explore the historical,
psychological, and cultural factors that led to the Zionist colonization of Palestine? The
Zionist Power Configuration says "no way!"
According to the ZPC and its attack-dog ADL, anyone who talks about such things is an
"anti-Semite" and should muzzled, deplatformed, and persecuted.
In this interview Dr. McKinney bravely goes where few if any former Congressional
representatives have gone before, speaking frankly about Israel's control of the US Congress
and other centers of power, and raising the taboo issue of the so-called
"Jewish question."
From Wikipedia "Alexander Vindman and his twin brother Yevgeny were born to a Jewish family in the Ukrainian SSR , Soviet Union . [3] After the
death of their mother, the three-year-old twins and their older brother Leonid were brought to
New York in December 1979 by their father, Semyon (Simon). They grew up in Brooklyn's "
Little Odessa "
neighborhood" ... Beginning in 2008, Vindman became a Foreign Area Officer specializing in
Eurasia. In this capacity he served in the U.S. embassies in Kyiv , Ukraine , and Moscow , Russia . Returning to Washington, D.C. he was then a
politico-military affairs officer focused on Russia for the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff . Vindman served on the Joint Staff at the Pentagon from September 2015 to
July 2018. [8] In July 2018, Vindman
accepted an assignment with the National Security Council. [9] In his role on the
NSC, Vindman became part of the U.S. delegation at the inauguration of the Ukraine's newly
elected President, Volodymyr Zelensky . The five member
delegation, led by Rick
Perry , United States Secretary of
Energy , also included Kurt Volker , then U.S. Special Representative
for Ukraine Negotiations, Gordon Sondland , United States
Ambassador to the European Union , and Joseph Pennington, then acting chargé d'affaires .
[10][11]
Here is the whistleblower on Trump's Ukraine call . Why is it that no matter what rock you
turn over there is a Jew underneath?
Who Is Alexander Vindman? A Ukrainian Refugee Turned White House Official Testifies in
the Impeachment Inquiry
He fled Ukraine at age 3 and became a soldier, scholar and official at the White House.
That's where, he told impeachment investigators, he witnessed alarming behavior by President
Trump.
By Sheryl Gay Stolberg
Oct. 29, 2019Updated 12:55 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON -- Alexander S. Vindman and his twin brother, Yevgeny, were 3 years old when
they fled Ukraine with their father and grandmother, Jewish refugees with only their
suitcases and $750, hoping for a better life in the United States
To give Trump his due, his original announcement that he was removing ALL U.S. troops from
Syria made powerful new enemies in the Israel Lobby, which has been backing the president
because of his many favors to Tel Aviv but which has never really liked or trusted him. Israel
has long, and even openly, promoted the breaking up of Syria into its component tribal and
religious parts to enable the acquisition of even more land in the Golan Heights and to reduce
dramatically the threat coming from any unified government in Damascus. It has also seen the
Syrian civil war as a proxy conflict fought by the its poodle the United States against Iran.
Israel and its friends in Congress and the media will, to say the least, be disappointed if the
war is now truly ended and the U.S. military is withdrawn.
Trump also must continue to deal with the fallout from his Democratic Party opponents,
having given them a cudgel to beat him over the head with as Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer and
Adam Schiff all wax emotional over how they really love those "freedom fighting" Kurds. The
Democrats, having denounced Trump with one voice, were joined by Republicans like Mitch
McConnell, Marco Rubio, Mitt Romney and the ever-versatile Lindsay Graham, all dedicated to the
continuation of an interventionist foreign policy, though they would never quite call it that.
It is not likely that any of them are really pleased with a deal to end the Syrian
fighting.
So the opposition, coming from multiple directions against a Donald Trump also on the
impeachment block for Ukraine, will continue and as of this writing it is by no means clear
what will happen vis-à-vis the Pentagon announcing that some troops, augmented by armor
units, would remain in Syria to
protect the oil fields . Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper
explained to reporters that the remaining U.S. troops would seek "to deny access,
specifically revenue to ISIS and any other groups that may want to seek that revenue to enable
their own malign activities." The president
has also suggested , in true Trumpean fashion, that "We want to keep the oil, and we'll
work something out with the Kurds. Maybe we'll have one of our big oil companies to go in and
do it properly," a step that even the feckless Obama Administration had hesitated to take on
legal grounds as the oil unquestionably belongs to Syria. Trump's amigo Senator Lindsey
Graham
elaborated on the plan , saying bluntly that "We can use some of the revenues from future
Syrian oil sales to pay our military commitment in Syria."
And there will be additional fallout from Syria in the damaged relationships in the region.
Demonstrating that it could actually screw up two things simultaneously, the White House had
unleashed Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who warned last Tuesday that the United States was
ready to go to war against Turkey if it proved necessary.
He said "We prefer peace to war But in the event that kinetic action or military action is
needed, you should know that President Trump is fully prepared to undertake that action."
Pompeo's comment comes on top of Trump warnings that he would "obliterate" or "destroy" the
Turkish economy, statements that did not sit well in Ankara and will predictably only create
new problems with a NATO member that has the largest army and economy in the Middle East.
And in another maladroit move, the White House has just announced that it will be giving
$4.5 million to the so-called White Helmets, the major propaganda arm of the Syrian
"resistance." Falsely claiming to be a humanitarian rescue and relief organization, the White
Helmets produced carefully edited films of "heroism under fire" that have been released
worldwide. The films conceal the White Helmets' relationship with the al-Qaeda affiliated group
Jabhat al-Nusra and its participation in the torture and execution of "rebel" opponents.
Indeed, the White Helmets only operated in rebel held territory, which enabled them to shape
the narrative both regarding who they were and what was occurring on the ground.
The White Helmets travelled to bombing sites with their film crews trailing behind them.
Once at the sites, with no independent observers, they are able to arrange or even stage what
was filmed to conform to their selected narrative. Perhaps the most serious charge against the
White Helmets consists of the evidence that they
actively participated in the atrocities , to include torture and murder, carried out by
their al-Nusra hosts. There have been numerous photos of the White
Helmets operating directly with armed terrorists and also celebrating over the bodies of
execution victims and murdered Iraqi soldiers. The group's jihadi associates regard the White
Helmets as fellow "mujahideen" and "soldiers of the revolution."
Trump using our troops to occupy Syrian oil fields -- part of our regime change war to
topple the Syrian government by crippling their economy -- is a modern-day siege that will
hurt the Syrian people the most.
Lindsey Graham elaborated on the plan, saying bluntly that "We can use some of the
revenues from future Syrian oil sales to pay our military commitment in Syria."
And Trump's statement that Saudi would pay for our troops in Saudi.
So now the US is whoring out our military . They are all insane .all of them.
Our politicians are whores for Israel and then middle men pimps who whore out Americans and
our troops.
The best thing that could or can be said of Orange Donald is that Hillary would've been
worse. Every time I see and hear him speak I can only imagine the intense embarrassment that
thinking Americans must feel. Yes, Obama was worse, as was Bill, but Trumpenstein is a sick
joke of a president by any measure. Sad indeed. It's Halloween every day in America these
days it seems.
excerpts
.
"An ally's value is not just a function of interests and capabilities, however; it may also
depend on how it treats its partners. A good ally doesn't interfere too much in one's own
domestic politics and doesn't overtly favor one political faction over another. A good ally
is (mostly) truthful and doesn't lie to you or deliberately feed faulty information to your
intelligence agencies. All nations spy on one another to some extent, but a good ally doesn't
do so with abandon. Needless to say, a good ally doesn't cut deals with your biggest rivals
and isn't constantly hunting for a better deal from some other patron.
Allies that violate one or more of these strictures are more problematic partners. That
does not necessarily mean that the alliance should be terminated, but the net value of an
otherwise useful ally will decline if it becomes unstable, repeatedly gets into trouble and
has to be bailed out, becomes weaker with time and requires more and more protection , makes
promises and doesn't keep them, and repeatedly flirts with one's rivals. The more that such
behaviors become commonplace, the more the alliance's value should be questioned.
With respect to the Middle East, therefore, the United States should adopt a more
conditional and businesslike approach to its current partners and its present adversaries.
None of its current allies are so valuable or virtuous to deserve unconditional U.S. support,
and confining U.S. policy toward Iran to the imposition of even-stricter sanctions just
limits U.S. leverage even more. Why should any of its current allies do its bidding when they
know it'll back them no matter what? And if the Saudis, Israelis, Egyptians, and others knew
the United States was also talking to Iran (something China and Russia do routinely), they
might be inclined to do more to keep Washington happy.
The obvious solution to this dilemma is to be more selective in extending commitments in the
first place. This is the essence of foreign-policy restraint: The United States should define
its interests somewhat more narrowly and then defend those interests more consistently and
vigorously. In alliance terms, it means extending commitments only when vital U.S. interests
are at stake. Carefully considered commitments will be highly credible, because both allies
and adversaries can see for themselves why it is in the U.S. interest to fulfill them. (Pro
tip: When it is hard to convince some other country that you really will fight for them,
maybe that's telling you something important about their strategic value.)
Everyone with brains saw this coming. This is so typically Donald Trump. He doesn't have a
clue at all. The most righteous thing that the US can do is to fail in Syria. But this will
also doom the empire itself. Hopefully it will also spell the end for Israel.
But this game is far from over yet. Hezbollah is denounced as a terrorist organisation as
another step in the war against the region. US and Israel will continue until the very last
end. They will never quit because their empires are at stake.
" White House ..will be giving $4.5 million to the ..White Helmets, the major propaganda
arm of the Syrian "resistance.". the "major propaganda arm of the Syrian resistance"?
I just don't see how investing in propaganda in Syria can make a profit for the
white house ?
What American interest in Syria would support challenging the world to take on the USA
military?
Seems kind of risky to me.. if someone accepts, or false flags, the challenge, the result
might initiate WW III.
I am pretty tough on the president. However, on this issue, I would have grant him credit for
being prudent, even if his frustration in that mode is to grant interventionists some of what
they want.
I don't like ironing his suits every other day -- however, if anything can be drawn from
all of the hysteria, it is that the president is slowly making some headway. And had he not,
no daylight would be visible on this issue. it took all of about a day before the
interventionists demonstrated just how entrenched this policy is.
The real damage is what this policy has done to US credibility on the whole. I am aware
that lost of very smart people consider "credibility" a nonissue. But I disagree. Anyone
wanting to check Russian influence would not have invaded Iraq or Afghanistan and had they
done so, they would have done so by exercising full force and owning the countries in
full.
Attempting to hold Afghanistahn to development -- could never have been piecemeal work and
it was folly. Not to mention wholly unnecessary to the purpose. Even the invasion to capture
twenty wanted suspects of 9/11 -- uh conspiracy aside -- was ineffectual.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -
Before the waxing on about Israel starts. Clearly, we must take responsibility for our
foreign policy.
Decision-makers in Western capitals had long viewed the Assad regime as a grim model of
Middle Eastern stability, but in 2011, they suddenly thought that "people power" would
bring down Assad as it had other Arab despots. The Assad regime, however, had something the
others didn't. "Popular resistance" strategies work well against authoritarian systems
whose leadership come from the country's ethnic and sectarian majority , such as Egypt.
Soldiers ordered to turn their guns on protestors are faced with a choice: Shoot their
brethren among the protestors, or help get rid of those ordering them to do so. This causes
a split in the army and security services, which can lead to a toppling of the
government.
Assad's by contrast is a minority government with a kind of fortress of sectarian
interests around it. Minority Alawites serve at the core, followed by concentric rings of
other minorities (Christians, Shia, etc.), and finally by coopted Sunnis who represent the
majority in Syria. Minority army and security officers are therefore farther removed
from the majority Sunni population, making them more likely to order fire against
protestors than to topple their brethren in power.
Trump has told us at least twenty times how ISIS has been defeated so if that is truly the
case then the oil fields aren't in need of protection by the U.S. military. The last remnants
of ISIS and their bloodthirsty leader, Al-Baghdadi, were supposedly just killed in the
weekend raid, so while ISIS may live on in the hearts of some Muslims it has lost almost all
of its leadership and military potential to threaten the oil fields.
Trump says he wants to end "these stupid wars" but by his rhetoric and schizophrenic
policy seems possibly on the verge of starting new ones.
Russia is correct in saying that the continued U.S. presence in Syria preventing Assad
from assuming control over his own oil constitutes "international state banditry". On that
point I say the U.S. has learned the craft of banditry well from its Israeli handlers and
masters.
Not sure the US empire have allies.
There are vassals, the occupied and conquered, the colonies, euphemistically called "allies",
and there is an enemy parasite euphemistically called "ally", Israel.
Then there is maybe sort of "junior" ally in crime, the Brits, who are more or less
vassals too.
US Admiral Inman called Israel an enemy, who is aggressively spying.
as of this writing it is by no means clear what will happen vis-à-vis the
Pentagon announcing that some troops, augmented by armor units, would remain in Syria to
protect the oil fields.
Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper explained to reporters that the remaining U.S. troops
would seek "to deny access, specifically revenue to ISIS and any other groups that may want
to seek that revenue to enable their own malign activities." The president has also
suggested, in true Trumpean fashion, that "We want to keep the oil, and we'll work
something out with the Kurds. Maybe we'll have one of our big oil companies to go in and do
it properly,"
Embarrassing.
" We want to keep the oil ." That's the oil in Syria? A foreign country and
sovereign state.
This is something like a bad caricature, a comedy sketch.
Trump says he is a nationalist. He is a one-step-forward-two-steps-back nationalist.
@renfro The
US military is nothing but a make work program for middle America. But keeping them engaged
in countless overseas "conflicts" the power that be hope to keep them from noticing that the
jobs they used to do either don't exist or are being done by illegals all while funneling tax
dollars into the military industrial complex. The bonus is that in the process you kill or
maim a disproportionate number of traditional Americans while the folks at home encourage the
whole thing
It's funny the Isreal lobby has gotten more out of Trump than the American public, and they
are still complaining and don't trust him. Why would anyone work with these ghastly wretches
after seeing this kind of temperament. The Isreal lobby in America enjoys more privileges and
benefits that any other individual group, yet it's never enough. Notice how Obama wanted
regime change in Syria, and then it's neocons who are urging the fight to continue today.
What did this tiny ethnic minority ever do to earn the absolute devotion of the entire US
government.
Now as to the challenge of governing effectively, Trump must be allowed two "excuses" for
his less-than-ideal governance. One, the major one, is that he is being obstructed --
attacked actually -- by the entire entrenched Establishment which has been looting the
country forever, in good times and bad, and wishes to preserve that status quo. The other is
the personal limitations inherent in every human being. We all have our strengths and
weaknesses. Trump is a bright guy, and a very strong personality, but clearly not omniscient.
On his own, he will not be able to get it right every time. So, subject to these two factors,
Trump will have -- has had -- diminished effectiveness. That said, he's incredibly nimble,
and can "flip-flop" -- ie turn on a dime, to change direction -- when something isn't
working. That's in stark contrast to the "foolish consistency [that] is the hobgoblin of
[the] little minds" -- ie rigidity -- of the professional political class. In any event, the
game will take a while, and Trump will stick with it and he knows how to win.
The Trump-haters won't acknowledge this, of course, and his supporters may be unable to
properly assess the obstacles he has to deal with so as to be able to accept a certain level
of disappointment. But unless Tulsi can break out, Trump will have five+ more years -- that's
four more plus the fourteen months remaining of this, his first term -- to work on fixing the
US.
Personally, I don't give a damn -- I'm safe and prosperous and outside the nuclear blast
zone -- and as a Trump supporter who wants to see him burn Washington to the ground, I'm
enjoying -- thoroughly enjoying -- the spectacle. I'm particularly excited by the prospect of
the coming take-down of the Deep State coup plotters. Brennan, Clapper, and Comey:
perp-walked, in the dock, orange jump-suits, etc. Bring it!
I look at actions and their results, not the noise of rhetorical "perception
management"/mind-rape.
He has half the nation, 95+ percent of Washington, DC, 95+ of NYC elites, 95+ percent of
the media, 100% of the Democrats, half the Republicans, 95+ percent of the world's people,
including their leaders
who hate his guts with a netherworld insanity, and would like to see him and the
Deplorables castrated and then burned alive. In that order.
So is it any surprise that his rhetoric is disjointed and contradictory?
Is it Donald Trump who's torturing Julian Assange, or the Deepstate scum who also hate
Donald Trump?
I've said all along, that the day he starts a war with Iran, (or anyone else, for that
matter), is the day I damn his soul. (insofar as a mortal can do so ; ).
But he hasn't started a war with Iran. All screeching- from every orifice of the
media and Deepstate and Zion and zio-Christians and MIC and CIA; ad infinitum.-
notwithstanding.
As you so colorfully put it, "I wouldn't give a damn if Trump wore a tutu and farted and
belched.." his Tweets, so long as we get no war with Iran, and the troops ebb their way out
of the Eternal Wars.
That's how I see it all. The guy is swimming in a septic tank full of Chuck Schumer's
turds and Nancy Pelosi's acid piss. The pure hatred of the media, and a very significant
percentage of Mitts and Marcos and other assorted human excrement. He's hated by most of the
world for simply being an unapologetic white guy, as opposed to the leaders of Germany and
France and Canada and England, where sniveling, abased self-loathing is de rigueur.
I certainly don't approve of everything he does, but considering that the alternative
would have meant the end of even the pretense of human freedom in my lifetime, at least in
the (dying) Western world- what he's done is given us a precious few more years. That's
critical time to plan an escape rout, and get thee to Uruguay. If for no other reason, I'm
grateful to Trump for that.
Improvement of this sorry state would take lots of painstaking capacity building to offset
CIA's ongoing capacity demolition. Everybody at State is a CIA focal point or an actual
official-cover fake dip, a professional ratfucker ratfucking Assad or Assange or everybody
else A-Z. They could not negotiate their way out of a paper bag. They have no inkling what
authorities govern their official functions.
I looked at the foreign service exam once and thought, who would waste their precious
moments on this shit? Grade-school civics, Microsoft office tips & tricks, just crap
insulting your intelligence. They're churning out statesmooks who don't know what the UN
Charter says. They know nothing about diplomatic history. They spy on foreign diplomats
instead of just like asking them what they think.
Your whole fucking country is a joke, a laughingstock, cause CIA knuckle-draggers wrecked
it. And it's extra funny now that Russia can make Langley, the Farm, Camp Swampy, No Man's
Island and all your fusion centers into big sinkholes of molten basalt and there ain't nothin
you can do about it, so you just got to watch the whole world laugh in your face and blow you
off.
The long nightmare in Syria might finally be coming to an end, but not thanks to the United
States and the administration of President Donald Trump.
Trump's boast that "this was an outcome created by us, the United States, and nobody else"
was as empty as all the other rhetoric coming out of the White House over the past two and a
half years. Nevertheless, it now appears that the U.S. military just might finally be bidding
farewell to an exercise that began under President Barack Obama as a prime bit of liberal
interventionism, with American forces illegally entering into a conflict that the White House
barely understood and subsequently meddling and prolonging the fighting.
The fundamental reason why the U.S. was so ineffective was that the Obama Administration's
principal objective from the beginning was to remove Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, yet
another attempt at "humanitarian" regime change similar to that which produced such a wonderful
result in Libya. Al-Assad was never in serious danger as he had significant popular support,
including from the country's Christian minority, and American piecemeal attempts to negotiate
some kind of exit strategy were doomed as they eschewed any dealing with the legitimate
government that was in place. The Syrian civil war supported and even enabled by Washington
caused more than 500,000 deaths, created some 9 million internal and external refugees, and
destroyed the Syrian economy and infrastructure while also almost starting a war between the
U.S. and Turkey.
The Russians understood the American mistake and consequently were able to arrange a
settlement which now appears to be viable. They were able to deal with the Syrian government,
Turkey, and the Kurds who had been set adrift by Washington. The arrangement arrived at has a
number of significant features. First, it guarantees Syria's territory integrity, which
presumably means the U.S. will eventually have to evacuate its remaining positions in the oil
region. Second, it satisfies Turkish legitimate security demands for a disarmed safe zone,
which means that Kurdish militias will have to disarm and/or move twenty miles away from the
border. The safe zone will be patrolled by the Syrian Army and the Russians with Turkish
observers. Third, all separatist groups (terrorists) will be hunted down and eliminated and
further attempts by them to reestablish in Syria will be opposed by all parties to the
agreement. Fourth, steps will be taken to make possible the orderly return of refugees to
Syria.
It is undeniably true that throughout the Syrian farrago, President Trump's admittedly
inherited policy could not possibly have been more incoherent, occasionally bizarre,
predictably inconsistent, and actually dangerous to genuine American interests in the region.
It is to everyone's benefit that the game is finally over, but one can expect the
neoconservatives in the United States to do their best to bring about yet another reversal by
Trump.
It must be conceded that along the way, President Trump was not exactly acting with a free
hand. He has been beleaguered by a Deep State conspiracy against him that began even before he
was nominated, though he didn't have to help his enemies by shooting himself in the head at
every opportunity through tweets and demeaning language. The apparent commitment to withdraw
all U.S. forces from Syria was long overdue as Washington's involvement in the fighting was
wrong by every measure right from the beginning and remaining has only served to make more
complicated the country's recovery from eight years of conflict. It also was contrary to its
publicly stated objective of destroying ISIS. A strong Syrian government was and is best placed
to do just that and Washington, in a panic to recruit, train and arm mercenaries to fight
Damascus often wound up arming terrorists.
But doing what is right does not go far in today's United States of America and the fact
that Trump is now taking credit for a ceasefire and by extension a settlement of the conflict
means little as he has predictably folded already once on plans to withdraw. The argument that
the Kurds have been betrayed has a certain cogency, but the reality is that the Kurdish leaders
entered into a relationship with the U.S. military based on their own interests with no
expectation that Washington would be backing them up forever. They are now well placed to cut
their own deals with both Damascus and Ankara, with Russia in the middle working to sustain the
agreement to end the fighting and restore the Syrian state's status ante bellum.
To give Trump his due, his original announcement that he was removing ALL U.S. troops from
Syria made powerful new enemies in the Israel Lobby, which has been backing the president
because of his many favors to Tel Aviv but which has never really liked or trusted him. Israel
has long, and even openly, promoted the breaking up of Syria into its component tribal and
religious parts to enable the acquisition of even more land in the Golan Heights and to reduce
dramatically the threat coming from any unified government in Damascus. It has also seen the
Syrian civil war as a proxy conflict fought by the its poodle the United States against Iran.
Israel and its friends in Congress and the media will, to say the least, be disappointed if the
war is now truly ended and the U.S. military is withdrawn.
Trump also must continue to deal with the fallout from his Democratic Party opponents,
having given them a cudgel to beat him over the head with as Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer and
Adam Schiff all wax emotional over how they really love those "freedom fighting" Kurds. The
Democrats, having denounced Trump with one voice, were joined by Republicans like Mitch
McConnell, Marco Rubio, Mitt Romney and the ever-versatile Lindsay Graham, all dedicated to the
continuation of an interventionist foreign policy, though they would never quite call it that.
It is not likely that any of them are really pleased with a deal to end the Syrian
fighting.
So the opposition, coming from multiple directions against a Donald Trump also on the
impeachment block for Ukraine, will continue and as of this writing it is by no means clear
what will happen vis-à-vis the Pentagon announcing that some troops, augmented by armor
units, would remain in Syria to
protect the oil fields . Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper
explained to reporters that the remaining U.S. troops would seek "to deny access,
specifically revenue to ISIS and any other groups that may want to seek that revenue to enable
their own malign activities." The president
has also suggested , in true Trumpean fashion, that "We want to keep the oil, and we'll
work something out with the Kurds. Maybe we'll have one of our big oil companies to go in and
do it properly," a step that even the feckless Obama Administration had hesitated to take on
legal grounds as the oil unquestionably belongs to Syria. Trump's amigo Senator Lindsey
Graham
elaborated on the plan , saying bluntly that "We can use some of the revenues from future
Syrian oil sales to pay our military commitment in Syria."
And there will be additional fallout from Syria in the damaged relationships in the region.
Demonstrating that it could actually screw up two things simultaneously, the White House had
unleashed Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who warned last Tuesday that the United States was
ready to go to war against Turkey if it proved necessary.
He said "We prefer peace to war But in the event that kinetic action or military action is
needed, you should know that President Trump is fully prepared to undertake that action."
Pompeo's comment comes on top of Trump warnings that he would "obliterate" or "destroy" the
Turkish economy, statements that did not sit well in Ankara and will predictably only create
new problems with a NATO member that has the largest army and economy in the Middle East.
And in another maladroit move, the White House has just announced that it will be giving
$4.5 million to the so-called White Helmets, the major propaganda arm of the Syrian
"resistance." Falsely claiming to be a humanitarian rescue and relief organization, the White
Helmets produced carefully edited films of "heroism under fire" that have been released
worldwide. The films conceal the White Helmets' relationship with the al-Qaeda affiliated group
Jabhat al-Nusra and its participation in the torture and execution of "rebel" opponents.
Indeed, the White Helmets only operated in rebel held territory, which enabled them to shape
the narrative both regarding who they were and what was occurring on the ground.
Some White Helmets continue to operate in Syria's terrorist-controlled Idlib province,
raising the question whether the United States is prepared to give more taxpayer derived money
directly to terrorists. Several months ago, as the Syrian Army closed in on some of the other
pockets where the White Helmets operated, the U.S. and Israel mounted an operation to evacuate
many of them. Some of them and their families were moved to Israel and Jordan and many of them
have wound up in Canada. If the White House again does a flip-flop and pulls the plug on the
money earmarked for them it would truly be a welcome sign that the U.S. has realized that the
game is over and its direct involvement in Syria should be ended.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest,
a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a
more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is
councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its
email is[email protected] .
Trump using our troops to occupy Syrian oil fields -- part of our regime change war to
topple the Syrian government by crippling their economy -- is a modern-day siege that will
hurt the Syrian people the most.
Money quote: “Top Dems are involved in the plundering of the Ukraine: new names, mind-boggling accounts."
Notable quotes:
"... Indeed, John Kerry, the Secretary of State in Obama's administration, was his partner-in-crime. But Joe Biden was number one. During the Obama presidency, Biden was the US proconsul for Ukraine, and he was involved in many corruption schemes. He authorised transfer of three billion dollars of the US taxpayers' money to the post-coup government of the Ukraine; the money was stolen, and Biden took a big share of the spoils. ..."
"... Two years ago, (that is already under President Trump) the United States began to investigate the allocation of 3 billion dollars; it was allocated in 2014, in 2015, in 2016; one billion dollars per year. The investigation showed that the documents were falsified, the money was transferred to Ukraine, and stolen. The investigators tracked each payment, discovered where the money went, where it was spent and how it was stolen. ..."
"... The money was allocated with the flagrant violation of American law. There was no risk assessment, no audit reports. Normally the USAID, when allocating cash, always prepares a substantial package of documents. But the billions were given to Ukraine completely without documents. The criminal case on the embezzlement of USAID funds had been signed personally by the US Attorney General, so these issues are very much alive. ..."
"... Poroshenko was aware of that; he gave orders to declare Sam Kislin persona non grata. Once the old man (he is over 80) flew into Kiev airport and he was not allowed to come in; he spent the night in detention and was flown back to the US next day. Poroshenko had been totally allied with Clinton camp. ..."
"... In all these scams, there are people of Clinton and spooks who are fully integrated in the Democratic Party. A former head of CIA, Robert James Woolsey, now sits on the Board of Directors of Velta , producing Ukrainian titanium. Woolsey is a neocon, a member of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), pro-Israel think-tank, and a man who relentlessly pushed for Iraq war. A typical Democrat spook, now he gets profits from Ukrainian ore deposits. ..."
"... The loss was of Ukrainian people, and of US taxpayers, while the beneficiaries were the Deep State, which is probably just another name for the deadly mix of spooks, media and politicians. ..."
"... The globalist criminal elites will not be held responsible for any of these crimes. They're bound together by ties of blackmail forged by guys like Epstein, mutually assured incrimination in serial swindles which cross Left and Right political boundaries and literal murder in the case of guys like Seth Rich. ..."
"... If they were only stealing money it would be bad enough, but the fact that these same grifters are our "diplomats" and warmakers is positively Orwellian. Watching these petty hoodlums play nuclear chicken with Russia so they can squeeze more shekels from the supine Ukraine would be laughable if I could get the first-strike nightmares of my Cold War childhood out of my head long enough to laugh. ..."
A talk with Oleg Tsarev reveals the alleged identity of the "Trump/Ukraine Whistleblower"
Israel Shamir October
25, 2019 2,400 Words 6 Comments Reply
Top Dems are involved in the plundering of the Ukraine: new names, mind-boggling accounts.
The mysterious 'whistleblower' whose report had unleashed the impeachment is named in the
exclusive interview given to the Unz Review by a prominent Ukrainian politician, an
ex-Member of Parliament of four terms, a candidate for Ukraine's presidency, Oleg Tsarev.
Mr Tsarev, a tall, agile and graceful man, a good speaker and a prolific writer, had been a
leading and popular Ukrainian politician before the 2014 putsch; he stayed in the Ukraine after
President Yanukovych's flight; ran for the Presidency against Mr Poroshenko, and eventually had
to go to exile due to multiple threats to his life. During the failed attempt to secede, he was
elected the speaker of the Parliament of Novorossia (South-Eastern Ukraine). I spoke to him in
Crimea, where he lives in the pleasant seaside town of Yalta. Tsarev still has many supporters
in the Ukraine, and is a leader of the opposition to the Kiev regime.
Oleg, you followed Biden story from its very inception. Biden is not the only Dem
politician involved in the Ukrainian corruption schemes, is he?
Indeed, John Kerry, the Secretary of State in Obama's administration, was his
partner-in-crime. But Joe Biden was number one. During the Obama presidency, Biden was the US
proconsul for Ukraine, and he was involved in many corruption schemes. He authorised transfer
of three billion dollars of the US taxpayers' money to the post-coup government of the Ukraine;
the money was stolen, and Biden took a big share of the spoils.
It is a story of ripping the US taxpayer and the Ukrainian customer off for the benefit of a
few corruptioners, American and Ukrainian. And it is a story of Kiev regime and its dependence
on the US and IMF. The Ukraine has a few midsize deposits of natural gas, sufficient for
domestic household consumption. The cost of its production was quite low; and the Ukrainians
got used to pay pennies for their gas. Actually, it was so cheap to produce that the Ukraine
could provide all its households with free gas for heating and cooking, just like Libya did.
Despite low consumer price, the gas companies (like Burisma) had very high profits and very
little expenditure.
After the 2014 coup, IMF demanded to raise the price of gas for the domestic consumer to
European levels, and the new president Petro Poroshenko obliged them. The prices went sky-high.
The Ukrainians were forced to pay many times more for their cooking and heating; and huge
profits went to coffers of the gas companies. Instead of raising taxes or lowering prices,
President Poroshenko demanded the gas companies to pay him or subsidise his projects. He said
that he arranged the price hike; it means he should be considered a partner.
Burisma Gas company had to pay extortion money to the president Poroshenko. Eventually its
founder and owner Mr Nicolai Zlochevsky decided to invite some important Westerners into the
company's board of directors hoping it would moderate Poroshenko's appetites. He had brought in
Biden's son Hunter, John Kerry, Polish ex-President Kwasniewski; but it didn't help him.
Poroshenko became furious that the fattened calf may escape him, and asked the Attorney
General Shokin to investigate Burisma trusting some irregularities would emerge. AG Shokin
immediately discovered that Burisma had paid these 'stars' between 50 and 150 thousand dollar
per month each just for being on the list of directors. This is illegal by the Ukrainian tax
code; it can't be recognised as legitimate expenditure.
At that time Biden the father entered the fray. He called Poroshenko and gave him six hours
to close the case against his son. Otherwise, one billion dollars of the US taxpayers' funds
won't pass to the Ukrainian corruptioners. Zlochevsky, the Burisma owner, paid Biden well for
this conversation: he received between three and ten million dollars, according to different
sources.
AG Shokin said he can't close the case within six hours; Poroshenko sacked him and installed
Mr Lutsenko in his stead. Lutsenko was willing to dismiss the case of Burisma, but he also
could not do it in a day, or even in a week. Biden, as we know, could not keep his trap shut:
by talking about the pressure he put on Poroshenko, he incriminated himself. Meanwhile Mr
Shokin gave evidence that Biden put pressure on Poroshenko to fire him, and now it was
confirmed. The evidence was given to the US lawyers in connection with another case, Firtash
case.
What is Firtash Case?
The Democrats wanted to get another Ukrainian oligarch, Mr Firtash, to the US and make him
to confess that he illegally supported Trump's campaign for the sake of Russia. Firtash had
been arrested in Vienna, Austria; there he fought extradition to the US. His lawyers claimed it
is purely political case, and they used Mr Shokin's deposition to substantiate their claim. For
this reason, the evidence supplied by Shokin is not easily reversible, even if Shokin were
willing, and he is not. He also stated under oath that the Democrats pressurised him to help
and extradite Firtash to the US, though he had no standing in this purely American issue. It
seems that Mrs Clinton believes that Firtash's funds helped Trump to win elections, an
extremely unlikely thing [says Mr Tsarev].
Talking about Burisma and Biden; what is this billion dollars of aid that Biden could
give or withhold?
It is USAID money, the main channel of the US aid for "support of democracy". First billion
dollars of USAID came to the Ukraine in 2014. This was authorised by Joe Biden, while for
Ukraine, the papers were signed by Mr Turchinov, the "acting President". The Ukrainian
constitution does not know of such a position, and Turchinov, "the acting President" had no
right to sign neither a legal nor financial document. Thus, all the documents that were signed
by him, in fact, had no legal force. However, Biden countersigned the papers signed by
Turchynov and allocated money for Ukraine. And the money was stolen – by the Democrats
and their Ukrainian counterparts.
Two years ago, (that is already under President Trump) the United States began to
investigate the allocation of 3 billion dollars; it was allocated in 2014, in 2015, in 2016;
one billion dollars per year. The investigation showed that the documents were falsified, the
money was transferred to Ukraine, and stolen. The investigators tracked each payment,
discovered where the money went, where it was spent and how it was stolen.
As a result, in October 2018, the U.S. Department of Justice opened a criminal case for
"Abuse of power and embezzlement of American taxpayers' money". Among the accused there are two
consecutive Finance Ministers of the Ukraine, Mrs Natalie Ann Jaresko who served 2014-2016 and
Mr Alexander Daniluk who served 2016-2018, and three US banks. The investigation caused the
USAID to cease issuing grants since August 2019. As Trump said, now the US does not give away
money and does not impose democracy.
The money was allocated with the flagrant violation of American law. There was no risk
assessment, no audit reports. Normally the USAID, when allocating cash, always prepares a
substantial package of documents. But the billions were given to Ukraine completely without
documents. The criminal case on the embezzlement of USAID funds had been signed personally by
the US Attorney General, so these issues are very much alive.
Sam Kislin was involved in this investigation. He is a good friend and associate of
Giuliani, Trump's lawyer and an ex-mayor of New York. Kislin is well known in Kiev, and I have
many friends who are Sam's friends [said Tsarev]. I learned of his progress, because some of my
friends were detained in the United States, or interrogated in Ukraine. They briefed me about
this. It appears that Burisma is just the tip of the scandal, the tip of the iceberg. If Trump
will carry on, and use what was already initiated and investigated, the whole headquarters of
the Democratic party will come down. They will not be able to hold elections. I have no right
to name names, but believe me, leading functionaries of the Democratic party are involved.
Poroshenko was aware of that; he gave orders to declare Sam Kislin persona non grata. Once
the old man (he is over 80) flew into Kiev airport and he was not allowed to come in; he spent
the night in detention and was flown back to the US next day. Poroshenko had been totally
allied with Clinton camp.
And President Zelensky? Is he free from Clintonite Democrats' influence?
If he were, there would not be the scandal of Trump phone call. How the Democrats learned of
this call and its alleged content? The official version says there was a CIA man, a
whistle-blower, who reported to the Democrats. What the version does not clarify, where this
whistle-blower was located during the call. I tell you, he was located in Kiev, and he was
present at the conversation, at the Ukrainian President Zelensky's side. This man was (perhaps)
a CIA asset, but he also was a close associate of George Soros, and a Ukrainian high-ranking
official. His name is Mr Alexander Daniluk . He is also the man
the investigation of Sam Kislin and of the DoJ had led to, the Finance Minister of Ukraine at
the time, the man who was responsible for the embezzlement of three billion US taxpayer's best
dollars. The DoJ issued an order for his arrest. Naturally he is devoted to Biden personally,
and to the Dems in general. I would not trust his version of the phone call at all.
Daniluk was supposed to accompany President Zelensky on his visit to Washington; but he was
informed that there is an order for his arrest. He remained in Kiev. And soon afterwards, the
hell of the alleged leaked phone call broke out. Zelensky administration investigated and
concluded that the leak was done by Mr Alexander Daniluk, who is known for his close relations
with George Soros and with Mr Biden. Alexander Daniluk had been fired. (However, he did not
admit his guilt and said the leak was done by his sworn enemy, the head of president's
administration office, Mr Andrey Bogdan , who allegedly framed
Daniluk.)
This is not the only case of US-connected corruption in Ukraine. There is Amos J. Hochstein , a protege of former
VP Joe Biden, who has served in the Barack Obama administration as the Assistant Secretary of
State for Energy Resources. He still hangs on the Ukraine. Together with an American citizen
Andrew Favorov
, the Deputy Director of Naftogas he organised very expensive "reverse gas import" into
Ukraine. In this scheme, the Russian gas is bought by Europeans and afterwards sold to Ukraine
with a wonderful margin. In reality, gas comes from Russia directly, but payments go via
Hochstein. It is much more costly than to buy directly from Russia; Ukrainian people pay, while
the margin is collected by Hochstein and Favorov. Now they plan to import liquefied gas from
the United States, at even higher price. Again, the price will be paid by the Ukrainians, while
profits will go to Hochstein and Favorov.
In all these scams, there are people of Clinton and spooks who are fully integrated in the
Democratic Party. A former head of CIA, Robert James Woolsey, now sits on the Board of
Directors of Velta , producing Ukrainian
titanium. Woolsey is a neocon, a member of the Project for the New
American Century (PNAC), pro-Israel think-tank, and a man who relentlessly pushed for Iraq
war. A typical Democrat spook, now he gets profits from Ukrainian ore deposits.
One of the best Ukrainian corruption stories is connected with Audrius Butkevicius , the former
Minister of Defence (1996 to 2000) and a Member of the Seimas (Parliament) of post-Soviet
Lithuania. Mr AB is supposedly working for MI6, and now is a member of the notorious Institute for
Statecraft , a UK deep state propaganda outfit involved in disinformation operations,
subversion of the democratic process and promoting Russophobia and the idea of a new cold war.
In 1991 he commanded snipers that shoot Lithuanian protesters. The kills were ascribed to the
Soviet armed forces, and the last Soviet President Mr Gorbachev ordered speedy withdrawal of
his troops from Lithuania. Mr AB became the Minister of Defence of his independent nation. In
1997 the Honourable Minister of Defence "had requested 300,000 USD from a senior executive of a
troubled oil company for his assistance in obtaining the discontinuance of criminal proceedings
concerning the company's vast debts", in the language of the court judgement. He was arrested
on receipt of the bribe, had been sentenced to five years of jail, but a man with such
qualifications was not left to rot in a prison.
In 2005 he commanded the snipers who killed protesters in Kyrgyzstan, in Georgia he repeated
the feat in 2003 during the Rose Revolution. In 2014 he did it again in Kiev, where his snipers
killed around a hundred men, protesters and police. He was brought to Kiev by Mr Turchinov, who
called himself the "acting President" and who countersigned Joe Biden's billion dollars'
grant.
In October 2018 the name of Mr AB came up again. Military warehouses of Chernigov had caught
fire; allegedly thousands of shells stored for fighting the separatists had been destroyed by
fire. And it was not the first fire of this kind: the previous one, equally huge, torched
Ukrainian army warehouses in Vinnitsa in 2017. Altogether, there were 12 huge army arsenal
fires for the last few years. Just for 2018, the damage was over $2 billion.
When Chief Military Prosecutor of Ukraine Anatoly Matios investigated the fires, he
discovered that 80% of weapons and shells in the warehouses were missing. They weren't
destroyed by fire, they weren't there in the first place. Instead of being used to kill the
Russian-speaking Ukrainians of Donetsk, the hardware had been shipped from the port of Nikolaev
to Syria, to the Islamic rebels and to ISIS. And the man who organised this enormous operation
was our Mr AB, the old fighter for democracy on behalf of MI6, acting in cahoots with the
Minister of Defence Poltorak and Mr Turchinov, the friend of Mr
Biden. (They say Mr Matios was given $10 million for his silence).
The loss was of Ukrainian people, and of US taxpayers, while the beneficiaries were the Deep
State, which is probably just another name for the deadly mix of spooks, media and
politicians.
The globalist criminal elites will not be held responsible for any of these crimes. They're
bound together by ties of blackmail forged by guys like Epstein, mutually assured
incrimination in serial swindles which cross Left and Right political boundaries and literal
murder in the case of guys like Seth Rich. The cozy proximity of recently-murdered Epstein
himself to crypto-converso AG Barr's family only makes me more certain that they will get
away with this heist like they've done with dozens of other billion-dollar swindles.
If they were only stealing money it would be bad enough, but the fact that these same
grifters are our "diplomats" and warmakers is positively Orwellian. Watching these petty
hoodlums play nuclear chicken with Russia so they can squeeze more shekels from the supine
Ukraine would be laughable if I could get the first-strike nightmares of my Cold War
childhood out of my head long enough to laugh.
Who will hold then responsible? The country appears to have been entirely taken over by
crookish spooks and politicians.
The US is now confirmed as a cleptocracy.
Ukraine is corrupted by outsiders (those who are not Ukrainian/Russian). In past centuries
there was a simple but effective answer to foreigners corrupting their country. The Cossacks
would sharpen up their sabres. saddle up their horses and have a slaughter. It was effective
then and would be effective today. Get rid of those who are not Slavic.
The globalist criminal elites will not be held responsible for any of these crimes. They're
bound together by ties of blackmail forged by guys like Epstein, mutually assured
incrimination in serial swindles which cross Left and Right political boundaries and literal
murder in the case of guys like Seth Rich.
The cozy proximity of recently-murdered Epstein himself to crypto-converso AG Barr's
family only makes me more certain that they will get away with this heist like they've done
with dozens of other billion-dollar swindles.
If they were only stealing money it would be bad enough, but the fact that these same
grifters are our "diplomats" and warmakers is positively Orwellian. Watching these petty
hoodlums play nuclear chicken with Russia so they can squeeze more shekels from the supine
Ukraine would be laughable if I could get the first-strike nightmares of my Cold War
childhood out of my head long enough to laugh.
[MORE]
[EDITOR'S NOTE: Since publication, this story has been corrected to clarify that the fighters
trained in Jordan became members of the ISIS after their training.]
JERUSALEM – Syrian rebels who would later join the Islamic State of Iraq and the
Levant, or ISIS, were trained in 2012 by U.S. instructors working at a secret base in Jordan,
according to informed Jordanian officials.
The officials said dozens of future ISIS members were trained at the time as part of
covert aid to the insurgents targeting the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in
Syria. The officials said the training was not meant to be used for any future campaign in
Iraq.
The Jordanian officials said all ISIS members who received U.S. training to fight in Syria
were first vetted for any links to extremist groups like al-Qaida.
In February 2012, WND was first to report the U.S., Turkey and Jordan were running a
training base for the Syrian rebels in the Jordanian town of Safawi in the country's northern
desert region.
That report has since been corroborated by numerous other media accounts.
Last March, the German weekly Der Spiegel reported Americans were training Syrian rebels in
Jordan.
Quoting what it said were training participants and organizers, Der Spiegel reported it
was not clear whether the Americans worked for private firms or were with the U.S. Army, but
the magazine said some organizers wore uniforms. The training in Jordan reportedly focused on
use of anti-tank weaponry.
The German magazine reported some 200 men received the training over the previous three
months amid U.S. plans to train a total of 1,200 members of the Free Syrian Army in two camps
in the south and the east of Jordan.
Britain's Guardian newspaper also reported last March that U.S. trainers were aiding
Syrian rebels in Jordan along with British and French instructors.
Reuters reported a spokesman for the U.S. Defense Department declined immediate comment on
the German magazine's report. The French foreign ministry and Britain's foreign and defense
ministries also would not comment to Reuters.
"... Islamic State, or Isis, didn't emerge out of nowhere. It was entirely a creation of two decades of US interference in the Middle East. ..."
"... No, I'm talking about the fact that in destroying three key Arab states – Iraq, Libya and Syria – that refused to submit to the joint regional hegemony of Saudi Arabia and Israel, Washington's local client states, the US created a giant void of governance at the heart of the Middle East. They knew that that void would be filled soon enough by religious extremists like Islamic State – and they didn't care. ..."
"... The barely veiled aim of the attacks on Iraq, Libya and Syria was to destroy the institutions and structures that held these societies together, however imperfectly. Though no one likes to mention it nowadays, these states – deeply authoritarian though they were – were also secular, and had well-developed welfare states that ensured high rates of literacy and some of the region's finest public health services. ..."
"... After Rove and Cheney had had their fill playing around with reality, nature got on with honouring the maxim that it always abhors a vacuum. Islamic State filled the vacuum Washington's policy had engineered. ..."
"... The clue, after all, was in the name. With the US and Gulf states using oil money to wage a proxy war against Assad, Isis saw its chance to establish a state inspired by a variety of Saudi Arabia's Wahhabist dogma. Isis needed territory for their planned state, and the Saudis and US obliged by destroying Syria. ..."
"... This barbarian army, one that murdered other religious groups as infidels and killed fellow Sunnis who refused to bow before their absolute rule, became the west's chief allies in Syria. Directly and covertly, we gave them money and weapons to begin building their state on parts of Syria. ..."
"... We cannot, of course, forget an assistance this witch had from very GOPiish Senators such as late American hero John McCain and his buddy Lindsey Graham. They played a key role in supporting all kinds of jihadist elements. ..."
"... Let's be accurate: It was US Democrats AND REPUBLICANS who helped cultivate the barbarism of Isis. The mess was started with Bush/Cheney/Powell. McCain was probably the biggest ISIS guy ever. Graham, Romney and friends are the same, and at best marginally better than Hitlery Clinton. ..."
"... The population of Syria increased exponentially right up through 2010, with a doubling time of about 18 years, at which point food ran out and population started trending downwards (not so much due to outright famine, as to poverty, lack of medical care, warfare, and people fleeing the country.). ..."
"... Check out the section in wikipedia on Syria's aquifers and groundwater – the water table had been dropping drastically as far back as 1985. Long before the post-2010 dry spell, Syria's rapid population growth had been consuming more water than fell as rain – EVEN DURING WET YEARS. The low rainfall post-2010 was an early trigger, but the collapse would have come regardless. ..."
"... Tulsi may not win the democratic nomination, but I see her determination to educate the majority of Americans of what our government/deep state/military industrial complex/and later senators who become lobbyists are doing. ..."
"... Worse, I suspect that many weren't too disturbed by this prospect. After all, ISIS and its incredibly vicious terrorist attacks in the West did a great deal to fuel Islamophobia -- and Islamophobia has its uses. ISIS was probably the best thing to happen to Israel since 9/11. ..."
"... I think it is worse than that : ISIS was a creation by the Israel-US- Saudi Arabia-Gulf States-axis. Significantly ISIS never attacked Israeli interests ..."
"... It doesn't matter how many Arabs, Turks, Etruscans or Kurds are killed, as long as Israel's interests are taken care of, the results are "worth it". Its a very deeply cynical, and evil policy that the US has pursued all these years in the Mid-East. ..."
"... Gangster business and slavery are OK so long as our central bank gets our cut. ..."
"... They've re-started the Cold War. Keeps all the warmongers in business. Surely they're not stupid enough to want a hot one are they? ..."
"... It goes without comment that the first act of the US following Nudelman's (Why do these fuckers keep changing their names?) Ukraine coup was to steal its gold. ..."
"... "Pelosi and most of the Democratic leadership don't care about Syria, or its population's welfare. They don't care about Assad, or Isis. They care only about the maintenance and expansion of their own Democratic Party power – for the personal wealth and influence it continues to bestow on them." ..."
There is something profoundly deceitful in the way the Democratic Party and the corporate media are framing Donald Trump's decision
to pull troops out of Syria.
One does not need to defend Trump's actions or ignore the dangers posed to the Kurds, at least in the short term, by the departure
of US forces from northern Syria to understand that the coverage is being crafted in such a way as to entirely overlook the bigger
picture.
The problem is neatly illustrated in this line from a report by the Guardian newspaper of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's meeting
this week with Trump, who is described as having had a "meltdown". Explaining why she and other senior Democrats stormed out, the
paper writes
that "it became clear the president had no plan to deal with a potential revival of Isis in the Middle East".
Hang on a minute! Let's pull back a little, and not pretend – as the media and Democratic party leadership wish us to – that the
last 20 years did not actually happen. Many of us lived through those events. Our memories are not so short.
Islamic State, or Isis, didn't emerge out of nowhere. It was entirely a creation of two decades of US interference in the
Middle East. And I'm not even referring to the mountains
of evidence that US officials backed their Saudi allies in directly funding and arming Isis – just as their predecessors in Washington,
in their enthusiasm to oust the Soviets from the region, assisted the jihadists who went on to become al-Qaeda.
No, I'm talking about the fact that in destroying three key Arab states – Iraq, Libya and Syria – that refused to submit to
the joint regional hegemony of Saudi Arabia and Israel, Washington's local client states, the US created a giant void of governance
at the heart of the Middle East. They knew that that void would be filled soon enough by religious extremists like Islamic State
– and they didn't care.
Overthrow, not regime change
You don't have to be a Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi or Bashar Assad apologist to accept this point. You don't even have to
be concerned that these so-called "humanitarian" wars violated each state's integrity and sovereignty, and are therefore defined
in international law as "the supreme war crime".
The bigger picture – the one no one appears to want us thinking about – is that the US intentionally sought to destroy these states
with no obvious plan for the day after. As I explained in my book
Israel and the Clash of Civilisations
, these haven't so much been regime-change wars as nation-state dismantling operations – what I have termed overthrow wars.
The logic was a horrifying hybrid of two schools of thought that meshed neatly in the psychopathic foreign policy goals embodied
in the ideology of neoconservatism – the so-called "Washington consensus" since 9/11.
The first was Israel's long-standing approach to the Palestinians. By constantly devastating any emerging Palestinian institution
or social structures, Israel produced a divide-and-rule model on steriods, creating a leaderless, ravaged, enfeebled society that
sucked out all the local population's energy. That strategy proved very appealing to the neoconservatives, who saw it as one they
could export to non-compliant states in the region.
The second was the Chicago school's Shock Doctrine, as explained in Naomi Klein's book of that name. The chaotic campaign of destruction,
the psychological trauma and the sense of dislocation created by these overthrow wars were supposed to engender a far more malleable
population that would be ripe for a US-controlled "colour revolution".
The recalcitrant states would be made an example of, broken apart, asset-stripped of their resources and eventually remade as
new dependent markets for US goods. That was what George W Bush, Dick Cheney and Halliburton really meant when they talked about
building a New Middle East and exporting democracy.
Even judged by the vile aims of its proponents, the Shock Doctrine has been a half-century story of
dismal economic failure everywhere it has been attempted
– from Pinochet's Chile to Yeltsin's Russia. But let us not credit the architects of this policy with any kind of acumen for learning
from past errors. As Bush's senior adviser Karl Rove explained to a journalist whom he rebuked for being part of the "reality-based
community": "We're an empire now and, when we act, we create our own reality."
The birth of Islamic State
The barely veiled aim of the attacks on Iraq, Libya and Syria was to destroy the institutions and structures that held these
societies together, however imperfectly. Though no one likes to mention it nowadays, these states – deeply authoritarian though they
were – were also secular, and had well-developed welfare states that ensured high rates of literacy and some of the region's finest
public health services.
Given how closed a society Syria was and is, and how difficult it therefore is to weigh the evidence in ways that are likely to
prove convincing to those not already persuaded, let us set that issue aside too. Anyway, it is irrelevant to the bigger picture
I want to address.
The indisputable fact is that Washington and its Gulf allies wished to exploit this initial unrest as an opportunity to create
a void in Syria – just as they had earlier done in Iraq, where there were no uprisings, nor even the WMDs the US promised would be
found and that served as the pretext for Bush's campaign of Shock and Awe.
The limited uprisings in Syria quickly turned into a much larger and far more vicious war because the Gulf states, with US backing,
flooded the country with proxy fighters and arms in an effort to overthrow Assad and thereby weaken Iranian and Shia influence in
the region. The events in Syria and earlier in Iraq gradually transformed the Sunni religious extremists of al-Qaeda into the even
more barbaric, more nihilistic extremists of Islamic State.
A dark US vanity project
After Rove and Cheney had had their fill playing around with reality, nature got on with honouring the maxim that it always
abhors a vacuum. Islamic State filled the vacuum Washington's policy had engineered.
The clue, after all, was in the name. With the US and Gulf states using oil money to wage a proxy war against Assad, Isis
saw its chance to establish a state inspired by a variety of Saudi Arabia's Wahhabist dogma. Isis needed territory for their planned
state, and the Saudis and US obliged by destroying Syria.
This barbarian army, one that murdered other religious groups as infidels and killed fellow Sunnis who refused to bow before
their absolute rule, became the west's chief allies in Syria. Directly and covertly, we gave them money and weapons to begin building
their state on parts of Syria.
Again, let us ignore the fact that the US, in helping to destroy a sovereign nation, committed the supreme war crime, one that
in a rightly ordered world would ensure every senior Washington official faces their own Nuremberg Trial. Let us ignore too for the
moment that the US, consciously through its actions, brought to life a monster that sowed death and destruction everywhere it went.
The fact is that at the moment Assad called in Russia to help him survive, the battle the US and the Gulf states were waging through
Islamic State and other proxies was lost. It was only a matter of time before Assad would reassert his rule.
From that point onwards, every single person who was killed and every single Syrian made homeless – and there were hundreds of
thousands of them – suffered their terrible fate for no possible gain in US policy goals. A vastly destructive overthrow war became
instead something darker still: a neoconservative vanity project that ravaged countless Syrian lives.
A giant red herring
Trump now appears to be ending part of that policy. He may be doing so for the wrong reasons. But very belatedly – and possibly
only temporarily – he is seeking to close a small chapter in a horrifying story of western-sponsored barbarism in the Middle East,
one intimately tied to Islamic State.
What of the supposed concerns of Pelosi and the Democratic Party under whose watch the barbarism in Syria took place. They should
have no credibility on the matter to begin with.
But their claims that Trump has "no plan to deal with a potential revival of Isis in the Middle East" is a giant red herring they
are viciously slapping us in the face with in the hope the spray of seawater blinds us.
First, Washington sowed the seeds of Islamic State by engineering a vacuum in Syria that Isis – or something very like it – was
inevitably going to fill. Then, it allowed those seeds to flourish by assisting its Gulf allies in showering fighters in Syria with
money and arms that came with only one string attached – a commitment to Sunni jihadist ideology inspired by Saudi Wahhabism.
Isis was made in Washington as much as it was in Riyadh. For that reason, the only certain strategy for preventing the revival
of Islamic State is preventing the US and the Gulf states from interfering in Syria again.
With the Syrian army in charge of Syrian territory, there will be no vacuum for Isis to fill. The jihadists' state-building project
is now unrealisable, at least in Syria. Islamic State will continue to wither, as it would have done years before if the US and its
Gulf allies had not fuelled it in a proxy war they knew could not be won.
Doomed Great Game
The same lesson can be drawn by looking at the experience of the Syrian Kurds. The Rojava fiefdom they managed to carve out in
northern Syria during the war survived till now only because of continuing US military support. With a US departure, and the Kurds
too weak to maintain their improvised statelet, a vacuum was again created that this time has risked sucking in the Turkish army,
which fears a base for Kurdish nationalism on its doorstep.
The Syrian Kurds' predicament is simple: face a takeover by Turkey or seek Assad's protection to foil Turkish ambitions. The best
hope for the Kurds looks to be the Syrian army's return, filling the vacuum and regaining a chance of long-term stability.
That could have been the case for all of Syria many tens of thousands of deaths ago. Whatever the corporate media suggest, those
deaths were lost not in a failed heroic battle for freedom, which, even if it was an early aspiration for some fighters, quickly
became a goal that was impossible for them to realise. No, those deaths were entirely pointless. They were sacrificed by a western
military-industrial complex in a US-Saudi Great Game that dragged on for many years after everyone knew it was doomed.
Nancy Pelosi's purported worries about Isis reviving because of Trump's Syria withdrawal are simply crocodile fears. If she is
really so worried about Islamic State, then why did she and other senior Democrats stand silently by as the US under Barack Obama
spent years spawning, cultivating and financing Isis to destroy Syria, a state that was best placed to serve as a bulwark against
the head-chopping extremists?
Pelosi and the Democratic leadership's bad faith – and that of the corporate media – are revealed in their ongoing efforts to
silence and smear Tulsi Gabbard, the party's only candidate for the presidential nomination who has pointed out the harsh political
realities in Syria, and tried to expose their years of lies.
Pelosi and most of the Democratic leadership don't care about Syria, or its population's welfare. They don't care about Assad,
or Isis. They care only about the maintenance and expansion of American power – and the personal wealth and influence it continues
to bestow on them.
Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His books include "Israel and the Clash of Civilisations:
Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East" (Pluto Press) and "Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair"
(Zed Books). His website is www.jonathan-cook.net .
The problem largely traces back to simple mistakes by prior Saudi administrations.
The Wahhabi were a threat to the royal family. So, the royal family funded them to go elsewhere. Given the craziness of Wahhabism
that made sense at the time. Crazy usually dies out. However, in this case the Crazy came with enough money in hand to establish
credibility. The extremist Muslim Brotherhood is a direct result of these exported extremism.
ISIS is the result of a schism inside the extremist Muslim Brotherhood. A "direct action" group wanted an even more extreme
and immediate solution and broke away.
-- Did the U.S. or Israel attempt to deploy ISIS? This is far-fetched beyond the bounds of reasonability. Violent, ultra-extreme
ISIS fanatics would not follow the commands of infidel heretics. The Saudi royal family by this point realized that the Muslim
Brotherhood was a threat to them just like the original Wahhabi, but they had no good way to undo their prior mistake.
-- Did Turkey attempt to use ISIS to weaken Syria and Iraq? This is far more probable. Turkey's AK party is also a schismatic
offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood. So, there is a great deal of opportunity for the two troops to find common cause. The New
Ottoman Empire needs to absorb Syrian and Iraqi land, so undermining those governments would be step #1.
One does not need outside actors to explain how the hole was dug. Unfortunately, that means there is no good solution. If the
problem was driven by outside forces, those forces could stop it. However, the reality is that there are no outside forces driving
the Craziness. There is no "plug to pull".
The wild savage dogs of ISIS are the Khmer Rouge of Islamic fundamentalism and their rise and violence should be attributed to
the liberal interventionism that has proven to be a disaster not only for the region but those who carried out the intervention.
"One does not need outside actors to explain how the hole was dug. Unfortunately, that means there is no good solution.
If the problem was driven by outside forces, those forces could stop it. However, the reality is that there are no outside
forces driving the Craziness. There is no 'plug to pull'".
Absolute nonsense. And what do you mean by "outside forces." The US and Israel count as outside forces but Turkey does not?
Forces outside of what?
ISIS emerged out of ISI, Zarqawi's Islamic State in Iraq, an affiliate, for a while, of AQ. The US invasion of Iraq created
the political and military space in Iraq for transnational terror groups.
Meanwhile, the US, at Israel's instigation, had been working to weaken Assad in Syria. After the rebellion against him in 2011,
the US, along with Turkey, Saudi, Qatar, Israel and others, began to support various jihadi groups inside Syria with the goal
of eliminating the Assad government, each for his own reasons. Syria began lost control of its border with Iraq and much of eastern
Syria and the Euphrates valley as well. This process allowed ISIS to emerge from an ISI under stress during the so-called "surge"
in 2007-10 and establish itself in Syria. In 2014, ISIS, now a powerful well-armed group went back into Iraq to defeat the incompetent
and unmotivated Iraq Security Forces that the US had established.
While the US moved against ISIS in Iraq after 2014, it left ISIS in Syria alone since it was depriving Assad of control over
most of Syria's oil and much of its arable land.
And yes, of course the US, instigated by Israel, didn't "deploy" ISIS in the sense of directing its operations. But they left
ISIS largely unimpeded to play a role in the overthrow of Assad which was always the primary goal. ISIS, it was thought, could
be dealt with later after Assad was gone.
That plan would probably have worked eventually, but the Russians entered the picture in the second half of 2015 and changed
the situation.
The US had been nominally supporting the usual "freedom fighters" but in effect supplying the more competent and vicious jihadis
who could take the TOW missiles and other weapons the US was providing to the approved sad-sacks and make more effective use of
them. Finally, with Russia and Iran facilitating the roll-back of all the jihadis, and the US threatened with being relegated
to the sidelines, Obama jumped on the SDF (Kurdish) bandwagon and actually started doing what the US had not done previously:
Taking serious action against ISIS so that a Russian/Iranian-backed Syrian reconquest of eastern Syria could be pre-empted.
And of course, the biggest supporter of the Kurds has consistently been Israel, who sees the possibility of creating pro-Israel
statelets or at least enclaves in the midst of a Turkish, Iranian and Arab region that detests the Judenreich.
So in order to eliminate another of Israel's enemies, reduce a unified Syrian state to a handful of even more impotent emirates
and ensure that Bibi would not be pestered with legal questions over the seizure and retention of the Golan, Syria was laid waste
under the guise of "promoting democracy" and then further devastated under the guise of combatting ISIS.
We have done more than enough damage at the behest of Israel and its fifth column in the US. ISIS might well have emerged regardless
of US actions, but it was the Jew-induced insanity of US regime-change/COIN policies that created the geographical, political
and military space in Iraq and Syria for the jihadists and the ensuing physical destruction of so much of those countries.
The best solution would be to facilitate the re-establishment of Syrian sovereignty over all of Syria. But instead of doing
that, Trump has instead facilitated the entry of Turkish forces and allied jihadis in an attempt to mend fences with a thoroughly
alienated Erdogan. We'll see if Putin can mitigate the brutal incompetence of Israel-infected US policy.
@A123 For fuck's sake. Is there any way to stop Hasbara agents from effectively using software to get consistent first posts
on this site?
Their mere presence is annoying. Whatever they have to say, on any topic and no matter what it is, no one here wants to read
it because they are not beginning with any credibility whatsoever. As they are are religiously-avowed enemies of the West (who
they hold to be the continuation of Rome) and the demonstrated fervent enemies of non-Jewish Whites.
Given the craziness of Wahhabism
There is nothing in Sunni Islam that does not have its root in Judaism. To state otherwise is to be a typical Semitic liar.
A very real but completely unadvertised reality of these regime changes was that the publicly owned central bank of the country
– Iraq and Libya – was eliminated and changed to a private central bank. Iraq and Libya both succumbed and Ron Paul related that
the smoke had barely cleared in Libya before the private central bank charter was drafted and implemented. Syria and Iran are
the last two countries that do not have a private central banks. Hence the drive by the neo-cons to destroy those countries and
fully implement the New World (banking) Order.
Not widely discussed but (I think) vitally important to understanding foreign policy.
What of the supposed concerns of Pelosi and the Democratic Party under whose watch the barbarism in Syria took place. They should
have no credibility on the matter to begin with.
But their claims that Trump has "no plan to deal with a potential revival of Isis in the Middle East" is a giant red herring
they are viciously slapping us in the face with in the hope the spray of seawater blinds us.
I love the second para. Getting slapped with a red herring with hope that the salt water blinds us .
My only gripe with Jonathan Cook is that this and all mid-eastern conflicts are engineered by the dual citizens and Israel
isn't called out by him as the chief instigator. The saudis are slave of the west and amount to nothing.
@A123 " Did the U.S. or Israel attempt to deploy ISIS? This is far-fetched beyond the bounds of reasonability"
Perhaps. Except that it did happen in plain daylight, before our eyes, but we should, of course, trust your "reasonability" --
instead of our own lying eyes.
@A123 US President Donald Trump said Monday that a small number of US troops remain in Syria at the request of Israel and
Jordan, with some positioned near the borders with Jordan and Israel and others deployed to secure oil fields.
"The other region where we've been asked by Israel and Jordan to leave a small number of troops is a totally different section
of Syria, near Jordan, and close to Israel," Trump said when asked whether he would leave soldiers in Syria. "So we have a small
group there, and we secured the oil. Other than that, there's no reason for it, in our opinion."
Times of Israel
and J Post 21st oct
It 's all about Israel and for its "royal patsy when not for royal patsy it's for the cannon fodder/ foot solder of Israel.
This mayhem from 2003 hasn't seen the full effects of the blow-back yet .Just starting . Tulsi Gabbard and Trump have knowingly
and sometime unknowingly have told the master that the king never had any clothes even when the king was talking about the decency
of having clothes on .
"The first was Israel's long-standing approach to the Palestinians. By constantly devastating any emerging Palestinian institution
or social structures, Israel produced a divide-and-rule model on steriods, creating a leaderless, ravaged, enfeebled society that
sucked out all the local population's energy. That strategy proved very appealing to the neoconservatives, who saw it as one they
could export to non-compliant states in the region."-
This sums up everything one want to know about certain human clones and the impact of the clones on the humanity.
Who will ever blame the victims for creating a future Hitler among them ?
We cannot, of course, forget an assistance this witch had from very GOPiish Senators such as late American hero John McCain
and his buddy Lindsey Graham. They played a key role in supporting all kinds of jihadist elements.
Let's be accurate: It was US Democrats AND REPUBLICANS who helped cultivate the barbarism of Isis. The mess was started with
Bush/Cheney/Powell. McCain was probably the biggest ISIS guy ever. Graham, Romney and friends are the same, and at best marginally
better than Hitlery Clinton.
Lock them all up, regardless of party affiliation.
Many interesting points here, and I agree with a lot of them. But:
[MORE]
"Or was it driven by something else: as a largely economic protest by an under-class suffering from food shortages as climate
change led to repeated crop failures?"
Syria did run out of water, and it's hard not to see that as a major driver of the chaos that unfolded. But Syria didn't run
out of water because of "climate change," that's false.
The explanation is that the Syrian government deliberately engineered a massive population explosion. Seriously, they made
the sale and possession of contraceptives a crime! (See "Demographic Developments and Population: Policies in Ba'thist Syria (Demographic
Developments and Socioeconomics)", by Onn Winkler).
The population of Syria increased exponentially right up through 2010, with a doubling time of about 18 years, at which
point food ran out and population started trending downwards (not so much due to outright famine, as to poverty, lack of medical
care, warfare, and people fleeing the country.).
Now as far as weather goes, there were a couple of dry years before the collapse, but weather is always like that. Last year
there were record rainfalls. If Syria's population had been stable at 5 or even 10 million, they could have coasted on water stored
in the aquifers until the rains came back. But when the population increases so much that you drain the aquifers even when there
is plenty of rain, then when a temporary drought hits you have no reserve and it all falls apart.
Check out the section in wikipedia on Syria's aquifers and groundwater – the water table had been dropping drastically
as far back as 1985. Long before the post-2010 dry spell, Syria's rapid population growth had been consuming more water than fell
as rain – EVEN DURING WET YEARS. The low rainfall post-2010 was an early trigger, but the collapse would have come regardless.
simple and straightforward journalism that cuts through the "corporate veil." Tulsi may not win the democratic nomination,
but I see her determination to educate the majority of Americans of what our government/deep state/military industrial complex/and
later senators who become lobbyists are doing.
I also feel for our veterans who are indoctrinated to protect freedom, but in the end, when they come home injured and disabled,
or even dead, it was all for naught.
I find some of the rhetoric in this piece irritating and repetitive -- but the analysis is essentially correct.
We created a power vacuum that was almost certain to give rise to something like ISIS.
Worse, I suspect that many weren't too disturbed by this prospect. After all, ISIS and its incredibly vicious terrorist
attacks in the West did a great deal to fuel Islamophobia -- and Islamophobia has its uses. ISIS was probably the best thing to
happen to Israel since 9/11.
"The problem is neatly illustrated in this line from a report by the Guardian newspaper of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's meeting
this week with Trump, who is described as having had a "meltdown". "
That's a poorly written statement. It reads as though Trump was the one having a meltdown. How about: "House Speaker Pelosi's
meltdown during a meeting with Trump." ?
@MarathonMan That is a fact that should be kept foremost in the discussions of "why regime change is necessary". It is the
most basic and obvious reason for all this war in the ME.
"First, Washington sowed the seeds of Islamic State by engineering a vacuum in Syria that Isis – or something very like
it – was inevitably going to fill."
Not quite accurate. The US Government "sowed the seeds of" ISIS by giving them material support before the vacuum was created.
IS is mainly a creature of empire, including the US and older remnants of empire in the UK and Europe which survives mainly in
the existence of (international) banks.
@Christian truth Project "Tulsi is/was a member of the CFR". Aren't all Congressmen members? Doesn't that come with signing
the AIPAC form, getting the secret decoder ring from Adam Schiff, and the free trip to Israel? (maybe Ilhan Omar and Rashida Talib
"don't measure up?")
I believe CFR was the organization Biden was regaling with his story of holding up $one billion in Ukrainian
aid unless the Ukrainians fired the investigator of his son Hunter "who did nothing wrong". Can you imagine if Biden had been
President rather than VP? This would have been a scandal!
@A123 One does not need outside actors, but then there would be a lot of 'dark matter' in the history of the ME over the last
100 years. Personally it's plain state terrorism to me, and the Brits have a good definition!
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/part/I
Pelosi and most of the Democratic leadership don't care about Syria, or its population's welfare. They don't care about
Assad, or Isis. They care only about the maintenance and expansion of American power
Correction: They only care about the maintenance and expansion of Israeli power.
I think it is worse than that : ISIS was a creation by the Israel-US- Saudi Arabia-Gulf States-axis.
Significantly ISIS never attacked Israeli interests, and when it once did so by accident, it apologized to Israel. The destruction
of Syria is part of Israel's notorious Oded Yinon plan, according to which all states in Israel's neighborhood need to be fragmentized.
In Iraq and Libya that was a success, in Syria, thanks to Iran, Hizbollah and Russia, it failed. The US is simply a puppet for
Israel's foreign policy, but nobody in the US, not even Tulsi Gabbard, dares to say so.
@A123 Sorry Bibi, but your beloved Israel played a BIG part in establishing ISIS, then supporting it with shekels, medical
care for their wounded, training and weapons.
WikiLeaks: US, Israel, And Saudi Arabia Planned Overthrow Of Syrian Govt. In 2006
Cables reveal that before the beginning of the Syrian revolt and civil war, the United States hoped to overthrow Assad and
create strife between Shiite and Sunni Muslims.
Let's not forget that when the term ISIS first came out, the Tel Aviv war mongers realized it stood for Israeli Secret Intelligence
Services and changed that to ISIL, which their adoring MSM gladly obliged by parroting that change.
From the Israeli masterminded 9/11 False Flag to the destruction of Syria, there's one common factor, Israel and her American
Jew sayanim who keep pushing America into forever wars so Israel can finish off the Palestinians and steal more land.
Based on the whistleblower's extensive presentation, including internal emails, text exchanges and suppressed draft reports,
we are unanimous in expressing our alarm over unacceptable practices in the investigation of the alleged chemical attack in
Douma, near the Syrian capital of Damascus on 7 April 2018. We became convinced by the testimony that key information about
chemical analyses, toxicology consultations, ballistics studies, and witness testimonies was suppressed, ostensibly to favor
a preordained conclusion.
We have learned of disquieting efforts to exclude some inspectors from the investigation whilst thwarting their attempts
to raise legitimate concerns, highlight irregular practices or even to express their differing observations and assessments
-- a right explicitly conferred on inspectors in the Chemical Weapons Convention, evidently with the intention of ensuring
the independence and authoritativeness of inspection reports.
Fixed "report" of OPCW was necessary to maintain anti-Assad narrative which is now unchallenged even by Gabbard (not to mention
the weak sheep-dog Sanders).
The US does not have to directly support the jihadists. It just has to manage the chaos, for whatever be
the action on the ground and whoever is killed or not killed, as long as there is chaos within their chosen sandbox, the chaos
masters in Israel wins and that is all that counts with all too many Americans. It doesn't matter how many Arabs, Turks, Etruscans
or Kurds are killed, as long as Israel's interests are taken care of, the results are "worth it". Its a very deeply cynical, and
evil policy that the US has pursued all these years in the Mid-East.
But fortunately the Russians have turned things around.
Gangster business and slavery are OK so long as our central bank gets our cut. ME is also about "fragmenting"
neighboring countries so Israel can expand. Yinon Plan.
Oct 18, 2019 Tulsi Gabbard responds to Hillary Clinton: Clinton "knows she can't control me"
Hillary Clinton implied Russians are "grooming" Tulsi Gabbard to run as a third-party candidate to disrupt the election, a
charge which Gabbard denies. In a live interview with CBSN, Gabbard responds to Clinton's claims and says she will not run as
a third-party candidate.
@TG Excellent post. You bring up 2 very important but rarely discussed issues.
Demographics: Population is one of the most easily predictable developments within a country, and you'd think it might be one
of the most publically-discussed, and therefore, best-managed. Au contraire. Assad wasn't the only one who stood on the tracks
watching the headlights approach:
1. The EU is having problems with an aging native population because it earlier encouraged low birth rates, and is now promoting
mass immigration of rapidly-breeding immigrants who threaten to at least overwhelm if not overrun European society. Yet, as Douglas
Murray points out in his book The Strange Death of Europe, openly talking about this problem has been, and still is, verboten.
2. China is now wondering to do with its preponderance of young men, caused very predictably by the Communist Party's one-child
policy.
Climate:
If the rains had been good every single year – which is impossible – it would only have pushed the point of collapse back
a few years, at most.
The Syrian case you cite shows how even relatively minor climate changes can carry events past a tipping point. I do agree
with you that effects of APGW on climactic conditions are greatly exaggerated, yet changes in climate, for good or ill, have often
triggered much larger historical events. The cooling that caused a famine and that preceded the Justinian Plague weakened European
and Sassanian civilizations. These misfortunes paved the way for the Islamic takeover that followed. Contrariwise, Norse exploration
and the Renaissance, to give 2 examples of increasing activity, both occurred during the Medieval Warming Period.
It goes without comment that the first act of the US following Nudelman's (Why do these fuckers keep changing
their names?) Ukraine coup was to steal its gold.
"Pelosi and most of the Democratic leadership don't care about Syria, or its population's welfare. They don't care about Assad,
or Isis. They care only about the maintenance and expansion of their own Democratic Party power – for the personal wealth and
influence it continues to bestow on them."
FTFY
Just as the GOP is precisely and thoroughly corrupt in exactly the same way, focused exclusively on their own craven self-interest,
the country be damned.
@Anonymous Jimmah was the last honest man in American politics. But since he told Americans that gas was going to cost more,
that perhaps they needed to drive a wee bit less, the Americans hated him. They didn't like the "malaise" of having to pay for
their lifestyle.
As for the Israelis, what did Jimmah not to do for them : Got Egypt out of the Arab alliance, arranged the annual tribute to
Israel, started the ball rolling on the Holocaust religion, paid off Egypt and Jordan to stay away from any alliance against the
Israelis. But what did he get in return; branded as anti-Semite merely for mentioning that the Palestinians had rights, were human
beings too. With the Zionist Jews, one is always on probation. No point playing their silly games.
Rachel Maddow's trademark pouty-face got a workout as she strained to imagine " what the
thing is that Durham might be looking into." Yes, that's a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside
an enigma, all right with a sputtering fuse sticking out of it.
... ... ...
Over in the locked ward of CNN, Andy Cooper and Jeff Toobin attempted to digest the criminal
investigation news as if someone had ordered in a platter of shit sandwiches for the green room
just before air-time. Toobin pretended to not know exactly who the mysterious Joseph Misfud
was, and struggled to even pronounce his name
... ... ...
As for impeachment, ringmaster Rep. Adam Schiff is surely steaming straight into his own
historic Joe McCarthy moment when somebody of incontestable standing denounces him as a fraud
and a scoundrel and the mysterious workings of nonlinear behavior tips the political mob past a
criticality threshold, shifting the weight of consensus out of darkness and madness. It has
happened before in history.
"... Islamic State, or Isis, didn't emerge out of nowhere. It was entirely a creation of two decades of US interference in the Middle East. ..."
"... No, I'm talking about the fact that in destroying three key Arab states – Iraq, Libya and Syria – that refused to submit to the joint regional hegemony of Saudi Arabia and Israel, Washington's local client states, the US created a giant void of governance at the heart of the Middle East. They knew that that void would be filled soon enough by religious extremists like Islamic State – and they didn't care. ..."
"... The barely veiled aim of the attacks on Iraq, Libya and Syria was to destroy the institutions and structures that held these societies together, however imperfectly. Though no one likes to mention it nowadays, these states – deeply authoritarian though they were – were also secular, and had well-developed welfare states that ensured high rates of literacy and some of the region's finest public health services. ..."
"... After Rove and Cheney had had their fill playing around with reality, nature got on with honouring the maxim that it always abhors a vacuum. Islamic State filled the vacuum Washington's policy had engineered. ..."
"... The clue, after all, was in the name. With the US and Gulf states using oil money to wage a proxy war against Assad, Isis saw its chance to establish a state inspired by a variety of Saudi Arabia's Wahhabist dogma. Isis needed territory for their planned state, and the Saudis and US obliged by destroying Syria. ..."
"... This barbarian army, one that murdered other religious groups as infidels and killed fellow Sunnis who refused to bow before their absolute rule, became the west's chief allies in Syria. Directly and covertly, we gave them money and weapons to begin building their state on parts of Syria. ..."
"... We cannot, of course, forget an assistance this witch had from very GOPiish Senators such as late American hero John McCain and his buddy Lindsey Graham. They played a key role in supporting all kinds of jihadist elements. ..."
"... Let's be accurate: It was US Democrats AND REPUBLICANS who helped cultivate the barbarism of Isis. The mess was started with Bush/Cheney/Powell. McCain was probably the biggest ISIS guy ever. Graham, Romney and friends are the same, and at best marginally better than Hitlery Clinton. ..."
"... The population of Syria increased exponentially right up through 2010, with a doubling time of about 18 years, at which point food ran out and population started trending downwards (not so much due to outright famine, as to poverty, lack of medical care, warfare, and people fleeing the country.). ..."
"... Check out the section in wikipedia on Syria's aquifers and groundwater – the water table had been dropping drastically as far back as 1985. Long before the post-2010 dry spell, Syria's rapid population growth had been consuming more water than fell as rain – EVEN DURING WET YEARS. The low rainfall post-2010 was an early trigger, but the collapse would have come regardless. ..."
"... Tulsi may not win the democratic nomination, but I see her determination to educate the majority of Americans of what our government/deep state/military industrial complex/and later senators who become lobbyists are doing. ..."
"... Worse, I suspect that many weren't too disturbed by this prospect. After all, ISIS and its incredibly vicious terrorist attacks in the West did a great deal to fuel Islamophobia -- and Islamophobia has its uses. ISIS was probably the best thing to happen to Israel since 9/11. ..."
"... I think it is worse than that : ISIS was a creation by the Israel-US- Saudi Arabia-Gulf States-axis. Significantly ISIS never attacked Israeli interests ..."
There is something profoundly deceitful in the way the Democratic Party and the corporate media are framing Donald Trump's decision
to pull troops out of Syria.
One does not need to defend Trump's actions or ignore the dangers posed to the Kurds, at least in the short term, by the departure
of US forces from northern Syria to understand that the coverage is being crafted in such a way as to entirely overlook the bigger
picture.
The problem is neatly illustrated in this line from a report by the Guardian newspaper of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's meeting
this week with Trump, who is described as having had a "meltdown". Explaining why she and other senior Democrats stormed out, the
paper writes
that "it became clear the president had no plan to deal with a potential revival of Isis in the Middle East".
Hang on a minute! Let's pull back a little, and not pretend – as the media and Democratic party leadership wish us to – that the
last 20 years did not actually happen. Many of us lived through those events. Our memories are not so short.
Islamic State, or Isis, didn't emerge out of nowhere. It was entirely a creation of two decades of US interference in the
Middle East. And I'm not even referring to the mountains
of evidence that US officials backed their Saudi allies in directly funding and arming Isis – just as their predecessors in Washington,
in their enthusiasm to oust the Soviets from the region, assisted the jihadists who went on to become al-Qaeda.
No, I'm talking about the fact that in destroying three key Arab states – Iraq, Libya and Syria – that refused to submit to
the joint regional hegemony of Saudi Arabia and Israel, Washington's local client states, the US created a giant void of governance
at the heart of the Middle East. They knew that that void would be filled soon enough by religious extremists like Islamic State
– and they didn't care.
Overthrow, not regime change
You don't have to be a Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi or Bashar Assad apologist to accept this point. You don't even have to
be concerned that these so-called "humanitarian" wars violated each state's integrity and sovereignty, and are therefore defined
in international law as "the supreme war crime".
The bigger picture – the one no one appears to want us thinking about – is that the US intentionally sought to destroy these states
with no obvious plan for the day after. As I explained in my book
Israel and the Clash of Civilisations
, these haven't so much been regime-change wars as nation-state dismantling operations – what I have termed overthrow wars.
The logic was a horrifying hybrid of two schools of thought that meshed neatly in the psychopathic foreign policy goals embodied
in the ideology of neoconservatism – the so-called "Washington consensus" since 9/11.
The first was Israel's long-standing approach to the Palestinians. By constantly devastating any emerging Palestinian institution
or social structures, Israel produced a divide-and-rule model on steriods, creating a leaderless, ravaged, enfeebled society that
sucked out all the local population's energy. That strategy proved very appealing to the neoconservatives, who saw it as one they
could export to non-compliant states in the region.
The second was the Chicago school's Shock Doctrine, as explained in Naomi Klein's book of that name. The chaotic campaign of destruction,
the psychological trauma and the sense of dislocation created by these overthrow wars were supposed to engender a far more malleable
population that would be ripe for a US-controlled "colour revolution".
The recalcitrant states would be made an example of, broken apart, asset-stripped of their resources and eventually remade as
new dependent markets for US goods. That was what George W Bush, Dick Cheney and Halliburton really meant when they talked about
building a New Middle East and exporting democracy.
Even judged by the vile aims of its proponents, the Shock Doctrine has been a half-century story of
dismal economic failure everywhere it has been attempted
– from Pinochet's Chile to Yeltsin's Russia. But let us not credit the architects of this policy with any kind of acumen for learning
from past errors. As Bush's senior adviser Karl Rove explained to a journalist whom he rebuked for being part of the "reality-based
community": "We're an empire now and, when we act, we create our own reality."
The birth of Islamic State
The barely veiled aim of the attacks on Iraq, Libya and Syria was to destroy the institutions and structures that held these
societies together, however imperfectly. Though no one likes to mention it nowadays, these states – deeply authoritarian though they
were – were also secular, and had well-developed welfare states that ensured high rates of literacy and some of the region's finest
public health services.
Given how closed a society Syria was and is, and how difficult it therefore is to weigh the evidence in ways that are likely to
prove convincing to those not already persuaded, let us set that issue aside too. Anyway, it is irrelevant to the bigger picture
I want to address.
The indisputable fact is that Washington and its Gulf allies wished to exploit this initial unrest as an opportunity to create
a void in Syria – just as they had earlier done in Iraq, where there were no uprisings, nor even the WMDs the US promised would be
found and that served as the pretext for Bush's campaign of Shock and Awe.
The limited uprisings in Syria quickly turned into a much larger and far more vicious war because the Gulf states, with US backing,
flooded the country with proxy fighters and arms in an effort to overthrow Assad and thereby weaken Iranian and Shia influence in
the region. The events in Syria and earlier in Iraq gradually transformed the Sunni religious extremists of al-Qaeda into the even
more barbaric, more nihilistic extremists of Islamic State.
A dark US vanity project
After Rove and Cheney had had their fill playing around with reality, nature got on with honouring the maxim that it always
abhors a vacuum. Islamic State filled the vacuum Washington's policy had engineered.
The clue, after all, was in the name. With the US and Gulf states using oil money to wage a proxy war against Assad, Isis
saw its chance to establish a state inspired by a variety of Saudi Arabia's Wahhabist dogma. Isis needed territory for their planned
state, and the Saudis and US obliged by destroying Syria.
This barbarian army, one that murdered other religious groups as infidels and killed fellow Sunnis who refused to bow before
their absolute rule, became the west's chief allies in Syria. Directly and covertly, we gave them money and weapons to begin building
their state on parts of Syria.
Again, let us ignore the fact that the US, in helping to destroy a sovereign nation, committed the supreme war crime, one that
in a rightly ordered world would ensure every senior Washington official faces their own Nuremberg Trial. Let us ignore too for the
moment that the US, consciously through its actions, brought to life a monster that sowed death and destruction everywhere it went.
The fact is that at the moment Assad called in Russia to help him survive, the battle the US and the Gulf states were waging through
Islamic State and other proxies was lost. It was only a matter of time before Assad would reassert his rule.
From that point onwards, every single person who was killed and every single Syrian made homeless – and there were hundreds of
thousands of them – suffered their terrible fate for no possible gain in US policy goals. A vastly destructive overthrow war became
instead something darker still: a neoconservative vanity project that ravaged countless Syrian lives.
A giant red herring
Trump now appears to be ending part of that policy. He may be doing so for the wrong reasons. But very belatedly – and possibly
only temporarily – he is seeking to close a small chapter in a horrifying story of western-sponsored barbarism in the Middle East,
one intimately tied to Islamic State.
What of the supposed concerns of Pelosi and the Democratic Party under whose watch the barbarism in Syria took place. They should
have no credibility on the matter to begin with.
But their claims that Trump has "no plan to deal with a potential revival of Isis in the Middle East" is a giant red herring they
are viciously slapping us in the face with in the hope the spray of seawater blinds us.
First, Washington sowed the seeds of Islamic State by engineering a vacuum in Syria that Isis – or something very like it – was
inevitably going to fill. Then, it allowed those seeds to flourish by assisting its Gulf allies in showering fighters in Syria with
money and arms that came with only one string attached – a commitment to Sunni jihadist ideology inspired by Saudi Wahhabism.
Isis was made in Washington as much as it was in Riyadh. For that reason, the only certain strategy for preventing the revival
of Islamic State is preventing the US and the Gulf states from interfering in Syria again.
With the Syrian army in charge of Syrian territory, there will be no vacuum for Isis to fill. The jihadists' state-building project
is now unrealisable, at least in Syria. Islamic State will continue to wither, as it would have done years before if the US and its
Gulf allies had not fuelled it in a proxy war they knew could not be won.
Doomed Great Game
The same lesson can be drawn by looking at the experience of the Syrian Kurds. The Rojava fiefdom they managed to carve out in
northern Syria during the war survived till now only because of continuing US military support. With a US departure, and the Kurds
too weak to maintain their improvised statelet, a vacuum was again created that this time has risked sucking in the Turkish army,
which fears a base for Kurdish nationalism on its doorstep.
The Syrian Kurds' predicament is simple: face a takeover by Turkey or seek Assad's protection to foil Turkish ambitions. The best
hope for the Kurds looks to be the Syrian army's return, filling the vacuum and regaining a chance of long-term stability.
That could have been the case for all of Syria many tens of thousands of deaths ago. Whatever the corporate media suggest, those
deaths were lost not in a failed heroic battle for freedom, which, even if it was an early aspiration for some fighters, quickly
became a goal that was impossible for them to realise. No, those deaths were entirely pointless. They were sacrificed by a western
military-industrial complex in a US-Saudi Great Game that dragged on for many years after everyone knew it was doomed.
Nancy Pelosi's purported worries about Isis reviving because of Trump's Syria withdrawal are simply crocodile fears. If she is
really so worried about Islamic State, then why did she and other senior Democrats stand silently by as the US under Barack Obama
spent years spawning, cultivating and financing Isis to destroy Syria, a state that was best placed to serve as a bulwark against
the head-chopping extremists?
Pelosi and the Democratic leadership's bad faith – and that of the corporate media – are revealed in their ongoing efforts to
silence and smear Tulsi Gabbard, the party's only candidate for the presidential nomination who has pointed out the harsh political
realities in Syria, and tried to expose their years of lies.
Pelosi and most of the Democratic leadership don't care about Syria, or its population's welfare. They don't care about Assad,
or Isis. They care only about the maintenance and expansion of American power – and the personal wealth and influence it continues
to bestow on them.
Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His books include "Israel and the Clash of Civilisations:
Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East" (Pluto Press) and "Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair"
(Zed Books). His website is www.jonathan-cook.net .
The problem largely traces back to simple mistakes by prior Saudi administrations.
The Wahhabi were a threat to the royal family. So, the royal family funded them to go elsewhere. Given the craziness of Wahhabism
that made sense at the time. Crazy usually dies out. However, in this case the Crazy came with enough money in hand to establish
credibility. The extremist Muslim Brotherhood is a direct result of these exported extremism.
ISIS is the result of a schism inside the extremist Muslim Brotherhood. A "direct action" group wanted an even more extreme
and immediate solution and broke away.
-- Did the U.S. or Israel attempt to deploy ISIS? This is far-fetched beyond the bounds of reasonability. Violent, ultra-extreme
ISIS fanatics would not follow the commands of infidel heretics. The Saudi royal family by this point realized that the Muslim
Brotherhood was a threat to them just like the original Wahhabi, but they had no good way to undo their prior mistake.
-- Did Turkey attempt to use ISIS to weaken Syria and Iraq? This is far more probable. Turkey's AK party is also a schismatic
offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood. So, there is a great deal of opportunity for the two troops to find common cause. The New
Ottoman Empire needs to absorb Syrian and Iraqi land, so undermining those governments would be step #1.
One does not need outside actors to explain how the hole was dug. Unfortunately, that means there is no good solution. If the
problem was driven by outside forces, those forces could stop it. However, the reality is that there are no outside forces driving
the Craziness. There is no "plug to pull".
The wild savage dogs of ISIS are the Khmer Rouge of Islamic fundamentalism and their rise and violence should be attributed to
the liberal interventionism that has proven to be a disaster not only for the region but those who carried out the intervention.
"One does not need outside actors to explain how the hole was dug. Unfortunately, that means there is no good solution.
If the problem was driven by outside forces, those forces could stop it. However, the reality is that there are no outside
forces driving the Craziness. There is no 'plug to pull'".
Absolute nonsense. And what do you mean by "outside forces." The US and Israel count as outside forces but Turkey does not?
Forces outside of what?
ISIS emerged out of ISI, Zarqawi's Islamic State in Iraq, an affiliate, for a while, of AQ. The US invasion of Iraq created
the political and military space in Iraq for transnational terror groups.
Meanwhile, the US, at Israel's instigation, had been working to weaken Assad in Syria. After the rebellion against him in 2011,
the US, along with Turkey, Saudi, Qatar, Israel and others, began to support various jihadi groups inside Syria with the goal
of eliminating the Assad government, each for his own reasons. Syria began lost control of its border with Iraq and much of eastern
Syria and the Euphrates valley as well. This process allowed ISIS to emerge from an ISI under stress during the so-called "surge"
in 2007-10 and establish itself in Syria. In 2014, ISIS, now a powerful well-armed group went back into Iraq to defeat the incompetent
and unmotivated Iraq Security Forces that the US had established.
While the US moved against ISIS in Iraq after 2014, it left ISIS in Syria alone since it was depriving Assad of control over
most of Syria's oil and much of its arable land.
And yes, of course the US, instigated by Israel, didn't "deploy" ISIS in the sense of directing its operations. But they left
ISIS largely unimpeded to play a role in the overthrow of Assad which was always the primary goal. ISIS, it was thought, could
be dealt with later after Assad was gone.
That plan would probably have worked eventually, but the Russians entered the picture in the second half of 2015 and changed
the situation.
The US had been nominally supporting the usual "freedom fighters" but in effect supplying the more competent and vicious jihadis
who could take the TOW missiles and other weapons the US was providing to the approved sad-sacks and make more effective use of
them. Finally, with Russia and Iran facilitating the roll-back of all the jihadis, and the US threatened with being relegated
to the sidelines, Obama jumped on the SDF (Kurdish) bandwagon and actually started doing what the US had not done previously:
Taking serious action against ISIS so that a Russian/Iranian-backed Syrian reconquest of eastern Syria could be pre-empted.
And of course, the biggest supporter of the Kurds has consistently been Israel, who sees the possibility of creating pro-Israel
statelets or at least enclaves in the midst of a Turkish, Iranian and Arab region that detests the Judenreich.
So in order to eliminate another of Israel's enemies, reduce a unified Syrian state to a handful of even more impotent emirates
and ensure that Bibi would not be pestered with legal questions over the seizure and retention of the Golan, Syria was laid waste
under the guise of "promoting democracy" and then further devastated under the guise of combatting ISIS.
We have done more than enough damage at the behest of Israel and its fifth column in the US. ISIS might well have emerged regardless
of US actions, but it was the Jew-induced insanity of US regime-change/COIN policies that created the geographical, political
and military space in Iraq and Syria for the jihadists and the ensuing physical destruction of so much of those countries.
The best solution would be to facilitate the re-establishment of Syrian sovereignty over all of Syria. But instead of doing
that, Trump has instead facilitated the entry of Turkish forces and allied jihadis in an attempt to mend fences with a thoroughly
alienated Erdogan. We'll see if Putin can mitigate the brutal incompetence of Israel-infected US policy.
@A123 For fuck's sake. Is there any way to stop Hasbara agents from effectively using software to get consistent first posts
on this site?
Their mere presence is annoying. Whatever they have to say, on any topic and no matter what it is, no one here wants to read
it because they are not beginning with any credibility whatsoever. As they are are religiously-avowed enemies of the West (who
they hold to be the continuation of Rome) and the demonstrated fervent enemies of non-Jewish Whites.
Given the craziness of Wahhabism
There is nothing in Sunni Islam that does not have its root in Judaism. To state otherwise is to be a typical Semitic liar.
A very real but completely unadvertised reality of these regime changes was that the publicly owned central bank of the country
– Iraq and Libya – was eliminated and changed to a private central bank. Iraq and Libya both succumbed and Ron Paul related that
the smoke had barely cleared in Libya before the private central bank charter was drafted and implemented. Syria and Iran are
the last two countries that do not have a private central banks. Hence the drive by the neo-cons to destroy those countries and
fully implement the New World (banking) Order.
Not widely discussed but (I think) vitally important to understanding foreign policy.
What of the supposed concerns of Pelosi and the Democratic Party under whose watch the barbarism in Syria took place. They should
have no credibility on the matter to begin with.
But their claims that Trump has "no plan to deal with a potential revival of Isis in the Middle East" is a giant red herring
they are viciously slapping us in the face with in the hope the spray of seawater blinds us.
I love the second para. Getting slapped with a red herring with hope that the salt water blinds us .
My only gripe with Jonathan Cook is that this and all mid-eastern conflicts are engineered by the dual citizens and Israel
isn't called out by him as the chief instigator. The saudis are slave of the west and amount to nothing.
@A123 " Did the U.S. or Israel attempt to deploy ISIS? This is far-fetched beyond the bounds of reasonability"
Perhaps. Except that it did happen in plain daylight, before our eyes, but we should, of course, trust your "reasonability" --
instead of our own lying eyes.
@A123 US President Donald Trump said Monday that a small number of US troops remain in Syria at the request of Israel and
Jordan, with some positioned near the borders with Jordan and Israel and others deployed to secure oil fields.
"The other region where we've been asked by Israel and Jordan to leave a small number of troops is a totally different section
of Syria, near Jordan, and close to Israel," Trump said when asked whether he would leave soldiers in Syria. "So we have a small
group there, and we secured the oil. Other than that, there's no reason for it, in our opinion."
Times of Israel
and J Post 21st oct
It 's all about Israel and for its "royal patsy when not for royal patsy it's for the cannon fodder/ foot solder of Israel.
This mayhem from 2003 hasn't seen the full effects of the blow-back yet .Just starting . Tulsi Gabbard and Trump have knowingly
and sometime unknowingly have told the master that the king never had any clothes even when the king was talking about the decency
of having clothes on .
"The first was Israel's long-standing approach to the Palestinians. By constantly devastating any emerging Palestinian institution
or social structures, Israel produced a divide-and-rule model on steriods, creating a leaderless, ravaged, enfeebled society that
sucked out all the local population's energy. That strategy proved very appealing to the neoconservatives, who saw it as one they
could export to non-compliant states in the region."-
This sums up everything one want to know about certain human clones and the impact of the clones on the humanity.
Who will ever blame the victims for creating a future Hitler among them ?
We cannot, of course, forget an assistance this witch had from very GOPiish Senators such as late American hero John McCain
and his buddy Lindsey Graham. They played a key role in supporting all kinds of jihadist elements.
Let's be accurate: It was US Democrats AND REPUBLICANS who helped cultivate the barbarism of Isis. The mess was started with
Bush/Cheney/Powell. McCain was probably the biggest ISIS guy ever. Graham, Romney and friends are the same, and at best marginally
better than Hitlery Clinton.
Lock them all up, regardless of party affiliation.
Many interesting points here, and I agree with a lot of them. But:
[MORE]
"Or was it driven by something else: as a largely economic protest by an under-class suffering from food shortages as climate
change led to repeated crop failures?"
Syria did run out of water, and it's hard not to see that as a major driver of the chaos that unfolded. But Syria didn't run
out of water because of "climate change," that's false.
The explanation is that the Syrian government deliberately engineered a massive population explosion. Seriously, they made
the sale and possession of contraceptives a crime! (See "Demographic Developments and Population: Policies in Ba'thist Syria (Demographic
Developments and Socioeconomics)", by Onn Winkler).
The population of Syria increased exponentially right up through 2010, with a doubling time of about 18 years, at which
point food ran out and population started trending downwards (not so much due to outright famine, as to poverty, lack of medical
care, warfare, and people fleeing the country.).
Now as far as weather goes, there were a couple of dry years before the collapse, but weather is always like that. Last year
there were record rainfalls. If Syria's population had been stable at 5 or even 10 million, they could have coasted on water stored
in the aquifers until the rains came back. But when the population increases so much that you drain the aquifers even when there
is plenty of rain, then when a temporary drought hits you have no reserve and it all falls apart.
Check out the section in wikipedia on Syria's aquifers and groundwater – the water table had been dropping drastically
as far back as 1985. Long before the post-2010 dry spell, Syria's rapid population growth had been consuming more water than fell
as rain – EVEN DURING WET YEARS. The low rainfall post-2010 was an early trigger, but the collapse would have come regardless.
simple and straightforward journalism that cuts through the "corporate veil." Tulsi may not win the democratic nomination,
but I see her determination to educate the majority of Americans of what our government/deep state/military industrial complex/and
later senators who become lobbyists are doing.
I also feel for our veterans who are indoctrinated to protect freedom, but in the end, when they come home injured and disabled,
or even dead, it was all for naught.
I find some of the rhetoric in this piece irritating and repetitive -- but the analysis is essentially correct.
We created a power vacuum that was almost certain to give rise to something like ISIS.
Worse, I suspect that many weren't too disturbed by this prospect. After all, ISIS and its incredibly vicious terrorist
attacks in the West did a great deal to fuel Islamophobia -- and Islamophobia has its uses. ISIS was probably the best thing to
happen to Israel since 9/11.
"The problem is neatly illustrated in this line from a report by the Guardian newspaper of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's meeting
this week with Trump, who is described as having had a "meltdown". "
That's a poorly written statement. It reads as though Trump was the one having a meltdown. How about: "House Speaker Pelosi's
meltdown during a meeting with Trump." ?
@MarathonMan That is a fact that should be kept foremost in the discussions of "why regime change is necessary". It is the
most basic and obvious reason for all this war in the ME.
"First, Washington sowed the seeds of Islamic State by engineering a vacuum in Syria that Isis – or something very like
it – was inevitably going to fill."
Not quite accurate. The US Government "sowed the seeds of" ISIS by giving them material support before the vacuum was created.
IS is mainly a creature of empire, including the US and older remnants of empire in the UK and Europe which survives mainly in
the existence of (international) banks.
@Christian truth Project "Tulsi is/was a member of the CFR". Aren't all Congressmen members? Doesn't that come with signing
the AIPAC form, getting the secret decoder ring from Adam Schiff, and the free trip to Israel? (maybe Ilhan Omar and Rashida Talib
"don't measure up?")
I believe CFR was the organization Biden was regaling with his story of holding up $one billion in Ukrainian
aid unless the Ukrainians fired the investigator of his son Hunter "who did nothing wrong". Can you imagine if Biden had been
President rather than VP? This would have been a scandal!
@A123 One does not need outside actors, but then there would be a lot of 'dark matter' in the history of the ME over the last
100 years. Personally it's plain state terrorism to me, and the Brits have a good definition!
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/part/I
Pelosi and most of the Democratic leadership don't care about Syria, or its population's welfare. They don't care about
Assad, or Isis. They care only about the maintenance and expansion of American power
Correction: They only care about the maintenance and expansion of Israeli power.
I think it is worse than that : ISIS was a creation by the Israel-US- Saudi Arabia-Gulf States-axis.
Significantly ISIS never attacked Israeli interests, and when it once did so by accident, it apologized to Israel. The destruction
of Syria is part of Israel's notorious Oded Yinon plan, according to which all states in Israel's neighborhood need to be fragmentized.
In Iraq and Libya that was a success, in Syria, thanks to Iran, Hizbollah and Russia, it failed. The US is simply a puppet for
Israel's foreign policy, but nobody in the US, not even Tulsi Gabbard, dares to say so.
@A123 Sorry Bibi, but your beloved Israel played a BIG part in establishing ISIS, then supporting it with shekels, medical
care for their wounded, training and weapons.
WikiLeaks: US, Israel, And Saudi Arabia Planned Overthrow Of Syrian Govt. In 2006
Cables reveal that before the beginning of the Syrian revolt and civil war, the United States hoped to overthrow Assad and
create strife between Shiite and Sunni Muslims.
Let's not forget that when the term ISIS first came out, the Tel Aviv war mongers realized it stood for Israeli Secret Intelligence
Services and changed that to ISIL, which their adoring MSM gladly obliged by parroting that change.
From the Israeli masterminded 9/11 False Flag to the destruction of Syria, there's one common factor, Israel and her American
Jew sayanim who keep pushing America into forever wars so Israel can finish off the Palestinians and steal more land.
@Digital Samizdat Absolutely. Gabbard is the "Democrat" Trump. A Jew puppet presented as an outsider. They're exactly the
same. Even Obama was presented that way to an extent.
Yet the dumb goyim will fall for it for the third time in a row.
Based on the whistleblower's extensive presentation, including internal emails, text exchanges and suppressed draft reports,
we are unanimous in expressing our alarm over unacceptable practices in the investigation of the alleged chemical attack in
Douma, near the Syrian capital of Damascus on 7 April 2018. We became convinced by the testimony that key information about
chemical analyses, toxicology consultations, ballistics studies, and witness testimonies was suppressed, ostensibly to favor
a preordained conclusion.
We have learned of disquieting efforts to exclude some inspectors from the investigation whilst thwarting their attempts
to raise legitimate concerns, highlight irregular practices or even to express their differing observations and assessments
-- a right explicitly conferred on inspectors in the Chemical Weapons Convention, evidently with the intention of ensuring
the independence and authoritativeness of inspection reports.
Fixed "report" of OPCW was necessary to maintain anti-Assad narrative which is now unchallenged even by Gabbard (not to mention
the weak sheep-dog Sanders).
@Ilyana_Rozumova The US does not have to directly support the jihadists. It just has to manage the chaos, for whatever be
the action on the ground and whoever is killed or not killed, as long as there is chaos within their chosen sandbox, the chaos
masters in Israel wins and that is all that counts with all too many Americans. It doesn't matter how many Arabs, Turks, Etruscans
or Kurds are killed, as long as Israel's interests are taken care of, the results are "worth it". Its a very deeply cynical, and
evil policy that the US has pursued all these years in the Mid-East.
But fortunately the Russians have turned things around.
@MarathonMan Gangster business and slavery are OK so long as our central bank gets our cut. ME is also about "fragmenting"
neighboring countries so Israel can expand. Yinon Plan.
Oct 18, 2019 Tulsi Gabbard responds to Hillary Clinton: Clinton "knows she can't control me"
Hillary Clinton implied Russians are "grooming" Tulsi Gabbard to run as a third-party candidate to disrupt the election, a
charge which Gabbard denies. In a live interview with CBSN, Gabbard responds to Clinton's claims and says she will not run as
a third-party candidate.
And now, according to the latest news, Trump will send tanks into Syria to help the Kurds secure the oil for Israel. It's hard
to understand why the Elders of the Deep State want to impeach Trump. He has done everything they wanted, moved the embassy, gave
Syria's Golan Heights to Israel, never criticizes the illegal settlements in Palestine. What else do they want from him?
What do you mean Pelosi has no credibility? Have you checked her bank balance lately? Nancy, had she not waded into politics,
would have been a pole dancer she had the goods for it.
@TG Excellent post. You bring up 2 very important but rarely discussed issues.
Demographics: Population is one of the most easily predictable developments within a country, and you'd think it might be one
of the most publically-discussed, and therefore, best-managed. Au contraire. Assad wasn't the only one who stood on the tracks
watching the headlights approach:
1. The EU is having problems with an aging native population because it earlier encouraged low birth rates, and is now promoting
mass immigration of rapidly-breeding immigrants who threaten to at least overwhelm if not overrun European society. Yet, as Douglas
Murray points out in his book The Strange Death of Europe, openly talking about this problem has been, and still is, verboten.
2. China is now wondering to do with its preponderance of young men, caused very predictably by the Communist Party's one-child
policy.
Climate:
If the rains had been good every single year – which is impossible – it would only have pushed the point of collapse back
a few years, at most.
The Syrian case you cite shows how even relatively minor climate changes can carry events past a tipping point. I do agree
with you that effects of APGW on climactic conditions are greatly exaggerated, yet changes in climate, for good or ill, have often
triggered much larger historical events. The cooling that caused a famine and that preceded the Justinian Plague weakened European
and Sassanian civilizations. These misfortunes paved the way for the Islamic takeover that followed. Contrariwise, Norse exploration
and the Renaissance, to give 2 examples of increasing activity, both occurred during the Medieval Warming Period.
When it comes to senior American politihoes, no one is ever right. Pelosi may be cultivating the ISIS, but Gabbard is busy blowing
assorted dictators and more closer to the heart, the hindoo nationalist queers, as impotent (I mean that in a literal sexual context,
as their elites don't marry) as they might be.
Tulsi needs to conduct herself with gravitas, because of her age. However, she is helped by the fact that the leader of the progressive
wing is a former bartender, and the leader of the environmental resistance is a high-school sophomore.
@MarathonMan It goes without comment that the first act of the US following Nudelman's (Why do these fuckers keep changing
their names?) Ukraine coup was to steal its gold.
"Pelosi and most of the Democratic leadership don't care about Syria, or its population's welfare. They don't care about Assad,
or Isis. They care only about the maintenance and expansion of their own Democratic Party power – for the personal wealth and
influence it continues to bestow on them."
FTFY
Just as the GOP is precisely and thoroughly corrupt in exactly the same way, focused exclusively on their own craven self-interest,
the country be damned.
There is nothing in Sunni Islam that does not have its root in Judaism. To state otherwise is to be a typical Semitic liar.
Lol! Deceitful lies from some godless/pagan whitrash.
If you are referring to some self-perceived notions of barbarity/deception/etc., within Islam, then you are a deceitful !@#
who is trying to cover up the sheer savagery/psychopathy/deception/hypocrisy/etc., of the Christoo whitrash race.
Again, as far as the roots of Islam being in Judaism, that is laughable. It is Christooism which is clearly having roots in
Judaism (there have been so many here who have quoted from your pagan scriptures about the haloed position of the Jooscum)
and Hindooism .
In-his-image mangods/womangods, Trinity/Trimurthi, the human body is the temple of god the list is long where you all share
your pagan theologies.
Islam utterly rejects all such pagan abominations. The following verses of the Holy Quran amply proves the simplest and purest
form of monotheism, that is Islam;
Say, "He is Allah, [who is] One, Allah, the Eternal Refuge. He neither begets nor is born , Nor is there to Him
any equivalent ."
@A123 "Did the U.S. or Israel attempt to deploy ISIS? This is far-fetched beyond the bounds of reasonability."
Wrong.
The Oded Yinon Plan employs exactly this strategy, and along with the Neocon dominated State Dept with its Regime Change program
(Oded Yinon plan in stealth mode) is the predicate. Meanwhile, once it emerged, Obama & Kerry sought to preserve ISIS as a means
to pressure Assad. Neocon Zionist fifth column in the US, & Israel-behind-the-scenes are the dual agency-behind-the-curtain of
US regime-change wars ***EVERYWHERE*** (because they hate Russia, too.).
@DESERT FOX And rule, finally, over a smoldering wreck of a planet? They already rule most of it, they're at the Endgame of
their long match with the world. Not that they eschew violence and mass murder. Indeed, they got their start thousands years ago
by worshiping a god who told them to genocide all their neighbors and steal all their goods.
@really no shit I'm in the same age cohort as most of these shameless grifters, so I know the end of this run on earth is
drawing near. I know that no one can take whatever they accumulate in this life with them into oblivion or whatever their imagined
version of paradise might be. The loot stays here in this vale of tears.
ALL of these players busy ruining and ending lives, like Pelosi, the Clintons and the Bush family, are multi-millionaires at
the least–and all on the taxpayers' dime. Why do they desperately seek to add ever more cash to their bank accounts by bringing
yet more misery into the world? It won't be very long and either the collection of psychopaths known as the government of the
United States and its ruthless war machine will end up with the proceeds or they will pass down to further generations of these
congenital parasites and deadbeats.
Does Joe ask himself whether it was worthy to spend his wretched life accumulating ill-gotten wealth to pass on to Hunter and
his ilk? Or for Hillary to set up Chelsea and the next generation of Rodham Clinton lampreys? Jimmy Carter seems to have been
the only American president who didn't constantly grasp for money once out of office and the world never heard a peep about Amy
ever again.
[MORE]
[EDITOR'S NOTE: Since publication, this story has been corrected to clarify that the fighters trained in Jordan became members
of the ISIS after their training.]
JERUSALEM – Syrian rebels who would later join the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, or ISIS, were trained in 2012 by U.S.
instructors working at a secret base in Jordan, according to informed Jordanian officials.
The officials said dozens of future ISIS members were trained at the time as part of covert aid to the insurgents targeting
the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in Syria. The officials said the training was not meant to be used for any future
campaign in Iraq.
The Jordanian officials said all ISIS members who received U.S. training to fight in Syria were first vetted for any links to
extremist groups like al-Qaida.
In February 2012, WND was first to report the U.S., Turkey and Jordan were running a training base for the Syrian rebels in
the Jordanian town of Safawi in the country's northern desert region.
That report has since been corroborated by numerous other media accounts.
Last March, the German weekly Der Spiegel reported Americans were training Syrian rebels in Jordan.
Quoting what it said were training participants and organizers, Der Spiegel reported it was not clear whether the Americans
worked for private firms or were with the U.S. Army, but the magazine said some organizers wore uniforms. The training in Jordan
reportedly focused on use of anti-tank weaponry.
The German magazine reported some 200 men received the training over the previous three months amid U.S. plans to train a total
of 1,200 members of the Free Syrian Army in two camps in the south and the east of Jordan.
Britain's Guardian newspaper also reported last March that U.S. trainers were aiding Syrian rebels in Jordan along with British
and French instructors.
Reuters reported a spokesman for the U.S. Defense Department declined immediate comment on the German magazine's report. The
French foreign ministry and Britain's foreign and defense ministries also would not comment to Reuters.
Conservative government watchdog Judicial Watch have published formerly classified documents from the U.S. Department of Defence
which reveals the agencies earlier views on ISIS, namely that they were a desirable presence in Eastern Syria in 2012 and that
they should be "supported" in order to isolate the Syrian regime.
Levantreport.com reports:
Astoundingly, the newly declassified report states that for "THE WEST, GULF COUNTRIES, AND TURKEY [WHO] SUPPORT THE [SYRIAN] OPPOSITION
THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING A DECLARED OR UNDECLARED SALAFIST PRINCIPALITY IN EASTERN SYRIA (HASAKA AND DER ZOR),
AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE SUPPORTING POWERS TO THE OPPOSITION WANT, IN ORDER TO ISOLATE THE SYRIAN REGIME ".
The DIA report, formerly classified "SECRET//NOFORN" and dated August 12, 2012, was circulated widely among various government
agencies, including CENTCOM, the CIA, FBI, DHS, NGA, State Dept., and many others.
The document shows that as early as 2012, U.S. intelligence predicted the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant
(ISIL or ISIS), but instead of clearly delineating the group as an enemy, the report envisions the terror group as a U.S. strategic
asset.
Government watchdog Judicial Watch published more than 100 pages of formerly classified documents from the U.S. Department
of Defense and the State Department.
The documents obtained through a federal lawsuit, revealed the agencies earlier views on ISIS, namely that they were a desirable
presence in Eastern Syria in 2012 and that they should be "supported" in order to isolate the Syrian regime.
The U.S. intelligence documents not only confirms suspicions that the United States and some of its coalition allies had actually
facilitated the rise of the ISIS in Syria – as a counterweight to the Syrian government of President Bashar al-Assad- but also
that ISIS members were initially trained by members and contractors of the Central Intelligence Agency at facilities in Jordan
in 2012.
@Anonymous Jimmah was the last honest man in American politics. But since he told Americans that gas was going to cost more,
that perhaps they needed to drive a wee bit less, the Americans hated him. They didn't like the "malaise" of having to pay for
their lifestyle.
As for the Israelis, what did Jimmah not to do for them : Got Egypt out of the Arab alliance, arranged the annual tribute to
Israel, started the ball rolling on the Holocaust religion, paid off Egypt and Jordan to stay away from any alliance against the
Israelis. But what did he get in return; branded as anti-Semite merely for mentioning that the Palestinians had rights, were human
beings too. With the Zionist Jews, one is always on probation. No point playing their silly games.
The path of U.S.-Israeli arrogance and domination, with its various dimensions, and with its direct and indirect extensions
and alliances, which is witnessing military defeats and political failures, reflected successive defeats for the American strategies
and plans, one after the other. All this has led [the U.S.] to a state of indecision, retreat, and inability to control the progress
of events in our Arab and Islamic world. There is a broader international context for this – a context that, in its turn, helps
to expose the American crisis, and the decline of the [U.S.] unipolar hegemony, in the face of pluralism, the characteristics
of which are yet to be stabilized.
"The crisis of the arrogant world order is deepened by the collapse of U.S. and international stock markets, and by the confusion
and powerlessness of the American economy. This reflects the height of the structural crisis of the model of capitalist arrogance.
Therefore, it can be said that we are in the midst of historic transformations that foretell the retreat of the USA as a hegemonic
power, the disintegration of the unipolar hegemonic order, and the beginning of the accelerated historic decline of the Zionist
entity.
After World War II, the U.S. has adopted the leading, central hegemonic project. At its hands, this project has witnessed great
development of the means of control and unprecedented subjugation. It has benefited from an accumulation of multi-faceted accomplishments
in science, culture, technology, knowledge, economy, and the military, which was supported by an economic political plan that
views the world as nothing but open markets subject to the laws of [the U.S.].
"The most dangerous aspect of Western logic of hegemony in general, and the American logic of hegemony in particular, is their
basic belief that they own the world, and have the right to hegemony due to their supremacy in several fields. Thus, the Western,
and especially American, expansionist strategy, when coupled with the enterprise of capitalist economy, has become a strategy
of a global nature, whose covetous desires and appetite know no bounds.
The barbaric capitalism has turned globalism into a means to spread disintegration, to sow discord, to destroy identities,
and to impose the most dangerous form of cultural, economic, and social plunder. Globalization reached its most dangerous phase,
when it was transformed into military globalization by the owners of the Western hegemony enterprise, the greatest manifestation
of which was evident in the Middle East, from Afghanistan to Iraq, to Palestine, and to Lebanon.
There is no doubt that American terrorism is the source of all terrorism in the world. The Bush administration has turned the
U.S. into a danger threatening the whole world, on all levels. If a global opinion poll were held today, the United States would
emerge as the most hated country in the world.
The most important goal of American arrogance is to take control of the peoples politically, economically, and culturally,
and to plunder their resources.
– Hassan Nasrallah December 8, 2009
and Trump IS NOT "pulling out" Will Tulsi? One way to find out. Doesn't look good though, unless shes willing to splinter the
C.I.A. into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds, as they say..
Where's the proof that she is CFR member, I see sock puppets parrot this line all the time but offer no proof. Her serving
on the armed & financial services committees and doing a speech for them doesn't make her a member. I'd take her over Trump any
day.
And now, according to the latest news, Trump will send tanks into Syria to help the Kurds
secure the oil for Israel. It's hard to understand why the Elders of the Deep State want to
impeach Trump. He has done everything they wanted, moved the embassy, gave Syria's Golan
Heights to Israel, never criticizes the illegal settlements in Palestine. What else do they
want from him?
Hundreds of Islamic State fighters, both Syrian and foreign, were covertly evacuated by US,
UK and Kurdish forces from the besieged city of Raqqa last month and freed to "spread out far
and wide across Syria and beyond".
Although reports on the convoy surfaced at the time, BBC journalists Quentin Sommerville
and Riam Dalati have revealed the details in their documentary Raqqa's Dirty Secret.
Their investigation describes how the convoy carrying 250 fighters, 3,500 family members,
and lorry loads of arms and possessions, was arranged for October 12th by local officials in
meetings attended by a western officer.
During a visit to Syria in mid-October, The Irish Times was told not only about the
evacuation but also that senior Islamic State commanders and their families, 45 people in
all, had been airlifted out of Raqqa by a US helicopter and flown to the Kurdish region in
northern Iraq.
Fighters escaping Raqqa were said to have been given passage across the desert to join
comrades battling the Syrian army and its allies in Deir al-Zor.
Among the people the BBC team interviewed for the exposé were drivers paid by the
Islamic State to drive the buses and trucks carrying the evacuees. According to driver Abu
Fawzi, men, women and children wore suicide vests and the trucks had been booby-trapped in
case "something went wrong".
The convoy contained 50 trucks, 13 buses, and more than 100 of the fighters' own vehicles.
Although it had been agreed they would take only personal weapons, they filled 10 trucks with
arms and ammunition.
Three-day convoy
It had also been stipulated that no foreigners would leave, but drivers told the BBC that
French, Turkish, Azerbaijani, Pakistani, Yemeni, Saudi, Chinese, Tunisian and Egyptians had
joined the exodus. The only restriction observed was a ban against flags and banners.
Whenever it passed through a village or hamlet, fighters warned frightened bystanders they
would return, a villager called Muhanad told the BBC, "running a finger across their
throats".
Two Humvees led the convoy into the desert where the going was rough. Coalition aircraft
and drones hovered above, dropping flares after dark to light the way. When the motorcade
reached Islamic State-held territory, fighters and civilians departed with their arms and
possessions and drivers returned home.
The BBC investigation compelled Col Ryan Dillon, spokesman for Operation Inherent Resolve,
to admit to the deal. He told the team: "We didn't want anyone to leave. But this goes to the
heart of our strategy 'by, with and through' local leaders on the ground.
His statement on foreign fighters contradicted information given to the BBC by drivers and
people along the route as well as a statement about strategy made by US defence secretary
James Mattis in May.
"... All that changed with the conversion of the federal government to a national-security state and with the adoption of a pro-empire, pro-intervention foreign policy. When that happened, the U.S. government assumed the duty to fix the wrongs of the world. ..."
"... That's when U.S. officials began thinking in terms of empire and using empire-speak. Foreign regimes became "allies," "partners," and "friends." Others became "opponents," "rivals," or "enemies." Events thousands of miles away became threats to "national security." ..."
"... The results of U.S. imperialism and interventionism have always been perverse, not only for foreigners but also for Americans. That's how Americans have ended up with out-of-control federal spending and debt that have left much of the middle class high and dry, unable to support themselves in their senior years, unable to save a nest egg for financial emergencies, and living paycheck to paycheck. Empire and interventionism do not come cheap. ..."
"... There is but one solution to all this chaos and mayhem -- the dismantling, not the reform, of the Pentagon, the military-industrial complex, the vast empire of foreign and domestic military bases, and the NSA, along with an immediate end to all foreign interventionism. A free, peaceful, prosperous, and harmonious society necessarily entails the restoration of a limited-government republic and a non-interventionist foreign policy to our land. ..."
The chaos arising from U.S. interventionism in Syria provides an excellent opportunity to explore the interventionist mind.
Consider the terminology being employed by interventionists: President Trump's actions in Syria have left a "power vacuum," one
that Russia and Iran are now filling. The United States will no longer have "influence" in the region. "Allies" will no longer be
able to trust the U.S. to come to their assistance. Trump's actions have threatened "national security." It is now possible that
ISIS will reformulate and threaten to take over lands and even regimes in the Middle East.
This verbiage is classic empire-speak. It is the language of the interventionist and the imperialist.
Amidst all the interventionist chaos in the Middle East, it is important to keep in mind one critically important fact: None of
it will mean a violent takeover of the U.S. government or an invasion and conquest of the United States. The federal government will
go on. American life will go on. There will be no army of Muslims, terrorists, Syrians, ISISians, Russians, Chinese, drug dealers,
or illegal immigrants coming to get us and take over the reins of the IRS.
Why is that an important point? Because it shows that no matter what happens in Syria or the rest of the Middle East, life will
continue here in the United States. Even if Russia gets to continue controlling Syria, that's not going to result in a conquest of
the United States. The same holds true if ISIS, say, takes over Iraq. Or if Turkey ends up killing lots of Kurds. Or if Syria ends
up protecting the Kurds. Or if Iran continues to be controlled by a theocratic state. Or if the Russians retake control over Ukraine.
It was no different than when North Vietnam ended up winning the Vietnamese civil war. The dominoes did not fall onto the United
States and make America Red. It also makes no difference if Egypt continues to be controlled by a brutal military dictatorship. Or
that Cuba, North Korea, and China are controlled by communist regimes. Or that Russia is controlled by an authoritarian regime. Or
that Myanmar (Burma) is controlled by a totalitarian military regime. America and the federal government will continue standing.
America was founded as a limited government republic, one that did not send its military forces around the world to slay monsters.
That's not to say that bad things didn't happen around the world. Bad things have always happened around the world. Dictatorships.
Famines. Wars. Civil wars. Revolutions. Empires. Torture. Extra-judicial executions. Tyranny. Oppression. The policy of the United
States was that it would not go abroad to fix or clear up those types of things.
All that changed with the conversion of the federal government to a national-security state and with the adoption of a pro-empire,
pro-intervention foreign policy. When that happened, the U.S. government assumed the duty to fix the wrongs of the world.
That's when U.S. officials began thinking in terms of empire and using empire-speak. Foreign regimes became "allies," "partners,"
and "friends." Others became "opponents," "rivals," or "enemies." Events thousands of miles away became threats to "national security."
That's when U.S. forces began invading and occupying other countries, waging wars of aggression against them, intervening in foreign
wars, revolutions, and civil wars, initiating coups, destroying democratic regimes, establishing an empire of domestic and foreign
military bases, and bombing, shooting, killing, assassinating, spying on, maiming, torturing, kidnapping, injuring, and destroying
people in countries all over the world.
The results of U.S. imperialism and interventionism have always been perverse, not only for foreigners but also for Americans.
That's how Americans have ended up with out-of-control federal spending and debt that have left much of the middle class high and
dry, unable to support themselves in their senior years, unable to save a nest egg for financial emergencies, and living paycheck
to paycheck. Empire and interventionism do not come cheap.
The shift toward empire and interventionism has brought about the destruction of American liberty and privacy here at home. That's
what the assassinations, secret surveillance, torture, and indefinite detentions of American citizens are all about -- to supposedly
protect us from the dangers produced by U.S. imperialism and interventionism abroad. One might call it waging perpetual war for freedom
and peace, both here and abroad.
There is but one solution to all this chaos and mayhem -- the dismantling, not the reform, of the Pentagon, the military-industrial
complex, the vast empire of foreign and domestic military bases, and the NSA, along with an immediate end to all foreign interventionism.
A free, peaceful, prosperous, and harmonious society necessarily entails the restoration of a limited-government republic and a non-interventionist
foreign policy to our land.
...buried in Donald Trump's address is a clarion call to reject transnationalism and to
re-embrace a world of sovereign nation-states that cherish their independence and unique
identities.
Western man has engaged in this great quarrel since Woodrow Wilson declared America would
fight in the Great War, not for any selfish interests, but "to make the world safe for
democracy."
Our imperialist allies, Britain, France, Russia, Japan, regarded this as self-righteous
claptrap and proceeded to rip apart Germany, Austria, Hungary and the Ottoman Empire and to
feast on their colonies.
After World War II, Jean Monnet, father of the EU, wanted Europe's nations to yield up their
sovereignty and form a federal union like the USA.
Europe's nations would slowly sink and dissolve in a single polity that would mark a giant
leap forward toward world government -- Alfred, Lord Tennyson's "Parliament of man, the
Federation of the world."
Charles De Gaulle lead the resistance, calling for "a Europe of nation-states from the
Atlantic to the Urals."
For 50 years, the Gaullists were in constant retreat. The Germans especially, given their
past, seemed desirous of losing their national identity and disappearing inside the new
Europe.
Today, the Gaullist vision is ascendant.
"We do not expect diverse countries to share the same cultures, traditions, or even
systems of government," said Trump at the U.N. "Strong sovereign nations let diverse countries
with different values, different cultures, and different dreams not just coexist, but work side
by side on the basis of mutual respect.
"In America, we do not seek to impose our way of life on anyone, but rather to let it shine
as an example for everyone to watch."
Translation: We Americans have created something unique in history. But we do not assert
that we should serve as a model for mankind. Among the 190 nations, others have evolved in
different ways from diverse cultures, histories, traditions. We may reject their values but we
have no God-given right to impose ours upon them.
It is difficult to reconcile Trump's belief in self-determination with a National
Endowment for Democracy whose reason for being is to interfere in the politics of other nations
to make them more like us.
Trump's idea of patriotism has deep roots in America's past. After the uprisings of 1848
against the royal houses of Europe failed, Lajos Kossuth came to seek support for the cause of
Hungarian democracy. He was wildly welcomed and hailed by Secretary of State Daniel Webster.
But Henry Clay, more true to the principles of Washington's Farewell Address, admonished
Kossuth:
"Far better is it for ourselves, for Hungary, and for the cause of liberty that, adhering to
our wise, pacific system, and avoiding the distant wars of Europe, we should keep our lamp
burning brightly on the western shore as a light to all nations, than to hazard its utter
extinction amid the ruins of fallen or falling republics in Europe."
Trump's U.N. address echoed Clay: "In foreign affairs, we are renewing this founding
principle of sovereignty. Our government's first duty is to its people to serve their needs, to
ensure their safety, to preserve their rights, and to defend their values."
Trump is saying with John Quincy Adams that our mission is not to go "abroad in search of
monsters to destroy," but to "put America first." He is repudiating the New World Order of Bush
I, the democracy crusades of the neocons of the Bush II era, and the globaloney of Obama.
Trump's rhetoric implies intent; and action is evident from Rex Tillerson's directive to
his department to rewrite its mission statement -- and drop the bit about making the world
democratic. The current statement reads: "The Department's mission is to shape and sustain a
peaceful, prosperous, just, and democratic world." Tillerson should stand his ground. For
America has no divinely mandated mission to democratize mankind. And the hubristic idea that we
do has been a cause of all the wars and disasters that have lately befallen the republic. If we
do not cure ourselves of this interventionist addiction, it will end our republic. When did we
dethrone our God and divinize democracy?
And are 21st-century American values really universal values?
At least Mr. Buchanan's latest column has no Establishment horsefeathers about Russian
"hacking" of our precious democracy. However, doesn't he yet realize that there's usually
something for everyone in any formal address by President Trump?
The author can pluckily show how passages (apparently written by Stephen Miller?) are
consistent with America's founding principles, and perhaps an essay like this will reach and
enlighten others. But the President doesn't understand or hold those principles, as will once
again become evident in his own words thumbed into a so called smart phone and the actions of
an imperial Establishment for which he is, at best, nothing more than an embarrassing
annoyance.
"In America, we do not seek to impose our way of life on anyone, but rather to let it
shine as an example for everyone to watch."
Perhaps not, but we have been trying to impose (((American))) style democracy and
where/when that's not possible, puppet dictators. We claim to respect national sovereignty
but overthrew Saddam Hussein, helped overthrow Qadaffi, staged a color revolution in Ukraine,
seem to be undermining Maduro of Venezuela, are looking for ways to break the nuclear
agreement and reimpose sanctions on Iran and until recently, attempting to overthrow and
depose the duly elected leader of Syria which may still be in the works.
I guess the Jew(s) who wrote Trump's speech is hoping the world has amnesia. If Trump
truly means what he says then he will start closing our military bases and bringing our
troops home. His lofty words need to be matched by deeds.
If we ever want to overthrow any leader we just claim they are killing and torturing their
own people or possess unauthorized WMD. But if you are killing and torturing your people and
Israel likes you or doesn't feel threatened by you then we'll stand down.
And are 21st-century American values really universal values?
Should all nations embrace same-sex marriage, abortion on demand, and the separation of
church and state if that means, as it has come to mean here, the paganization of public
education and the public square?
the moral rot and spiritual sewage pumped out of ((Hollywood)) and ((Madison Ave.)) are
hardly pagan.
Paganism is a spiritual celebration of a people's blood and ancient Gods of lust,
fertility and heroism. The SJW of ((American)) culture today are the exact opposite of
paganism, as they wallow in blood-profaning 'diversity' and spiritual septic tanks of
homomania.
If freedom of speech and the press here have produced a popular culture that is an open
sewer and a politics of vilification and venom, why would we seek to impose this upon other
peoples?
it isn't freedom of speech or a free press that has produced the evils you speak of Pat,
but rather the consolidation of our press and media by the enemies of free speech. Duh.
For the State Department to declare America's mission to be to make all nations look
more like us might well be regarded as a uniquely American form of moral imperialism.
hardly moral imperialism, rather amoral imperialism.
promoting, indeed demanding moral rot and spiritual gangrene are ((America's)) exports
today, along with debt and bombs.
If Trump can somehow turn this situation around, and rein in the ((purveyors)) of hatred
and mass-murder, he'll be a modern day Charles [The Hammer] Martell. The Lion of the West,
and savior of Christendom and Europa.
An (unlikely) Second Coming of sorts, where Satan's nefarious rule is pushed back, and
humanity and Western civilization are once again free from the evils of Moloch's minion$.
Just imagine Putin in the East, and Trump in the West, and a healthy and ascendant Europe
in between, free from mass migrations and serial wars of ((imposed)) hatred and theft and
misery. Oy veh!
If a U.S. president calls an adversary "Rocket Man on a mission to suicide," and warns
his nation may be "totally destroyed,"
then it is quite irrelevant what else he says, because what's obvious is that he's
continuing his game of nuclear chicken with the North Korean regime, which is because he has
a problem with the fact that a country on the other side of a huge ocean is developing
nuclear weapons. Not very Gaullist, I think.
He was also threatening Iran, all the while lengthily admonishing Iran's leaders for their
form of government, for leading a "dictatorship", for having allegedly mismanaged their
country. This is not a Gaullist position at all, for example, quite the opposite.
At this stage trying to spin Trump utterances like that he might be a Gaullist is a complete
nonsense. His only redeeming value is that his enemies are who they are. Still as last
several months indicate Trump always ends up doing exactly what these "enemies" want.
http://patriotrising.com/2017/09/22/trump-hardly-knew-ye-bad-camelot-brief-shining-moment/
"Trump has unfortunately proven to be exactly what his detractors claimed he was; immature,
egotistical, unprincipled, vain, elitist. This certainly doesn't make most of his critics
any less offensive than they are. Indeed, that is the lone redeeming value of Trump's
administration; he continues to have all the right enemies. The threats of violence, even
assassination, from every pillar of the establishment almost make one want to continue to
defend him. Almost."
The US Multi-National Chamber of Commerce makes most of its money by arbitrage between
high price retailing to consumers in the USA and low cost manufacturing in China, et.al.. And
the C of C is nakedly buying the best Congressional GOP/RNC and DNC available and they're ALL
available.
This is called channel-stuffing. Stuff more people into the USA, get more arbitrage.
Then there's nakedly laundering payments to US corporations via "foreign aid." In every
case, the "aid" is either money to buy American weapons or such, or Uncle buys it himself and
sends it. Either way, the US Treasury borrows and spends .and US corporations collect.
In this regard, Uncle Sam is just like the typical college student or medical patient,
a means by which the supplier creates a conduit to the fruits of borrowed money.
Every bit of this grew up the last 36 years (well, it got way worse, anyway, from
poisonous seeds earlier) and it won't end until interest rates rise and choke off
borrowing.
This will happen when the Mass Mind finally awakens from a three and a half decade stupor
and realizes just what happened. Instead of empty platitudes about unpayable debts and
uncollectable pensions and future cash flows, the Mass Mind will SEE it clearly for the first
time.
Oh, the RAGE will be epic. I need to buy myself a cavern or old missile silo in which to
sit out the actions that will be animated by it.
I hope the economists and popular pundits who kept telling us debt was "no problem" are at
the head of the line when scapegoating gets REAL .
Western man has engaged in this great quarrel since Woodrow Wilson declared America would
fight in the Great War, not for any selfish interests, but "to make the world safe for
democracy."
To Wilson's credit, the logic of his argument was nationalist against imperialism. In
principle(if not in practice), he was calling for self-determination and national sovereignty
for all peoples of the world.
Wilson was NOT calling for wars to spread democracy. He was saying nations should
self-determine their own destinies and HOPEFULLY, democracy is the path they take.
In this sense. Bush and Neocons were not Wilsonian but closer to Teddy Rooseveltism that
was for empire and a World Club of Imperial Nations.
That said, Trump is a two-headed snake. Gaulle was a truly legendary leader. Trump is a
showman who has now cucked out to globalist. His rhetoric means nothing.
For 50 years, the Gaullists were in constant retreat. The Germans especially, given their
past, seemed desirous of losing their national identity and disappearing inside the new
Europe.
This makes no sense. The German Guilt in WWII was imperialism, not nationalism. They waged
war on nationalism all over Europe. They forced Poles, Ukrainians, Czechs, and etc to forgo
their identity and dissolve into German empire as helots.
Anti-Nazi struggle in WWII meant recovery of one's nation's sovereignty and
independence(though this was thwarted once again by Soviet domination of Eastern Europe).
Germans sure learned the wrong lesson. They no longer send armies to other nations, but
their message is the same to Poles, Hungarians, Greeks, and others.. SURRENDER YOUR
INDEPENDENCE AND SOVEREIGNTY AND BE RUN OVER BY FOREIGN INVADERS, this time Muslims and
Africans who are even worse than Germans.
They no longer send armies to other nations, but their message is the same to Poles,
Hungarians, Greeks, and others.. SURRENDER YOUR INDEPENDENCE AND SOVEREIGNTY AND BE RUN
OVER BY FOREIGN INVADERS,
agreed. now its more political and economic.
but to be fair, we dont know how much power Germany elites really have. how much of their
talk is really their views, vs how much is influenced from US/France/etc. do they want eu
seperate, do they want atlanticist eu-us connection?
i wonder how the demographic problems will play in the future. assuming projections are
right, slavic lands (especially between Germany and Russia) will have less people due to
fertility rates. will that be lebensraum for the new mixed society of germany?
Hey, if you don't like it "you're fired!" And you can't play football either! To think I once
was a Trump supporter Hillary or not, this guy is dangerous.
If freedom of speech and the press here have produced a popular culture that is an open
sewer and a politics of vilification and venom, why would we seek to impose this upon other
peoples?
Don't blame freedom of speech and the press for the popular culture that's an open [moral]
sewer; blame the self anointed money bag "elite" who control the press and much of everything
else whose "culture" has always been a sewer, albeit somewhat discreetly closed.
They say a fish rots from the head down, and evidently the rule has, and still does, apply
to human social systems as well.
The "why would we seek to impose this upon other peoples?" question is spot on,
however.
Neocons are lobbyists for MIC, the it is MIC that is the center of this this cult. People like Kriston, Kagan and Max Boot are
just well paid prostituttes on MIC, which includes intelligence agencies as a very important part -- the bridge to Wall Street so to
speak.
Being a neoconservative should receive at least as much vitriolic societal rejection as being a Ku Klux Klan member or a child
molester, but neocon pundits are routinely invited on mainstream television outlets to share their depraved perspectives.
Notable quotes:
"... Washington Post ..."
"... Neoconservatism is a psychopathic death cult whose relentless hyper-hawkishness is a greater threat to the survival of our species than anything else in the world right now. These people are traitors to humanity, and their ideology needs to be purged from the face of the earth forever. I'm not advocating violence of any kind here, but let's stop pretending that this is okay. Let's start calling these people the murderous psychopaths that they are whenever they rear their evil heads and stop respecting and legitimizing them. There should be a massive, massive social stigma around what these people do, so we need to create one. They should be marginalized, not leading us. ..."
Glenn Greenwald has just published a very important
article in The Intercept that I would have everyone in America read if I could. Titled "With New D.C. Policy Group,
Dems Continue to Rehabilitate and Unify With Bush-Era Neocons", Greenwald's excellent piece details the frustratingly under-reported
way that the leaders of the neoconservative death cult have been realigning with the Democratic party.
This pivot back to the party of neoconservatism's origin is one of the most significant political events of the new millennium,
but aside from a handful of sharp political analysts like Greenwald it's been going largely undiscussed. This is weird, and we need
to start talking about it. A lot. Their willful alignment with neoconservatism should be the very first thing anyone ever talks about
when discussing the Democratic party.
When you hear someone complaining that the Democratic party has no platform besides being anti-Trump, your response should be,
"Yeah it does. Their platform is the omnicidal death cult of neoconservatism."
It's absolutely insane that neoconservatism is still a thing, let alone still a thing that mainstream America tends to regard
as a perfectly legitimate set of opinions for a human being to have. As what Dr. Paul Craig Roberts rightly
calls "the most dangerous ideology that has ever
existed," neoconservatism has used its nonpartisan bloodlust to work with the Democratic party for the purpose of escalating tensions
with Russia on multiple fronts, bringing our species to the brink of what could very well end up being a
world war with a nuclear superpower and its allies.
This is not okay. Being a neoconservative should receive at least as much vitriolic societal rejection as being a Ku Klux Klan
member or a child molester, but neocon pundits are routinely invited on mainstream television outlets to share their depraved perspectives.
Check out leading neoconservative Bill Kristol's response to the aforementioned Intercept article:
... ... ...
Okay, leaving aside the fact that this bloodthirsty psychopath is saying neocons "won" a Cold War that neocons have deliberately
reignited by fanning the flames of the Russia hysteria and
pushing for more escalations , how insane is it that we live in a society where a public figure can just be like, "Yeah, I'm
a neocon, I advocate for using military aggression to maintain US hegemony and I think it's great," and have that be okay? These
people kill children. Neoconservatism means piles upon piles of child corpses. It means devoting the resources of a nation that won't
even provide its citizens with a real healthcare system to widespread warfare and all the death, destruction, chaos, terrorism, rape
and suffering that necessarily comes with war. The only way that you can possibly regard neoconservatism as just one more set of
political opinions is if you completely compartmentalize away from the reality of everything that it is.
This should not happen. The tensions with Russia that these monsters have worked so hard to escalate could blow up at any moment;
there are too many moving parts, too many things that could go wrong. The last Cold War brought our species
within a hair's
breadth of total annihilation due to our inability to foresee all possible complications which can arise from such a contest,
and these depraved death cultists are trying to drag us back into another one. Nothing is worth that. Nothing is worth risking the
life of every organism on earth, but they're risking it all for geopolitical influence.
... ... ...
I've had a very interesting last 24 hours. My
article about Senator John
McCain (which I titled "Please Just Fucking Die Already" because the title I really wanted to use seemed a bit crass) has received
an amount of attention that I'm not accustomed to, from
CNN to
USA Today to the
Washington Post . I watched Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar
talking about me on The View . They called me a "Bernie
Sanders person." It was a trip. Apparently some very low-level Republican with a few hundred Twitter followers went and retweeted
my article with an approving caption, and that sort of thing is worthy of coast-to-coast mainstream coverage in today's America.
This has of course brought in a deluge of angry comments, mostly from people whose social media pages are full of Russiagate
nonsense , showing
where McCain's current support base comes from. Some call him a war hero, some talk about him like he's a perfectly fine politician,
some defend him as just a normal person whose politics I happen to disagree with.
This is insane. This man has actively and enthusiastically pushed for every single act of military aggression that America has
engaged in, and some that
it hasn't , throughout his entire career. He makes Hillary "We came, we saw, he died" Clinton look like a dove. When you look
at John McCain, the very first thing you see should not be a former presidential candidate, a former POW or an Arizona Senator; the
first thing you see should be the piles of human corpses that he has helped to create. This is not a normal kind of person, and I
still do sincerely hope that he dies of natural causes before he can do any more harm.
Can we change this about ourselves, please? None of us should have to live in a world where pushing for more bombing campaigns
at every opportunity is an acceptable agenda for a public figure to have. Neoconservatism is a psychopathic death cult whose relentless
hyper-hawkishness is a greater threat to the survival of our species than anything else in the world right now. These people are
traitors to humanity, and their ideology needs to be purged from the face of the earth forever. I'm not advocating violence of any
kind here, but let's stop pretending that this is okay. Let's start calling these people the murderous psychopaths that they are
whenever they rear their evil heads and stop respecting and legitimizing them. There should be a massive, massive social stigma around
what these people do, so we need to create one. They should be marginalized, not leading us.
-- -- --
I'm a 100 percent reader-funded journalist so if you enjoyed this, please consider helping me out by sharing it around, liking
me on Facebook , following me on
Twitter , or throwing some money into my hat on
Patreon .
"... In 1987, Michael Milken awarded himself $550 million in compensation. In New York City, spending by bankers -- a million dollars for curtains for a Fifth Avenue apartment, a thousand dollars for a vase of precious roses for a party -- was obscene. A major financier announced in the Hamptons one night that "if you have less than 750 million, you have no hedge against inflation." In Paris, a jeweler "dazzled his society guests when topless models displayed the merchandise between courses." In west Los Angeles, the average price of a house in Bel Air rose to $4.6 million. There was so much money it was nicknamed "green smog." ..."
In 1985, the Dow Jones average jumped 27.66 percent.
Making
money in stocks
, as a journalist put it, "was easy."
With lower interest rates, low
inflation, and "takeover fever," investors could throw a dart at a list of stocks and profit.
The next year was also very good.
The average gain of a Big Board stock in 1986
was 14 percent, with equity market indexes closing at a record high.
For the top performers, the amounts of money involved were staggering.
In 1987, Michael Milken awarded himself $550 million in compensation.
In New
York City, spending by bankers -- a million dollars for curtains for a Fifth Avenue apartment, a
thousand dollars for a vase of precious roses for a party -- was obscene. A major financier announced
in the Hamptons one night that "if you have less than 750 million, you have no hedge against
inflation." In Paris, a jeweler "dazzled his society guests when topless models displayed the
merchandise between courses." In west Los Angeles, the average price of a house in Bel Air rose to
$4.6 million. There was so much money it was nicknamed "green smog."
Ambitious men now wanted to change the world through finance.
Bruce Wasserstein
had been a "Nader's Raider" consumer advocate; he now worked at First Boston as one of the most
successful mergers and acquisitions bankers of the 1980s. Michael Lewis wrote his best-seller
Liar's
Poker
as a warning of what unfettered greed in finance meant, but instead of learning the
lesson, students deluged him with letters asking if he "had any other secrets to share about Wall
Street." To them, the book was a "how-to manual."
Finance was the center, but its power reached outward everywhere.
The stock
market was minting millionaires in a collection of formerly sleepy towns in California. Sunnyvale,
Mountain View, Los Altos, Cupertino, Santa Clara, and San Jose in the 1960s had been covered with
"apricot, cherry and plum orchards," and young people there often took summer jobs at local
canneries. Immediately after Reagan's election, in December of 1980, Apple Computer went public,
instantly creating 300 millionaires, and raising more money in the stock market than any company
since Ford Motor had in its initial public offering of shares in 1956. A young Steve Jobs was
instantly worth $217 million.
Meanwhile, the family farmer had lots of people who said they were friends at election
time - even the glamorous music industry put on a giant "Farm Aid" concert in 1985 to raise money
for bankrupt growers.
But there was no populist leader like Congressman
Wright
Patman had been
during the New Deal in the Democratic Party anymore. On the contrary, "new"
Democrats like Dale Bumpers and Bill Clinton of Arkansas worked to rid their state of the usury
caps meant to protect the "plain people" from the banker and financier. And the main contender for
the Democratic nomination in 1988, the handsome Gary Hart, with his flowing -- and carefully
blow-dried -- chestnut brown hair, spoke a lot about "sunrise" industries like semiconductors and
high-tech, but had little in his vision incorporating the family farm.
It wasn't just the family farmer who suffered.
On the South Side of Chicago,
U.S. Steel, having started mass layoffs in 1979, continued into the next decade, laying off more
than 6,000 workers in that community alone. Youngstown, Johnson, Gary -- all the old industrial cities
were going, in the words of the writer Studs Terkel, from "Steel Town" to "Ghost Town." And the
headlines kept on coming. John Deere idled 1,500 workers, GE's turbine division cut 1,500 jobs,
AT&T laid off 2,900 in its Shreveport plant, Eastern Air Lines fired 1,010 flight attendants, and
docked pay by 20 percent. "You keep saying it can't get worse, but it does," said a United
Autoworker member.
And all the time, whether in farm country or steel country, the closed independent shop
and the collapsed bank were as much monuments to the new political order as the sprouting number of
Walmarts and the blizzard of junk-mail credit cards from Citibank.
As Terkel put it, "In
the thirties, an Administration recognized a need and lent a hand. Today, an Administration
recognizes an image and lends a smile."
Regional inequality widened,
as airlines cut routes to rural, small, and even
medium-sized cities. So did income inequality, the emptying farm towns, the hollowing of
manufacturing as executives began searching for any way to be in any business but one that made
things in America. It wasn't just the smog and the poverty, the consumerism, the debt, and the
shop-till-you-drop ethos. It was the profound hopelessness.
Within academic and political institutions, Americans were taught to believe their longing for
freedom was immoral. Power was re-centralizing on Wall Street, in corporate monopolies, in shopping
malls, in the way they paid for the new consumer goods made abroad, in where they worked and
shopped. Yet policymakers, reading from the scripts prepared by Chicago School of Economics
"experts," spoke of these changes as natural, "scientific," a result of consumer preferences, not
the concentration of power.
By the time of the 1992 election, there was a sullen mood among the voters, similar to
that of 1974
. "People are outraged at what is going on in Washington. Part of it had to do
with pay raises, part of it has to do with banks and S&Ls and other things that are affecting my
life as a voter," said a pollster. That year, billionaire businessman Ross Perot ran the strongest
third-party challenge in American history, capitalizing on anger among white working-class voters,
the Democrats who had switched over to Reagan in the 1980s. He did so by pledging straightforward
protectionism for U.S. industry, attacking the proposed North American Free Trade Agreement
(NAFTA), and political corruption. Despite a bizarre campaign in which he withdrew and then
reentered the race, Perot did so well he shattered the Republican coalition, helping throw the
election to the Democrats. There would be one last opportunity for the Democrats to rebuild their
New Deal coalition of working-class voters.
The winner of the election, Bill Clinton, looked like he might do so. He had run
a populist campaign using the slogan "Putting People First."
He attacked the
failed economic theory of Reagan, criticized tax cuts for the rich and factory closings, and
pledged to protect Americans from foreign and domestic threats. "For too long, those who play by
the rules and keep the faith have gotten the shaft," Clinton said. "And those who cut corners and
cut deals have been rewarded." His campaign's internal slogan was "It's the economy, stupid," and
the 1992 Democratic platform used the word "revolution" 14 times.
As a candidate, Clinton's Democratic platform called for a "Revolution of 1992," capturing the
anger of the moment. But the platform was written by
centrist
Democratic Leadership Council
boss Al From, and for the first time since 1880 there was no
mention of antitrust or corporate power, despite a decade with the worst financial manipulation
America had seen since the 1920s. This revolution would be against government, in government,
around government.
In 1993, a book came out on lobbying in Washington. Wayne Thevenot, a
Clinton donor, laid out the new theme of the modern Democratic Party: "I gave up the idea of
changing the world. I set out to get rich."
Like Reagan, Clinton went after restrictions on banking. Reagan sought to free restrictions on
finance by allowing banks and non-banks to enter new lines of business. Clinton continued this
policy, but over the course of his eight years attacked restrictions on banks themselves. In 1994,
the Clinton administration and a Democratic Congress passed the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and
Branching Efficiency Act, which allowed banks to open up branches across state lines. Clinton
appointed Robert Rubin as his treasury secretary, super-lawyer Eugene Ludwig to run the Office of
the Comptroller of the Currency, and reappointed Alan Greenspan as the chairman of the Federal
Reserve.
All three men worked hard through regulatory rulemaking to allow unfettered trading in
derivatives, to break down the New Deal restrictions prohibiting commercial banks from entering the
trading business, and to let banks take more risks with less of a cushion.
Citigroup
finally got an insurance arm, merging with financial conglomerate Travelers Group, approved by
Greenspan, who granted the authority for the acquisition under the Bank Holding Company Act. In
1999, Clinton and a now-Republican Congress passed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which fully repealed
the Glass-Steagall Act that had shattered the Houses of J.P. Morgan and Andrew Mellon. The very
last bill Clinton signed was the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, which removed public
rules limiting the use of exotic gambling instruments known as derivatives by now-enormous banks.
Clinton signed the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which he touted as "truly
revolutionary legislation," and this began the process of reconsolidating the
old
AT&T
as the "
Baby
Bells
" merged.
At the signing ceremony, actress Lily Tomlin reprised her role as a Ma
Bell operator. Huge pieces of the AT&T network came back together, as Baby Bells merged from seven
to three. Clear Channel grew from 40 radio stations to 1,240. In 1996, the Communications Decency
Act was signed, with
Section
230 of the Act protecting certain internet businesses
from being liable for wrongdoing that
occurred on their platform. While not well understood at the time, Section 230 was one policy lever
that would enable a powerful set of internet monopolies to emerge in the next decade.
Clinton also sped up the corporate takeover of rural America by allowing a merger wave
in farm country.
Food companies had always had some power in America, but before the
Reagan era, big agribusinesses were confined to one or two stages of the food system. In the 1990s,
the agricultural sector consolidated under a small number of sprawling conglomerates that organized
the entire supply chain. Cargill, an agricultural conglomerate that was the largest privately owned
company in America, embarked on a series of mergers and joint ventures, buying the grain-trading
operations of its rival, Continental Grain Inc., as well as Azko Salt, thus becoming one of the
largest salt production and marketing operations in the world.
Monsanto consolidated the specialty chemicals and seed markets, buying up DeKalb Genetics and
cotton-seed maker Delta & Pine Land. ConAgra, marketing itself as selling at every link of the
supply chain from "farm gate to dinner plate," bought International Home Foods (the producer of
Chef Boyardee pasta and Gulden's mustard), Knott's Berry Farm Foods, Gilroy Foods, Hester
Industries, and Signature Foods. As William Heffernan, a rural sociologist at the University of
Missouri, put it in 1999, a host of formal and informal alliances such as joint ventures,
partnerships, contracts, agreements, and side agreements ended up concentrating power even further
into "clusters of firms." He identified three such clusters -- Cargill/Monsanto, ConAgra, and
Novartis/ADM -- as controlling the global food supply.
The increase in power of these trading corporations meant that profit would increasingly
flow to middlemen, not farmers themselves.
Montana senator Conrad Burns complained his
state's farmers were "getting less for our products on the farm now than we did during the Great
Depression." The Montana state legislature passed a resolution demanding vigorous antitrust
investigations into the meatpacking, grain-handling, and food retail industries, and the state
farmer's union asked for a special unit at the Department of Justice to review proposed
agricultural mergers. There was so little interest in the Clinton antitrust division that when
Burns held a Senate Commerce Committee hearing on concentration in the agricultural sector, the
assistant attorney general for antitrust, Joel Klein, didn't bother to show up. "Their failure to
be here to explain their policies to rural America," said Burns, "speaks volumes about what their
real agenda is."
In the Reagan era, Walmart had already become the most important chain store in America,
surpassing the importance of A&P at the height of its power. But it was
during the Clinton
administration that the company became a trading giant.
First, the corporation jumped in
size, replacing the auto giant GM as the top private employer in America, growing to 825,000
employees in 1998 while planting a store in every state. The end of antitrust enforcement in the
retail space meant that Walmart could wield its buying power to restructure swaths of industries
and companies, from pickle producers to Procter & Gamble. Clinton allowed Walmart to reorder world
trade itself. Even in the mid-1990s, only a small percentage of its products were made abroad. But
the passage of NAFTA -- which eliminated tariffs on Mexican imports -- as well as Clinton's embrace of
Chinese imports, allowed Walmart to force its suppliers to produce where labor and environmental
costs were lowest. From 1992 to 2000, America's trade deficit with China jumped from $18 billion to
$84 billion, while it went from a small trade surplus to a $25 billion trade deficit with Mexico.
And Walmart led the way. By 2003, consulting firm Retail Forward estimated more than half of
Walmart merchandise was made abroad.
Clinton administration officials were proud of Walmart, and this new generation of
American trading monopolies, dubbing them part of a wondrous "New Economy" underpinned by
information technology.
"And if you think about what this new economy means," said Clinton
deputy treasury secretary Larry Summers in 1998 at a conference for investment bankers focusing on
high-tech, "whether it is AIG in insurance, McDonald's in fast-food, Walmart in retailing,
Microsoft in software, Harvard University in education, CNN in television news -- the leading
enterprises are American."
It was also under Clinton that the last bastion of the New Deal coalition -- a
congressional majority held by the Democrats since the late 1940s -- fell apart
as the last
few holdout southern Democrats were finally driven from office or switched to the Republican Party.
And it was under Clinton that the language of politics shifted from that of equity, justice, and
potholes to the finance-speak of redistribution, growth and investment, and infrastructure decay.
The Democratic Party embraced not just the tactics, but the ideology of the Chicago
School.
As one memo from Clinton's Council of Economic Advisors put it, "Large size is
not the same as monopoly power. For example, an ice cream vendor at the beach on a hot day probably
has more market power than many multi-billion-dollar companies in competitive industries."
During the 12 years of the
Reagan and Bush
administrations, there were
85,064 mergers
valued at $3.5 trillion.
Under just seven years of
Clinton
, there were
166,310 deals
valued at $9.8 trillion.
This merger wave was larger than that of the Reagan era, and larger even than any since
the turn of the twentieth century, when the original trusts were created.
Hotels,
hospitals, banks, investment banks, defense contractors, technology, oil -- everything was merging.
The Clinton administration organized this new concentrated American economy through
regulatory appointments and through non-enforcement of antitrust laws.
Sometimes it even
seemed they had put antitrust enforcement itself up for sale. In 1996, Thomson Corporation bought
West Publishing, creating a monopoly in digital access to court opinions and legal publishing; the
owner of West had given a half a million dollars to the Democratic Party and personally lobbied
Clinton to allow the deal. The DOJ even approved the $81 billion Exxon and Mobil merger, restoring
a chunk of the Rockefeller empire.
Clinton advisor James Carville very early on in Clinton's first term noted what was
happening.
"I used to think if there was reincarnation, I wanted to come back as the president or the
pope or a .400 baseball hitter," he said.
"But now I want to come back as the bond market. You can intimidate everybody."
Toward the end of Clinton's second term, with a transcendent stock market, bars in the United
States began switching their television sets from sports scores to CNBC, to watch the trading in
real time.
In the 1990s, it wouldn't be Herbert Hoover overseeing a bubble, it would be a Democrat.
* * *
Finally,
Matt
pointed out on Twitter that
:
"This chapter is about Clinton. But there are two chapters
before about how Reagan facilitated the merger boom of the 1980s.
Our problems came through
both parties. Both. That is crystal clear.
"
Last month, on the 80th anniversary of the start of World War II, the European Parliament
voted on a resolution entitled
" On the Importance of European Remembrance for the Future of Europe ." The adopted
document:
" Stresses that the Second World War, the most devastating war in Europe's history, was
started as an immediate result of the notorious Nazi-Soviet Treaty on Non-Aggression of 23
August 1939, also known as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, and its secret protocols, whereby two
totalitarian regimes that shared the goal of world conquest divided Europe into two zones of
influence; Recalls that the Nazi and communist regimes carried out mass murders, genocide and
deportations and caused a loss of life and freedom in the 20th century on a scale unseen in
human history, and recalls the horrific crime of the Holocaust perpetrated by the Nazi
regime; condemns in the strongest terms the acts of aggression, crimes against humanity and
mass human rights violations perpetrated by the Nazi, communist and other totalitarian
regimes."
For 75 years, we have been told that the war started on September 1st, 1939 when Germany
invaded Poland, even though the Pacific Theater between Japan and China began two years
earlier. Now we are to understand that it actually began eight days prior when the German
foreign minister visited Moscow. Take no notice of the inherent doublespeak in the premise that
a war could be the consequence of a peace agreement, which without any evidence provided is
said to have contained "secret protocols", not provisions. You see, unlike the other pacts
signed between European countries and Nazi Germany -- such as the Munich Betrayal
of 1938 with France and Great Britain to which the Soviets were uninvited while Austria and
Czechoslovakia were gifted to Hitler for the courtesy of attacking Moscow --
Molotov-Ribbentrop was really a confidential agreement between Hitler and Stalin to
conquer Europe and divide it between them.
This is pure mythology. The fact of the matter is that neither the Soviets or even Germany
drew the dividing line in Poland in 1939, because it was a reinstatement of the border
acknowledged by the League of Nations and Poland itself as put forward by the British following
WWI. Even Winston Churchill during his first wartime radio broadcast later that year admitted :
"Russia has pursued a cold policy of self-interest. We could have wished that the Russian
Armies should be standing on their present line as the friends and allies of Poland, instead
of as invaders. But that the Russian Armies should stand on this line was clearly necessary
for the safety of Russia against the Nazi menace."
Yet according to the EU, even though Moscow was the last country to agree to a peace
deal with Hitler, it was all part of a hidden plot between them. In that case, why then did
Germany choose to invade the USSR in 1941? The EU leaves this question unanswered. Forget about
its racial policies of enslaving slavs or that Hitler openly declared in Mein Kampf that
Germany needed to conquer the East to secure the Lebensraum . Nevermind that in the
Spring of 1941, less than two months before Operation Barbarossa, Stalin gave a speech to the Kremlin
at a state banquet for recent graduates of the Frunze Military Academy to give warning of an
imminent attack:
"War with Germany is inevitable. If comrade Molotov can manage to postpone the war for two
or three months through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, that will be our good fortune, but
you yourselves must go off and take measures to raise the combat readiness of our
forces."
The EU has redacted that the entire reason for the signing of the Nazi-Soviet pact in August
1939 had been to buy time for the Red Army's attrition warfare strategy to adequately prepare
its armaments against a future invasion by the Wehrmacht. The Soviet leadership well understood
that Germany would eventually renege on the agreement, considering that in 1936 it had signed
the Anti-Comintern Pact with Japan and Italy directed at the Communist International. For six
years, the USSR was thwarted in its attempts to forge an equivalent anti-fascist coalition and
to collectively defend Czechoslovakia by the British and the French, whose ruling classes were
too busy courting and doing business with Germany. It had been the Soviets alone who defended
the Spanish Republic from Franco in the final rehearsal before the worldwide conflict and only
when all other recourses had run out did they finally agree to a deal with the
Hitlerites.
Joachim von Ribbentrop signing the Anti-Comintern Pact
Just a week prior to the signing of the neutrality treaty, Stalin gave a secret
speech to the Politburo where he explained:
"The question of war or peace has entered a critical phase for us. If we conclude a mutual
assistance treaty with France and Great Britain, Germany will back off of Poland and seek a
modus vivendi with the Western Powers. War would thus be prevented but future events could
take a serious turn for the USSR. If we accept Germany's proposal to conclude with it a
non-aggression pact, Germany will then attack Poland and Europe will be thrown into serious
acts of unrest and disorder. Under these circumstances we will have many chances of remaining
out of the conflict while being able to hope for our own timely entrance into war."
This latest resolution is part of a long pattern of misrepresentation of WWII by the
Anglo-Saxon empire, but is perhaps its most egregious falsification that truly desecrates the
graves of the 27 million Soviet citizens who were 80% of the total Allied death toll. Earlier
this year, for the commemoration on the 75th anniversary of the Normandy landings, Russia and
its head of state were excluded from the events in Portsmouth, England. As if the ongoing
absence of Western European leaders from the May 9th Victory Day ceremonies held annually in
Russia weren't insulting enough, while it's true that the Eastern Front was not involved in
Operation Overlord, Russian President Vladimir Putin had previously been in attendance at the
70th anniversary D-Day events in 2014. No doubt the increase in geopolitical tensions between
the West and Moscow in the years since has given the EU license to write out Russia's role in
the Allied victory entirely with little public disapproval, though many of the families of
those who volunteered in the International Brigades were rightly insulted by this tampering of
history and voiced their objection.
The EU motion's real purpose is to fabricate the war's history by giving credit to the
United States for the liberation of Europe while absolving the Western democracies that opened
the door for the rise of fascism and tried to use Germany to annihilate the USSR. History
itself should always be open to debate and subject to study and revision, but the Atlanticists
have made this formal change without any evidence to support it and entirely for political
purposes. Like the founding of the EU project itself, the declared aim of the proposal is
supposedly to prevent future atrocities from taking place, even though the superstate was
designed by former Nazis like Walter Hallstein, the first President of the European Commission,
who was a German lawyer in several Nazi Party law organizations and fought for the Wehrmacht in
France until his capture as a POW after the invasion of Normandy.
Rather than preventing future crimes, the EU has committed one itself by deceptively
modifying the historical record of communism to be parallel with that of the Third Reich. Even
further, that they were two sides of the same coin of 'totalitarianism' and that for all the
barbarity committed during the war, the Soviets were equally culpable -- or judging by the
amount of times the text cites the USSR versus Germany, even more so. It remains unclear
whether we are now to completely disregard the previous conclusions reached by the military
tribunals held by the Allies under international law at Nuremberg of which all 12 war criminals
sentenced to death in 1946 were German, not Soviet. The document doesn't even attempt to hide
its politicized direction at the current government in Moscow, stating that:
"Russia remains the greatest victim of communist totalitarianism and that its development
into a democratic state will be impeded as long as the government, the political elite and
political propaganda continue to whitewash communist crimes and glorify the Soviet
totalitarian regime."
This accusation does not stand up to critical observation, as Russia has since erected
official memorials to those executed and politically persecuted during the so-called 'Great
Terror.' However, the stark difference between the EU resolution and the Wall of Grief in
Moscow is that the latter is based on evidence from the Soviet archives. It has become a
widespread and ridiculous belief in the West that Stalin somehow killed as much as five times
as many people as Hitler, an absurdity not reflected in the now disclosed and once highly
secretive Soviet archives, which after two decades of examination show that over a period of
three decades from the early 1920s to his death in 1953, the total recorded number of Soviet
citizens executed by the state was slightly less than 800,000. While that is certainly a horrid
number, how does it even begin to compare to an industrial scale extermination based on the
race theory?
How can anyone believe Stalin killed tens of millions of people when even the most simple
analysis of a population demographics chart shows that the Soviet population rate consistently
increased each decade with the only reduction taking place during WWII as a result of
their casualties? Socialists, who perhaps more than any other political tendency seem to suffer
from autophobia, should defend their own history from such falsification. It is only when flaws
occur under communist states that the entire political and economic system is to be denounced
outright, but never capitalism which for five centuries has colonized half the world while
enslaving and killing entire nations.
Most of the wildly exaggerated death figures stem from falsities written in The Black
Book of Communism by a group of right-wing French academics in 1997 , who did not
conceal their
apologism for the Nazi collaborationist self-proclaimed Russian Liberation Army (ROA)
commanded by Gen. Andrey Vlasov who defected to Germany during the war:
"A singular fate was reserved for the Vlasovtsy, the Soviet soldiers who had fought under
the Soviet general Andrei Vlasov. Vlasov was the commander of the Second Army who had been
taken prisoner by the Germans in July 1942. On the basis of his anti-Stalinist convictions,
General Vlasov agreed to collaborate with the Nazis to free his country from the tyranny of
the Bolsheviks."
The other highly cited work by the West for its overestimated portrayal of Soviet repression
is the equally unreliable The Gulag Archipelago volumes by Alexander Solzhenitsyn, who
as historian Ludo Martens noted also attempted to provide justification for Vlasov's treason
in his best-selling 1973 work :
"And so it was that Vlasov's Second Shock Army perished, literally recapitulating the fate
of Samsonov's Russian Second Army in World War I, having been just as insanely thrown into
encirclement. Now this, of course, was treason to the Motherland! This, of course, was
vicious, self-obsessed betrayal! But it was Stalin's. Treason does not necessarily involve
selling out for money. It can include ignorance and carelessness in the preparations for war,
confusion and cowardice at its very start, the meaningless sacrifice of armies and corps
solely for the sake of saving one's own marshal's uniform. Indeed, what more bitter treason
is there on the part of a Supreme Commander in Chief?"
Alexander Solzhenitsyn
The truth is located in the Soviet archives which indicate that Stalin's successor, the
Ukrainian-born Nikita Khrushchev, was as intent on absolving the entirety of the Soviet
leadership as himself from any culpability in the purges of the 1930s so that blame for its
excesses were placed squarely on his predecessor. In succession, Western historians like the
British Foreign Office propagandist Robert Conquest followed his example and this account
quickly became official doctrine. In hindsight, Khrushchev's infamous 1956 secret speech, "
On the Cult of Personality and Its Consequences ", was what planted the seeds of
self-doubt in the Soviet system that would eventually lead to its undoing decades later. To the
contrary, what the historical records
show is most of those who were purged in that period were not necessarily perceived as
political threats to Stalin himself, but were targeted because of an overall systemic paranoia
held by the entire Soviet government regarding internal sabotage and counter-revolutionary
activity by a real fifth column getting inspiration from a certain traitorous former Bolshevik
in exile and a potential invasion originating from outside the country.
Many forget that during the Russian Civil War, exactly such a scenario had occurred when the
Allies of World War I, including the United States, collectively intervened on the side of the
Whites only to be driven out by the Red Army, making such fearful instincts not entirely
unreasonable. Not to mention, the rapid industrialization of the entire nation in a single
decade while in preparation for the growing threat of war with Germany. When Hitler began his
Masterplan for the East, their worst fears came to fruition when tens of thousands of Banderite
turncoats enlisted in the 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Galician) in Ukraine to
collaborate with the German occupiers in the slaughter of their fellow countrymen and after the
war ended, continued their treasonous struggle during the 1950s with assistance from the CIA.
So the saying goes, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you
As for the accusation of "whitewashing", it is true that recent
polls indicate that 70% of Russians today hold a favorable view of Stalin -- but just as
many are nostalgic for communism itself and regret the breakup of the USSR on the basis that
the socialist system '
took care of ordinary people .' Putin did once remark that despite Stalin's legacy of
repression, he doubted that the native Georgian statesman would have been willing to drop two
atomic bombs on Japan like the United States, an atrocity that killed 225,000 innocent
civilians (most of them instantly) which is more than a quarter of those capitally
punished during the entire Stalin era. Was he wrong to say so? A significant amount of deaths
also occurred in the Soviet-wide famines of the 1930s, but there is significantly more evidence
to suggest that the British deliberately starved 3 million Bengalis to death then there is to
support the Holodomor fraud concocted by the Ukrainian nationalist diaspora. If the West wants
to talk about deliberate starvation, it should take a look at what the U.S. did with its
economic sanctions in the 1990s killing half a million Iraqi children which former U.S.
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright famously described as "worth it."
This isn't the first time the Anglosphere has historically omitted the Soviet role in the
Allied victory or conflated the USSR with the Third Reich. On previous occasions the European
Parliament has issued resolutions declaring August 23rd " a European day of remembrance of
the victims of the Nazi-Soviet alliance ." This is all an attempt by the Atlanticists to
depict communism as somehow worse than fascism while disconnecting the Nazis from the lineage
of European settler colonialism whose racism was its source of inspiration. Why is that which
befell the Jews not considered an extension of what was already done to the Herero-Nama tribes
for which Namibia is now suing Germany a century later?
The neoliberal political establishment in Europe and its anti-EU populist opponents are fond
of appearing dead-set against one another, but it seems they share the same fairytale beliefs
about WWII that the Nazis and Soviets were equivalent evils as inscribed in this latest decree.
It has always been ironic that the liberal billionaire "philanthropist" and currency
manipulator George Soros is so derided by right-wing populists when it was his Open Society
Institute NGOs which engineered the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe. Soros may be
averse to the anti-immigrant brand of right-wing nationalism currently on the rise in Western
Europe, but as a fanatical Russophobe he is willing to make strange bedfellows with
ultra-nationalists in Kiev to undermine Moscow's sphere of influence and that includes revising
WWII history to a version favored by the Banderites which took power during the pro-EU 2014
coup d'etat in Ukraine.
The Nazi junta regime in Kiev has since instituted Russophobic 'de-communization' laws
erasing the remaining traces of Ukraine's Soviet past while replacing them with memorials to
their wartime foes. A recent example was the city of
Vinnitsa renaming a street that paid tribute to the Soviet spy and war hero Richard Sorge to
that after Omelyan Hrabetsk, a commander of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army which cooperated with
Germany during the war and killed thousands of Poles and Jews. Sorge posed as a German
journalist in Tokyo and famously provided timely intelligence to Moscow that Japan did not plan
to attack the USSR, allowing Stalin to transfer essential reinforcements to the Battle of
Moscow which proved to be a major turning point in the war. He was executed by the Japanese in
1944 and posthumously awarded the Hero of the Soviet Union.
Now the EU is 'decommunizing' history in its own legislation. Meanwhile, Soros's influence
over the EU cannot be overstated as his lobbying power has enabled him to provide direct
council to its executive branch more than any official head of state in the political and
economic union. The hedge fund tycoon made a fortune as an investor during Russia's mass
privatization in the 1990s after enlisting Jeffrey Sachs and the IMF to apply 'shock therapy'
to its economy as it did in Poland and his native Hungary. Under Putin, however, Soros's NGOs
have since been barred from Russia. Perhaps the reason he can so cynically provide support to
fascist elements in Ukraine to undercut Moscow is that he did so personally in his upbringing
in Hungary.
Born Gyorgy Schwartz, during WWII he was a teenager from an affluent Jewish family which
survived the Axis occupation by using their wealth to bribe a government official from the
collaborationist Arrow Cross government who provided the Soros's forged documents identifying
them as Christians, while the adolescent by his own admission delivered deportation notices to
other Jews. A short time later, the young Soros impersonated the adopted gentile son of an
official who inventoried the stolen valuables and property from Jewish estates and even
accompanied him during his work. One would assume as a Jew he would have been haunted by these
experiences, but Soros has repeatedly stated he has no regrets and even disturbingly compared
it to his future work as an investor.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/X9tKvasRO54?feature=oembed SHOCKING: George Soros, a chief financial supporter of Antifa, was himself a Nazi
collaborator and to this day has no regrets
Like Soros, the EU has no ideology except an unquenchable thirst for greed and is fond of
Nazis when they are the kind that hate Russia. For its own political interests, it is willing
to dangerously foster a version of history invented by a rebranded far right where the
quislings who collaborated with the Axis powers elude guilt and the Soviets who courageously
defeated them are maliciously slandered. Fascism was never fully eradicated only because the
West continued to nurture it during the Cold War and even now that capitalism has been
reinstated in Eurasia, it continues to do so to undermine a resurgent Moscow on the world
stage.
As the world appears increasingly on the brink of WWIII, one is reminded of the expression
by Karl Marx who famously stated that "history repeats itself first as tragedy, then as farce"
in The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon , when comparing Napoleon Bonaparte's
seizure of power in the French Revolution with the coup by his nephew half a century later
which brought an end to the French Revolution. Equally fitting is the humorous line by the
legendary writer and noted anti-imperialist Mark Twain who reputedly said, "history doesn't
repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Both are applicable to the unquestionable tragedy of WWII
and the farcical mockery of its history by the EU whose policies continue to make another
global conflict that much more likely.
Max Parry is an independent journalist and geopolitical analyst. His work has appeared in
Counterpunch, Global Research, Dissident Voice, Greanville Post, OffGuardian, American Herald
Tribune and more. Max may be reached [email protected]
I think it is a bit backward to say that Stalins speech in Spring of 1941 of Nazi aggression
is proof of Germany's plan to invade the Soviets, but instead more likely telegraphing and
preparing his troops for the offensive that he had planned himself.
@Tusk Have you read NOTHING?? The ENTIRE basis of Hitler's foreign policy, all the way
back to "Mein Kampf", was a massive German invasion to destroy international Bolshevism and
seize Lebensraum (living space) for German colonization in Eastern Europe. The discussions
with the Russians in 1939 were temporary, tactical diplomacy intended ONLY to stabilize the
local situation during resolution of the "Polish Crisis".
Many forget that during the Russian Civil War, exactly such a scenario had occurred when
the Allies of World War I, including the United States, collectively intervened on the side
of the Whites only to be driven out by the Red Army, making such fearful instincts not
entirely unreasonable.
America reciprocated when Russia was being threatened by an Allied force in Siberia in
1919. The United States troops were there more for the purpose of watching the Japanese
than of fighting Russians. During the course of the peace conference, both Wilson and Lloyd
George went home for a short time and in their absence the conferees were whipped up to a
mood of more active intervention. Wilson heard of it in mid-ocean and, although thoroughly
disliking the Communistic philosophy, promptly dispatched a radio message to the effect
that the only course he would agree to was speedy withdrawal of all Allied troops from
Russian soil.
The British and French exerted great pressure on Mr. Wilson for Americans to join in a
general attack on Moscow. General Foch drew up plans for such an attack. Winston Churchill,
representing the British Cabinet, appeared before the Big Four on February 14, 1919, and
demanded a united invasion of Russia.
The Americans then experience a sudden change of heart. Not only that, they ponder the
large war debts owed by their allies to them. In an internal note by Tasker Bliss:
It is perfectly well known that every nation in Europe, except England, is bankrupt, and
that England would become bankrupt if she engaged on any considerable scale in such a
venture.
I.e.: "Hey, can you guys really afford that?" Hoover himself supplies additional
reasons, in a letter to Wilson (bear in mind that Hoover had considerable experience as an
engineer in Czarist Russia):
We have also to consider, what would actually happen if we undertook military
intervention. We should probably be involved in years of police duty, and our first act
would probably in the nature of things make us a party with the Allies to re-establishing
the reactionary classes. It also requires consideration as to whether or not our people at
home would stand for our providing power by which such reactionaries held their position.
Furthermore, we become a junior in this partnership of four. It is therefore inevitable
that we would find ourselves subordinated and even committed to politics against our
convictions.
Thus Wilson guaranteed the victory of the Bolsheviks. The Brits and French pulled their
support for the Whites.
@Vinnie O Hitler met with Molotov in Nov. 1940 to try to prevent war with the Soviet
Union. But Molotov pretty much spat in Hitler's eye, and that was that.
Not since his talks with the British before Munich, in ,
had Adolf Hitler heard such tough language as Molotov used on November and
.As Ribbentrop had done before him, Hitler harangued the Russian ministeras
though he were at a Party rally: if Russia wanted to share in the booty as the British
Empire fell apart, then now was the time to declare Soviet solidarity with the Tripartite
Pact powers. He sympathised, he said, with Russia's desire for an outlet to the high seas,
and suggested that she should expand southward from Batum and Baku toward the Persian Gulf
and India; Germany would expand into Africa. As for Russia's interest in the Dardanelles,
Hitler restated his willingness to call for the renegotiation of the Montreux Convention,
which governed the straits, to bring it into line with Moscow's defensive interests.
The demands which Molotov stated were shockers. Russia wanted another stab at Finland
– she intended to occupy and annex the whole country,which had, after all, been
assigned her by the pact which he had signed with Ribbentrop in Moscow. Hitler,
however, needed Finland's nickel and timber supplies. When Molotov announced Russia's
intention of inviting Bulgaria to sign a non-aggression pact which would permit the
establishment of a Soviet base near the Dardanelles, Hitler ironically inquired whether
Bulgaria had asked for such assistance; pressed later by Molotov for a reply to Soviet
terms, Hitler evasively answered that he must consult Mussolini! Each of Molotov's
conferences with Hitler was terminated by the warning of approaching British aircraft, and
his dinner at the Soviet embassy on the thirteenth ended abruptly for the same reason.
Ribbentrop invited Molotov to the concrete shelter at his home; here the Soviet foreign
minister revealed that Moscow could never entirely forgo an interest in the western
approaches to the Baltic either – the Kattegat and Skagerrak. When Ribbentrop told
his Führer of this, Hitler was stunned. 'He demanded that we give him military bases
on Danish soil on the outlets to the North Sea,' Hitler was to recall in the last week of
his life. 'He had already staked a claim to them. He demanded Constantinople, Romania,
Bulgaria, and Finland – and we were supposed to be the victors!'
While the public was deliberately fed the impression that the formal Nazi–Soviet
discussions had been harmonious and successful, within the chancellery there was no doubt
that they had reached the parting of the ways. Irrevocable and terrible in its finality,
the decision which Adolf Hitler
now took was one he never regretted, even in the abyss of ultimate defeat.
@Vinnie O Sure that's why Stalin amassed all his units on the border and was talking
about the necessity to fight Germany. You imply it was a one way street and that Hitler was
to blame, but despite the love towards the commies in this article Stalin does bear burden
for what happened too.
So in order to combat European revisionism, Parry gives us one long story about the Soviet
Union's honourable intentions towards its neighbours. One can hang any story onto the events
preceding the invasion of Poland, but the fact is as General Manstein wrote about the Polish
camapaign, the Poles were defeated before they started since they had to plan for war against
all comers due their invidious situation. Stalin stepped into Poland a mere 17 days after the
Germans. The Poles had no "hinterland" to retreat to. Under the hammer and anvil of the Nazis
and the Commies the Poles perished.
And Chamberlain like every one else in Europe understood that to effectively contain the
Germans, the Soviet Union has to be part of a united front. But like the gentleman he was, he
could not stomach the price that Uncle Joe wanted to extract, viz the extinction of the
independence of the East European nations. That Hitler wanted Bolshevism destroyed is a no
brainer, but Saint Stalin had his own plans to invade Europe picking up the pieces after the
Europeans had duked it out. In the event the German speed caught everyone by surprise,
including the bloody Stalin
But the article has value : For much of the embroidery around the death camps came from
Soviet accounts, and their later embellishments. Who knows, the same skepticism about the
Soviet Union will later filter into Holocaust worship.
The US/UK and France (Rothschild) are demonising Russia, not the EU.
The EU is probably under pressure to demonise Russia, however most EU countries are
normally doing well with Russia, they are anti-US/UK, considering all the US-UK led NATO
horrific crimes committed in the seven ME countries.
Germany in the grip of Anglo-Saxon war policies?
by Karl Müller
{Excerpts}
"The Europe of today is politically stable and well-off, it is capable of organising its
own defence. The European states have failed to do that for much too long." And: "By using
the financial means, which the USA could spare this way, they could concentrate on Asia
– a process, that was already under way during the Obama administration." And finally:
"In regard to Russia the USA need to pursue a new path of agreement, because otherwise we
will be driving the Russians even closer towards China."
"On 22 August News Agency Reuters reported: "Germany, France and Great Britain rejected US
President Donald Trump's proposal to once again admit Russia to the Circle of G7 countries.
On Wednesday evening, before meeting with British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, Chancellor
Angela Merkel said that in 2014 Russia had been excluded for definite reasons, and that those
reasons were still valid [ ]. A few days before the G7 Summit in France President Emmanuel
Macron declared his rejection of Russia's re-admittance as well. "I believe that Russia's
unconditional return would be a sign of the G7's weakness and a strategic mistake. Britain's
Prime Minister Johnson concurred in this opinion. [ ]"
"Up to 2023 the USA are planning to invest another two billion dollars only in their bases
in Rheinland Pfalz. Ramstein and Landstuhl have already been rebuilt and modernized for some
billion dollars and cannot be substituted in the short and long term."
This is an interesting yet complex issue. From my blog:
May 1, 2017 – Must Ukraine Return Volhynia?
Hillary Clinton's State Department funneled $5 billion to orchestrate a "revolution" to
overthrow the elected President of Ukraine in 2014. (See my June 7, 2016 blog post for
details.) Ukraine's President was ousted because he refused to support Ukraine joining the EU
and NATO, and violence spread throughout Ukraine as CIA funded factions fought for power.
Crimea was part of Russia for over a century until it was administratively attached to
Ukraine in 1954 by a Soviet premier to promote Soviet solidarity. Russians are the majority
people in Crimea and Russian is the common language, but they were not consulted. In 2014,
after years of Ukrainian political turmoil and an American coup in Kiev, Russia accepted a
request by the people of Crimea to rejoin Russia after 94% voted in favor. (See my Aug 8,
2016 blog post for details.) Russians and Crimeans were puzzled by intense American
opposition to this reannexation, and rightly concluded the Americans really wanted "NATO"
military bases in strategic Crimea.
For those concerned about European borders and justice, they should address a truly
outrageous annexation. In 1939, the Soviet Union invaded Poland and seized half of its land
while Soviet police massacred 22,000 influential Polish POWs and civilians. This area was
invaded by Germany two years later, which formed Ukrainian paramilitary units that murdered
over 100,000 Poles during the war. Entire Polish villages disappeared as Ukrainians massacred
everyone to include women and children, who were buried in mass graves. After the war, the
Polish regions of Volhynia and Eastern Galicia were formally annexed by Soviet Ukraine after
1.5 million Poles were forcibly deported. Over the next decade, another 1.5 million Poles
were deported by Ukraine to ethically cleanse these regions (noted in yellow below).
The West did nothing about this brutality because it occurred within the powerful Soviet
Union. However, that union broke up and Ukraine is weak and at odds with Russia. On July 22,
2016, the Parliament of Poland passed a resolution recognizing the massacres of ethnic Poles
in Volhynia and Galicia as genocide. Poland is now part of NATO and American troops are based
there. Thousands of Poles are still alive who were expelled from these regions. Homes and
land were seized from millions of Poles. Ukrainian war criminals remain at large.
This raises several questions. If Poland demands a return of its territory or compensation
for Poles, will powerful NATO support its demand? Will sanctions be imposed against Ukraine
for this genocide and illegal seizure of Polish territory? Since Crimea was attached to
Ukraine without a democratic vote, and the citizens of Crimea voted to rejoin Russia, should
sanctions against Russia be removed?
Informed people know these issues will never be addressed because NATO does not exist to
protect member states, but is a proxy arm of America's neocon empire trying to conquer the
world. However, as Poland's military grows stronger and Ukraine struggles, this issue may
arise, and crafty Russia may support a return of Poland's, Slovakia's, and Romania's seized
territories!
"... Capote said that Holly stopped short of simple prostitution, describing her as an "American geisha." ..."
"... Definitely one of the finest filmmakers of the '40s and '50s.Of his oeuvre , In a Lonely Place, On Dangerous Ground , and Bigger Than Life are my particular favorites. ..."
"... You do realise that Capote's novel was pure homosexual propaganda don't you? The message was that Paul should embrace his homosexuality. He would then be free to be himself. In reality that would have meant spending the 60s and 70s in gay bath-houses and dying of AIDS in the 80s. ..."
"... In the book Paul and Holly (and the cat) all choose freedom meaning they choose lives of mindless hedonism, sexual excess , irresponsibility and loneliness. And this is presented as being a Good Thing. It's an incredibly evil book. It's a How To manual for the Me Generation. It's also further evidence that the disintegration of American society was already far advanced when the Boomers were still in nursery school. ..."
"... The high point of movies – visually – was the 1950s through the 1970s. During that time, at least some film-makers paid attention to how a movie looked. Now they all seem to look flat and washed out. ..."
"... The problem is, that winning in 2019 means getting national unity, focused national development policies, rooting out corruption, and world class national education e.g. Switzerland/Korea/Japan – things that the US more or less had in the early 1960's and has completely lost (other than a few top universities catering to Asians). ..."
"... A country without an ethnic identity is not going anywhere. And if US Anglos think that it can't get worse – then think again – for instance the Ukraine. ..."
"... Cooper was 69. But he was a sunbather for decades and looked older. Maybe that's why Peck and a lot of the old actors wrinkled so early. ..."
"... In the movie Holly has learnt enough to realise her mistake and to realise that this is adolescent nonsense. Everybody wants to belong to somebody. Including cats. Even owning a pet requires accepting responsibility, it requires a commitment. And it's a commitment that benefits both the pet and the owner. Even the cat, in his cat way, understands this. They don't have much trouble finding him because he's not stupid. It will soon be dinnertime. ..."
"... Interestingly enough in the book there's a suggestion that the cat is smarter than Holly and what's-his-face (which admittedly is not too difficult). He finds someone else who will accept a commitment. He'll be fine because he's a cat and he doesn't give a damn about freedom. He wants regular meals, affection and a nice comfy place to sleep. It's as if Capote had his doubts about the benefits of freedom. ..."
"... The final scene with the cat in the movie is not sentimentality. If they hadn't looked for the cat then it would have been a sign that they were not ready for grown-up commitments. Again, the cat is in the story for a reason. ..."
Blake Edwards' 1961 film Breakfast at Tiffany's -- loosely based on Truman Capote's
1958 novel of the same name -- stars Audrey Hepburn in her iconic role of Holly Golightly, a
charming, flighty, feminine, haunted young woman trying to create a life -- and an identity --
in a gorgeous Technicolor New York City at what is arguably the peak of American civilization,
just before the plunge.
I have seen Breakfast at Tiffany's six times, twice on the big screen, and although I
loved it every time, for the first four viewings, the movie played a strange trick on my
memory. If you had asked me what Breakfast at Tiffany' s was about, I would have said it
is a wholesome romantic comedy. But that's not really true. Yes, it has plenty of comic
elements, but overall, Breakfast at Tiffany's is a very sad and serious film. As Sally
Tomato says, the story of Holly Golightly's life would be a book that "would break the heart."
That's certainly true of Truman Capote's novel, which is indeed so heartbreaking that Blake
Edwards rewrote the ending for the movie to give us a little hope to cling to.
And, as for wholesomeness, it has that too in the end. But somehow I repeatedly forgot that
Breakfast at Tiffany's is the tale of the romantic misadventures of two gold-diggers,
Holly Golightly and her upstairs neighbor, Paul Varjak, both of whom are skating through their
20s by having sex with and taking money from older and richer people. Of course, they both
maintain their self-respect by keeping a discreet distance between the sex-giving and
money-taking, so that the quid pro quo is not too brazenly obvious. Capote said that
Holly stopped short of simple prostitution, describing her as an "American geisha."
Both Holly and Paul rationalize their choices by reference to a mission. Holly wants to buy
land and horses and care for her sweet but slow brother Fred, who is currently in the Army.
(The novel is set in 1943, so being in the army is a rather dangerous undertaking.) Paul is a
writer who needs a patron to give him time to work on his great novel. But it is not working.
He's got writer's block. As Holly notes, he doesn't even have a ribbon in his typewriter.
Paul is the prouder and more serious of the two. Holly is top banana in the flake
department. Which, of course, means that Paul suffered greatly at Holly's hands when he falls
in love with her.
Maybe the false memories are due to Henry Mancini's music, which won two Oscars, for best
score and best song for the haunting cornball classic "Moon River," with lyrics of Johnny
Mercer, which casts a silvery shimmer of nostalgia over the whole heartbreaking tale. Whatever
the cause, I am grateful to this amnesia, for it has allowed Breakfast at Tiffany's to
surprise me again and again with each new viewing.
The basic plot of Breakfast at Tiffany's is quite simple. Paul Varjak -- played by
George Peppard at the peak of his Nordic-preppy good looks -- moves into an apartment on
Manhattan's upper east side and meets his ditzy downstairs neighbor, Holly Golightly. Holly has
lived there for a year but looks like she is still moving in. That's because she's rootless, a
drifter, a flake. She has an orange cat, but she hasn't given him a name, because she doesn't
want the commitment. Her favorite place in the world is Tiffany's, the jewelers on Fifth
Avenue. She declares to Paul that if she ever finds a place that makes her feel like Tiffany's,
she'll put down roots and give the cat a name. Of course it is hard to imagine a home that
would feel like Tiffany's. Buckingham Palace, perhaps? Holly, in short, is not too practical.
Her conditions for settling down are a fanciful way of saying "never."
Paul's apartment isn't exactly "him" either. It looks like an expensive European hotel room.
It was decorated before his arrival by his patron, Mrs. Failenson, nicknamed "2E," played by a
radiant Patricia Neal (who once played opposite a certain Ellsworth Toohey in King Vidor's film
of Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead ). The movie creates the character of Paul from the
novel's unnamed narrator. 2E and her relationship with Paul are inventions of the screenwriter,
which considerably deepens the character and his relationship with Holly, creating dramatic
conflict through "irreconcilable similarities."
Holly finds Paul to be a sympathetic, useful, and highly presentable neighbor. As fellow
gold-diggers, they also have a certain understanding. But in her eyes, their shared mode of
life also precludes a relationship, for Paul has no gold, and Holly has set her sights on
older, uglier men with more money. For Paul, gold-digging is a short-term strategy, to get his
start in life, at which time he will settle down with a nice girl and take care of her. For
Holly, however, gold-digging is a long-term strategy to find a husband, who will take care of
her forever.
One of the most captivating sequences in Breakfast at Tiffany's is when a mysterious
stalker shows up outside Paul and Holly's building. 2E thinks her husband is having her
followed. Paul, who is a red-blooded male under his gorgeous wardrobe, is game for a
confrontation. After a game of cat and mouse in the east side and in Central Park, the stalker
approaches Paul and says, "Son, I need a friend."
It turns out that the stalker, played by Buddy Ebsen, is Doc Golightly, a veterinarian from
Texas and Holly's . . . no, not her father, her husband , whom she married at the age of
14. Holly's real name is Lula Mae Barnes. Lula Mae and Fred were runaways who showed up on
Doc's farm. Doc was a widower who needed a helpmeet. Hence the marriage. Doc has tracked Lula
Mae down to persuade her to return home to "her husband and her chirren."
Holly will have none of it. The marriage was annulled long ago, and she's just not Lula Mae
anymore. She has constructed a whole new identity for herself. She got rid of her Okie accent
with French lessons, courtesy of a Hollywood producer, O. J. Berman (Martin Balsam), and she
has a fabulous circle of rich male friends -- whom she rates as "rats" and "super-rats" --
competing for her attention.
When she sees a heartbroken Doc off at the Greyhound Bus station, she tells him that she's a
"wild thing" and that one should never fall in love with wild things, because they will just
break your heart. In truth, Holly is just a flake who doesn't know who she is or what she wants
and is afraid of real relationships and real commitments. Berman thinks Holly is a phony, but
he debates whether she is a real phony or not -- a real phony being someone who believes his
own nonsense.
The whole sequence moves from creepy, to comical, to corny, to deeply moving. That's the
magic of this film.
Once Doc has been sent on his way, Holly gets roaring drunk. It is a catharsis, a crisis, a
crossroads. Paul now knows her story but loves her all the more. He hopes that she will get a
little more serious about life, and maybe about him. Paul enjoys taking care of Holly. It makes
him feel strong and manly. Being taken care of by 2E is convenient but emasculating.
Unsurprisingly, Holly proves to be the better muse than 2E. Awakening Paul's manliness also
awakens his creativity.
Thus Paul is appalled when Holly declares that she is no longer going to play the field. She
is going to set her sights on marrying Rusty Trawler, the ninth richest man in America under
fifty, despite the fact that he is a tittering pig-faced manlet. (In the novel, Trawler is a
known Nazi sympathizer who once proposed marriage to Unity Mitford.)
When Trawler falls into the clutches of another gold-digger, Holly coolly turns to pursuing
José da Silva Pereira (played by Spanish aristocrat José Luis de Vilallonga), a
dashing but strait-laced Brazilian from a prominent family. It is not clear to Paul, though, if
he means to marry her or merely keep her as a mistress. Holly is oblivious, however.
Whatever José's intentions, however, he calls it off when Holly is arrested. Holly
has received $100 per week to visit Sally Tomato, an elderly mobster incarcerated at Sing Sing,
and deliver his "weather report" -- obviously coded messages about the narcotics trade -- to
his people outside.
Berman gets Holly bailed out. Paul packs her belongings and the cat and picks her up at a
police station to take her to a hotel where she can hide out from the press. In the cab, he
breaks the bad news about José. While adjusting her lipstick, Holly coolly decides to
jump bail, use her ticket to Brazil, and marry some other rich South American. In an act of
consummate bitchcraft, she tells the cab to pull over and abandons the cat in an alleyway in a
downpour. In the novel, she follows through with her plan and disappears. A realistic but
terrible outcome that puts Holly Golightly into the lower circle of flaky heartless bitches
like Cabaret 's Sally Bowles.
In the film, Paul gives Holly a powerful talking to. He tells her that people really do
belong to one another and that it is the only real chance we have of happiness. In today's
rabidly individualistic society, these are unfashionable sentiments, but deeply romantic and
stirring ones. Paul actually reaches Holly. He actually changes her heart. She runs into the
rain, searching for the cat, whom she finds, then Paul and Holly embrace, the prototype of a
human family that may come to be. (Holly definitely wants children.) The end -- a happy one, we
hope.
ORDER IT NOW
Unsurprisingly, modern arbiters of virtue don't like Breakfast at Tiffany's very
much. It is obviously heteronormative, anti-feminist, and otherwise "problematic." But their
ire is focused mostly on Mickey Rooney's portrayal of Holly's upstairs neighbor, Mr. I. Y.
Yunioshi, as a buck-toothed Jap buffoon, straight out of World War II propaganda cartoons.
Frankly, even I am offended by Mr. Yunioshi. Capote's novel makes much more of race, but it is
hard to say if it is "problematic" or "woke." For instance, Holly notes that José has a
touch of black blood. But she doesn't mind the prospect of having slightly "coony" babies as
long as the father is rich and respected. (Eventually, they'll come for Capote as well.)
I highly recommend Breakfast at Tiffany's . But what is most enchanting about this
film can't be captured in prose. It simply must be seen -- for the beautiful people, the
iconic fashions (one of the little black dresses Audrey Hepburn wore in this film fetched
nearly one million dollars at auction), and its portrayal of a glamorous, safe, overwhelmingly
white New York City.
Watch it as nostalgic, escapist entertainment -- a mid-century American time capsule. I'm
betting you'll want to re-watch it as a character study that even manages to have a "message"
-- and a wholesome one at that. It communicates the joys and follies of youth in America at its
peak -- an age of seemingly infinite potential -- and the necessity of finally growing up and
actually taking a stand, of actually being someone. It became the road less
traveled.
-- in a gorgeous Technicolor New York City at what is arguably the peak of American
civilization, just before the plunge.
And it's that sense of cultural loss that makes the movie so poignant. Watching
Breakfast at Tiffany's (and many other films made during the the 1924-1965 Golden Age)
is a heartbreaking glimpse into the Anglo-America that once was ..
Since you're doing old movies, how about Johnny Guitar ? To me the movie seems
preposterous, and I assume it's liked by many critics because of the gender-bending, the
anti-McCarthyism and its overall strangeness.
BREAKFAST
AT TIFFANY'S makes good double feature with MIDNIGHT COWBOY. Great triple feature with THE
GRADUATE. And a quadruple feature with DARLING(with Julie Christie).
But Holly Golightly is less a character than Hepburn's star play.
Mary Tyler Moore Show has some of the vibes of BAT.
-- in a gorgeous Technicolor New York City at what is arguably the peak of American
civilization, just before the plunge.
And it's that sense of cultural loss that makes the movie so poignant. Watching
Breakfast at Tiffany's (and many other films made during the 1924-1965 Golden Age) is a
heartbreaking glimpse into the Anglo-America that once was ..
It wasn't going to last. The rest of the world was going to recover after WW2 – but
still – the counter-cultural leftist hippy/globalist/SJW led decline of the US into
2019 has been spectacular by any standards.
Israel's US colony is now a really ugly place, internationally and domestically.
"Maybe the false memories are due to Henry Mancini's music, which won two Oscars, for
best score and best song for the haunting cornball classic "Moon River," with lyrics of
Johnny Mercer, which casts a silvery shimmer of nostalgia over the whole heartbreaking
tale. Whatever the cause, I am grateful to this amnesia, for it has allowed Breakfast at
Tiffany's to surprise me again and again with each new viewing."
I feel the same about Moon River. I enjoy the Two Cellos rendition as well:
BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY'S makes good double feature with MIDNIGHT COWBOY.
Indeed. The transition from BAT to MC perfectly captures New York's descent into the
abyss.
Nicholas Ray was one of a kind.
Definitely one of the finest filmmakers of the '40s and '50s.Of his oeuvre , In a
Lonely Place, On Dangerous Ground , and Bigger Than Life are my particular
favorites.
I always thought Paul may be gay. Not that I had any proof it's just that I felt Capote may
have thought of him that way (I never read his work). Being the 50's that couldn't have
worked for this film like it did a decade later for Cabaret (a much more serious
script).
I do think the film is deserving of the good feelings most repeat viewers have about it.
The cast is first rate and of course it's Hepburn's signature role. Even though you really
can't imagine Holly flipping her rural SW accent for what she was working her way through
Manhattan with. She was an elegant phony.
"But somehow I repeatedly forgot that Breakfast at Tiffany's is the tale of the romantic
misadventures of two gold-diggers . . . "
And risk taking and being responsible for the same. As the end of the film is really
ambivalent about their future – save that it will the two of them and of course, that
orange Tabby.
Love that tune "Moon River" which captures the traditional mood and goal: boy meets girl
and the two set off " . . . after the same, rainbows end . . ."
But then I get a kick out of Clint Eastwood singing "I Talk to the Trees", and Lee Marvin
singing "Wanderin' Star."
I saw the movie three times and never once I found offensive Mr Yunioshi's character. Maybe
because I'm Italian and I'm used to "offensive" American stereotypes, such as Italian
characters being always portrayed in American movies as mafia mobbers or spaghetti eaters
(and obviously the same applies to French, Spanish and all European people, all "stereotyped"
in American movies).
In truth, Holly is just a flake who doesn't know who she is or what she wants and is
afraid of real relationships and real commitments.
Long before I saw the movie or read the book, I lived the role of Paul (hey, it got me 850
sqf with high ceilings on the UES for $535 a month) living across the hall from a Holly-type.
One thing you could say of her is that she knew where she came from and who she was (past
tense), and was determined not to be that person any more, hence the party life. At some
point you either grow up and move on, or you drink and drug yourself to death or worse.
The best one can ever expect a Holly-type to be is The Fun Zone.
I could never understand the appeal of this movie. Nor, for that matter, all rom-coms (or
wannabe rom-coms). Though, the author is right in his reminiscences on opulent, European America .
You simply
cannot compare portrayal of Asians in Hollywood with that of Italians. At least Italians were
portrayed as masculine, while Asian males are emasculated and dehumanized beyond reason. Fuck
the kikes who run Hollywood.
Can someone kindly tell what is the time-line evolution of these terms:
Courtesans–>mistress–>excort–>hookers(whatever
class)–>'sex workers'
Apparently the first 2 are seldom used these days
Wasn't "Breakfast at Tiffany's" in some ways just a remake of "Sabrina"? Both films capture
the ouvre of "the height of Anglo-American" civilization that has sadly succumbed to the
politically correct machinations of leftist Hollywood.
I haven't viewed either film in quite
a while and was anticipating this review to get to the acting performance of Humprey Bogart,
who of course gave another showcase performance in "Sabrina". I miss the old escapist
Hollywood, more whitewashed and wholesome product of its golden years.
Whatever value the two characters might have had in the original novel, they became
two-dimensional stick figures in the movie; the better the 'technicolor' the less real or
interesting they became. This movie was like sugar-water to me.
A great film to compare this one to is 'Night of the Iguana,' the contrast is really
striking.
You do realise that Capote's novel was pure homosexual propaganda don't you? The message
was that Paul should embrace his homosexuality. He would then be free to be himself. In
reality that would have meant spending the 60s and 70s in gay bath-houses and dying of AIDS
in the 80s.
And as far as Holly is concerned she should embrace freedom as well, which in real life
would have meant a couple of decades of slutting around and then dying alone.
In the book Paul and Holly (and the cat) all choose freedom meaning they choose lives of
mindless hedonism, sexual excess , irresponsibility and loneliness. And this is presented as
being a Good Thing. It's an incredibly evil book. It's a How To manual for the Me Generation. It's also further evidence that the disintegration of American society was already far
advanced when the Boomers were still in nursery school.
I have seen most of the movies mentioned above, and I like Breakfast at Tiffany's best. I've
seen it two or three times, and this is a great review. It is a sad movie, and Doc Golightly
is its saddest character.
My favorite movie is The Maltese Falcon. I also like Bogart's The Big Sleep, but not the
Mitchum version. Bacall, like Hepburn, can't sing a lick. Both are real easy to look at.
I want to thank The Alarmist for the diagram. I was never in the No Go Zone, but I was in
Danger Zone briefly.
"Contrasting
these two films is indeed an exercise in black & white portrayals. Sugar coated escapism
(kind of like a musical of the same era, however without most of the music) vs raw,
uncensored bohemian realism.
Another film similar in its dramatic appeal was also written by Tennesee Williams, " Cat on a Hot Tin Roof".
I just watched BAT again recently myself and have to give you credit for a very good synopsis
and analysis. It does capture a lot of things going on at that time in the US.
@Lin Hookers/whores
(time immemorial)>courtesans (mostly 16th-18th C)> mistress (a very old term, but in
modern usage more frequent in the 19th C)> escort (20th C) >sex worker (20th-21st C).
I also
always assumed that Paul was one of those "actually gay but we can't show that" characters
that would be re-written in some coded way; his paid-for relationship with 2E suggests that,
for instance.
Turning the screw, perhaps Paul and Holly are both gay; I mean, two gay men, one older but
less experienced, the other younger but already an old hand at living off older, unattractive
men. Holly an orphan, "married" at 14, unable or unwilling to settle down with one man, etc.
might all read as "gay."
Both characters had to be hidden behind heterosexual crypsis, but perhaps would really
angered Capote about the "happy ending" was that it completely converted the relationship
into a conventional marriage.
You do realise that Capote's novel was pure homosexual propaganda don't you? The message
was that Paul should embrace his homosexuality.
You do realize that the character of Paul was invented for the movie, out of the unnamed
writer who is the narrator of the novel. I think you're a lunatic, and a dishonest one at that.
And
of course, technicolor was (and is) the greatest form of color photography ever devised. It's
stylized and enhanced method of delivery was magical.
However, I have a special fondness for
black and white films produced in the 40's – 60's. "The Night of the Iguana" was still
done in a superlative black & white style, IMHO.
Last night I viewed a documentary on PBS
about Teddie Roosevelt's adventures in the Brazilian Amazon. It was basically shot in black
and white, and could have been enhanced by color photography exposing more of the rich and
abundant rainforest foilage, flowers, and waterfalls, etc.
You do realize that the character of Paul was invented for the movie, out of the unnamed
writer who is the narrator of the novel.
It's quite common for unnamed characters in books to be given a name in a movie
adaptation. Or for character names to be changed whilst still being essentially the same
character. So in my comment change "Paul" to "unnamed character in the book" and my point
still stands. The character of Paul was not invented for the movie but was given a name and
somewhat altered (and most characters in books are somewhat altered in movie adaptations). It
was the book I was talking about (and I read it a very long time ago so feel free to shoot me
for not remembering that he wasn't given a name in the book).
My real point was that the book is homosexual propaganda and promotes decadence and
degeneracy.
In this case it can certainly be argued that the book and the movie have very different
messages. Capote celebrates the fact that his characters never grow up. In the movie they do
grow up.
@Mr. Hack When I was a
kid, like many little boys I was a big fan of monster movies, especially the zany ones from
the 50s and 60s with lots of space aliens and giant insects. One time when I was about six
years old, I saw in the TV Guide that a movie was on called "Night of the Iguana."
I just
assumed it would be about a giant iguana attacking a city. So I patiently sat up and watched
the entire movie, expecting that any moment, a giant iguana would arrive and kill all these
idiots.
Isn't it, essentially, an American film? Something about "American Dream" (whichever
version)? To achieve glamorous, buoyant, exciting (big) city life as contrasted with drab
& boring workaday existence
@James J. O'Meara I
agree. There were many plays and books written by gays in which women characters were really
gay men and their typical problems and lives.
The most blatant one is Street Car Named Desire. Stanley is the big macho gay. His wife is
the middle aged gay paternal type who puts with a lot just so he can have gay sex without
lowering himself to pay for it.
Blanche is gay but afraid to actually cross the line. That type used to get drunk and get
raped. Women used to do that to back in the day when pre marital sex and adultery were not
acceptable.
@Mr. Hack What's bad
about black and white is that it's so unnatural. Sky is blue trees bushes and plants are
green, dirt is shades of brown, humans have brown and blue eyes, not gray.
It's somewhat plausible in interiors with an entire house in gray white and black. But
exteriors and actors in black white and gray is just unnatural.
Breakfast at Tiffanys was made in 1961. Two years later came the JFK assassination and "le
deluge" from we've never quite resurfaced, notwithstanding Reagan and "Morning in America".
This movie could never have had the same impact, nor perhaps could it have ever been made,
post-11/22/63.
The Mancini version of "Moon River" is incomparable and in a class by itself. The Andy
Williams and Jerry Butler versions pale by comparison. Mercer's lyrics were like a poem, best
read than heard (notwithstanding the Mancini recording). And as it would turn out they were
prophetic. No two songs could be more different than "Moon River" and "Born To Be Wild" by
Steppenwolf but, in a way, they were both about the same things even though set in two
different generations, if not worlds. A reminder that the more things change, the more they
remain the same.
American
dominance in manufactured goods could not last as our natural competitors in Japan, Europe
had been bombed back two generation by the "Good" War.
But our culture did not have to collapse. Our economy did not need to be hollowed out, FIRE
-- finance insurance real estate interests -- did not need to dominate the economy at the
expense of all other useful sectors. The 1965 immigration act did not need to be passed. We
could have reined in the MIC, not fought in Vietnam.
Our decline was not inevitable, and it is not irreversible.
@Hossein I loved the
novel by Willi Heinrich, not such a fan of Cross of Iron the movie, though. It could be that
I just don't like Peckinpah's style, though.
The high point of movies – visually – was the 1950s through the 1970s. During
that time, at least some film-makers paid attention to how a movie looked. Now they all seem
to look flat and washed out.
Our decline was not inevitable, and it is not irreversible.
The problem is, that winning in 2019 means getting national unity, focused national
development policies, rooting out corruption, and world class national education e.g.
Switzerland/Korea/Japan – things that the US more or less had in the early 1960's and
has completely lost (other than a few top universities catering to Asians).
A country without an ethnic identity is not going anywhere. And if US Anglos think that it
can't get worse – then think again – for instance the Ukraine.
@JimDandy I'm sorry I
just don't see how things have changed for Asian males. Asian males are still portrayed as
homosexual or alien foreigners subject to mockery. I'd love to switch places with the
Italians, since at least the Mafioso image is "alpha" and cool.
I was lucky enough to watch Breakfast at Tiffany' s in a theater on a Sunday in New
York City (Chinatown) in the 2000s. It was some kind of revival thing. It was perfect, and
some of the audience even laughed at Mickey Rooney's harmless goof on the Japanese, despite
being un-pc.
Rooney apologized for the role later, but always maintained for years that no Asian ever
complained to him and many, many Asians would tell him that the role was hilarious and
wonderful. The woke generation has ruined all that.
Audrey was,
for me, an acquired taste. As a hormone driven kid in my teens she wasn't to my taste in
terms of looks (compared to say MM or Ursula Andress a/k/a "Ursula Undress"). It was only
when I grew older and mature did I begin to appreciate how beautiful that woman
was–both inside and out.
What's bad about black and white is that it's so unnatural.
That's what is so cool about black-and-white. Its artificiality. Movies are not reality.
They're movies. They should look artificial. Some movies look better in colour. Some look better in black-and-white. You can capture
certain moods in black-and-white that you just can't capture in colour.
@R.G. Camara Those
Asians you mentioned who celebrate their own racial degradation on the widescreen deserve to
get a baseball bat to their craniums. You won't ever see blacks for example supporting racist
portrayals of themselves, which is why we always get black geniuses or doctors in American
movies lol.
Breakfast at Tiffanys is a good example of the Production Code working as it was
meant to work. You take a vicious immoral book with a negative destructive message but you
can't turn it into a vicious immoral film with a negative destructive message. So you turn it
into a wholesome movie with a positive message.
@anon Nah, Blacks used
to get a kick out of Stepin Fetchit, Amos n' Andy, and minstrel shows. It was only when
(((certain people))) informed us all that such portrayals are racist that they soured and
became angry about it. Just like Asians with Mickey Rooney.
As a longtime fan of Audrey Hepburn and lover of her type (but not of the Holly Golightly
type!) I enjoyed this review. Trevor Lynch's interpretation is spot on, as he describes the
subtext that has been there the whole time, right in front of us.
@R.G. Camara Nowadays,
blacks are extreme snowflakes talking about "anti-blackness" when they are the most coddled
group in America, thanks to (((certain people))). What angers me is the hypocrisy where
Asians are still suitable targets for mockery and racism while blacks and (((certain
people))) must be worshipped, when in actuality, they are two of the most unpleasant groups
in America lol.
One of my all time favorite flicks. Saw it for the first time back in early 1962, a great
year for movies by the way. My favorite scene, when Audrey sings "Moon River" while strumming
the ukulele. A similar scene in 1965's "The Great Race" is Natalie Wood singing "The
Sweetheart Tree" to Tony Curtis & she is playing a guitar. Another great Mancini tune by
the way. That had to be one of the most hilarious comedies of all time. What a great era!
@anon Well, a lot
changed, fairly quickly. There is no way Hangover could be made today, for instance. TV has a
lot of Asian males in studly roles these days. Asian women essentially play infallible hot
badasses. As for the gay thing, well gay everything is obligatory these days.
I've seen
well over 100 "Film Noir" flicks made from the early 40's to the late 50's. Being filmed in
black & white is what made those movies so great. Could you imagine what "Out of the
Past" (1947), "Panic in the Streets" (1950) or "A Touch of Evil" (1958) would have looked
like had they been in Technicolor? Contaminated! By the way, I saw the "Longest Day" (1962)
when it first came out in black & white. Some forty years later, I watch the colorized
version & all I can say, it really sucked.
You forgot
'slut'.
They're all generally correct euphemisms for the word 'female', separated in application
by period/culture/circumstance. In less than 1% of cases, they may also apply to males, differentiated by gender identity
& kink.
I saw the movie three times and never once I found offensive Mr Yunioshi's
character.
It is offensive, but that's part of the humor. Humor always has a victim, and caricatures
rely on exaggeration. Clouseau, for instance, is a caricature of French buffoonery.
At any rate, it is an inspired performance, the only one for which Rooney will be
remembered. Rooney was very popular for several yrs, topping box office charts year after
year. But almost all of his movies are now forgotten. His role in BAT is a keeper. It is
funny as hell.
@R.G. Camara
Objections to racial portrayals typically come from virtue-signalling Whites and
(((Whites))). For the most part, the objects of their supposed solicitude don't care.
@JimDandy I see. I
stopped watching TV for quite a while now, so probably not up to date. I personally felt the
traditional Italian portrayal, starting from the Godfather trilogy, was not really degrading.
I always perceived Italians as patriarchical, family-oriented, masculine tribal people who do
not forget old grudges, not too bad of an image to have if you ask me.
Nobody mentioned anything about George Peppard. I thought he was good. He was sort of a bland
actor who got a lot of good parts from 60-70. Obviously it was an important role but I don't
think a Newman, Holden, McQueen type would have worked. Paul was an observer–constantly
amazed– he wasn't a facilitator.
I was also trying to remember if Paul/Holly had a sex scene or even a hint at one and I don't
think they did. At the beginning Holly was being chased down by some guy who gave her cash
and Paul was getting his rent money from Patricia Neal.
I could never understand the appeal of this movie. Nor, for that matter, all rom-coms
(or wannabe rom-coms).
Love stories are among the most popular. Boy meets girl. The stuff of countless movies,
books, and songs.
As for comedy, people like funny. Romance and Funny seem a natural fit.
BAT is a real gem, one of the few that makes the chemistry work.
One flaw
with your otherwise prescient comment . . . Holly would not die alone.
Holly would have a cat.
Holly's cat who would also die, slowly, in agony, of dehydration, as Holly's unloved and
rapidly decomposing corpse languished for weeks prior to her neighbors calling the
superintendent to investigate a distinctive and foul smell emanating from their air return
vents.
However, in an effort to prolong life, the cat may just pull it out as it consumed bits of
Holly to acquire the bits fetid moisture that still remained in her body.
We'll have to wait for the sequel to the reboot to see how the conflict resolves.
@Ris_Eruwaedhiel Funny
thing is white cucks and (((whites))) have no problem with racial portrayals as long as its
not blacks and the Chosen. Everyone else is fair game.
Whatever value the two characters might have had in the original novel, they became
two-dimensional stick figures in the movie
George Peppard is good-looking and serviceable. No more, no less.
Holly Golightly in the movie is really Hepburn frolicking at her peak in looks and charm.
She's in full bloom. She's less a character(as she may be in the book) than a fit for Hepburn
to showcase her star power. And it works wonderfully on that level.
She's about as real as Inspector Clouseau or Sean Connery as 007. And for that reason, it
doesn't make much sense to speak of her in terms of past history, psychology, meaning, or
values. Holly exists to make Hepburn look great on screen. That said, Hepburn had the touch
and twinkle to make Holly into something more than a mere mask, a cartoon character. She
sparkles and aches with just enough humor and pathos to make us feel for the character.
Peppard works essentially as a straight man to her crazy-funny-girl antics.
The only two characters that suggest anything like real-world experience, feelings, and
motives are the two older roles played by Patricia Neal and Buddy Epson. But they are
sidelined soon enough because the movie favors fantasy over reality. In the real world, a man
like Varjak(Peppard) wouldn't have been so sentimental and walked out on his 'sugar mommy' so
easily; and most writers are not that handsome. And a more serious movie would have delved
more deeply into Holly's past history, her core formative being. But the movie is about
escapism and the fantasy of being young, handsome, and lovable. Even the real-life lesson at
the end with the cat recovered from the rain is Pure Hollywood, esp with the Mancini-Mercer
score.
I heard Capote wasn't pleased with Hepburn in the role and had in mind someone like Marilyn
Monroe. While Hepburn is brilliant in the role, it's true enough that she's not very
convincing as a once-farm-girl who miraculously transformed into such a darling. She was also
hardly convincing in MY FAIR LADY as a common girl gone fancy, but BAT works far better than
MFL because it's light and brisk like a gazelle whereas MFL is too elephantine for a
comedy-musical. It drags.
BAT is not a serious movie but one worth taking seriously in terms of talent and delivery.
It's Blake Edwards at the top of his game. It it to him what BLADE RUNNER is to Ridley
Scott.
It is also the only Audrey Hepburn movie that has passed the test of time in terms of lasting
popularity, though ROMAN HOLIDAY and TWO FOR THE ROAD are pretty good too.
And, as for wholesomeness, it has that too in the end. But somehow I repeatedly forgot
that Breakfast at Tiffany's is the tale of the romantic misadventures of two gold-diggers,
Holly Golightly and her upstairs neighbor, Paul Varjak, both of whom are skating through
their 20s by having sex with and taking money from older and richer people.
The most wholesome movie about whores. Whore-some?
Holly may be a gold-digger, but then, who isn't? Isn't the sexual marketplace all about
looking for whomever has more money or status? Even Jenny in LOVE STORY admits that she's
partly attracted to Oliver for his status and legacy.
Holly's gold-diggery may seem more blatant because of her humble origins, but even elites
with fancy credentials act the same way. Why did Chelsea Clinton marry into a rich Jewish
family? And why did the Jewish boy marry Chelsea? Daughter of former president. All about
power, privilege, money, status. All about money and status.
If true love is about the meeting of hearts and souls, then even love based on looks is
shallow. After all, someone can be handsome or pretty and be a total idiot, lout, or moron.
The fact is, if Holly were ugly, neither Paul Varjak now we would care about her. It's
because of her beauty and charm that he and we are made to care. Gold-digging may be shallow,
but 'face-collecting' maybe equally so, that is IF one is looking for True Love with someone
of quality of soul as well as body.
All those old rich men marrying some young woman simply because she has the looks and smile.
She could be a bimbo whose only meaning in life is 'shopping', but some men will even abandon
their wives and children to chase after such young tarts.
But then, money and looks do matter. If Doc(Epson) had lots of money, Holly wouldn't have
run from him. If Holly were plain or ugly, Doc wouldn't have chased after her. Just the way
it is.
Now, the movie wants us to believe that Holly doesn't really know herself. Surrounded by
people with money who get what they want by throwing dollar bills around, she's convinced
that the world is full of rats, and she's gonna find the biggest one. But the gold-digger
really happens to be a 'hooker with a heart of gold', and Paul finally digs it out of her.
Well, it works on the Hollywood level.
@Ris_Eruwaedhiel As
was on great display during the whole "Washington Redskins need to change their name NOW thos
RACISTS!" nonsense brought up a few years ago by NBC, Bob Costas, and sportswriter filth.
Turns out American Indian tribes aren't offended by it, only people who don't know any
Indians got offended. The whole effort failed.
I loved the novel by Willi Heinrich, not such a fan of Cross of Iron the movie, though.
It could be that I just don't like Peckinpah's style, though.
Cross is OK, but's it's not top-tier Peckinpah. It's certainly not at all
comparable to masterpieces like Pat Garrett And Billy The Kid and The Wild
Bunch .For that matter, it's also not as good as Ride the High Country , a
heartfelt and deeply moving valediction for the "traditional" Western.
@syonredux Other
movies that strongly resonate with me of the "American High" of the '50's include North by
Northwest and High Society.
Those films illustrate how fragile an identity that civic nationalism (combined with US
natural competitors being knocked back so hard in WW2, ) had conferred upon Anglo -America.
Sadly , that society was ripe for the plucking.
It would be great if Trevor Lynch reviewed Elia Kazan's (Kazatzoglou) films. Also, mention of
his honorary Oscar in 1999 would be great where some members of the audience refused to clap.
It was touching that De Niro; and particularly, Scorsese presented him with the award who
understood the southern European experience in the United States more than morons like Nick
Nolte.
Truman Capote's first choice to play Holly Golightly was Marilyn Monroe but her acting coach
objected to MM playing a prostitute and chose The Misfits instead. I can only feel a deep
sense of regret as MM could have made BAT into an achingly deep and touching classic.
Instead, we have a thoroughly enjoyable but forgettable Givenchy fashion show.
@Johnny Paytoilet Film
noir is my absolutely favorite genre. I watch them every week on TCM's Noir day. What works
is that they're mostly interiors or at might when it's dark. The term noir doesn't come from
dark unsavory characters. Those movies were often cheaply made B and C movies in every
country. The lightening was dark to hide the cheap sets, toy guns and that the men wore the
same clothes in every scene. The French word just sounded better than black
Watched the 1975 version of Chandler's Farewell My Lovely last night. It was in color and
I loved it.
But then I like color. We're I dictator of the world I'd ban white walls beige floors and
beige black brown gray and mud green furniture curtains etc, especially black leather
couches.
I'd ban black, dark grey, grayish beige, mud colors like mud green and maroon for women's
clothes. Golden tan, butterscotch, caramel, cinnamon and chocolate brown would be allowed but
not grayish or mud brown.
A country without an ethnic identity is not going anywhere. And if US Anglos think that
it can't get worse – then think again – for instance the Ukraine.
People on the opposite sides in Ukraine are of the same ethnic type, in one generation
they can be reunited with the same ethnic identity as before.
In the United States there is no possibility of ever having ethnic unity in the
future.
Film noir is my absolutely favorite genre. I watch them every week on TCM's Noir day.
What works is that they're mostly interiors or at might when it's dark. The term noir
doesn't come from dark unsavory characters. Those movies were often cheaply made B and C
movies in every country. The lightening was dark to hide the cheap sets, toy guns and that
the men wore the same clothes in every scene.
And that's where artistry comes into play, turning a weakness into a strength .
Watched the 1975 version of Chandler's Farewell My Lovely last night. It was in color
and I loved it.
It's OK. Mitchum was far too old for the part, though. On the other hand, it's vastly
superior to the re-make of The Big Sleep that he made a few years later.
Redford could have been a good choice for the Paul Varjak character.
He was in BAREFOOT IN THE PARK, which clearly riffs on BAT.
Even though the ending of BAT is rather affirming of old-fashioned values, much of its
appeal is the nihilism of youth and beauty. Holly needs no biography, memory, or loyalty
because she has what it takes, beauty and charm, to make men throw money at her. It is to
romantic comedy what RIDE THE HIGH COUNTRY is to the Western. A transitional work that
signals the new while adhering(and paying final tribute) to the old and 'classic'. In that,
it is rather like UMBRELLAS OF CHERBOURG(though the Demy pic has a semi-happy ending for the
man and a sad ending for the girl). Hitchcock's THE BIRDS is also an uneasy work that draws
on classic Hollywood while leaning over the abyss of the new. And both movies are about the
curse and necessity of the cage. People want freedom to break out of the cage, but freedom
without sound grounding in values and memory can lead to chaos. (Once homos flew out of the
cage, it sure led to lots of trouble.) In a way BAT might be called CATS or Dogs and Cats. In
the end, the Paul the dog who believes in loyalty saves Holly the cat from herself. Cats act
like they're independent but are lost without a master and home.
BAT closes with a Hollywood ending, and the 'old' values are reaffirmed, but Holly is
appealing for the same reason Catherine is in JULES AND JIM, one that ends darkly and the
titular character in DITA SAXOVA(all the more so because she survived Shoah). Though Holly
isn't a killer, she represents freedom of youth unbound by rules like Alain Delon character
in PURPLE NOON or Charlotte Rampling character in GEORGY GIRL.
An actress who had some of that Hepburn winsomeness was Melanie Griffith with SOMETHING
WILD and WORKING GIRL, but she quickly faded but then so did Hepburn. In a way, BAT may have
been as fatal to her career as PSYCHO for Anthony Perkins. It defined her star persona so
perfectly that it spoiled future roles.
Mickey Rooney was good in his debut role in Ah, Wilderness! (1935)
Mickey Rooney made a number of good movies. Unfortunately his best performances were in
movies that aren't well-remembered – movies like Quicksand, The Strip and
Drive a Crooked Road .
Thanks
'Priss' I really appreciate that ! Interesting tidbit about Capote preferring Marilyn over
Audrey in this role. I kind of agree, Audrey is a bit too prudish to sell the entire role her
character implies, even if she's supposed to be in the delusional stage during the movie.
Marilyn would definitely have suggested more, if they would have been able to drug her enough
to make it through the filming that is.
Truman Capote's first choice to play Holly Golightly was Marilyn Monroe but her acting
coach objected to MM playing a prostitute and chose The Misfits instead.
In 1961 Marilyn Monroe was too old. Audrey Hepburn was really too old as well. Monroe
earlier in her career might have pulled it off.
I can only feel a deep sense of regret as MM could have made BAT into an achingly deep
and touching classic.
Or it might have been a train wreck. Who knows? It might have been an exercise in misery.
As it is BAT is a classic, but a classic of a different type.
The problem with Holly is that there's really nothing to admire about her. There's nothing
under the surface. A hooker hoping to land a rich guy. It's the same with Paul. Dig beneath
the surface of a guy like that and you're not going to find anything. A male whore. So the
light-hearted treatment that was adopted may have been the wisest course.
@Mr. Hack yeah,
definitely agree with that; if anyone could portray decadence, then it was definitely Tennese
Williams, it takes one to know one I guess. And they made very accurate renditions of his
most important plays or novels in the 1950s and 60s.
. and since everyone is mentioning their favorite movies, mine are: "8 1/2" and "The Loved
One"
No film that I have seen shot in b/w ever looks good when colorized, and what it has done to
documentaries is nearly tragic. In the case if all such films, it attempts to change space
and time which simply destroys it reality by transforming all the context into something that
simply did not exist.
Colorizing also destroys the fine detail of black and white films and that is distracting.
It does nothing in my view view to make events more real. Given the quality, colorizing
nearly animates images.
Mary
Tyler Moore signed on to do a Broadway stint in a stage musical version of BAT, opposite
Richard Chamberlain, in 1966. It was ripped to shreds by critics during the out of town
preview shows, and never made it on Broadway for a single show. One of the biggest debacles
of the modern American theater.
If you
want a great version of Moon River, look no further than the version by the late great Nancy
Lamott, who died far too young in the early 90s from cancer. She put out a fantastic tribute
album to Johnny Mercer and his songs. I think her version of Moon River is on YouTube. Check
it out.
It's been a
longtime (and true) cliche that screening films set in NYC from the beginning of the 60s, and
then some from the end of the same decade, is a major shock to the system.
Audrey Hepburn
said in some interview years later that she never thought she was right for the part.
But that's Hollywood, I guess. Anyway, she was luminous in the role and it has turned out
to be one of the iconic performances and most-remembered movies of that period.
She was very good in the thriller Charade with Cary Grant, and that has held up
well. Personally, I have always liked her best in the 1967 film Two for the Road with
Albert Finney. She was starting to show more acting chops by this point, but then she retired
for a number of years to raise a family, and her comeback never quite took off.
I heard Capote wasn't pleased with Hepburn in the role and had in mind someone like
Marilyn Monroe.
Capote was a friend of MM and wanted her for the role but later came to understand Hepburn
was the better choice on several levels.
I don't think the movie is "homosexual propaganda" at all, I think homos back then knew
full well theirs was a sorry lot, I think it's if anything a wistful longing for a sort of
normalcy for people who would never truly be normal-normal, if you know what I mean.
Genuinely normal people are not the stuff of fiction, nor usually (unless exceptional
circumstances intervene) the stuff of written or storied nonfiction. You're either really
good, really bad or really different usually to be a character.
It was
over for america in 1945. We fought on the wrong side in ww2 and it was just a matter of time
before the victorious Bolsheviks would reap their harvest in the u. S.
@Priss Factor Birds
was based on something that really happened in coastal Marin county near San Francisco Bodega
Bay maybe?
I couldn't stand the Japanese clown in BAT. Probably because I grew up in San Francisco
which had a big population of Chinese and Japanese ranging from Gold Rush Chinese and 1880s
Japanese to newly arrived. Asian immigrants don't behave that way.
I knew that takes about 3 or 4 generations plus going to a White school and working with
Whites, even just customers to melt the great Asian Stoneface.
My biggest problem with AH movies are all those ancient wrinkled codgers who are her love
interest. I believe Peppard was the only one not at least 25 years older.
@Buck Ransom I loved 2
for the Road. It was so realistic. Group of girls meets group of boys. One of the couples
clicks and gets married.
Then love and lust turns into LIFE. Career pregnancy diapers children housework child
raising money money money household maintenance, squabbles about nothing.
They didn't have money problems but I think the husband strayed.
Audrey Hepburn said in some interview years later that she never thought she was right
for the part.
For the character in the book, true.
But it doesn't matter in the movie because it was meant as a star vehicle for Hepburn. So,
it wasn't so much a case of Hepburn adapting herself for the role as the role being adapted
for Hepburn. A risky move, but it worked like a charm.
The movie is less a faithful adaptation of the novella than a fanciful adoration of its
free-spirited character. (LOLITA is another film that works despite drastic deviation from
the source material.) Birdlike Hepburn made Holly extra-flighty and chirpy, and the movie's
success relies as much on her(and Mancini) as on Blake Edwards.
Edwards makes a mess of the 'auteur theory'. Though he had critical defenders, his career has
seen more ups and downs than most 'auteurs'. It's hard to discern consistency. He could be
brilliant or absolutely awful, and in his case, actors were the key.
Another thing about Edwards is he had the same problem as Polanski. Libertine and
anarchic, he had a tendency toward excess and vulgarity if given free rein. He could be very
funny with such, as in 10 and the glow-in-dark condom scene in SKIN DEEP. And
VICTOR/VICTORIA, which is genuinely funny. But such works leave a bad taste in the mouth
because they are so shameless and gross in their scatology. The condom scene in SKIN DEEP is
one of Edwards' most uproarious moments, but who feels proud of having laughed at that
Howard-Stern level joke?
One wonders how BAT might have turned out had it been made in the 70s, 80s, or 90s. But
because it was the early 60s, there was the balance of 'innocence' and raciness. It pushed
boundaries but without falling over the cliff.
@chris Book The Loved
One is better than the movie. Not E Waugh's best even.
Paraphrase of the first page.
The 2 weary Englishmen posted to the far away desert met on the porch of their shabby
bungalow for their usual 5:00 drinks.
The dry palm fronds rustled in the wind. Insects chittered They were surrounded by the sun
faded huts of the natives. They could hear the shrill cries of the brown skinned native
mothers retrieving their children who'd played in the pond all day.
It was 1940's Los Angeles. The Englishmen weren't colonial administrators. The brown
skinned natives were just suntanned. The pond was the local Park and Rec swimming pool.
Typical English total disdain for everything in America and Americans but hilarious. Waugh
disdained everything in the U.K. as well.
I don't think the movie is "homosexual propaganda" at all, I think homos back then knew
full well theirs was a sorry lot
The movie isn't, but the book definitely is.
And by 1961 homosexuals were getting ready to launch a major offensive to normalise and
promote their lifestyle. That year saw the release of the first major English-language
homosexual propaganda movie, Victim . And it saw the release of the first Hollywood
lesbian propaganda movie, The Children's Hour . Which starred – Audrey
Hepburn!
@Alden Interiors! As
in Woody Allen's first "serious" film, ironically in color (sort of) though wanting to be
black & white. The set design was by Joel Schumacher, of Batman infamy. Trevor Lynch
should review this "Jew influenced by Bergman looks at WASPs" epic.
@Prester John "No two
songs could be more different than "Moon River" and "Born To Be Wild" by Steppenwolf but, in
a way, they were both about the same things even though set in two different generations, if
not worlds. A reminder that the more things change, the more they remain the same."
I don't think the movie is "homosexual propaganda" at all, I think homos back then knew
full well theirs was a sorry lot, I think it's if anything a wistful longing for a sort of
normalcy for people who would never truly be normal-normal, if you know what I mean.
I don't see that either. But I suppose it is suffused with a kind of 'gay sensibility',
Capote being a homo and all. Homos are known to be birdy. One of the biggest homo movies is
La Cage Aux Faux, remade into Birdcage with Robin Williams. Holly isn't a homo, but 'gay' men
might kind of identify with her, especially as homo men, like Holly, have hardly been known
for settling down or fidelity. Precisely because it was risque to make movies about homos
back then -- ADVISE AND CONSENT was one of exceptions -- , homos projected their own
fantasies onto 'normal'-seeming characters. But then, that's what artists do. They channel
their dreams and frustrations onto their characters. So, BAT is most certainly not a homo
PROPAGANDA.
Homo men have male aggressiveness but female narcissism and vanity. So, some of Capote's
own homo sensibility was prolly written into the character of Holly. She is a homo man's
female fantasy of what he wants to be. And homos are totally into fashion and decor, and BAT
has plenty of that.
For instance, Holly notes that José has a touch of black blood. But she doesn't
mind the prospect of having slightly "coony" babies as long as the father is rich and
respected. (Eventually, they'll come for Capote as well.)
As the Proglob is all for race-mixing, esp between black men and white women, this would
hardly put Capote in bad graces with current PC police.
@Alden "My biggest
problem with AH movies are all those ancient wrinkled codgers who are her love interest. I
believe Peppard was the only one not at least 25 years older."
Alden: Yes, the age mismatch is jarring now to me. The most jarring films had her being
the love interest of Gary Cooper. Rex Harrison , though, seemed more plausible.
But who from her generation could she have been paired with who was a box office draw? in
addition, was there not a trend of the older GI generation (19091-24) men from WW2 snatching
the best Silent generation (1925-1942) women?
@Alden Mitchum's
British, colour remakes are disparaged for obvious reasons but are actually pretty great. The
way he finishes off Canino is what Bogart would have done but for the Hayes code.
@dfordoom We all have
our preferences. One thing unacceptable in the movie was Charlotte Rampling wearing a dark
Rust colored dress with a big pastel pure green jade necklace.
Horrible horrible. Dress could have been any pastel or even navy or black but dark rust
and pure pale green is just awful. Navy and any shade of dark blue is great with pure pale
green if they wanted a dark colored dress. Shades of mud green are fine with dark rust. But
jade isn't mud green
I thought it was originally B&W and the dark rust dress was just bad colorization.
Then I saw 1975.
Two for the
Road is great. I have watched it too many times to keep count.
Refresher synopsis for you: Audrey Hepburn and Albert Finney are two bright young Brits who
first encounter each other (but do not meet) on an English Channel ferry as it lands in
France.
The movie follows them over the course of the next 10 or 12 years of their life through
all the kinds of events you describe. But the chronology ricochets all over the place, with a
scene from Year 1 followed by a scene from year 7, then bouncing back to Year 4 on onto Year
8 before bouncing back to Year 1 -- and on it goes for the duration of the film. An important
detail is that all the action takes place on road trips they are taking through the villages
and countryside of France. It was filmed in 1967, so it has the lightness and texture of
France before the soixante-huitards starting fucking everything up.
The disjointed chronology serves to heighten the contrast of who they were when they met
versus who they become during their life together. The joy of their first years gives way to
the inevitable marital friction, with betrayals and recrimination and reconciliation, and
infidelity on both sides.
But as luck and Hollywood would have it, they finally figure things
out and we get a blissful happy ending as they prepare to cross the French border at Menton
into Italy.
The screen chemistry in this film is the real thing; the two stars apparently became
involved during the filming and the connection shows on camera. The nature of the story gave
Hepburn a chance to explore some emotions -- anger, bitterness, jealousy -- she had never
shown onscreen before. I think it is her best work and a classic. Highly recommended if you
haven't seen it.
Mitchum's British, colour remakes are disparaged for obvious reasons but are actually
pretty great. The way he finishes off Canino is what Bogart would have done but for the
Hayes code.
The Mitchum Farewell, My Lovely is OK. Mitchum was, of course, far too old (Why
didn't they cast him as Marlowe back in the '50s? He would have been perfect), but at least
the movie was set in the '40s. Mitchum's The Big Sleep was godawful. Marlowe belongs
in LA, not London. Joan Collins was rather good as the trampy Agnes Lozelle, though.
My biggest problem with AH movies are all those ancient wrinkled codgers who are her
love interest. I believe Peppard was the only one not at least 25 years older.
But Gregory Peck, 37 when he made ROMAN HOLIDAY, was no wrinkled old codger.
She was with Anthony Perkins in GREEN MANSIONS, but Perkins was a homo.
Peter O'Toole was still youngish when he made HOW TO STEAL A MILLION.
Her most heartfelt role was probably for ROBIN AND MARION. Both 60s iccons had faded by
then.
@syonreduxThe
Mitchum Farewell, My Lovely is OK. Mitchum was, of course, far too old (Why didn't they cast
him as Marlowe back in the '50s?
The great thing about Mitchum was he was always 'too old'. He had that look on his face
like 'been there, done that', a world-weary quality. In that sense, he was ageless.
Breakfast is a silly movie – its now watched only because Hepburn sings Moon
river and is so cute.
The book is full of fine writing, but doesn't make much sense unless you realize everyone
is actually Gay – and Holly (notice the double-gender name) and her "Husband" weren't
really married. The cat is the best actor in the movie.
That Lynch feels the need to mount a tired attack on Mickey Rooney's portrayal of a
Japanese – in lockstep with a million SJW's – is really sad.
1) Funny
face? Hepburn wanted to dance with Astaire.
2) Sabrina? That's the play – old fart gets girl. But i agree that Bogart is too
old.
3) Roman Holiday? Yeah, would've been better with Newman or someone born in 1920s.
4) My Fair Lady? Rex Harrison owned the part.
5) Love in the Afternoon? Complete miscasting. Cooper way too old
6) War and Peace? Total disaster. Henry Fonda – WTF!
7) Charade? Actually works with Cary Grant. But that's Cary Grant – 1 in a million.
The Mitchum Farewell, My Lovely is OK. Mitchum was, of course, far too old (Why didn't
they cast him as Marlowe back in the '50s?
The great thing about Mitchum was he was always 'too old'. He had that look on his face
like 'been there, done that', a world-weary quality. In that sense, he was ageless.
There's world-weary, and then there's weary because you're too old. So, Mitchum in Out
of The Past was world-weary; in The Big Sleep , he needed a nice nap in a comfy
chair.
What was Mitchum's last great performance? For my money, it was Eddie "Fingers" Coyle in
The Friends of Eddie Coyle (1973). Top-notch New England crime picture.
Other
than Peck, O'Toole and Perkins, her other love interests were wrinkled old codgers. Peck was
born middle aged. He looked 45 to her 18-20 year old character. O'Toole was very wrinkled in
How to Steal a Million. Probably b cause of his alcoholism.
She was known for elderly love interests in her movies. Her husband was a few years
younger.
That Lynch feels the need to mount a tired attack on Mickey Rooney's portrayal of a
Japanese – in lockstep with a million SJW's – is really sad.
Do most Justice Junkie types even know of the film? I think most of them are into
video-games(or bitching about it), superhero movies, new Star Wars, and rap. I doubt if most
of them even watch movies that are older than 20 yrs.
Btw, PC isn't about outrage about ALL peoples. Notice how Justice Junkies are mostly
silent about the plight of Palestinians. And they are fully onboard with bashing Syrians and
Russians. Of late, they only pretend to care about Kurds out of hatred for Trump. PC is about
outrage over blacks, Jews, and homos/trannies. Making fun of other groups doesn't really
count.
I
remember all that. And she had a very realistic ordinary wardrobe until her husband started
making big money.
Different from the usual Givenchy fashion show.
Even with the dollar high against the franc; how could she have had the money to buy all
those Paris designer clothes in Sabrina? That suit she wore on the day she came home Probably
cost
$2,000 in mid 50's when $6,000 was a middle class yearly salary.
I haven't
seen BIG SLEEP with Mitchum(and don't want to), but I thought he was pretty effective in
FAREWELL MY LOVELY. Also, that period, from late 60s to mid 70s, was about neo-noirs. POINT
BLANK, LONG GOODBYE, FAREWELL MY LOVELY, and CHINATOWN were trying to upend the genre. It was
also the period of the Anti-Western.
Old noir glazed style over grim reality. Neo-noir peeled off the style for a cruder look
at reality.
In
War and Peace Natasha was about 14 when the movie began. Love in the Afternoon. In most of
her movies she played a fabulously well dressed adult woman
In Love in the Afternoon she played 18, 19 year old still living at home. She dressed like
a 19 year old student living at home. Teen age hair style as well.
Cooper was 69. But he was a sunbather for decades and looked older. Maybe that's why Peck
and a lot of the old actors wrinkled so early.
Her movies made big profits. Audiences loved them.
I haven't seen BIG SLEEP with Mitchum(and don't want to), but I thought he was pretty
effective in FAREWELL MY LOVELY.
He's better in Farewell than he is in The Big Sleep .
Also, that period, from late 60s to mid 70s, was about neo-noirs. POINT BLANK, LONG
GOODBYE, FAREWELL MY LOVELY, and CHINATOWN were trying to upend the genre.
Were they trying to upend the genre with Farewell, My Lovely ? As I recall, it
seemed to be more of an exercise in genre nostalgia.
Long Goodbye , though, was an attempt to upend the genre. The whole point of the
movie is that Marlowe is out of place in '70s SoCal. The film opens with Marlowe awakening
from deep sleep, as though he's been in hibernation since the '40s, and he's even called "Rip
van Marlowe" at one point, further driving home the sense that this is not his proper time
and place.
Were they trying to upend the genre with Farewell, My Lovely? As I recall, it seemed to
be more of an exercise in genre nostalgia.
You're right in some respects. But I thought the garish color remake with Mitchum was a
lot grubbier and more sordid than past noir, not least because the Hays Code was history. It
was more in-your-face, and Stallone added some lord-of-flatbush rawness to it.
While noir was always seedy and disturbed, the element of style usually held throughout
the film. But style seem to fall apart in color neo-noirs in the 60s and 70s. Polanski did
something remarkable with CHINATOWN because the style is so assured and yet the film has so
much of 70s street-style realism.
But who from her generation could she have been paired with who was a box office
draw?
There were plenty of male stars from her generation who were box office draws but they
would have been entirely wrong as leading men for Audrey Hepburn. The previous generation of
male stars were a much better fit for her.
George Peppard on the other hand was almost exactly the same age as her. He was the right
kind of male star for her because he was by 1961 standards a slightly old-fashioned kind of
leading man.
Yes, it's one of the great so-bad-it's-good movies. Nicholas Ray made some amazingly bad
movies. Party Girl is a classic stinker despite a very good performance by the
underrated Robert Taylor.
It's decent movie but could have been much better. Its European art-house mannerisms are
most annoying, and there are too many caricatures, especially the intellectual couple with
the bratty daughter. Also, Albert Finney's character is so unlikable that it's rather
saddening to see Hepburn shack up with him.
It's a Hollywood movie draped in trendy Euro-artiness and gliding on chic, and it all
seems artificial and contrived, a patchwork of stylistics than a whole cloth. Nichols did it
much better with THE GRADUATE where the Europeanism and Hollywoodism were matched seamlessly,
creating, at least for awhile, a new hybrid cinematic language that paved the way for
MIDNIGHT COWBOY, HAROLD AND MAUDE, and MCCABE AND MRS MILLER.
I suppose one could argue that the artifice was intended, that the story is about two
young people who met and fell in love but whose later neo-bourgeois incarnations became
infused with airs of status and faux-sophistication. And yet, the sadness is they can't
regain what was lost. Too distant and too simple, and too painful. They can't go home again,
just like Lancaster character in THE SWIMMER.
@Jabby Dot At this
point, I'd settle for the NYC of the 1990s. Oddly enough, one of my early NYC jobs was in one
of the towers in Rock City, and it looked like something straight out of Mad Men. I
even had a sofa in my office, but unfortunately no bar. I worked for a division head who'd
take me out for Three-Martini lunches. Ah, I can only dream of what it would have been like
to be a white male junior executive in the NYC of the 1960s.
"Watch it as nostalgic, escapist entertainment -- a mid-century American time capsule" just
like this review which hardly seems necessary anymore after almost sixty years.
"I'm betting
you'll want to re-watch it as a character study that even manages to have a 'message' -- and
a wholesome one at that" don't bet the farm, there's nothing "wholesome" about whores, even
middle-class ones; and New York City is about as un-wholesome a place as you could imagine,
even pre-DeBlasio. A vicious, besotted, sinkhole that has never been anything much to
nostalgize.
It hardly "communicates the joys and follies of youth in America at its peak" to
most real Americans in the hinterland who don't have much sentimental feelings for NYC
decadence.
Besides, that wispy aristocrat, Audrey Hepburn isn't even American! "[T]he
necessity of finally growing up and actually taking a stand, of actually being someone" is
actually left undefined. Another film that came out the same year, 1961, 'Poor White Trash',
directed by Harold Daniels & starring Peter Graves & Lita Milan, is probably closer
to a mid-century time capsule for many Americans, at least in flyover country.
I heard Capote wasn't pleased with Hepburn in the role and had in mind someone like
Marilyn Monroe.
It appears he and Marilyn were friends or at least comrades in arms. Have a look at this,
some similarities to BAT right?
What was [Marilyn] like backstage? (in Goffman's sense, not just in the movie world) Our
best glimpse into that side of her life is an account by Truman Capote of an afternoon he
spent with her in April 1955. They are at a funeral parlor in New York, a memorial for a
grand old lady of the theatre who had been something of a mentor to Marilyn. As usual,
Marilyn is very late. When she arrives in the entry hall, she explains she couldn't decide
what to wear -- was it proper to wear eyelashes and lipstick? She had to wash it all off.
What she decided to wear was a black scarf to hide her hair, a long shapeless black gown,
black stockings, combined with erotic high heels and owlish sunglasses. She is gnawing at
her fingernails, as she often did.
Marilyn: "I'm so jumpy. Where's the john? If I could just pop in there for a
minute–"
Capote: "And pop a pill? No! Shhh. [ They've] started the eulogy."
They sit in the last row through the speeches. After it's over, Marilyn refuses to
leave.
Marilyn: "I don't want to have to talk to anybody. I never know what to say."
Capote: "Then you sit here, and I'll wait outside. I've got to have a cigarette."
Marilyn: "You can't leave me alone! My God! Smoke here."
Capote: "Here? In the chapel?"
Marilyn: "Why not? What do you want to smoke? A reefer?"
Capote: "Very funny. Come on, let's go."
Marilyn: "Please. There's a lot of shutterbugs downstairs. And I certainly don't want
them taking my picture looking like this." "Actually, I could've worn makeup. I see all
these other people were wearing makeup."
Capote: "I am. Gobs."
Marilyn: "Seriously, though. It's my hair. I need color. And I didn't have time to get
any. It was so unexpected. Miss Collier dying and all. See?" She displays, under her scarf,
a dark line at her hair part.
Capote: "Poor innocent me. And all this time I thought you were a bona-fide blonde."
Marilyn: "I am. But nobody's that natural. And incidentally, fuck you."
So she seems like a very natural choice, possibly even being the muse of Capote's book. On
the other hand, perhaps big, brash show girl Marilyn wouldn't have come across as sympathetic
as the gracile Audrey on the screen.
All about power, privilege, money, status. All about money and status.
Even if the newlyweds page of the New York Times apparently has the unofficial name of
Mergers & Acquisitions, I still think whoring is considered transactional on a level
beyond that. Well, perhaps not in New York?
@The Alarmist
Interesting that the period of the "three martini lunch" (along with "sexual harassment")
coincided with America's industrial domination of the world. Execs seemed able to operate
quite well on three martinis. (As did Brits on their comparable "nips out to the pub", so
it's not just America as the only WWII winner). Then that moralizing bastard Carter declared
jihad on it, along with gasoline and central heating. Now it's all protein shakes and yoga
classes, and the economy is in the dumpster. Funny how that works.
One thing, though, is that the martinis of the day were served in very small glasses; when
Cary Grant picks up his gibson (gimlet?) in NbyNW it disappears behind his fist. At some
point in the 90s, during the "bachelor pad" revival, the glasses and consequently alcohol
amounts became gigantic, part of the whole "supersize" trick (extra amounts added to an
already inflated price give the illusion of getting "something extra" for the high
price).
Redford, O'Toole, Connery, Eastwood, Caine, Beatty, McQueen, Garner, Rock Hudson, Heston,
Newman, Brando, Richard Burton, Clift Robertson, Beatty, Montgomery Clift, William
Holden.
The problem is that most of the good leading men born in the late 1920s and 1930's didn't
become stars till the 1960s. That's why the number of leading actors who could've hooked up
with Hepburn in the 1950's was fairly small – and most were too old.
Back in those
days, most male actors didn't become stars until they're around 30 – and Hepburn was 24
when she made "Roman Holiday".
BTW, Finney is much younger than she is, but looks the same
age. Too bad he ruins "Two for the Road" with his lack of charm.
Cinematic
justice remains to be done for Das Gedulige Fleisch , as it was titled in the original
German. I don't think Sam Peckinpah had the ability to understand the subtlety of the novel
and casting James Coburn as Rolf Steiner was a mistake;
Coburn was just too American to ever
convince anyone that he was a German non-commissioned officer. I doubt, however, that any
German director would want to touch it, even 75 years after WWII.
As did Brits on their comparable "nips out to the pub", so it's not just America as the
only WWII winner.
On my first assignment to London in the '90s, I was surprised how hammered my colleagues
got at lunch, and even more surprised at how brazenly otherwise co-workers openly snogged
with persons not their spouse. I still see that at some evening events around Christmas. This
probably explains why the City of London still dominates in finance despite the best efforts
of NYC to try to unseat them.
Then that moralizing bastard Carter declared jihad on it, along with gasoline and
central heating. Now it's all protein shakes and yoga classes, and the economy is in the
dumpster.
In NYC in the '90s, hookers and blow were often on offer to clients, and our female
colleagues were not at all shy about joining us and the clients at Scores. Client gifts were
also very generous, as well as trips and other entertainment. The industry started cracking
down on that in the mid '00s, which obviously ushered in the Global Financial Crisis from
which the world has never quite recovered.
One thing, though, is that the martinis of the day were served in very small glasses
.
Sure, in the movies. My grand-dad proudly told us he only had one cocktail a day, but it
was a 20oz. tumbler glass with a Manhattan; he was not alone at the club in that
indulgence.
I doubt, however, that any German director would want to touch it, even 75 years after
WWII.
But Germans did make STALINGRAD, DAS BOOT, and DOWNFALL that humanized the Wehrmacht and
even Nazi leadership. Not glorified but still presented as all-too-human.
Peckinpah's CROSS OF IRON has to be taken for what it's worth. An international production
like BRIDGE TOO FAR. I think it was the success of DIRTY DOZEN and PATTON that paved the way
for other WWII movies in the 70s. Peckinpah meets WWII, it sounded too good to pass up.
The problem isn't simply with Coburn. James Mason is far too British to come across as a
German officer. Also, Peckinpah's style of action is too intense and spectacular for an
anti-war movie.
But if you accept it for what it, an international production and Coburn star vehicle, and
Peckinpah's opportunity to blow stuff up, it's a pretty good show. I prefer it to BIG RED
ONE.
@Alden Thanks, Alden,
I did read almost all of Whaugh's books (except for Brideshead) and fount them absolutely
excellent. I also agree that The Loved One does lose a little bit of its dimensions in its
movie adaptation, but the cast makes up for that and I don't think it would be easy to
improve on it either.
@Alden Love in the
Afternoon, released in 1957, was filmed in 1956. Cooper was 55 when filming the movie. He
never made it to 69, or even close. He died in 1961, a few days after he turned 60.
You'd
have been married with a house in the suburbs and first baby on the way by the time you were
27 if you had a good job.
Most companies encouraged early marriage for young executives with not so subtle hints. So
did families and friends. Often you'd see a group of 5 friends all get married within 18
months.
@Pericles Reading this
article inspired me to look up Capote and I came across a documentary that said his mother
was the inspiration for Holly. She was whoring herself out in the 1920's getting picked up
and dropped off in the South and disappearing for months to sell herself in New York while
leaving Capote to be raised by his country relatives.
Hmmm the roaring 20's, feminism,
flappers, shorter dresses, the automobile technology meets liberalism meets feminism meets
hyper-materialism all promoted by the media.
This crap started 100 years ago. Now it's
liberal feminism, tattoos, mini skirts and stripper heels, airplanes and Instagram, all
promoted by the media. Of course, we now have a much more "diverse" selection of these women
in greater numbers than ever before. Today, white Holly Golightly has been replaced by brown
Cardi B and a million other low IQ brownies just like her.
@The Germ Theory of
Disease Lol. The same thing happened to me with Chariots of Fire when I was a kid. I was
into sci-fi and fantasy (still am) and thought it was going to be an epic fantasy story with
actual chariots on fire and monsters and humans battling in some ancient Roman fantasy world.
Boy was I wrong. As the movie was playing I remember feeling stupid and angry for not asking
my father what the movie was going to be about.
Interesting that the period of the "three martini lunch" (along with "sexual
harassment") coincided with America's industrial domination of the world. Execs seemed able
to operate quite well on three martinis.
Execs were able to operate quite well on three martinis, and lots of cigarettes. And
steaks. Alcohol plus nicotine plus meat-eating equals rapid technological and economic
progress.
Today we operate on salads and antidepressants and weed, so we have technological
stagnation and economic bubbles.
Thanks for the review. This film was on my bucket list and your review motivated me to
finally watch this great film.
Audrey Hepburn has charmed me to death.
However the part at the end where she released the Cat made me lose a lot of sympathy for
Holly. Of course we knew all along that they would get the Cat back. It was as if the Cat was
a metaphor for her lack of commitment or belief in something tangible. I gotta read the novel
though. Things change so much in the screenplay.
Perhaps Capote's original preference of Marilyn for Holly would have been more credible.
Hepburn had just too much class to have credibility as a hillbilly gone to New York.
@Lin "Being a
slut(like Cleopatra) is not a trade."
Nonsense, most women practice hypergamy, which is the formal name for the slutty behavior
of trading-often, without emotion or compunction, and most importantly . . . trading-up.
Use, Use-Up, Discard, Rinse and Repeat!
It's a business in a very real sense, with definitive tangible rewards if done right.
And ole' Cleopatra, having reached the pinnacle that few will ever reach, traded her
'charms' for her life.
It was as if the Cat was a metaphor for her lack of commitment or belief in something
tangible.
The cat is the key to the story. In the book she releases the cat (it's been a long long
time since I read it but I seem to remember that it's more a case of her chasing the cat away
than releasing him) because cats are free spirits and they don't belong to anyone.
In the movie Holly has learnt enough to realise her mistake and to realise that this is
adolescent nonsense. Everybody wants to belong to somebody. Including cats. Even owning a pet
requires accepting responsibility, it requires a commitment. And it's a commitment that
benefits both the pet and the owner. Even the cat, in his cat way, understands this. They
don't have much trouble finding him because he's not stupid. It will soon be dinnertime.
Interestingly enough in the book there's a suggestion that the cat is smarter than Holly
and what's-his-face (which admittedly is not too difficult). He finds someone else who will
accept a commitment. He'll be fine because he's a cat and he doesn't give a damn about
freedom. He wants regular meals, affection and a nice comfy place to sleep. It's as if Capote
had his doubts about the benefits of freedom.
The final scene with the cat in the book (long after Holly releases him) is extremely
significant and is often overlooked or misunderstood. The cat is in the story for a
reason.
The final scene with the cat in the movie is not sentimentality. If they hadn't looked for
the cat then it would have been a sign that they were not ready for grown-up commitments.
Again, the cat is in the story for a reason.
In Casino Royale, when Bond gives his famous drink recipe, he says something like "I only
have one drink before dinner, but it must be very large, very cold and very good."
In the movie Holly has learnt enough to realise her mistake and to realise that this is
adolescent nonsense. Everybody wants to belong to somebody. Including cats.
Still, part of her appeal is that she is a 'wild thing' and free spirit. It's a paradox.
That free quality draws men to her, but men drawn to her wants to own her and 'put her in a
cage'.
Same goes the dynamics in MARNIE where Sean Connery gets excitement in playing the hunter
with Tippi Hedren as the game.
Still, part of her appeal is that she is a 'wild thing' and free spirit. It's a paradox.
That free quality draws men to her, but men drawn to her wants to own her and 'put her in a
cage'.
Yes. Life is compromise. You hope you can find somebody to whom you can belong without
feeling that you're in a cage. Growing up means that you realise that that is your best
chance of happiness. Holly isn't going to find that kind of man if she continues being a
whore. In fact being a whore will eventually put her in a worse cage.
She gambles that Paul is the right type of man. He's probably as good as she's going to
get.
Same goes the dynamics in MARNIE where Sean Connery gets excitement in playing the
hunter with Tippi Hedren as the game.
Now there's a movie worth reviewing. Not one of Hitchcock's best but definitely extremely
interesting.
Even more interesting would be a comparison with Winston Graham's novel. As with BAT the
differences between novel and film are illuminating.
@Priss Factor
Excellent and accurate comment about Mike Nichols' amazing The Graduate (1967), and its
influence on American cinema in the 1970s. In my view there is a direct link between Nichols'
film and Bob Rafelson's Five Easy Pieces (1970). Thematically, both films center on
alienation.
@syonredux I've
watched The Friends of Eddie Coyle (1973) numerous times. It somewhat resembles The Maltese
Falcon (1941) in that it mainly consists of interior scenes heavy in dialog between cops and
crooks and crooks and crooks. Wonderful dialog.
@dfordoom "Not one of
Hitchcock's best but definitely extremely interesting."
The backstage drama behind Marnie (1964) is interesting. Tippi Hedren became the target of
Hitchcock's obsession in The Birds (1963), and then a victim of his psychological torture in
Marnie. Strangely, or obviously, this abuse served the storyline of both films.
@Kiel Being born heir
to the throne of the Pharaohs, Cleopatra reached the pinnacle before she met up with Caesar
and Antony. Direct descendant of Phillip of Macedonia and Alexander's brother and sister, she
was far and above those 2. Egypt was wealthier than Rome and all of Italy in her time.
Another misogynistic woman hating sad old celibate bachelor heard from. The fact that you
had to back more than 2,000 years to cite Cleopatra shows there's no women in your life.
@SunBakedSuburb The
Departed and Black Mass really did not convey the actual Irish mafia like Mitchum. He was the
real deal. You believed him as a weary criminal.
@SunBakedSuburb I
didn't like The Graduate at all. Typical Jewish sneering at White Christians and the world we
built. And leaving a handsome blond at the altar for a short ugly, sexually repulsive Jew??
Yuck
America "at its peak" would never have produced people like Holly or Paul or most of the
others. (Holly's husband may be an exception.)
That beautiful surroundings and superficially beautiful and rich white people indicate
greatness in a country is the attitude that got us to where we are today.
This story is about America tottering and staggering, with two people unexpectedly,
miraculously, setting themselves right. Maybe the book intended that we should come to this
conclusion, I don't know.
One thing I don't like about THE GRADUATE is making Mr. Robinson out to be a bad guy at
the end. He has reason to be upset. In the novel, it's Ben's father who visits him at
Berkeley. Still, the scene works, and Norman Fell's reaction to the outburst is a riot.
To be fair to the movie, Ben is no knight in shining armor. He is often something of a
jerk.
We root for him because his passion is real.
And Hoffman in 67, though no ladykiller, had youth and spirit.
@Alden It was widely
commented in old Hollywood that Coop was hung like a Louisville Slugger. That plus lotsa $$
and being a top dog in Hollywood ..he got more ass than a toilet seat at the bus station.
@anon I have nothing
against sunbathing, old men, alcoholics and druggies.
But all those wrinkled oldsters like DeNiro etc just look bad on screen. For the last 40
years nostril shots or Extreme Close UPs have been the fashion in cinema photography. Not
even the entire face, just mouth, nose and eyes, not even chin and forehead. It's supposed to
give audiences a sense of intimacy with the character and action.
One wonders why they even bother with sets and locations. Just the middle parts of faces.
The least the DP could use long and medium shots for the elderly. But ECUs are in style.
55 year old appearing Susan Sarandon as mother of a 5 year old is bad. But at least with
cosmetic surgery and long shots instead of continual close ups, she passed for a mid 40s
plausible mother of a 5 year old.
@The Alarmist Should
have mentioned a major reason for early marriage. The Draft!!!! With Vietnam heating up, many
college seniors made sure to get married as soon as they graduated and the student exemption
ended. The draft also encouraged many men to go to grad school to extend the student
exemption.
And yes, you'd probably have a girl in the city. I remember so many of my parents friends
got divorced when the youngest finished high school.
Reason was usually the husband and his secretary had a long term relationship.
@SunBakedSuburb The
first and second scene in Marnie are some of the best ever. It's a factory, the Friday
morning before the long holiday weekend. Factory closes at noon so everyone can get a start
on the weekend
Miss Perfect Secretary volunteers to stay till 5 to answer the phones. It's long before
voicemail. She goes out to her car, gets a suitcase, opens the safe, takes out thousands and
drives away with a smile on her face.
Next scene, a bed in a hotel room. She tosses about a dozen IDs and social security cards
in different names on the bed.
All time favorite is the opening scene of Rob Roy. Rob and his crew of rieviers chasing
down a crew of cattle rustlers on foot. Beautifully done.
"Nah, Blacks used to get a kick out of Stepin Fetchit, Amos n' Andy, and minstrel shows. It
was only when (((certain people))) informed us all that such portrayals are racist that they
soured and became angry about it."
If i were you I would do some reading about how the roles of Amos an Andy were viewed by
blacks then, forward. Or you might want to spend some time talking to blacks who are film
historians. One of the great follies of contemporary society is that blacks needs whites to
comprehend social constructions and meanings for their lives. Whether it 's Amos n Andy,
Stepin Fetchit or Rochester . . .
And these characters and caricatures were popular among whites. By the 1950's blacks began
to challenge the motifs which they believed whites saw as the embodiment of black citizens as
opposed the entertainment modes in the likes of Laurel and Hardy, Buster Keaton and other
entertainment tropes of comedy.
"Nah, Blacks used to get a kick out of Stepin Fetchit, Amos n' Andy, and minstrel shows.
It was only when (((certain people))) informed us all that such portrayals are racist that
they soured and became angry about it."
Ironically, Jews played a huge role in blackface and minstrel shows. And Fetchit was a
Hollywood product. Hollywood wasn't controlled by Eskimos.
America "at its peak" would never have produced people like Holly or Paul or most of the
others. (Holly's husband may be an exception.)
That beautiful surroundings and superficially beautiful and rich white people indicate
greatness in a country is the attitude that got us to where we are today.
Not quite. This is the type of behavior one sees in naturalist or satirical novels by
Theodore Dreiser & Sinclair Lewis, covering period from 1890 to 1920, approximately.
America "at its peak" would never have produced people like Holly or Paul or most of the
others. (Holly's husband may be an exception.)
Don't make the mistake of assuming NYC and its denizens are part of America. I have said
to many that living in NYC for more than a few years made it easy to leave America
altogether.
@The Alarmist I saw
some of it in 1960, aged 12. My uncle was a Senior VP at American Express, and he was 40. If
he hadn't had a heart problem just a year later he would have been its youngest ever
President. He did recover though, and went on to be the President and CEO of another company,
a job which made him famous.
Anyway, here is what life for a young (if not perhaps junior) executive right in the
middle of Manhattan was like (apart of course from the actual business side of it, which I
knew – and know – nothing about): a large house in Locust Valley on two acres,
two servants, and a nanny for the younger of the five children; membership of a city club
(mostly used for those bibulous lunches) and a country club, used much more often, and
intensively by the wife and children, the locus of every activity not centred on the home;
summers at places like Point O'Woods on Fire Island; frequent trips abroad, mostly London and
occasionally Paris, and to the West Coast, where the family had close connections to
precisely that old European Hollywood set which gave its inspiration to films like the one we
are discussing here; prep schools for the children, where some did rather better than others,
causing maternal angst and paternal indifference; oh, and a bit later, when most everybody
had decided that the weather on the West Coast was just too good to ignore any longer, a
pied-a-terre in the Ritz Tower, just to show that they were still around, and not ready to be
forgotten .
It was decorative, spacious, and picturesque, but, as the "heart problem" hints, it was by
no means always easy.
@dfordoom Funnily
enough I just recently saw the movie "Downton Abbey" which just reminded me of how much I
miss Waugh and for that matter Chesterton and Wodehouse and that entire generation also. In
his pinky, as they say, Waugh had more talent then the author of this claptrap of a movie.
"Abby" being a curtain call for British fossils to sacrifice 'glory' of their Victorian
age, in order to persuade the current generation of British aristocracy afictionados to
forsake their meager trove of values without even being properly entertained for their
effort. Especially annoying being the oh so modern progressive personalities and the now
ubiquitous "gay" scenes, directly aimed at undermining the remaining vestige of moral anchors
left in their society. I wish that society a good parting and may the royal doorknob not hit
them in the arse.
@Alden Dustin's
subsequent and very credible accusations of being (and having been) a complete creep, doesn't
exactly help the cartoonish moral tale of the Graduate from aging any better than he himself
did.
@Bardon Kaldian
Bardon, it's not Dreiser or Lewis who are representing the events & conditions in the
book and movie as being America "at its peak" (1940s in the book and 1960 in the film). It is
the reviewer, Trevor Lynch, who believes this. I find that a bit shocking that he would think
so; he seems to be a pretty smart reviewer in general.
It communicates the joys and follies of youth in America at its peak -- an age of
seemingly infinite potential
Arty, good looking white people; stylish clothes; fine buildings. Is that all there is?
Nothing seething beneath the surface calling for justice; no ugliness infecting the culture?
I am not surprised this book was written by a homosexual. Whoever coined the phrase "deeply
superficial" must've had this film in mind. I saw it a couple of decades ago and just hated
it, though I could not have articulated exactly why at the time.
@Liza From end of WWII
to the mid 60s, most Americans never had it so good. It was a time when the majority of
Americans could claim to be Middle Class.
But 60s excesses with youth culture & drugs, race riots, Vietnam War, immigration act,
and etc. led to the slash and burn America that we know today.
But you're right. The seeds of destruction were already there sprouting before the 60s
really happened.
@chris Most people in
arts and movie industry are creeps. Talent is what matters, and Hoffman was perfect for THE
GRADUATE. Just the right mix of gloom and gleam.
@Priss Factor Yeah,
you can see the decline in Literature during the late 50s and 60s as Hemingway, Faulkner,
Steinbeck, O'hara, TS eliot, saul Bellow, etc. faded from the scene and were replaced by
vidal, Alan Ginsberg, Updike, Vonnnegut, mailer, et. al. All inferior and 2nd rate.
The Rot in movies in the early to mid 60s was covered up by Hollywood filming a bunch of
action movies, war movies, 50's Hollywood musicals, and stuffy English drama's like "Man for
All seasons".
By the end of the 60s' Hair had replaced Singing in the Rain, The wild bunch had replaced
Shane, and Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolff had replaced All about Eve. Brando had gone from
"On the waterfront" to "Burn" and "Reflections in a Golden Eye".
Someone wrote a doggerel about the decline:
From FDR to Nixon,
From The Wizard of oz to The Wiz,
You wouldn't believe it possible,
But 'Tis.
@byrresheim Why do you
have to attack the sex life of the Queen of a country greater than Rome at the time whose
people considered her to be a God??
Why not attack the adulterers Cesare and Marc Antony who were married? Cleopatra was
single and didn't betray a husband as those two betrayed a wife. Shouldn't a great moralist
thinker such as yourself condemn adultery?
And as Queen and Chief God of Egypt, she was far, far wealthier and more royal than they
were.
They were the gold diggers. She was not.
Stop insulting women and I won't insult you anymore.
2 drunks yell for hours. 2 fools stay and watch instead of going home.
Virginia Wolfe was the first lol intellectual movie I ever saw. Turned me against prestige
intellectual movies forever. I tried to read 2 Virginia Wolfe books. Couldn't get past the
first 20 pages.
She, her siblings and half sibs were one sick sick crew. Not just incest, but bisexual
incest. They started on Virginia when she was two. They brought their spouses into it too.
Parents both insane. Mother claimed to have God given healing powers. She'd visit sick people
and lay hands on them.
Yeah, you can see the decline in Literature during the late 50s and 60s as Hemingway,
Faulkner, Steinbeck, O'hara, TS eliot, saul Bellow, etc. faded from the scene and were
replaced by vidal, Alan Ginsberg, Updike, Vonnnegut, mailer, et. al. All inferior and 2nd
rate.
Bellow reached his peak in the 60s and 70s.
Hemingway introduced a direct journalistic style of writing, but his legendary status owes
much to his persona. It's difficult to take anything by him as Great Literature now.
Steinbeck was a fine storyteller but entirely conventional.
Mailer was often crude and vulgar but he was a great writer. Vonnegut was brilliant with
ideas. Philip Roth is another great. Don Delillo has a remarkable way with words. I don't
think literature, by and large, got worse from 60s to 90s, but the culture generally became
less literary. But if there were fine new novelists, poetry really went to shit.
The Rot in movies in the early to mid 60s was covered up by Hollywood filming a bunch of
action movies, war movies, 50's Hollywood musicals, and stuffy English drama's like "Man
for All seasons".
This owed less to cultural decadence than the threats faced by the old studio system.
Having lost their monopoly over movie theaters and faced with competition from TV, Hollywood
had rough going for awhile, especially as it was still run by old-fashioned people of the Big
Studio era. There was a fresh and interesting movement in America from late 60s to mid 70s,
but it faded due to 'auteur' self-indulgence and rise of Lucas and Spielberg.
By the end of the 60s' Hair had replaced Singing in the Rain, The wild bunch had
replaced Shane, and Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolff had replaced All about Eve. Brando had
gone from "On the waterfront" to "Burn" and "Reflections in a Golden Eye".
I love SHANE but WILD BUNCH is one of the greatest films. Dangerous and disturbing, even
somewhat sick, but a powerful work. SINGIN' IN THE RAIN is great but it's just about the only
musical that I like. Old fashioned musicals were made in the 60s, but I can do without SOUND
OF MUSIC and PAINT YOUR WAGON. I have a soft spot for SCROOGE with Albert Finney though.
I don't care for REFLECTIONS IN A GOLDEN EYE but I'll take BURN over WATERFRONT.
Hemingway introduced a direct journalistic style of writing,
That's putting it a tad too mildly. Hemingway's impact on English prose in the '20s and
'30s was enormous. You can even find traces of his influence in antithetical spirits like
Evelyn Waugh.
but his legendary status owes much to his persona. It's difficult to take anything by
him as Great Literature now.
Have to disagree. Hemingway produced a good amount of rubbish, but the best of his work
endures as G.L.: The Sun Also Rises , A Farewell to Arms , "The Snows of
Kilimanjaro," "Big Two-Hearted River," "A Clean, Well-Lighted Place," etc. Mind you, I'm
saying this as someone who doesn't particularly like EH's style (I prefer Faulkner and
Fitzgerald to Ernie).
Steinbeck was a fine storyteller but entirely conventional.
He was pure crap.Nothing of his work deserves survival.
I love SHANE but WILD BUNCH is one of the greatest films. Dangerous and disturbing, even
somewhat sick, but a powerful work.
Completely agree on WB. A tremendously powerful but nihilistic work of art. Loyalty is
about the only virtue that the film seems to endorse. It's curious, though. Along with much
else, WB is a kind of war film. Indeed, it might be the best American movie about WWI ..But
Peckinpah's actual war movie ( Cross of Iron ) ended up being quite mediocre .
Mailer was often crude and vulgar but he was a great writer.
Another writer who was massively influenced by Hemingway.I like The Executioner's
Song , but that's just about the only work of Normie's fiction that I enjoy.
"... NATO has become an end run around the UN in legitimizing our dirty little wars. No wonder they are going after Tulsi. ..."
"... War and spooks. It makes it me absolutely disgusted to see intelligent, left-leaning people following obvious traps into xenophobia and fascism. People I love talking about Russian conspiracies, foreign "assets", etc. ..."
What was Hillary Clinton thinking? The 2016 Democratic nominee, for some reason, felt the
need to insert herself into the 2020 race with an attack on Tulsi Gabbard, an oddball
Democratic presidential contender who barely registered in polls. The congresswoman from
Hawaii is a completely discreditable candidate -- more on that in a moment -- but Clinton's
accusation that Gabbard is a tool of the Russians was so blunt and clumsy that it has added
new life to a primary bid that should never have existed in the first place. Within a day,
Gabbard was already fundraising off of it, a development as predictable as a sunrise.
Oh no! The great neo-liberal hope proves herself inept again, and the rest of the spooks get
antsy. Damn it Hillary, you're not supposed to directly say that. You're supposed to
imply it from unverifiable sources. Geez, you're making us all look like amateurs over
here.
Here we are again, watching the people that foiseted Her onto us in the first place,
gnashing their teeth because she can't play even the most elementary of politics.
Moreover, Clinton is also right that both Stein and Gabbard are favorites of the Russian
government, which has rushed social-media bots and state-controlled media to their defense at
various times. Stein even got a seat at a dinner with Vladimir Putin, an honor one might
think is a bit out of the weight class of a super-minor American candidate. The fact that
Stein was sitting at the same table as Putin, along with the retired general, future Donald
Trump appointee, and current felon Michael Flynn, should have raised alarm bells because
Putin never wastes a minute of his day on people who cannot be of use to him. But once Trump
was in the race, Russia focused its efforts on getting him elected, and Stein was left to do
what damage she could as a third-party spoiler.
And this is great! We're just going to repeat everything she said, embellish it, and pretend
like it's common knowledge! Brilliant!
Makes Kamala's answer the other day look especially telling. Well, of course ,
everyone knows that... But god, don't say that out loud!
The Atlantic Council of the United States was established in 1961 by former Secretaries
of State Dean Acheson and Christian Herter to bolster support for NATO. The name is
derivative of North Atlantic Council, the highest governing body of NATO.
+ On April 23, 1999, NATO rocketed the central studio of Radio Televisija Srbije (RTS),
the state-owned broadcasting corporation in Belgrade, destroying the building. Sixteen
civilian employees of RTS were killed and 16 wounded. Amnesty International concluded the
attack was a war crime.
+ In a Feb. 12, 2010 atrocity that was kept secret until March 13, US Special Forces
killed a teenage girl, a pregnant mother of 10, a pregnant mother of 6, a police officer
and his brother, and were accused of then trying to cover-up the killings by digging
bullets out of the victims' bodies, washing the wounds with alcohol and lying to superior
officers.
+ While bombing Libya in March 2011, NATO refused to aid a group of 72 migrants adrift
in the Mediterranean Sea. Only nine people on board survived. The refusal was condemned as
criminal by the Council of Europe.
+ On Nov. 26, 2011, NATO jets bombed and rocketed an allied Pakistani military base for
two hours, killing 26 Pakistani soldiers and wounding dozens more. NATO refuses to
apologize
War and spooks. It makes it me absolutely disgusted to see intelligent, left-leaning
people following obvious traps into xenophobia and fascism. People I love talking about
Russian conspiracies, foreign "assets", etc.
My wife is from Hawaii, and she used to respect Tulsi a great deal. It's heartbreaking for
me to watch her fall for this shit.
@Lookout
I think it's because she actually went to school for Political Science. She was in fact, an
intern in the Clinton administration.
Now, she left politics because she was disgusted by it.... I can only imagine how gross it
is up close and personal. But, I think like many women of her time, and a true feminist,
she's fallen for Hillary's victimization game.
When I told her I made my first political donation yesterday, she was excited. When I told
her it was to Tusi, for what Clinton had said, she became immediately combative. But when, I
in exasperation, yelled "I'M DOING IT TO DEFEND A WOMAN!" I think it finally clicked. I'm
hoping that maybe she can finally see that she is just a nasty, vindictive woman.
#2.1 I think
it's because she actually went to school for Political Science. She was in fact, an
intern in the Clinton administration.
Now, she left politics because she was disgusted by it.... I can only imagine how
gross it is up close and personal. But, I think like many women of her time, and a true
feminist, she's fallen for Hillary's victimization game.
When I told her I made my first political donation yesterday, she was excited. When I
told her it was to Tusi, for what Clinton had said, she became immediately combative. But
when, I in exasperation, yelled "I'M DOING IT TO DEFEND A WOMAN!" I think it finally
clicked. I'm hoping that maybe she can finally see that she is just a nasty, vindictive
woman.
Feminism isn't about saying women are better than men but saying women are as capable as
men.
Exactly right. My wife and I own a company. She's better at sales and customer service
than I am, so she does that. I'm better at marketing and technology issues, so I do that. We
each have strengths and weaknesses. The best policy for us, and I posit for society in
general, is to base decisions on quantifiable facts, not on gender.
#2.1.1 may
consider herself a true feminist, her unrelenting support of women as THE answer to our
problems says to me, in my own opinion, she's really no feminist. Feminism isn't about
saying women are better than men but saying women are as capable as men. To me, the
uttering of women who say, like some twit in the media a couple weeks ago, that "women
aren't corrupt" is actually a highly sexist thing to say. Women with real power in our
corrupt system are indeed as corrupt as any man is and seem fully capable of using their
corruption to get ahead. And there have been many women historically who proved that
capability rather well.
I have a couple of friends who are on the same wavelength in too many ways for me.
Both are younger than I am so some of that might be generational differences in
perception, but I think a lot of it is also the media hype of MeToo, Trump, etc. I get
extremely frustrated with them at times but I have learned lately not to even respond to
the latest outrage and keep reminding them, which both do not really like, that woman or
man, in this world, that choice matters about as much as the one between R and D...
Hillary and her disgusting minions sicken me with their sexism talk. They make an open
mockery of real sexism and they feel absolutely no shame doing it. Anything to get ahead
after all, they do not care how many real women they step on, bomb, and kill to get there
either.
@edg
generally, women just think a little different. It was a woman, accountant, that confronted
Ken Lay and brought down Enron. She had nothing to gain. It was a woman FBI agent that
noticed foreign nationals were taking flying lessons that didn't include landing an aircraft.
Her observations were dismissed. Men say, do this, you will prosper, women say do this, it's
the right thing to do. Because that's what they teach their kids. Yes, women can emulate men,
the glass ceiling omits that those standing on the top rung are standing on the fingers of
those below them. But damn it, we need a different way of thinking.
Feminism isn't about saying women are better than men but saying women are as
capable as men.
Exactly right. My wife and I own a company. She's better at sales and customer service
than I am, so she does that. I'm better at marketing and technology issues, so I do that.
We each have strengths and weaknesses. The best policy for us, and I posit for society in
general, is to base decisions on quantifiable facts, not on gender.
women are not shamed, objectified, exploited, deprived of choice, deprived of freedom,
deprived of opportunity, abused, or killed for being women.
#2.1.1 may
consider herself a true feminist, her unrelenting support of women as THE answer to our
problems says to me, in my own opinion, she's really no feminist. Feminism isn't about
saying women are better than men but saying women are as capable as men. To me, the
uttering of women who say, like some twit in the media a couple weeks ago, that "women
aren't corrupt" is actually a highly sexist thing to say. Women with real power in our
corrupt system are indeed as corrupt as any man is and seem fully capable of using their
corruption to get ahead. And there have been many women historically who proved that
capability rather well.
I have a couple of friends who are on the same wavelength in too many ways for me.
Both are younger than I am so some of that might be generational differences in
perception, but I think a lot of it is also the media hype of MeToo, Trump, etc. I get
extremely frustrated with them at times but I have learned lately not to even respond to
the latest outrage and keep reminding them, which both do not really like, that woman or
man, in this world, that choice matters about as much as the one between R and D...
Hillary and her disgusting minions sicken me with their sexism talk. They make an open
mockery of real sexism and they feel absolutely no shame doing it. Anything to get ahead
after all, they do not care how many real women they step on, bomb, and kill to get there
either.
#2.1.1 may
consider herself a true feminist, her unrelenting support of women as THE answer to our
problems says to me, in my own opinion, she's really no feminist. Feminism isn't about
saying women are better than men but saying women are as capable as men. To me, the
uttering of women who say, like some twit in the media a couple weeks ago, that "women
aren't corrupt" is actually a highly sexist thing to say. Women with real power in our
corrupt system are indeed as corrupt as any man is and seem fully capable of using their
corruption to get ahead. And there have been many women historically who proved that
capability rather well.
I have a couple of friends who are on the same wavelength in too many ways for me.
Both are younger than I am so some of that might be generational differences in
perception, but I think a lot of it is also the media hype of MeToo, Trump, etc. I get
extremely frustrated with them at times but I have learned lately not to even respond to
the latest outrage and keep reminding them, which both do not really like, that woman or
man, in this world, that choice matters about as much as the one between R and D...
Hillary and her disgusting minions sicken me with their sexism talk. They make an open
mockery of real sexism and they feel absolutely no shame doing it. Anything to get ahead
after all, they do not care how many real women they step on, bomb, and kill to get there
either.
Gabbard herself has already ruled out such a challenge, but that is beside the point.
Gabbard has now vowed to take her fight to the convention, where she might argue that the
nominee, whom Clinton will applaud and support, is just another tool of the Democratic,
neoconservative, neoliberal, warmongering, globalist establishment.
I sure hope that Tulsi gets a boost out of this nonsense. No matter what one may think of
her as a candidate, I am all for a bigger group of voices, and I am definitely on my feet
applauding Tulsi's response.
Correct me if this is wrong, but I saw a graphic on Twitter or Reddit last night that may
very well explain why Tulsi Gabbard was targeted by the Great White Failure: every one of the
major candidates were either Clinton state delegates or Clinton superdelegates - with the
exceptions of Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard. Also floating around was the Wikileaks email
from the Clinton Cabal to Tulsi, chastising her for resigning. Suddenly, the vicious and
vindictive swipe makes sense.
There was also lot of speculation online too about whether the Ghoul of Politics Past was
testing the smear job waters to see what would knock Tulsi, with the plan to debut the same
hits against Bernie Sanders. I can believe it.
Just to throw the question out there too: do you think other candidates should be asked
about this? I'm now of two minds. On one hand, I believe it's a fair question, and I
especially want to hear all of them demanding that Clinton provide proof of her pretty
serious allegations. Seems to me that no one has asked for the receipts yet. On the other,
the press shouldn't have time to be asking candidates what they think; they should all be
swarming Hillary Clinton, demanding to see her alleged evidence. A third part of me wonders
why we are still giving this human herpes any attention whatsoever. She should be relegated
to the same heap that Glenn Beck currently occupies, where no one gives a rat's ass about her
or her "opinions."
@Le
Frog
Based on Fmr. Sec. Clinton's libelous statement. The language was more direct and
absolute.
Rep. Gabbard should get a bump but she, and certainly Sen. Sanders, have bigger fish to
fry than jumping up and down every time Her rattles the car keys.
is a Donald Trump asset.
I sure hope that Tulsi gets a boost out of this nonsense. No matter what one may think
of her as a candidate, I am all for a bigger group of voices, and I am definitely on my
feet applauding Tulsi's response.
Correct me if this is wrong, but I saw a graphic on Twitter or Reddit last night that
may very well explain why Tulsi Gabbard was targeted by the Great White Failure: every
one of the major candidates were either Clinton state delegates or Clinton superdelegates
- with the exceptions of Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard. Also floating around was the
Wikileaks email from the Clinton Cabal to Tulsi, chastising her for resigning. Suddenly,
the vicious and vindictive swipe makes sense.
There was also lot of speculation online too about whether the Ghoul of Politics Past
was testing the smear job waters to see what would knock Tulsi, with the plan to debut
the same hits against Bernie Sanders. I can believe it.
Just to throw the question out there too: do you think other candidates should be
asked about this? I'm now of two minds. On one hand, I believe it's a fair question, and
I especially want to hear all of them demanding that Clinton provide proof of her pretty
serious allegations. Seems to me that no one has asked for the receipts yet. On the
other, the press shouldn't have time to be asking candidates what they think; they should
all be swarming Hillary Clinton, demanding to see her alleged evidence. A third part of
me wonders why we are still giving this human herpes any attention whatsoever. She should
be relegated to the same heap that Glenn Beck currently occupies, where no one gives a
rat's ass about her or her "opinions."
@OzoneTom
I would love to see a lawsuit from Jill Stein.
#4
Based on Fmr. Sec. Clinton's libelous statement. The language was more direct and
absolute.
Rep. Gabbard should get a bump but she, and certainly Sen. Sanders, have bigger fish
to fry than jumping up and down every time Her rattles the car keys.
...but it fits this conversation too
https://thegrayzone.com/2019/10/20/max-blumenthal-on-why-hillary-clinton... (22 min)
Max Blumenthal says that Clinton's comments reflect a continued effort by Democratic
neo-liberals to deflect responsibility for their loss to Trump in 2016; marginalize voices
like Gabbard and Stein's who challenge their pro-war, corporatist agenda; and preview their
potential future attacks on Bernie Sanders.
is a Donald Trump asset.
I sure hope that Tulsi gets a boost out of this nonsense. No matter what one may think
of her as a candidate, I am all for a bigger group of voices, and I am definitely on my
feet applauding Tulsi's response.
Correct me if this is wrong, but I saw a graphic on Twitter or Reddit last night that
may very well explain why Tulsi Gabbard was targeted by the Great White Failure: every
one of the major candidates were either Clinton state delegates or Clinton superdelegates
- with the exceptions of Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard. Also floating around was the
Wikileaks email from the Clinton Cabal to Tulsi, chastising her for resigning. Suddenly,
the vicious and vindictive swipe makes sense.
There was also lot of speculation online too about whether the Ghoul of Politics Past
was testing the smear job waters to see what would knock Tulsi, with the plan to debut
the same hits against Bernie Sanders. I can believe it.
Just to throw the question out there too: do you think other candidates should be
asked about this? I'm now of two minds. On one hand, I believe it's a fair question, and
I especially want to hear all of them demanding that Clinton provide proof of her pretty
serious allegations. Seems to me that no one has asked for the receipts yet. On the
other, the press shouldn't have time to be asking candidates what they think; they should
all be swarming Hillary Clinton, demanding to see her alleged evidence. A third part of
me wonders why we are still giving this human herpes any attention whatsoever. She should
be relegated to the same heap that Glenn Beck currently occupies, where no one gives a
rat's ass about her or her "opinions."
Representative Gabbard, We were very disappointed to hear that you would resign your
position with the DNC so you could endorse Bernie Sanders, a man who has never been a
Democrat before. When we met over dinner a couple of years ago I was so impressed by your
intellect, your passion, and commitment to getting things done on behalf of the American
people. For you to endorse a man who has spent almost 40 years in public office with very
few accomplishments, doesn't fall in line with what we previously thought of you. Hillary
Clinton will be our party's nominee and you standing on ceremony to support the sinking
Bernie Sanders ship is disrespectful to Hillary Clinton. A woman who has spent the vast
majority of her life in public service and working on behalf of women, families, and the
underserved. You have called both myself and Michael Kives before about helping your
campaign raise money, we no longer trust your judgement so will not be raising money for
your campaign.
Darnell Strom & Michael Kives
Ooh..bet that hurt.
These are the guys who represent lots of powerful people in government, the media and
Hollywood. If you want to go anywhere then you need them on your side.
is a Donald Trump asset.
I sure hope that Tulsi gets a boost out of this nonsense. No matter what one may think
of her as a candidate, I am all for a bigger group of voices, and I am definitely on my
feet applauding Tulsi's response.
Correct me if this is wrong, but I saw a graphic on Twitter or Reddit last night that
may very well explain why Tulsi Gabbard was targeted by the Great White Failure: every
one of the major candidates were either Clinton state delegates or Clinton superdelegates
- with the exceptions of Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard. Also floating around was the
Wikileaks email from the Clinton Cabal to Tulsi, chastising her for resigning. Suddenly,
the vicious and vindictive swipe makes sense.
There was also lot of speculation online too about whether the Ghoul of Politics Past
was testing the smear job waters to see what would knock Tulsi, with the plan to debut
the same hits against Bernie Sanders. I can believe it.
Just to throw the question out there too: do you think other candidates should be
asked about this? I'm now of two minds. On one hand, I believe it's a fair question, and
I especially want to hear all of them demanding that Clinton provide proof of her pretty
serious allegations. Seems to me that no one has asked for the receipts yet. On the
other, the press shouldn't have time to be asking candidates what they think; they should
all be swarming Hillary Clinton, demanding to see her alleged evidence. A third part of
me wonders why we are still giving this human herpes any attention whatsoever. She should
be relegated to the same heap that Glenn Beck currently occupies, where no one gives a
rat's ass about her or her "opinions."
Thomas M. Nichols
He closes the article with this tidbit -
As a former Republican who will vote for the Democratic nominee again in 2020, I hope
that I never have to talk about Tulsi Gabbard again. I can only hope that enough Democratic
Party leaders can convince Hillary Clinton to feel the same way.
Check out his book! -
The Death of Expertise: The Campaign against Established Knowledge and Why it Matters
(!!!!)
Technology and increasing levels of education have exposed people to more information
than ever before. These societal gains, however, have also helped fuel a surge in
narcissistic and misguided intellectual egalitarianism that has crippled informed debates
on any number of issues. Today, everyone knows everything: with only a quick trip through
WebMD or Wikipedia, average citizens believe themselves to be on an equal intellectual
footing with doctors and diplomats. All voices, even the most ridiculous, demand to be
taken with equal seriousness, and any claim to the contrary is dismissed as undemocratic
elitism. Tom Nichols' The Death of Expertise shows how this rejection of experts has
occurred: the openness of the internet, the emergence of a customer service model in higher
education, and the transformation of the news industry into a 24-hour entertainment
machine, among other reasons. Paradoxically, the increasingly democratic dissemination of
information, rather than producing an educated public, has instead created an army of
ill-informed and angry citizens who denounce intellectual achievement. When ordinary
citizens believe that no one knows more than anyone else, democratic institutions
themselves are in danger of falling either to populism or to technocracy or, in the worst
case, a combination of both.
@konondrum@konondrum
But I can't remember who. The big quote was something like, "In America every shopkeeper is
an expert."
Thomas M. Nichols
He closes the article with this tidbit -
As a former Republican who will vote for the Democratic nominee again in 2020, I
hope that I never have to talk about Tulsi Gabbard again. I can only hope that enough
Democratic Party leaders can convince Hillary Clinton to feel the same way.
Check out his book! -
The Death of Expertise: The Campaign against Established Knowledge and Why it Matters
(!!!!)
Technology and increasing levels of education have exposed people to more
information than ever before. These societal gains, however, have also helped fuel a
surge in narcissistic and misguided intellectual egalitarianism that has crippled
informed debates on any number of issues. Today, everyone knows everything: with only a
quick trip through WebMD or Wikipedia, average citizens believe themselves to be on an
equal intellectual footing with doctors and diplomats. All voices, even the most
ridiculous, demand to be taken with equal seriousness, and any claim to the contrary is
dismissed as undemocratic elitism. Tom Nichols' The Death of Expertise shows how this
rejection of experts has occurred: the openness of the internet, the emergence of a
customer service model in higher education, and the transformation of the news industry
into a 24-hour entertainment machine, among other reasons. Paradoxically, the
increasingly democratic dissemination of information, rather than producing an educated
public, has instead created an army of ill-informed and angry citizens who denounce
intellectual achievement. When ordinary citizens believe that no one knows more than
anyone else, democratic institutions themselves are in danger of falling either to
populism or to technocracy or, in the worst case, a combination of both.
@konondrum
This is just what I need: My worst of all fears confirmed.
It wasn't so long ago that "standing up to experts" was just something crank Texas
dentists got skewered by Stephen Colbert for...but now?
Thomas M. Nichols
He closes the article with this tidbit -
As a former Republican who will vote for the Democratic nominee again in 2020, I
hope that I never have to talk about Tulsi Gabbard again. I can only hope that enough
Democratic Party leaders can convince Hillary Clinton to feel the same way.
Check out his book! -
The Death of Expertise: The Campaign against Established Knowledge and Why it Matters
(!!!!)
Technology and increasing levels of education have exposed people to more
information than ever before. These societal gains, however, have also helped fuel a
surge in narcissistic and misguided intellectual egalitarianism that has crippled
informed debates on any number of issues. Today, everyone knows everything: with only a
quick trip through WebMD or Wikipedia, average citizens believe themselves to be on an
equal intellectual footing with doctors and diplomats. All voices, even the most
ridiculous, demand to be taken with equal seriousness, and any claim to the contrary is
dismissed as undemocratic elitism. Tom Nichols' The Death of Expertise shows how this
rejection of experts has occurred: the openness of the internet, the emergence of a
customer service model in higher education, and the transformation of the news industry
into a 24-hour entertainment machine, among other reasons. Paradoxically, the
increasingly democratic dissemination of information, rather than producing an educated
public, has instead created an army of ill-informed and angry citizens who denounce
intellectual achievement. When ordinary citizens believe that no one knows more than
anyone else, democratic institutions themselves are in danger of falling either to
populism or to technocracy or, in the worst case, a combination of both.
Will any of HER buddies address anything in Tulsi's tweet aside from Russia? I think not.
HER is going to have to take the "rot" comment on the chin because I'm sure they really
really don't want to have that conversation.
So, I am glad Tulsi opened that door and I hope she doesn't let up on it. Russiagate is,
after all, a symptom of the corruption in the party, just like Trump is.
@Lookout
I watched it yesterday and was amazed by his take on it, especially after he had harsh words
for Tulsi regarding her version of Medicare for All. To be sure, Time Black is a big Bernie
supporter, but his latest on Tulsi is excellent.
I was sorta confused about why Hillary did it. Mostly I thought to open door to attack
Bernie. In many ways that door is closed now given the reaction of the masses. I now think
Hillary's comments were meant to sideline not so much the candidate Tulsi but her messages of
anti-war and anti-regime change. I think her constant iteration just like Bernie's
constant iteration of m4a, was reaching people way beyond her poll numbers.
It boils down to this:
Atlantic Council (war mongers) = regime change and war is good. Losing ground.
Tulsi: regime change and war is bad. Winning ground.
Tulsi's influence goes beyond her poll numbers. She is thee most dangerous candidate to
the establishment because she is winning the ideological battle over foreign policy and
war.
@MrWebster
Nothing today should be about Her. It is straight from the Trump playbook. Allowing this
absurd slander to distract us from keeping our eyes on the prize is a win for Her.
Senator Sanders and Representative Gabbard are moving ahead on the front. They are
depending on the rest of us to resist on the flanks.
"Not me, Us!" is not just a slogan...
I was sorta confused about why Hillary did it. Mostly I thought to open door to attack
Bernie. In many ways that door is closed now given the reaction of the masses. I now
think Hillary's comments were meant to sideline not so much the candidate Tulsi but her
messages of anti-war and anti-regime change. I think her constant iteration just like
Bernie's constant iteration of m4a, was reaching people way beyond her poll
numbers.
It boils down to this:
Atlantic Council (war mongers) = regime change and war is good. Losing ground.
Tulsi: regime change and war is bad. Winning ground.
Tulsi's influence goes beyond her poll numbers. She is thee most dangerous candidate
to the establishment because she is winning the ideological battle over foreign policy
and war.
@MrWebster
Excellent comment that reflects my own view of what is going on here.
Just as Bernie's 2016 Presidential campaign has greatly changed the dommestic policy
landscape, the oligarchy and the MIC are seeing that Tulsi Gabbard's 2020 Presidential
campaign is beginning to take hold in changing the political landscape foreign policy wise.
The empire is coming apart and they are lashing back.
I was sorta confused about why Hillary did it. Mostly I thought to open door to attack
Bernie. In many ways that door is closed now given the reaction of the masses. I now
think Hillary's comments were meant to sideline not so much the candidate Tulsi but her
messages of anti-war and anti-regime change. I think her constant iteration just like
Bernie's constant iteration of m4a, was reaching people way beyond her poll
numbers.
It boils down to this:
Atlantic Council (war mongers) = regime change and war is good. Losing ground.
Tulsi: regime change and war is bad. Winning ground.
Tulsi's influence goes beyond her poll numbers. She is thee most dangerous candidate
to the establishment because she is winning the ideological battle over foreign policy
and war.
...something to do with HER server, wasn't it? But what I REALLY think is going on, and I
could be totally wrong, is that Bernie is considering Tulsi as his VP pick, when and if, and
this is to sow enough doubt and deceit about Tulsi that it wounds Bernie. But one thing I
know for sure: that Clinton hag is one evil bitch!
...something to do with HER server, wasn't it? But what I REALLY think is going on,
and I could be totally wrong, is that Bernie is considering Tulsi as his VP pick, when
and if, and this is to sow enough doubt and deceit about Tulsi that it wounds Bernie. But
one thing I know for sure: that Clinton hag is one evil bitch!
In keeping with professional journalistic ethics, The Times also reached out to
experts on fascism, fascist terrorism, terrorist fascism, fascist-adjacent Assad-apologism,
Hitlerism, horrorism, Russia, and so on, to confirm Gabbard's guilt-by-association with the
people The Times had just associated her with. Brian Levin, Director of the CSU Center
for the Study of Hate and Extremism, confirmed that Gabbard has "the seal of approval" within
goose-stepping, Hitler-loving, neo-Nazi circles. The Alliance for Securing Democracy (yes, the
one from the previous paragraph) conducted an "independent analysis" which confirmed that RT
("the Kremlin-backed news agency") had mentioned Gabbard far more often than the Western
corporate media (which isn't backed by anyone, and is totally unbiased and independent, despite
the fact that most of it is owned by a handful of powerful global corporations, and at least
one CIA-affiliated oligarch). Oh, and Hawaii State Senator Kai Kahele, who is challenging
Gabbard for her seat in Congress, agreed with The Times that Gabbard's support from
Jew-hating, racist Putin-Nazis might be a potential liability.
"Clearly there's something about her and her policies that attracts and appeals to these
type of people who are white nationalists, anti-Semites, and Holocaust deniers."
But it's not just The New York Times , of course. No sooner had Clinton finished
cackling than the corporate media launched into their familiar Goebbelsian piano routine,
banging out story after television segment repeating the words "Gabbard" and "Russian asset."
I've singled out The Times because the smear piece in question was clearly a warm-up for
Hillary Clinton's calculated smear job on Friday night. No, the old gal hasn't lost her mind.
She knew exactly what she was doing, as did the editors of The New York Times , as did
every other establishment news source that breathlessly "reported" her neo-McCarthyite
smears.
As I noted in my previous essay ,
2020 is for all the marbles, and it's not just about who wins the election. No, it's mostly
about crushing the "populist" backlash against the hegemony of global capitalism and its happy,
smiley-faced, conformist ideology. To do that, the neoliberal establishment has to
delegitimize, and lethally stigmatize, not just Trump, but also people like Gabbard, Bernie
Sanders, Jeremy Corbyn and any other popular political figure (left, right, it makes no
difference) deviating from that ideology.
Ask yourself, what do Trump, Sanders, Corbyn, and Gabbard have in common? No, it's not their
Putin-Nazism it's the challenge they represent to global capitalism. Each, in his or her own
way, is a symbol of the growing populist resistance to the privatization and globalization of
everything. And thus, they must be delegitimized, stigmatized, and relentlessly smeared as
"Russian assets," "anti-Semites," "traitors," "white supremacists," "fascists," "communists,"
or some other type of "extremists."
Gabbard, to her credit, understands this, and is focusing attention on the motives
and tactics of the neoliberal establishment and their smear machine. As I noted in
an essay last year , "the only way to effectively counter a smear campaign (whether
large-scale or small-scale) is to resist the temptation to profess your innocence, and,
instead, focus as much attention on the tactics and the motives of the smearers as
possible ." This will not save her, but it is the best she can do, and I applaud her for
having the guts to do it. I hope she continues to give them hell as they finish off her
candidacy and drive her out of office.
... ... ...
Ask them whether their smear machine is working... if you can get them off the phone with
their brokers, or whoever is decorating their summer places in the Hamptons or out on
Martha's
Vineyard .
Or ask the millions of well-off liberals who are still, even after Russiagate was exposed as an
enormous hoax based on absolutely nothing , parroting this paranoid official narrative and
calling people "Russian assets" on Twitter. Or never mind, just pay attention to what happens
over the next twelve months. In terms of ridiculous
official propaganda , spittle-flecked McCarthyite smears, and full-blown psychotic mass
Putin-Nazi hysteria, it's going to make the last three years look like the Propaganda Special
Olympics.
* * *
C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and political satirist
based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play
Publishing (USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is
published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant Paperbacks. He can be reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org .
While the mainstream liberal media remains firmly in the pocket of the Clintons' propaganda machine, spewing russophobic accusations
at any and every one who dares question the establishment and military-industrial complex line, there are some - on the left - that
are willing to step up and defend Tulsi Gabbard against the latest delusional suggestion from Hillary that she is a 'Russian asset'.
So now Crooked Hillary is at it again! She is calling Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard "a Russian favorite," and Jill Stein "a Russian
asset." As you may have heard, I was called a big Russia lover also (actually, I do like Russian people. I like all people!).
Hillary's gone Crazy!
What the circular firing squad left undone, will be accomplished by infighting between Clintonites and "moderates" ( a too
positive concept). May the Deluge drown you all in 2020.
...Tulsi served two tours of duty in the Middle East, and she continues her service as a Major in the Army National Guard.
Tulsi's 2005 deployment was a 12-month tour at Logistical Support Area Anaconda in Iraq, where she served in a field medical unit
as a specialist with a 29th Support Battalion medical company. She was awarded the Meritorious Service Medal at the end of this
tour.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren are reportedly developing a close
political friendship that might prove pivotal to deciding the Democratic presidential nomination.
Both have kept in touch since Warren announced her decision to seek the Democratic nomination last February, NBC News reported
Saturday.
"Hillary Clinton would absolutely have influence over a number of delegates to this convention," Deb Kozikowski, the vice-chairwoman
of the Massachusetts Democratic Party, told NBC, referring to the possibility that Clinton could help Warren secure delegates
if there is no clear nominee heading into the Democratic National Convention next summer .
One Democratic strategist told NBC that Clinton has been watching and approving of Warren's campaign as the senator has unveiled
a series of increasingly progressive policy proposals.
"... And then there is the Great Hillary Clinton caper. In an interview last week Hillary claimed predictably that Donald Trump is "Vladimir Putin's dream," and then went on to assert that there would be other Russian assets emerging, including nestled in the bosom of her own beloved Democratic Party ..."
"... Tulsi responded courageously and accurately "Great! Thank you @HillaryClinton . ..."
"... Tulsi has in fact been attacked relentless by the Establishment since she announced that she would be running for the Democratic nomination. Shortly before last Tuesday's Democratic candidate debate the New York Times ..."
"... quid pro quos ..."
"... Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is ..."
There was what might be described as an extraordinary amount of nonsense being promoted by
last week's media. Unfortunately, some of it was quite dangerous. Admiral William McRaven, who
commanded the Navy Seals when Osama bin Laden was captured and killed and who has been riding
that horse ever since, announced that if Donald Trump continues to fail to provide the type of
leadership the country needs, he should be replaced by whatever means are necessary. The
op-ed entitled "Our Republic is Under Attack by the President" with the subtitle "If
President Trump doesn't demonstrate the leadership that America needs, then it is time for a
new person in the Oval Office" was featured in the New York Times, suggesting that the Gray
Lady was providing its newspaper of record seal of approval for what might well be regarded as
a call for a military coup.
McRaven's exact words, after some ringing praise for the military and all its glorious deeds
in past wars, were that the soldiers, sailors and marines now must respond because "The America
that they believed in was under attack, not from without, but from within."
McRaven then elaborated that "These men and women, of all political persuasions, have seen
the assaults on our institutions: on the intelligence and law enforcement community, the State
Department and the press. They have seen our leaders stand beside despots and strongmen,
preferring their government narrative to our own. They have seen us abandon our allies and have
heard the shouts of betrayal from the battlefield. As I stood on the parade field at Fort
Bragg, one retired four-star general, grabbed my arm, shook me and shouted, 'I don't like the
Democrats, but Trump is destroying the Republic!'"
It is a call to arms if there ever was one. Too bad Trump can't strip McRaven of his pension
and generous health care benefits for starters and McRaven might also consider that he could be
recalled to active duty by Trump and court martialed under the Uniform Code of Military
Justice. And the good admiral, who up until 2018 headed the state university system in Texas,
might also receive well merited pushback for his assessment of America's role in the world over
the past two decades, in which he was a major player, at least in terms of dealing out
punishment. He wrote ""We are the most powerful nation in the world because we try to be the
good guys. We are the most powerful nation in the world because our ideals of universal freedom
and equality have been backed up by our belief that we were champions of justice, the
protectors of the less fortunate."
Utter bullshit, of course. The United States has been acting as the embodiment of a rogue
nation, lashing out pointlessly and delivering death and destruction. If McRaven truly believes
what he says he is not only violating his oath to defend the constitution while also toying
with treason, he is an idiot and should never have been allowed to run anything more demanding
than a hot dog stand. Washington has been systematically blowing people up worldwide for no
good reasons, killing possibly as many as 4 million mostly Muslims, while systematically
stripping Americans of their Bill of Rights at home. "Good guys" and "champions of justice"
indeed!
And then there is the Great Hillary Clinton caper. In an
interview last week Hillary claimed predictably that Donald Trump is "Vladimir Putin's
dream," and then went on to assert that there would be other Russian assets emerging, including
nestled in the bosom of her own beloved Democratic Party . She said, clearly suggesting
that it would be Tulsi Gabbard, that "They're also going to do third-party again. I'm not
making any predictions, but I think they've got their eye on someone who's currently in the
Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate. She's the favorite of
the Russians. They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far."
Clinton explained how the third-party designation would work, saying of Jill Stein, who ran
for president in 2016 as a Green Party candidate, "And that's assuming Jill Stein will give it
up, which she might not because she's also a Russian asset. Yeah, she's a Russian asset -- I
mean, totally. They know they can't win without a third-party candidate. So I don't know who
it's going to be, but I will guarantee you they will have a vigorous third-party challenge in
the key states that they most needed."
Tulsi responded courageously and accurately "Great! Thank you @HillaryClinton . You, the queen of warmongers,
embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party
for so long, have finally come out from behind the curtain. From the day I announced my
candidacy, there has been a concerted campaign to destroy my reputation. We wondered who was
behind it and why. Now we know -- it was always you, through your proxies and powerful allies
in the corporate media and war machine, afraid of the threat I pose. It's now clear that this
primary is between you and me. Don't cowardly hide behind your proxies. Join the race
directly."
Tulsi has in fact been attacked relentless by the Establishment since she announced that
she would be running for the Democratic nomination. Shortly before last Tuesday's Democratic
candidate debate the New York Timesran an
article suggesting that Gabbard was an isolationist, was being promoted by Russia and was
an apologist for Syria's Bashar al-Assad. In reality, Gabbard is the only candidate willing to
confront America's warfare-national security state.
The Hillary Clinton attack on Gabbard and on the completely respectable Jill Stein is to a
certain extent incomprehensible unless one lives in the gutter that she and Bill have wallowed
in ever since they rose to prominence in Arkansas. Hillary, the creator of the private home
server for classified information as well as author of the catastrophic war against Libya and
the Benghazi debacle has a lot to answer for but will never be held accountable, any more than
her husband Bill for his rapes and molestations. And when it comes to foreign interference,
Gabbard is being pilloried because the Russian media regards her favorably while the Clinton
Foundation has taken
tens of millions of dollars from foreign governments and billionaires seeking quid pro
quos , much of which has gone to line the pockets of Hillary, Bill and Chelsea.
Finally, one comment about the Democratic Party obsession with the Russians. The media was
enthusing last Friday over a photo of Speaker Nancy Pelosi standing up across a table from
President Trump and pointing at him before walking out of the room. The gushing regarding how a
powerful, strong woman was defying the horrible chief executive was both predictable and
ridiculous. By her own admission Pelosi's
last words before departing were "All roads lead to Putin." I will leave it up to the
reader to interpret what that was supposed to mean.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National
Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that
seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is
councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its
email is[email protected]
While Mayor Pete was a little evasive on actually talking down the "Russian asset"
accusation, he did question it, saying that "statements like that ought to be backed by
evidence."
"I don't know what the basis is for that," he said.
"But I consider her to be a competitor. I respect her service. I also have very different
views than she does, especially on foreign policy, and I would prefer to have that argument
in terms of policy which is what we do at debates and what we're doing as we go forward."
Another 2020 presidential hopeful, former Texas Rep. Beto O'Rourke, also dismissed
the Gabbard claim , insisting the focus of the presidential campaign should be on the economy,
climate change and other issues affecting Americans.
"That's not correct. Tulsi is not being groomed by anyone. She is her own person," he told
reporters after delivering a keynote address Saturday at the Alabama Democratic Conference
Semi-Annual Convention in Birmingham.
"Obviously (she) has served this country, continues to serve this country in uniform, in
Congress, as a candidate for presidency so I think those facts speak for themselves."
" Tulsi Gabbard deserves much more respect and thanks than this. She literally just got
back from serving our country abroad."
And now, having been cheated of his chance against Hillary in 2016 - running to her side
like a loyal party comrade after the DNC practically ran him out of the party - a
post-heartattack Bernie Sanders - perhaps with little left to lose - has finally come out
swinging at Clinton.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Elizabeth
Warren are reportedly developing a close political friendship that might prove pivotal to
deciding the Democratic presidential nomination.
Both have kept in touch since Warren announced her decision to seek the Democratic
nomination last February, NBC News reported Saturday.
"Hillary Clinton would absolutely have influence over a number of delegates to this
convention," Deb Kozikowski, the vice-chairwoman of the Massachusetts Democratic Party, told
NBC, referring to the possibility that Clinton could help Warren secure delegates if there is
no clear nominee heading into the Democratic National Convention next summer .
One Democratic strategist told NBC that Clinton has been watching and approving of
Warren's campaign as the senator has unveiled a series of increasingly progressive policy
proposals.
"... "I'm not making any predictions, but I think they've got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate." ..."
"... The Times piece goes on to list an assortment of unsavory, extremist, white supremacist, horrible, neo-Nazi-type persons that Tulsi Gabbard has nothing to do with, but which Hillary Clinton, the Intelligence Community, The Times , and the rest of the corporate media would like you to mentally associate her with. ..."
So, it looks like that's it for America, folks. Putin has gone and done it again. He and his conspiracy of Putin-Nazis have "hacked,"
or "influenced," or "meddled in" our democracy. Unless Admiral Bill McRaven and his special ops cronies can ginny up
a last-minute
military coup , it's four more years of the Trumpian Reich, Russian soldiers patrolling the streets, martial law, concentration
camps, gigantic banners with the faces of Trump and Putin hanging in the football stadiums, mandatory Sieg-heiling in the public
schools, National Vodka-for-Breakfast Day, death's heads, babushkas, the whole nine yards.
We probably should have seen this coming.
That's right, as I'm sure you are aware by now, president-in-exile Hillary Clinton has discovered Putin's diabolical plot to steal
the presidency from Elizabeth Warren, or Biden, or whichever establishment puppet makes it out of the Democratic primaries. Speaking
to former Obama adviser and erstwhile partner at AKPD Message and Media David
Plouffe, Clinton revealed
how the godless Rooskies intend to subvert democracy this time:
"I'm not making any predictions, but I think they've got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary
and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate."
She was referring, of course, to Tulsi Gabbard, sitting Democratic Member of Congress, decorated Major in the Army National Guard,
and long shot 2020 presidential candidate. Apparently, Gabbard (who reliable anonymous sources in the Intelligence Community have
confirmed is a member of some kind of treasonous, Samoan-Hindu, Assad-worshipping cult that wants to force everyone to practice yoga)
has been undergoing Russian "grooming" at a compound in an undisclosed location that is probably in the basement of Mar-a-Lago, or
on Sublevel 168 of Trump Tower.
In any event, wherever Gabbard is being surreptitiously "groomed" (presumably by someone resembling
Lotte Lenya in From Russia With Love ),
the plan (i.e., Putin's plan) is to have her lose in the Democratic primaries, then run as a third-party "spoiler" candidate, stealing
votes from Warren or Biden, exactly as Jill Stein (who, according to Clinton, is also "totally a Russian asset") stole them from
Clinton back in 2016, allowing Putin to install Donald Trump (who, according to Clinton, is still being blackmailed by the FSB with
that "kompromat" pee-tape) in the White House, where she so clearly belongs.
Clinton's comments came on the heels of a preparatory smear-piece in The New York Times ,
What, Exactly, Is Tulsi Gabbard Up To?
, which reported at length on how Gabbard has been "injecting chaos" into the Democratic primaries . Professional "disinformation
experts" supplied The Times with convincing evidence (i.e., unfounded hearsay and innuendo) of "suspicious activity" surrounding
Gabbard's campaign. Former Clinton-aide Laura Rosenberger (who also just happens to be the Director of the
Alliance for Securing Democracy , "a bipartisan transatlantic
national security advocacy group" comprised of former Intelligence Community and U.S. State Department officials, and publisher of
the
Hamilton 68 dashboard) "sees Gabbard as a potentially useful vector for Russian efforts to sow division."
The Times piece goes on to list an assortment of unsavory, extremist, white supremacist, horrible, neo-Nazi-type persons that
Tulsi Gabbard has nothing to do with, but which Hillary Clinton, the Intelligence Community, The Times , and the rest of the corporate
media would like you to mentally associate her with.
Richard Spencer, David Duke, Steve Bannon, Mike Cernovich, Tucker Carlson, and so on. Neo-Nazi sites like the Daily Stormer .
4chan, where, according to The New York Times , neo-Nazis like to "call her Mommy."
In keeping with professional journalistic ethics, The Times also reached out to experts on fascism, fascist terrorism, terrorist
fascism, fascist-adjacent Assad-apologism, Hitlerism, horrorism, Russia, and so on, to confirm Gabbard's guilt-by-association with
the people The Times had just associated her with. Brian Levin, Director of the CSU Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism, confirmed
that Gabbard has "the seal of approval" within goose-stepping, Hitler-loving, neo-Nazi circles. The Alliance for Securing Democracy
(yes, the one from the previous paragraph) conducted an "independent analysis" which confirmed that RT ("the Kremlin-backed news
agency") had mentioned Gabbard far more often than the Western corporate media (which isn't backed by anyone, and is totally unbiased
and independent, despite the fact that most of it is owned by a handful of powerful global corporations, and at least one CIA-affiliated
oligarch). Oh, and Hawaii State Senator Kai Kahele, who is challenging Gabbard for her seat in Congress, agreed with The Times that
Gabbard's support from Jew-hating, racist Putin-Nazis might be a potential liability.
"Clearly there's something about her and her policies that attracts and appeals to these type of people who are white nationalists,
anti-Semites, and Holocaust deniers."
But it's not just The New York Times , of course. No sooner had Clinton finished cackling than the corporate media launched into
their familiar Goebbelsian piano routine, banging out story after television segment repeating the words "Gabbard" and "Russian asset."
I've singled out The Times because the smear piece in question was clearly a warm-up for Hillary Clinton's calculated smear job on
Friday night. No, the old gal hasn't lost her mind. She knew exactly what she was doing, as did the editors of The New York Times
, as did every other establishment news source that breathlessly "reported" her neo-McCarthyite smears.
As I noted in my previous essay
, 2020 is for all the marbles, and it's not just about who wins the election. No, it's mostly about crushing the "populist" backlash
against the hegemony of global capitalism and its happy, smiley-faced, conformist ideology. To do that, the neoliberal establishment
has to delegitimize, and lethally stigmatize, not just Trump, but also people like Gabbard, Bernie Sanders, Jeremy Corbyn and any
other popular political figure (left, right, it makes no difference) deviating from that ideology.
In Trump's case, it's his neo-nationalism.
In Sanders and Corbyn's, it's socialism (or at least some semblance of social democracy).
In Gabbard's, it's her opposition to the Corporatocracy's ongoing efforts to restructure and privatize the Middle East (and
the rest of the entire planet), and their using the U.S. military to do it.
Ask yourself, what do Trump, Sanders, Corbyn, and Gabbard have in common? No, it's not their Putin-Nazism it's the challenge they
represent to global capitalism. Each, in his or her own way, is a symbol of the growing populist resistance to the privatization
and globalization of everything. And thus, they must be delegitimized, stigmatized, and relentlessly smeared as "Russian assets,"
"anti-Semites," "traitors," "white supremacists," "fascists," "communists," or some other type of "extremists."
Gabbard, to her credit, understands this, and is
focusing attention on the motives and tactics
of the neoliberal establishment and their smear machine. As I noted in
an
essay last year , "the only way to effectively counter a smear campaign (whether large-scale or small-scale) is to resist the
temptation to profess your innocence, and, instead, focus as much attention on the tactics and the motives of the smearers as possible
." This will not save her, but it is the best she can do, and I applaud her for having the guts to do it. I hope she continues to
give them hell as they finish off her candidacy and drive her out of office.
Oh, and if you're contemplating sending me an email explaining how these smear campaigns don't work (or you spent the weekend
laughing about how Hillary Clinton lost her mind and made an utter jackass of herself), maybe check in with Julian Assange, who is
about to be extradited to America, tried for exposing U.S. war crimes, and then imprisoned for the remainder of his natural life.
And, if Katharine is on holiday in Antigua or somewhere, or having tea with Hillary in the rooftop bar of the
Hay-Adams
Hotel , you could try Luke Harding (who not only writes and publishes propaganda for The Guardian , but who wrote a whole
New York Times
best-seller based on nothing but lies and smears). Or try Marty Baron, Dean Baquet, Paul Krugman, or even Rachel Maddow, or any
of the other editors and journalists who have been covering the Putin-Nazi "
Attack on America ," and keeping us apprised of who is and isn't a Hitler-loving "Russian asset."
Ask them whether their smear machine is working... if you can get them off the phone with their brokers, or whoever is decorating
their summer places in the Hamptons or out on
Martha's Vineyard
.
Or ask the millions of well-off liberals who are still, even after
Russiagate was exposed as an enormous hoax
based on absolutely nothing , parroting this paranoid official narrative and calling people "Russian assets" on Twitter. Or never
mind, just pay attention to what happens over the next twelve months. In terms of
ridiculous official
propaganda , spittle-flecked McCarthyite smears, and full-blown psychotic mass Putin-Nazi hysteria, it's going to make the last
three years look like the Propaganda Special Olympics.
* * *
C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and political satirist based in Berlin. His plays are published
by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing (USA). His debut novel,
ZONE 23 , is published by Snoggsworthy,
Swaine & Cormorant Paperbacks. He can be reached at cjhopkins.com or
consentfactory.org .
... ship had hit the lies-berg at whopping 65 knots, thus sustaining a massive,
catastrophic damage... The $hit has hit Hillary's email server's cooling fan in earnest and
we are tankin' faster than the consumer confidence index.
Please proceed to evacuate in orderly fashion along the decks toward the ship's stern,
where you will be able to board the lifeboats. Bill and Chelsea, Debbie Wasserhead-Schulz,
Donna Crayzille, George Sorosh, Madeleine Nobright and yours truly will have the boarding
priority, followed (in this particular order) by the filthy rich Wall Street investors,
followed by hedge-fund managers, followed by Saudi princes and princesses, followed by
Hollywood celebrities, followed by Islamic mujahedeen, followed by media cronies and
kneecap-smashers, followed by IMF and World Bank officials, followed by the skulls &
boners, followed by the illuminati, followed by world's tyrants and mass-murderers, followed
by neoliberal and neoconservative cabal, followed by the military-industrial lobby, followed
by the prison lobby, followed by the global kleptocracy, followed by the globalist mafia,
followed by Blackwater officials, followed by Bhig Phat Pharma, followed by Academia
sycophants, followed by the MTV, CNN, CBS and other fake news, followed by assorted humanists
and "philanhropists", followed by Cher and Barbra Straisand and finally, followed by Barack
and Michelle, Chuck & Nancy and Adam "Shifty" Schiff & Johnny Bolton. The remaining
rats and rodents can simply jump the ship, no boats needed.
Women and children last.
For your listening pleasure, the band will continue to play "Some Enchanted Evening" until
the last rodent is safely evacuated.
So, it looks like that's it for America, folks. Putin has gone and done it again. He and his
conspiracy of Putin-Nazis have "hacked," or "influenced," or "meddled in" our democracy.
Unless Admiral Bill McRaven and his special ops cronies can ginny up
a last-minute military coup , it's four more years of the Trumpian Reich, Russian soldiers
patrolling the streets, martial law, concentration camps, gigantic banners with the faces of
Trump and Putin hanging in the football stadiums, mandatory Sieg-heiling in the public schools,
National Vodka-for-Breakfast Day, death's heads, babushkas, the whole nine yards.
This post generated over 2K comment on zero hedge...
Looks like Tulsi masterfully capitalized on Hillary mistake. after Russiagate the change of being Russian agent does not have the
same byte as before and now can even be played to one's advantage as a sign of anti neoliberal establishment orientation. Which is what
Tulsi did.
Tulsi would be a powerful Secretary of State I think, if she did not win the nomination...
Notable quotes:
"... "If you stand up to the rich and powerful elite and the war machine, they will destroy you and discredit your message... ," says Gabbard, who said she's suffered smears " from day one of this campaign. " ..."
"... Great! Thank you Hillary Clinton," Gabbard tweeted late on Friday afternoon. " You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally come out from behind the curtain ." ..."
"... "From the day I announced my candidacy, there has been a concerted campaign to destroy my reputation. We wondered who was behind it and why. Now we know -- it was always you, through your proxies and powerful allies in the corporate media and war machine, afraid of the threat I pose." Gabbard added. ..."
"... And now, Gabbard has capitalized on Hillary's hubris and unchallenged conspiracy theory to fundraise and increase her visibility. ..."
"... For comparison, a real protest looks like Gilet Jaunes. Some people started protesting because they are being disenfranchised by their own government. They were already in real pain long before Macron went backward on all his campaign promises. ..."
"Toe The Line Or Be Destroyed": Tulsi Gabbard Dismantles Establishment 'Hit-Job' In Viral Video by
Tyler Durden Sun, 10/20/2019 - 16:57 0 SHARES
Tulsi Gabbard unleashed her latest counterattack to the establishment hit-job against her, after Hillary Clinton suggested she's
an Russian asset.
"If you stand up to the rich and powerful elite and the war machine, they will destroy you and discredit your message...
," says Gabbard, who said she's suffered smears " from day one of this campaign. "
In a Sunday tweet accompanied by a video which has nearly 450,000 views on Twitter (and 18,000 on YouTube) as of this writing,
Gabbard writes "Hillary & her gang of rich, powerful elite are going after me to send a msg to YOU: "Shut up, toe the line, or be
destroyed." But we, the people, will NOT be silenced."
Hillary & her gang of rich, powerful elite are going after me to send a msg to YOU: "Shut up, toe the line, or be destroyed."
But we, the people, will NOT be silenced. Join me in taking our Democratic Party back & leading a govt of, by & for the people!
http:// tulsi.to/take-it-back
Last week, Clinton told Democratic operative and podcast host David Plouffe that "Russians" were "grooming" a female Democratic candidate
- clearly referring to Gabbard.
"I'm not making any predictions but I think they've got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are
grooming her to be the third-party candidate," Clinton said, in apparent reference to Gabbard, a Hawaii Army National Guard major
who served in Iraq. " She's the favorite of the Russians. They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so
far. "
Great! Thank you Hillary Clinton," Gabbard tweeted late on Friday afternoon. " You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of
corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally come out from behind
the curtain ."
"From the day I announced my candidacy, there has been a concerted campaign to destroy my reputation. We wondered who was
behind it and why. Now we know -- it was always you, through your proxies and powerful allies in the corporate media and war machine,
afraid of the threat I pose." Gabbard added.
And now, Gabbard has capitalized on Hillary's hubris and unchallenged conspiracy theory to fundraise and increase her visibility.
People are seeing entirely too much into this. Seriously this is nothing but some crazy old crone, extremely jealous of someone
else and wanting revenge, honestly all I see is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrUEjpHbUMM
. No political scam, not grand strategy, just a really jealous vengeful old crone, HRC can see Tulsi Gabbard winning and in infuriates
her, fills her with jealousy fueled rage, Tulsi in every way better than Hillary, smarter, more popular, prettier (never forget
this can really freak out women) and younger (ohh the rage) and HRC blames Tulsi and Jill for HRC's arrogant public failure.
History will think extremely poorly of Hillary Rodham Clinton, extremely poorly.
Consider what is occurring here. Citizen Hillary has started a media circus with 1 of the 12 - or is it 16? - "candidates"
the spy infested DNC is fielding. The C_A MSM mouthpieces are shilling this white noise, blocking out any more important, more
difficult reporting if not analysis of world events they don't want in the news.
World Events like the Clinton, Obama, Biden, Kerry, Pelosi, Feinstein and Schiff scandals in Ukraine and China, how
well things are going in Syria and who the real villains there have been, how well negotiations are going with China, how the
Syrian refugee crisis is being settled in the best way for all concerned and how the C_A plan to start WW3 has been exposed.
The C_A can repeat this op another 11 Times. This is good because they are lazy and stupid, but even so you can expect them
to **** it up in some way every time. Evil has recruiting problems. Remember Hillary laughing about obliterating civilization
in Libya. Remember the corpse of Gadafi being dragged through the street by her mercs. Remember who stole Libya's gold, and Ukraine's
gold.
Consider all these "best" pictures of Gabbard. The method is obvious: Don't listen to the pettiness and low news value of this
PR stunt, just look at the cutie. This fits the media op signature of the Tavistock faggots on loan to Soros. Here are a few more:
BLM: Look at us. We all black! Don't listen to our demands, we still working on them, but whoever you are we coming for your
stuff.
Antifa: Look at us. We all revolutionaries! We like to rumble! Don't listen to our message. We don't have one. We're really
a lot of fun. Come to us, children, or we'll mess you up.
Naked woman protests: We are women! Every day we pretend to be smart but we're really emotionally unbalanced fools! REEEEEE...
Our message is, we need to be taken care of like babies. When you take off your clothes to protest, you've already lost.
For comparison, a real protest looks like Gilet Jaunes. Some people started protesting because they are being disenfranchised
by their own government. They were already in real pain long before Macron went backward on all his campaign promises. The
government of France has been bought and paid for from top to bottom by a few rich Jews and they are destroying civilization just
like Hillary did Libya, only they are in the subversion stage. The bombing is still to come. If you doubt me, dig for stories
about who Macron is meeting with, who he takes orders from. This is a peek into the real criminals behind the current form of
the EU. Thousands of people in the street. A few big protests got the imagination of the world, giving Macron ulcers. Good. They
got solidarity. Then Macron started sending in the thugs and gestapo. Then he sent in EU troops suited up for urban warfare. Both
the optics and the message of this are devastating to the cabal, worldwide.
IMO the best thing to do is to follow this circus and all that follow loosely. If you can't turn it around on them, for instance
pointing out that Gabbard is CFR and her positions are folly, do not give it the clicks (((they))) expect. At least screw up their
stats, make their psychological warfare "experts" lose their jobs or at least work day and night to keep up, until they melt down
in pools of their own saliva.
What this stunt is, is "opening a second media front". They created this meaningless drivel to hide the news that is favorable
to Trump and good for everybody in the world, and bad for the cabal. This is all they got. This is the best they can do. They
have nothing to offer but lies, threats and tyranny. As Hillary said, her policy is to keep them dumb, keep them poor and keep
them hungry. They are all gangsters.
Consider how cheap it is to do an op like this. That is the signature of the DS. They like cheap ops because they can do so
many.
The best we can do is open second fronts right back at them. Expose errors, omissions and lies in their fake news, as well
as what their lies are meant to conceal. It is fun to watch when the first slavos of their campaigns immediately fall apart and
get thrown back at them. Sometime real news gets out.
Tomorrow is the Canadian election. It will be a good message to them if Trudeau gets destroyed.
Brexit deadline is coming up. Pelosi swore that if they Brexit she will do all the crimes she can to obstruct US-UK trade.
Pretty sure she used up whatever stolen credibility she had with that admission of lawless tyranny.
Point is, Brexit will have a significant meaning to Americans and gangsters like her will be in the spotlight. We want good
will and trade with the UK. If this is obstructed, Pelosi has already said she's responsible and obstructing trade will have criminal
consequences on the US side. Learn all you can, keep track and if you get the chance, share any damning facts you find.
Only a few months ago, the Democrats' drive to the White House began with the loftiest of ideals, albeit a hodgepodge from trans
toilet "rights" to a 100 percent makeover of the health care system. It is now all about vengeance, clumsy and grossly partisan at
that, gussied up as "saving democracy." Our media is dominated by angry Hillary refighting 2016 and "joking" about running again,
with Adam Schiff now the face of the party for 2020. The war of noble intentions has devolved into Pelosi's March to the Sea. Any
chance for a Democratic candidate to reach into the dark waters and pull America to where she can draw breath again and heal has
been lost.
Okay, deep breath myself. A couple of times a week, I walk past the
café where Allen Ginsberg, the Beat poet, often wrote.
His most famous poem, Howl , begins, "I saw the best minds of my generation
destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked." The walk is a good leveler, a reminder that madness (Trump Derangement in modern
terminology) is not new in politics.
But Ginsberg wrote in a time when one could joke about coded messages -- before the Internet came into being to push tailored
ticklers straight into people's brains. I'll take my relief in knowing that almost everything Trump and others write, on Twitter
and in the Times , is designed simply to get attention and getting our attention today requires ever louder and crazier stuff.
What will get us to look up anymore? Is that worth playing with fire over?
It is easy to lose one's sense of humor over all this. It is easy to end up like Ginsberg at the end of his poem, muttering
to strangers at what a mess this had all become: "Real holy laughter in the river! They saw it all! the wild eyes! the holy yells!
They bade farewell! They jumped off the roof! To solitude!" But me, I don't think it's funny at all.
But its not just the US that is a war machine. Bourne's statement equally applies to _all_
states everywhere, past present and future.
If any state appears to not be making war on other countries at any particular time,
its only because it is too busy making war on its own citizens [ eg taxes, drug laws,
weapons/gun laws, religion laws, speech laws, environmental laws etc.etc. etc.], and has not
yet created enough fake money via its central bank to enable it to debt-fund consistent
overseas aggressions against others.
Wars by the US will never end because arms manufactures own Trump. Almost one half of the
US budget goes for the security of the state, domestic and abroad. New weapon development
would come to a halt if the US was not threatened. Fake news about China and Russia planning
to attack the US keeps the arms industry humming. Over a million national security workers
and their families would be devastated if Trump stopped fighting fake wars. God bless
imagined threat of wars.
This has strengthened the possibility of the revival of the Islamic State in Iraq and
the Levant (ISIL or ISIS). There are around 10,000 such ISIS fighters currently lodged in
prisons run by the SDF.
And with this, "the war on terror" is guaranteed to go on, and on, and on..
Just in case you hadn't heard the good news, the last man from the president's foreign
policy "team" still standing, Trump whisperer Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, recently left
National Security Advisor John Bolton in the dust.
June 27, 2018 Harvard Research Scholar Explains How America Created Al-Qaeda & The
ISIS Terror Group
It's truly amazing how much the consciousness of the planet has changed within the past 5
years alone, and it's not just happening within one topic, but in several different areas
ranging from health to geopolitics and everything in-between.
What Trump wants to do and what he can do are two very different things. The MIC/Zionist rot
in DC is way too deep and entrenched for any one man to tackle.
Trump could make all his Schiffty problems go away by bombing Iran. Overnight, the man
would be lauded as the president we need and that aging hack Pelosi would suddenly drop that
phony impeachment hearing.
Trump is finding out that when making foreign policy, the safest route to take is to first
ask, "Is this good for Israel?"
I have always contended that the best way to use Trump is to support his ego. Let's
inundate him with praise for withdrawing from the Kurdish/Turkish quagmire. Sure, he hasn't
vacated Syria yet, however, he has no choice but to vacate or be evacuated. His ego will
opt for the former
@DESERT
FOX Exactly, with thousands of ISIS,ISIL(American/Israeli proxy forces)types now being
freed due to Turkey's incursions into Syria, these "rebels" will be free to re-group and
fight another day. Hence the need for American forces to STAY deployed in the Area. This is
nothing more than a distraction move by Trump, which will result in the opposite "intended"
actions of American forces being withdrawn from Syria. This will also guarantee the "need"
for a strong Soviet presence in Syria.
America/Israel/Russia have always wanted the partitioning of Syria, the only point of
contention between America/Israel and Russia was whether Assad was to be forced from power or
would be allowed to remain President as a puppet of Putin and the Russians. Syria was to
never remain a sovereign nation.
The US still hasn't acknowledged the Armenian Massacre by the Turks. Why should it care
about Kurds. US is the nation that said killing 500,000 kids in Iraq was worth it.
Syria, Iraq, Libya are now less of a threat to Israel than ever before so that is a kind
of peace.
Not really. All are still standing and not under US control. Iraq now leans even more
toward Iran and Syria toward Russia ..and that outcome in these countries has made Israel's
goal of destroying Iran much harder and less likely .
The curtailment of the Kurds, Israel's long time friends and proxy , is another blow to
Israel's plot.
It appears to me that Putin's idea is to force everyone back into their own countries and
borders .he may have shared that plan with Trump and that may have resulted in turning Turkey
loose to do that job.
@WJ
Right. But as Giraldi always points out, Trump almost attacked Venezuela. He said mean
words and rattled sabres! As opposed to Obama, who said no mean words ('cause he upheld the
"dignity of the office") but sent the fighter jets into Libya and turned that country from a
stable, secular regime into a human trafficking warzone. And also got an ambassador killed.
Here are some of Giraldi's gems from April 2011:
Libya is a humanitarian mission
it [the invasion] has no clearly stated objective except to protect Libyan
civilians
it is now clear that the rebels do not have any military organization to speak of and
Gaddafi has the whip hand
Nice analysis there, Mr. CIA lifer and Obama lickspittle. I can only assume Giraldi was
part of the crack CIA team of Sovietologists who were utterly blindsided when the Soviet
Union broke up. It's amazing how much slack he's given around here for his anti-Israel stuff.
It's like Teflon for him.
@Priss
Factor Agree, and the ZUS has killed millions in Iraq and Afghanistan and Libya and
Syria, for their zionist masters, the only lives the ZUS cares about is zionists.
@NoseytheDuke
The only question you failed to address is what was the true motives of Putin's intervention
into the whole mess. A few good points:
As in Ukraine, Putin will stay in Syria until it no longer suits him. He has no
long-term strategic goals beyond creating chaos and weakening the alliances of the free
world wherever possible. This allows him to play the big man on the international stage, an
essential element of his domestic appeal. 24/7 propaganda and Soviet nostalgia have turned
Putin's invasion into a domestic hit in Russia. In contrast, Russians have no interest in
Syria or Assad, but who cares what they want? Unlike the leaders of Europe, the U.S., and
other democratic countries, Putin doesn't have to worry about how popular his foreign
adventures are at home. There are no checks and balances in the Russian government, no free
media to criticize him, and no popularity polls that matter more than ranks of well-armed
riot police.
Licks for Giraldi: Giraldi has been careless but not where he lists Trumps lies about ending
'silly' wars. from what Trump has actually done compared to what he says about ending
America's wars he is a liar of clear and complete proportions
"the military the only real source of pride the only thing Americans feel they excel at"
An insightful point. Politicians support the military and its deployments for economic
reasons, but the support of the public might derive from "what else is there?" Examples of
institutional and private-sector failure abound in the news over recent years, and every day.
The Boeing Max. The hotel collapse. 250,000 deaths per year from medical negligence. Power
shutoffs. Useless college. The dive boat. A relaxed performance standard. The demise of
meritocracy and rationality. During Katrina, every agency except the Coast Guard went into
gridlock. There are remaining islands of expertise, but the unraveling is contagious.
The dirty, filthy hand of the Jew is all over America's Mideast policy. Israel backs ISIS in
Syria with weapons. The Israeli-Occupied Government in Washington D.C. has even protected
ISIS in Syria at times. The Jew-owned media gives no credit to Iran and Russia for defeating
Jew and American-supported terrorists inside Syria. Now the Jew-owned government is aching
for war with Iran, which is not a threat to Gentile America.
The goal was to topple Assad. Remember Obama? Assad must go? Assad and the Assad regime
are still there. The losers are the U.S., Israel, Saudi Arabia and Turkey.
Replacing Assad was an Globalist goal, heavily pushed by Erdogan. We also remember the
failed presidency of Barak Hussein that never represented the citizens of the U.S. So it
would be more precise to say that:
-- George Soros, Erdogan, Obama, Wahhabism, and the Globalists are losing.
-- Putin, Trump, Assad, and Populism are winning.
The real test will be Putin getting all other foreign troops & proxies to leave. The
Globalist agenda is to keep the fight between Iran (Shia) and Turkey (Sunni) going, when they
both leave combatants in Syria. Hopefully, Putin will be able to fully rout the Globalists
and move out both Turkish and Iranian agitators.
@Johnny
Walker Read Maybe you don't know who the author of that article is .Garry Kasparov
Kasparov might be great at chess but in Russia he was big fail as a politician .couldn't
get any votes on his campaign to make Russia like America. He went into a self-imposed exile
in the West. claiming Putin ruined his political campaigning.
Now everything Putin does infuses all Kasparov's punditry
Kasparow's love for Bolton should clue you to what he is about.
Garry Kasparov (@Kasparov63) · Twitter
As I said about Bolton entering the Trump admin nearly 3 years ago, you may not agree with
his views as much as I generally do, but he puts US interests first, not Trump's. Can't say
same about Pompeo & the rest.
31 mins ago
The short story on Syria, Turkey, USAISRAEL, Russia –
Turkey-Syria offensive: Russia vows to prevent clashes with Assad forces
BBC
Takeaways
THEN .
"When the US decided to equip and train Syrian Kurds, as well as some Arabs, to fight IS,
they were aware of a potential problem, that their would-be Kurdish allies were regarded as
terrorists by their Nato ally, Turkey. Washington turned a blind eye to a problem that could
be kicked into the future. Now the future is here, and it has blown up."
NOW .
"On Sunday the Kurds announced a deal with the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad,
agreeing that its troops could advance into the zone that had not been controlled by Damascus
since 2012, right up to the border with Turkey. That is a big victory for the regime. The
troops moved quickly out of bases they maintained in the north-east. Assad loyalists dug out
regime flags.
It was a disastrous day for American Middle East policy. The alliance with the Kurds, and the
security guarantee safeguarding their self-governing slice of Syria, gave the Americans a
stake in the war's endgame. It was also a way of pushing against the backers of the Assad
regime: Russia and Iran. The departure of the Americans, and the advance of the Syrian army,
are victories for them too.
European governments, rattled in the way that happens when the problems of the Middle East
come knocking at their doors, are calling on Turkey to stop the offensive. Some Nato members
can see a nightmare scenario unfolding, with Syria, backed by Russian power, potentially
facing off against Turkey, a fellow Nato member. The Russians say they are in regular contact
with Turkey. But in a fluid, violent theatre of war. the chances for misperception, mistakes
and escalation are always present.
Perhaps what has happened in the last week simplifies the endgame of the Syrian war. Two
major players, the Americans and the Kurds, look to be out of the picture. And President
Assad, along with his allies from Russia and Iran, continue to solidify their victory in
Syria's catastrophic war."
WHAT IS BEING LEFT OUT OF THE CURRENT COMBING THRU THE ASHES OF THE SYRIAN WAR IS THE FACT
SAUDI STARTED THE WHOLE FUCKING SYRIAN WAR.
The discussion, if one might even call it that, regarding the apparent President Donald
Trump decision to withdraw at least some American soldiers from Syria has predictably
developed along partisan, ideologically fueled lines.
Not too sure where this partisan line is, Dr. G.
It looks like they're screeching from both sides of the isle.
Both powerful Republican Liz Cheney and Hillary called the pull out "sickening".
While Republican Senator Rand Paul applauds the decision, Tulsi Gabbard condemns it.
As for 'ideological', we all know that ideologically, the vast majority of all
congress-critters (99+%) from both sides of the isle, are motivated by the ideology of
doing "what's good for the Jew$"
NATO agreement stipulates that if an alliance member is threatened, other members must
support it in its defense. Turkey has not made that claim, but it is completely
plausible that it should do so .
Are you joking, Dr. G?
Hasn't Turkey been engaged in waging an aggressive war on Syria these last few years?
Wouldn't Turkey demanding military aid from NATO, (for a "threat" from the Kurds or
Syria), amount to the US demanding NATO aid for a "threat" from Iran?
IOW, it's Turkey that has been the murderous aggressor, and the Kurds and Syrians their
victims. Not to mention that Turkey's military could make mince-meat out of the Kurdish
"threat" in a New York minute.
So it seems to me that the only thing holding Turkey back, is orders from the ZUSA and
Russia. Russia is certainly a large part of this equation, IMHO.
did not understand the Turkish mindset regarding the Kurdish threat, which they regard
as existential.
'Existential'?
Would a limited autonomy Kurdish state on Turkey's southern border, perhaps incorporating
a small swath of Turkey, be the end of Turkey's existence?
When Nazi Germany invaded Poland, the world demanded that Germany sacrifice some of its
territory as recompense for its aggressive military imperialism.
If I were in a position to do so, I'd hand Syria a slice of Israel's and Saudi Arabia's
and Turkey's territory – as a punishment for their depraved attacks on an innocent and
unthreatening Syria.
Definitely the Hatay province, which arguably belongs to Syria anyways.
I'm sure Turkey would call that an existential! calamity, but I'd tell them 'karma's a
bitch'.
Finally, there is one other important issue that should be observed. Donald Trump's
actual record on ending useless wars is not consistent with his actions. He has sent more
soldiers to no good purpose in support of America's longest war in Afghanistan, has special
ops forces in numerous countries in Asia and Africa, has threatened regime change in
Venezuela, continues to support Saudi Arabia and Israel's bloody attacks on their neighbors
and has exited to from treaties and agreements with Russia and Iran that made armed
conflict less likely. And he has five thousand American soldiers sitting as hostages in
Iraq, a country that the United States basically destroyed as a cohesive political entity
and which is now experiencing a wave of rioting that has reportedly killed hundreds. Trump
is also assassinating more foreigners using drones based mostly on profile targeting than
all of his predecessors. These are not the actions of a president who seriously wants to
end wars
I remain you most loyal fan, Dr. G. But I confess this sounds to me like you think the
situation above started on the day of Trump's inauguration.
He inherited those things by the former ZUS regimes.
He has tried over and over again to disengage, only to be dragged back by the screeching
from the members of his own party. Not to mention the ((media)).
There are a lot of reasons to condemn the actions of Trump. The Golan Heights, for
instance. But it seem glaringly obvious to me at least, that Trump is not ideologically
committed to Eternal Wars.
As you put it, he threatened regime change in Venezuela.
He wanted to have talks with the Taliban, (and the whole deepstate and their ((media))
screeched)
He "continues to support Saudi Arabia" but as Pat Buchannan points out.. "The Saudis
got the message when the U.S., in response to a missile and drone strike from Iran or
Iranian-backed militias, which shut down half of Riyadh's oil production, did
nothing.
Said Washington, this is between Saudi Arabia and Iran."
And he has five thousand American soldiers sitting as hostages in Iraq, a country that
the United States basically destroyed as a cohesive political entity and which is now
experiencing a wave of rioting that has reportedly killed hundreds
You really do make it sound like all that is his fault.
I love your work Dr. G. And consider you one of the very best, most honorable and most
courageous writers out there.
But I confess, (like so many others!), it seems like to me that you have an irrational,
personal hatred for Donald Trump that colors your perspective.
IMHO.
I didn't have time to write this response well, have to go. Hope it's not too off
base..
@animalogicMore information on Trump & drone attacks would be useful & welcome.
There is a gigantic problem in America. It makes us dysfunctional. Certain news cannot get
to the American people.
Everyone in the know gets it – do not go to the NY Times with anti-Israel news. Do
NOT buck the AIPAC agenda – period. The darkest element of the ADL will be at your door
within minutes. The US government will soon follow.
It is obvious – when it comes to Jew matters, US government employees fear for their
jobs, if not their lives. Same for the MSM.
US President Donald Trump has lambasted American broadcaster ABC News for airing a video from
Knob Creek Gun Range in the town of West Point, Kentucky, claiming that the network used
footage from the facility to depict a Turkish attack on Kurdish civilians in northern Syria.
Trump called the mistake "a big scandal" and "a real disgrace".
"A big scandal at @ABC News. They got caught using really gruesome FAKE footage of the
Turks bombing in Syria. A real disgrace", the president wrote on Twitter early Tuesday
morning.
@renfro
The Crimean Peninsula was annexed by the Russian Federation in February–March 2014.
Despite all the protests about Crimea, the Donbass invasion using asymmetric tactics with
Putin out outright denying responsability, Ukraine is a vital interest for Putin, and he
would have been willing to confront America and Nato there because it is his home ground and
advantage. But Russia is powerful enough to; Putin only went into Syria after Obama decided
not to overthrow Assad. No one particularly cares about Syria and neither do they care about
the Kurds (despite them having as good a case as the Palestinians to be given a state) and
that is why jumped up Turkey can get away with invading Syria and attacking Kurds, just like
they INVADED Cyprus.
This whole thing is probably a a storm in a teacup, but if Turkey gets into trouble they
know, because they were already told very clearly over Cyprus, that if they play Lone Ranger,
Nato does not have their back. Doing something Israel is not happy about and Turkey
threatening to get their own nuclear weapons because Israel has them is not very good
diplomacy from Turkey's point of view. It is begining to experience delusions of its own
importance.
@renfroIt appears to me that Putin's idea is to force everyone back into their own countries and
borders .he may have shared that plan with Trump and that may have resulted in turning Turkey
loose to do that job.
Here is a very good video – Putin being interviewed. They asked him hard questions.
He came across as being very rational.
@steinbergfeldwitzcohen
People! The internet is there for you to verify/debunk any statement you question. Running a
website is a lot of work, why don't you guys collect the information you demand from Mr. Unz,
and share with us?
Or are you looking at others to supply you with ready-made opinions?
@onebornfree
Thanks for the link about Mr.Bourne and you correct about his statement applying to ALL
states.
They are more like progressive, merciful and humanitarian slave owners.
Be free
I wonder why the "high IQ" westerners have never deemed it fit to study their undeniable mass
psychopathy.
If they were indeed as smart as claimed, they would begin to admit it, and given the claim
to their innate highly civilised humanitarian inclinations *cough* , they would come to the
conclusion that this world needs less of their cursed kind.
Since that is not going to happen, I guess nature has its way
@Rev.
Spooner The point he makes is extremely vague. No specificity. None. Yet 10's of
thousands are dead. Ok, how about some evidence.
Why don't you go back to kindergarten, Rev?
@SafeNow
The support of the public for the military derives from constant and pervasive propaganda
particularly through movies and TV shows , David Sirota calls it the "Military
Entertainment
Complex".
Zero Hedge : " Documents expose how Hollywood promotes war on behalf of the Pentagon , CIA
& NSA ".
@Johnny
Walker Read I was making a rhetorical point. I don't think the U.S. can decouple from the
Middle East.
I do, however, think that Trump wants value for blood and treasure.
Long-term, America simply lacks the financial strength to continue to project power. The
MIC costs the U.S. a tremendous amount of money. Budget to the MIC will continue to be
slashed over time. The Deep State in the U.S. will contract simply due to financial
realities.
Israel will be less and less of a priority.
The next financial crisis is already beginning. The U.S. has a massive debt ratio relative to
the Money Supply. It is now 5:1. Good luck with that. It will be needed.
@Whitewolf
Yes, lack of talent and totall inane radical left wing proposals whiped up by the AOC wing
and swallowed by all the candidates 'hook, line and stinker '.
@OscarWildeLoveChild
After JFK's assassination, every successive president is/was shown a film clip of JFK's head
exploding from an angle nobody's ever seen.
It doesn't matter what party they're from; they'll tow TPTB's line. All of them.
US Foreign Policy = Occupied Palestine Foreign Policy.
That's all that's wrong with US foreign policies in a nutshell.
@Bragadocious
Whether he or his father served is irrelevant. Carter was in the Naval Academy, Reagan and
Bush 43 were in the reserves. Clinton had none and neither did Roosevelt, Hoover, Coolidge,
Harding, or Wilson.
What is telling, is the "alleged bone spurs", and "Trump's surname was changed from the
original German Drumpf".
An allegation is an unproven accusation. What Giraldi is stating, is that Trump's physician
falsified records. You think old man Trump sent Donnie for a megadollar military academy
education so he could avoid the military?
As for Drumpf, I was acquainted with a couple of Schmidts who became Smith, a Bryjolfson who
became Byron, a Pachkowski who became Berry and, no one says Roosevelt's name was changed
from Rosenfeld. The snide commentary doesn't help.
I have said all along, that there is a lot not to like about Trump, but let's keep it in the
realm of reality. Whether he wants to end the stupid wars or not, he will never be allowed
to, as long as Giraldi's old employer is in business and making up non-existent bullshit
"threats to American interests", whatever they are.
@Sean
"Doing something Israel is not happy about and Turkey threatening to get their own nuclear
weapons because Israel has them is not very good diplomacy from Turkey's point of view"
Israel is known to puff and bluff . It is grandiose polemic or rabid canine barking. It
was not exposed by the west . But the west now knows it ,thanks to Hizbullah
@anon
Getting women to work had nothing to do with their 'liberation.'
Even though my mom had her own [private] school, my dad's salary was enough to provide for
all 5 of us, go on annual holidays abroad and put three kids through college, loan-free.
To TPTB, it's better to tax 2 people instead of 1.
To them it's just a number game, like the 'Torches of Freedom' gambit, all spiel, smoke
and mirrors, to fool us gullible idiots into believing we do have a say
We should really start to use our guns and rifles to free the country and rid it of the
rot that's smothering it.
Oh, look, another Cartra$$hian selfie butt shot on Instagram!!!!!!
It's very old habit.Very much ingrained . It is also generational . Increasingly and suddenly
religious also as the feckless toothless Evangelicals are rooting for 1 second fame .
But here is a short chronology–
1 Plans for mayhem in Syria have been on the imperial table since the 1950s (Operation
Straggle).
2 US general Wesley Clark gave the game away years ago when he revealed US intentions in
the Middle East after 9/11: seven countries were to be invaded
3 Seymour Hersh gave the game away too in his 2007 New Yorker article: "The Redirection".
In this piece he revealed how the US were hooking up once again with the Saudi/Sunni
fundamentalists in and around Syria.
4 France's ex-foreign minister Roland Dumas also gave the game away when he revealed that the
British State (a definite CIA asset) was preparing for a war on Syria two years before the
start of the Syrian Holocaust in 2011.
"This operation [in Syria]," said the former French foreign minister Roland Dumas in June,
"goes way back. It was prepared, pre-conceived and planned."
As we recently learned from former French Foreign Minister Dumas, it was also about that
time, that actors in the United Kingdom began planning the subversion of Syria with the help
of "rebels"' (Christof Lehmann, Interview with Route Magazine)
Between 2006 to 2010, the US spent 12 million dollars in order to support and instigate
demonstrations and propaganda against the Syrian government. 6,3 million dollars was funneled
to the Movement for Justice and Development, a Syrian dissident organization based in London.
The Movement operated the Barada satellite channel
@Johnny
Walker Read Quote: "America/Israel/Russia have always wanted the partitioning of Syria "
Reply: Kindly allow me to correct your statement.
"America/Israel have always wanted the partitioning of Syria "
Russia has a wet entrance into the Med via Syria.
Perhaps you've dozed off a bit over the past few years, but Russia has been destroying and
killing the FUKZUIS 'war' machine goons in Syria [aka the takfiri terrorist].
They're assisting in getting the country back [on its feet] as a whole again.
@anon
I'll keep it short. You can find the beginnings back in the 2012 coverage.
In 2012 Saudi sent Saudi Prince Bandar to Syria to be in charge of helping Syrian rebels
bring down Assad, an ally of Riyadh's biggest regional rival Iran.
They were originally created, set up and armed and financed by Saudi.
The Saudis were then joined by Israel and Qatari and finally by the US under Obama.
A new twist appeared in the Saudi rebels war with Assad when ISI appeared and joined the
fight.
This scared Saudi shitless as they thought this ISI version of ALQ might be a threat to them
and lead to an invasion of Saudi as ALQ always saw it as a' westernerized' Saudi.
Everyone doubled down on both fighting Assad and fighting ISI ..which was a FUBAR if there
ever was one.
Then enter the proxies, the Kurds, the PPK terrorist group all fighting for their own
agendas within and under cover of the original war on Assad.
What could possibility go wrong in all this? LOL
Then enter Russia. Which gave some pause to the US in how far they wanted to go to throw
Assad out for Saudi and Israel and open a gateway to get Iran.
So now we are headed to the ending of the Saud and others Syrian adventure which is probably
best expressed by the fable of the fox and his shadow.
"A fox arose in the morning and saw his large shadow cast in the morning sun and said " I
will have a camel for lunch today'. The fox hunted all day for the camel without success. As
he paused in the afternoon setting sun he saw his shadow was much smaller and said "A mouse
will do after all."
In 1992, Alexandra Zapruder began to collect diaries written by children during
the Holocaust. These diaries speak eloquently of both hope and despair.
[Alexandra said:] "Anne Frank's diary was the first diary that was published. And her
voice was so powerful that it captured the voices of all the children and all the people
who had been killed. That's the way it's framed. And that by reading her diary and sort of
taking her into our hearts, we could redeem her life. . . ." [US Holocaust Memorial Museum
https://www.ushmm.org/confront-antisemitism/antisemitism-podcast/alexandra-zapruder
]
Alexandra Zapruder is the author of Twenty-Six Seconds: A Personal History of the
Zapruder Film.
Her grandfather was Abraham Zapruder, who took a twenty-six second home movie of President
John F. Kennedy's assassination[1] -- now known as the Zapruder film.( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandra_Zapruder
]
From a strategic point of view it is very noteworthy to observe that Kurdish troops are
fully positioned east of the Euphrates River. The Kurds are allies of Israel and a vital
proxy implemented to fracture Syria along the lines envisioned for Greater Israel (Oded Yinon
Plan).
It is perceived that Russia is an ally of Syria. However, Putin has not prevented Kurdish
troops from establishing themselves firmly within Syrian territory.
Israel along with their diaspora will never relent until their abomination of "Eretz
Yisrael" is achieved. It's not an accident that the ISIS flag is marked "All Jew."
@NoseytheDuke
Washingtonsblog : " Balkanizing the Middle East – The real goal of America and Israel :
shatter Iraq and Syria into many small pieces "
Thomas Harrington : " One of the prime goals of every empire is to foment ongoing internecine
conflict in the territories whose resources and/or strategic outposts they covet "
Sanchez : " Plan B is to Balkanize Israel is endorsing its plan B for Syria just when its
enemies are making it clear that its plan A (Assad must go) is not happening anytime soon ."
Pro-Israel America launched Tuesday endorsing 27 candidates -- 14 Democrats and 13
Republicans. All have long histories of working with the American Israel Public Affairs
Committee to advance the brand of pro-Israel legislation it favors. Its endorsements on its
website praise the named lawmakers for their actions favoring the legislative agenda closely
identified with the lobby: funding for Israel's defense, sanctions on Iran and its regional
proxies, and bills that seek to counter the boycott Israel movement.
They include Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Chris Coons, D-Del.; Rep. Steny Hoyer,
D-Md., the majority leader in the U.S. House of Representatives, and Rep. Kevin McCarthy,
R-Calif., the minority leader; Rep. Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., the chairman of the House Foreign
Affairs Committee, and Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, that committee's ranking Republican.
here are all of them listed .make sure you don't vote for one:
@barr
Blaming Saudi or Turkey or UAE has possibly some validity but as far as far the effect of the
independent move by any of them is concerned , it has less than zero effect on Syria on its
own.
It is like a hypothetical scenario where Florida and Alabama are independent countries .
Rest of America is splintered into 50 different states and Canada is trying to get rid of
Cuban regime for 50 years and only in last 5 years Florida and Alabama have joined the scheme
under dubious circumstances of pressure bribery and blackmail.
@NoseytheDuke
Israel was more powerful and also more favorite of the west across ideological drive until
2003
It is not a normal country . Somewhere that guilt and remorse of stealing and killing have
left a mark on its psyche . It doesn't know how to settle and be normal
It doesn't know the meaning of the power, advantage or gain . The paranoia drives to more
dangerous world of fear and insecurity . It can't rest . Even if it is left alone, he talks
to itself and bangs it head against wall . Recent election is the manifestation of more
madness . It's begging jaunt to Russia and screaming through US media show how badly weakened
the country is.
The countries that bow to Israel – UK, USA, Egypt, Saudi are finding themselves also
badly weakened ,
A seed was planted in 2006 in Lebanon . That tree is growing taller and establishing roots
, Israel will be a shrub hiding in the shadow of that tree in a few years time.
Soviet and Russia were both almost destroyed by Jews . Now they look for the Russian shadow
to hide .
@renfro
A pack of lions can bring down an adult elephant at night when they have the advantage, but
they are careful not to choose a really big strong one. Russia is fighting in the Ukraine its
traditional heartland and what H. Mackinder called the Heartland of the World Island. A
victory in Syria that only came because Obama chose to not crush Assad with a couple of days
of air raids is hardly evidence of the Empire falling.
The real meaning of Trump is the facing of the threat from China, and if the neocons want
to play games in the Middle East so what? There is a fight coming with China and it is a
match for the West led by giant Bull Elephant America, Backward ME shitholes all together
could not take down America in a thousand years.
And what were the Kurds in Iraq called?
Didn't Saddam use some type of gas on them and that's why we were siding with them? Who told
about the incubator babies, maybe some other terrorist group?
@renfro
Mmmm, okay, you must have meant something like 'organized shooting' when you said, "SAUDI
STARTED THE WHOLE FUCKING SYRIAN WAR." Sorry I bit on false advertising.
As you see from 'barr' at #119 above, your starting point is months, years, even decades
too late. For a fact (I've met some of the Syrians who met with Robert Ford in Damascus, now
here and still lobbying for regime-change), the US was meddling, encouraging, prompting the
anti-Assadists well before the 2011 demonstrations.
@Daniel
Rich Putin is not the nice guy we have been told he is. He is in Syria for a reason, and
that is not simply because he wants Syria returned to al-Assad. Syria is only one cog in the
wheel. World wide Communism marches on, if you hadn't noticed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=19&v=4sKxkY0Tz5s
LOL. My favourite rapid US evacuation was the CIA flying off the roof of the Saigon
Embassy while the Viet Kong were busting in through the door and running up the stairs.
who benefits from these wars – isn't it just one small but powerful segment of
America – AIPAC. Isn't it time to call these wars by the honest truthful term –
"AIPAC Wars?"
Except the main beneficiary of these wars is George Soros and his anti-Semitic Globalist
movement.
Soros intentionally orchestrated the ultra-weak, time limited JCPOA treaty to create a
nuclear arms race among Iran, SA, Turkey, and possibly other MENA nations. That way he and
his buddies with MIC investments could profit by selling weapons to all sides.
So let's put in everyone's face with a factual term
Trump confuses tweeting with taking action. How many times has he mentioned 'birthright
citizenship' and then done nothing about it?
A: Every time.
If Trump drives too hard, too early and the case arrives at the Supreme Court while it is
split 5-4 in favor of 'birthright citizenship' Is that a win? Or, a loss?
There is a huge difference between 'failed action' and 'successful action'.
Given the proven hostility of the deep state establishment, it makes a great deal of sense
to lay groundwork now (via tweets), but only launch the correct constitutional action once
the courts are prepared to support it.
With class, Philip Giraldi amused me by his article's mere title, "Trump wants to end the
"Stupid Wars?"
Oh yea! Thanks, Phil , & please continue with offering dashes of intelligent,
dissident, & unflappable humor. Haha. For example, "Trump's surname was changed from the
original German Drumpf and if there were any Drumpfs at Normandy, they were undoubtedly on
the German side."
(Zigh) The insatiable global tag team, M.I.C. and The Land of Bilk & Money , want "Big
Time" and more stupidly unnecessary & immoral wars. (Zigh) One sure path to a 2nd term
for President Bonespur is for him to get off the "low energy" Turkey/Syria skirmish, &
get on with real war against Iran , for Israel.
Thanks, Phil! Fyi, I think Senator Lindsey Graham wants to get Bolton back in The Blue
& White House, and sanction Camp Mar a Lago.
P.S.: For all commenters assembled here, linked below is Stephen Colbert's satiric
covering of President Drumpf's having followed Israel's yonder (fallen) , and establishing a
US Space Force Command! To that, Colbert quipped, "Trump can not join it because of his
galactic bonespur."
@9/11
Inside job Seven Nations to Destroy for the nine eleven false flag. Wesley Clark
mentioned the seven – Iraq, Libya, Sudan, Somalia, Syria, Lebanon, and Iran.
Seven Nations to Destroy for Yahweh's Israel – Deut. 7:1-2 –
Tanakh/OT.
Iraq 2003 invaded Purim – shattered in pieces
Libya 2011 invaded Purim – shattered in pieces
How four other nations on the list that were destroyed.
Somalia –
Since 2006 it has been a mess with Israel/US Al-Qaeda running the show.
Bizarre article about US/Israel terrorists "worried" about the environment.
Somalia-based militant group Al-Shabab has reportedly announced a ban on the use of
single-use plastic bags in territories under its control.
The Al-Qaeda-affiliated organization, which has been blamed for thousands of deaths
since its inception in 2006, dubbed plastic a "serious threat to the well-being of both
humans and animals," the BBC reported, citing Al-Shabab's radio station Radio Andalus.
It even mentions that Osama Bin Laden, the puppet of Israel/US, was "worried" about the
environment too. It makes one wonder if this Climate Change thing and Imperialism terror are
connected.
Bin Laden wrote that Americans needed to save Obama from corporate and other nefarious
influences to empower him to "save humanity from the harmful gases that threaten its
destiny."
He added that the world would be better off fighting climate change than waging what he
claimed was a war against Islam.
Sudan
Divided in two in 2011. Israel/US is pushing for more divisions.
Asked about his demand for protection during his meeting with Putin, al-Bashir said we
wanted to highlight "the big U.S. pressure and conspiracy" on Sudan in Darfur crisis and
the huge pressure exerted on his government to separate the South Sudan.
"Now we have information that the American quest is to divide the Sudan into five
countries If we do not find protection and security. America took the world leadership and
devastated the Arab world. (See) what happened in Afghanistan, what happened in Iraq, what
happened in Syria, what happened in Yemen and what happened in Sudan," said al-Bashir.
Lebanon
Invaded by Israel in the summer of 2006. It made a mess out of Lebanon. Israel had a lot
of trouble fighting off Hezbollah. This is the reason that Israel fears going into Lebanon
again. After this adventure, Golems like US and its friends are the go to for Israel's war
adventures.
Initially, both Israel and Hezbollah claimed victory in the war, with Nasrallah
declaring that Hezbollah had achieved a "divine, historic and strategic victory". Some
international observers saw the fact that Hezbollah had survived the Israeli assault,
despite the asymmetrical power balance, as a PR victory for the group. According to
Reuters, the Lebanese government estimated direct war damage at $2.8 billion, and lost
output and income for 2006 at $2.2 billion. The economy also shrank five per cent, with
tourism effectively halted.
Six of the seven were messed up, destroyed. It leaves only Iran left. Iran is in the
"news" everyday for this reason.
Trump is flawed, ok then, but we had Clinton as the alternative. She would have been ten
times worse so what choice did the American people have? He's rolling up the Obama-Clinton
project in Syria which was a huge atrocity. Can you imagine the bloodbath that would have
ensued had the US backed jihadi cannon fodder actually succeeded in overthrowing Assad? It's
not a one man show and Trump has to go along with much of what has been taking place. Much of
this has been imposed upon the American people as well as on Trump.
The brave Turks have been fighting a thirty year war against the "terrorist" Kurdish PKK. Why
so long? Maybe the Turks oppress them? There has to be a reason the Kurds have been resisting
for so long. But yet the mighty Turks are going to defeat the Kurds of Syria even as they
can't defeat the ones living in their own country? Perhaps they'll take on the inferior
Syrian army at the same time. After all, they're a big NATO ally with lots of weapons to dump
on lightly armed foes. Reality is they haven't fought anyone in a hundred years so who knows
how well they'd do.
Quit calling Afghanistan a "war". It's an occupation with anti-guerilla operations going on.
Apparently they don't like being occupied so they fight on.
Trump's name is Trump, not Drumpf. Or do we now refer to people by the family name used a
hundred years ago, or why not five hundred years ago?
Excerpt from
"Trump Mistake: Allowing Turkish Invasion of Northern Syria"
by Joel Skousen (there is no direct link to it but it is/was on his website World Affairs Brief ):
This week in a telephone conversation with Turkish dictator Recep Erdogan he [President
Trump] assented to Erdogan's demand from over a year ago to let them enter Turkey and
establish a buffer zone where Turkey can resettle the hundreds of thousands of Syrian
refugees that have burdened Turkey since the beginning of the US-created terror attacks on
Syria. But as part of that strategy, and without emphasizing that to Trump, Erdogan intends
to drive out or destroy the Syrian Kurds which occupy northern Syria. Erdogan calls them
terrorists because the US-backed YPG Kurds are affiliated with the homegrown Kurdistan
Workers Party (PKK) which represents about 20% of the Turkish population, and which has
been fighting for independence from Turkey. So while the Turkish Foreign Minister plays lip
service to Syrian sovereignty, Turkey has already begun the invasion and occupation of
northern Syria. While Trump claims he is fulfilling a campaign promise to remove troops
from Syria, this isn't really a pullout at all since only two observation posts in the path
of the Turkish invasion are pulling out. There are thousands of other US troops elsewhere
in Syria protecting US-backed terrorist rebels.
@Johnny
Walker Read H.E. Mr. Putin has clearly stated it's up to the Syrian population to choose
who leads them, not him.
Tartus has a port Russia needs and uses.
Khmeimim Air Base is also needed and used by the Russian AF.
These are military strategic assets and used to counter balance the FUKZUS 'war' machine's
bases dotted around the ME region. Of course, those you don't mention.
No president actually controls the government, least of all Trump. The Deep State controls
the government. Trump is a an interloper. Why does one have to remind the author of this
elementary fact? The threat to destroy the economy of Turkey was made by Stephen Israel
Mnuchin. Trump had to make noises as if it was his "decision" when in fact he had nothing to
do with it. What Trump wants to do, and what he can do, are entirely different things. And
anyone who has anything to do with Americans knows what happened to all the previous allies.
Mnuchin has clued in those Turks who may have had illusions.
@renfro
very bad US is indeed . It continues to sabotage ,cast evil eye,try to strangle ,and continue
to punish Cuba . That long history is really long punctuated by half hearted Obama attempt
.
Once empire decided a project,it becomes , NASA , Present Danger , PNAC or NED . The project
goes on losing the aim . The project goes on because the vested interest
,employees,pensioner,glory seeking men, arm merchant, politicians and expatriate find means
to rake up profit and launder dishonest living into honest lifestyle . Name is changed when
it suits the project . Aim is not lost. It becomes the final destination . It never stops
energegizing the dishonest, looter,profit seekers, and opportunists . Often the brains that
gather under the flag are not that intelligent or ideologically certain.
Money and corruption drive them.
It's truly amazing how much the consciousness of the planet has changed within the past
5 years alone, and it's not just happening within one topic, but in several different areas
ranging from health to geopolitics and everything in-between.
Going broke happens slowly at first, then quickly. The Western cities are going broke, as
are those in the Third World. Nothing else changes peoples minds like having their basic
income reduced or eliminated.
All the promises (including self-governmement and freedom and equality) have turned out to
be lies, smoke. Computers, which were supposed to be a seamless adjunct to human existence, a
source of education and information, and a liberation from the bad parts of part of reality,
have turned into (poor but cheap) entertainment, gossip, a drug substitute, and a propaganda
source. The result is shock and horror, sometimes followed by violent psychosis [1] (e.g.
antifa).
Once again, I recommend "Marat/Sade"
(1967). It gives you a feel for what a revolution is like once the revolution gets going.
Note the movie's final scene, which almost breaks the "fourth wall" convention. It was made
during our last revolution, and the director wanted to record the spirit of what he had
seen.
@Art I
like it, very catchy, original, Art said: "AIPAC Wars."
Oh yea, Art, thanks, and a "spade is a spade" when one manages to get the hell out of the
AIPAC shade.
Unfortunately tonight, millions of process estranged Amerikan Democrat & GOP voters
are now "beamed up" to an AIPAC-approved strange & hostile telescreen's DebateLand.
(Zigh) Across aisle, including a possible Beaming Bloomberg entry, , "winnable" 2020
presidential nomination contestants shall pick & choose, finagle & sell, an either/or
USrael foreign policy posture, as regrettably follows:
1.) The Zio-Democrat War to end the deplorable Trump's stupid call to end all Amerika's
endless Wars just for the paltry good of gradually achieving Greater Israel's unending
endgame. or,
2.) The Zio-GOP's War to end all Democrat Party hopefuls' stupid call to end all US endless
wars just because a lefty AIPAC-Branch put an Israel Labor Party "bug in their ear" about
having lowly dead-ender 'Merikan workers fucking pay for it.
Thanks again, Art, and "Good night America."*
* Phil Giraldi inhabits Sinatra's City That Never Sleeps.
The next financial crisis is already beginning. The U.S. has a massive debt ratio
relative to the Money Supply. It is now 5:1. Good luck with that. It will be needed.
Agree.
And the financial debt must be augmented by degradation of physical infrastructure
(especially in cities and city support infrastructure) and the degradation of human capital
by importation of low IQ populations and effective destruction of education. And the capital
misallocation that continues today.
The world will be surprised at what happens when the US power projection ends, as global
trade will end with it.
The brave Turks have been fighting a thirty year war against the "terrorist" Kurdish
PKK. Why so long? Maybe the Turks oppress them? There has to be a reason the Kurds have
been resisting for so long.
Turkish birth rate low (lower in cities than in hinterlands), Kurdish birth rate high.
Kurds replace Turks in a few decades. Kurds don't follow Turkish cultural norms, nor Turks
follow Kurdish. Kurds don't want to wait a few decades, want power _now_ (c.f. Black Power
and Whiteness in USA). Kurds use destructive commando raides ("terrorism") to get power now.
Turks don't like that, respond with same.
Long term: demography wins barring very large change.
Please correct parts of this that are wrong. I'm not following this conflict closely.
Latest TruNews godcast, E. Michael Jones: The Deception Facing the Church by Christian
Zionism
YT Description:
Today on TruNews, Dr. E. Michael Jones joins us to talk about the influence of modern
Christian Zionism upon the American Church, and how that has led to a dramatic
radicalization of US foreign policy in favor of one nation, Israel.
Prof. Jones takes the deluded xian Zionists to task, calling them "useful idiots." My
favourite passage starts @ 18:58:
.. which means you got a lot of Christians who don't understand the gospel. Because
there are plenty of Christians out there who are Christian Zionists. It's a simple fact of
life. I think it can be traced to Jewish influence in our culture Jewish influence over the
publishing industry, for example. How did the Scofield Bible end up being published by
Oxford University Press? Because it's a great scholarly work? No! Because of people like
Mr. Untermeyer pulled strings. This is the way this happened. It's the biggest issue facing
American politics, right now. The role that Zionism is playing right now, in corrupting the
government of the United States, in diverting American resources into a quagmire in the
Middle East, which doesn't serve the interests of the American people at all and is all
done in the name of Israel.
@Counterinsurgency
I'm kind of having a mental barrier with this now.
There is a guy in Vancouver who predicted the 2008 financial crisis, Jensen I believe (he
wrote to the Bank of Canada and a list of people in 2006). He argues that the fundamentals
are even worse now due to the failure to finance these foreign adventures and other factors
(expenditures on domestic expenses not matching tax income, etc.).
I haven't even taken the time to consider the knock on effects. Mentally, I've been more
focused on having to sit through the screaming match that is going to occur over who is to
blame and the lying that will go on with respect to needing to move to a sound money system
but having bankers et al try to argue for a rollover into a new currency. It is going to be
ugly, I can feel it. It will provide an opportunity for some serious structural change and
constitutional amendments. A whole host of reforms are open when you have a debt induced
currency collapse. I just know it could be really ugly and I've been dreading thinking
through how this will play out. I keep thinking that I never expected to live in a time like
this; I think back to being a teenager during the Reagan years and, despite the Cold
War-nuclear war scenario hanging over our heads, it seemed a much more optimistic time.
I am not optimistic. I'm very worried.
@Robjil
Somalia under a failing Siad Barre regime was going to the dogs with various warlords
cannibalising each other. Then the Americans were told in the flush of victory in the Gulf in
1991, that they should just kick the door in to save the dumb Muslims. It is not the fault of
the late senior Bush that Somalia is compounded of that specimen of humanity that emerges
like clockwork when African tribalism is married to Islamic fanaticism (but is there any
other kind?) . The Americans were minding their own business, but were told that it was the
humanitarian thing (and furthermore quite cheap to boot) to do at little cost to themselves
to save Muslim chillun'.
Afghanistan was no better : The idiot, the younger George Bush instead of bombing the the
hell out of Al-Queda and leaving was instead misled by mystagogues of various hues, including
his own self into sinking lives and treasure in a vain attempt to civilise the Afghans.
The truth is the further you keep away from Muslims, the better it is for your health and
sanity, notwithstanding the parallel machinations of various neocohens, for Islam is a
pernicious religion that breeds insanity, intolerance and bloodshed all by itself.
E. Michael Jones: a very wise man. He believes in free speech and is hated by Jews who, of
course, label him an 'anti-semite'. I would argue they are 'truth averse' fanatical
maniacs.
He makes a good case that 'Christian Zionism' is a heresy. I don't believe he uses that term
BUT I do.
It's just another bubbling that is bursting.
What will they do besides scream and throw tantrums? Is it time for another false flag 911
type event?
What the media never really exposed was how Syria, and every Middle East country that has
been attacked by the DeepStateZio monster, has seen the oldest Christian communities on the
planet under attack. Strange pattern. The rise of Islamic fundamentalism, initiated by the
British alliance with the Wahabi's and the Saud Family and furthered by the CIA/Mossad in
Afghanistan, has corresponded with the destruction and diasporas of the world's oldest
Christian communites.
Somehow, Europe has ended up with a bunch of Muslims when these Christians would have fit
into their societies much better.
I think that none of this just 'happened'. I strongly suspect that if we were to kick over
some rocks we would find the usual suspects: the Khazar/Black Nobility Alliance.
@renfro
How?????????????????????????????????????????
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
I do think it was Mc Cain.
Concerning historically lazy Saudis I am entirely confident that they were only taking care
of payroll.
( I am not entirely confident but there is a possibility that CIA did channel some profits
from Afghanistan poppy fields for this noble cause.
@Counterinsurgency
Quote: "The world will be surprised at what happens when the US power projection ends, as
global trade will end with it."
Reply: Given the vast sums of money set aside to implement China's 1 belt 1 road project,
[IMO] the global dollar trade will turn into a trickle over time, but the global trade will
not nosedive along with it.
Too much a stake for the multinationals [not necessary a good thing, but alas].
Damascus had supported U.S. intelligence operations after 9/11 and it was Washington
that soured the relationship beginning with the Syria Accountability Act of 2003, which
later was followed by the Syrian War Crimes Accountability Act of 2015, both of which were,
at least to a certain extent, driven by the interests of Israel.
It's very challenging to come up with any foreign policy initiatives that do not serve
Zionist Israel's interests, first and foremost. Israeli interests have defined American
foreign policy objectives in the ME for much of the post-WWII era. Not at Israel's behest,
but on Israel's instructions and demands via pro-Zionist lobbies and the infestation of the
Administration with Israel First officials, Israeli citizens and spies. Add to that the
Israel First MSM.
@ivan
Is it methamphetamine instead of regular fentanyl ? Anyway, this logic and perverted emotion
make sense to you. Unfortunately it will reinforce your decision to switch . Business will
sure be coming back from China to rural America.
@A123 I
respectfully disagree on this particular matter. There is no US law bestowing birthright
citizenship. All that would change is recognition of what the law really says.
Trump waiting to win another 4 (still a gamble) AND for RBG's animatronics to fizzle out
AND for her replacement to not be another skunk like Roberts is foolish.
There is no underwater 38th-dimensional quantum chess being played here, and we still have
no wall.
Oops, I posted this under another writer. (Small wonder I got no answer.) Since then, someone
else remarked that at the end of WWI this land (northern Syria) was taken from Turkey. So
this is a long grievance, with deep sense of entitlement.
Rurik wrote, " .the Americans (Obama regime), created ISIS- with the intention that they
use Libya's stolen arms caches to hack and slaughter their way across Syria "
Yes, and that's why I'm skeptical of dumping of Erdogan. How eager was he for this
conflict? Did the Obama CIA promise him N. Syria for his complicity? Doubtless assuring that
Assad would fall quickly! Or maybe they dangled EU membership, if he joined the team.
Maybe Phil can enlighten us:
We know that Robert Ford, US Embassador to Syria, was meeting privately with Syrian "civil
society" activists before the 2011 demonstrations.
-- Was Erdogan/Turkey also involved in infiltrating, inflaming those anti-Assad
elements?
-- How did Turkey involvement begin?
-- Was the CIA actively involved in Syria before the fall of Libya?
C'mon guys.
Using prior military service as some sort of litmus test to the right to critique involvement
and opinion sharing today plays to an audience mentality that encourages blind
patriotism.
There really are no necessary wars these days as they are all being fought for the banker
elite which holds no loyalty to country though it plays on ppl's ignorance to use such
loyalties for propaganda purposes.
There is no justification for US troops to be all over the world as a banker mercenary force
and this site acknowledges 911 was an Israeli- internationalist false flag which removes all
justifications for the meddling in Israeli neighbor's internal affairs.
Tolerating this to get air time with magazines that lie for power is encouraging this
negative behavior for personal advantage in a country and world striving to control the most
minute areas of our lives.
Going along to get along only brings the eternal boot down of the forehead forever@!
The fact that none of these bickering forces are targeting Israel who always was the
catalyst for the divisions there, is a huge clue that we and Israel are the problem causers
primarily. Of course we need false flags to excite the population to support the fake war on
terror within the US and Europe (as well as justify the reverse colonialism going on). Jews
for hundreds of years have counted on stupid goyim to do the fighting but now that Israel is
a supposed stand alone nation, that should be harder to accomplish but apparently total
corporate media control keeps the truth hidden from 85% of the public.
Reply: Given the vast sums of money set aside to implement China's 1 belt 1 road
project, [IMO] the global dollar trade will turn into a trickle over time, but the global
trade will not nosedive along with it.
I actually hadn't thought of that. Now that you point it out, of course the dollar trade
will decrease. Negative interest rates are, in a way, saying that nobody wants US Dollars
anymore, and trades that are not in US Dollars are being actively sought. The decrease will
happen a bit before the USN becomes ineffective. And that will be hard on the
multi-nationals, but I can't say I have much sympathy. They were firmly behind the move of
Western manufacturing to East Asia – what did they think would happen?
But I do disagree over the assertion that global trade will remain about as it is.
The New Silk Road. Interesting topic.
Well, first of all it's a reasonable thing for the PRC to do. Historically, the Silk
Road has paid off for China, at least in terms of precious metals, and being dependent on a
single transportation mode for one's raw materials is strategically undesirable. It's a
good move. It's also an attempt to realize McKinder's proposed making the World Island into
a unified state[1].
But a couple of points:
a) New Silk Road is much more expensive than sea transport [2]. If sea lanes are cut
off, China's raw materials costs increase by several times.
b) New Silk Road recapitulates the interaction of European empires of the 1800s through
1900s with ethnicities along the Silk Road. The Europeans were resented and eventually
ejected. The Chinese are having similar problems.
China has loaned money to various nations which have then spent that money on immediate
consumption and are attempting to repudiate the debt. The Chinese (who have no compunctions
about debt repudiation through currency devaluation) are apparently taking over completion
of the Silk Road facilities for which the natives can no longer pay (having spent the money
on other things). Local rulers are saying that this makes the Chinese foreign invaders (on
a very low level so far). Just like the Europeans.
Chinese society also does not mix well with either Islamic or African tribal society, yet
the Silk Road crosses both cultural territories.
So far as I know, the Chinese takeover of the Panama Canal since the US evacuation has gone
well. Last I heard, a few years back, Panama had started teaching Chinese in its public
schools. Chinese operations in South and Meso America are increasing, however, and I know
little about how they are going.
The nice thing about policed sea lanes is that shippers don't have to worry much about
the natives. Piracy is and has been a problem, but so far not a serious one. New Silk Road
goes overland, and that has (historically) always led to security problems with the locals,
whoever the locals may be.
So: Let's suppose that the USN were to become ineffective. Only the part of the Silk
Road guarded by the Russian Federation would remain secure. The rest would be subject to
local raids and extortion from the local government. Note that raw materials costs would
increase drastically for everybody (because of less shipping), so local governments and
bandits would have motives for confiscating goods.
This would be especially the case in Africa, which is largely dependent on food imports.
That conflict could become severe, as China is increasingly dependent on Africa for raw
materials (as is the rest of the world).
In other words, sole reliance on the New Silk Road (should that ever be necessary) would
be expensive in terms of shipping and in terms of security / warfare costs. China's
bellicose policy is, IMHO, counterproductive. China should be positioning itself to police
the sea lanes cooperatively but reluctantly with a declining USN, gradually assuming the
mantle of worldwide protection of the sea lanes that China needs so badly. Current efforts
to be able to interdict the sea lanes are not in the PRC's interest, as the PRC needs these
sea lanes open. It's sort of like developing a hyperbomb to make the Sun go nova. Under
what circumstances would you use such a device? Under what circumstances would China want
to cease shipping by sea?
So, what's likely to happen? The USN will decline because it needs recapitalization due
to age and a changing threat, and the US is instead devoting its income to debt repayment
and immediate social stability expenditures. The PRC, which has never been a naval power,
will still attempt to keep global trade alive. When that fails, the PRC will trade more
with the Russian Federation It will also take what sea and land it has, make an
expeditionary force out of it, and deploy it in some trading zones (possibly in countries
that have resources China needs) rather than see its population starve and itself
overthrown. That's the standard response from any H. Sap. political organization. Things
will get very messy.
And please remember that I'm like the weatherman: I report, I don't cause.
@Stan
Israel is a shitty little country but its treatment of the Palestinians is side issue for the
West, just as the way the Kurds are treated is unfortunate but hardly our responsibility. A
confrontation with burgeoning China beckons, and America needs to be united. Going off on
tangents to play Santa to peoples who lost the geopolitical game and are without a state
would weaken the West,
@Daniel
Rich What part of BOTH the US and Russia are only there to serve their own
interest don't people understand. My only point is Russia is not there out of the goodness of
their hearts. People who claim Russia is fighting the globalist juggernaut and is only in
Syria to "fight ISIS/ISL" and to make Syria "safe for Democracy" aren't seeing the big
picture. Russia is working hand in hand with China to make sure America is reduced to a
second rate global power. Assad has become nothing more than Putin's puppet on a string.
Syria will need money for re-construction, thanks to Russia destroying much of their
infrastructure, that money more than likely will come from China(China's version of "Economic
Hit Men"). All the while, lurking in the back ground, that little shit stain known as Israel.
This report will present the reality of Russia's Syrian campaign. Russia launched air
strikes on hospitals, water treatment plants, and mosques. Russia used cluster bombs.
Russia almost exclusively targeted non-ISIS targets. These are the truths that Russia will
not admit, and the truths that must be understood when negotiating with Russia as a
potential partner.
It's all about the "Belt and Road Initiative". There are no good guy's in this mess, and
the real losers in this conflict are the citizens of Syria. Russia is a main partner in
"Globalization".
One of the main problems of the People's Republic is to connect the "Belt" with the
"Road". For China it is crucial to be able to bypass the choke points represented by the
straits that separate the South China Sea from the Indian Ocean (Malacca, Sunda and Lombok)
that, being controlled by the US, prevent the Chinese maritime power to fully develop. A
first important asset in this sense is represented by the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor,
which connects by land Eastern China to the port of Gwadar in Pakistan, in turn connected
to the String of Pearls.
Why Syria?
In this perspective, Syria becomes a crucial junction within the BRI: a possible
development of its transport and port infrastructures, properly connected with each other
and with the Belt and Road Initiative, would allow China a further maritime outlet for its
land trade and a formidable trade post in the Mediterranean. A further advantage is
represented by the increased quantity of goods that China could deliver into the
Mediterranean, overcoming the further bottleneck of the Suez Canal.
Syria also has at least two important factors that represent opportunities to be
exploited by Beijing: the country's urgent need to obtain funds to be allocated to
reconstruction and development and the simultaneous disengagement of the United States from
the Middle East, an empty space not filled by the EU. Syria is therefore an extremely
interested and receptive partner to the proposals of the Chinese government, which finds
itself at the same time freed from any diplomatic controversy that could slow down its
action.
@Counterinsurgency
Chinese seem very naive in their willingness to deal with and trust black Africans and other
third worlders to honour deals and not be corrupt, etc. I suspect it will all turn sour for
them eventually.
@Abdul
Alhazred Thank you for that video. I've never been so proud of a U.S. president in my
life, as I was watching that video. He may have been cynically pandering to people like me,
but I don't care. Even if he was pandering, he said what he said.
More on Trump by Shamir's recent article:
What is much worse for Israel, is Trump's intent to leave the region. There is a good
chance you haven't seen relevant tweets of the President, for the MSM doomed to surround it
by the wall of silence. That is what the President said while ordering withdrawal:
"Fighting between various groups that has been going on for hundreds of years. USA
should never have been in Middle East. The stupid endless wars, for us, are ending! The
United States has spent EIGHT TRILLION DOLLARS fighting and policing in the Middle East.
Thousands of our Great Soldiers have died or been badly wounded. Millions of people have
died on the other side. GOING INTO THE MIDDLE EAST IS THE WORST DECISION EVER MADE IN THE
HISTORY OF OUR COUNTRY! Now we are slowly & carefully bringing our great soldiers
& military home. Our focus is on the BIG PICTURE!"
Just for this recognition "GOING INTO THE MIDDLE EAST IS THE WORST DECISION EVER MADE IN
THE HISTORY OF OUR COUNTRY" and for this promise "The stupid endless wars, for us, are
ending!" Trump deserves to be re-elected and remembered as the most courageous and
independent US President since Richard Nixon.
His efforts on withdrawing from the Middle East remind of Nixon's hard struggle to leave
Vietnam and to make peace with Russia and China. If he succeeds in this endeavour, he will
be rewarded by the American people in 2020..
If he succeeds, then he sure will have my support!
One of the main instigators of the Syrian imbroglio – Saudi Arabia – had
been beaten in Yemen and is no longer eager for battle; ditto Qatar and UAE. Europe is less
keen on removing "bloody dictators" than it was. CIA, Jewish Lobby and Clintonite Democrats
would keep Syria boiling, but mercifully they are not in full command in Washington. .
@A123
What is allegedly being built is the same worthless fence. The wall prototypes couldn't
legally be used per a clause in one of the terrible spending bills hastily signed by "Master
Negotiator" Trump.
Better than cacklin' cankles? Yes, but so is my last bowel movement.
Even if we got a real wall, Orangemeister wants legal gimmegrants in record numbers. We
just can't effing win.
Don't you think Trump was a tad premature in announcing "Only I can fix," to all these
problems?
Chinese seem very naive in their willingness to deal with and trust black Africans and
other third worlders to honour deals and not be corrupt, etc. I suspect it will all turn
sour for them eventually.
Every high value PRC project in Africa seems to come with as suspiciously large number of
military age, ethnic Han Chinese staff.
The PRC colonization effort is informed by the lessons of former Euro colonies. They have
built-in measures to make them very hard to displace. And, should they eventually be forced
out, the locals will get nothing but destroyed and poisoned lands.
@geokat62
Know more News with Adam News covers the Christian Zionist story. He is still on you
tube.
Jones was banned from that platform recently. He can still be heard on bitchute as well as
his own website, Culturewars.com
the Americans (Obama regime), created ISIS- with the intention that they use Libya's
stolen arms caches to hack and slaughter their way across Syria "
Yes, and that's why I'm skeptical of dumping of Erdogan. How eager was he for this
conflict? Did the Obama CIA promise him N. Syria for his complicity? Doubtless assuring
that Assad would fall quickly! Or maybe they dangled EU membership, if he joined the
team.
I have a metric that I use.
If a person or action is in anyway aligned with Israel, then that person or action is
suspect, at best.
Insofar as Erdogan has been aligned with Israel and its interests and agendas (the
destruction and carving up of Syria)- is the degree to which he has been a malefactor on the
world's stage.
/
Vs. the degree to which he's opposed to Israel's nefarious agendas;
– he's demonstrated actual statesmanship.
So that's my metric. That's why generally I don't have to pour over the minutia of every
action or issue with a fine tooth comb, rather I just ask, 'is this person or action aligned
with Israel's agenda.. (genocide, theft, murder, hegemony, strife ), and the question always
seems to answer itself!
Just consider the Obama regime. When I approved of what Obama was doing- peace with Iran-
it was when he was in Israel's crosshairs.
When I disapproved of Obama's treasons, it was when his actions were perfectly aligned
with Israel – destruction of Libya, destruction of Syria and so forth.
It really is a near perfect, if not perfect metric.
When Trump is betraying America and Americans, is when he's serving Israel – open
borders, drones, sanctions on Iran and Russia and others..
When he's acting like an actual American president, in the service of this nation, is when
he's in direct opposition to Israel's agenda – ending the Eternal Wars, making videos
about dead American soldiers, firing Bolton, talking about nationalism at the UN..
I'm really sort of waiting for this test to ever fail, it's been so reliably perfect for
so long.
So if you want to know if Erdogan is acting in good faith, just check to see if what he's
doing pleases Israel, and you'll know all you need to know!
Is a Kurdish state a good thing?
Well, what does the 'metric' say?
Is Turkey's incursion into Syria a good thing?
Here, a mouthpiece of Zion posits 'no'.
The Turkish government is no longer interested in helping Syrians liberate themselves
from Assad's murderous regime.
The video is very powerful, and this video linked in this link features Trump's speaking
with attendant images of the families of the soldiers and what they have to go through
.because of the lies of the warmongers.
@Rurik
As Commander in Chief tRump wanted to kill Syria President Basher Assad for having gassed his
own people & having to be restrained by his Generals, Amerikans now see another side to
their president which Rurik observed on video & gushed: "I've never been so proud of a
U.S. president in my life, as I was watching that video. He may have been cynically pandering
to people like me, but I don't care. Even if he was pandering, he said what he said Thank
God. Peace."
Am sincerely glad you're "happy," Rurik, that Trumpstein moved to shed some of his
Adelson/Netantahu skin implants. Nonetheless, & I don't want to be a GOP Likud-Party
pooper, but am sticking with Philip Giraldi's advisory to, "Let's see what he actually
does."
At any rate, linked below (& fyr in ), is Brother Nathanael's latest video. In order
to stave off our nation's descent into Greater Sodom & Gomorrah, it's understandable to
me how Bro Nat prefers "The Chosen One" to continue as ZUS president over his uber-liberal
& decadent Zio-Democrat opponents.
Thanks Rurik, and enjoy the good times of tRump's proclamation of an end to endless wars
for Greater Israel while it lasts!
"Israel is a shitty little country but its treatment of the Palestinians is side issue
for the West . . . A confrontation with burgeoning China beckons"
Israel's overall shiftiness IS not at all a "side issue" to USA, it is at the heart of US
FP dysfunction.
According to the video below, Israel is firmly on board and participating in China's
rise.
The wonderful context is, it's not up to Trump. It's not up to the US government. The world
will squeeze the CIA regime out of Syria. Russian doctrine of coercion to peace works equally
well on degenerate great powers, with the minor filip of face-saving subterfuge for routed US
functionaries.
Lindsay Graham gets to shake his tiny fist ineffectually at a sneering NATO ally instead
of shaking his tiny fist ineffectually at a nuclear power with overwhelming hypersonic
nonballistic missile capability. Much safer.
@Wally
The only way to change this cast of filthy charACTORs we have running this country is to have
a "NONE OF THE ABOVE" box located prominently at the bottom of every ballot. One I
would take the time and effort needed to check.
@Cloak And
Dagger Trump's problem is that he has very little support for his MAGA agenda in his own
party. People like Lindsey Graham who support him here and there will not hesitate to turn on
him if he takes positions that offend Sheldon Adelson. Trump's none-too-sophisticated,
none-too-affluent base is opposed by the media, academe, Wall Street, Silicon Valley, the FBI
and CIA, and the Rainbow Coalition assemblage of minority voices. Even Fox News (apart from
Tucker) opposes Trump's agenda even as it defends Trump against spurious charges of colluding
with the Russians. For example, Hannity regularly charges the Democrats with being in league
with Putin, in effect conceding that the Russians are evil enemies. Yet Trump's MAGA proposal
was detente and friendly cooperation with (now-Christian) Russia.
At the end of the day, the 4D Chess view seems more right than wrong. While Trump's
commitment to the right is both shallow and wavery, in the present setting he cannot do more
than hold the enemy at bay and wait for reinforcements to show up. That means it's up to US,
his supporters, to find ways to weigh in on his side. As the fascists used to say, a bundle
of sticks can be strong even if the individual sticks are weak.
@Sean
My question to you is: a confrontation between who or what and China? To the extent that
America collapses into a post-Christian, post-European congeries of plutocrats and their
commercial interests, such a confrontation has no clear shape. The evolving character of
American society has been put on the table by the Trump/populist revolution, and the role of
Jews in our cultural evolution is part of that even if it is taboo to discuss it. The issue
over the Palestinians is the only way to challenge the successful assumption of moral carte
blanche by the secular Jewish community, which Jewish thought leaders have parlayed into an
effective assault on freedom of speech and assembly (particularly in Europe but also here),
and a campaign to stigmatize whiteness, Christianity, and the nuclear family.
Conclusion: The issue of Palestine is a proxy for the larger issue of whether secular
Judaism deserves its current status as moral hegemon. It is the only way to raise this issue
that is not instantly dismissed as neo-Nazism.
@SolontoCroesus
SolontoCroesus wrote: "Israel's overall shiftiness IS not at all a "side issue" to USA, it is
at the heart of US FP dysfunction.
According to the video below, Israel is firmly on board and participating in China's rise."
To All commenters,
Above, when SolontoCroesus speaks, I listen & learn.
When President Bonespur speaks, it pains to listen, & I can potentially become
deceived.
Will likely get friendly fire from Rurik, but I truly wish he reads your comment &
astutely watches the very informative linked Talpiot video. Hurts when I see good men (like
him) gush while listening to "The Chosen One's" tear jerking words.
Thanks for your patriotic servus, S2C!
P.S.: Behind D.C.'s Blue & White House curtain, Treasury Secretary Mnuchin licks his
choppers in anticipation of effectual ZUS sanctions, & the Chinese communist government's
finally granting Goldman Sachs Group permission to do "untethered" investment business" in
the mainland; the largest consumer market on the planet.
@Sean'Israel is a shitty little country but its treatment of the Palestinians is side issue for
the West, just as the way the Kurds are treated is unfortunate but hardly our responsibility.
A confrontation with burgeoning China beckons, and America needs to be united. Going off on
tangents to play Santa to peoples who lost the geopolitical game and are without a state
would weaken the West,'
As usual you've being dishonest. You agree Israel is a 'shitty little country' -- but
manage to insinuate we should continue to support it.
After all, we don't have to spend a penny to 'play Santa' to the Palestinians (as if we
had nothing to do with their expulsion.). It's the Israelis we subsidize and protect, not the
Palestinians.
In fact, we can help the Palestinians and save money too! Yank Israel off our tit and we
get to have our cake and eat it too. The Palestinians get their home back, and we save
billions every year. All we have to do is to stop funding their tormentors,
If a person or action is in anyway aligned with Israel, then that person or action is
suspect, at best.'
It is always wrong to support Israel.
In 2008, I voted for McCain instead of Obama. I told myself they'd both be equally
supportive of Israel, but I knew deep down inside that was a lie.
I voted for McCain because he wasn't black. That doesn't bother me. What bothers me is
that I allowed some other consideration to seduce me into supporting Israel -- however
trivially and as it turned out ineffectually.
If you establish 911 was a fraud then subsequent war on terror is a fraud. The West will
exhaust themselves waging war against Islam and the Muslims despite killing millions of
people. They will dig their own graves and cast themselves in hell fire for eternal damnation
for subscribing to Santa Claus lies and Jesus died for their evils by supporting the money
changer's ideology for greater Israel project to usher in their Anti-Christ as their Messiah.
Anti-Christ Dajjal will take them for a ride to hell. He will play them "By way of Deception"
just as they are playing the rest of the world "By way of Deception wage wars." So how many
of us are willing to sell our souls in exchange for the worldly gains and pay a penalty for
eternal damnation?
gush while listening to "The Chosen One's" tear jerking words.
"I've never been so proud of a U.S. president in my life, as I was watching that video.
"
Gushing?
Perhaps, I suppose, depending on your definition.
But when's the last time you heard a Z.U.S. president speak of the war dead with
compassion and pathos? Hell, when's the last time you heard them speak of these tragic
victims of American f0lly (treason and war crimes), and their families- at all?
He was saying 'enough of this madness!'
And from what I understand, American troops are indeed vacating Syrian bases.
BTW, leaving for a few days, so keep up the good fight, Brother Chuck!
@Wally
Wally likes to cheap shot P.G., haha, and once again futilely asked him: "Has Giraldi ever
stated which current candidate is his preference vs. Trump?"
Get on the ball, wailing Wall! (zzZigh) Likely, even some knowledgeable CODAH associates
will inform that YOU'LL get what Supremacist Jews give you.
Haha. The Zionized D.N.C. is presently fretting over which Jewish Lobby-approved
presidential 2020 candidate they should give to their "base" voters. Haha. Liberal tribe
chieftains are confident that even Mayor Pete Buttigieg will make incumbent, Trumpstein,
Tweet-out "endless" sweat on election night.
Nonetheless, had Amerika a real choice, , Ron Paul would be my #1 "anti-Chosen One"
alternative. Refer to his article below, wailing Wall?
Yet Trump's MAGA proposal was detente and friendly cooperation with (now-Christian)
Russia.
That's why the NeoCohens hate Putin so much, for re-establishing Russian Christian
Orthodoxy as the 'national' religion. Trump, on the other hand, admires Putin for his
nationalism and wants white Christian Russia to be friends with nominally Christian
America. Unfortunately he must bow down to the Satanic anti Christ power brokers, the Cabal,
that keeps him in power and checks his nationalist leanings. Hopefully he will overcome this
in a second term but I've been saying that about presidents for years!
@ChuckOrloski
Thanks ChuckOrloski.
Undeserved, tho -- I was just being a shepherd guiding the flock to other people's good work,
a practice I learned from your comment style.
I don't want to be in the business of educating you on un-American actions undertaken by
"Z.U.S. presidents." You really know better, but since Jacques Sheete, peace be upon him, is
M.I.A., I will now do my best.
No doubt, Trumpstein is different. Please pause momentarily and consider how he very
recently wanted to sell/provide nuclear weapons systems to Saudi Arabia. Fyi, and lucky for
the entire Middle East's general population, Trump's lack of "compassion" was overuled by
those higher in the ZUS's Blue & White House Lowerarchy. (Note: He ain't "The Decider,"
he is the ever useful & divisive Zion Tweet-Chord)
So given the U.R. Moderator sword is not activated, linked down below, is a joint radio
show, hosted by Dr. David Duke & Ryan Dawson. Ideally, this action will take the job of
trying to educate YOU from off my shoulders, Rurik. No reading needed, & just carefully
listen!
Fyi, Dr. Duke and Mr. Dawson will provide the means by which an anti-Zionist &
patriotic American can resist the evil sway dished-out daily by our "Homeland's" Zionist
Corporate Media. These largely demonized gentlemen/scholars explain how Zionized Republicans
& Democrats are curiously "on the same page" when it comes to humanely protecting the
Kurds.
But when it comes to supporting & defending The Land of Bilk & Money, they unite.
Yippie! On other hand, and when it comes to actually helping the restless & sorry lot of
dumb goyim working Amerikans, they fight like , er, "Tom and Jerry." (Zigh) Why Trumpstein
even moved to kill the underachieving & oft unaffordable "Affordable Care Act," a.k.a.,
Obamacare.
Enjoy your time off, my Brother Rurik, and I suggest, at minimum, partial evacuation from
the dug-in Jewish Corporate Media "bases."
@Rurik'That's a very honest act of self-reflection, Colin.
I voted for Ron Paul, (If I recall, I wrote in his name).
I would have preferred the racist commie to the war mongering scumbag, but only because by
then I understood the nature of McCain all too well '
Now you're reminding me of 2012. Of course, I was going to vote for Obama over Israel's
man-in-the-White House-to-be. An unpleasant choice, but there it was
So my wife and I were down in Alameda at a winery. Somewhat incongruously, the server was
right-wing, and started praising Romney. I stayed tactful, as I didn't want to kill my buzz,
but my wife -- who is easily influenced -- came out of there going 'Romney number one.
Yeah -- I'm going to vote for him!'
In an unusual display of wisdom, I bit my tongue. We'll see how this plays out
You need to understand my wife comes from a poor background. If you want to meet 'the
working poor,' go see her relatives.
So the very next day, Romney comes out with his '49%' remark. It was classic.
@Johnny
Walker Read Right. This happens every so often. I am not recommending de Sade or any of
his works.
I'm recommending the movie:
"The Persecution and Assassination of Jean-Paul Marat as Performed by the Inmates of the
Asylum of Charenton Under the Direction of the Marquis de Sade ", play 1963, movie 1967 [1].
The movie has very little to do with the writings of the original Marquis de Sade [2], but it
does do a good job of showing the spirit of revolutions.
de Sade had a good reputation with the revolutionaries. He was elected a delegate to the
French National Convention, but fell during the Reign of Terror [3]. He really did direct
publicly presented plays at Charenton starting in 1803, but was eventually arrested and
denied paper and pen in 1809. Died 1815, and several large manuscripts were subsequently
burned by his son, who apparently thought that de Sade had done quite enough harm
already.
Insofar as tje video has anything to do with the real de Sade, it is that the director
(fictional de Sade) manages to stage a small revolution himself in the final scene, _after_
demonstrating that the audience is little more sane than de Sade is ("15 glorious years"
scene). As in the link given by Read [4], de Sade acts as the philosophical godfather of
revolution and revolt as an end in itself.
The really pathetic attempt by ABC to pass off Kentucky gun range footage as a Syrian
conflict zone is a good example of the consequences of Congress' horrible 2013 decision
(that you may not have heard of) to totally legalize domestic propaganda. @_whitneywebb
In the age of legal, weaponized propaganda directed against the American people, false
narratives have become so commonplace in the mainstream media that they have essentially
become normalized, leading to the era of "fake news" and "alternative facts."
The bad and ugly shepherds persistently hit vulnerable & trusting Unzers with their
"best shot." For one example, the currently M.I.A. commenter, Maven Sam Shama.
Subsequently, I see no valid reason why intelligent & good men -- like you! -- should
not give their "best shot" and attempt to support & rescue lost sheeple who regularly
appear here.*
* Some lost sheep simply like it that way, and therefore, bad shepherds, for one example,
the featherweight commenter "Sean," get lots of practice at misguiding the flock.
@steinbergfeldwitzcohen
Right, what to do is the question now that everybody has been taken by surprise.
I'd say that the advice "get out of debt, get out of the major cities" is fairly good, and
fairly obvious, and has been so for some time. As to income, I just don't know. You might try
linking up to some group (non-Left) that seems to be cohesive and has _some_ plan of action
that isn't too weird. Under stress, cohesive groups can survive better than individuals.
You might also remember the rule of thumb that prophets can predict either what or when,
but not both. It's obvious that the US in general and cities in particular are in severe
decline, but _when_ the current system will cast off much of the population it now supports
is simply not known. Abandon it too soon and you end up extremely poor, so a sharp break is
extremely risky. I'd say that retiring debt, hardening your house against home invasion, and
finding some group as above, would be about all that would be justified right now. If your
neighborhood is deteriorating, it might be a good idea to go to another one that isn't, since
the deterioration is unlikely to reverse itself. If you're in with an ethnic group that
doesn't like your ethnic group, it might be a good idea to displace, if only to avoid the
unpleasantness.
@jack
daniels The current US system / world order will end within the next decade no matter
what Trump does. Trump is trying to shut it down with minimal casualties and replace it with
something viable, which is a good thing to do, but if Trump were to vanish tomorrow the
current US system / world order would still end within the next decade, maybe two decades if
things went very badly wrong.
Trump has the wind at his back, he's trying to do things that would do themselves (although
not as well) and that's why the appearance of 4D Chess. But, as you point out, Trump leads a
very small force of government officials, and would lose without the strength given by his
supporters. Continued support, in word and in deed, should reduce casualties (to include
Trump and his family) during the current transition.
MEANWHILE, Millions Hungry and Food Insecure in the US
"According to the US Department of Agriculture in 2018, food insecurity affects 37 million
Americans, including over 11 million children -- the numbers likely way understated."
"Around 40 million Americans experience hunger annually."
"At least 15 million US households endure food insecurity."
"Hunger is caused by poverty and inadequate financial resources, a nationwide
problem."
"Around 45 million Americans rely on food stamps, an eroding program providing inadequate
help."
"1 in 6 American children may not know where their next meal is coming from."
"22 million children in America rely on the free or reduced-price lunch they receive at
school, but as many as 3 million children still aren't getting the breakfast they need."
@Rurik
I applaud the sentiment too.
I'm hearing rumours that Trump has put a thousand troops into Saudi Arabia and claimed they
are paying for it.
Is it now America's lot to be not just Israel's but SA's mercenaries?
2020 can't come fast enough. I'd love to see a Trump super majority and some serious
reform.
It's pretty clear the Evangelical Zionist's are Israelis' b@tches.
America, it seems, must not only reclaim itself but also it's religion. EV is a heresy and
the leaders are on their knees f@llating Israel. It is disgusting to watch.
Yes, I agree, having trucks and trains go overland and via various countries comes with
the risk of conflicts erupting between 2 or more states participating in Chinese projects.
China burnt itself badly in Libya, where Hillary " We Came, We Saw, He Died! Haw, haw,
haw " Rotham Clingon ran amok.
China is actively setting up routes via the attic as well, so I think China carefully
weighs all its options, but doing business comes with certain risks, those are
unavoidable.
When I was in Africa [The Gambia and there about], I noticed a lot of Chinese merchandise
being sold all over the place. I heard stories of some Chinese being attacked and/or murdered
elsewhere in Africa, but haven't dealt with any Chinese businessman myself or heard their
stories in person.
Having been on that vast continent doesn't make me an expert whatsoever, but I see Africa
become a huge anchor around the world's neck. Can't use a single brush to paint entire
nations, I know, but what I saw didn't look good.
side note : I didn't live in a hotel with armed guards, I lived in a compound with
Africans, so it's not that I have no up close experience. Furthermore, I was always treated
with kindness, respect and warmth.
"... Abigail Grace, who worked at the NSC until 2018, was hired in February, while Sean Misko, an NSC aide until 2017, joined Schiff's committee staff in August, the same month the whistleblower submitted his complaint . ..."
"... The whistleblower was an NSC official who worked with former Vice President Joe Biden and who has expertise in Ukraine, the Washington Examiner has reported . ..."
"... later emerged that a member of his staff had spoken to the whistleblower before his complaint was submitted on Aug. 12. The Washington Post concluded that Schiff "clearly made a statement that was false. ..."
"... Schiff was essentially running an illegal spy operation against the White House, recruiting his staffers, having them recruit their whistleblowers, grooming them up, changing the rules so they could file their complaints, and then lying that they knew anything about the lunatic efforts to get President Trump impeached. See, they were just standing there, minding their own business when all this stuff happened. Everything that did happen was just...a coincidence. ..."
"... Trump's been having a bad time with public opinion in the wake of the Schiff operation orchestrating the media coverage as well. But the facts on the ground suggest it was all an illegal spying operation on the president. ..."
"... It's an abuse of his office, for sure, given that Schiff is supposed to be focused on intelligence ..."
"... Image credit: Caricature by Donkey Hotey via Flickr , CC BY-SA 2.0 . ..."
"... Schiff was essentially running an illegal spy operation against the White House, recruiting his staffers, having them recruit their whistleblowers, grooming them up, changing the rules so they could file their complaints, and then lying that they knew anything about the lunatic efforts to get President Trump impeached. See, they were just standing there, minding their own business when all this stuff happened. Everything that did happen was just...a coincidence. ..."
Seems every day brings a new revelation about Democratic efforts to rig an impeachment of
the president. The false claims and astonishing conflicts of interest being thrown out there
are piling up fast.
The latest, from the San Francisco Examiner, exposes House Intelligence Committee chairman
Adam Schiff's choice of staffers, who it turns out were
two disgruntled Deep-Staters from the White House
who had actually worked with the
so-called "whistleblower":
Abigail Grace, who worked at the NSC until 2018,
was hired in February,
while Sean Misko, an NSC aide until 2017, joined Schiff's
committee staff in August, the same month the whistleblower submitted
his
complaint
.
The whistleblower was an NSC official who worked with former Vice President Joe Biden and
who has expertise in Ukraine,
the Washington Examiner has reported
.
A career CIA analyst with Ukraine expertise, the whistleblower aired his concerns about a
phone conversation
between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to
a House Intelligence Committee aide on Schiff's staff. He had previously informed the CIA's
legal counsel's office.
Schiff
initially denied
he knew anything about the complaint before it was filed, stating on
Sep. 17: "We have not spoken directly with the whistleblower. We would like to."
But it
later emerged that a member of his staff
had spoken to
the whistleblower before his complaint was submitted on Aug. 12. The
Washington Post
concluded that
Schiff "clearly made a statement that was false.
"
Grace, 36,
was hired
to help Schiff's committee investigate the Trump White House. That month, Trump
accused Schiff
of
"stealing people who work at White House." Grace
worked at the NSC
from 2016 to 2018 in
U.S.-China relations and
then briefly
at the Center for a New American
Security think tank, which
was founded by
two former senior Obama administration officials.
So these people were all buddies beforehand, and this would explain why the so-called
whistleblower had been sneaking around with Schiff's staff before he made his whistleblower
complaint.
And that came only after someone with influence was able to get the inspector general of the
Intelligence Community (IGIC) to change the rules about whistleblowers needing no firsthand
knowledge about the wrongdoing they were supposedly reporting. Once that rules change was put
into place, the whistleblower got going.
More and more, this sounds like a pre-planned setup. One Trump operative has a very good
summary of what seems to have been really going on as these anything but exculpatory stories
mount:
Schiff was essentially running an illegal spy operation against the White House, recruiting
his staffers, having them recruit their whistleblowers, grooming them up, changing the rules so
they could file their complaints, and then lying that they knew anything about the lunatic
efforts to get President Trump impeached. See, they were just standing there, minding their own
business when all this stuff happened. Everything that did happen was just...a coincidence.
Experienced intelligence operatives, and apparently this Trump operative has this sort of
background, like to say there are no coincidences.
As facts continue to roll out, it's getting more and more obvious that Schiff's operation
was to orchestrate this impeachment scenario all along, going into high gear with the flame-out
of the Mueller investigation.
Trump's been having a bad time with public opinion in the wake of the Schiff operation
orchestrating the media coverage as well. But the facts on the ground suggest it was all an
illegal spying operation on the president.
It's an abuse of his office, for sure, given that Schiff is supposed to be focused on
intelligence
, not on being one of those creepy secret police characters in The Lives of
Others . It's also an outrageous misuse of taxpayer dollars. In light of this Schiff spy
operation, and if Democrats don't want some backatcha next time there's a Dem in office with a
Republican House, it really ought to be every last one of them signed up to that Biggs
list.
Image credit:
Caricature by Donkey Hotey via
Flickr
,
CC BY-SA
2.0
.
Seems every day brings a new revelation about Democratic efforts to rig an
impeachment of the president. The false claims and astonishing conflicts of interest being
thrown out there are piling up fast.
The latest, from the San Francisco Examiner, exposes House Intelligence Committee chairman
Adam Schiff's choice of staffers, who it turns out were
two disgruntled Deep-Staters from the White House
who had actually worked with the
so-called "whistleblower":
Abigail Grace, who worked at the NSC until 2018,
was hired in February,
while Sean Misko, an NSC aide until 2017, joined Schiff's
committee staff in August, the same month the whistleblower submitted
his
complaint
.
The whistleblower was an NSC official who worked with former Vice President Joe Biden and
who has expertise in Ukraine,
the Washington Examiner has reported
.
A career CIA analyst with Ukraine expertise, the whistleblower aired his concerns about a
phone conversation
between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to
a House Intelligence Committee aide on Schiff's staff. He had previously informed the CIA's
legal counsel's office.
Schiff
initially denied
he knew anything about the complaint before it was filed, stating on
Sep. 17: "We have not spoken directly with the whistleblower. We would like to."
But it later emerged that a member of his staff
had spoken to
the whistleblower before his complaint was submitted on Aug. 12. The
Washington Post
concluded that
Schiff "clearly made a statement that was false."
Grace, 36,
was hired
to help Schiff's committee investigate the Trump White House. That month, Trump
accused Schiff
of
"stealing people who work at White House." Grace
worked at the NSC
from 2016 to 2018 in
U.S.-China relations and
then briefly
at the Center for a New American
Security think tank, which
was founded by
two former senior Obama administration officials.
So these people were all buddies beforehand, and this would explain why the so-called
whistleblower had been sneaking around with Schiff's staff before he made his whistleblower
complaint.
And that came only after someone with influence was able to get the inspector general of the
Intelligence Community (IGIC) to change the rules about whistleblowers needing no firsthand
knowledge about the wrongdoing they were supposedly reporting. Once that rules change was put
into place, the whistleblower got going.
More and more, this sounds like a pre-planned setup. One Trump operative has a very good
summary of what seems to have been really going on as these anything but exculpatory stories
mount:
Schiff was essentially running an illegal spy operation against the White House,
recruiting his staffers, having them recruit their whistleblowers, grooming them up, changing
the rules so they could file their complaints, and then lying that they knew anything about the
lunatic efforts to get President Trump impeached. See, they were just standing there, minding
their own business when all this stuff happened. Everything that did happen was just...a
coincidence.
Experienced intelligence operatives, and apparently this Trump operative has this sort of
background, like to say there are no coincidences.
As facts continue to roll out, it's getting more and more obvious that Schiff's operation
was to orchestrate this impeachment scenario all along, going into high gear with the flame-out
of the Mueller investigation.
Trump's been having a bad time with public opinion in the wake of the Schiff operation
orchestrating the media coverage as well. But the facts on the ground suggest it was all an
illegal spying operation on the president.
And that's a far more concrete crime than anything Trump is accused of committing. Right
now, Schiff has 109 congressional representatives
signed on to GOP rep. Andy
Biggs of Arizona's
call to condemn and censure Schiff for this sick little illegal
freelance operation to spy on Trump.
It's an abuse of his office, for sure, given that Schiff is supposed to be focused on
intelligence, not on being one of those creepy secret police characters in
The Lives of
Others
. It's also an outrageous misuse of taxpayer dollars. In light of this Schiff spy
operation, and if Democrats don't want some backatcha next time there's a Dem in office with a
Republican House, it really ought to be every last one of them signed up to that Biggs
list.
"... inspector general of the Intelligence Community (IGIC) to change the rules about whistleblowers needing no firsthand
knowledge about the wrongdoing they were supposedly reporting. Once that rules change was put
into place, the whistleblower got going." Doesn't that beg the question IF Atkinson had any past
relationships with any of these people in his former position? I believe I read somewhere that
Atkinson somehow was involved in the Steele Dossier from his former job.
Our government has always operated this way. Nothing new here. It only seems "run worse" because the results are out in the
open for all to see. Whereas, the same thing could be done in secret and you'd never know
about it (the changes in the rules).
Which do you prefer? The sloppy American way, or the secretive Chinese way?
I'm sorry to say we have only these two choices. The sloppy American way is preferable to
me because it's the better part of our openly democratic republic and our Constitution.
The current problems and distractions we are dealing with are the result of Biden,
Schiff, and the Democrat's attempts to be secretive about what they're doing. So, we have to
wonder why these people don't want their actions to be known.
We should delight in seeing such illegitimate secrets exposed.
"...The sloppy American way, or the secretive Chinese way?"
What difference does it make if the criminals
are never indicted? The fact that I know of don't know makes no difference. We know
politicians are dirty scum, anyway..
But I think it's not good enough to just accept rampant corruption, surely things
could be better than this?
Also, it's not so much the Dems in question but the entire system.
And I see little evidence that the system is changing.
Though as you point out, one big shift is that more of us have become aware of how
bad it is.
And as you point out, it's always been that way, going back at least to 1913... but
more like forever and with all systems.
And if it is forever and all systems, then maybe it's better we DON'T get to see
all the dirty laundry all the time, including that nothing is done about it. Maybe
better not to know! Maybe that's the only way to make the country 'great' again!?
Executive order 12333, 1981, prohibits the CIA from spying on American citizens on domestic
soil, or internationally, except as incidental to terrorist investigations outside the US of
A.
The POTUS is the first citizen.
Why has no one in any part of the press, right, left, or center pointed out this simple
fact?
Also, there is no "transcript" of any conversation between Trump and any other head of
state. Because there is no recording or verbatim typed record (such as a court reporter would
make) due to diplomatic protocols agreed by all parties.
There are only informal notes taken by witnesses at the time of the call. (Unless Snowden
is correct about the private contractors working for the NSA).
As for anti Russian propaganda, look first to the UK, who have been at it for several
hundred years, and who are in the habit of knighting American Republican presidents who take
orders from the square mile and Downing street, or whitehall and Balmoral castle.
The new cold war is an international project aimed at demonising Putin, who god knows is
no saint, but who is also no dummy. Unlike the image Trump likes to cultivate. Has anyone
noticed how clumsy the CIA has gotten lately? Or, how hysterical the press has become on
their behalf?
Executive order 12333, 1981, prohibits the CIA from spying on American citizens on
domestic soil, or internationally, except as incidental to terrorist investigations outside
the US of A.
The POTUS is the first citizen.
Why has no one in any part of the press, right, left, or center pointed out this simple
fact?
Has anyone noticed how clumsy the CIA has gotten lately? Or, how hysterical the press
has become on their behalf?
You answered your own questions. The law is for sheeple, Deep State does not give a hoot
about the laws, constitution, and the rest of the niceties.
@AnonFromTN
Limpet bombs on Japanese tanker, in the arabian sea, failed coup in Vn, Skripal case, etc.
Are the clumsy examples i was thinking of. They behave as if there is no internet. Not sure
if they are even aware that everything they do is being watched and evaluated from 100
different points of view.
But yeah, i know, most questions do contain an intrinsic answer.
So Democrats so jealously protecting Biden and whitewashing him they are only spinning
their wheels.
Slow wit Biden has no chance in hell to beat Trump. Trump will demolish him in every
debate.
Only Elizabeth Warren has a good chance to beat Trump. She is intelligent and authority
personality not like Biden, and she has clean record not like Hillary. Some of her ideas are
not worked out in detail, but they are of right direction. So I would assume that majority of
women will be voting for her. And that could make a difference
Only Elizabeth Warren has a good chance to beat Trump.
I would assume that majority of women will be voting for her. And that could make a
difference
Liz Warren is a lecturer and scolder. While she polls well with college educated white
women she does not have a great deal of appeal to minority and non-college white women. Her
appeal to male voters is not good across the board. She does not produce the emotional appeal
necessary to drive turnout.
Also, her false claims of American Indian background makes her an easy mark for Trump's
tactics.
IMHO, If the Dems want to beat Trump, their only option is Tulsi Gabbard. However the DNC
establishment hates her. It is hard seeing how she gets the nomination.
@Ilyana_Rozumova
On the presidential campaign prospects of Elizabeth Warren, Ilyana_Rozumova offered: "Some of
her ideas are not worked out in detail, but they are of right direction."
Hello, Ms. _Rozumova.
(Zigh) Re, above; So long as Elizabeth's evolving "ideas" continue to lean toward the
direction of the Western Wall, she might beat Likud's Chosen One, Trump.
Thanks for offering such a well worked out and "decent" delusion!
Selah, Former - unclean but authoritative DNC Chairman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, bolts
after having corralled The Bern's 2016 votes.
@Art
When congress claps its hands off, in a naked admiration for the leader of Occupied
Palestine, during 29 standing ovations, it was like a 'When do we leave Stalin's deathbed'
moment to me.
In most foreign countries MAGA = Make America Go Away.
I'd say, 'Take the country back and fly one flag."
@A123
In a country where celebrity status and showmanship are placed on the altar of normalcy,
people who actually make sense are not very well understood [not referring to Warren here].
"... "Along with the wreckage of the family, we are seeing record levels of depression and mental illness, dispirited young people, soaring suicide rates, increasing numbers of angry and alienated young males, an increase in senseless violence, and a deadly drug epidemic," he said. ..."
Share U.S. Attorney General
William Barr raised concerns about the increase in secularism in society in a speech on
Oct. 11, speaking about how that has contributed to a number of social issues plaguing
communities across the nation.
Barr, who
delivered his remarks to students at the University of Notre Dame's law school, drew
attention to the comprehensive effort to drive away religion and traditional moral systems in
society and to push secularism in their place.
"We see the growing ascendancy of secularism
and the doctrine of moral relativism," Barr said.
He said that the forces of secularism are using mass media and popular culture, the
promotion of greater reliance on government intervention for social problems, and the use of
legal and judicial institutions to eliminate traditional moral norms.
Barr explored several of the consequences of "this moral upheaval," highlighting its effect
on all parts of society.
"Along with the wreckage of the family, we are seeing record levels of depression and
mental illness, dispirited young people, soaring suicide rates, increasing numbers of angry and
alienated young males, an increase in senseless violence, and a deadly drug epidemic," he
said.
"Over 70,000 people die a year from drug overdoses," he said. "But I won't dwell on the
bitter results of the new secular age. Suffice it to say that the campaign to destroy the
traditional moral order has coincided, and, as I believe, has brought with it, immense
suffering and misery."
Barr said religion has come under increasing attack over the past 50 years, underscoring how
secularists are using society's institutions to systematically destroy religion and stifle
opposing views.
"Secularists and their allies have marshaled all the forces of mass communication, popular
culture, the entertainment industry, and academia in an unremitting assault on religion and
traditional values. These instruments are used not only to affirmatively promote secular
orthodoxy but also to drown out and silence opposing voices," he said.
He said that people are moving away from "micro-morality" observed by Christians, a system
of morality that seeks to transform the world by focusing on their own personal morality and
transformation. Instead, he said the modern secularists are pushing a "macro-morality," which
focuses on political causes and collective actions to address social problems.
"In the past, when societies are threatened by moral chaos, the overall social costs of
licentiousness and irresponsible personal conduct become so high that society ultimately
recoils and reevaluates the path it is on," Barr said.
"But today, in the face of all the increasing pathologies, instead of addressing the
underlying cause, we have cast the state in the role as the alleviator of bad consequences. We
call on the state to mitigate the social costs of personal conduct and irresponsibility. So the
reaction to growing illegitimacy is not sexual responsibility but abortion; the reaction to
drug addiction is safe injection sites."
"The call comes for more and more social programs to deal with this wreckage, and while we
think we are resolving problems, we [actually] are underwriting them."
He also pointed out how the law has been used to "break down traditional moral values and
establish moral relativism as the new orthodoxy," giving the example of how laws have been used
to aggressively force religious people and entities to subscribe to practices and policies that
are antithetical to their faith .
"The forces of secularism have been continually seeking to eliminate the laws that reflect
traditional moral norms," he said.
Barr also highlighted the role of religion in society, saying it promotes moral discipline
while it influences people's conduct.
"Religion also helps promote moral discipline in society. We're all fallen. We don't
automatically conform our conduct to moral rules, even when we know that they're good for us.
But religion helps teach, train, and habituate people to want what's good," he said.
"It doesn't do this primarily by formal laws -- that is, by coercive power -- it does this
through moral education and by framing society's informal rules -- the customs and traditions
which reflect the wisdom and experience of the ages. In other words, religion helps frame a
moral culture within society that instills and reinforces moral discipline."
"... Liz Warren is a lecturer and scolder. While she polls well with college educated white women she does not have a great deal of appeal to minority and non-college white women. Her appeal to male voters is not good across the board. She does not produce the emotional appeal necessary to drive turnout. ..."
"... Also, her false claims of American Indian background makes her an easy mark for Trump's tactics. ..."
@renfro
I believe that the Israeli /Anglo Zionist goal was to either 1) destroy Iran or 2) being Iran
back into the Western orbit as a vassal state tied to the dollar.
Those two goals which once may have been attainable are no longer so.
Even Pentagon war planners know that their children would have to fight Iran and that war
with Iran would prove 100x tougher than Iraq.
China's Silk Road Offers seems to offer economic growth without vassal state status
@Counterinsurgency
I understand, and I am aware that you operate at a higher level of intelligence than most
here (including myself). I look forward to your insight's, although at times it takes me a
bit to comprehend your message. Keep up the good fight.
@jack
daniels Cutting Israel lose to feel morally pure, would would be nice, but cost plenty
and in my opinion too much. Feeling good about oneself is hardly worth destruction of the
anti China alliance before it even got off the launch pad . The Israel Lobby are a pain, but
we need them, because we need everyone all pulling together for the fight that is coming. Yes
it makes you feel dirty, but we are down here with the filth and worms not in an ivory tower
I believe that the Israeli /Anglo Zionist goal was to either 1) destroy Iran or 2) being
Iran back into the Western orbit as a vassal state tied to the dollar. Those two goals
which once may have been attainable are no longer so.
The goal of the civilized world is stop Iran from destabilizing and threatening the world.
Iranian al'Hezbollah occupies Lebanon and undermines the legitimate government. Iran is
trying to infiltrate Syria so it can be driven into failure like Lebanon. Iran is developing
nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles to deliver them.
Iran can easily rejoin the civilized world of of it stops the violence against its
neighbors. Alas, Ayatollah Khameni is a sociopath. He does not care about the suffering of
the Iranian workers trying to survive in a collapsing economy. (1)
The Iranian rial official rate is set at 42,000 rials to the U.S. dollar, but its market
rate stood at around 115,000 against the dollar on Tuesday, according to foreign exchange
website Bonbast.com.
Iran's economy is expected to shrink by 9.5% this year, the International Monetary Fund
(IMF) said, down from a previous estimate of a 6% contraction, as the country feels the
impact of tighter U.S. sanctions.
@Daniel
Rich Thanks for your reply! Africans and Black people from the Caribbean can be kind,
respectful, and warm as long as their societies are intact.
I'd imagine that Donald Rich is familiar with these works and more, but here's a brief
popular literature / internet search for material concerning trading in sub-Saharan Africa
and the Third World in general:
and the Africans (indeed, third world countries worldwide) seem to have only one way of
coping. Looking at it from that angle, the Vietnam War was about throwing out the Chinese
businessmen and the French/Americans who were supporting them. See Chua's discussion of this
in _The World on Fire_
The universal group preference seems to be living in a society that the group has developed
for itself over a society that produces more goods and longer lives but is run by
foreigners.
@Counterinsurgency
A kick-off observation: Counterinsurgency's "screen name" is intriguing, and it suggests, to
me, a fellowship beyond that of a single commenter.
Broken Scranton greetings, Counterinsurgency!
Your following words make ominous sense but I cannot place my arms around what you
precisely mean when zeroing in upon "The current US system / world order."
Questions sprout from even keen ambiguity, so I politely ask you to provide an improved
definition of, "The current US system / world order." Hm. Is it in part the "US" maintaining
it's shaky reserve currency distinction, and it's attack/sanction every country that deserves
such?
And regarding the "US world order," one pauses to recognize that such is now become a
downsized & disputed residual of President G.H.W. Bush's "New World Order"
proclamation.
And then, a reader (like me!) becomes rather dazzled by a quasi-Nostradamus/Protocols of
Zion style prediction that all "will end within the next decade no matter what Trump does.
Trump is trying to shut it down with minimal casualties, and replace it with something
viable." Hm. Something "viable," eh, like City of Scranton's position, in the E.R.? Haha,
(Zigh)
No doubt alluring & as Johnny Walker Read attested in comment #229, "I am aware that
you (Counterintelligence) operate at a higher level of intelligence than most here (including
myself)." In addition, you comment as if operating with greater awareness & confidence of
what the hell is really going down. Impressive, !
But regarding noble & brotherly Amerikans who are willing to work toward a semblance
of national unity & salvation, there's a problem, Counterinsurgency.
The awesome ZUS government "system" prioritizes feeding the wealthy; for easy examples,
themselves, friends, oligarchs, multinational corporations, and of course Israel & the
M.I.C. (Zigh) Consequently, employed but oft still struggling average Amerikan subjects get
scraps which fall from off the national budget's indebted banquet table.
The USA population now endures an advanced engineered-experiment where a nation becomes
characterized by Haves & Have Not; in parable language, a "Rich Man & Lazarus"
divide.
Agreed, you're spot-on correct on Trump's main Executive job as limitation of casualties
during "the transition." Nonetheless, I respectfully suggest a crystal ball tune-up because,
& very regrettably, "the wind at Trump's back" blows from Tel Aviv, London, and AIPAC
headquarters.
Thanks, Counterinsurgency, and can you please offer a sunshine response?
@Counterinsurgency
Reasonably, and to Daniel Rich, Counterintelligence explained: "Africans and Black people
from the Caribbean can be kind, respectful, and warm as long as their societies are intact."
Above, & as you're aware, "societies" originate in packs/tribes." * In general, &
for lack of a better word, such entities permit themselves to be governed.
In the America where I grew up, there was a saying that "fish rot from the head."
Now, Counterintelligence, I indulge the word "fish" as a metaphor for submerged Amerikan
human beings. Okay? Fyi, haha, Jews are fisherman for consumable pools of 'Merikan Shabbos
goy carp.
When either packs/tribes or nations become governed by distorted & selfish leaders,
the collective entity rots & such process typically starts from the "head."
Now we arrive at Amerika's dreaded fate, and one which you described as President tRump's
managing a gradual engineered "transition." (Zigh) No doubt, the throwaway fish rots from the
head? Thanks, Counterintelligence!
P.S.: Sometimes during particularly glum "Homeland" moments, & instead of the tribe's
actual imposed governance, , I wish my country was ruled by the first ten (10) "kind" people
who are listed in Somalia's Yellow Pages.
* Try Jewish author, Elias Canetti's remarkable book, "Packs and Tribes."
Andrew Zimmern, the Jewish chef and celebrity who does a TV program called "bizarre foods,"
visited Syria in 2011 (season 6, episode 1) before the start of the civil war. Zimmern was
pretty apprehensive about the visit and says so at the beginning but he was won over by the
kindness and humanity of the Syrian people and the beauty of the country. It is a tragedy
what has happened there. I don't know how long the link below will be available, but see the
show for yourself.
I did not study US constitution.
I do have a question:
When Trump will be impeached, and Trump loose support in Senate and so he will be removed
from presidency, will he still be entitled to run in next election?
I did not study US constitution. I do have a question: When Trump will be impeached, and
Trump loose support in Senate and so he will be removed from presidency, will he still be
entitled to run in next election?
Your hypothetical will not happen. There is no chance of a Senate Conviction & Removal
during an election year. Then resulting internal fight would also wipe out the Republicans in
the House and Senate.
_____
That being said. The answer to your constitutional question is, "Yes". Neither House
impeachment nor Senate conviction is a bar to serving as President.
The only requirements to serve as U.S. President are found in two places:
Article II, Section I, Clause 5
No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time
of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither
shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of
thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.
Amendment 22
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person
who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a
term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the
President more than once.
"Let's see what he actually does " , it appears that he's shuffling forces around and even
adding to them as John Feffer describes in his article : " Trump's Endless Wars" which
appears in the most recent edition of Informed Comment .
Feffer : " In fact , the Trump administration has deployed an additional 14,000 US forces to
the Middle East since the Spring , compare that to the 1000 troops he is withdrawing from
Northern
Syria . The President seems more intent on starting fires than ending them ."
@ChuckOrloski"the wind at Trump's back" blows from Tel Aviv, London, and AIPAC
headquarters.
Chuck -- thanks for the AIPAC mention.
AIPAC is a small but powerful political tribe within our nation. Clearly, we cannot leave
Syria because of AIPAC. When it comes to foreign policy – it rules America. Only 60
members of congress voted to leave Syria. Some 375 members voted with AIPAC, while most
Americans want us to leave. Is that not stunning? What political power.
No informed American can like AIPAC. It is time that we pacifically target AIPAC as a
coercive organization. Clearly, it is in the wrong – it is vulnerable. Those in
congress who support it like lemmings – also need condemnation.
p.s. Going after AIPAC has the added benefit of not attacking all Jews.
@TGDZimmern was pretty apprehensive about the visit and says so at the beginning but he was
won over by the kindness and humanity of the Syrian people and the beauty of the country.
The same is said by people who visit Iran. Rick Steves Travels Program – did a Iran
video – he had the same generous reaction about Iran.
Interestingly, Art recommended: "Going after AIPAC has the added benefit of not attacking all
Jews."
Agreed, Art, but with one major caveat.
As you know, the late-President JFK and Attorney General RFK wanted AIPAC's predecessor to
register as a foreign agent. ! Fyi, the young Illinois Congressman, Donald Rumsfeld,
articulated his opposition in writing to Bobby.
These days, invulnerable AIPAC must simply remind all standing ZUS presidents &
members of our Knesset Congress West about the severe risks involved in attacking AIPAC.
(Note: Regrettably, AIPAC doesn't hesitate to expel even Jewish Senators; for one example,
groping Al Franken, who also non amusingly "spilled the beans" about his family's having
received Odigo warning messages just prior to the 9/11 Manhattan-based attacks)
Thanks & my respect, Art!
P.S.: Sincerely wish RobinG was around so that I could be bitten, badgered, & charged
with defeatism.
So Democrats so jealously protecting Biden and whitewashing him they are only spinning
their wheels.
Slow wit Biden has no chance in hell to beat Trump. Trump will demolish him in every
debate.
Only Elizabeth Warren has a good chance to beat Trump. She is intelligent and authority
personality not like Biden, and she has clean record not like Hillary. Some of her ideas are
not worked out in detail, but they are of right direction. So I would assume that majority of
women will be voting for her. And that could make a difference
Only Elizabeth Warren has a good chance to beat Trump.
I would assume that majority of women will be voting for her. And that could make a
difference
Liz Warren is a lecturer and scolder. While she polls well with college educated white
women she does not have a great deal of appeal to minority and non-college white women. Her
appeal to male voters is not good across the board. She does not produce the emotional appeal
necessary to drive turnout.
Also, her false claims of American Indian background makes her an easy mark for Trump's
tactics.
IMHO, If the Dems want to beat Trump, their only option is Tulsi Gabbard. However the DNC
establishment hates her. It is hard seeing how she gets the nomination.
@Ilyana_Rozumova
On the presidential campaign prospects of Elizabeth Warren, Ilyana_Rozumova offered: "Some of
her ideas are not worked out in detail, but they are of right direction."
Hello, Ms. _Rozumova.
(Zigh) Re, above; So long as Elizabeth's evolving "ideas" continue to lean toward the
direction of the Western Wall, she might beat Likud's Chosen One, Trump.
Thanks for offering such a well worked out and "decent" delusion!
Selah, Former - unclean but authoritative DNC Chairman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, bolts after
having corralled The Bern's 2016 votes.
@Art
When congress claps its hands off, in a naked admiration for the leader of Occupied
Palestine, during 29 standing ovations, it was like a 'When do we leave Stalin's deathbed'
moment to me.
In most foreign countries MAGA = Make America Go Away.
I'd say, 'Take the country back and fly one flag."
@A123
In a country where celebrity status and showmanship are placed on the altar of normalcy,
people who actually make sense are not very well understood [not referring to Warren here].
So the ADL banned Red Ice & The Blue & White Gulag Roundup, Inc. is comin' to my
hometown soon, eh?
Da, Rodnoy brat geokat! Am delighted that "we," who regularly assemble here at U.R.
Comment-Department, have an ancillary threat warning system. Thank you, geo.
P.S.: Were Ron Unz whimsically responsive & less civilized, I would lobby for a
color-coded Zionist threat-level banner that constantly flashes atop the daily U.R. article
masthead, and flexibly changes according to dire political circumstance; i.e., fluctuates
from a pale Zion Red to a flaming Zion Red. One color needed, (Zigh)
@Cloak And
Dagger It is interesting that it has been a one way street. What could be happening is
that we are witnessing the growing great divide between American and Israeli Jewry. In
America the white man is the racist. Trump is associated with white nationalist in America.
Jews believe people of European descent can't be nationalist but the Israelis are going past
the American Jews' comfort zone with their openly racist policies. American Jewish kids don't
get conscripted in order to shoot brown kids and to help take their homes from them. In
Israel they do. In Israel the Jews are racist and are proud of it. There is a disconnect.
They encourage American Jews to visit and to feel connected with Israel but they don't have
them take up arms and shoot Palestinian kids as a right of passage. Jews in America are a
minority with a lot of political power but in Israel they rule and everyone else is a second
class citizen. What we are seeing on the left is the effects of this growing divide in the
experiences of the two populations. If Trump was Jewish they'd make him King of Israel.
Also many American Jews who are fine with Israeli racialism value the bipartisan
consensus. Trump will come and go but they hope that will last a very longtime. Netanyahu has
ruffled feathers by throwing his lot with Trump. Now that he maybe is down for the count they
hope that the new Israeli leader can project the right image and use the right rhetoric to
quell the rebellion on the American Left while continuing Israel's racist policies. They use
Trump's troop removal as proof that Netanyahu was wrong to support Trump regardless of all
the gifts Trump has bestowed onto Israel. Israel loves all those gifts but what they really
want is for Americans to die fighting Iran for them in order to weaken Hezbollah. Trump has
yet to do that but even if he did they'd still try to remove him from office.
@barr
What do you think of this? Pepe correctly identifies the "cultural misunderstanding" by
US/NATO. I just have a hard time believing that the Turks, right next door and with a forever
history, could be so deluded about Syria. Oh well, human folly.
It should be observed that the Syrian incursion by the American military, which was
initiated by President Barack Obama and his band of lady hawks during the so-called "Arab
Spring" of 2011, was illegal from the gitgo. Syria did not threaten the United States, quite
the contrary. Damascus had supported U.S. intelligence operations after 9/11 and it was
Washington that soured the relationship beginning with the Syria Accountability Act of 2003,
which later was followed by the Syrian War Crimes Accountability Act of 2015, both of which
were, at least to a certain extent, driven by the interests of Israel.
When American soldiers first arrived in Syria the U.S. War Powers act was ignored, making
the incursion illegal. Nor was there any mandate authorizing military intervention emanating
from any supra-national agency like the United Nations. The excuse for the intervention was
plausibly enough to destroy ISIS, but the reality was much more complex, with U.S. forces in
addition seeking to limit Iranian and Russian presence in Syria while also bringing about
regime change. The objectives were from the start unattainable as Iran and Russia were
supporting the Syrian Army in doing most of the hard fighting against ISIS while the regime of
President Bashar al-Assad was not threatened by a so-called democratic alternative which only
existed in the minds of Samantha Powers and Susan Rice.
Unwilling to see large numbers of Americans coming home in caskets, the United States
inevitably began to search for proxies to carry out the fighting on the ground and wound up
willy-nilly arming, training and otherwise supporting terrorists, to include the al-Qaeda
affiliate al-Nusra. The Kurdish Syrian Democratic Forces eventually became the principal tool
of U.S. military, but it must be observed that the Kurds in all likelihood had no illusions
about the staying power of their American patrons. They were fighting Syrian forces as well as
ISIS because they were seeking to carve out their own homeland of Kurdistan from the ruins of
the Syrian state. Their expansion into northern Syria, aided by the U.S., was at the expense of
the local population, which was overwhelmingly not Kurdish. Their occupation of that area was
not reported honestly in the U.S. media, but other sources suggest that their behavior was
often brutal.
So the lament about abandoning one's Kurdish allies has a kernel of truth, but the Senator
Lindsey Graham response, to include sanctioning Turkey, should be considered to be little more
than a dangerous misstep that would lead to acquiring a new and more powerful enemy. And, of
course, the argument in favor of leaving the Kurds to their fate found its most ridiculous
expression from the mouth of Donald Trump himself, who, up until recently had praised the Kurds
as friends who had "fought and died for us." Trump is now observing
that "they [the Kurds] didn't help us in the Second World War, they didn't help us with
Normandy." As President Trump did not serve his country in Vietnam due to alleged bone spurs
and his father Fred likewise did not serve in the military, the comment is particularly ironic.
Trump's surname was changed from the original German Drumpf and if there were any Drumpfs
present at Normandy they were undoubtedly on the German side.
Finally, there is one other important issue that should be observed. Donald Trump's actual
record on ending useless wars is not consistent with his actions. He has sent more soldiers to
no good purpose in support of America's longest war in Afghanistan, has special ops forces in
numerous countries in Asia and Africa, has threatened regime change in Venezuela, continues to
support Saudi Arabia and Israel's bloody attacks on their neighbors and has exited to from
treaties and agreements with Russia and Iran that made armed conflict less likely. And he has
five thousand American soldiers sitting as hostages in Iraq, a country that the United States
basically destroyed as a cohesive political entity and which is now experiencing a wave of
rioting that has reportedly killed hundreds. Trump is also assassinating more foreigners using
drones based mostly on profile targeting than all of his predecessors. These are not the
actions of a president who seriously wants to end wars even if one does not consider the
economic warfare that is currently taking place through the use of sanctions that is reportedly
killing tens of thousands.
So should one take Donald Trump seriously when he says he wants to end the pointless wars?
Perhaps not, but even giving him the benefit of the doubt, he should be judged by his actions,
not by his words and, apart from the withdrawal of a handful of soldiers from the actual front
lines in Syria, nothing has changed. It is quite possible that nothing will change.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest,
a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a
more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is
councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its
email is[email protected]
The Turkish Army, which is one of the most powerful in NATO, will do whatever is
necessary to crush them. Trump should have realized that before he started talking.
IDK, Phil. I am not sure that he didn't. My sense is that he has been pandering to the
neocons in the hope of a compromise that would allow him to deliver enough of his campaign
promises to permit his re-election. I think hiring Bolton was just such a move –
thinking that keeping his enemies closer would permit him more control.
Recently, he has expressed frustration with his staff and I speculate that he has come to
realize that pandering to the jews is going to be a one-way street. He has given them a score
of concessions, including Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. He hasn't received anything in
return, except for the onslaught of palace coups, one after the other, orchestrated by the
very same zionist forces in both parties.
My hypothesis is that the man, narcissistic as he is, has reached the end of his tether.
Faced with the potential to not get re-elected, he has mounted a counteroffensive against
them. He, rightly, believes that the people who got him elected are the only ones who can get
him re-elected. So, his recent tweets are both an attempt to recapture us to his side, while
at the same time slapping the zionists across their faces with a show of power, as he is
won't to do in business negotiations where he feels that he has been betrayed.
I could be completely wrong as I try to pry into his mind.
So should one take Donald Trump seriously when he says he wants to end the pointless
wars? Perhaps not, but even giving him the benefit of the doubt, he should be judged by his
actions, not by his words and, apart from the withdrawal of a handful of soldiers from the
actual front lines in Syria, nothing has changed. It is quite possible that nothing will
change.
It serves us naught to take this pessimistic stance in the absence of a replacement
candidate. I have always contended that the best way to use Trump is to support his ego.
Let's inundate him with praise for withdrawing from the Kurdish/Turkish quagmire. Sure, he
hasn't vacated Syria yet, however, he has no choice but to vacate or be evacuated. His ego
will opt for the former.
Trump is also assassinating more foreigners using drones based mostly on profile targeting
than all of his predecessors.
These are not the actions of a president who seriously wants to end wars even if one does not
consider the economic warfare that is currently taking place through the use of sanctions
that is reportedly killing tens of thousands
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Mr. Giraldi,
Could you please elaborate on the first point: the use of drones. Who and where?
Secondly, economic warfare: are you referring to Iran or Venezuela? Could you
elaborate?
@A123
NATO members will not help the New Ottoman Empire "offensive".
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Wow, Israeli is really terrified. What will they do when the U.S. decouples from the Middle
East completely? It's pretty clear that, short of running to Russia and fellating Putin, Bobo
the Clown of Tel Aviv has no plan.
Tic Toc.
The fact of the matter is that President Donald Trump is a Corrupt "Crypto Jew" in spite of
the American people may think Trump is as he was chosen by the Elite to serve and protect
Israel and churn profits for Elite owned and controlled Armaments industry in promoting wars
against the Best interests of the citizens of United States of America.
If Washington withdraws its military, spooks and mercenaries the Syrian Curds will go back to
being Syrians. Syria, Iran, Russia and Turkey will negotiate the peace. The U.S., Israel,
Saudi Arabia and Turkey will have been defeated in their war against Assad. Syria, unlike
Iraq and Libya will remain standing.
Everyone loves to hate on Erdogan. I was hoping for a more nuanced view than [he] "is just
crazy enough to do that." Remember when George Galloway called him "a lion," awestruck at his
reaction to the Israeli murders of Turks on the boat to Gaza? Is it true that Turkey has made
tremendous economic gains under his administration? He has much support, as shown by the
[popular] squelching of attempted coup.
I've just never understood why he facilitated the chaos on his border, harboured the White
Helmets, probably murdered Serena Shim, etc. And now, what will he do with his jihadi proxy
army? As far as his threats to release migrants to Europe, I have no sympathy for EU
countries who've been part of the war on the ME. What goes around, comes around. Same for the
Kurds.
There have been some suggestions that the Kurds could make nice with the Damascus
government and rely on the protection of the Syrian Army to deter the Turks, an option that
they have already begun to exercise.
The Kurds have caved. Plus our radical Islamic rebels are going over, with our equipment
etc to the Ass man.
Updated Oct. 14, 2019 6:48 pm ET. WSJ
ISTANBUL -- Syrian troops entered areas that have been outside their control for years on
Monday, after a quickly forged pact between Kurdish forces and the Syrian government to
confront a Turkish military campaign reshaped alliances in Syria.
That pact transformed the Kurds, an erstwhile partner of the U.S. in the fight against
Islamic State, into a force more closely aligned with Russia and Iran, as the U.S. began
withdrawing its troops from northeastern Syria.
Until recently, thousands of U.S.-backed fighters had trained at a military base in the
town of Ain Eissa. After the Syrian military arrived on Monday morning, soldiers raised the
tricolor Syrian flag in the town center.
The US gets out of the way, and Assad, who won the Civil War, immediately settles with the
Kurds and Nustra.
So, it wasn't many troops, but we had successfully prevented Assad from absorbing
(voluntarily) two groups in the Civil War. Meaning we (US) alone was preventing settlement.
The. deep state has thwarted Trump's intentions to leave for 3 years.
"Or the Turks might be willing to escalate their own offensive to take on the inferior Syrian
Army and the Kurds together." It is a stretch without careful analysis.
Many people said the same about the world's most cowardice army, the Israeli. There is an
agreement between the parties and Erdogan will comply. The Kurds are the West-Israel proxy
terrorists. They proved their usefulness many times.
But in pursuing their aspirations for self-rule, Syria's Kurds risked overreach and
miscalculation. American officials have long made clear in meetings and public comments
that U.S. military backing never amounted to an endorsement of Kurdish political
ambitions.
In December, U.S. envoy to Syria James Jeffrey likened the partnership with the SySo he
rian Kurds to a "transactional relationship for a specific goal."
Trump got it basically right -- time to leave and we never promised Kurds a Rose
Garden.
His bumbling ruling decrees via Twitter stem from the lack of loyal staff. His decisions
are ignored or subverted when he goes through channels. So he announces it and works from
there. This is the 3rd Time Trump has announced withdrawal from Syria. Although the neocon
press and Hawkish politicians howled.
Trump also implemented the Pivot to Asia (an Obama failure) by engaging China
diplomatically through efforts at trade reform. Much more nuanced that fortifying bases.
Its never pretty, but Trump tends to stubbornly pursue a less warlike agenda.
The mideast is where everybody backstabs everybody recalling the CIA used to deliver
renditioned prisoners to Assad to be tortured along lines a bit more than 'enhanced'
interrogations (karma could be a b *** h.) The soup only gets thicker as the pot boils down.
Remember those NATO nukes kept at Incirlik?
Why had NATO (the USA particularly) sat on its hands these past 3+ years? It's not like no
one was aware there could be a serious problem with 50 (or more) tactical nukes in the hands
of the paranoid narcissist Erdogan:
@A123
"that is, the goods and services produced by the economy -- rises faster than the money
created, so there is no inflation, and rises faster than the debt created, so the country's
debt burden doesn't increase."
"The long term prospects for peace are still there. A return to the status quo ante. Russia
remains as guarantor of the peace and all other foreign fighters and their proxies exit the
nation."
Spot on.
Given cast-iron assurances re the PKK & it's Syrian cousins that Nth Syria will cease to
be a zone for organising attacks (or any kind of nefarious Kurdish behaviour) on Turkey, I
think Erdogan would likely consider a withdrawal of his forces.
i think there are few unknowns between Russia, Turkey, Syria; the plan seems to be to get
ISIS, SDF, the PYD/YPD without regard to who is supporting them. Unleash ISIS, even those in
prisons so they can move against Assad to be destroyed ? Those trapped in Idlib can either
commit suicide or wait for the executioner. I have no facts, but by observing that the
sanctions warfare is directed at those who intend to destroy ISIS, SDF, PYD/YPD and Israelis
and Iranians visiting in Syria I conclude Russia and Turkey have skunked the Pentagon (maybe
Trump is also in on it?) .
Russia and Syria have agreed to stand by while Turkey engages in some target practice at
unwanted visitors in Syria? Invade Syria even North Western Iraq.. rid the world of pesky,
trouble making, fake news head chopping face book and Twitter super stars, destroy all traces
of Kurds, remove all non Syrian others threatening the Ottoman, Syrian Turf. Don't look now,
but Iran seems to be on the Turkey list of non Syrians ?. ..After the area is cleared Assad's
problem, will be, what if Turkey (Erdogan) refuses to return to Turkey, and that return to
Turkey promise has probably been be guaranteed to Assad by Russia.
I read a Russian statement somewhere last year [early 2018], in which they unequivocal said
there would never be an autonomous Kurdish state. They [the Kurds] could stick to some of
their customs, but legally and lawfully they would fall on Damascus' rule/s.
Trump's foreign policy constitutes an egregious betrayal of his election platform which was
to "stay neutral" on Israel/Palestine, withdraw remaining troops and avoid any further
entanglements. He reneged on all pledges.
The recent announcement that he was withdrawing troops from Syria was followed the next
day by an announcement of 2,000 US troops being deployed to Saudi Arabia to protect that
country from Iran. Say what?
It was totally predictable five years ago that Turkey was in Israel's gunsights, and as
usual Israel tends to destroy others by proxy. They can sit back and savor Turkey destroying
more of Syria, while US sanctions destroy more of Turkey.
The waves of death and destruction that have hammered the Middle East for the last seventy
years are all symptoms of one problem and that is the illegitimate "state of Israel".
Most Americans seem obsessed with stupid wars. For example the vast majority of people in the
UK see the Iraq War as a catastrophic mistake and despise Tony Blair, yet in the US most
people still seem to see the Iraq War as a good thing. The mentality is far apart.
Americans seem a very insecure people, projecting military power is all they really have.
If America is not constantly embroiled in a war somewhere then most Americans feel they have
nothing to be proud of. I would go as far to say that the military is the only real source of
pride in America, it's the only thing Americans feel they undeniably excel at.
There are no "stupid wars", every slaughter of millions was long time in planning and was
based on greed and racism of the "master" races vs. "subhumans".
USA corporation, can not and will not survive without WARS.
Complete "economy" is a WAR machine, USA corporations has WEAPONIZED it ALL.
It is nice to dream, even HollyWood supports and promotes it.
Whiskey Rebellion me think was the Birthday of citizen USA and blessed it's associates
with representation by corrupt and greedy anointed by others rushing to become corrupt and
greedy.
Trump has shown himself to be completely unreliable on every important issue; I do not
see why it will be different this time -- his desire for approval from the Establishment is
apparently far stronger than any principles he may hold -- you can see this in practically
everything he does, perhaps most notably in his constant bleating about black and Hispanic
unemployment -- he simply can't be trusted.
On the other hand Trump has not started any new wars (so far). He is also resisting the elite
of Deep State (MIC) and the mdia, probably in his own weird way by making confusing
statements keeping them off balance. No body knows we are all simply speculating. Time will
tell.
@WorkingClass
Not really. The goal all along was not to "take" Syria so much as to destroy it and leave it
in fragments. Mission accomplished! Syria, or at east large swathes of it has been reduced to
rubble, its economy is gutted and its people are scattered to the winds. The US had no goals
there to begin with and has just been acting in the service of its "great friend and ally"
Israel. Your tax dollars at work.
Syria, Iraq, Libya are now less of a threat to Israel than ever before so that is a kind
of peace. Solitudenum facient, pacem appellant said Tacitus. They make desolation and call it
peace.
@Europe
natonalist I agree. Worship of the military is surely modern America's most cringeworthy
and repellent aspect. The war hero is the American equivalent of the medieval saint, and you
can't even blame the Jews for it. It's clearly a whitey thing. Get a few bullets shot at you
by some primitive and soon to be obliterated savages and you can live large on your war
stories for the rest of your comfortably pensioned days. The sad thing is that there are no
wars for the US military to fight these days except those they create themselves.
America, an exceptionally immature, warlike and stupid nation. And they worship Jesus! Who
of course will just laugh when he presses the button and sends them all into the lake of fire
without a second thought.
@Cloak And
Dagger Interesting, I've been mulling over this possibility recently and was thinking
about it earlier as a potential outcome-based upon basic game theory.
What I don't understand is, if there be an alleged discreet hidden super-hand of
power controlled by the Jewish elite, and Trump seemed to be doing their bidding (moving the
Embassy), where are all the "compromising photos" and "Blasey Ford's" for the Warren's and
Biden's of the world? Certainly some damaging (and likely private) material, or "witnesses"
from the past exist, against those who attack Trump? Certainly the Mossad and/or other hidden
forces have such information, that could protect Trump. Here's a guy with a (now) Jewish
daughter and a Jewish son-in-law, doing positive things for Israel and the Jewish elite in
the US/West, and yet, he has been subject to continual attacks, as have those around him, and
now he is facing impeachment?
I don't see Israel getting it any better if Warren is elected (certainly not by her base,
which is turning more toward a BDS worldview). It just makes me think their power is not as
great as conspiracy theorists alleged, or in the alternative (perhaps likely) their "power"
is superseded by an even greater hidden force of elites. If their power is as awesome and
infiltrating as alleged, why isn't he president for life at this point? Using the media,
politics, blackmail, international banking, this guy could usher in Israel as the capital of
the universe, but yet none of that is happening. He is betrayed at every corner and faces
removal from office, disgrace (for actually being the removed, i.e. the other side actually
"winning" against him), and probably the destruction of any chance Ivanka and Jared had of
becoming the first couple, in the future.
So perhaps as you offer, he's going for broke and just doing whatever he wants or wanted
to do in the beginning. Time will tell. Strange times indeed.
@Contraviews
, Contraviews said: "He (Trump) is also resisting the elite of Deep State (MIC) and the mdia,
probably in his own weird way by making confusing statements keeping them off balance."
No! Zionist Jews & Israel are keeping you and almost all of Amerika "off balance."
Refer to Jerusalem Post article (linked below) and you will distinguish "confusing
statements" by Trump from the reality of mandatory ZUS endless ME wars since 9/11.
Everybody should be happy Uncle Sam is getting out of Syria. Look at the disasters the US
created in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, etc. and all the money wasted which could have been
better spent here at home.
Much of what's being said in the MSM has to do with the American narrative that Turkey and
Syria are bad guys for the unspoken reason that they have opposed the zionist enterprise.
What American national interest justified the occupation and dismemberment of Syria? Why
should we support terrorist groups like the PPK against NATO member Turkey? Why should we
ally with al-Qaeda affiliate HTS for israel's benefit?
@anon
Good point about DJT needing to use Twitter to announce his decisions since they'd otherwise
be thwarted or outright ignored going through normal channels. But, how can he actually be
against these wars when they're contrasted with his embarrassing servility toward Israel,
which in actuality is an enemy state responsible for Lavon, Liberty, and 9/11, not to mention
it's theft of our technology that's used against us by Israel's intel tech companies for
profit and communications espionage at the deepest levels of our government? The canard about
other, overriding strategic interests doesn't hold water since the $trillions wasted on these
wars could have secured our economic and military interests a hundredfold through trade and
cultural interaction. As much as I want to trust DJT and would stand with him and the
deplorables at the barricades if necessary, I cannot overcome my repugnance at his support
for Israel, knowing as he now must know that Israel did 9/11.
The reason America was pushed into the mideast wars was the attack on the WTC 911 by Israel
and traitors in the ZUS government and this attack was blamed on the Arabs and America was
tricked into attacking Afghanistan and Iraq and Syria, all this for Israels goal of greater
Israel, and all this at the cost of millions in lives and 7 trillion and counting in
taxpayers money.
To top off the deception, AL CIADA aka ISIS is a creation of the CIA and the Mossad and
MI6, and these are the real terrorists!
The Kurdish-dominated Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) announced a deal with the Syrian
government of president Bashar al-Assad to resist the ongoing Turkish invasion. Syrian forces
have already moved into Kobane and Manbij. If Turkey continues with its push southwards into
Syria, a war between the Turkish and Syrian forces seems imminent.
As per the deal signed on October 13, the SDF will dissolve its Autonomous Administration
of North and East Syria, also known as Rojava, and hand over the control of cities, such as
Kobane and Manbij to the Syrian government. Talks between the SDF and the Syrian government
were facilitated by the Russians at their Syrian base at Hmeimim in Latakia.
Turkey and its ally, the Free Syrian Army – many of whose members were directly
affiliated to Al Qaeda and other extremist groups – continue their offensive and
atrocities. The FSA has reportedly already illegally executed 13 people. The victims include
Hervin Khalaf, leader of the Future Syria Party, and her two drivers.Turkey launched
'Operation Peace Spring' on October 9. The operation has already led to the death of around
60 Kurdish and 18 Turkish fighters. It has already caused the displacement of more than
130,000 people.
How has the discussion predictably developed along partisan lines? Trump said he wants out of
Syria. That united the war mongers in the house and senate because war means massive profits
to the military industrial complex and congress works for them. Trump said something that
affects the bottom line of the rich and they reacted predictably.
@A123
You can google and watch what Assad told the Kurds in a press conference. It will contradict
part of your statement. The Kurds risked and lost. Great warriors, but weak diplomats and
strategists.
1BEIRUT, LEBANON (11:50 A.M.) – The Syrian Arab Army (SAA) has taken over the U.S.
military base in Manbij after entering the city last night.
According to a military source in the Aleppo Governorate, the Syrian Arab Army has
deployed several units to Manbij as they look to block any potential Turkish offensive to
capture the city.
Men, Do This Today – You Will Never Need ED Pills Again!
MedJournal
Ads by Revcontent
Find Out More >
38,273
On Tuesday, the Anna News Agency reported from Manbij, as they showed the deployment of
the Syrian Army and their eventual take over of the U.S. military base there. -- AMN news
.
2 A stunning development in the key northern Syrian city of Manbij -- the Pentagon has
confirmed a planned handover to Russian military forces is underway amid a Turkish military
assault on the region. This also hours after President Trump tweeted that Assad "wants
naturally to protect the Kurds" and that the problem should be left to local powers.
Late Monday the main US base in Manbij was filmed empty of US forces, and American convoys
were also spotted hastily pulling out of the city as Syrian national forces entered,
following Sunday's historic deal between the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) and
the Assad government. Newsweek reports the developments follows:
I think Russia has allowed Turkey to attack Syria to satisfy Turke's main objective of
rooting out the Kurd on the condition of returning the territory to Syria . It has given Kurd
the bleak choice of oblivion or self preservation . America suffers from PTSD . The flashback
of Saigon on the roof top reappeared again . It ran. Good a sensible job by Trump.
@WJ The
machinations people are making on this topic are truly stunning when it's clear Trump is
doing the right thing. Today are reports that US positions and bases in N. Syria have been
turn keyed over the Assad and Russian forces. Trump IS Protecting the Kurds, just not with
American blood, as he promised.
The one thing Turkey has always wanted is a broken Syria so it can gobble up the remnants.
Past US (and many current) leaders and Democrats were complicit in this by funneling cash and
weapons to Syrian opposition, which directly led to the rise of Isis and deaths of thousands
– can you say evil?
I have hope that Trumps current actions will bring an end to thus war for good –
Turkey was OK to beat up on some kurds but war with Russia is something else.
@OscarWildeLoveChild
imho Jewish power keeps Trump on a perpetual short leash (Schiff is this month's designee to
'walk the dog') until Iran is wrecked.
[edit: renfro commented on Giraldi's earlier thread reminding readers that Israel has a
major interest in the Kurds, their territory, which is oil rich. Remember the proposals to
divide Iraq into three ]
Warren -- BDS is one thing, but her agenda to tax >$50million -- that's the part people
hear & cheer: Hooray! Soak the rich!
The next thing she says is, "Use the money to pay for universal child care, universal
kindergarten, increase pay for child care workers."
This gets cheers from millennials struggling to keep two people employed and kids cared
for.
But think about how drastically anti-family those proposals are.
TOTALLY turn over the care of our children to the loving embrace of the federal government
aka the Frankfurt school
The combined synthesis of social theory and psychoanalysis thus allows resituating on
new bases the Marxist optimism according to which the working class, due to its position in
the relations of production, is disposed to adopt a point of view scientifically based on
reality as well as promote legitimate forms of action.
Knowledge of the forms of the becoming-adult of humanity conceived by Freud, in the form
of a theory of passage through different stages that must result in an assumed genital
sexuality, leads to the recognition of a working class that is believed to be less
encumbered by typically bourgeois prejudices and perversities.
@NoseytheDuke
The goal was to topple Assad. Remember Obama? Assad must go? Assad and the Assad regime are
still there. Where is Saddam Hussein? Where is Muammar Gaddafi? After seven years of war in
Syria the victors are Syria, Iran and Russia. The losers are the U.S., Israel, Saudi Arabia
and Turkey. The real losers of course are the dead and the maimed. The widows and orphans.
And the millions who have been displaced and have become refugees. All are victims of
Imperial aggression. And the real winners of course are the war profiteers who have grown
fatter and fatter since 9/11.
@J. O.
Step 1 in ending hunger in America:
Stop importing hungry foreigners who can't earn a living here.
Do that and somebody might take you seriously. As it is, you're morally despicable.
Liza
says: October 15,
2019 at 4:11 pm GMT 100 Words @eah Yes,
indeed. He is a loose cannon. Don't those people who are still kissing the hem of Trump's
garments remember all that stuff he said during his campaign? Sure, we all know that
politicians lie in order to get elected – but nothing on this level. Like the Scorpion
and Frog poem, or at least his version of it (the Snake). Read More
"... Russia hating is the lynchpin of oligarchic deepstate MIC MSM propaganda. Take that away and the fat cats are revealed as the naked face of evil that they are. Hating Russia (and China) supposedly justifies all their crimes. ..."
The transcript of President Trump's July 25 telephone conversation with Ukraine's recently
elected president, Volodymyr Zelensky, has ignited the usual anti-Trump bashing in American
political-media circles, even more calls for impeachment, with little, if any, regard for the
national security issues involved. Leave aside that Trump should not have been compelled to
make the transcript public and ask: Which, if any, foreign leaders will now feel free to
conduct personal telephone diplomacy with an American president directly or indirectly, of the
kind that helped end the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, knowing that his or her comments might
become known to domestic political opponents? Consider instead only the following undiscussed
issues:
§ Even if former vice president Joseph Biden, who figured prominently in the
Trump-Zelensky conversation, is not the Democratic nominee, Ukraine is now likely to be a
contested, and poisonous, issue in the 2020 US presidential election. How did the United States
become so involved in Ukraine's torturous and famously corrupt politics? The short answer is
NATO expansion, as some of us who opposed that folly back in the 1990s warned would be the
case, and not only in Ukraine. The Washington-led attempt to fast-track Ukraine into NATO in
2013 -- 14 resulted in the Maidan crisis, the overthrow of the country's constitutionally
elected president Viktor Yanukovych, and to the still ongoing proxy civil war in Donbass. All
those fateful events infused the Trump-Zelensky talk, if only between the lines.
§ Russia shares centuries of substantial civilizational values, language, culture,
geography, and intimate family relations with Ukraine. America does not. Why, then, is it
routinely asserted in the US political-media establishment that Ukraine is a "vital US national
interest" and not a vital zone of Russian national security, as by all geopolitical reckoning
it would seem to be? The standard American establishment answer is: because of "Russian
aggression against Ukraine." But the "aggression" cited is Moscow's 2014 annexation of Crimea
and support for anti-Kiev fighters in the Donbass civil war, both of which came after, not
before, the Maidan crisis, and indeed were a direct result of it. That is, in Moscow's eyes, it
was reacting, not unreasonably, to US-led "aggression." In any event, as opponents of eastward
expansion also warned in the 1990s, NATO has increased no one's security, only diminished
security throughout the region bordering Russia.
§ Which brings us back to the Trump-Zelensky telephone conversation. President Zelensky
ran and won overwhelmingly as a peace-with-Moscow candidate, which is why the roughly $400
million in US military aid to Ukraine, authorized by Congress, figured anomalously in the
conversation. Trump is being sharply criticized for withholding that aid or threatening to do
so, including by Obama partisans. Forgotten, it seems, is that President Obama, despite
considerable bipartisan pressure, steadfastly refused to authorize such military assistance to
Kiev, presumably because it might escalate the Russian-Ukrainian conflict (and Russia, with its
long border with Ukraine, had every escalatory advantage). Instead of baiting Trump on this
issue, we should hope he encourages the new peace talks that Zelensky has undertaken in recent
days with Moscow, which could end the killing in Donbass. (For this, Zelensky is being
threatened by well-armed extreme Ukrainian nationalists, even quasi-fascists. Strong American
support for his negotiations with Moscow may not deter them, but it might.)
§ Finally, but not surprisingly, the shadow of Russiagate is now morphing into
Ukrainegate. Trump is also being sharply criticized for asking Zelensky to cooperate with
Attorney General William Barr's investigation into the origins of Russiagate, even though
the role of
Ukrainian-Americans and Ukraine itself in Russiagate allegations against Trump on behalf of
Hillary Clinton in 2016 is now well-documented
.
We need to know fully the origins of Russiagate, arguably the worst presidential scandal in
American history, and if Ukrainian authorities can contribute to that understanding, they
should be encouraged to do so. As I've argued repeatedly, fervent anti-Trumpers must decide
whether they loathe him more than they care about American and international security. Imaging,
for example, a Cuban missile -- like crisis somewhere in the world today where Washington and
Moscow are militarily eyeball-to-eyeball, directly or through proxies, from the Baltic and the
Black Seas to Syria and Ukraine. Will Trump's presidential legitimacy be sufficient for him to
resolve such an existential crisis peacefully, as President John F. Kennedy did in 1962?
Stephen F. Cohen is a professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at New York
University and Princeton University. A Nation contributing editor, his most recent book War
With Russia? From Putin & Ukraine to Trump & Russiagate is available in paperback and
in an ebook edition. His weekly conversations with the host of The John Batchelor Show, now in
their sixth year, are available at www.thenation.com.
Trump is an agent of the Deep State, playing good cop to the bad cop Deep State. I have been
saying this since mid April 2017. His multitude of actions belie his promises. Trump is a
quisling to his supporters.
Here is an excellent article that comports with my view of Trump.
I am puzzled why Cohen is permitted to publish in the Nation. Is it due to his marriage
to its publisher or to the magazine's remnant infatuation with the Soviet state? Just
asking.
The whole situation is a rather ironic
Prof. Cohen is certainly one of America's most eminent Russia scholars, and I think that
for decades he was regarded as one of the most left-leaning ones, regularly denounced for his
leftism by all the Neocons and other rightwingers. I remember I used to see him on the PBS
Newshour, sometimes paired with a conservative critic of the Soviets. I'd guess that past
history plus being married to the publisher of The Nation is what gives him his
residual foothold there.
I'd suspect that if someone had told him a couple of decades ago that by the late 2010s
he'd be blacklisted from the MSM and denounced as a "Russian agent," he probably would have
been greatly saddened at the disheartening turn in American society, but not totally shocked.
He probably would have regarded such a scenario as having a 10% possibility.
But if someone would have told him that the people denouncing and blacklisting him would
have been the *liberal Democrats* and some of their most "excitable" elements would be
accusing him of being a "Neo-Nazi White Supremacist Russian Agent" he would have thought the
entire country had gone on LSD.
It's sad that our entire country has gone on LSD
The whole situation is actually a perfect parallel to the various past American purges
I've often covered in my articles:
Russia is the excuse for US actions in the Ukraine as it was in the ME.
What is America without a big bad boogeyman like Russia?.
Certainly not a “Superpower’ defending the world.
Without enemies like Russia we would be nothing but big rich country.
And all the Neos and Zios and politicians would have to use Viagra instead of war to squirt
out their poison.
A lot of countries like the Ukraine have gotten a lot of US taxpayer money by
‘standing up to a Russian takeover’….and are laughing all the way to
their bank.
How did the United States become so involved in Ukraine’s torturous and famously
corrupt politics?
The short answer is NATO expansion <= maybe something different? I like pocketbook
expansion..
NATO Expansion provides cover and legalizes the private use of Presidential directed USA
resources to enable a few to make massively big profits at the expense of the governed in
the target area.
Behind NATO lies the reason for Bexit, the Yellow Jackets, the unrest in Iraq and Egypt,
Yemen etc.
Hypothesis 1: NATO supporters are more corrupt than Ukraine officials.
Hypothesis 2: NATO expansion is a euphemism for USA/EU/ backed private party plunder to
follow invade and destroy regime change activities designed to dispossess local Oligarchs
of the wealth in NATO targeted nations? Private use of public force for private gain comes
to mind.
I think [private use of public force for private gain] is what Trump meant when Trump
said to impeach Trump for investigating the Ukraine matter amounts to Treason.. but it is
the exactly the activity type that Hallmarks CIA instigated regime change.
A lot of intelligence agency manipulation and private pocketbook expanding corruption
can be hidden behind NATO expansion.. Please prove to me that Biden and the hundreds of
other plunders became so deeply involved in Ukraine because of NATO expansion?
It is more than ironic that the Dems (and their like-minded cronies in Big Media) are up in
arms over Trump’s attempt in find ‘dirt’ about Joe Biden when the
‘dirt’ looks and smells like actual corruption. Have laws been broken? Was
Biden selling influence through his son? Stranger things have happened. At the very least,
it looks as though Joe Biden crossed an ethical line. This will likely cost him the
nomination.
Similarly, the news media should–if it was doing its job–pursue leads that
would help find the source behind the missing server and the Fake News that helped justify
the toxic and duplicitous ‘Russiagate’ investigation. But they’d rather
pursue Trump instead. I have never witnessed a more partisan and bloodthirsty Fourth
Estate.
Why is the media so utterly uninterested in finding out who/how the fake
Putin-Trump ‘conspiracy’ was cooked up in the first place? Doesn’t it
make sense the Trump would want to find out more? Justice demands it. False intelligence
can sow chaos and start wars.
Consider, for instance, the manufactured lies (Saddam’s phantom WMD, links to 911,
etc) that were used to justify Zio-America’s annihilation of Iraq. What intelligence
agency cooked up these falsehoods? Who spoon-fed these fairy tales to G.W. Bush and Colin
Powell?
Not only have these questions never been answered, they are seldom even asked! The Deep
State has gone rogue. And Big Media is covering it up.
This whole ridiculous drama may profit the Dem’s in the longer term — that is,
by removing that corrupt, dementia ridden nit-wit Biden from the presidential
competition.
As president, Biden would be a greater sock puppet than even GWB…of course,
“sock puppet” maybe just what the Dem’s want….
The key question is what is the gain in separating Ukraine from Russia, adding it to NATO,
and turning Russia and Ukraine into enemies. And what are the most likely results, e.g. can
it ever work without risking a catastrophic event?
There are the usual empire-building and weapons business reasons, but those should
function within a rational framework. As it is right now, the most likely outcome of the
Western initiative in Ukraine will be substantially lower living standards than there would
be otherwise for most Ukrainians. And an increase in tensions in the region with inevitable
impact on the business there. So what exactly is the gain and for whom?
@Ron Unz Thanks to Tucker Carlson’s show, some folks on the left like Cohen, Mate
and Greenwald, are more likely to get air time on Fox News than MSNBC and CNN.
The current CIA talking point is that it is illegal for the President to seek foreign
assistance for his campaign. One might also slant it that the President of the United
States has an obligation to the people who elected him to require an allied, friendly
government to reopen the investigation of Biden because there is adequate reason to suspect
that the Democrats are running yet another corrupt criminal for President. Incidentally,
this puts Zelensky in a very awkward position, as one of the backers of his transition from
sitcom star to President of Ukraine was a principal in Burisma
It is not the threat of impeachment that will energize Trump’s base; it is the
grotesque, constant character assassination in the (largely CIA manipulated) media that
will return him to the White House. The American people have a sense of fairness. They have
always been of better character than the reprobates we are allowed to vote for. Whatever
happened to trusting the democratic process, instead of using intelligence assets to
engineer domestic regime change?
History is not made by nice guys. Trump has torn a big hole in the tissue of lies about
what this country is and what it stands for, and that is too much for those who make their
living deceiving us.
Russia hating is the lynchpin of oligarchic deepstate MIC MSM propaganda. Take that
away and the fat cats are revealed as the naked face of evil that they are. Hating Russia
(and China) supposedly justifies all their crimes.
The Washington-led attempt to fast-track Ukraine into NATO in 2013–14 resulted in
the Maidan crisis, the overthrow of the country’s constitutionally elected president
Viktor Yanukovych, and to the still ongoing proxy civil war in Donbass.
Which exemplifies the stupidity and arrogance of the American
military/industrial/political Establishment — none of that had anything to do with US
national security (least of all antagonizing Russia) — how fucking hypocritical is it
to presume the Monroe Doctrine, and then try to get the Ukraine into NATO? — none of
it would have been of any benefit whatsoever to the average American.
1) Tulsi Gabbard is a Russian asset (Clinton).
2) Jill Stein is a Russian asset (Clinton).
3) Donald Trump has been a Russian asset since 1987 ( Intelligencer
).
4) Rand Paul is "working for Vladimir Putin" (
McCain ,
Greg Olear ).
5) Bernie Sanders is "just a tool" to the Russians (
The Washington Post ).
Great! Thank you @HillaryClinton . You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and
personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally
come out from behind the curtain. From the day I announced my candidacy, there has been a
...
Tulsi Gabbard 1:20 PM - 18 Oct 2019
... concerted campaign to destroy my reputation. We wondered who was behind it and why.
Now we know -- it was always you, through your proxies and ...
Tulsi Gabbard 1:20 PM - 18 Oct 2019
... powerful allies in the corporate media and war machine, afraid of the threat I pose.
It's now clear that this primary is between you and me. Don't cowardly hide behind your
proxies. Join the race directly.
The current CIA talking point is that it is illegal for the President to seek foreign
assistance for his campaign. One might also slant it that the President of the United States
has an obligation to the people who elected him to require an allied, friendly government to
reopen the investigation of Biden because there is adequate reason to suspect that the
Democrats are running yet another corrupt criminal for President. Incidentally, this puts
Zelensky in a very awkward position, as one of the backers of his transition from sitcom star
to President of Ukraine was a principal in Burisma
It is not the threat of impeachment that will energize Trump's base; it is the grotesque,
constant character assassination in the (largely CIA manipulated) media that will return him
to the White House. The American people have a sense of fairness. They have always been of
better character than the reprobates we are allowed to vote for. Whatever happened to
trusting the democratic process, instead of using intelligence assets to engineer domestic
regime change?
History is not made by nice guys. Trump has torn a big hole in the tissue of lies about
what this country is and what it stands for, and that is too much for those who make their
living deceiving us.
"... I suspect that Gabbard has very little chance of beating Trump because he is also campaigning - quite successfully - against 'endless wars', and Gabbard is too radical for most Americans. ..."
"... This sparks some interesting questions, such as, exactly who are party members, and how do they become members? The actual structure and functioning of political parties in the US is seldom discussed, and I wonder why that is. "Opaque" seems to be a good description ..."
"... The primary voting system is a huge financial subsidy to the two officially approved parties, which are, of course, merely two branches of the Business Party. ..."
"... Good for Tulsi. I love the way she punches. She not only decked Clinton in one, but she got a lot of other important points across at the same time. ..."
"... Whenever she tries to curve her stance close to the establishment, she comes off as someone who is running for Secretary of State or Secretary of Defense; as someone with her eyes on a high status job in the establishement. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton can't be thrown out of the Dem party because she in a sense IS the Dem party as it stands now, a long way from its roots. The Dem party now has been fully integrated into the bureaucracy, the intelligence services and the corporate media similar to how Tony Blair in the UK took the Labour Party to be deeply embedded in the UK establishment. ..."
"... Hillary is still around because she literally owns the Democrat party. Follow the funding: in 2016, almost all of it flowed through HRC. Not just the presidential, but the state and significant part of the local. ..."
Hillary Clinton appeared to suggest that Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) is the "favorite of the Russians" to win the 2020 presidential
election and is being groomed by Moscow to run as a third-party candidate against the eventual Democratic nominee.
...
The Russians already have their "eye on somebody who's currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party
candidate," she said, in an apparent reference to Gabbard.
"She's the favorite of the Russians. They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her, so far," Clinton
told David Plouffe, the podcast's host and the campaign manager for former President Obama's 2008 campaign.
"And that's assuming Jill Stein will give it up, which she might not because she's also a Russian asset," Clinton added, referring
to the 2016 Green Party presidential candidate.
The responses were appropriate:
Tulsi Gabbard @TulsiGabbard - 22:20 UTC
· Oct 18, 2019
Great! Thank you @HillaryClinton. You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that
has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally come out from behind the curtain. From the day I announced my candidacy,
there has been a ...
... concerted campaign to destroy my reputation. We wondered who was behind it and why. Now we know -- it was always you, through
your proxies and ...
... powerful allies in the corporate media and war machine, afraid of the threat I pose.
It's now clear that this primary is between you and me. Don't cowardly hide behind your proxies. Join the race directly.
The Streisand effect of Clinton's shoddy remark will help Tulsi Gabbard with regards to name recognition. It will increase her
poll results. With Joe Biden faltering and Elizabeth Warren increasingly exposed as a phony Clinton copy, Bernie Sanders could become
the Democrats leading candidate. Then the “favorite of the Russians” smear will be applied to him.
Clinton should be suspended from the Democratic Party for damaging it's chances to regain the White House. But the Democratic
establishment would rather sabotage the election than to let one of the more progressive candidates take the lead.
Voters do not like such internal squabble and shenanigans. The phony Ukrainegate 'impeachment inquiry' is already
a gift for Trump. Messing with the candidate field on top
of that will inevitably end with another Trump presidency.
and Suspend her from what? a lamp post? That's a little bit harsh.
Hillary is actually doing something constructive for the first time in her career - by giving a boost to Tulsi Gabbard who
is the only candidate who challenges the military industrial complex, which has probably caused more death and destruction than
anyone else in history.
I suspect that Gabbard has very little chance of beating Trump because he is also campaigning - quite successfully - against
'endless wars', and Gabbard is too radical for most Americans.
But none of the other Democratic candidates stand a chance of beating Trump either. The two front-runners are medically unfit
for any important challenging job - Biden (senility) and Sanders (recent heart attack/stroke?).
Tulsi is urging Hillary to "enter the race" !! Hillary is foaming at the mouth with desire to enter the 2020 race. Is Tulsi
working for Hillary?
Behind the scenes it was decided to make HunterBidenGate the pretext for a Trump impeachment. This, it
was thought, would damage Trump AND Biden and make way for the resurrection of Hillary Clinton. There were so many other pretexts
available but they chose this one.
"Clinton should be suspended from the Democratic Party"
This sparks some interesting questions, such as, exactly who are party members, and how do they become members? The actual
structure and functioning of political parties in the US is seldom discussed, and I wonder why that is. "Opaque" seems to be a
good description. Even a quick review of the Wikipedia entry reveals little.
As best I can tell, a person is a party member by checking the box on the voter registration form. The few times I have registered,
I did not check a box for any party. It is none of the state's business who I associate with or vote for.
It is also not the state's business to supervise and fund the selection of party candidates. But that is what happens in the
US. The primary voting system is a huge financial subsidy to the two officially approved parties, which are, of course, merely
two branches of the Business Party.
"It didn't come much clearer nor more explicit than when Gabbard fired up the Democratic TV debate this week. It was billed
as the biggest televised presidential debate ever, and the Hawaii Representative told some prime-time home-truths to the nation:
"Donald Trump has blood of the Kurds on his hands, but so do many of the politicians in our country from both parties who have
supported this ongoing regime-change war in Syria that started in 2011 along with many in the mainstream media who have been championing
and cheer-leading this regime-change war."
The 38-year-old military veteran went on to denounce how the US has sponsored Al Qaeda terrorists for its objective of overthrowing
the government in Damascus."
Good for Tulsi. I love the way she punches. She not only decked Clinton in one, but she got a lot of other important points
across at the same time. The way she tries to finesse her stances on Iran, India and Israel is disturbing though.
Whenever she tries to curve her stance close to the establishment, she comes off as someone who is running for Secretary
of State or Secretary of Defense; as someone with her eyes on a high status job in the establishement.
When she's forthright, punches hard and says the things that many people are thinking but few dare say - as she did in her
statement on Syria, but didn't in her statement on Iran - she comes off as the first real candidate for President that I've seen
in my lifetime (I don't count the likes of Dennis Kucinich, who never seemed to actually want to win).
If Tulsi is serious about doing the world good, this is the path she needs to take. Speak the truths no one else is willing
to say; punch hard; stick with it. Yeah and be willing to die for it. If they can't stop you, which I don't think they can, they'll
come gunning for you...
Finally, at last, foreign affairs (i.e wars) has made it into a presidential campaign, and by a veteran, with veterans currently
being sanctified in the U.S. The women (Tulsi, Jill and Hillary) are getting down and dirty, too, which is always a good thing
and a feature of politics in time past, as in the Truman era. President Harry Truman: "If you can't stand the heat, get out of
the kitchen. If you cannot handle the pressure, you should not remain in a position where you have to deal with it."
Let's hope that they get into the details of Hillary's failures, including Libya, Somalia, and especially Syria. Let's get
it on! In the last election she never was forced to answer for her specific failures. Now's the time.
Hillary Clinton can't be thrown out of the Dem party because she in a sense IS the Dem party as it stands now, a long way
from its roots. The Dem party now has been fully integrated into the bureaucracy, the intelligence services and the corporate
media similar to how Tony Blair in the UK took the Labour Party to be deeply embedded in the UK establishment.
What Trump has successfully done from the right that Sanders/Gabbard (like Corbyn in the UK) are struggling to do from the
left is to attack the establishment that's in a permanent state of warfare abroad and at home against its "enemies" and unfettered
capitalism at home For a brief moment it was hoped by progressives that Obama - who defeated the faces of the establishment, Clinton
and McCain in 2008 - would really fight the establishment but he ended up becoming more of a celebrity politician like Trudeau
who talked a good game but was unable to effect real change on the ground which of course led to a large number or African Americans
not voting in 2016 and a lot of white blue collar Obama 2008 voters going for Trump.
The corporate media which has been totally corrupted and infiltrated by intelligence agencies - quote openly versus covertly
as in the past - is going to make every effort to shut down not just Gabbard but Sanders and ensure that Warren - a wannabe feel-gooder
like Obama - be completely neutered to effect real change.
Hillary is still around because she literally owns the Democrat party. Follow the funding: in 2016, almost all of it flowed
through HRC. Not just the presidential, but the state and significant part of the local.
"... Clinton's claims, made without the slightest effort at factual substantiation, are an attempt to criminalize the anti-war statements of the two candidates as treasonous. ..."
"... Clinton's attacks on Gabbard and Stein make clear once again that the Democrats' assertions of "Russian meddling" in the 2016 election were primarily aimed not at Trump, but at the anti-war and anti-capitalist sentiments that led millions of people to refuse to vote for her in 2016. They underscore how the Democrats have appropriated the McCarthyite tactics historically associated primarily with the Republican right. ..."
"... As a central part of their anti-Russia campaign, Clinton and the Democrats promoted the media effort to poison public opinion against journalist Julian Assange by slandering him as a "Russian agent," preparing the way for the Trump administration to indict him on bogus sedition charges and secure his imprisonment in London under conditions that threaten his life. ..."
"... "That's assuming Jill Stein will give it up, which she might not, because she's also a Russian asset," Clinton said. "Yes, she's a Russian asset, I mean, totally. They know they can't win without a third-party candidate." ..."
"... Gabbard replied to Clinton's slander on Twitter by declaring, "Thank you @HillaryClinton. You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally come out from behind the curtain." Gabbard's performance in this week's Democratic presidential debate no doubt put her in Clinton's crosshairs. Gabbard vowed, "As president, I will end these regime-change wars," and "would make sure that we stop supporting terrorists like Al Qaeda in Syria, who have been the ground force in this ongoing regime-change war." ..."
"... Gabbard's true statement that the United States -- with Clinton as secretary of state under Obama -- had allied with forces linked to Al Qaeda in the drive to overthrow the Syrian government was passed over in total silence by the rest of the candidates and the CNN and New York Times moderators. It was then blacked out in the post-debate media coverage of the event. ..."
"... In an earlier debate, Gabbard said the greatest geopolitical danger facing the United States was the threat of nuclear war -- another taboo in the broadcast media, which routinely demands that the United States "stand up" to Russia without mentioning what a military confrontation with the nuclear-armed country would look like. ..."
Hillary Clinton, the widely despised former Democratic Party presidential candidate, has
slandered two of her political opponents -- Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard and 2016 Green Party
presidential candidate Dr. Jill Stein -- as traitors and Russian spies.
The World Socialist Web Site has fundamental political differences with both Ms.
Gabbard and Dr. Stein. But Clinton's claims, made without the slightest effort at factual
substantiation, are an attempt to criminalize the anti-war statements of the two candidates as
treasonous.
Clinton's attacks on Gabbard and Stein make clear once again that the Democrats' assertions
of "Russian meddling" in the 2016 election were primarily aimed not at Trump, but at the
anti-war and anti-capitalist sentiments that led millions of people to refuse to vote for her
in 2016. They underscore how the Democrats have appropriated the McCarthyite tactics
historically associated primarily with the Republican right.
As a central part of their anti-Russia campaign, Clinton and the Democrats promoted the
media effort to poison public opinion against journalist Julian Assange by slandering him as a
"Russian agent," preparing the way for the Trump administration to indict him on bogus sedition
charges and secure his imprisonment in London under conditions that threaten his life.
At the same time, in the name of countering the supposed menace of Russian "fake news," the
Democrats pressured Google to slash search traffic to left-wing political websites and insisted
that Facebook and Twitter delete left-wing accounts with millions of followers.
In a podcast interview published Thursday, Clinton told former Obama adviser David Plouffe,
"I think they've got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are
grooming her to be the third-party candidate." Implicitly but clearly referring to Gabbard,
Clinton continued, "She's the favorite of the Russians."
"They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her," Clinton added.
Asked later if the former secretary of state was referring to Gabbard in her comment,
Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill told CNN, "If the nesting doll fits "
Clinton then went on to make her strongest assertion yet that Jill Stein was a "Russian
asset."
"That's assuming Jill Stein will give it up, which she might not, because she's also a
Russian asset," Clinton said. "Yes, she's a Russian asset, I mean, totally. They know they
can't win without a third-party candidate."
Gabbard replied to Clinton's slander on Twitter by declaring, "Thank you @HillaryClinton.
You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has
sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally come out from behind the curtain."
Gabbard's performance in this week's Democratic presidential debate no doubt put her in
Clinton's crosshairs. Gabbard vowed, "As president, I will end these regime-change wars," and
"would make sure that we stop supporting terrorists like Al Qaeda in Syria, who have been the
ground force in this ongoing regime-change war."
Gabbard's true statement that the United States -- with Clinton as secretary of state under
Obama -- had allied with forces linked to Al Qaeda in the drive to overthrow the Syrian
government was passed over in total silence by the rest of the candidates and the CNN and
New York Times moderators. It was then blacked out in the post-debate media coverage of
the event.
In an earlier debate, Gabbard said the greatest geopolitical danger facing the United States
was the threat of nuclear war -- another taboo in the broadcast media, which routinely demands
that the United States "stand up" to Russia without mentioning what a military confrontation
with the nuclear-armed country would look like.
Toward the end of Thursday's interview, Clinton implicitly called for censorship. She
condemned the growth of internet news outlets, which have broadened the number and range of
sources of information available to the population.
"I think it's a lot harder for Americans to know what they're supposed to believe," she
said. In the 1970s, with only three major national newspapers, "It was a much more controllable
environment."
Jill Stein advocates the reform of capitalism and is an opponent of Marxism. She has stated
that she is opposed to "state socialism." Tulsi Gabbard, a veteran of the Iraq war and major in
the Hawaii National Guard, describes herself as a "hawk" in many aspects of US foreign
policy.
Nevertheless, it is clear that the statements they have made in opposition to the wars in
Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria correspond to the sentiments of the overwhelming majority of
the American people, who see these wars of aggression launched on the basis of lies, which have
killed and maimed millions, as a criminal squandering of lives and resources.
Clinton, speaking for a rabidly pro-war faction of the American financial oligarchy and the
military-intelligence establishment, sees these sentiments as treasonous and argues for their
criminalization.
Her statements make clear once again that the working class has no stake in the struggle
between the Trump faction and his opponents in the Democratic Party and intelligence apparatus.
Trump, relying on fascistic appeals to his right-wing base, is seeking to turn the United
States into a personalist dictatorship. But Clinton's faction does not oppose his concentration
camps for immigrants or his pro-corporate agenda. Rather, it opposes Trump on the grounds that
he is "soft" on Russia and insufficiently aggressive in waging America's wars.
Isn't it funny that the Clinton trolls were weaponizing her gender in the last election,
screaming "sexist!" at anyone who criticized her for her actual policies and corrupt
practices, slandering Sanders supporters as "Bernie Bros", and to the point of Albright
claiming there was a special place in hell for women who didn't support her, while the Queen
of Warmongering, who was besties with Trump, married to Bill, took cash from Weinstein, and
flew with Epstein (all serial rapists) gets to baselessly smear women as treasonous spies
without a peep from the liberal feminists, metoo-ers, and media mouthpieces? And, for a
cherry on top, she's on tour for a book called "Gutsy Women"!
Gabbard, after deftly doing a front-stabbing number on Bad Cop Harris, torpedoing Saint
Obomber's "legacy" with his bungled attempt to surf AQ to regime-change in Syria and rightly
ripping the agitprop rags NYT and CNN some fresh axeholes, has indeed now flushed out the
deranged Alien Queen, wildly spitting globs of steaming molecular acid at the one who dared
wound her drones.
She raises some ugly home truths rarely heard from bourgeois politicians at this level
and, having busted the media blackout to get back in the debates, for her troubles is now
receiving what amount to transparent public death threats from a top Mafiosa desperate to
evade any proper scrutiny of her own and the Party's many warcrimes.
Regardless of the rest of her politics, one has to recognise Gabbard's personal bravery in
tackling dangerous predators like this and hope she has an extremely dedicated 24/7 armed
personal protection detail, to ward off the elevated risk of Arkancide.
""I think it's a lot harder for Americans to know what they're supposed to believe," she
said. In the 1970s, with only three major national newspapers, "It was a much more
controllable environment.""
This is a true voice of bourgeois democracy, of course.
" 'That's assuming Jill Stein will give it up, which she might not, because she's also a
Russian asset,' Clinton said. 'Yes, she's a Russian asset, I mean, totally. They know they
can't win without a third-party candidate.' "
"We came, we saw, he died." -- Clinton on Khaddafy
But can you guess who uttered the following quote(hint: it is not the "white nationalist"
Donald Trump, who unlike some public figures is politically apt enough not to say "white
people" aloud):
"Senator Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening
again, and whites in both states who had not completed college are supporting me." *
The capitalist Democratic Party is a loudmouthed, racist buffoon.
* working hard when not hardly working--but maybe it's not just whites
The vile, vindictive nature of Mrs Clinton has reached new lows as her seeming unaccepting
the loss of the '16 election to shift the blame to anyone but her. She is why we have Trump.
She really needs to fade away and quit meddling in our elections.
"Thank you @HillaryClinton. You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and
personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally
come out from behind the curtain." - An Interview with Tulsi Gabbard regarding the role of
HIllary Clinton, the military-industrial complex, and her anti-war stance here. To my
surprise, she makes the clear connection that Clintons claim that she is a 'russian asset' is
aimed also at demonizing all Americans who oppose the war-regime.
https://www.youtube.com/wat...
By now this new clown is also a murderer, as he did not stop shelling Donbass, although
so far he has committed fewer crimes than Porky.
Have you noticed that the Republicans, while seeming to defend Trump, never challenge the
specious assertion that delaying arms to Ukraine was a threat to US security? At first I
thought this was oversight. Silly me. Keeping the New Cold War smoldering is more important
to those hawks.
Tulsi Gabbard flipping to support the impeachment enquiry was especially disappointing.
I'm guessing she was under lots of pressure, because she can't possibly believe that arming
the Ukies is good for our security. If I could get to one of her events, I'd ask her direct,
what's up with that. Obama didn't give them arms at all, even made some remarks about not
inflaming the situation. (A small token, after his people managed the coup, spent 8 years
demonizing Putin, and presided over origins of Russiagate to make Trump's [stated] goal of
better relations impossible.)
The "logic" of the neoliberal MSM is remarkable. They don't even deny that Biden is corrupt,
that he blatantly abused the office of Vice-President for personal gain. What's more, he was dumb
enough to boast about it publicly. Therefore, let's impeach Trump.
It is more than ironic that the Dems (and their like-minded cronies in Big Media) are up in
arms over Trump's attempt in find 'dirt' about Joe Biden when the 'dirt' looks and smells
like actual corruption. Have laws been broken? Was Biden selling influence through his son?
Stranger things have happened. At the very least, it looks as though Joe Biden crossed an
ethical line. This will likely cost him the nomination.
Similarly, the news media should–if it was doing its job–pursue leads that
would help find the source behind the missing server and the Fake News that helped justify
the toxic and duplicitous 'Russiagate' investigation. But they'd rather pursue Trump instead.
I have never witnessed a more partisan and bloodthirsty Fourth Estate.
Why is the media so utterly uninterested in finding out who/how the fake
Putin-Trump 'conspiracy' was cooked up in the first place? Doesn't it make sense the Trump
would want to find out more? Justice demands it. False intelligence can sow chaos and start
wars.
Consider, for instance, the manufactured lies (Saddam's phantom WMD, links to 911, etc)
that were used to justify Zio-America's annihilation of Iraq. What intelligence agency cooked
up these falsehoods? Who spoon-fed these fairy tales to G.W. Bush and Colin Powell?
Not only have these questions never been answered, they are seldom even asked! The Deep
State has gone rogue. And Big Media is covering it up.
This whole ridiculous drama may profit the Dem's in the longer term -- that is, by removing
that corrupt, dementia ridden nit-wit Biden from the presidential competition.
As president, Biden would be a greater sock puppet than even GWB of course, "sock puppet"
maybe just what the Dem's want .
It is not complicated !!!!
All payments to Biden son were channel of bribery to Democratic administration.
Anybody can understand it.
So impeachment attempt of Trump is actually coverup of Democratic misdeeds .
Russia hating is the lynchpin of oligarchic deepstate MIC MSM propaganda. Take that away and
the fat cats are revealed as the naked face of evil that they are. Hating Russia (and China)
supposedly justifies all their crimes.
The Kurdish-dominated Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) announced a deal with the Syrian
government of president Bashar al-Assad to resist the ongoing Turkish invasion. Syrian forces
have already moved into Kobane and Manbij. If Turkey continues with its push southwards into
Syria, a war between the Turkish and Syrian forces seems imminent.
As per the deal signed on October 13, the SDF will dissolve its Autonomous Administration
of North and East Syria, also known as Rojava, and hand over the control of cities, such as
Kobane and Manbij to the Syrian government. Talks between the SDF and the Syrian government
were facilitated by the Russians at their Syrian base at Hmeimim in Latakia.
Turkey and its ally, the Free Syrian Army – many of whose members were directly
affiliated to Al Qaeda and other extremist groups – continue their offensive and
atrocities. The FSA has reportedly already illegally executed 13 people. The victims include
Hervin Khalaf, leader of the Future Syria Party, and her two drivers.Turkey launched
'Operation Peace Spring' on October 9. The operation has already led to the death of around
60 Kurdish and 18 Turkish fighters. It has already caused the displacement of more than
130,000 people.
How has the discussion predictably developed along partisan lines? Trump said he wants out of
Syria. That united the war mongers in the house and senate because war means massive profits
to the military industrial complex and congress works for them. Trump said something that
affects the bottom line of the rich and they reacted predictably.
@A123
You can google and watch what Assad told the Kurds in a press conference. It will contradict
part of your statement. The Kurds risked and lost. Great warriors, but weak diplomats and
strategists.
1BEIRUT, LEBANON (11:50 A.M.) – The Syrian Arab Army (SAA) has taken over the U.S.
military base in Manbij after entering the city last night.
According to a military source in the Aleppo Governorate, the Syrian Arab Army has
deployed several units to Manbij as they look to block any potential Turkish offensive to
capture the city.
Men, Do This Today – You Will Never Need ED Pills Again!
MedJournal
Ads by Revcontent
Find Out More >
38,273
On Tuesday, the Anna News Agency reported from Manbij, as they showed the deployment of
the Syrian Army and their eventual take over of the U.S. military base there. -- AMN news
.
2 A stunning development in the key northern Syrian city of Manbij -- the Pentagon has
confirmed a planned handover to Russian military forces is underway amid a Turkish military
assault on the region. This also hours after President Trump tweeted that Assad "wants
naturally to protect the Kurds" and that the problem should be left to local powers.
Late Monday the main US base in Manbij was filmed empty of US forces, and American convoys
were also spotted hastily pulling out of the city as Syrian national forces entered,
following Sunday's historic deal between the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) and
the Assad government. Newsweek reports the developments follows:
I think Russia has allowed Turkey to attack Syria to satisfy Turke's main objective of
rooting out the Kurd on the condition of returning the territory to Syria . It has given Kurd
the bleak choice of oblivion or self preservation . America suffers from PTSD . The flashback
of Saigon on the roof top reappeared again . It ran. Good a sensible job by Trump.
@WJ The
machinations people are making on this topic are truly stunning when it's clear Trump is
doing the right thing. Today are reports that US positions and bases in N. Syria have been
turn keyed over the Assad and Russian forces. Trump IS Protecting the Kurds, just not with
American blood, as he promised.
The one thing Turkey has always wanted is a broken Syria so it can gobble up the remnants.
Past US (and many current) leaders and Democrats were complicit in this by funneling cash and
weapons to Syrian opposition, which directly led to the rise of Isis and deaths of thousands
– can you say evil?
I have hope that Trumps current actions will bring an end to thus war for good –
Turkey was OK to beat up on some kurds but war with Russia is something else.
@OscarWildeLoveChild
imho Jewish power keeps Trump on a perpetual short leash (Schiff is this month's designee to
'walk the dog') until Iran is wrecked.
[edit: renfro commented on Giraldi's earlier thread reminding readers that Israel has a
major interest in the Kurds, their territory, which is oil rich. Remember the proposals to
divide Iraq into three ]
Warren -- BDS is one thing, but her agenda to tax >$50million -- that's the part people
hear & cheer: Hooray! Soak the rich!
The next thing she says is, "Use the money to pay for universal child care, universal
kindergarten, increase pay for child care workers."
This gets cheers from millennials struggling to keep two people employed and kids cared
for.
But think about how drastically anti-family those proposals are.
TOTALLY turn over the care of our children to the loving embrace of the federal government
aka the Frankfurt school
The combined synthesis of social theory and psychoanalysis thus allows resituating on
new bases the Marxist optimism according to which the working class, due to its position in
the relations of production, is disposed to adopt a point of view scientifically based on
reality as well as promote legitimate forms of action.
Knowledge of the forms of the becoming-adult of humanity conceived by Freud, in the form
of a theory of passage through different stages that must result in an assumed genital
sexuality, leads to the recognition of a working class that is believed to be less
encumbered by typically bourgeois prejudices and perversities.
@NoseytheDuke
The goal was to topple Assad. Remember Obama? Assad must go? Assad and the Assad regime are
still there. Where is Saddam Hussein? Where is Muammar Gaddafi? After seven years of war in
Syria the victors are Syria, Iran and Russia. The losers are the U.S., Israel, Saudi Arabia
and Turkey. The real losers of course are the dead and the maimed. The widows and orphans.
And the millions who have been displaced and have become refugees. All are victims of
Imperial aggression. And the real winners of course are the war profiteers who have grown
fatter and fatter since 9/11.
It should be observed that the Syrian incursion by the American military, which was
initiated by President Barack Obama and his band of lady hawks during the so-called "Arab
Spring" of 2011, was illegal from the gitgo. Syria did not threaten the United States, quite
the contrary. Damascus had supported U.S. intelligence operations after 9/11 and it was
Washington that soured the relationship beginning with the Syria Accountability Act of 2003,
which later was followed by the Syrian War Crimes Accountability Act of 2015, both of which
were, at least to a certain extent, driven by the interests of Israel.
When American soldiers first arrived in Syria the U.S. War Powers act was ignored, making
the incursion illegal. Nor was there any mandate authorizing military intervention emanating
from any supra-national agency like the United Nations. The excuse for the intervention was
plausibly enough to destroy ISIS, but the reality was much more complex, with U.S. forces in
addition seeking to limit Iranian and Russian presence in Syria while also bringing about
regime change. The objectives were from the start unattainable as Iran and Russia were
supporting the Syrian Army in doing most of the hard fighting against ISIS while the regime of
President Bashar al-Assad was not threatened by a so-called democratic alternative which only
existed in the minds of Samantha Powers and Susan Rice.
Unwilling to see large numbers of Americans coming home in caskets, the United States
inevitably began to search for proxies to carry out the fighting on the ground and wound up
willy-nilly arming, training and otherwise supporting terrorists, to include the al-Qaeda
affiliate al-Nusra. The Kurdish Syrian Democratic Forces eventually became the principal tool
of U.S. military, but it must be observed that the Kurds in all likelihood had no illusions
about the staying power of their American patrons. They were fighting Syrian forces as well as
ISIS because they were seeking to carve out their own homeland of Kurdistan from the ruins of
the Syrian state. Their expansion into northern Syria, aided by the U.S., was at the expense of
the local population, which was overwhelmingly not Kurdish. Their occupation of that area was
not reported honestly in the U.S. media, but other sources suggest that their behavior was
often brutal.
So the lament about abandoning one's Kurdish allies has a kernel of truth, but the Senator
Lindsey Graham response, to include sanctioning Turkey, should be considered to be little more
than a dangerous misstep that would lead to acquiring a new and more powerful enemy. And, of
course, the argument in favor of leaving the Kurds to their fate found its most ridiculous
expression from the mouth of Donald Trump himself, who, up until recently had praised the Kurds
as friends who had "fought and died for us." Trump is now observing
that "they [the Kurds] didn't help us in the Second World War, they didn't help us with
Normandy." As President Trump did not serve his country in Vietnam due to alleged bone spurs
and his father Fred likewise did not serve in the military, the comment is particularly ironic.
Trump's surname was changed from the original German Drumpf and if there were any Drumpfs
present at Normandy they were undoubtedly on the German side.
Finally, there is one other important issue that should be observed. Donald Trump's actual
record on ending useless wars is not consistent with his actions. He has sent more soldiers to
no good purpose in support of America's longest war in Afghanistan, has special ops forces in
numerous countries in Asia and Africa, has threatened regime change in Venezuela, continues to
support Saudi Arabia and Israel's bloody attacks on their neighbors and has exited to from
treaties and agreements with Russia and Iran that made armed conflict less likely. And he has
five thousand American soldiers sitting as hostages in Iraq, a country that the United States
basically destroyed as a cohesive political entity and which is now experiencing a wave of
rioting that has reportedly killed hundreds. Trump is also assassinating more foreigners using
drones based mostly on profile targeting than all of his predecessors. These are not the
actions of a president who seriously wants to end wars even if one does not consider the
economic warfare that is currently taking place through the use of sanctions that is reportedly
killing tens of thousands.
So should one take Donald Trump seriously when he says he wants to end the pointless wars?
Perhaps not, but even giving him the benefit of the doubt, he should be judged by his actions,
not by his words and, apart from the withdrawal of a handful of soldiers from the actual front
lines in Syria, nothing has changed. It is quite possible that nothing will change.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest,
a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a
more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is
councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its
email is[email protected]
The Turkish Army, which is one of the most powerful in NATO, will do whatever is
necessary to crush them. Trump should have realized that before he started talking.
IDK, Phil. I am not sure that he didn't. My sense is that he has been pandering to the
neocons in the hope of a compromise that would allow him to deliver enough of his campaign
promises to permit his re-election. I think hiring Bolton was just such a move –
thinking that keeping his enemies closer would permit him more control.
Recently, he has expressed frustration with his staff and I speculate that he has come to
realize that pandering to the jews is going to be a one-way street. He has given them a score
of concessions, including Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. He hasn't received anything in
return, except for the onslaught of palace coups, one after the other, orchestrated by the
very same zionist forces in both parties.
My hypothesis is that the man, narcissistic as he is, has reached the end of his tether.
Faced with the potential to not get re-elected, he has mounted a counteroffensive against
them. He, rightly, believes that the people who got him elected are the only ones who can get
him re-elected. So, his recent tweets are both an attempt to recapture us to his side, while
at the same time slapping the zionists across their faces with a show of power, as he is
won't to do in business negotiations where he feels that he has been betrayed.
I could be completely wrong as I try to pry into his mind.
So should one take Donald Trump seriously when he says he wants to end the pointless
wars? Perhaps not, but even giving him the benefit of the doubt, he should be judged by his
actions, not by his words and, apart from the withdrawal of a handful of soldiers from the
actual front lines in Syria, nothing has changed. It is quite possible that nothing will
change.
It serves us naught to take this pessimistic stance in the absence of a replacement
candidate. I have always contended that the best way to use Trump is to support his ego.
Let's inundate him with praise for withdrawing from the Kurdish/Turkish quagmire. Sure, he
hasn't vacated Syria yet, however, he has no choice but to vacate or be evacuated. His ego
will opt for the former.
Trump is also assassinating more foreigners using drones based mostly on profile targeting
than all of his predecessors.
These are not the actions of a president who seriously wants to end wars even if one does not
consider the economic warfare that is currently taking place through the use of sanctions
that is reportedly killing tens of thousands
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Mr. Giraldi,
Could you please elaborate on the first point: the use of drones. Who and where?
Secondly, economic warfare: are you referring to Iran or Venezuela? Could you
elaborate?
@A123
NATO members will not help the New Ottoman Empire "offensive".
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Wow, Israeli is really terrified. What will they do when the U.S. decouples from the Middle
East completely? It's pretty clear that, short of running to Russia and fellating Putin, Bobo
the Clown of Tel Aviv has no plan.
Tic Toc.
The fact of the matter is that President Donald Trump is a Corrupt "Crypto Jew" in spite of
the American people may think Trump is as he was chosen by the Elite to serve and protect
Israel and churn profits for Elite owned and controlled Armaments industry in promoting wars
against the Best interests of the citizens of United States of America.
If Washington withdraws its military, spooks and mercenaries the Syrian Curds will go back to
being Syrians. Syria, Iran, Russia and Turkey will negotiate the peace. The U.S., Israel,
Saudi Arabia and Turkey will have been defeated in their war against Assad. Syria, unlike
Iraq and Libya will remain standing.
Everyone loves to hate on Erdogan. I was hoping for a more nuanced view than [he] "is just
crazy enough to do that." Remember when George Galloway called him "a lion," awestruck at his
reaction to the Israeli murders of Turks on the boat to Gaza? Is it true that Turkey has made
tremendous economic gains under his administration? He has much support, as shown by the
[popular] squelching of attempted coup.
I've just never understood why he facilitated the chaos on his border, harboured the White
Helmets, probably murdered Serena Shim, etc. And now, what will he do with his jihadi proxy
army? As far as his threats to release migrants to Europe, I have no sympathy for EU
countries who've been part of the war on the ME. What goes around, comes around. Same for the
Kurds.
There have been some suggestions that the Kurds could make nice with the Damascus
government and rely on the protection of the Syrian Army to deter the Turks, an option that
they have already begun to exercise.
The Kurds have caved. Plus our radical Islamic rebels are going over, with our equipment
etc to the Ass man.
Updated Oct. 14, 2019 6:48 pm ET. WSJ
ISTANBUL -- Syrian troops entered areas that have been outside their control for years on
Monday, after a quickly forged pact between Kurdish forces and the Syrian government to
confront a Turkish military campaign reshaped alliances in Syria.
That pact transformed the Kurds, an erstwhile partner of the U.S. in the fight against
Islamic State, into a force more closely aligned with Russia and Iran, as the U.S. began
withdrawing its troops from northeastern Syria.
Until recently, thousands of U.S.-backed fighters had trained at a military base in the
town of Ain Eissa. After the Syrian military arrived on Monday morning, soldiers raised the
tricolor Syrian flag in the town center.
The US gets out of the way, and Assad, who won the Civil War, immediately settles with the
Kurds and Nustra.
So, it wasn't many troops, but we had successfully prevented Assad from absorbing
(voluntarily) two groups in the Civil War. Meaning we (US) alone was preventing settlement.
The. deep state has thwarted Trump's intentions to leave for 3 years.
"Or the Turks might be willing to escalate their own offensive to take on the inferior Syrian
Army and the Kurds together." It is a stretch without careful analysis.
Many people said the same about the world's most cowardice army, the Israeli. There is an
agreement between the parties and Erdogan will comply. The Kurds are the West-Israel proxy
terrorists. They proved their usefulness many times.
But in pursuing their aspirations for self-rule, Syria's Kurds risked overreach and
miscalculation. American officials have long made clear in meetings and public comments
that U.S. military backing never amounted to an endorsement of Kurdish political
ambitions.
In December, U.S. envoy to Syria James Jeffrey likened the partnership with the SySo he
rian Kurds to a "transactional relationship for a specific goal."
Trump got it basically right -- time to leave and we never promised Kurds a Rose
Garden.
His bumbling ruling decrees via Twitter stem from the lack of loyal staff. His decisions
are ignored or subverted when he goes through channels. So he announces it and works from
there. This is the 3rd Time Trump has announced withdrawal from Syria. Although the neocon
press and Hawkish politicians howled.
Trump also implemented the Pivot to Asia (an Obama failure) by engaging China
diplomatically through efforts at trade reform. Much more nuanced that fortifying bases.
Its never pretty, but Trump tends to stubbornly pursue a less warlike agenda.
The mideast is where everybody backstabs everybody recalling the CIA used to deliver
renditioned prisoners to Assad to be tortured along lines a bit more than 'enhanced'
interrogations (karma could be a b *** h.) The soup only gets thicker as the pot boils down.
Remember those NATO nukes kept at Incirlik?
Why had NATO (the USA particularly) sat on its hands these past 3+ years? It's not like no
one was aware there could be a serious problem with 50 (or more) tactical nukes in the hands
of the paranoid narcissist Erdogan:
@A123
"that is, the goods and services produced by the economy -- rises faster than the money
created, so there is no inflation, and rises faster than the debt created, so the country's
debt burden doesn't increase."
"The long term prospects for peace are still there. A return to the status quo ante. Russia
remains as guarantor of the peace and all other foreign fighters and their proxies exit the
nation."
Spot on.
Given cast-iron assurances re the PKK & it's Syrian cousins that Nth Syria will cease to
be a zone for organising attacks (or any kind of nefarious Kurdish behaviour) on Turkey, I
think Erdogan would likely consider a withdrawal of his forces.
i think there are few unknowns between Russia, Turkey, Syria; the plan seems to be to get
ISIS, SDF, the PYD/YPD without regard to who is supporting them. Unleash ISIS, even those in
prisons so they can move against Assad to be destroyed ? Those trapped in Idlib can either
commit suicide or wait for the executioner. I have no facts, but by observing that the
sanctions warfare is directed at those who intend to destroy ISIS, SDF, PYD/YPD and Israelis
and Iranians visiting in Syria I conclude Russia and Turkey have skunked the Pentagon (maybe
Trump is also in on it?) .
Russia and Syria have agreed to stand by while Turkey engages in some target practice at
unwanted visitors in Syria? Invade Syria even North Western Iraq.. rid the world of pesky,
trouble making, fake news head chopping face book and Twitter super stars, destroy all traces
of Kurds, remove all non Syrian others threatening the Ottoman, Syrian Turf. Don't look now,
but Iran seems to be on the Turkey list of non Syrians ?. ..After the area is cleared Assad's
problem, will be, what if Turkey (Erdogan) refuses to return to Turkey, and that return to
Turkey promise has probably been be guaranteed to Assad by Russia.
I read a Russian statement somewhere last year [early 2018], in which they unequivocal said
there would never be an autonomous Kurdish state. They [the Kurds] could stick to some of
their customs, but legally and lawfully they would fall on Damascus' rule/s.
Trump's foreign policy constitutes an egregious betrayal of his election platform which was
to "stay neutral" on Israel/Palestine, withdraw remaining troops and avoid any further
entanglements. He reneged on all pledges.
The recent announcement that he was withdrawing troops from Syria was followed the next
day by an announcement of 2,000 US troops being deployed to Saudi Arabia to protect that
country from Iran. Say what?
It was totally predictable five years ago that Turkey was in Israel's gunsights, and as
usual Israel tends to destroy others by proxy. They can sit back and savor Turkey destroying
more of Syria, while US sanctions destroy more of Turkey.
The waves of death and destruction that have hammered the Middle East for the last seventy
years are all symptoms of one problem and that is the illegitimate "state of Israel".
Most Americans seem obsessed with stupid wars. For example the vast majority of people in the
UK see the Iraq War as a catastrophic mistake and despise Tony Blair, yet in the US most
people still seem to see the Iraq War as a good thing. The mentality is far apart.
Americans seem a very insecure people, projecting military power is all they really have.
If America is not constantly embroiled in a war somewhere then most Americans feel they have
nothing to be proud of. I would go as far to say that the military is the only real source of
pride in America, it's the only thing Americans feel they undeniably excel at.
There are no "stupid wars", every slaughter of millions was long time in planning and was
based on greed and racism of the "master" races vs. "subhumans".
USA corporation, can not and will not survive without WARS.
Complete "economy" is a WAR machine, USA corporations has WEAPONIZED it ALL.
It is nice to dream, even HollyWood supports and promotes it.
Whiskey Rebellion me think was the Birthday of citizen USA and blessed it's associates
with representation by corrupt and greedy anointed by others rushing to become corrupt and
greedy.
Trump has shown himself to be completely unreliable on every important issue; I do not
see why it will be different this time -- his desire for approval from the Establishment is
apparently far stronger than any principles he may hold -- you can see this in practically
everything he does, perhaps most notably in his constant bleating about black and Hispanic
unemployment -- he simply can't be trusted.
On the other hand Trump has not started any new wars (so far). He is also resisting the elite
of Deep State (MIC) and the mdia, probably in his own weird way by making confusing
statements keeping them off balance. No body knows we are all simply speculating. Time will
tell.
@WorkingClass
Not really. The goal all along was not to "take" Syria so much as to destroy it and leave it
in fragments. Mission accomplished! Syria, or at east large swathes of it has been reduced to
rubble, its economy is gutted and its people are scattered to the winds. The US had no goals
there to begin with and has just been acting in the service of its "great friend and ally"
Israel. Your tax dollars at work.
Syria, Iraq, Libya are now less of a threat to Israel than ever before so that is a kind
of peace. Solitudenum facient, pacem appellant said Tacitus. They make desolation and call it
peace.
@Europe
natonalist I agree. Worship of the military is surely modern America's most cringeworthy
and repellent aspect. The war hero is the American equivalent of the medieval saint, and you
can't even blame the Jews for it. It's clearly a whitey thing. Get a few bullets shot at you
by some primitive and soon to be obliterated savages and you can live large on your war
stories for the rest of your comfortably pensioned days. The sad thing is that there are no
wars for the US military to fight these days except those they create themselves.
America, an exceptionally immature, warlike and stupid nation. And they worship Jesus! Who
of course will just laugh when he presses the button and sends them all into the lake of fire
without a second thought.
@Cloak And
Dagger Interesting, I've been mulling over this possibility recently and was thinking
about it earlier as a potential outcome-based upon basic game theory.
What I don't understand is, if there be an alleged discreet hidden super-hand of
power controlled by the Jewish elite, and Trump seemed to be doing their bidding (moving the
Embassy), where are all the "compromising photos" and "Blasey Ford's" for the Warren's and
Biden's of the world? Certainly some damaging (and likely private) material, or "witnesses"
from the past exist, against those who attack Trump? Certainly the Mossad and/or other hidden
forces have such information, that could protect Trump. Here's a guy with a (now) Jewish
daughter and a Jewish son-in-law, doing positive things for Israel and the Jewish elite in
the US/West, and yet, he has been subject to continual attacks, as have those around him, and
now he is facing impeachment?
I don't see Israel getting it any better if Warren is elected (certainly not by her base,
which is turning more toward a BDS worldview). It just makes me think their power is not as
great as conspiracy theorists alleged, or in the alternative (perhaps likely) their "power"
is superseded by an even greater hidden force of elites. If their power is as awesome and
infiltrating as alleged, why isn't he president for life at this point? Using the media,
politics, blackmail, international banking, this guy could usher in Israel as the capital of
the universe, but yet none of that is happening. He is betrayed at every corner and faces
removal from office, disgrace (for actually being the removed, i.e. the other side actually
"winning" against him), and probably the destruction of any chance Ivanka and Jared had of
becoming the first couple, in the future.
So perhaps as you offer, he's going for broke and just doing whatever he wants or wanted
to do in the beginning. Time will tell. Strange times indeed.
@Contraviews
, Contraviews said: "He (Trump) is also resisting the elite of Deep State (MIC) and the mdia,
probably in his own weird way by making confusing statements keeping them off balance."
No! Zionist Jews & Israel are keeping you and almost all of Amerika "off balance."
Refer to Jerusalem Post article (linked below) and you will distinguish "confusing
statements" by Trump from the reality of mandatory ZUS endless ME wars since 9/11.
Everybody should be happy Uncle Sam is getting out of Syria. Look at the disasters the US
created in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, etc. and all the money wasted which could have been
better spent here at home.
Much of what's being said in the MSM has to do with the American narrative that Turkey and
Syria are bad guys for the unspoken reason that they have opposed the zionist enterprise.
What American national interest justified the occupation and dismemberment of Syria? Why
should we support terrorist groups like the PPK against NATO member Turkey? Why should we
ally with al-Qaeda affiliate HTS for israel's benefit?
@anon
Good point about DJT needing to use Twitter to announce his decisions since they'd otherwise
be thwarted or outright ignored going through normal channels. But, how can he actually be
against these wars when they're contrasted with his embarrassing servility toward Israel,
which in actuality is an enemy state responsible for Lavon, Liberty, and 9/11, not to mention
it's theft of our technology that's used against us by Israel's intel tech companies for
profit and communications espionage at the deepest levels of our government? The canard about
other, overriding strategic interests doesn't hold water since the $trillions wasted on these
wars could have secured our economic and military interests a hundredfold through trade and
cultural interaction. As much as I want to trust DJT and would stand with him and the
deplorables at the barricades if necessary, I cannot overcome my repugnance at his support
for Israel, knowing as he now must know that Israel did 9/11.
Our neocon policies have proven to be an existential threat to the solvency , well being,
and future of the United States.
We have squandered tens of trillions of dollars on stupid wasteful wars when we could have
been using those exact same resources to build out our infrastructure, education and
technological advantages.
Our pentagon should be producing best and first technologies ACROSS THE BOARD, not
spending all its time trying to hide from the taxpayer how many billions the neocons pilfered
last quarter.
We need to replace our policy of "perpetual war fraud" with a policy of empowering and
igniting creativity and human excellence.
It's quite ironic that the party that was in power when it was revealed that the NSA was
spying on every US citizen (and a ton of foreigners) – an obvious violation of the 4th
Amendment – now want to moan about the unconstitutionality of this phone call.
But if someone would have told him that the people denouncing and blacklisting him would
have been the *liberal Democrats* and some of their most "excitable" elements would be
accusing him of being a "Neo-Nazi White Supremacist Russian Agent" he would have thought
the entire country had gone on LSD.
Ran into a Ukie from Odessa yesterday on a beach i go to i go to Saigon n Vung Tau. He told
me all about how Putin set up the Maidan in Kyiv, in order to invade and take Crimea. He was
doing a great propaganda act, for this American, until I told him I live in Crimea. I gave
some info how the US did Kyiv, then he stormed off. The Ukie nationalist are super
brainwashed. Spacibo Unz Rev.
@Dennis
Gannon "If we ever get a dictator in the USA, I would not be surprised to see everyone in
the lying mainstream media wind up in a gulag."
If we ever get a dictator in the USA, he will owe his dictatorship to the lying mainstream
media. But that of course doesn't mean he won't turn on them. But it's more likely he'll
enjoy their continued support.
Russia is the excuse for US actions in the Ukraine as it was in the ME.
What is America without a big bad boogeyman like Russia?. Certainly not a "Superpower'
defending the world. Without enemies like Russia we would be nothing but big rich
country.
And all the Neos and Zios and politicians would have to use Viagra instead of war to
squirt out their poison.
A lot of countries like the Ukraine have gotten a lot of US taxpayer money by 'standing up
to a Russian takeover' .and are laughing all the way to their bank.
1) Tulsi Gabbard is a Russian asset (Clinton).
2) Jill Stein is a Russian asset (Clinton).
3) Donald Trump has been a Russian asset since 1987 ( Intelligencer
).
4) Rand Paul is "working for Vladimir Putin" (
McCain ,
Greg Olear ).
5) Bernie Sanders is "just a tool" to the Russians (
The Washington Post ).
This New York Times article about @TulsiGabbard is perfect. It belongs in a museum to show
how the NYT & DNC smear anyone who expresses any dissenting views: accuse them of serving
RUSSIA & white nationalists, quote Neera Tanden & Laura McCarthy Rosenberg, etc.
What, Exactly, Is Tulsi Gabbard Up To? - The New York Times
6:56 AM - 12 Oct 2019
[ Radical, unethical Democratic National Committee folks are determined to defame and
destroy an heroic Democratic member of congress, a combat veteran and still serving member of
the armed forces, reelected with a 70% majority in 2018. ]
Astonishing the Democratic leadership calumny of a Democratic member of Congress, a woman, of
Indian and Samoan heritage, a combat veteran and serving member of the armed forces. Such is
self-styled supposed Democratic leadership, steeped in the terrible terrifying tradition of
Joseph McCarthy.
(The price of admission, so as to be
able to read the posts of others, is
for now, posting something, anything.)
What, Exactly, Is Tulsi Gabbard Up To? https://nyti.ms/33s1Aj8
NYT - Lisa Lerer - October 12
WASHINGTON -- Stephen K. Bannon, President Trump's former chief strategist, is impressed
with her political talent. Richard B. Spencer, the white nationalist leader, says he could
vote for her. Former Representative Ron Paul praises her "libertarian instincts," while
Franklin Graham, the influential evangelist, finds her "refreshing."
And far-right conspiracy theorists like Mike Cernovich see a certain MAGA sais quoi.
"She's got a good energy, a good vibe. You feel like this is just a serious person," Mr.
Cernovich said. "She seems very Trumpian." ...
(The price of admission, so as to be
able to read the posts of others, is
for now, posting something, anything.)
What, Exactly, Is Tulsi Gabbard Up To? https://nyti.ms/33s1Aj8
NYT - Lisa Lerer - October 12
WASHINGTON -- Stephen K. Bannon, President Trump's former chief strategist, is impressed
with her political talent. Richard B. Spencer, the white nationalist leader, says he could
vote for her. Former Representative Ron Paul praises her "libertarian instincts," while
Franklin Graham, the influential evangelist, finds her "refreshing."
And far-right conspiracy theorists like Mike Cernovich see a certain MAGA sais quoi.
"She's got a good energy, a good vibe. You feel like this is just a serious person," Mr.
Cernovich said. "She seems very Trumpian." ...
Among her fellow Democrats, Representative Tulsi Gabbard has struggled to make headway as a
presidential candidate, barely cracking the 2 percent mark in the polls needed to qualify for
Tuesday night's debate. She is now injecting a bit of chaos into her own party's primary
race, threatening to boycott that debate to protest what she sees as a "rigging" of the 2020
election. That's left some Democrats wondering what, exactly, she is up to in the race, while
others worry about supportive signs from online bot activity and the Russian news media. ...
On podcasts and online videos, in interviews and Twitter feeds, alt-right internet stars,
white nationalists, libertarian activists and some of the biggest boosters of Mr. Trump heap
praise on Ms. Gabbard. They like the Hawaiian congresswoman's isolationist foreign policy
views. They like her support for drug decriminalization. They like what she sees as
censorship by big technology platforms. ...
Ms. Gabbard has disavowed some of her most hateful supporters, castigating the news media
for giving "any oxygen at all" to the endorsement she won from the white nationalist leader
David Duke. But her frequent appearances on Tucker Carlson's Fox News show have buoyed her
support in right-wing circles.
Both Ms. Gabbard and her campaign refused requests for comment about her support in
right-wing circles or threat to boycott the debate. Even some political strategists who have
worked with her are at a loss to explain her approach to politics.
"She's a very talented person but I'm not sure, I just don't know what to say about the
campaign exactly," said Mark Longabaugh, a Democratic strategist who worked with Ms. Gabbard
when she was campaigning for Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont in 2016. ...
Stephen K. Bannon, President Trump's former chief strategist, is impressed with her political
talent....
-- Lisa Lerer
[ This is a vile article, contemptible for the New York Times to have printed. An heroic
member of congress, a woman, a person of color, a combat veteran, a serving member of the
armed forces, a person who serves others to seek peace, is being contemptibly slandered.
Shame, shame, shame for writing and printing such an article. ]
You and a number of the posters here are horribly naive about the Nixon Rat(bad word
omitted)s. Tulsi has been working with them. This should be automatically disqualifying.
Gabbard is a veteran, very much younger than I, she also is the most opposed to the neocon
permanent war (strong in securing the US' post WW II world order)agenda which seems to be
standard democrat stance.
American interventionalist is not an aberration; it is dictated by the design to maintain and expand the USA led global
neoliberal empire. It is impossible to cure without the destruction of this empire. But the process of destruction already
started with US-China trade war.
Notable quotes:
"... Fontaine's article misses the biggest argument against frequent military interventions: the U.S. has no right to bomb and invade other countries at will. The assumption that the U.S. has the right to use force in other countries whenever it decides to is wrong in principle, and it is the source of countless policy failures and tremendous human suffering. If we respected the "rules-based international order" that we claim to support, our government would use force sparingly and only when there were no other alternatives. That is a "rigid formula" that we should insist on upholding. ..."
Rubble aftermath of a Saudi airstrike on a Yemeni neighborhood in 2015.
Almigdad Mojalli/Voice of America Richard Fontaine
claims that there is now
a consensus for military restraint, and he believes the consensus to be wrong:
Faced with such a sweeping political consensus, one might conclude that Washington should simply get on with it and embrace
restraint. The problem is that such a strategy overlooks the interests and values that have prompted U.S. action in the first
place and that may for good reasons give rise to it in the future. The consensus also neglects the fact that, despite the well-known
failures of recent large-scale interventions, there is also a record of more successful ones -- including the effort underway
today in Syria.
To assume that nonintervention will become a central tenet of future U.S. foreign policy will, if anything, induce Americans
to think less seriously about the country's military operations abroad and thus generate not only less successful intervention
but possibly even more of it. Instead of settling into wishful thinking, policymakers should accept that the use of military force
will remain an essential tool of U.S. strategy. That, in turn, requires applying the right lessons from recent decades.
Fontaine makes two mistakes early on his article that mar the rest of his argument. The first is to assert that a strategy of
restraint "overlooks the interests and values that have prompted U.S. action" in the past. That is simply not true. Advocates of
restraint don't overlook these interests and values. We deny that the U.S. has interests in many of the places interventionists claim
to find them, and we insist that waging unnecessary wars against states and people that have done nothing to us is contrary to American
values. Proponents of restraint aren't overlooking anything. We contest and reject many of the assumptions that interventionists
take for granted. Constant warfare in multiple countries is not only harmful to U.S. security and interests, but it has been steadily
corroding our constitutional system and giving virtually unchecked power to the executive. The forever war has horribly distorted
our foreign policy, and it has been deforming our system of government as well.
The other mistake is to suggest that nonintervention will cause Americans "to think less seriously about the country's military
operations abroad." The word seriously is doing all of the work in that statement, and it gets to the heart of the disagreement that
advocates of restraint have with interventionists. Non-interventionists do think very seriously about U.S. military operations. Sometimes
it seems as if we are some of the only people who do think seriously about them, because we consider their costs not only for the
U.S. but also for the countries and peoples affected by them. Advocates of restraint also tend to think seriously about the illegality
of a lot of these operations, many of which have never been authorized by Congress. Others rely on an expansive interpretation of
the 2001 AUMF for their legal justification, and it has become extremely difficult to accept that a 2001 vote can be used to authorize
military action in completely different parts of the world almost twenty years later.
It is debatable whether there is a "sweeping political consensus" in favor of military restraint. There is significant political
support for extricating the U.S. from many of its current conflicts, but it is not clear that there is anything like consensus on
how the U.S. should respond to foreign conflicts and crises in the future. Fontaine conjures up this imaginary consensus to serve
as a foil for his argument, and then proceeds to point out that there really isn't a consensus after all.
He also trots out the old cliche about presidents reluctantly going to war:
Even at a rhetorical and intellectual level, then, the end of intervention is not nearly as clear-cut as today's politicians
suggest. The reality of being commander in chief complicates things further: on the campaign trail, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush,
Barack Obama, and Trump each pledged to engage in fewer foreign military adventures and redirect resources toward needs at home.
In office, each reluctantly proceeded to not only continue existing wars but also launch new offensives.
Fontaine greatly exaggerates the reluctance with which these presidents have ordered the use of force. In Bush's case, he simply
makes it up. It is true that then-Gov. Bush campaigned against "nation-building" of the kind that Clinton had done in the 1990s,
but his "humble" foreign policy rhetoric was belied by the fact that he didn't oppose a single military intervention in the past
and surrounded himself with extremely hawkish advisers who were only too eager to use force. The trope of Obama as "reluctant warrior"
has been repeated so many times that it is easy to forget that this is also wildly misleading. The "reluctant" Obama ordered the
bombing of Libya when he had no legal authority to do so, and he did so even though no vital U.S. interests were threatened. He then
oh-so-"reluctantly" launched another illegal war in 2014 in Iraq and Syria that has continued to this day. A truly reluctant president
would not start or join wars without Congressional authorization, but that is exactly what Obama did more than once. His decision
to throw U.S. support behind the Saudi coalition was yet another example of how he involved the U.S. in a foreign conflict when didn't
need to. A consistently non-interventionist president is hard to imagine, but that is only because we haven't had one for such a
long time.
Fontaine then sets up a strawman by pointing out that U.S. interventionism after the Cold War is just more of what the U.S. did
during the Cold War:
American military action is not, as many believe, a feature of post–Cold War overstretch; it has been a central element of
the United States' approach to the world for decades.
I'm not sure what argument Fontaine thinks he is refuting here. Non-interventionist critics of America's post-Cold War foreign
policy are almost always equally appalled by and opposed to U.S. military interventions during the Cold War. Some non-interventionists
have been against unnecessary and illegal wars all along, and others have come around to recognizing the futility and folly of these
interventions in recent decades. No one really disputes that intervening militarily in other countries has been "a central element
of the United States' approach to the world for decades." We know it has been a central element. We think it has been the cause of
enormous harm, and that's why we seek to put an end to it! Fontaine calls attention to the fact that the U.S. has been frequently
resorting to force for a long time as if that is an argument for letting this destructive pattern continue indefinitely.
Fontaine offers a number of "guidelines" that he wants us to use when judging future military interventions. He gets off to a
bad start with the first one:
The first guideline is to avoid overlearning the supposed lessons of past interventions.
It is impossible to read this and not think of the many hawkish admonitions that Americans have "overlearned" the lessons of the
Iraq war. No doubt it is meant to bring that to mind. The idea that Americans have ever "overlearned" lessons from our failed and
unnecessary wars is almost funny, because it seems obvious that our political leaders have barely learned anything at all. It is
true that each case is different and should be judged on its own merits, but surely we should draw on past experience to inform how
we judge these new cases. When hawks consistently underestimate how difficult and costly a war will be, it is relevant to cite the
Iraq war as an example of how disastrously wrong war supporters can be. When we hear promises from proponents that war with Iran
won't be as costly or prolonged as the Iraq war, it is probably worth recalling that proponents of invading Iraq promised that the
war would be cheap, easy, and quick, too. Many of our politicians and analysts stubbornly refuse to learn from what they euphemistically
call the "mistake" of the Iraq war. That brings us back to the earlier point about thinking seriously about military operations abroad.
As a general rule, interventionists treat going to war very cavalierly and don't think through the consequences. When things predictably
go awry, they then insist that we can't quit the war we should never have waged.
Fontaine adds, "Sticking to rigid lines based on prior errors can easily lead to new and different pitfalls." It is always possible
that in avoiding certain errors the U.S. will end up making different ones, but surely that is an argument for intervening as infrequently
as possible. If we keep missing the mark every time, perhaps we should stop shooting. This also ignores that sticking to a rigid
line against a Vietnam or Iraq war-style intervention is always the right call. There is no scenario in which waging a war like that
would be a prudent and necessary use of force. If subsequent military interventions have also caused problems or failed to resolve
everything, that is much better than being bogged down for years (or decades) in unwinnable wars that serve no American interests.
I am probably the most vocal critic of the Libyan war then and now, but Obama's error was intervening in the first place. The "failure"
to follow up the intervention with an occupation was the best of the bad available options. If Obama had committed U.S. troops to
Libya after Gaddafi was overthrown, they would probably still be fighting there in large numbers today, and we would be hearing from
the usual suspects that they can't be withdrawn for many more years.
Fontaine's second guideline sounds reasonable, but it isn't all that helpful:
Another guideline is to pick interventions that meet clear conditions and commit to those that are chosen. The United States
should generally undertake interventions only when political leaders -- namely, the president and a majority of Congress -- believe
that force is necessary to attain a clearly stated objective.
This doesn't seem like a bad guideline, but we should remember that this guideline wouldn't have prevented the Iraq war. The president
and a majority of Congress were in agreement that the U.S. should launch an invasion to achieve regime change, and they were horribly
wrong. Even when a majority of Congress is on board with the idea of launching an illegal invasion, that doesn't make it right.
Another guideline sounds sensible, but it is not as useful as it seems:
They should conclude that the benefits of a military intervention over the long run are reasonably expected to exceed the costs.
The problem here is that interventionists always conclude that the benefits of intervention will exceed the costs, and in the
debate before a war begins the cavalier proponents of "action" usually prevail because of the ingrained bias in favor of "doing something."
They often do this by grossly overestimating the benefits (of which there are usually few or none) and ignoring the costs all together.
The Iraq war is the most famous example of this, but it is true of virtually every military intervention that the U.S. has engaged
in over at least the last thirty years. This guideline raises a number of questions: how are the benefits being calculated, who benefits,
and how long is "the long run"? The fact that U.S. politicians and policymakers have usually done a horrible job of calculating the
costs and benefits of past interventions should make us question why we think that our government is a fit judge of such matters.
There are a few big omissions in Fontaine's argument that need to be addressed. First, he says nothing about international law
or the Constitution. More often than not, U.S. military interventions bend or outright break international law and the U.N. Charter.
Many of them are also carried out in clear violation of the Constitution. One of the main rules in future debates has to be that
any future military intervention needs to be authorized by Congress and consistent with the U.N. Charter's prohibition against the
unauthorized use of force except for self-defense. Very few U.S. interventions since 1989 have met this standard, but it is an extremely
important one. The U.S. wages so many wars of choice because it can, and very few of them have been legal.
Fontaine says near the end of his article:
No grand strategy can be built on the presumption that military intervention is mostly an erroneous activity of yesteryear,
rather than an enduring feature of U.S. foreign policy.
We are having this debate because we all know that military intervention is not an "activity of yesteryear." It is what our government
is doing right now. We are still very far from having a consensus that it is an erroneous one. Military intervention does not have
to be an "enduring feature" of U.S. foreign policy if we were to adopt a grand strategy that makes it a much rarer thing. Fontaine
doesn't want to adopt a strategy of restraint, but he has not made the case that the U.S. would have to keep intervening on a regular
basis if that were our government's strategy. He takes for granted that interventionism is inevitable, and dismisses the possibility
that it could ever be stopped.
Fontaine's article misses the biggest argument against frequent military interventions: the U.S. has no right to bomb and
invade other countries at will. The assumption that the U.S. has the right to use force in other countries whenever it decides to
is wrong in principle, and it is the source of countless policy failures and tremendous human suffering. If we respected the "rules-based
international order" that we claim to support, our government would use force sparingly and only when there were no other alternatives.
That is a "rigid formula" that we should insist on upholding.
"a strategy of restraint "overlooks the interests and values that have prompted U.S. action" in the past."
What a deeply stupid statement. He doesn't seem to understand that "restraint" IS one of America's "interests and values".
Leaving others alone. Minding our own business. Mature recognition of the limits of our power, knowledge, and competence.
"... George W. Bush's presidency wasn't just morally bankrupt. In a superior reality, the Hague would be sorting out whether he is guilty of war crimes. Since our international institutions have failed to punish, or even censure him, surely the only moral response from civil society should be to shun him. But here is Ellen DeGeneres hanging out with him at a Cowboys game: ..."
"... This is what we say to children who don't want to sit next to the class misfit at lunch. It is not -- or at least it should not -- be the way we talk about a man who used his immense power to illegally invade another country where we still have troops 16 years later. His feet should bleed wherever he walks and Iraqis should get to throw shoes at him until the end of his days. ..."
"... DeGeneres isn't a role model for civility. Her friendship with Bush simply embodies the grossest form of class solidarity. From a lofty enough vantage point, perhaps Bush's misdeeds really look like minor partisan differences. Perhaps Iraq seems very far away, and so do the poor of New Orleans, when the stage of your show is the closest you get to anyone without power." ..."
"... There is no reason that anyone should treat George Bush with respect. ..."
"Comedian Ellen DeGeneres loves to tell everyone to be kind. It's a loose word, kindness; on her show, DeGeneres customarily
uses it to mean a generic sort of niceness. Don't bully. Befriend people! It's a charming thought, though it has its limits
as a moral ethic. There are people in the world, after all, whom it is better not to befriend. Consider, for example, the person
of George W. Bush. Tens of thousands of people are dead because his administration lied to the American public about the presence
of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and then, based on that lie, launched a war that's now in its 16th year. After Hurricane
Katrina struck and hundreds of people drowned in New Orleans, Bush twiddled his thumbs for days. Rather than fire the officials
responsible for the government's life-threateningly lackluster response to the crisis, he praised them, before flying over
the scene in Air Force One. He opposed basic human rights for LGBT people, and reproductive rights for women, and did more
to empower the American Christian right than any president since Reagan.
George W. Bush's presidency wasn't just morally bankrupt. In a superior reality, the Hague would be sorting out whether
he is guilty of war crimes. Since our international institutions have failed to punish, or even censure him, surely the only
moral response from civil society should be to shun him. But here is Ellen DeGeneres hanging out with him at a Cowboys game:
And here is Ellen DeGeneres explaining why it's good and normal to share laughs, small talk, and nachos with a man who has
many deaths on his conscience:
Here's the money quote from her apologia:
"We're all different. And I think that we've forgotten that that's okay that we're all different," she told her studio
audience. "When I say be kind to one another, I don't mean be kind to the people who think the same way you do. I mean be
kind to everyone."
This is what we say to children who don't want to sit next to the class misfit at lunch. It is not -- or at least it
should not -- be the way we talk about a man who used his immense power to illegally invade another country where we still
have troops 16 years later. His feet should bleed wherever he walks and Iraqis should get to throw shoes at him until the end
of his days.
Nevertheless, many celebrities and politicians have hailed DeGeneres for her radical civility:
There's almost no point to rebutting anything that Chris Cillizza writes. Whatever he says is inevitably dumb and wrong,
and then I get angry while I think about how much money he gets to be dumb and wrong on a professional basis. But on this occasion,
I'll make an exception. The notion that DeGeneres's friendship with Bush is antithetical to Trumpism fundamentally misconstrues
the force that makes Trump possible. Trump isn't a simple playground bully, he's the president. Americans grant our commanders-in-chief
extraordinary deference once they leave office. They become celebrities, members of an apolitical royal class. This tendency
to separate former presidents from the actions of their office, as if they were merely actors in a stage play, or retired athletes
from a rival team, contributes to the atmosphere of impunity that enabled Trump. If Trump's critics want to make sure that
his cruelties are sins the public and political class alike never tolerate again, our reflexive reverence for the presidency
has to die.
DeGeneres isn't a role model for civility. Her friendship with Bush simply embodies the grossest form of class solidarity.
From a lofty enough vantage point, perhaps Bush's misdeeds really look like minor partisan differences. Perhaps Iraq seems
very far away, and so do the poor of New Orleans, when the stage of your show is the closest you get to anyone without power."
...I am all in favor of Tulsi Gabbard's anti-war stance, but this comment shows me she is too childish to hold any power.
Tulsi Gabbard
Verified account @TulsiGabbard
22h22 hours ago
.@TheEllenShow msg of being kind to ALL is so needed right now. Enough with the divisiveness. We can't let politics tear
us apart. There are things we will disagree on strongly, and things we agree on -- let's treat each other with respect, aloha,
& work together for the people.
There is no reason that anyone should treat George Bush with respect.
Some interesting estimates of the numbers of foreign fighters that participated in the Donbass War
from 2014-2019 from a report [PDF]
by the Soufan Center. (h/t
Kholmogorov)
Kiev-controlled Ukraine served as a destination for would-be murderers seeking impunity for
years. However, inviting foreign scum will help it about as much as it helped ISIS. Maybe
even less: some foreign and domestic ISIS bandits had ideology beyond raping and looting,
Ukrainian bandits in Donbass do not. "True believer" Ukies are in Canada, the US, or far away
from the front in Ukraine itself and studiously avoid getting into real fighting, where they
can be maimed or killed.
In contrast, many volunteers on the side of Donbass freedom fighters do have honest
beliefs and are not cowards avoiding combat. Not all, though: some just look for an
adventure, on the battlefield and in bed.
@Korenchkin If
you go by quintessence of Nazi ideology "my tribe is better than your tribe", every nation
has its Nazis, including Russia.
To its credit, tribal nationalists never got more than ~7% electoral support in
Russia.
After Ukrainian experience showed that any country can be quickly ruined by primeval
tribal nationalism, their support in Russia dropped to below 2%. But it still isn't zero.
Then again, ~1% of any population are schizophrenics, 2-3% are gays/lesbians, etc., so single
digit representation of any kind of deviation is not threatening country's survival.
@Mr. Hack I
asked the questions first, but I'll be generous and explain this to you on the fingers.
1. I used the term "Banderists" in the context of Ukraine's volunteer battalions –
that is, where foreigners have the most realistic chance of getting accepted.
2. Polls show Ukrainians to generally be 50/50 on Bandera, but obviously, that number will be
much higher amongst the rather self-selected sample that are volunteer battalion members. At
least 80%, if not 90%.
3. Poles obviously couldn't care less for Bandera. Polish *nationalists* – even less
so.
4. Nationalists are the likeliest foreigners to participate in the Donbass.
5. Do you now see why this would be a pertinent point to mention in the specific context of
why 10x fewer Poles fight for the Ukraine relative to Georgians, despite having 10x the
population?
I'm not sure if 14 fighters is a big enough sample size to justify lumping Canada into the
dreaded "Russophobe" category. But the 10 pro-Ukrainians to 4 pro-Russians ratio closely
mirrors that of self-declared ethnic Ukrainians (1,359,655) to Russians (622,445) in Canada.
Though many, possibly even a majority of those "Russians" are actually Jews. The Ukrainian
lobby has been disturbingly powerful in Canada for a long time (multiculturalism was their
bright idea), while the Russian lobby is seemingly invisible.
There are signs and symbols of Ukrainian nationalism everywhere (banks, festivals, flags,
bumper stickers etc), while similar Russian symbols are basically non-existent. The Uke to
Russkie ratio may be only 10-4, but it feels more like 10-1, or even 100-1.
I expected more Russians from the Baltics. Apparently, they and Serbs were early arrivals in
Girkin's group. Perhaps the ethnic Russians were counted as Russian?
Quite a few White Russians emigrated to France. The Whites were well supported by ethnic
Russians in the Donbass during the Civil War.
Many Irish Nationalist commentators supported Russia (enemy's enemy) but the table shows
Ireland Pro Ukraine (anti-imperialist a stronger driver?). The Russian settlers in the
Donbass are such an obvious parallel to the Orangemen.
1. Chechens would be the obvious answer. I recall reading there were 2x as many Chechens
fighting for Ukrainians than for Russians.
2. Svidomy Ukrainians in Russia.
3. And, as mentioned, Neo-Nazis and White Nationalists (~60%-70% on Ukraine's side, at
least initially). The other brands of Russian nationalists were overwhelmingly
pro-Russian.
@AnonFromTN
More foreign "scum" on Donbas side than Ukrainian side. As one would expect. It's not all bad
however, Donbas should be kept apart from Ukraine.
"True believer" Ukies are in Canada, the US, or far away from the front in Ukraine
itself and studiously avoid getting into real fighting, where they can be maimed or
killed.
Ukrainian-American Paslawsky fought and died in the war.
A graduate of the U.S. Military Academy and the only American known to have fought
alongside Ukrainian forces against pro-Russian separatists has been killed in eastern
Ukraine.
Mark Gregory Paslawsky, 55, died while fighting with the volunteer Donbas Battalion.
Paslawsky, who fought under the nom de guerre "Franko," was killed on August 19 during
fighting in the town of Ilovaysk, near the Ukrainian city of Donetsk, according to a Facebook
post by Ukrainian Interior Ministry adviser Anton Herashchenko.
Paslawsky was born in 1959 in New York and grew up in a tight-knit Ukrainian-American
family in New Jersey. He moved to Ukraine around two decades ago and informed his family
earlier this year that he planned to volunteer for the Ukrainian Army, according to his
brother, Nestor Paslawsky.
::::::::::::::
The American fighting for Donbas, "Cowb0y", meanwhile was some sort of petty criminal in
the USA. Like Motorola in Russia, of course.
@Philip Owen
Well the Serbs played a major role in the defence of the territory that is today the Donbas
(not particularly well known among modern Russians). So Serbian nationalists have an extra
cause in regards to the Donbas
Slavo-Serbia or Slaveno-Serbia, was a territory of Imperial Russia between 1753-64. It was
located by the right bank of the Donets River between the Bakhmutka River
(Бахмут) and Luhan
(Лугань) rivers. This area today constitutes the
territories of present-day Luhansk Oblast and Donetsk Oblast of Ukraine. The
administrative centre of Slavo-Serbia was Bakhmut (Bahmut).
In contrast, many volunteers on the side of Donbass freedom fighters do have honest
beliefs and are not cowards avoiding combat. Not all, though: some just look for an
adventure
Not mutually exclusive. If you feel that you're leading a meaningless life and you are
looking for adventure, something radically different from a cubicle job or whatever, might as
well do something like join a war where you get to defend innocent people.
Considering ex ISIS fighters are often left to go free and claim benefits it was interesting
to see the fate of the fella who went to the Donbass and didn't even fight.
@anonymous
coward So was South Africa but didn't stop there being close ties between loyalists and
the apartheid government, a few Ulstermen were in the the government and there was the shared
settler Calvinist outlook. The IRA had quite close links to Croats, don't know if loyalists
had the same with Serbs. MP Ian Paisley junior is somewhat of a Russophile.
@SveVid This is
all true, but all those people are completely and utterly assimilated into Ukrainians /
Russians and have been for much longer than living memory. Most people in Serbia (except
history nerds etc) have no idea about this history. A much more plausible explanation for
Serbs going to fight in the Donbass would make some reference to Russian (and also Greek btw)
volunteer units fighting with the Serbs in the 1990s and contacts established during that
time.
@Anatoly Karlin
Mazepa is way up there and he joined the early 17th century Swedish invasion of Russia that
ended with the defeat at Poltava. That effectively ended Sweden as a great power. Seems like
Ukrainians have a thing for worshipping losers allied with anyone west of them, so there is
some hope for Porky's eventual rehabilitation.
Carl Bildt's ancestors were there in high stockings among the vanquished at Poltava
– the Bildts never forgave the humiliation, those Swedes can be sneaky. That explains
the persistent anti-Russian attitudes among the Nordics. Swedes also tend to be
simple-minded, nobody swallows the current globo-homo propaganda as eagerly or looks for
Russian submarines hiding behind every whale.
By and large Austria and Croatia are the only surprises – here, the history of the last
century is a bit complicated. "Altösterreicher" is a popular euphemism for "Galician
Jew" i.e. the current Kiew regime. The Croats are more probably channeling their recent
hatred for the Serbs. [Not really] funny what the separation of East and West Rome is still
doing to a people.
"'You can assume that these terrorists are fighting for Israel. If they aren't part of the
regular Israeli army, they're fighting for Israel. Israel has common goals with Turkey, the
United States, France, Britain, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other countries,' Assad was quoted by
Ynet" – https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4946010,00.html
it's quite amazing that nothing similar happened only two decades later in WWII
Oh it did, we just changed the target race to the Japanese, as like Dan states, the German
race had been sufficiently castigated in the previous war, never to recover.
Our Supreme Allied Commander was said to have been of Jewish German descent
(((Eisenhauer))).
And yes, we know with which blood line he sided with.
Just one item about the Statue of Liberty. Its association with Emma Lazarus' later ode to
immigration has eclipsed the original meaning of the great monument. French sculptor
Bartholdi named his creation "Goddess Liberty enlightening the world." He conceived the idea
for the statue on July Fourth 1865 to commemorate the suppression of the slaveholder
insurrection two months earlier; Lazarus' poem was not added until1903. Bartholdi proposed to
give the statue to the people of America as an enduring monument to their successful struggle
to preserve the world's sole experiment in republican self-government.
Americans of 1865 understood it was their responsibility to maintain the free institutions
of their republic as an example to the world, not to function as an asylum for its poor and
downtrodden. It was the world's peoples' task to fight free government in their own
homelands, not to relocate to ours. While Europe's despots cheered the collapse of America's
first republic in 1861, there was an immense outpouring of support among the common folk for
the Union and the hope for democracy in their own nations that it inspired. Mindful of the
1848 republican revolutions that convulsed the Old Word, British and European rulers dared
not endorse the Confederate oligarchy, lest they trigger a new round of class warfare in
their own restive kingdoms.
Mass immigration of non-English speaking people was allowed for the first time in the
corrupt laissez-faire Gilded Age that followed the Civil War because the victorious northern
capitalists needed vast supplies of cheap labor to do the hard manual and industrial work
that Americans did not wish to do, having fought a costly war to abolish the most grotesque
form of exploitation of labor, and which four million ex-slaves could no longer be compelled
to do without wages.
It seems that Karl Muck wasn't the only musician arrested and interned as an emery alien
during WW I. Another conductor, Ernst Kunwald of the Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra was also
arrested.
In fact so many other musicians were arrested that Karl Muck was able to conduct a full
symphony orchestra when he made his last performance at the Interment camp at Fort Oglethorpe
, Georgia
It is highly likely that those musicians were denounced by their artistic rivals in order
to gain advancement
Curious that so far no one has mentioned just how magnificent a conductor actually Muck was.
His version of Parsifal, available on CD from I think Naxos is a supreme revelation of the
difference between a good conductor like, say, Karajan, and a sublimely great one like Muc...
It seems that Burrage initially approached this project with only a superficial
understanding of her subject matter. The subtitle of her work is Classical Music and
Xenophobia in World War I America . The dust jacket blurb tips her hand even more (or, more
likely, that of her publishers):
One of the cherished narratives of American history is that of the Statue of Liberty
welcoming immigrants to it shores. Accounts of the exclusion and exploitation of Chinese
immigrants in the late nineteenth century and Japanese internment during World War II tell a
darker story of American immigration. Less well known, however, is the treatment of
German-Americans and German nationals in the United States during World War I. Initially
accepted and even welcomed into American society, at the outbreak of the war this group would
face rampant intolerance and anti-German hysteria.
From such vain moral posturing, one can conclude that this book will amount to yet another
blunt instrument with which the Left can pummel supporters of President Trump for wishing to
build a wall on the Mexican border and limit non-white immigration. If we can shame people for
past xenophobia, according to this strategy, perhaps we can conquer xenophobia today and allow
the huddled masses of future Democrats to keep streaming into America. (Stephen Jay Gould
attempted a similar kind of history-shaming – only with psychometrics – in his
thoroughly debunkedThe Mismeasure of Man. )
Burrage hits a snag, however, when she reveals Muck's true character. He was the most
celebrated conductor in America at the time. Under his leadership, the BSO became the nation's
leading orchestra, which aided greatly in keeping Boston at the forefront of American high
society and culture. Affable, charismatic, and cultured, Muck was extremely popular in Boston,
and, shortly after arriving at the behest of financier and BSO founder Henry Lee Higginson in
1906, became a de facto member of Boston's aristocracy.
This aristocracy was so famous, it had a name: the Boston Brahmins . Boston was also home
to a very large German population and was ground zero for Germanophilia in New England. German
businesses, German newspapers, German food, and German culture were highly visible in Beantown
in the early twentieth century. Of course, everybody loved German classical music, which Muck
was all too happy to provide.
Higginson was Muck's biggest booster, despite not being German himself. They were close
friends who had much in common, culturally and ideologically. Both were highly aristocratic and
conservative. Higginson had spent many years in Germany and Austria in his youth studying
piano, and was fluent in German. In a peculiar coincidence, both men had similar scars on their
right cheeks. Muck received his from a fencing duel in his youth, and Higginson from a
Confederate saber during the Civil War.
But who was Karl Muck? He was a highly educated man of world-class talent who was proud of
his German roots, possessed nationalistic sympathies for his nation of birth, and held the
realistic opinions on race which were common in his day. This was, after all, the heyday of
writers such as Madison Grant, Lothrop Stoddard, and Henry Adams. Race realism, as well as
cultural chauvinism and a healthy support for eugenics, were de rigueur in educated
circles back then. And this included a relatively mild form of anti-Semitism among the
still-strong WASP elites:
[Muck's] racial views also affected his actions and judgment. When composer Ernest Bloch
presented his Three Jewish Poems for inclusion on the Boston Symphony program, Muck
was reluctant to debut the work if Bloch did not change the title. Bloch supposedly
responded, "Dr. M[uck] you speak exactly like my Jewish friends, who advised me to change the
title for obvious reasons." Bloch defended the title of his piece, to which Muck replied, "If
there were more Jews like you, there would be less anti-Semitism."
Higginson was worse in this regard – or better, depending on your perspective. He
supported immigration restriction in order to keep undesirables out of America and was a race
patriot almost as much as he was an American patriot. He was a leading member of the Immigrant
Restriction League, and was well ensconced in the national power circles of the day, being
cousins with fellow immigration hawk Senator Henry Cabot Lodge . Higginson used his
contacts in government to bust musician's unions. He also wrangled with Jewish attorney and
future Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis , who sought to curtail
Higginson's various business interests in the name of trust-busting. And this, according to
Burrage, informed Higginson's negative opinions of Jews.
Not surprisingly, Burrage considers Higginson's racial views "flawed," and then describes
Higginson and the Immigrant Restriction League like so:
The league also used pseudo-scientific dogma to divide European white men into
biological categories, classifying eastern Europeans into the most inferior type to justify
their arguments. Its view of nationalism was built on an "ideology of kinship to enthrone
their own tribe and oppress others." It justified discrimination, arguing that America
could "improve its race" by selecting immigrants based on "appropriate national origins." The
league was influenced by eugenicist Madison Grant, who wrote The Passing of the
Great Race (1916), which promoted a theory of "Nordic" racial supremacy and advocated the
separation or removal of all "worthless" and "unfit" types. It was inspired by scientist
Robert DeCourcy Ward, who publicized his view that "science decrees restrictions on the new
immigration for the conservation of the 'American race."' Higginson's father-in-law, Harvard
professor Louis Agassiz, was a prolific writer and teacher on the topic of
scientific racism, believing that races were distinct and unequal and could be
classified based on climatic zones. Boston's upper classes feared that foreigners would
replace their own native stock, and they worried about "biological defeat." Immigration
restriction was a "phase of national defense" against "the strange invaders who seemed so
grave a threat to their class, their region, their country, and their race."
After stepping back from this and having a cigarette, I believe most of us on the Dissident
Right will conclude that we were all born a century and a half too late.
Getting over that, there is so much to unpack here, one hardly knows where to begin. Yes,
there's the stunned respect we all must have for this Higginson fellow, who was related to both
Henry Cabot Lodge and Louis Agassiz (whom Gould heartily denounced in Mismeasure
), and who was able to speak in defense of white, ethnocentric interests so candidly. The
Boston Brahmins had every reason to worry about biological defeat; we're entering the jaws of
that defeat today. Also, this passage should be met with some sadness regarding the hidebound
chauvinism whites used to have toward other whites. This attitude will have to be discarded
entirely for whites to have enough solidarity to thrive in the next century.
Most apropos to The Karl Muck Scandal , however, is how Burrage attempts to paint
Karl Muck as the victim of xenophobia. Of course, he was. He was a perfectly innocent
man when federal authorities arrested and incarcerated him in March 1918. But Muck and
Higginson were Dissident Rightists back when the not-so-Dissident Right ruled the roost in
America. So Burrage is in effect going to bat for someone on the Right in order to strike a
blow for the Left. How's that for irony?
The story undergoes a few more twists before completely unraveling. If there is a villain in
this book, it is New York socialite Mrs. William (Lucie) Jay, who really didn't like Germans.
Jay, whose deceased husband was descended from early American statesman John Jay, tirelessly
lobbied for Muck's dismissal from the BSO all throughout the war. Muck hired too many German
musicians, or he played too much German music, according to her. The woman organized committees
to ban all German music. She tried to prevent the BSO from playing in New York. She spread
false rumors about Muck in order to discredit him. She hurled insults at him as often as
possible. She called for boycotts. She accused him of supporting the German military effort.
She also (ahem) muck -raked his life, searching for sexual impropriety. As anti-German
feeling in America grew more and more intense, Jay's attacks on Muck grew more and more
strident.
Here she is at her hysterical best:
Rather a thousand times that the orchestral traditions fade from our lives than one hour
be added to the war's duration by clinging to this last tentacle of the German octopus!
Then there was the "Star-Spangled Banner" non-scandal which got the attention of the entire
country. In October 1917, the BSO had received numerous requests to play the "Star-Spangled
Banner" before a concert in Providence, Rhode Island. Since it was late and the programs had
already been printed, Higginson decided to ignore the requests. The song hadn't yet become the
national anthem (which wouldn't happen until 1931) and didn't quite fit in with the pieces the
BSO was slated to play that evening, anyway. Of course, Higginson didn't bother to tell Muck
about this, and allowed the oblivious maestro to conduct a concert free of star-spangled
banners.
In an astonishingly brazen instance of "fake news," John Rathom, the editor of the
Providence Journal, then accused Muck of deliberately refusing to play the patriotic
anthem because of his German sympathies. Not only did this story later appear in newspapers all
across the country, but Rathom kept the momentum going with even more accusations:
The zealous newspaperman spread reports among his readership that Muck was pro-German and
a friend of Kaiser Wilhelm. Rathom distorted the facts, claiming to uncover foreign espionage
plots that were later revealed to be fraudulent. Once such plot suggested that Muck intended
to destroy American munitions factories. On November 21, 1917, the New York Times
reported that Rathom "thrilled and enthused" seven hundred members of the Pilgrim Publicity
Association at the Boston City Club with a story of "German spies in Boston" outlining his
great campaign against them.
This damaged Muck's reputation overnight, and Lucie Jay later used it relentlessly to incite
violent hatred against him. (Burrage speculates that Jay and Rathom colluded in Muck's
character assassination, but no one knows for sure.) Thousands of influential Americans were
now onboard Lucie Jay's muck-up-Muck train. People were calling for the conductor's
assassination, internment, or deportation. Crowds as far away as Baltimore were chanting "Kill
Muck! Kill Muck!" It got so bad that the authorities had to step in to determine if Muck was
indeed a dangerous enemy alien. In all cases, they found no evidence of wrongdoing – but
not for lack of trying. Some investigators feared that Muck was putting coded messages in his
musical scores. Others theorized that he kept a disassembled radio transmitter in his Maine
summer house with which he signaled German U-boats. (The apparatus belonged to the landlord,
and was unbeknownst to Muck.)
Regardless, we should remember that this was a period when the American war machine was
churning out absolutely vicious anti-German
propaganda – and the people were beginning to believe it and take part in the
suppression of all things German. Violence against German-Americans became quite common during
this time. So these false accusations from Jay and Rathom threatened to have deadly
consequences.
A First World War-era anti-German propaganda poster A German-American after
being whipped, tarred, and feathered in August 1918
Despite her hypermodern moral posturing, Burrage does provide useful scholarship. Most
notable in The Karl Muck Scandal is her well-researched contention that Lucie Jay was
not all that she was cracked up to be. Jay may indeed have been an American patriot. She may
also have been as anti-German as advertised. But her real motivations behind ruining Karl
Muck's life were far pettier. She was on the Board of Directors of the New York Philharmonic
(NYP), and was jealous of the BSO's star conductor. Other than the brief period from 1909 to
1911, when Gustav Mahler waved their baton, the Knickerbockers really did play second fiddle to
the Celtics back then – and that bothered a lot of wealthy and powerful people in Gotham.
Taking out the NYP's top rival in the most literal sense became Lucie Jay's idée
fixe throughout the wa,r and ultimately made her the Tonya Harding of classical music.
Burrage reveals another reason for Jay's hatred for Muck, and this one's even pettier. Yeah,
it was all about money:
Jay had even deeper motives for her persistent attacks on the Boston Symphony that cut to
the heart of her own economic security. In September of 1906, her brother Hermann had passed
away. Estranged from his wife, much of his estate was bequeathed to Mrs. Jay and her brother
Charles. Mrs. Jay acquired a large share in the North German Lloyd Steamship Line and
presumably railroad stocks from the Vanderbilt interests as well. It made logical sense to
support her family's interests and further their progress within the United States, which was
threatened, as we shall see, by political forces directly related to the BSO.
And what were these political forces? None other than Henry Lee Higginson and his powerful
anti-immigration allies in government. Since the 1880s, millions of immigrants, many of whom
were Eastern European Jews, had been streaming into America from Europe on steamships, making
Mrs. William Jay and her family richer and richer by the mile. Immigration was Mrs. Jay's bagel
and cream cheese, as it were, and Higginson with all his race realism and polite anti-Semitism
was threatening to spoil the bar mitzvah. That's basically it. So, let's now appreciate another
level of irony in which Burrage is forced to cast a pro-immigration harpy like Jay as the
villain in a drama that's ostensibly pro-immigration.
Unbelievable as it sounds, there's even more irony to this story. Lucie Jay, as it turns
out, was herself German! Her maiden name was Oelrich – a fact she obscured beneath her
husband's time-honored and quite Anglo last name. It seems to me that the obsession behind
Jay's Muck-hate was a form of ethnocentrism in reverse, the kind of contempt born only from
familiarity. I can't prove this, but it seems to be the prime motivator here. America was
pulled into a war with Germany, and Jay felt especially betrayed by her own people whenever
they expressed sympathy for the enemy. And in Muck's case, this was at least half-true. Before
America's entry into the war, he had actively supported his homeland and was on excellent terms
with the German ambassador in Washington. He also never applied for American citizenship and
never denounced Germany. For a person like Lucie Jay, who wanted to erase or hide everything
about her that was German, what Karl Muck did (and did not do) must have seemed like
treason.
The story could have ended here. Worn down by years of slander, libel, hostility, and death
threats, Karl Muck and his wife Anita decided to leave for Germany. He resigned from the BSO in
March 1918 and was preparing to depart when he was hit with the bombshell news that the
Massachusetts District Attorney would not let him leave. Apparently, the DA was intrigued by
Lucie Jay's previous unproven accusations of sexual impropriety, and felt that Muck may have a
skeleton rattling around in his closet after all. And after a thorough investigation by the
Bureau of Investigation (BOI), they found it. Muck had been having an affair with a 22-year-old
mezzo-soprano named Rosamond Young.
This wasn't a mere summer fling; he was madly in love with her, so much so that he wrote her
love letters and promised to divorce his wife for her. Yes, he was a married man in his late
50s. Yes, under normal circumstances, this would be quite the scandal. But it hardly amounts to
law-breaking. Yet the BOI and powerful anti-German elements in the federal government –
especially hardline Attorney General and rabid Hun-hater A. Mitchell Palmer – were
determined to make it so. And under what contrived pretenses did they finally nab Muck?
Well, Muck (kind of) violated the Comstock Act of 1873 , which forbade sending
anything obscene or immoral by US Mail. Apparently, sappy quotes such as this qualified as
"obscene":
But can't you see, my darling, how much harder it is for me to renounce the love that grew
between us so sublimely? Must we, for the sake of foolish sentiments that are imposed on us
by others, foreswear the love that is divine and inexpressible by common language? No, a
thousand times, no! You are mine and I am your slave and so I must remain.
He also (sort of) violated the Mann White Slavery Act of 1910 , which prohibited
transporting women or girls across state lines "for the purpose of prostitution or debauchery,
or for any other immoral purpose." Muck had apparently "abducted" Young every time he traveled
with her out of state with the BSO to perform.
Such flimsy reasons to arrest a man may seem ridiculous today, but they were deadly serious
back then. Yes, the US government needed to keep a lid on the immoral behavior of its citizens
(if only it would do so today!), and yes, white slavery was quite the menace back then.
However, Karl Muck's arrest clearly amounted to abuse.
And the abuse did not end there. American authorities then blackmailed Muck into
being interned as an enemy alien at Fort Oglethorpe in Georgia in return for their keeping
quiet about his affair with Young. It was either that or going public and trying him as a
sexual deviant in a Boston court – a humiliation that would ruin him, Young, and Anita
regardless of the trial's outcome. Honorable gentleman that he was, Muck "was only too proud to
shoulder" the burden of internment, and opted for the extended vacation in Georgia. He stayed
there for a year and a half.
Then, while Muck was serving time behind barbed wire and machine guns in the sweltering
Georgia heat, the US government reneged on its promise and allowed the Boston press to
publicize his affair and his love letters to Young anyway. This caused nearly all of
what remained of Muck's fan base to abandon him. The Boston Brahmins did so as well, likely
because distancing themselves from Muck would keep the heat off their own sexual indiscretions,
of which, according to Burrage, there were many. Unfortunately, Higginson was counted among
this number – although in his case he seemed to be acting more out of wartime American
patriotism than sexual hypocrisy.
If this weren't enough, the US authorities then stole all of Muck's assets. When they
finally deported him nine months after the war, he went back to Germany flat broke.
Given the vitriolic hatred of Germans in WWI, it's quite amazing that nothing similar
happened only two decades later in WWII. Best demonstrated by the family name of the #1
General of the Allied forces in Europe.
The remnants of America's still virulent World War I germanophobia had taken its toll. By
World War II it had essentially totally eviscerated German-American culture and political
strength. A job well-done by the Anglo-American establishment!
This short documentary mentions German-American persecution during World War I, and the
massive numbers of draft dodgers. It also notes problems with the British royals German
roots, including the fact the Kaiser was a first cousin and buddy of the King of England.
Most Americans don't realize that Anglo-Saxons were Germans who immigrated to England!
"... This is a profound and sound thesis, i.e., the Power Elites could encourage universal suffrage and not feel it threatened, significantly, their long term interests or direction. The "Masses", that undifferentiated formless and shapeless blob-like gelatinous mass, could simply be "Nudged" and fudged and snockered to vote against their own interests based on generated fantasy, lies. agitprop, propaganda, and easily subverted Christianity-thoroughl made into a double agent. ..."
"... They are a kind of unlanded gentry, or a bankster oligarchy if you will. The "capitalist class" is really a pseudo-capitalist, Cultural Marxist, corruption-dependent, chosen class. ..."
"... YES – Trump is an insufferable jerk – but clearly, they are the ones being dishonest. Russiagate was a hoax – Ukrainegate is a gross exaggeration of a problem. ..."
"... This is as it's going to get before the country breaks apart. Overall, I don't regret voting for Trump, but there is not a lot of swamp draining going on. ..."
Tell me something about liberal hatred and plans I don't know.
Trump is not ridiculous. He looks good for his age. Compare him to that withered crone
actor de Niro.Or the hideous Lyndon Johnson. Or lardass big bellied cucumber nose WC Field
face Bill Clinton. whoever said a president has to be good looking?
NYC has been corrupt since it was a Dutch Colony and pirate's flea market to rival Port
Royal in Jamaica. NYC Real estate? Founding fathers Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr and
others were NYC real estate speculators 230 years ago. Construction may have been reasonably
honest in NYC at some point but that ended when immigrants from 2 countries took over the
construction business long before Trump and his parents were born. Construction and real
estate is a tough business as I know well. The Trumps waded in to the toughest town in the
country fought the good fight and beat the crooks at their own game.
I can't wait till Trump wins again to see the liberals heads totally explode. I was in a
joyous mood all November and December 2016 as I saw the angst and despair of the liberals
The liberals hate me and mine as much as they hate Trump.
I suppose the author is trying to say Trump and the liberals are both bad. Trump used too
much gold in his apartment in Trump tower. Well, I suppose if you're an IKEA person you're
not used to anything else
He'll have to find something other than Trump is a repulsive clown to convince me.
@animalogic
i agree with you .. the oligarchs are just fine.. they have N. Korea wondering what to do
next, the situation in Iraq is Kurds have generated total Chaos in Iraq. the situation in
Syria in Idib has the Terrorist hiding behind the Syrians trapped there, so it is a stand off
for now, and Erdergodan has abandoned the USA as a partner in N. Syria and will move
independently into Syria to establish the 20 mile wide buffer zone in order to separate Kurds
from Turks, Iraq just wiped out the Kurd radio and tv stations, and Sissi in Egypt has been
exposed in corruption so the masses in the streets demanding his demise, the situation in
France is yellow jackets on the rise, the situation in Hong Kong is shoot the protesters,
China has given the high sign and is preparing for war, Israel can't find an honest leader,
Russia and Iran have teamed to avoid the USA dollar Hegemony..and Iran is setting higher and
better than ever and Briton is about to leave the UK and the EU and the USA is infighting to
impeach its President.
but what I see coming is not another American revolution instead I see a worldwide
revolution developing the masses against the corrupt nation state system and all its bankers,
corporatist and politicians. The elites have been using the Nation state system, and
privately owned media, to organize their crimes and to further their corrupt profits and to
deny everyone, everywhere their human rights. and that denial is about to come home to rest.
Americans are far behind the rest of the world in understanding but soon, I believe, they too
will catch up..
I believe we are about to see humanity take on the powers that be. everywhere all at once.
The war cry is going to be no more corruption, no more nation states, no more top down
governance.. and the result is going to be chaos for the bankers, the corporations and the
people that depend on the rule of law and bureaucracies for their protection.. Cause I don't
think there is going to be any protection for them.
@Laurent
Guyénot LOL. Donald Obama Trump belongs to the swamp. Only the zombie voting class
can't see that. Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that the voting class consists of
100% deluded zombies who believe they personally can influence the creatures who own and rule
them.
Doing what is needed to avoid fighting/dying in yet another "bankster's" war is hardly
cowardly, in fact it is the only moral and brave thing to do. Wars for the sake of empires
are not only immoral, they are illegal.
I don't know how old you are but that realization only took place in the population
because of the Vietnam war ..not before it.
The military allowed for pacifist who objected to killing anyone as medics or supply
jobs.
This guy made clear he ran not because he objected to war on a moral basis but because he was
afraid of getting his little self hurt.
There IS a difference.
@French
Pronografer You ain't kidding! Does anyone remember the Don(ald) was hobnobing with the
Clintons? He was writing checks to their reelection campaigns and they had been guests at his
last wedding. The zombies are getting scarier
Many insightful comments to think about, but the most practical one was to be ready when the
"SHTF." (I love that initialism. The precursor to GTFO). Graham Greene wrote that every man's
life has a turning point; but that most men do not recognize it at the time. Societies, I
think, are the same. The challenge is to recognize the SHTF/GTFO/RuralTown point in a timely
fashion.
@Ash
Williams Q: "Do you seriously believe that the people coming out of 'higher education'
today with basket weaving degrees can compete with the Chinese that major in STEM?"
A: "You mean the IP spies they send to the USA? I think that's being addressed."
Regardless of how STEM-educated the Chinese really are, and regardless of whether they
stole or invented their high tech, their high tech manufacturing capabilities appear to have
already outpaced those of the USA. They quickly build giant automated factories making very
sophisticated and high quality gear at low cost, and seem to have few problems finding
employees to operate them. They are quite agile and advanced. I doubt that they have
hindrances like unions, drug-addiction, high labor cost, and stifling regulations on the same
scale that the USA does. Probably about 20% of USA working-age citizens are basically
ineducable.
@RoatanBill
". Do you also attend some religious institution to pray to some space man? "
Hey Bill, l enjoy your comments but you ought to show a little decency towards certain
aspects of this so- called "life" and the faith and INSPIRATIONAL aspects that give some of
us the courage and energy to FIGHT on here on the front lines.. for what is OURS. What WE
built.
To pot shot from the side-lines in Roatan, is kinda dirty pool, eh?
This is a profound and sound thesis, i.e., the Power Elites could encourage universal suffrage
and not feel it threatened, significantly, their long term interests or direction. The
"Masses", that undifferentiated formless and shapeless blob-like gelatinous mass, could
simply be "Nudged" and fudged and snockered to vote against their own interests based on
generated fantasy, lies. agitprop, propaganda, and easily subverted Christianity-thoroughl
made into a double agent.
Hmmm. We are approaching an existence resembling that of The Matrix-which was non-fiction
fiction.
Let me offer you democratarians some succor. The Republic is in good hands, by the
populace, so shall ye know the country:
@SafeNow
When the Dems take over they will do the opposite of Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot who forced
people into the countryside. The current elites hate the rural life and those that own small
farms. Absolutely hate them. The Dems will install heavy carbon, meat and ammunition taxes
among others forcing what is left of meth infested rural white America into the cesspools
that are our cities. Really I don't see any way out of this mess we've got ourselves in. You
think people are going to stand up and fight knowing the heavy counter force that will come
their way swiftly and savagely? The time to roll this lunacy back was in the 70s and 80s.
I'm
a YM 1955. Lived through it all my man. By the grace of God the Vietnam war ended the year I
graduated high school and I did not have to face the decision of submitting to a governments
edict that I must "go and do my patriotic chore" or saying f*ck it and disrupting my life up
to that point and knowing it could never, ever be the same.
You keyboard commando's talk shit, because it is cheap. How many of you have ever received
a letter from uncle sugar which started out with the words "Greeting"? By the way, after
5o,000 KIA's and many more WIA's, what was actually achieved by the Vietnam war? My
chonies(google it) are now made in Vietnam. Please tell me why this could not have been hashed
out in a trade deal, without all the death and destruction.
@Stonehands
Congratulations – you're the first person I'm aware of that figured out what my screen
name signifies.
To me, religion and gov't are the two worst inventions of mankind with religion being the
precursor that led to gov't. Once you can convince people of some god, it's not a far stretch
to convince them they absolutely need a leader. Both institutions are anti freedom and
detrimental to the worlds people.
Throne and alter were twins–two vultures from the same egg.
To attack the king was treason; to dispute the priest, blasphemy.
The sword and cross were allies.
Together they attacked the rights of men; they defended each other.
The king owned the bodies of men, the priests the souls.
One lived on taxes collected by force, the other on alms collected by fear.
Both robbers, both beggars.
The king made laws, the priest made creeds.
With bowed backs the people carried the burdens of one, with open-mouthed wonder received the
dogmas of the other.
The king said rags and hovels for you, robes and palaces for me.
The priest said God made you ignorant and immoral; He made me holy and wise; you are the
sheep, I am the shepherd; your fleeces belong to me.
You must not reason, you must not contradict, you must believe.
Robert G. Ingersoll
My only gripe would be referring to the Western power class as "capitalist" (a common, minor
complaint here in the comments section of this article).
Granted, there is a thin veneer of capitalism coating the ugly visage of the globalist power
class, but scratch the surface and you discover something else altogether.
Western elites do not live by the rules & strictures of the free market. They are a kind of unlanded gentry, or a bankster oligarchy if you will.
The "capitalist class" is really a pseudo-capitalist, Cultural Marxist, corruption-dependent,
chosen class.
The homeless & the powerless know capitalism.
The powerful & rich here in the West know only that their financial missteps must be
& will be socialized, & insured by the dwindling wealth of the angry but impotent
masses.
@renfro Now
students, let us go over the history of American warfare.
Revolution;
organized by the wealthiest people in the colonies who borrowed 13 billion in French money
to pay for it all. This included our first gold deposits for our treasury. As per usual, most
of the money stayed in France to pay for armaments soldiers and ships to get it all to
America.
After the war, Hamilton and the rest of the founders decided they weren't going to tax
themselves to pay for the war, build the Capitol and support the new government.
So Hamilton sec treasury decided to tax the frontier hillbillies redneck deplorables who'd
done most of the fighting on their only transportable cash crop whiskey. The deplorables
rebelled. Washington led a bigger army against veterans of the revolutionary war than he ever
did against the British. The leaders of the whiskey rebellion were hanged. By the way, we
never did pay France back
Civil War; 750,000 White men in the prime of life killed so as to leash on the scale of the Black Plague. Side effect
100 years of poverty for the south
Spanish American War;
ostensibly to free Cubans from Spain so they could have a wonderful democracy. Lots of
American men killed and crippled. Real purpose, to grab Manila Harbor and the Philippines for
a forward base to harass east Asia. Side effect, burdened with Puerto Rico and Rican
immigrants.
WW1;
conned into it by Britain that needed our help to destroy its major economic competition
Germany and Jews who wanted to invade Palestine using the British army. Lots of American men
killed and crippled
WW2.;
more of the same. Side effects communists swallowed up China east and Central Europe and
fomented revolution and death all over the world. Jews became supreme rulers of the west due
to their martyrdom during the war.
Korea;
A lot of American men killed and crippled for no good reason. Side effect, best guarded
border in the world. Unlike the borders of America which are essentially unguarded
Vietnam;
Caused by Cold War egomania of Kennedy and Johnson. A lot of American men Killed and
crippled for no good reason. We lost Side effect all S Vietnamese classified as refugees for
admission to America Set a very very very very bad precedent.
Late 1990s Balkan War;
America fought with the bad guys Muslim Albanians and Bosnians against the good guys
Christian Culture Serbs and Croats.
1990 to eternity war;
Killing and bombing Middle East so Israel won't have to fight its own wars. Lots of
American soldiers lots of civilians killed and crippled for no good reason. Side effect
Zionist jews in Pentagon steal billions of dollars and vast amounts of armaments. Loot
presumably sent to Israel.
Oldie but goodie
Q. What's the battle song of the Israeli army?
A. Onward Christian Soldiers
Off topic, that Batman movie with Danny de Vito and Christopher Walken's on TV.
@Ash
Williams Interesting observations about China and Russia. They seems to prefer a
multi-polar world based on co–operation and being "left alone". In my view they would
probably also co-operate with the Anglo-Zionists if they were not such warmongers intent on
global hegemony. I think Trump wants to cooperate with Russia but the MIC globalists will not
let him.
@Anon Sorry
to be a spoil sport and a doom monger. I really wish I could say that there were good guys. I
always used to think of Israel (and the US and UK) as the "good guys" but then I woke up.
There are no good guys. Nations operate out of self-interest. Empires struggle for supremacy.
They have all done bad things. Might is right.
Where does this leave us? We must seek out like minded Christians and like minded people
who will resist the coming evil. We are all asked to repent and to preach about the coming
judgement. If the Apocalypse is anything to go by then "overcoming the world" actually means
resisting until death. I am sorry. Bad times ahead. Keep the faith try and be kind don't back
down from standing up for the truth.
Perhaps the monetary answer to the banksters' usury has been tried before. And because it was
so successful the banksters declared war on this simple yet principled system of monetary
discipline and demonized its leader–unlike any other person before and since
(specifically so this system would not catch on and put the banksters out of usurious
money-lending practices).
What if most of everything we were told–especially about history–was an
outright lie, fabrication, "enhancement", distortion or embellishment? What if you could
investigate for yourselves and confirm this fable was organized? If so, then it must be by
way of reason to have been intentional! We are not talking about pieces here or there, but
wholesale chunks inverted and presented by corrupt "officials" as sacrosanct history based on
"research". No, ladies and gentlemen, these are no more than propaganda talking points made
to keep you in your place: devoid of the truth, distracted from an en-devour thereof, or
coerced into silence or taken out if all else failed.
The awakening is here and now in our lifetimes; what remains is our effort to commit .
time for a reprogramming course indeed .
Hitler, more than an other politician since then, cared more about his people than
imaginable. For example, he used non-inflationary government created and issued Labor
Treasury Certificates to fund Germany from the poorest country in Europe to the richest in
five years. This made the bankers (Judea) declare on Germany. This simple approach to money
(money is not an intrinsic value rather it is a "measure" of value much like a measuring cup
that measures commodities like sugar, flour, grain, etc.) could have caught on in the rest of
Europe and throughout the world putting the end to the banksters and their usury.
"Germany issued debt-free and interest-free money from 1935 on, which accounts for
Germany's startling rise from the depression to a world power in five years. The German
government financed its entire operations from 1935 to 1945 without gold, and without debt.
It took the entire Capitalist and Communist world to destroy the German revolution, and
bring Europe back under the heel of the Bankers."
If you have ever dared or not to watch a video, please make an concerted effort to watch
this one (just about six minutes long but one that needs views and redistribution like none
other) and one that may hold the most retained value from its consumption:
The American attitude has changed dramatically the public majority has lost its innocence
and is not 'trusting' as it was once. Vietnam was the eye opener for the public but not until
it dragged on and on till no one could justify it. People didn't want to believe the
government perfidy.
With good reason we have learned war is politics and the still fooled or patriot believer
young people get sent to war.
A lot of people talking about war have great 'hindsight'.
@RoatanBill
Even the average atheist draws the line whenever someone says that we DO NOT have any degree
of freedom and that moral responsibility is not a reality.
As a die-hard unbeliever, you may
reject the position that moral laws descend from a higher plane unperceived by our senses; as
a tax- paying citizen, however, you still need to live by sublunary standards of civility.
And this can be done only if free will and moral realism are the law of the land.
In the normal course of events both you and l are one in promoting some kind of " operative
morality."
As a guardian of morality, whether you feel this necessary truth is objectively real (
Christianity) or subjectively true (as l presume it is for you)- we could not go on living
and believe that being alive is all right , unless we enact these inferences or postulations.
@Who Cares
Well, my friend, CA is way ahead of you. High gas prices, translating into high
transportation costs. Outrageous vehicle license fees. Everything is more expensive here, and
going up everyday. Insane building codes and exorbitant fees. Background checks every time
you buy a box of ammo. Homeless everywhere, some have been arrested up to 50 times and still
on the street. I've seen bums sleeping on the sidewalk roll over and piss right in front of
everyone. Don't expect any help from the cops, they're too busy chasing car thieves,
stabbings, murders and other mayhem. And if you're stupid enough to take matters into your
own hands?
You'll end up in jail. Meth, opioids, you name it. Oh, and on windy days, they
sometimes cut the power. This is out here in the country, the cities are way worse. The
communists have turned a once great state into a turd world shit hole. I'm not overly fond of
Trump, but the Bolsheviks scare the piss out of me. And they're just getting started. Smile!
It only gets worse. Try the Soylent Green New Meal at McDonald's! Babies. It's what's for
dinner! America the fucking beautiful, my ass.
@Johnny Walker
Read An informative book on Vietnam is, Charlie Company, What Vietnam Did to US, by Peter
Goldman and Tony Fuller, based on interviews of 65 Vietnam veterans.
@Laurent
Guyénot No doubt Trump is fundamentally a non-obedient character which is what
determines the "information" attitude towards him.
No doubt Trump tried to wake up the part of America that the élite lives on the
shoulder of, in the early stage of his political rise: the élite noticed it and found
it, naturally, outrageous. The part of America that is ridden herd on by the élite,
however, didn't notice the wake-up signs.
That's natural too no Trump nor anyone else can revert the natural hiearchy, and order of
things between people, because that's determined by the quality of their minds.
The comments against Trump by people who are on his same team just confirm the above, with
their primary (or secondary) school way of looking at things in here-and-now and
smash-them-to-win ways.
Trump's achievements are severely limited by his team's characteristics, so to speak.
@Cyrano
Great comment But around 99% of Western "nationalists", brought up on a constant brainwashing
diet of socialism-o-phobia, Soviet-o-phobia, Russophobia, and mindless adoration of "Western
capitalism" as patriotism literally since their toddler days, will shy away from recognizing
the truth of this.
@Robert
DolanAnn Coulter has soured on him, but says she feels compelled to defend him
because the
Jmedia lies about him all day long.
Exactly – I find myself in the same boat. It is not just the Dems and the Jew media,
it is also the entrenched security state – the CIA, the FBI leadership, and the
permanent bureaucracy, that are all trying to take Trump down on false premises.
YES – Trump is an insufferable jerk – but clearly, they are the ones being
dishonest. Russiagate was a hoax – Ukrainegate is a gross exaggeration of a
problem.
The "virtue signaling" of his opposition is without question BS! Truly his opposition are
phonies! The truth is they are all ripping off America – using the government to enrich
themselves.
Trump is doing America a favor by exposing Bidden as a crook. (Good god – when Is
Obama going to be a three-figure millionaire?)
The real evil is Bannon, Clapper, and Comey using the security state to attack and nullify
the 2016 election. They are making fools of democracy itself.
Anything that can be construed as actually or potentially presenting a "threat" or a
"challenge" to the untrammeled world domination of the globo-imperialist capitalist
Anglo-Zionist/Western ruling class must be demonized, execrated and slandered – up to
& including their own native population's yearnings for a normal existence and sensible,
nativist ethno-nationalism.
This is as it's going to get before the country breaks apart. Overall, I don't regret voting
for Trump, but there is not a lot of swamp draining going on. Too bad we can't repeal
birthright citizenship and kick more illegals out of the country. Team R wants to give more
greencards out.
"... Biden's criminal extortion wasn't a secret. He boasted of this racket at a public occasion. He famously admitted that: ..."
"... The Ukrainians put in place someone who was solid at the time, so solid that he terminated the investigation of Burisma oil company. This company was the vessel to transfer bribes to VP Biden, via his son Hunter Biden. John Solomon of The Hill wrote: ..."
"... The Ukraine became a Clintonite colony, and Joe Biden their viceroy in the Ukraine. Biden's involvement in the coup d'état was his biggest crime, but nobody speaks of that, noticed Joe Lauria . ..."
"... Joe Biden had been treated royally in Kiev. He was asked to chair government meetings and proudly sat on the Presidential seat. The Ukrainians are not famous for their subtlety. Nice people, but rather simple ones, even by East European measure. ..."
"... People in Kiev say he had built the case against Russia on the strength of a single server allegedly used for hacking the DNC. The server is located in the Ukraine, not in Russia. President Trump asked for its whereabouts in his conversation with the Ukrainian President Mr Zelensky. ..."
"... The Dems claimed Trump threatened to withdraw funds from the Ukraine if they won't cooperate with the US enquiry. This claim had been debunked after the full transcript of two Presidents' chat had been published ..."
"... How could they find fault in Trump allegedly threatening to cut aid to Ukraine if they think Biden was perfectly all right for doing exactly that? But these guys aren't playing cricket. ..."
"... The forthcoming Presidential race is becoming a global affair, it seems. In so many countries the US influence had been delivered by agents of Clintonite clan, and all of them are tempted to do what the Clintonites ask, that is to help them to undermine President Trump. In the Ukraine, the struggle of Clintonites and Trumpers is far from over. President Zelensky promised President Trump to help him; but the oligarchs of the Ukraine are in Clintonite camp. ..."
"... All but one: Igor (Benny) Kolomoysky, a maverick Jewish oligarch and a friend of the President, is an enemy of Clintonites. He also stands against IMF, International Monetary Fund, the powerful bankers' body that issued many loans to the Ukraine. ..."
"... People in Kiev say that about 1.7 billion dollars of the latest loan had been pocketed by the American supporters of Poroshenko, meaning Joe Biden and his ilk. Now Mr Kolomoysky suggests the new Ukrainian president may default on IMF loans. ..."
"... The Ukrainians like to back winners; once they made a mistake supporting Mrs Clinton, as they were sure she would win. Perhaps they will make this mistake again. It would depend on the actual Dem contender. Joe Biden had cooked his goose by taking too many bribes in the Ukraine, but another contender may have a better chance, the Ukrainians think. Mrs Warren, perhaps? ..."
"... "Maverick" Kolomoysky is a Zionist, Jewish supremacist, unhinged Putin-hater- in the mold of Khodorkovsky . A couple of Rothschild stooges installed to loot Ukraine and Russia respectively. ..."
"... You are 100% bang on with this article, Mr. Shamir. If anyone should be impeached, it's Joe Biden and his criminal enterprise, otherwise known as his family. Joe Biden should be pre-emptively impeached before he has even bigger chance to do even more damage to his country and the world. ..."
"... Notice how Eliz Warren is skyrocketing. Because she's talking about government corruption and the middle class. Most people .that have a brain at all will unite against corruption ..no matter which party they support .there will be tunnel vision knuckle draggers who wont .but most people will. No one likes being cheated or betrayed. ..."
"... The forthcoming Presidential race is becoming a global affair, it seems. In so many countries the US influence had been delivered by agents of Clintonite clan, and all of them are tempted to do what the Clintonites ask, that is to help them to undermine President Trump. In the Ukraine, the struggle of Clintonites and Trumpers is far from over. President Zelensky promised President Trump to help him; but the oligarchs of the Ukraine are in Clintonite camp. ..."
"... Adam Schiff received campaign contributions from a Ukrainian donor/host at a fundraiser. All solid citizens, especially the host, an arms dealer. ..."
"... Nancy Pelosi also received funding for her campaign in the Ukraine and other Democrats may have as well. ..."
The Borderlands of the Ukraine have been a decisive battlefield for centuries. Here
Stockholm, Berlin and Moscow vied for dominance. Karl XII had lost here to Peter the Great;
Stalin defeated Hitler; now the Clintonites are likely to suffer in the Ukraine their ultimate
defeat. The Democrats had made their biggest political mistake of the century in attacking
Trump for the Biden affair -- that is, if the Americans retain any common sense.
Vice-President Biden extorted millions of dollars in personal bribes from the vulnerable
Ukrainian client state. When this sordid affair came under investigation, he blackmailed
Ukrainians, using his position and American taxpayer money to force the sovereign state to fire
its Attorney General for investigating the bribes.
Instead of covering their face in shame and dismissing Biden as a potential party candidate
in the 2020 race, the Dems led by the superannuated Mrs Pelosi decided to impeach the President
for uncovering this rogue. In the well-remembered flick Dirty Harry the lawyers tried to
save a criminal by attacking the policeman who didn't observe the niceties of a Miranda warning . This was
the model for the Dems in their impeachment attempt.
Biden's criminal extortion wasn't a secret. He boasted of this racket at a public occasion.
He famously admitted
that:
I said, I'm telling you [the Ukrainian leaders], you're not getting the billion dollars. I
said, you're not getting the billion. I'm going to be leaving here in, I think it was about
six hours. I looked at them and said: I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not
fired, you're not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. (Laughter.) He got fired. And they
put in place someone who was solid at the time.
The Ukrainians put in place someone who was solid at the time, so solid that he terminated
the investigation of Burisma oil company. This company was the vessel to transfer bribes to VP
Biden, via his son Hunter Biden. John Solomon of The Hill wrote:
"U.S. banking records show Hunter Biden's American-based firm, Rosemont Seneca Partners
LLC, received regular transfers into one of its accounts -- usually more than $166,000 a
month -- from Burisma from spring 2014 through fall 2015, during a period when Vice President
Biden was the main U.S. official dealing with Ukraine and its tense relations with
Russia."
The fired prosecutor Mr Viktor Shokin
said that Biden fils had been under investigation. After he was dismissed due to
Biden père interference, the money continued to pour out of poor Ukrainian pockets
to well-stuffed Biden coffers. My Kiev acquaintances had a memory of a good-for-nothing young
man, keen on coke and broads, who by himself would never get such a salary.
You would ask, why Biden admitted to the crime? He considered himself untouchable like Mrs
Clinton and other people of her circle. Mischievous President Trump decided to prosecute Biden
for bribery and extortion, as if he were an ordinary mortal. This was a direct threat to the
Clintonites (let us use this nickname for the power variously described as Democrats, Liberals,
Internationals, financiers, Masters of Discourse or Deep State). This challenge caused them to
abandon caution and to start a furious pre-emptive campaign against cocky Trump.
Their accusation is outright ridiculous: they claim Trump's intention to bring Corrupt Joe
to justice was criminal per se , as Biden was a likely contender for the Dem nomination.
As it happens, the US Constitution didn't find it fit to provide likely contenders with full
immunity for past and future crime prosecutions. It's just the Clintonites were used to be
above the law. Indeed, for three years President Trump avoided to touch them. Crimes of Mrs
Clinton were well known, from the simple affair of the email server to the Libya murders.
It was expected victorious Trump would unleash the law against the defeated dowager for Mrs.
Clinton's role in the Obama administration's decision to allow the Russian nuclear agency
to buy a uranium mining company . Conservatives have long pointed to donations to the
Clinton family foundation by people associated with the company, Uranium One, as proof of
corruption, reported the New
York Times . The Clintonites saved the old lady's skin by starting the Russiagate
hoax. In 2016 election debate Trump told Clinton that, if he was in charge of the nation's
laws, "you'd be in jail". But a year later he was in charge, and she wasn't in jail, not even
charged. The ruse of Russiagate worked wonders: the President accused of collusion with
Russia did not dare to charge his adversary with this very offence.
Now the Clintonites decided to repeat their feat and began impeachment procedure hoping it
will keep Trump busy and away from uncovering the Ukrainian Hell's Kitchen.
What actually had happened in the Ukraine? In 2014, Clintonites had managed the regime
change in this former Soviet republic. They removed the legitimate president by using the full
spectre of illegal operations. The Ukraine became a Clintonite colony, and Joe Biden their
viceroy in the Ukraine. Biden's involvement in the coup d'état was his biggest crime, but
nobody speaks of that, noticed
Joe Lauria . They had turned Ukraine against Russia and instigated the civil war in the
East of the poor country, despite strong efforts of president Putin to keep Russia out of
Ukrainian turmoil. But they also gave a thought to personal profiteering, like they did in
Russia in 1990.
Joe Biden had been treated royally in Kiev. He was asked to chair government meetings and
proudly sat on the Presidential seat. The Ukrainians are not famous for their subtlety. Nice
people, but rather simple ones, even by East European measure. They became involved in 2016
election campaign on the Clintonite side. There is no doubt VP Biden was the man who directed
this "foreign involvement in the US elections". The obliging Ukrainians delivered to him the
dirt on Paul Manafort, and Manafort went to jail.
The Ukraine is the second home for CrowdStrike , the cyber-security company that was
instrumental in accusing Russia of meddling. Its founder and head, a Russian Jew and American
citizen Dmitry Alperovich is a pathological Russia hater on the model of Masha Gessen and Max
Boot. People in Kiev say he had built the case against Russia on the strength of a single
server allegedly used for hacking the DNC. The server is located in the Ukraine, not in Russia.
President Trump asked for its whereabouts in his conversation with the Ukrainian President Mr
Zelensky.
The subject of the server makes many people in the Clintonite camp extremely nervous. They
already
marked it with "conspiracy" marker, meaning you may not touch it. In another "conspiracy
debunking" item they
created a straw man, saying "the notion that there is some missing "server," and that the
server might exist somewhere -- like in Ukraine -- has no basis in reality. The DNC's network
consisted of many servers and computers". However, the server Trump asked about is not the DNC
server, but the server allegedly used to hack DNC server. It had left some Russian-language
traces, and it was presented as a proof of Russian involvement. But Alperovich's hackers in the
Ukraine also use Russian as their working language, and this allowed the Russia-hating Jew an
opportunity to create the whole chain of "proofs" of Russian hackers' activity with fancy
names. Recovery of the server would put paid to the whole myth of Russian hacking, and would
make the Clintonite case untenable.
Alperovich, obsessed with his hatred, could cook the case of Russian meddling, but it had to
be ordered and utilized by somebody up the feeding chain, most probably Joe Biden. And now Joe
Biden, the real criminal, who took bribes and blackmailed the friendly state officials, who
orchestrated foreign involvement in the US elections, went on to become the leading contender
for Dem party.
The Dems claimed Trump threatened to withdraw funds from the Ukraine if they won't cooperate
with the US enquiry. This claim had been debunked after the full transcript of two Presidents'
chat had been published. But even if it were sterling truth, it would be business as usual for
the US. You probably remember the threats of cutting aid that were issued by the US
representative in the UN in order to force sovereign states to vote for Israel. The execrable
Nicky Haley
said , 'The US will be taking names', and Donald Trump
added his own threats to cut aid.
How could they find fault in Trump allegedly threatening to cut aid to Ukraine if they think
Biden was perfectly all right for doing exactly that? But these guys aren't playing
cricket.
The forthcoming Presidential race is becoming a global affair, it seems. In so many
countries the US influence had been delivered by agents of Clintonite clan, and all of them are
tempted to do what the Clintonites ask, that is to help them to undermine President Trump. In
the Ukraine, the struggle of Clintonites and Trumpers is far from over. President Zelensky
promised President Trump to help him; but the oligarchs of the Ukraine are in Clintonite
camp.
All but one: Igor (Benny) Kolomoysky, a maverick Jewish oligarch and a friend of the
President, is an enemy of Clintonites. He also stands against IMF, International Monetary Fund,
the powerful bankers' body that issued many loans to the Ukraine. Just this year, Kiev has to
pay six billion dollars to the IMF to remain solvent, and IMF refused to refinance it. The
loans were mainly stolen by the gang of the former President, Mr Poroshenko. People in Kiev say
that about 1.7 billion dollars of the latest loan had been pocketed by the American supporters
of Poroshenko, meaning Joe Biden and his ilk. Now Mr Kolomoysky suggests the new Ukrainian
president may default on IMF loans.
Kolomoysky is also the only oligarch who is not in bed with the liberals. The balance of
power in the Ukraine is not in favour of Trumpers. The Ukrainians like to back winners; once
they made a mistake supporting Mrs Clinton, as they were sure she would win. Perhaps they will
make this mistake again. It would depend on the actual Dem contender. Joe Biden had cooked his
goose by taking too many bribes in the Ukraine, but another contender may have a better chance,
the Ukrainians think. Mrs Warren, perhaps?
They even fiddle with the idea of Mrs Hillary Clinton running again and winning this time.
The Ukrainian oligarchs, and first of all Mr Victor Pinchuk, a Jewish billionaire from Dnepro
city, No. 1 among the rich Ukrainians, would do anything for her. He contributed many millions
to her fund; he finances the Atlantic Council, the Clintonite think-tank, fighting against
Russia and Euro-sceptics. He is 'the wealthy businessman' Trump referred to in his talk with Mr
Zelensky. Judging by Trump's interest in the Ukrainian server, the President is aware that the
old lady is still able to do some mischief, and his promise to take her to jail is still
unfulfilled.
It is possible in the presidential race 2020, the Dems will use drafting technique, as the
long-distance runners (or bikers, or cross-country skiers) do. The first leading contender (in
our case, Biden) would get the flak, get exhausted, and in the last moment he would withdraw
from the race yielding the nomination to his well-rested comrade, be it Warren or Clinton or
whoever. Bearing that in mind, Trumpers could keep some of the ammo they have on Biden (and
there is a lot to find in the Ukraine) until (or rather if) he gets the nomination.
If this depiction of events is remotely true (I haven't personally researched it), one might
conclude that the cunning, ruthlessness, brazenness, greed and malice of the Clintonite
Democrats is off the charts -- of Mafia or Stalinist caliber.
One might also conclude that, with their command of the Deep State (especially the CIA and
FBI) and mainstream media, they will come out the winner in this game.
The key mode of operation: aggressively, and very loudly, accuse your opponents of
whatever crimes you are committing. Flip reality upside down.
The mainstream media have thoroughly obstructed all lines of investigation into facts
which contradict the Clintonite narrative. And Silicon Valley is working furiously to shut
down any discussion in alternative media on the Internet which addresses these issues.
Are we moving towards the consolidation of a Soviet-style regime in the United States?
Great summary. There is also that one billion dollars the Biden clan got from China. More
from my blog:
Jun 7, 2016 – The $5 Billion Coup
I thought the claim that the USA spent $5 billion to organize a coup to take control of
Ukraine was a wild estimate. I recently found this 2013 video where the semi-covert coup
manager from Hillary's State Department, rabid neocon Victoria Nuland, spouts nonsense and
states that $5 billion was spent! I love the Chevron sponsorship symbol in the
background.
For those unfamiliar with the massive Uranium one Clinton bribery scandal, here is a hot
story that disappeared from our news, from my blog:
Dec 16, 2018 – Rogue FBI
As a follow-up to my December 2nd blog post, our major media failed to report that last
week:
"The Justice Department and FBI have missed a Wednesday deadline to provide information
about the government's mysterious raid on a former FBI contractor-turned-whistleblower's home
last month. Sixteen FBI agents on Nov. 19 raided the home of Dennis Nathan Cain, who
reportedly gave the Justice Department's Inspector General (IG) documents related to the
Uranium One controversy and potential wrongdoing by former Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton.
The documents in question allegedly showed that federal officials failed to investigate
possible criminal activity related to Clinton, the Clinton Foundation and Rosatom, a Russian
nuclear company. Its subsidiary purchased Canadian mining company Uranium One in 2013.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, whose panel has oversight of
the Justice Department, penned a letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray and Justice
Department IG General Michael Horowitz, requesting information on the justification for the
raid. Grassley gave Wray and Horowitz until Dec. 12 to respond to his request. That deadline
has come and gone, and neither the FBI nor DOJ has produced any documents or response."
Why would a coke head like Hunter Biden, with a string of failed ventures with shady
characters and living in the US have been sought out for a position on the board of a Ukraine
gas company?
Even "if" Biden did not secure that job for is son and his son was 'sought out' by the
Ukraine gov or the company owners because they thought that contact would help them
Then Biden is still guilty of putting his son's advancement above obvious 'conflicts of
interest' in letting him assume the job.
Don't know about others but when I was growing up in teen years I was constantly schooled
by my father to 'not put myself in ' company or situations' that could lead to my being
associated with anything questionable that might happen.
I would think that should have been how Biden viewed his son taking the Ukraine company
position..
But then again Biden is both stupid and without any ethics. And so much for his free
speech support LOL
The Biden Campaign Is Demanding That TV Execs Stop Booking Guiliani
During this time, Hunter Biden was busy making a living in his father's wake.
He began working at MBNA bank, one of Delaware's largest employer, in 1996. He left to become
a lobbyist in 2001, though he continued receiving consulting fees from the bank. For years,
beginning in the late '90s, Joe Biden had been a top Democratic supporter of a controversial
bankruptcy bill that aided issuers of credit card debt, like MBNA, by making it harder for
borrowers to seek bankruptcy protections. The consulting fees to Hunter continued until 2005,
when the bankruptcy bill finally passed with Joe's support.
At his new firm, Oldaker, Biden & Belair, Hunter also lobbied for the music-sharing
service Napster while the Judiciary Committee, on which Joe sat, took on digital music piracy
and represented public universities seeking congressional earmarks. The Bidens have said that
Hunter avoided lobbying his father. In 2008, The Washington Post reported that, as a senator,
Obama had sought more than $3.4 million in earmarks for Hunter's clients before Joe became
his running mate and that another lobbyist at Hunter's firm had successfully lobbied Joe for
an earmark for the University of Delaware
Biden and his wife, Jill, have set about providing for themselves, earning more than $15
million in the two years following the end of his vice presidency in early 2017"'
Do me a favor did Biden say to Obama ????? .." Obama had sought more than $3.4 million in
earmarks for Hunter's clients before Joe became his running mate and that another lobbyist at
Hunter's firm had successfully lobbied Joe for an earmark for the University of Delaware"
So some Jewish oligarchs are for the Clintons (Biden Dems etc) and other Jewish oligarchs are
for Donald the Orange (Repugs etc) It seems uncannily just like the situation in the US with
good ole Sheldon and Haim. A cynic might even suggest that it was a type of a pincer movement
or a case of good cop/bad cop. Either way I suspect than none of the aforementioned
characters give a rodents patootie about Joe Six-pack and the American people.
Igor (Benny) Kolomoysky, a maverick Jewish oligarch and a friend of the President, is an
enemy of Clintonites. He also stands against IMF, International Monetary Fund, the powerful
bankers' body that issued many loans to the Ukraine.
Really? Sure he is agains bankers. Who are you fooling Shamir? Come on, get real. This is
intra-Jewish affair. Kolomoysky is as bad for Ukraine as the Clintonites.
"In the well-remembered flick Dirty Harry the lawyers tried to save a criminal by attacking
the policeman who didn't observe the niceties of a Miranda warning. This was the model for
the Dems in their impeachment attempt."
I want to be careful here because many people don't grasp the value of what the justice is
really all about. At it core the Constitution is by design intended to limit government
intrusion. The Miranda expectation is not a dodge. Its primary if fencing the abridgement of
a citizens personal space on a whim. In reality Miranda is probably not strong enough. It is
not a trick to cover up criminal behavior.
And the democrats call for impeachment is not in any way related to Miranda, not as simile
or metaphor.
" The ruse of Russiagate worked wonders: the President accused of collusion with Russia
did not dare to charge his adversary with this very offence."
If this depiction of events is remotely true (I haven't personally researched it), one
might conclude that the cunning, ruthlessness, brazenness, greed and malice of the
Clintonite Democrats is off the charts -- of Mafia or Stalinist caliber.
One might also conclude that, with their command of the Deep State (especially the CIA
and FBI) and mainstream media, they will come out the winner in this game.
"I now think that Trump WILL be impeached in the House."
-- Richard Spencer, Sept. 27, 2019
More from Richard Spencer on the Ukraine impeachment matter:
[Hide MORE]
"[Trump] still has 90% approval among Republicans. These Senators, though, they'll go with
the wind. They certainly could do it [vote to remove Trump from office], but something
dramatic would have to change."
"Trump will be impeached but will be let off by the Senate, and he will likely benefit
from this process because we're going to be talking about this [impeachment drama] and kind
of defending him, not criticizing him. So I think Trump ultimately will benefit."
"I'm rather shocked. This whole Ukraine thing is so weak . The Mueller and
Russia hysteria has apparently gone out the window, or it's kind of background to this. We've
now moved on to this -- phone call."
"I've seen this transcript I can only look at and laugh. It's basically Trump being Trump.
He is praising this comedian that won a miraculous victory "
"In 2014, Clintonites had managed the regime change in this former Soviet republic. Ukraine
became a Clintonite colony, and Joe Biden their viceroy in Ukraine.
They instigated the civil war"
-- Let them rot in hell for the destroyed lives of the innocent civilians.
In a morally healthy society, these criminals would suffer anathema and ostracism. In a
morally unhealthy society well.
Kolomoysky is the beneficial owner of the company, Burisma Holdings, that Hunter Biden
supposedly worked for. All the MSM is pretending that the previous owner, Mykola Zlochevsky,
is the one who hired Biden – an obvious lie. The Wikipedia supports this Zionist lie:
It is important to realize that this company has acquired licenses to exploit Ukraine's
largest gas field through dishonest means. The bribes paid to father Biden are much greater
than what the son received. In any case, these bribes are a tiny fraction of the value of
these gas fields.
This gas company is in a position to greatly profit from any deterioration in
Russian-Ukrainian relations.
An extension and exacerbation of the civil war in the east of that country will lead to a
shortage of gas. Shortage of gas leads to higher prices for consumers. War-profiteering at
the expense of the poorest country in Europe.
@Sean
McBride Sean, I agree with what you say – mostly. The fact that we are reading Mr
Shamir's excellent appreciation here shows that not all Westerners are mugs, though.
The bigger question is: how much does it really matter what crimes and tricks are played
in Washington? I am reminded of J.G. Ballard's superb short story "Manhole 69", about an
experiment to see if men could be treated and trained to do without sleep. They succeed, but
are found one morning in a state of catatonic withdrawal. To them, the whole world has shrunk
and collapsed down to a tiny bubble surrounding each person's body, so that – with no
external source of stimuli – their minds shut down.
Similarly, the more fascinated the Swamp creatures get with their own navels, the less
their intrigues matter to anyone outside their little personal bubble. By and by, they may
look up to notice that the world has gone on without them.
Because they are all ultimately funded via both direct and indirect theft [taxes], and
counterfeiting [central bank monopolies], all governments are essentially, at their very
cores, 100% corrupt criminal scams which cannot be "reformed","improved", nor "limited" in
scope, simply because of their innate criminal nature." onebornfree
"Taking the State wherever found, striking into its history at any point, one sees no
way to differentiate the activities of its founders, administrators and beneficiaries from
those of a professional-criminal class." Albert J. Nock
"The kind of man who wants the government to adopt and enforce his ideas is always the
kind of man whose ideas are idiotic" H.L.Mencken
"Government is a disease masquerading as its own cure" Robert LeFevere
"Why should any self-respecting citizen endorse an institution grounded on thievery?
For that is what one does when one votes. If it be argued that we must let bygones be
bygones, see what can be done toward cleaning up the institution of the State so that it
might be useful in the maintenance of orderly existence, the answer is that it cannot be
done; you cannot clean up a brothel and yet leave the business intact. We have been voting
for one "good government" after another, and what have we got?" Frank Chodorov, Out of
Step (1962)
"Joe Biden , the Hawk " by Branko Marcetic in the Jacobin Magazine , " If you're looking for
a president with a track record of foreign intervention , expanding the surveillance state
and steadfastly backing Israel despite its war crimes Joe Biden is your guy ."
@EliteCommInc.
Shamir isn't saying that the Miranda ruling itself is a ruse. Clearly, the article states
that Clintonites are using misdirection as a ruse. Russiagate is also a ruse, and is
unrelated to Miranda.
The mention of Miranda is in reference to a fictional screenplay. What else you got over
there?
@NoseytheDuke
True (and funny). George Eliason has written a couple of pieces concerning the recent history
of the Ukraine connection with the US deepstate and its campaigns such as Russiagate and the
current impeachment push:
[Crowdstrike's] founder and head, a Russian Jew and American citizen Dmitry Alperovich
is a pathological Russia hater on the model of Masha Gessen and Max Boot.
Try as I might, I was hard pressed to confirm the ethnic origin of Dmitry Alperovich. But
Israel Shamir was kind enough to put that mystery to rest. Thanks Israel!
"Make no mistake about it: UKRAINEgate is very real, but not the false narrative pushed by
the media. Trump tricked the Democrats into blowing wide open their own Ukraine scandal under
Obama. Just how big is that? It will expose BIDENgate. Which will expose the real RUSSIAgate
conspiracy. Which will then expose Clinton's EMAILgate and SERVERgate
scandals. Which will in turn expose Deep State and their International Banking Cartel
sponsors. Even the Illuminati hidden hand may be revealed as never before along with the
forever veiled Black Nobility."
-- Intelligence Analyst & Former U.S. Army Officer
I'm not a "Q" follower or one who believes Trump is some kind of 5D chess player, but for
the life of me I could not see how UKRAINEgate would not come back to bite the Democrats in
the ass. I guess we'll just have to wait and see if the above statements are true. http://stateofthenation2012.com/?p=128744#more-128744
The Ukraine is a corrupt zionist controlled government just like the zionist corrupt ZUS
government so it is no surprise that the zionist backed Bidens would be feeding at the trough
just as they feed off the American taxpayers, corruption is as corruption does and that is
how zionists control governments.
Why would a coke snorting loser like Hunter Biden be given millions from a Ukrainian company
when he doesn't even speak the language? Same reason the Clintons used to get $500k for
"speeches". Give us a millions to our fraudulent charity and we will give you millions of tax
payer money.
@APilgrim" .There are two possible ways for people to relate to each other: either voluntarily or
coercively. The State is pure institutionalized coercion. As such, it's not just unnecessary,
but antithetical, to a civilized society. And that's increasingly true as technology
advances. It was never moral, but at least it was possible in oxcart days for bureaucrats to
order things around. Today the idea is ridiculous .":
Are we moving towards the consolidation of a Soviet-style regime in the United
States?
No it's already an upgraded Owellian regime that relies on 24/7 brainwashing. The Soviet
regime could repress people through violence or the threat of it. They could never convince
people that there really are 52 sexes or the need to bring in tens of millions of illegals
and replace the population with foreigners.
Bidengate is killing the blind Dems. Will he be in the Oct 15 debate or forced out before
that? For once, it may be worth watching as the other Dems will profit when he is out. Like
vultures they will seek his campaign donors and voters. The lying mainstream media can't make
this pig look pretty. Biden was already going to lose based on his failing mental abilities.
Now, he is really toast. The phony impeachment claims are killing the Dems also. It seems
they are suicidal this election and want to make SURE Trump wins in a landslide.
An 'independent' Ukraine is nothing more than a preponderantly Jewish directed outpost for
the Anglo-Zionist Empire. It is always going to be raped, and then charged for the service of
the rape, by those who run the Anglo-Zionist Empire.
@Whitewolf
Correct. The WASP-created and currently WASP+Jews administered Anglosphere, the Anglo-Zionist
Empire (which controls Western Europe and all of Latin America it wants to control), is today
much worse off in many ways than the USSR ever was.
Am I the only one who finds it strange Obama was never mentioned by Mr. Israel?
What no one is talking about here is the much bigger crime against humanity that the
Obama administration committed by engineering the catastrophic Ukraine Civil War. Not only
did Biden's warmongering tear apart that country, that continuing war served to re-start
the Cold War with Russia. How calamitous for the world community of nations is that
intentional outcome designed by the Obama-Biden-Clinton-Nuland war-making team?!
Which means that the recent UKRAINEgate is really about stifling Trump's initiative to
get to the bottom of BIDENgate because that will inevitably lead to the root cause of the
real UKRAINEgate, not the current fake one. It ought to be apparent how the Left is
co-opting real scandals with fake scandals by even using the same memes and MSM
emotionally-charged language. Deep State knows that the ensuing confusion is simply far too
great for the average American voter to comprehend as the true story is so obfuscated by
the CIA-controlled Mockingbird Media.
Clintonites? A clintonite would be a follower and not an equal partner in crimes. And
Clintons maybe everything else but powerful they are not. Let's call it the Cabalites. For
they are members of a cabal (not to be confused with Jews though certainly there are Jews in
it along with a ton of non Jews) and equal participants in crimes such as Biden corruption.
Biden was/is Obama errand boy and as such got paid his share of the thirty pieces of silver.
It's a cabal, deep and secretive with octopus like reach that has the government cornered
with Democrats and their counterparts, the Republicans!
This remains to be seen. I'm not optimistic considering the massive propaganda
loudspeakers being brought out to steer the narrative. The Clintons and Biden, among others,
have been irredeemably corrupt their entire lives yet have had a sense of impunity
throughout, a well grounded sense since nothing has ever touched them. The rottenness of all
of it makes one's head swim. All of them have also been fond of committing war crimes
overseas, killing and displacing millions of people everywhere, which is even worse than
their financial flimflam. American democracy, what a joke, way different in reality than the
garbage they taught us in school.
Only slow people, aka the willing slaves called the voting class, believe a difference exists
between democrats and republicans. The rich know better.
The US staged a Nazi coup in Ukraine and wanted to station the navy in the Crimea. Before
that, the US had the dying Soviet Union hand over Crimea to Ukraine for free, out of love of
Russia.
Clearly both Republicans and Democrats see the law as a tool to enrich themselves and harm
their "enemies."
@Alfred
Shamir, and now you, mention bribes to Joe Biden. Is there documentation in one of your links
about those bribes? (Shamir cited nothing.) I don't doubt it, but can't share empty
allegations. (D0es Shamir think this is common knowledge? Or does he just never back up his
claims.)
This is such a hoax conspiracy that I question why they allow this op-ed to be printed.
Without bank and tax records to prove it , why would you make these fictitious claims? You' d
be better off tracking Trumps financials and building on those facts. Good luck with that.
@Bastien
McCormick Was the de-nuclear treaty enforced by both US and Russia over Ukraine a US plot
as well?
Face it, a jew currently runs Ukraine, the national socialists are bidding their times in
every parts of the world, waiting for a chance to save this post-1945 world.
"Shamir isn't saying that the Miranda ruling itself is a ruse. Clearly, the article states
that Clintonites are using misdirection as a ruse. Russiagate is also a ruse, and is
unrelated to Miranda."
There is nothing in this matter that can be remotely associated with Miranda. By
referencing Miranda as like the collusion accusations the author is making the comparison
between the two. Such as lawyer uses Miranda to draw attention away from the case.
That is a false comparison, even if the person is actually guilty of the accusation.
Miranda says, the state cannot proceed to abuse a citizens ignorance of the process to
prosecute, The citizen is entitled to know how to protect himself/herself from state
authority – period. It is a legal standard.
There is no legal standard for the collusion accusation. It is not linked even remotely to
the Constitutional protections of citizens. Your response is circular self reinforcing and
flawed logic coming and going. The liberals are not claiming a legal standard -- they are
merely slinging mud. Because even if the president were in fact colluding, it would not
provide a legal basis that the liberals and democrats lost the election as result.
Furthermore, even if they colluded by sharing information that alone is not a crime.
Unlike collusion, Miranda is a legal standard that upon violation moots a case because of
the governments abuse of power --
nothing at all like manufacturing a lie to cover incompetence, face saving or illegal
activity (including conspiring with foreign powers to start violent revolutions among
sovereign nations, i.e. Syria, the Ukraine, Libya, etc.) in office, or ineffective campaign
choices.
The collusion argument does reflect the kind of circular rhetoric in defending this
authors false comparison.
For the lovers of the IQ : the collective , national , IQ of white blond ukraruinas , polacks
, and other ex-soviets specimens is much much lower than mexicans . Puro pendejos .
Did anyone actually believe that Biden is not corrupt? Or that Ukraine is not corrupt? Or
that Porky and his appointees are not corrupt? If these people exist, they must be either
remarkably naïve or simply retarded.
@anon It's
untrue that Lutsenko, appointed by his buddy Porky, has no legal experience. Yes, he has no
legal education. But he spent some time in jail, which counts as legal experience.
Clintonites (let us use this nickname for the power variously described as Democrats,
Liberals, Internationals, financiers, Masters of Discourse or Deep State).
All but one: Igor (Benny) Kolomoysky, a maverick Jewish oligarch and a friend of the
President, is an enemy of Clintonites.
a "maverick" eh?
Kind of like John McCain, huh?
As Truth3 mentioned,
"Kolomoisky is one of Rothschild's front men."
Yep.
However, the server Trump asked about is not the DNC server, but the server allegedly
used to hack DNC server. It had left some Russian-language traces, and it was presented as
a proof of Russian involvement. But Alperovich's hackers in the Ukraine also use Russian as
their working language
What's with all this misdirection?
Assange has all but said the DNC data was given to him by Seth Rich, [RIP]
There was no 'Russian (or Ukrainian) hacking. Rich was pissed that 'corrupt Hillary' had
shut out Bernie in the primaries. He had a motive.
What, pray tell- would be the motive of the corrupt, Obama State Dept. installed-
Ukrainians, (working for the Clintonites) to expose Hillary's corruption? (and their
own)?
Eh?
"Maverick" Kolomoysky is a Zionist, Jewish supremacist, unhinged Putin-hater- in the mold
of Khodorkovsky . A couple of Rothschild stooges installed to loot Ukraine and Russia
respectively.
The "maverick' is conducting himself in perfect, parallel alignment with the "Democrats,
Liberals, Internationals, financiers, Masters of Discourse or Deep State", (i.e. the
Clintonites) that hate Putin's guts, and would like to see him dead.
In fact, there are deep ties between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, and the
'Maverick'.
The Maverick owns the television station where Zelensky performed his comedy routine.
I'd say in all probability that Zelensky is the Maverick's boy. Which would go a long way
toward understanding why Putin is staying at arms length from the comedian.
All of this rot and corruption and its effects on ZUS politics is why I looked forward to
getting some insights from Mr. Shamir.
@Sean
McBride Spencer might say some things that are valid and even things that pro-Whites
agree with but he's still controlled opposition just like David Duke.
Its common knowledge that most politicians are crooked lying thieving bastards but the
brazenness of Biden is truly astounding. His boasting about the Ukraine affair should cost
him 10 years in prison if there was truly justice in America. But just like Hildabeast
Clinton they know no matter what they say or do they are a protected class in this God
forsaken country.
congrats issy, marvelous work.. while i read your column, i was also watching the clive owen
film "the international". i couldn't tell which one's more thrilling; possibly yours, because
your story is real!
all these show, that the fight between "patriots and globalists" (as pres. trump put it in
his UN speech: "the future belongs to patriots, not to globalists!") is flaring up.
globalist agendas like climate change and the EU are on the retreat, nevertheless
globalists seem not to leave the arena without bitter fighting.
patriots may be the last hope for earth to survive in the form known to us, but they are
more vital for america herself. why? -- because the "democraps and rebloodicans" with their
globalist agendas were growing to be disgusting in the eyes of many ordinary american people
before trump. remember, trump is a guy from the outside of the "political establishment",
don't get fooled by that he imitates the "rebloodican"!
for many american people, and for reasons above, the american federal government had
morphed into an alien body, regardless of the voters' political will, pushing its own alien
globalist agenda and endless wars.
4-5 years ago, there was the talk of secession.. american states should leave the union en
masse to cancel a useless federal govt. and summon a new continental convention. a new
constitution will be proclaimed which allows the states to fire any president or congress,
who don't heed to states' (people's) calls to come to senses, by a majority vote. i don't
know how widespread that discussion was.. i know, it exists. and if trump is unsuccessful
somehow or gets imprisoned, that danger still looms.
it may seem unimportant, what happens to america; but remember, she is the flagship of the
western civilization. for all people on earth, what happens to the u.s.a. will this or that
way affect what happens to them. regards..
@Smith
Yes.
I would love to see BO hoisted on this petard along with Biden.
Why should Biden be the only one to take the fall for BO, the Clintons, Nuland, etc.?
Actually, that logic doesn't seem quite kosher to me -- doesn't the actual truth/reality
count for something?
Its quite logical the 'appearance ' of a conflict of interest can lead to questioning
motives that's why judges 'recluse' themselves in cases where they have ties to anyone or
anything involved in the case.
Since you cant peer into the mind of someone who has the 'appearance 'of conflicting interest
the best approach is to remove said person from any involvement in the search for the
truth.
@Sean
McBride One issue that stuns me is that snarky comments of Chelsea Clinton to the
President, publicly made and without one ounce of fear. He tweeted something about the
Biden/Ukraine impeachment hoax was part of the biggest political scam, and this repellent
little beast shot back:
Yes, you are.
Readers here know, and certain members of the media know (Ammanpour, Anderson Cooper who
have actually traveled without fixers and entourages)
that if the daughter of a past PM or President smarted off to Erdogan, Xi or Rouhani on a
social media account,
she would likely disappear, be tortured or her children would be snatched for a few weeks,
to get her "mind right".
Chelsea Clinton is a repulsive slob who has no achievements other than inviting an actual
human sex trafficker to her marriage to a fat, sullen Jew that is unemployed.
Trump needs to go full thug. He needs to go completely bananas bat shit and have Biden's
son indicted TODAY.
From his first day, I was certain that it was a catastrophic error not to indict Hillary
Clinton and her accomplices. She never let up, and it appears she may just win yet.
@Johnny Walker
Read "Am I the only one who finds it strange Obama was never mentioned by Mr. Israel?"
No! Not the only one.
But in the case of Shamir I chalk it up to his focusing on the Biden details -- not on the
big Barry picture. Surely the buck for this whole thing comes to rest like a stinking turd on
Barack Obama's desk. It all occurred on his watch, overseen by his State Dept.
Or perhaps not on his desk.
Obama must owe major Jewish chits in Chicago. Rahm Emanuel, anyone?
I am kind of flailing here, but when I think Chicago and Dem party and Obama I think Rahm
Emanuel and Penny Pritzker, and when I think Rahm Emanuel I think dual citizen and dad was a
Zionist terrorist. What does all of that have to do with the Ukraine? I don't know!!
Plenty of Jewish oligarchs there . .
Biden is corrupted. Clinton is corrupted. But Trump is corrupted too for the following
reasons (among others):
1. Timing: He has not investigated Biden nor Clinton for almost 3 years. Now that Biden
seems likely Democrat nominee, he suddenly becomes so keen to investigate, while still
ignoring (or not pushing for) investigation of Clinton (who is not running).
2. Corruption: Trump appears corrupted too when he tries to use US aids as leverage to get
Ukraine to start the ball rolling on something that can benefit his re-election. This is
almost no difference than what Biden did.
3. Vengeance: Instead of letting the machinery of Justice and State departments work at
their own pace, Trump looks vengeful when he and his personal lawyer Giuliani are intimately
involved.
The end results is that Trump supporters becomes more convinced of Biden/Clinton/Democrats
wrong doing, and the Democrat supporters becomes more convinced of Trump's corruption and
guilt. So, the country hardens the divide and more people lose confidence of politicians.
Here's Scott Ritter , Iraq weapons inspector who objected to calling off the Iraq
inspections. .
My Letter From Joe Biden
Author's note: The 2003 invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq by a U.S.-led coalition
will go down in history as one of the greatest geopolitical disasters in modern history.
Then-Sen. Joe Biden was in a unique position to prevent this war from happening. That he
chose not to speaks volumes about the man who now seeks to become the next president of the
United States. My personal experiences with Biden from 1998 to 2002 provide a window into the
character of the man that Americans should familiarize themselves with before considering
whether to give him their support.
Scott Ritter
[MORE]
"I envy your position. I sincerely do. I envy the ability to have such clarity on this
issue."
Listening to those words, coming as they were from Sen. Joe Biden, one of the most vociferous
defenders of the policies of Bill Clinton's administration, I knew I was in for a grilling.
It was Sept. 15, 1998. I was seated, alone, at a table reserved for witnesses, giving
testimony to a joint session of the Senate foreign relations and armed services committees
about the reasons behind my resignation as a chief weapons inspector with the United Nations
Special Commission (UNSCOM), charged with overseeing the disarmament of Iraq's weapons of
mass destruction (WMD) programs. Arrayed before me were some of the most powerful people in
the United States, if not the world. The combined membership of these two committees totaled
36 senators, a little over a third of the entire membership of that esteemed body. More than
20 were present at the hearing and, over the course of the next hour and a half, I was
questioned in detail by 17 of them, none of whom seemed to object to my presence more than
Biden.
"Let me ask you a question," Biden continued. "Do you think you should be the one to be
able to decide when to pull the trigger?"
By Aug. 28, I had received a call from the staff of the Senate Armed Services Committee,
requesting my presence on Sept. 3 before a joint session of that committee and the Committee
on Foreign Relations.
Biden, however, had taken umbrage over the fact that the hearing had been allowed to go
forward without the presence of either the secretary of state or secretary of defense to
offer balance, especially when, as he couched the issue, I was trying to push the United
States to war with Iraq. "Isn't that what this is about?" he demanded. And despite my answers
to the contrary, Biden proceeded to lecture me on the limitations of my position as an
inspector. "I respectfully suggest that [the secretaries of state and defense] have
responsibilities slightly above your pay grade that's why they get paid the big bucks. That's
why they get the limos and you don't." The issue, Biden said, was more complex than simply a
question of "Old Scottie Boy didn't get in." It was a decision "above my pay grade," and the
jobs of those charged with making that decision were "a hell of a lot more complicated than
yours." It was about as insulting an experience one could imagine, and it took all my
willpower to sit there and take it unflinchingly
Sen. Chuck Hagel, a Nebraska Republican, who said, "We realize, Major Ritter, as far as we
know, that you did not have a limousine; you did not make the big bucks we understand that,
like sergeants and junior officers and people who carry the rifles and actually do the
fighting and do the inspecting, that you may have a perspective that the big-bucks people
don't."
But rather than allow the inspections to run their course, the Clinton administration
instead used the work of UNSCOM to deliberately provoke a confrontation, seeking to inspect a
sensitive facility belonging to the Baath Party based upon old intelligence information that
had long since expired. The goal was to get the Iraqis to deny inspectors access to the site.
When Iraq instead agreed to allow inspectors inside the facility, the Clinton administration
immediately ordered all UNSCOM inspectors out of Iraq, before initiating a 72-hour bombing
campaign, Operation Desert Fox,
Biden, later declined to talk to me directly, instead dispatching a senior member of the
minority staff of the Foreign Relations Committee to meet with me. This meeting was a
singular disappointment. The staffer began by calling me a traitor for speaking out about
Iraq and took umbrage when I backed up my claims with documents. "You are not supposed to
have these materials," he said. "They are classified, and you are a traitor for publicizing
the information they contain."
After reminding the staffer that he was walking a very
dangerous line in calling a former officer of Marines a traitor, I pointed out that the
information I cited was from my time as an inspector, and was not classified in any way.
The staffer agreed that the article was fact-based, even if he disagreed with its
conclusion. "But this isn't about facts. This is about politics, and Senator Biden will not
go against the policies of the Clinton administration, even if those policies are
failing."
Biden convened his hearing, which sought the testimony of witnesses hand-picked to sustain
the desired conclusion that Iraq was a threat worthy of war. He then went on to vote in
support of the use of military force against Iraq -- a sharp contrast to the position he took
in 1991.
You are 100% bang on with this article, Mr. Shamir. If anyone should be impeached, it's Joe
Biden and his criminal enterprise, otherwise known as his family. Joe Biden should be
pre-emptively impeached before he has even bigger chance to do even more damage to his
country and the world.
I also agree that all of this is a deep state operation against Trump. Why the deep state
doesn't like Trump? Because they are afraid that he is going to blow their cover about the
supposedly "liberal" US. It's all phony, but that's all they got, fake liberalism to keep the
proles quiet in order not to demand real social improvements in their "democracy", instead of
senseless voting in fixed elections.
The "catastrophic error" was allowing the Mueller/Russia farce to drag on and on, with the
media and hack political/pundit class shitting on him daily, questioning the legitimacy of
his election and robbing him of nearly all presidential authority -- he showed himself to be
an easy mark, which is one reason they haven't let up -- he should have given Mueller six
months and not a day more, then very publicly fired the lot of them -- but he didn't have the
balls and this is the result -- instead he kisses Jew ass and bleats on and on about low
black and Hispanic unemployment -- then he acts surprised when they still hate his guts and
show him zero respect -- what's the point of being President and having the power of the
presidency if you're not going to use it?
@d dan This
a zionist tactic, divide and conquer, it is not good enough for the zionists that they
control the ZUS government, the zionists like to see their puppets tear each other apart, is
a continual zionist recreation.
The mockingbird mainstream whore media is unrelenting in its coordinated effort to coverup
the crimes of creepy Joe Biden and his son Hunter, whilst hoisting the blame for said crimes
on President Trump who had the audacity to request that the crimes of Joe and Hunter be
investigated.
September 20, 2019 Video of Joe Biden admitting that he bribed the Ukrainian President
with $1 billion dollars to fire lead prosecutor investigating his corrupt son
@eah I see
Trump's tactical error differently. He needed to take a shot at the big money with a series
of antitrust cases against big tech, big banks and investment banks, big media.
It would have been very popular, and he would have been hitting the correct targets.
Trump
is a stupid cuck, a miserable pussy. That's why he can't get anything done. He TALKS big ..but then he rolls over every time. The biggest loss is on immigration/demographics. He isn't going to do anything about
it.
He responds to jewing by bending over more .and the jews respond by reaming his ass even
HARDER.
If he'd just stand up to them and tell them to fuck off, the whole world would be better
for it.
@Robert
Dolan Yea, Trump is not very good, but the cackling hyena would have been atrocious. It's
too bad we are reduced to choosing between shit and even bigger shit, but is it quite clear
which shit was bigger in 2016. It looks like it's going to be just as clear in 2020, as Dems
did everything to remove even half-decent candidates.
Best damn thing said about the Trump and Biden corruption fight..
Its everybody pilgrims everybody.
Just read thru to see ALL the US politicos and Elites involved in the huge money pit
corruption that is Ukraine. There are dozens of them. Protecting the Ukraine from Russia is
the guise for getting stinking rich for those using their office or connections to congress
or the StateDept.
ITS THE CORRUPTION THAT HAS BECOME NORMALIZED IN THE US BABY CAKES!
Don't waste your time with partisan bullshit defending Trump or Biden.
Notice how Eliz Warren is skyrocketing.
Because she's talking about government corruption and the middle class.
Most people .that have a brain at all will unite against corruption ..no matter which party
they support .there will be tunnel vision knuckle draggers who wont .but most people
will.
No one likes being cheated or betrayed.
There was little chance that the Trump Administration could prosecute Clinton Inc. without a
widespread hue and cry of political vengeance being leveled: Likewise with the Bidens.
As I've commented in UR a few times before, Trump should hand out Presidential Pardons to
the scurvy lot of them; they'll never be prosecuted for their misdeeds, so why not tar them
with pardons that spell out those misdeeds in gleeful detail.
This isn't partisan oppo war. Kurt Volker, the virgin they threw into the volcano when Biden
got burned? I knew him back when he disappeared into CIA. Think he quit, and just happened to
show up in all these sensitive jobs?
McCain's ventriloquist, then senior ratfuck officer
assigned to Dmytro Firtash? This is just more of the same shit, CIA picks up their
presidential Ken dolls and shakes them around like they're talking to each other.
Biden's
role as poster boy for corruption is all-you-can-steal, but don't imagine he has agency or
discretion or anything.
The forthcoming Presidential race is becoming a global affair, it seems. In so many
countries the US influence had been delivered by agents of Clintonite clan, and all of them
are tempted to do what the Clintonites ask, that is to help them to undermine President
Trump. In the Ukraine, the struggle of Clintonites and Trumpers is far from over. President
Zelensky promised President Trump to help him; but the oligarchs of the Ukraine are in
Clintonite camp.
The Clintonite clan can be better described as the Western Global(ist) Deep State. Whether
it's the global white genocide project or the global CO2 control initiative, it's glaringly
obvious that a lot of "our" political representatives are getting their marching orders from
a half-hidden group of wannabe masters of the universe.
The scary part is that a lot of those politicians are unflinchingly pushing unpopular and
ultimately political-career-ending policies. That's how much their loyalty lies on the side
of these enemies of humanity.
@renfro I
would only insert the note that all this mess started by Carter moving into Somalia.
I was really puzzled by that. Only years after I did realize that it was long term plan for
destabilization of Muslim power
@Realist I
guess you don't have the proper reverence for "Bite-Me". Every other story ever written about
that slimeball mentions that he lost a wife and child in an auto accident right after he won
his first election to the US Senate. He's been trafficing off of it for nearly fifty years
now. Sometimes he says the accident was caused by a drunk driver (not true). The family of
the other driver has been trying to get him to stop making that claim, but I guess it brings
more sympathy.
If you love Jews for Israel Vote for Joe.
Did you know that our constitution is based on Jewish values?
I didn't know that but Joe says it is.
Strange there's not a single Jew among the signers of the Del of Indep. or the Constitution.
Biden: 'Jewish heritage is American heritage'
excerpts
"The truth is that Jewish heritage, Jewish culture, Jewish values are such an essential
part of who we are that it's fair to say that Jewish heritage is American heritage," he said.
"The Jewish people have contributed greatly to America. No group has had such an outsized
influence per capita as all of you standing before you, and all of those who went before me
and all of those who went before you."
"So many notions that are embraced by this nation that particularly emanate from over 5,000
years of Jewish history, tradition and culture: independence, individualism, fairness,
decency, justice, charity.
Jews have also been key to the evolution of American jurisprudence, he continued,
namedropping Brandeis, Fortas, Frankfurter, Cardozo, Ginsberg, Breyer, Kagan. "You literally
can't. You can't talk about the recognition of rights in the Constitution without looking at
these incredible jurists that we've had."
"Jewish heritage has shaped who we are – all of us, us, me – as much or more
than any other factor in the last 223 years. And that's a fact," he said.
"We talk about it in terms of the incredible accomplishments and contributions" of Jews in
America, Biden added, but it's deeper "because the values, the values are so deep and so
engrained in American culture, in our Constitution."
"So I think you, as usual, underestimate the impact of Jewish heritage. I really mean
that. I think you vastly underestimate the impact you've had on the development of this
nation. We owe you, we owe generations who came before you," he said."
I don't think Nancy would impeach if she could not get a conviction. Why would Republican
Senators say no to Trumps head on a platter? He's not one of them. The House will impeach and
the Senate will convict.
Then what? Then the Clinton/Bush/Obama crime family and their paymasters will remain safe
and in charge of the Federal Government. Safe from Orange Man and the Deplorables I mean.
Russia, China and Iran are another matter.
Unless U.S. Atty Barr has something really good up his sleeve. Does anybody here think
Barr will actually do anything? Other than not inditing Comey?
Today America is governed by an Organized Criminal Enterprise. a take over that began with
then Vice President Bush after his bungled assasination of Ronald Regan. However, it wasn't a
complete failure as it resulted in Bush (a Rockefeller asset) actually running the WH, and
subsequently winning the presidency.
Bill Clinton (a possible Rockefeller offspring, who for
all his Democratic party trappings is a CIA (Bush) creation who was treated by G. Bush like
a favored nephew, and both benefitted greatly in partnership international narcotics
trafficking.
After Bill it was George's son's turn, after that came Rockefeller's next choice
Obama. Trump interrupted the Rockefeller reign, but he has problems too steming from his
accepting Russian mafia money in the late 80s early 90's, to save his real estate empire.
They, the Russian/Ukrainians, needed a brand name through which to launder money into the
states, looted from mother Russia, and Trump filled that need to a T. So today we're
witnessing a fight between the Russian mafia crooks including a reluctant but fatally comprimised Trump, and the Rockefeller's communist crooks, all for control of America, her
banks and military, and ultimately the world.
@Justvisiting
I understand the approach; it would be very popular with Joe 6-Pack. Big Media has been
exposed: watch Giuliani and George Stepinshitalopolous. The Naked Deceit of the MSM has been
laid bare. I think that in future, many will look back and see that a simple win as you
suggest was not doable;the lack of executive control of the Alphabet agencies and Civil
Bureaucracy is near non-existent at this point. 2020 will break the will of the Democrat
Party. Two years of controlling the House and Senate could actually allow for this type of
activity because the way was cleared to do so in the first term.
What the Dems did was go spastic for 3 years screaming Russia to hide Ukraine. I'm sure
there is more dirt in Ukraine and China and .Notice Trump has 2 personal lawyers that he has
briefed to handle items he could normally count on a Cabinet Secretary to do? Why? These are
not, I suggest, normal times. The C_A, Brennan, Clapper and others are in full court press.
But now it's the 4th period and they are out of gas (sorry, bad sports metaphor).
Trump could get impeached. The Senate would look at it. Rule it is spurious and throw it out.
Then McConnell could say: 'What about this CFR video, Biden, Ukraine what about that?" Trump
gets elected in 2020 with a landslide after gaining significant sympathy and support. The
MORE INSANE the MOCKINGBIRD CIA media behaves, the more people are leaving the Democrat Party
and the more Independents see Trump as the only game in town.
Who is their to vote for: Biden, Warren, Booker, Bernie? The Left has no one except Gabbard
and they don't trust her. Kamala Harris has lost all heart. Killary Clinton or Big Mike
Obama? The voters would reject both. They have nothing.
@Sean
McBride I have a colleague, who I believe to be a psychopath, who always backs the person
he thinks will win in our organization's power struggles.
He has been very successful, and
leads a happy and celebrated life. I would urge all of you to consider his example, think
first of your families, and desist from backing a losing cause.
America is mostly lost. We
can keep it alive in our homes, but our political culture is, and will remain, an alien
culture, that renounces the vision of our founders.
@Rurik
Rurik,
good or bad, Mr Kolomoysky is the only one Ukr oligarch who is against IMF and against
Clintonites. Good or bad, he is not considered as anti-Putin, or anti-Russian in the Ukraine.
If he is connected to the nefarious entity called Rothschild, this omnipotent Rothschild did
not help him when the other bankers took over his bank.
The world is not that simple, Rurik. You see a Jew and you presume he is a Zionist, Jewish
supremacist, unhinged Putin-hater and Rothschild stooge. With this presumption, you do not
have to read at all.
@Cato A
question to consider: has America been a Masonic project from the start? Has it been a
Masonic project all along? Has there always been a radical disconnect between America's overt
agenda and a hidden agenda?
Which is precisely why Trumpenstein must be destroyed, and why Brexit must not be
allowed to happen or, if it does, why the people of the United Kingdom must be mercilessly
punished. It is also why the Gilets Jaunes are being brutally repressed by the French
police, and disappeared by the corporate media
The author nailed it
True believers in the Globalist faith as a matter of dogma believe, "Anyone who does not
meekly submit to unelected elites must be mentally ill." That people wish to have freedom is
beyond their ability to comprehend.
Thus the 1st Mosque of the Globalist Faith leads only to failure. Free Christian citizens
will not go to Globalist Mosques to revere graven images of the Most Holy Soros. In fact,
Christianity has sanctions for such idolatry.
Now that the fake stream, corporate media no longer controls the narrative -- The far left
cannot win the next election. Will the beast of the underworld, The IslamoSoros, try to steal
the election? Probably. But, such spawn of Satan can be defeated by men of goodwill.
A recent interview given by a former high-ranking official in Israeli military
intelligence has claimed that Jeffrey Epstein's sexual blackmail enterprise was an Israel
intelligence operation run for the purpose of entrapping powerful individuals and politicians
in the United States and abroad.
Since the apparent death by suicide of Jeffrey Epstein in a Manhattan prison, much has come
to light about his depraved activities and methods used to sexually abuse underage girls and
entrap the rich and powerful for the purposes of blackmail. Epstein's ties to intelligence,
described in-depth in a recent MintPress investigative
series , have continued to receive minimal mainstream media coverage, which has essentially
moved on from the Epstein scandal despite the fact that his many co-conspirators remain on the
loose.
For those who have examined Epstein's ties to intelligence, there are clear links to both
U.S. intelligence and Israeli intelligence, leaving it somewhat open to debate as to which
country's intelligence apparatus was closest to Epstein and most involved in his
blackmail/sex-trafficking activities. A recent interview given by a former high-ranking
official in Israeli military intelligence has claimed that Epstein's sexual blackmail
enterprise was an Israel intelligence operation run for the purpose of entrapping powerful
individuals and politicians in the United States and abroad.
In an
interview with Zev Shalev, former CBS News executive producer and award-winning
investigative journalist for Narativ , the former senior executive for Israel's
Directorate of Military Intelligence, Ari Ben-Menashe, claimed not only to have met Jeffrey
Epstein and his alleged madam, Ghislaine Maxwell, back in the 1980s, but that both Epstein and
Maxwell were already working with Israeli intelligence during that time period.
"They found a niche"
In an
interview last week with the independent outlet Narativ , Ben-Menashe, who himself
was involved in Iran-Contra arms deals, told his interviewer Zev Shalev that he had been
introduced to Jeffrey Epstein by Robert Maxwell in the mid-1980s while Maxwell's and
Ben-Menashe's involvement with Iran-Contra was ongoing. Ben-Menashe did not specify the year he
met Epstein.
Ben-Menashe told Shalev that "he [Maxwell] wanted us to accept him [Epstein] as part of our
group . I'm not denying that we were at the time a group that it was Nick Davies [Foreign
Editor of the Maxwell-Owned Daily Mirror ], it was Maxwell, it was myself and our team
from Israel, we were doing what we were doing." Past reporting by Seymour Hersh and others
revealed
that Maxwell, Davies and Ben-Menashe were involved in the transfer and sale of military
equipment and weapons from Israel to Iran on behalf of Israeli intelligence during this time
period.
He then added that Maxwell had stated during the introduction that "your Israeli bosses have
already approved" of Epstein. Shalev later noted that Maxwell "had an extensive network in
Israel at the time, which included the then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, according to
Ben-Menashe."
Ben-Menashe went on to say that he had "met him [Epstein] a few times in Maxwell's office,
that was it." He also said he was not aware of Epstein being involved in arms deals for anyone
else he knew at the time, but that Maxwell wanted to involve Epstein in the arms transfer in
which he, Davies and Ben-Menashe were engaged on Israel's behalf.
However, as MintPress reported in Part
IV of the investigative series " Inside the Jeffrey Epstein
Scandal: Too Big to Fail ," Epstein was involved with several arms dealers during this
period of time, some of whom were directly involved in Iran-Contra arms deals between Israel
and Iran. For instance, after leaving Bear Stearns in 1981, Epstein began
working in the realms of shadow finance as a self-described "financial bounty hunter,"
where he would both hunt down and hide money for powerful people. One of these powerful
individuals was Adnan Khashoggi, a Saudi arms dealer with close ties to both Israeli and U.S.
intelligence and one of the main brokers of Iran-Contra arms deals between Israel and Iran.
Epstein would later forge a business relationship with a CIA front company involved in another
aspect of Iran-Contra, the airline Southern Air Transport, on behalf of Leslie Wexner's
company, The Limited.
http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/how-israel-controls-its-narrative/
Email This Page to Someone
Remember My
Information
=>
List of Bookmarks
◄
►
◄
►
▲
▼
Remove from Library
B
Show
Comment
Next New Comment
Next
New Reply
Read More
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc.
More...
This Commenter
This Thread
Hide Thread
Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They
are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My
Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Email Comment
Ignore
Commenter
Follow Commenter
Add to
Library
Bookmark
Toggle
All
ToC
▲
▼
Search Text
Case
Sensitive
Exact Words
Include Comments
Search
Clear
Cancel
It is interesting to note how the Israel
Lobby is able to manage and contain the commentary of groups in America that might normally be critical of
Israeli policies vis-à-vis the United States.
A recent article
by Professor Andrew Bacevich entitled "President Trump, Please End the American Era in
the Middle East" is a good example of how self-censorship by authors works. The piece appeared as one of
Bacevich's regular weekly contributions to
The American Conservative
website under the rubric
"Realism and Restraint."
The article particularly focused on the
foreign policy pronouncements of Bret Stephens, the resident neocon who writes for
The New York Times
.
Stephens, per Bacevich, has been urging constant war in the Middle East and
worrying lest
"we may be witnessing the beginning of the end of the American era in the Middle East."
Bacevich, unlike Stephens, is a genuine foreign policy expert, a realist, an Army veteran, and always quite
sensible. He correctly described how "in the Middle East, the military power of the United States has played
a large part in exacerbating problems rather than contributing to their solution."
The overall message is sound, but in
this case, it is interesting to note what Bacevich left out rather than what he included. It is easy to
understand the "realism" part when he writes and it is sometimes also possible to perceive the "restraint."
He cited Iran seven times as well as Saudi Arabia, but, strangely enough, he never mentioned Israel at all,
which a number of commenters on the piece noted. It rather suggests that there is a line that Bacevich is
reluctant to cross. The omission is particularly odd as Israel is absolutely central to and might even be
described as driving American policy in the Middle East and Bret Stephens, whom Bacevich excoriates, is a
notable Israel-firster who once worked as the editor of the
Jerusalem Post.
Almost everything
Stephens writes is basically a promotion of Israel and its interests coupled with a call for the United
States to do what it must to attack and destroy the Jewish state's principal perceived enemy Iran.
The reticence is perhaps understandable
as Bacevich is president of a newly organized group called the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft,
which
I have written about previously
, that will have its official launch in November. It claims to promote
"ideas that move U.S. foreign policy away from endless war and toward vigorous diplomacy in the pursuit of
international peace" and further takes some pride in being non-partisan though bipartisan might be a better
description. To be sure, Quincy's two major donors are the highly controversial George Soros on the
globalist left and the equally notorious Koch Foundation on the libertarian-lite right, which leads one to
wonder who is ordering the restraint when it comes to Israel. Or is it both of them as neither organization,
though very active in foreign policy, has indicated any desire to seriously criticize the many crimes of the
Jewish state. I appear to have accurately predicted in my earlier article on Quincy that " there will
inevitably be major issues that Quincy will be afraid to confront, including the significant role played by
Israel and its friends in driving America's interventionist foreign policy."
Indeed, anyone who wants to be a player
in Washington DC has to avoid the Israel hot wire. That it should be so is a tribute to the power of the
Jewish lobby coupled with the bulk support and Bible-belt votes of its brain-dead Christian Zionist spear
carriers. Congress, once described by Pat Buchanan as "Israeli-occupied territory," likewise knows whom not
to offend lest one be unemployed in the next electoral cycle. That is why criminalizing criticism of Israel
or support of a non-violent boycott of the country are regularly introduced in Congress and find themselves
with more than one hundred sponsors and co-sponsors. Nearly two dozen such pro-Israel bills are currently at
certain points in the legislative process,
including one
that will enable aggrieved Israelis to sue the Palestinian Authority (PA) in sympathetic
U.S. courts for damages, a move that will potentially bankrupt the PA.
And the colleges and universities have
not been immune from pressure to conform to the pro-Israel narrative. The White House acting through the
Department of Education is functioning as thought police on behalf of the Jewish state. It is currently
planning on withholding
some federal funding of the University of North Carolina and Duke because their
joint Middle Eastern studies program does not meet alleged government standards. The standards involved
relate to the fact that the program has had speakers and course content that can be construed as critical of
Israel and friendly to Muslims. The message clearly being sent to the schools by the Trump Administration is
that if you criticize the Jewish state you will be punished.
The drive to eliminate any pushback
against Israeli actions at colleges has been spearheaded by leading Zionist Kenneth L. Marcus, who was
appointed the Education Department's Assistant Secretary of Civil Rights. Marcus, who has worked as a paid
pro-Israel activist, has been urging the government to define the BDS movement as anti-Semitic and has used
his office to designate any Palestinian advocacy as a violation of Jewish students' civil rights.
The federal action to enforce
educational conformity on Israel is not exactly new as universities have long since been self-censoring,
just like Bacevich, normally in response to complaints by Jewish groups. To cite only one example, in 2013,
at nominally Catholic Fordham University in New York City,
a student group sought
to form a Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) club. Their paperwork advised
that their goal was to "build support in the Fordham community among people of all ethnic and religious
backgrounds for the promotion of justice, human rights, liberation and self-determination for the indigenous
Palestinian people." The applicants also revealed that they would support the Boycott, Divestment and
Sanctions (BDS) movement. Three years later, Fordham's Dean of Education denied the application because of
the support for BDS. The students took Fordham to court and in August of this year, three years later, a New
York judge finally struck down the decision as "
arbitrary
and capricious
."
So it took six years and a lawsuit to
enable a group of students to form a club that was admittedly political in nature but non-violent and
welcoming of everyone. So much for freedom of speech and association at America's colleges and universities
when they run up against the Israel wall.
What is less observed is how Israel's
message is promoted at the state and local levels. At the state level, anti-BDS legislation is now the rule
in 26 states, with some requiring government employees to sign a pledge not to boycott Israel. And the same
thing is happening among Boards of Education. Fourteen states now require holocaust education, where
students are compelled to read fiction like Eli Wiesel's "Night" while also consuming the established and
standard, largely fabricated, account of what the so-called holocaust was all about. In Virginia, for
example,
a shadowy
group
called the Institute for Curriculum Services (ICS), which is actually a "partisan group with
backing by state and local Israel advocacy organizations,"
is seeking to
change the information conveyed by the history and social studies textbooks used in K-12
classrooms across the state. ICS recommended changes include: "1. Emphasizing Arab culpability for crisis
initiation leading to military action and failure of peace efforts -- and never Israeli culpability, even when
it is undisputed historic fact. 2. Replacing the commonly used words of "settlers" with "communities,"
"occupation" with "control of," "wall" with "security fence," and "militant" with "terrorist." 3.
Referencing Israeli claims such as "Israel annexed East Jerusalem" and the Golan Heights as accepted facts
without referencing lack of official recognition by the United Nations and most member nation states."
The ICS is only one example of the
persistent Israel Lobby brainwashing of the American public on behalf of the Jewish state to completely
alter the narrative about what is going on in the Middle East. Taken all together, the self-censorship of
groups and individuals that wish to remain viable by ignoring the Israel problem, the criminalization of
non-violent movements like BDS, and the pressure on universities and schools to conform with positive
narratives about Israel means that any genuine understanding of that nation's war crimes and crimes against
humanity will, unfortunately, remain on the margins.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is
Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation
(Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East.
Website is
https://councilforthenationalinterest.org,
address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA
20134 and its email is
[email protected].
The day Jeffrey Epstein turned up dead in a New York jail cell, I decided I needed to write
something about Eyes Wide Shut (1999), Stanley Kubrick's last and weakest movie.
Epstein has quickly faded from the headlines, so let me remind
you briefly of who he was. Epstein was an American Jew who enjoyed immense wealth from
unknown sources, hob-knobbed with the global elite, including Bill Clinton and Prince Andrew,
and was a pervert with a taste for underage girls, meaning that he was a serial rapist. He is
also accused of sharing these women with his wealthy and powerful friends, which would have
implicated them in marital infidelity and statutory rape, making them subject to blackmail.
In 2006, the FBI began investigating Epstein, tracking down over 100 women. In 2007, he was
indicted by the federal government on multiple counts of sex trafficking and conspiracy to
traffic minors for sex. If convicted, he and his co-conspirators could have spent the rest of
their lives in prison. But US Attorney Alex Acosta was told to go easy on Epstein, because "he
belonged to intelligence." Epstein received a sweetheart deal. He pled guilty to two state
prostitution charges and spent 13 months at a Florida county jail with generous work release.
Epstein's co-conspirators were not prosecuted at all. The records were sealed, and would have
remained so, were it not for the efforts of reporter Julie Brown , whose stories
led to the unsealing of Epstein's records, followed by his arrest and death in custody.
The most plausible explanation for Epstein's mysterious life and death is that he was a pimp
who implicated rich and powerful men and then blackmailed them, financially and politically. If
he enjoyed the patronage of "intelligence," it was most likely Israeli. When he was first
arrested, he called in favors from his patrons (and probably from his victims as well), to
avoid federal prosecution, which could have embarrassed many powerful people. When Epstein was
re-arrested, there was no way he could escape prosecution, so he was murdered to protect the
secrets of any (or all) of his patrons and victims.
... ... ...
The higher one climbs in the social hierarchy, the closer one approaches the inner party,
the greater the degeneracy and the more ferocious the assault on marital fidelity.
... ... ...
So why would the power-elites of a society engage in group perversion? The richer a person
is, the more opportunities there are for self-indulgence. After a while, though, such people
get jaded and hunger for exotic pleasures, including ones that violate the rules of morality
and the laws of society. It takes a highly developed sense of honor not to abuse the freedom
granted by great wealth. Even when such an aristocratic ethos was cultivated, there were many
spectacular failures. Moreover, today's oligarchy has dispensed with the pretenses of honor
entirely.
...Beyond routine degeneracy, elites also use sexual perversion as a tool of control. Just
as street gangs require prospective members to sully themselves with crimes to join, elites
have similar rituals, the more morally repulsive the better.
The prospects are eager to incriminate themselves because joining the gang will bring them
power. But self-incrimination also gives the gang power over its members, who must obey lest
they be exposed and humiliated. And of course worse sanctions are waiting in the wings, as
Jeffrey Epstein reminds us.
... ... ...
But for all its faults, Eyes Wide Shut has two important messages to which today's
Dissident Rightists are particularly receptive. It dramatizes important truths about man-woman
relationships and displays how sexual perversion is a tool of elite control. If you already
know the score on these matters, however, you might not want to suffer through two hours and
forty minutes of Cruise and Kidman.
WASHINGTON -- The Trump administration is investigating the e-mail records of dozens of
current and former senior State Department officials who sent messages to then-Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton's private e-mail, reviving a politically toxic matter that overshadowed
the 2016 election, current and former officials said.
As many as 130 officials have been contacted in recent weeks by State Department
investigators -- a list that includes senior officials who reported directly to Clinton as
well as others in lower-level jobs whose e-mails were at some point relayed to her inbox,
said current and former State Department officials. Those targeted were notified that e-mails
they sent years ago have been retroactively classified and now constitute potential security
violations, according to letters reviewed by The Washington Post.
State Department investigators began contacting the former officials about 18 months ago,
after President Trump's election, and then seemed to drop the effort before picking it up in
August, officials said.
Senior State Department officials said that they are following standard protocol in an
investigation that began during the latter days of the Obama administration and is nearing
completion. ...
The precise observation is: "negligently sent and misfiled e-mails containing sensitive
information are now properly labeled to protect national security."
The "notified that e-mails they sent years ago have been retroactively classified and now
constitute potential security violations"......
"Years ago" is uninteresting when you discuss sensitive information that a "classification
authority" must have labeled to protect national security.
"retroactively classified" is blatantly inaccurate. The sensitive information in those
e-mail should have been classified.
Boston Globe writer provides threbligs of disinformation to create an ill-informed
debate.
I have many years ago been involved in properly [re]classifying documents long after their
distribution!
I see too much Innuendo, with no substance in fact!
You should judge the press/Globe's misleading its readers, rather than name me a
bully.
I pointed to the arcane wording that clouds the validity of classifying documents that are
deemed a threat to national security.
The e-mails were damaging to national security when the widespread, neglectful workers in
Clinton state dept created them, using the word classified "now" is misleading!
In my opinion the WaPost, NYTimes and Boston Globe are creating angst with less than
accurate reporting.
Most readers know very little about "information" requiring controls to protect national
security, and could not see the attempt to mislead.
If one is looking for truth one needs to do a lot of background reading what is written in
the papers I refer to.
Fred: I do not read the Union Leader, Eagle Tribune, except maybe to see what is going on
with EEE or natural gas leaks in Merrimack Valley where public safety is sinking to third
world country status.
The truth of the matter is that while not completely diplomatic Ilsm is completely
right.
And he understand this problem deeper and better that many here. So his contributions do
have value.
It can't be denied that several high level State Department officials including but not
limited to Hillary behaved like a bunch of high school girls and endangered state secrets to
any determined opponent. Without any real necessary to do so, just out of their infinite
incompetence and arrogance.
Another fact of the matter is that IT personal in the State Department was bullied to the
extent that they can't perform their duties, because even for mediocre IT specialist it is
absolutely clear that what Hillary was doing is both extremely stupid and criminal.
The level of arrogance and incompetence of Hillary and her staff in IT security exceeds
anything imaginable. This is a classic "Shadow IT" story that will go in all textbooks on
email security.
I do not remember who, but one high ranking person (from NSA I think) told while being
interviewed by MSM honcho that he would stop respecting his opponents if they did not steal
all Hillary correspondence in real time (but why NSA did not prevented it is another
interesting question ;-)
If we abstract from the problem that the USA government has way too many secrets and
classify way too many things, the law is the law and Hillary should serve time in jail. No
question about that for any person who at some point in his life dealt with state or even
corporate level classified material.
BTW she should be prohibited from running as a criminal who voted for Iraq war in any
case.
Impunity is power, and as Lord Acton said, power corrupts ( Impunity Corrupts -
Antiwar.com ):
== quote == What, after all, is power? Is it simply the capacity to exert unjust force? The ability to
impress one's will upon the flesh or belongings of another? No, it's more than that.
Most anyone can wield unjust force. Anyone could walk out onto the street right now and
exert their will on somebody weaker: say, pushing over an old lady or stealing candy from a
baby. And the toughest, or most heavily-armed guy in town can strong-arm just about any other
single person.
But isolated incidents of aggression do not constitute power. The "reign" of the rogue
rampager is generally short-lived. It only lasts until the community recognizes him as the
menace to society that he is and neutralizes him.
Power isn't simply about the exertion of unjust force. It is about what happens next,
after the exertion. Does the perpetrator generally get away with, or not? Systematically
getting away with it – or impunity – is where power truly lies. And that is what
makes agents of the State different from any other bully. State agents can violate rights
with reliable impunity because a critical mass of the public considers the aggression of
state agents to be exceptionally legitimate. Impunity is power, and as Lord Acton said, power
corrupts. == end ==
In his phone call with Zelensky, President Trump mentioned two subjects in particular which
are Kryptonite to the Democrats: Crowdstrike and "the server," meaning the DNC server which
was never forensically examined by the FBI. Pulling on these two threads may be even more
interesting than the stuff about the big-bucks shakedowns of foreign governments by Joe Biden
& Son, Inc. Just for starters: what the fcuk is the DNC server doing in Ukraine?
Pelosi on Tuesday started this rock rolling down the hill.
She has made impeachment, which did not even come up in the last Democratic debate, the
issue of 2020. She has foreclosed bipartisan compromise on gun control, the cost of
prescription drugs and infrastructure. She has just put her own and her party's fate and future
on the line.
With Pelosi's assent that she is now open to impeachment, she turned what was becoming a
cold case into a blazing issue. If the Democrats march up impeachment hill, fail and fall back,
or if they vote impeachment only to see the Senate exonerate the president, that will be the
climactic moment of Pelosi's career. She is betting the future of the House, and her party's
hopes of capturing the presidency, on the belief she and her colleagues can persuade the
country to support the indictment of a president for high crimes.
One wonders: Do Democrats blinded by hatred of Trump ever wonder how that 40% of the nation
that sees him as the repository of their hopes will react if, rather than beat him at the
ballot box, they remove him in this way?
The first casualty of Pelosi's cause is almost certain to be the front-runner for the party
nomination. Joe Biden has already, this past week, fallen behind Sen. Elizabeth Warren in Iowa,
New Hampshire and California. The Quinnipiac poll has her taking the lead nationally for the
nomination, with Biden dropping into second place for the first time since he announced his
candidacy.
By making Ukraine the focus of the impeachment drive in the House, Pelosi has also assured
that the questionable conduct of Biden and son Hunter Biden will be front and center for the
next four months before Iowa votes.
What did Joe do? By his own admission, indeed his boast, as vice president he ordered
then-Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to either fire the prosecutor who was investigating
the company that hired Hunter Biden for $50,000 a month or forgo a $1 billion U.S. loan
guarantee that Kiev needed to stay current on its debts.
Biden insists the Ukrainian prosecutor was corrupt, that Hunter had done no wrong, that he
himself was unaware of his son's business ties.
All these assertions have been contradicted or challenged.
There is another question raised by Biden's ultimatum to Kiev to fire the corrupt prosecutor
or forgo the loan guarantee. Why was the U.S. guaranteeing loans to a Kiev regime that had to
be threatened by the U.S. with bankruptcy to get it to rid itself of a prosecutor whom all of
Europe supposedly knew to be corrupt?
Whatever the truth of the charges, the problem here is that any investigation of potential
corruption of Hunter Biden, and of the role of his father, the former vice president, in
facilitating it, will be front and center in presidential politics between now and New
Hampshire.
This is bad news for the Biden campaign. And the principal beneficiary of Pelosi's decision
that put Joe and Hunter Biden at the center of an impeachment inquiry is, again, Warren.
Warren already appears to have emerged victorious in her battle with Bernie Sanders to
become the progressives' first choice in 2020. And consider how, as she is rising, her
remaining opposition is fast fading.
Sen. Kamala Harris has said she is moving her campaign to Iowa for a do-or-die stand in the
first battleground state. Sen. Cory Booker has called on donors to raise $1.7 million in 10
days, or he will have to pack it in. As Biden, Sanders, Harris and Booker fade, and "Mayor
Pete" Buttigieg hovers at 5 or 6% in national and state polls, Warren steadily emerges as the
probable nominee.
One measure of how deeply Biden is in trouble, whether he is beginning to be seen as too
risky, given the allegations against him and his son, will be the new endorsements his
candidacy receives after this week of charges and countercharges.
If there is a significant falling off, it could be fatal.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made and
Broke a President and Divided America Forever."
In his phone call with Zelensky, President Trump mentioned two subjects in particular which
are Kryptonite to the Democrats: Crowdstrike and "the server," meaning the DNC server which
was never forensically examined by the FBI. Pulling on these two threads may be even more
interesting than the stuff about the big-bucks shakedowns of foreign governments by Joe Biden
& Son, Inc. Just for starters: what the fcuk is the DNC server doing in Ukraine?
I now think that someone on the Trump team did this leak. It only helps him. The dirt on
Biden was public, but ignored by the corporate media. Now they are forced to report it to
attack Trump, and it makes Dems look corrupt. Big media spins this, but not true leftists
like Jimmy Dore and others with millions of followers.
I'm writing from Athens, Greece, where the Greek language media, along with most other
European non-English language media, have tracked the Hunter Biden story since 2014 –
the unashamed and unabashed nepotism, corruption and conflict of interest of his appointment
to Burisma, and the subsequent trail of arrests in Ukraine for drugs, prostitution, drunk
driving. Burisma itself is not a pretty story, and by being headquartered in Cyprus it of
course evades Ukrainian taxes.
All this is an old story here.
It is satisfying, given the outrages that have been forced on the Ukrainian people, to have
at least one tiny part of this horrible mess brought to light. For us it is immaterial who
does this good thing.
The fact that the Ukrainian prosecutor intended to prosecute despite Washington's
domination speaks to his honesty. Only the compradore "elites" of Europe would pretend
anything different – for Washington's sake.
Meanwhile one can only marvel at the Democrat party: surely they realise they are only
shooting themselves in the foot. Worse, what if it leads to the unveiling of other Obama era
crimes?
Biden insists the Ukrainian prosecutor was corrupt, that Hunter had done no wrong, that he
himself was unaware of his son's business ties.
All these assertions have been contradicted or challenged".
This is par the "American" course. This attitude of ordering other nations interface with
many unrelated areas . America vouch for their honesty integrity and love for rule of law,
desire for woman's lib , peace, democracy and open business as the reasons for them to
liberate Iraq ,sanction Iran, topple Basher ,kill foreign leaders ,impose IMF on Libya or
Pakistan and displace tribals from Amazon or Ganges ,or dismantle welfare stems in Venezuela
or India.
Biden just made this personal.
Whats wrong with this?
Just as Biden knows that he was aware of the business and the corruption so was America
that Taliban did nit attack USA and Saddam did not carry out 911 or conduct any WMD or CW
tests .
Biden was bombastic. So was America in 2003.
Chicken coming home to roost . But the home has been usurped also by latinos blacks
immigrants and by the climate change.
Good one. She's gotta be next to get defrocked, a phony progressive Wall Street war hawk.
Only not so soon that a limp Biden zombie could rise again.
TULSI Gabbard = A Thinly Veiled Threat to Israel
This speech was about Saudi Arabia, but the Israel Lobby has to get a cold chill at the
thought of a US military that ONLY DEFENDS AMERICA. "Our military exists to defend America -- not the radical Islamist dictatorship of Saudi
Arabia"
@yetagain
We all enjoy Trump, and I hope the enjoyment lasts another few years, because there is a lot
of roach-infested curtains and termite-infested walls to be torn down by the bumbling
mastodont.
(And, bugger me sideways, La Pelosi looks like something out of a Disney "Ghosts of the
Carribean" amusement park ride, what's going on?)
@anonymous
Dems are in a bind on this one. I think the DNC orchestrated the leak to take out Biden who
is clearly losing it. But Biden's strength was his "so called" pro-labor appeal, and there's
no one to take up that mantle. "So Called" because Biden sold out labor on the TPP with China
in exchange for $1.5 Billion to Hunter.
The replacement is the problem. Warren ain't it. Watch the Fake News Media and see who
they start promoting. Yes Warren can win the primary, but free medical to illegals means
she's toast.
@JamesD
Justice Kennedy – who decreed the change in legal marriage – was another
Republican choice for whom young Mr. Kavanaugh clerked before helping President Cheney with
the Patriot Act to earn his first robe on the Swampville Circuit. Chief Justice Roberts was
the one who nailed down Big Sickness for the pharmaceutical and insurance industries.
Like the "federal" elections held every November in even-numbered years and the 5-4
decrees of the Court, the nail-biting confirmation hearings are another part of the show that
keeps people gulled into accepting that so many things in life are to be run by people in
Washington. Mr. Buchanan for years has been proclaiming each The Most Important Ever.
I'm still inclined to the notion that the Constitution was intended, at least by some of
its authors and supporters, to create a limited national government. But even by the time of
Marbury, those entrusted with the powers have arrogated the authority to redefine them. In my
lifetime, the Court exists to deal with hot potato social issues in lieu of the invertebrate
Congress, to forebear (along with the invertebrate Congress) the warmongering and other
"foreign policy" waged under auspices of the President, and to dignify the Establishment's
shepherding and fleecing of the people.
Why should a robed, unelected politician be redefining marriage? Entrusted to enforce the
Constitutional limitations on the others? Sure, questions like these are posed from time to
time in a dissenting Justice's opinion, but that ends the discussion other than in the
context of replacing old Justice X with middle-aged Justice Y. Those of us outside the
Beltway are told to tune in and root Red. And there are pom pom shakers and color
commentators just like Mr. Buchanan for Team Blue.
@anon
No democrat votes will be cast for months, yet Pat and other pundits are already saying that
Pocahontas Warren will be their nominee. Tulsi raised the question of Warren's lack of
qualifications to be Commander-in-Chief (the most important job of any president). The media
and the DNC are trying to bury Tulsi, just as the RNC tried to do the same with Trump –
and we know how that turned out. The DNC failed this time to cheat her out of her rightful
place in the upcoming debate, which must make phoneys like Warren scared to death. Don't
count Tulsi out. Americans are sick unto death of constant war.
Academic freedom is a relatively simple principle. It refers to the "liberty to teach,
pursue, and discuss knowledge without restriction or interference, as by school or public
officials."
This principle seems to be under attack in America. The American administration has openly
interfered with the liberty to freely teach, pursue and discuss knowledge.
The New
York Times writes : "in a rare instance of federal intervention in college course content,
the department asserted that the universities' Middle East program violated the standards of a
federal program that awards funding to international studies and foreign language
programs."
According to the NYT the focus on 'anti Israeli bias' "appears to reflect the views of an
agency leadership that includes a civil rights chief, Kenneth L. Marcus, who has made a career
of pro-Israel advocacy and has waged a years long campaign to delegitimize and defund Middle
East studies programs that he has criticized as rife with anti-Israel bias."
One may wonder why America is willing to sacrifice its liberal ethos on the pro Israel
altar? Miriam Elman provides a possible answer. Elman is an associate professor at Syracuse
University and executive director of the Academic Engagement Network, which opposes BDS. Elman
told the NYT that this "should be a wake-up call what they're (the Federal government
presumably) saying is, 'If you want to be biased and show an unbalanced view of the Middle
East, you can do that, but you're not going to get federal and taxpayer money."
In Elman's view academic freedom has stayed intact, it is just the dollars that will
be withheld unless a university adheres to pro Israel politics.
Those who follow the history of Zionism, Israeli politics and Jewish nationalism find
this latest development unsurprising. Zionism, once dedicated to the concept of a "promised
land," morphed decades ago into an aspiration toward a 'promised planet.' Zionism is a global
project operating in most, if not all, Western states. Jewish pressure groups, Zionist think
tanks and Pro Israel lobbies work intensively to suppress elementary freedoms and reshape the
public, political and cultural discourse all to achieve Zionism's ambitious goal. After all,
Jewish power, as I define it, is the power to suppress criticism of Jewish power.
ORDER
IT NOW
This authoritarian symptom is not at all new. It is apparently a wandering phenomenon. It
has popped out in different forms at different times. What happened in the USSR provides a
perfect illustration of this symptom. In the early days of Soviet Russia, anti-Semitism was met
with the death penalty as stated by Joseph Stalin in
answer to an inquiry made by the Jewish News Agency: "In the U.S.S.R. anti-semitism is
punishable with the utmost severity of the law as a phenomenon deeply hostile to the Soviet
system. Under U.S.S.R. law active anti-semites are liable to the death penalty."
Germany saw the formation of Jewish anti defamation leagues attempted to suppress the rise
in anti Jewish sentiments.* There's no need to elaborate on the dramatic failure of these
efforts in Germany. And despite Stalin's early pro-Jewish stance, the Soviet leader turned
against the so- called " rootless cosmopolitan s." This
campaign led to the 1950s Doctors' plot , in which a group of doctors
(mostly Jewish) were subjected to a show trial for supposedly having plotted to
assassinate the Soviet leader.
In Britain and other Western nations we have seen fierce pro Israel campaigns waged to
suppress criticism of Israel and Jewish politics. Different lobbies have been utilizing
different means amongst them the adoption of the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism by
governments and institutions. In Britain, France, Germany and other European countries,
intellectuals, artists, politicians, party members and ordinary citizens are constantly
harassed by a few powerful Jewish pressure groups. In dark Orwellian Britain 2019, critics of
Israel have yet to face the death sentence, but they are subjected to severe reprisals ranging
from personal intimidation to police actions and criminal prosecution. People have lost their
jobs for supporting Palestine, others have been expelled from Corbyn's compromised Labour Party
for making truthful statements. Some have even been jailed for satirical content. And as you
might guess, none of this has made Israel, its supporters or its stooges popular. Quite the
opposite.
I learned from the NYT that the administration "ordered" the universities' consortium to
submit a revised schedule of events it planned to support, a full list of the courses it offers
and the professors working in its Middle East studies program. I wonder who in the
administration possesses the scholarly credentials to assess the academic level of university
courses or professors? Professor Trump himself, or maybe Kushner & Ivanka or Kushner's
coffee boy Avi Berkovitch , or
maybe recently retired 'peace maker'
Jason Greenblat t?
It takes years to build academic institutions, departments, libraries and research
facilities. Apparently, it takes one determined lobby to ruin the future of American
scholarship.
*In his book Final Solution David Cesarani brings the story of the Centralverein deutscher
Staatsbürger jüdischen Glaubens (Central Association of German Citizens of Jewish
Faith) that operated in Germany since the late 19th century "suing rabble rousers for
defamation, funding candidates pledging to contest antisemitism " You can read about the
association and its activity here
' 'Those who follow the history of Zionism, Israeli politics and Jewish nationalism find
this latest development unsurprising. Zionism, once dedicated to the concept of a "promised
land," morphed decades ago into an aspiration toward a 'promised planet.' '
It is quite clear that this legislation is in breach of the U.S. Constitution and that it
sets a new standard for legislation designed to prevent any type of negative speech against
Israel.
You are flat out wrong Gilad.
There is a difference between criticism of Israel and racist talk. There has been a lot of
racist behavior towards Jews going on college campuses. Students have been thrown off student
boards just because they went to Israel on a birthright trip. University of California has a
Israel Apartheid week, where Jewish students face physical abusive. Three is a curriculum
course on called "How to eliminate Israel".
You have not followed American Universities closely and are taking one incident out of
context see below what happened at a pro Gaza conference at UNC, when a Palestinian rapper
got really racist.
Just fill in Jews for Black, Muslim, gays, etc. There is a big difference you refuse to
acknowledge because a lot of your followers are racist. Isn't that what we are talking about?
American Universities have trustees that donate tons of money. Here in NY. NYU lost a lot of
trustee money from Alumni because of harassment by the SJP of Jewish students. In California
Jewish students are routinely harass and bullied. Racism is racism, not about Jews.
Columbia University had Edward Sayed and now Rashid Kaledi. Both who were outspoken critics
of Israel, and continue uninterrupted. L
This is what the rapper sang:
"Let's try it together. I need your help. I cannot be "anti-Semitic" alone," Nafar said
before singing, "don't think of Rihanna when you sing this, don't think of Beyonce –
think of Mel Gibson. I'm in love with a Jew/Oh/I fell in love with a Jew/Oh/Her skin is
white and my skin is brown, she was going up, up and I was going down."
@Sean The Palestinians are losers, who do not want their own state but rather they want
the Jews gone. That is their entire raison d'être, not national sovereignty.
It is you who need to come out of the trees.
Every left winger wants to make the Pals out to be the natives who got kicked out. Not true,
there were always Jews in Palestine, which belonged to no one and was a province of the
Ottomans.
It is a stupid story. 70% of Israelis come from Arab countries not Europe. The Pals are not
the Native Americans, with a distinct culture and identity who were replaced by colonizers.
It is a bogus story.
Their leaders are Jihadist who want to murder Jews, if they wanted a state the whole thing
would have been over like 50 years ago. Look at those corrupt leaders, keeping the entire
population prisoners of their greed and lust for destruction. They care little for national
sovereignty if it involves sharing land with the Jews.
The Jews figured it out a long time ago, it is just a matter of weaning the global
community from the propaganda and showing people what a scam the Palestinian cause is. The
arabs have abandoned them a long time ago, because their cause was not sincere.
Do no blame the Jews for all the death and destruction in the ME. Muslims have their own
porblems.
Prior to 9/11 the consensus of experts on the Middle East, Islam, Comparative Religion, etc.
was that MI6 Zionist Bernard Lewis was an ignorant, extremist lunatic. When Lewis feuded with
Edward Said, the whole academy sided with Said, who was elected president of MLA in a
landslide.
The 9/11 neocon-Zionist coup terrorized the academy and made Lewis a mainstream guru,
advisor to Bush Jr. and bestselling author. Since then the insane Zionist party line, which
has always dominated in both liberal and conservative media as well as politics, has been
forced on the academy, whose experts are smart enough and knowledgable enough to know how
insane it is but what can they do?
Atzmon tips his hand when mentioning the so called "Doctors plot" by citing Zionist dominated
Wikipedia on the subject.
Wikipedia is certainly not a reasonable, unbiased source for anything of special interest to
Jews.
@MarkU Yes, "Sean's" comment is illustrative of an emerging tendency among sophistic,
pilpul-pushing Jews (and some shabbosgoyim) in comment strings.
One key feature that we see here is the traditional Jew resort to claims of inevitability
for whatever goal the Jew is pursuing. The Jew is on the "right side of history." And those
in opposition are sure to be on the losing side. Note also the employment of Trump-like
winner/loser dichotomy. The Jew looks at what "sells" to any particular slice of goyim.
"Sean" figures that Trump-style language and phraseology will have some appeal here and so he
uses these terms in his comment.
Of course, the Jew has been thrown out of every place he has every infested. He first
alienated the Greeks of the Hellenistic Eastern Mediterranean, then the Western Europeans,
then the Eastern Europeans, and ultimately in the 20th century, the Muslim world. So over the
longer historical term, the Jews doesn't really look like much of a winner. The things he
does to "win" get him expelled or exterminated. But he is counting on the short historical
memory of the goyim to render that reality moot.
The Jew's first inclination is to make a moralistic appeal. His sense of his own morality
is a dominant characteristic of the Jew psyche. But here, "Sean" appeals explicitly to Jewish
power–"the strongest power." The Jew understands that the destructive obsessions of the
Jew left (really, pseudo-left) and Jew Neocons have exhausted and alienated American goyim.
So now he is trying to jump off that train and onto the MAGA or nationalist train. This is
absolutely typical of how the Jew thinks and operates. He doesn't really believe in anything
except what happens to be "good for the Jews" at the moment and in the foreseeable future.
The Jew observes that MAGA Goyim who think this way are inclined to accept power realities,
so the Jew wants to appeal to that by asserting the overwhelming power of the Jew in the US,
which, he informs us for our edification, is the most powerful country in the world. The
message is that whether you like the Jew or not, his position is unassailable, so you might
as well give in to it.
Another characteristic feature of the contemporary faux-conservative scheming Jew is the
inclination to co-opt anti-immigration sentiment. Notice how he links the British Labor
Party, one of the Jew's current bogeymen, with immigration, which he assumes is an emotive
topic for MAGA goyim, in an attempt to make his enemy everyone else's enemy. Again,
this is typical Jew behavior.
The Jews would go berserk if Israel came to an end. Sorry but its not worth it, and we
have responsibilities to our own that come first.
"Sean" concludes with a final warning that Jew power must be accommodated and projects an
air of resignation. He also strangely appends two quotes from former Italian PM Giulio
Andreotti:
"We learn from the Gospel that when they asked Jesus what truth was, he did not reply.
"Power wears out those who don't have it"
Now who would know or take the time to come up with these pessimistic, even nihilistic
comments from an old, Italian politician? It could be an utterly dejected and morally
defeated Catholic–in theory. But it's much more likely that this is all a Jew's notion
of how to promote the idea of the power of Jewry and the powerlessness of those who oppose
Jewry's global scheming. The Jew says to himself, "Well if the goyim are focused on the
scheming of the Jews, then I will co-opt that focus to impress on the goy the idea that
resistance is futile–that Jew schemes are destined to succeed no matter what the goy
does."
TUR is clearly a place where a good deal of experimentation goes on–including Jew
experimentation in how to anti-Jewish sentiments–judo-like–for use on behalf of
the Jew.
This sort of conniving–double and triple games–is at the very heart of how the
Jew sees and behaves towards the goyim.
@Oscar Peterson Woha there bucaroo!
Sean does not represent classic Hasbara thought or ideas. Not. He is not a classic Jew a
phobic in his thoughts, and often strays from the message, so much so that we Hasbara Jews
scratch out heads.
Zionist Jews do not think the Palestinians got treated badly. They believe that the entire
story is a Jihad against the Jews in an attempt to wipe them out as a religion. Nothing to do
with land and or peace. That is the beginning middle and end of the story, and we care little
about the Palestinians and their cause, talk to the Jihadist and stop them from trying to
eradicate us.
The rest of your story is pure speculation and bullshit and Jews have little time to ponder
such far out thoughts as they are facing constant threats of annihilation from Islam.
You may disagree with my points, but lets at least stay on track.
Thoughts like this:
Yes the Palestinian got badly treated and are had their rights violated, I consider
myself under any obligation to be on their side, I am on the side of the traditional people
of the West in their own countries. For helping other peoples I need to see some benefit to
my people, who cannot afford altruism. The Palestinians bring nothing to the table and are
helpless. As someone pointed out to Giraldi the other day on RT one of the main reasons the
Palestinians are helpless is because the other Muslims of the Middle East have lost
interest in them. Now they are left with Iran.
"Sean" is clearly using standard Jew techniques of sophistic argumentation: Inevitability,
selling Israel with different pitches to different goy audiences, attempting to sell pro-Jew
intellectual schlock as a "package deal" with memes assumed to be favorably received by the
targeted goyim.
These are absolutely indicators of the Jew rhetorical style.
Now, whether Sean is ultimately a classically conniving, dishonest Jew or an
unconventionally conniving, dishonest Jew or a shabbosgoy who has learned at the knee of the
conniving, dishonest Jew or a hapless goy whom the conniving, dishonest Jew has succeeded via
his propagandistic efforts in demoralizing to the point of a Stockholm-Syndrome-style
recitation is not a fully resolved issue. But clearly, we can see that the Jew or his
influence has been at work here one way or another.
Beyond that, you have said nothing except that you don't like the post, which is not a
concern for me in any case.
The Iron Heel is a dystopian[1] novel by American writer Jack London, first published in
1908.[2] Generally considered to be "the earliest of the modern dystopian" fiction,[3] it
chronicles the rise of an oligarchic tyranny in the United States.
In The Iron Heel, Jack London's socialist views are explicitly on display. A forerunner of
soft science fiction novels and stories of the 1960s and '70s, the book stresses future changes
in society and politics while paying much less attention to technological changes.
The novel is based on the fictional "Everhard Manuscript" written by Avis Everhard... The
Manuscript itself covers the years 1912 through 1932 in which the Oligarchy (or "Iron Heel") arose in the United
States. In Asia, Japan conquered East Asia and created its own empire, India gained independence,
and Europe became socialist. Canada, Mexico, and Cuba formed their own Oligarchies and were
aligned with the U.S. (London remains silent as to the fates of South America, Africa, and the
Middle East.)
In North America, the Oligarchy maintains power for three centuries until the Revolution
succeeds and ushers in the Brotherhood of Man. During the years of the novel, the First Revolt is
described and preparations for the Second Revolt are discussed. From the perspective of Everhard,
the imminent Second Revolt is sure to succeed but from Meredith's frame story , the reader knows that Ernest
Everhard's hopes would go unfulfilled until centuries after his death.
The Oligarchy is the largest monopoly of trusts (or robber barons ) who manage to
squeeze out the middle class by bankrupting most small to mid-sized business as
well as reducing all farmers to effective serfdom . This Oligarchy maintains power through a
"labor caste " and the
Mercenaries . Laborers in
essential industries like steel and rail are elevated and given decent wages, housing, and
education. Indeed, the tragic turn in the novel (and Jack London's core warning to his
contemporaries) is the treachery of these favored unions which break with the other unions and
side with the Oligarchy. Further, a second, military caste is formed: the Mercenaries. The Mercenaries are
officially the army of the US but are in fact in the employ of the Oligarchs.
Jack London ambitiously predicted a breakdown of the US republic starting a few years past
1908, but various events have caused his predicted future to diverge from actual history. Most
crucially, though London placed quite accurately the time when international tensions will reach
their peak (1913 in "The Iron Heel", 1914 in actual history ), he (like many others at
the time) predicted that when this moment came, labor solidarity would prevent a war that would
include the US, Germany and other nations.
The Iron Heel is cited by George Orwell 's biographer Michael Shelden as having influenced
Orwell's most famous novel Nineteen Eighty-Four .
[4] Orwell himself
described London as having made "a very remarkable prophecy of the rise of Fascism ", in the book and believed that
London's understanding of the primitive had made him a better prophet "than many better-informed
and more logical thinkers." [5] ( The Iron Heel - Wikipedia )
As writer or thinker, Jack London can't touch George Orwell, but he's nearly the Brit's
equal when it comes to describing society's bottom. To both, being a writer is as much a
physical as an intellectual endeavor. Wading into everything, they braved all discomforts and
dangers. This attitude has become very rare, and not just among writers. Trapped in intensely
mediated lives, we all think we know more as we experience less and less.
At age 14, London worked in a salmon cannery. At 16, he was an oyster pirate. At 17, he was
a sailor on a sealing schooner that reached Japan. At 18, London crossed the country as a hobo
and, near Buffalo, was jailed for 30 days for vagrancy. At 21, he prospected for gold in the
Klondike. London was also a newsboy, longshoreman, roustabout, window washer, jute mill grunt,
carpet cleaner and electrician, so he had many incidents, mishaps and ordeals to draw from, and
countless characters to portray.
London's The Road chronicles his hobo and prison misadventure. Condemned to hard labor, the
teenager nearly starved, "While we got plenty of water, we did not get enough of the bread. A
ration of bread was about the size of one's two fists, and three rations a day were given to
each prisoner. There was one good thing, I must say, about the water -- it was hot. In the
morning it was called 'coffee,' at noon it was dignified as 'soup,' and at night it masqueraded
as 'tea.' But it was the same old water all the time."
London quickly worked his way up the clink's hierarchy, to become one of 13 enforcers for
the guards. This experience alone should have taught him that in all situations, not just dire
ones, each man will prioritize his own interest and survival, and that there's no solidarity
among the "downtrodden" or whatever. Orwell's Animal Farm is a parable about this. Since man is
an egoist, power lust lurks everywhere.
During the Russo-Japanese War a decade later, London would approvingly quote a letter from
Japanese socialists to their Russian comrades, but this pacific gesture was nothing compared to
the nationalistic fervor engulfing both countries. Like racism, nationalism is but self love.
Though clearly madness if overblown, it's unextinguishable.
Jailed, London the future socialist stood by as his gang disciplined a naïf, "I
remember a handsome young mulatto of about twenty who got the insane idea into his head that he
should stand for his rights. And he did have the right of it, too; but that didn't help him
any. He lived on the topmost gallery. Eight hall-men took the conceit out of him in just about
a minute and a half -- for that was the length of time required to travel along his gallery to
the end and down five flights of steel stairs. He travelled the whole distance on every portion
of his anatomy except his feet, and the eight hall-men were not idle. The mulatto struck the
pavement where I was standing watching it all. He regained his feet and stood upright for a
moment. In that moment he threw his arms wide apart and omitted an awful scream of terror and
pain and heartbreak. At the same instant, as in a transformation scene, the shreds of his stout
prison clothes fell from him, leaving him wholly naked and streaming blood from every portion
of the surface of his body. Then he collapsed in a heap, unconscious. He had learned his
lesson, and every convict within those walls who heard him scream had learned a lesson. So had
I learned mine. It is not a nice thing to see a man's heart broken in a minute and a half."
Jailed, you immediately recover your racial consciousness, but London apparently missed
this. In any case, a lesser writer or man wouldn't confess to such complicity with power.
Elsewhere, London admits to much hustling and lying, and even claims these practices made him a
writer, "I have often thought that to this training of my tramp days is due much of my success
as a story-writer. In order to get the food whereby I lived, I was compelled to tell tales that
rang true [ ] Also, I quite believe it was my tramp-apprenticeship that made a realist out of
me. Realism constitutes the only goods one can exchange at the kitchen door for grub."
Informed by hard-earned, bitter experience, London's accounts resonate and convince, even
when outlandish, for they are essentially true about the human condition.
London on a fellow prisoner, "He was a huge, illiterate brute, an
ex-Chesapeake-Bay-oyster-pirate, an 'ex-con' who had done five years in Sing Sing, and a
general all-around stupidly carnivorous beast. He used to trap sparrows that flew into our hall
through the open bars. When he made a capture, he hurried away with it into his cell, where I
have seen him crunching bones and spitting out feathers as he bolted it raw."
Though London often uses "beast" or "beastly" to describe how humans are treated, this
fellow appears to be congenitally bestial, with his all-around stupidity. As for the other
prisoners, "Our hall was a common stews, filled with the ruck and the filth, the scum and
dregs, of society -- hereditary inefficients, degenerates, wrecks, lunatics, addled
intelligences, epileptics, monsters, weaklings, in short, a very nightmare of humanity." Though
many are wrecked, others are born deficient, addled or weak, but in our retarded days, morons
must be smart in other ways, and raging monsters are merely oppressed into mayhem or
murder.
ORDER IT NOW
But of course, society does oppress, then and now. Remember that an 18-year-old London was
sentenced to 30 days of hard labor for merely being in a strange city without a hotel
reservation. Another inmate was doing 60 for eating from a trash can, "He had strayed out to
the circus ground, and, being hungry, had made his way to the barrel that contained the refuse
from the table of the circus people. 'And it was good bread,' he often assured me; 'and the
meat was out of sight.' A policeman had seen him and arrested him, and there he was." Well, at
least Americans are no longer locked up for dumpster diving, so there's progress for you, but
then many must still feed from the garbage, with that number rapidly rising.
Though London was a worldwide celebrity at his death in 1916, his fame faded so fast that
Orwell could comment in 1944, "Jack London is one of those border-line writers whose works
might be forgotten altogether unless somebody takes the trouble to revive them."
London's most enduring book may turn out to be The People of the Abyss, his 1903
investigation into the abjectly impoverished of London's East End.
Dressed accordingly, London joined its homeless to see how they survived. With a 58-year-old
carter and a 65-year-old carpenter, London wandered the cold streets, "From the slimy,
spittle-drenched, sidewalk, they were picking up bits of orange peel, apple skin, and grape
stems, and, they were eating them. The pits of greengage plums they cracked between their teeth
for the kernels inside. They picked up stray bits of bread the size of peas, apple cores so
black and dirty one would not take them to be apple cores, and these things these two men took
into their mouths, and chewed them, and swallowed them; and this, between six and seven o'clock
in the evening of August 20, year of our Lord 1902, in the heart of the greatest, wealthiest,
and most powerful empire the world has ever seen."
Having mingled with many homeless in cities across America, I can attest that the food
situation is not as bad in that unraveling empire, but the squalor is just as appalling, if not
worse. A Wall Street Journal headline, "California's Biggest Cities Confront a 'Defecation
Crisis'." There's no need to import public shitting from shitholes, since there's already
plenty of it, homegrown and well-fertilized with smirkingly cynical policies.
Trump, "We can't let Los Angeles, San Francisco and numerous other cities destroy themselves
by allowing what's happening," but he's only talking about the unsightliness of it all, not its
root cause, which is a deliberately wrecked economy that, over decades, has fabulously enriched
his and our masters. This, too, is a controlled demolition.
Ensconced in some leafy suburb, you might be missing this beastly, raving, zonked out and
shitty transformation. Jack London, though, never recoiled from society's diarrhea. My favorite
passage of The People of the Abyss is his account of bathing, so to speak, in a workhouse:
We stripped our clothes, wrapping them up in our coats and buckling our belts about them,
and deposited them in a heaped rack and on the floor -- a beautiful scheme for the spread of
vermin. Then, two by two, we entered the bathroom. There were two ordinary tubs, and this I
know: the two men preceding had washed in that water, we washed in the same water, and it was
not changed for the two men that followed us. This I know; but I am also certain that the
twenty-two of us washed in the same water.
I did no more than make a show of splashing some of this dubious liquid at myself, while I
hastily brushed it off with a towel wet from the bodies of other men. My equanimity was not
restored by seeing the back of one poor wretch a mass of blood from attacks of vermin and
retaliatory scratching.
If other men had to endure that, why shouldn't London, especially since he was trying to
understand these wretches?
Many moons, suns and saturns ago, I taught a writing course at UPenn, and for one
assignment, I asked students to take the subway to a strange stop, get off, walk around and
observe, but don't do it in the dark, I did warn them. Frightened, one girl couldn't get off,
so simply wrote about her very first ride. At least she got a taste of an entirely alien world
beyond campus. Considering that her parents had to cough up over 60 grands annually to consign
her to the Ivy League, they'd probably want to murder me for subjecting their precious to such
needless anxieties.
Cocooned, Americans are oblivious to their own destruction. Screwed, they're fixated by
Pornhub.
London insisted a worldwide class revolution was the answer. A century and several gory
nightmares later, there are those who still cling to this faith, but only in the West. In the
East, even the most ignorant know the survival of his identity and dignity is conterminous with
his nation's. Orwell understood this well. It is the biggest crime to wreck anyone's heritage
in a flash.
In each society, you can begin to right the ship by prosecuting the biggest criminals, with
existing laws, but first, you must have the clarity and courage to identify them.
In the US, at least, this shouldn't be too complicated, for their crimes are mostly out in
the open, and their enforcers appear nightly in your living room, not unlike 1984. As you
watch, they cheerfully lie, silence witnesses, mass murder, squander your last cent and
dismantle, brick by brick, the house your forefathers built and died defending. Even if all
they saw was its basement, it was still their everything.
Lexicologically, Jack London far surpasses Orwell. He mixes erudite and argot. Stylistically
London far surpassed anything Orwell ever came up with. Orwell is a man of unum librum.
Nor would I say Orwell was a better thinker than London. 1984 is partly inspired by the
Iron Heel, an image coined by London in a namesake book.
Reducing London to being a mere "socialist" is moronic.
London is one of those authors whom aesthetes despise, but who- against all odds- stubbornly
refuse to go away. When he wrote about "serious" topics, London was a failure (Burning
Daylight, Martin Eden, ); on the other hand, when he wrote about animals, primitives,
mentally impaired, (white) underclass & quasi-fascist-Darwinian fantasies (most stories
& short novels) -he was an unavoidable writer, one that will be read long after most
canonized authors are just a footnote.
By the way, he was extremely popular even in Czarist Russia, something along the lines of
American vitalism & energy.
Jack London's "The Iron Heel" is another of his fictional stories about the working classes
and in the book he attacks capitalism and promotes socialism while presenting the story of
the US turned into an oligarchy in 1913 (the book was written in 1907). What's interesting
about "The Iron Heel" is that by 1900 it must have been quite obvious as to how the world's
more powerful nations were planning on parceling up the world, and London makes reference to
this in his novel about the future military campaigns that will take place in the book's
dystopian future, and his fiction was not far wrong from what actually transpired in WW1 and
WW2.
After Jack London gained fame he did not work alone, he hired aspiring writers to
"fill-in" his fiction, much like famous painters painting large commissions would hire
subordinates to "fill-in" their canvas after the outline was drawn. The plot and subplots
would come from London, but his underlings would write the stories. At this point in time I
can't remember the names but as I recall a few famous authors got their start working for
Jack London.
London was also cursed with the writer's nemesis, he was an alcoholic, and his
autobiographical novel "John Barleycorn" treats the "demon drink" as one of the world's great
ills. The book being published in 1913, it is noteworthy that the eighteenth amendment
banning alcohol was passed by congress a few years later in 1919, so it could be that London
was at least a minor fulcrum in giving a push to the moral crusade against alcohol being sold
in the US.
Much of Jack London's work is classic like his short story fiction placed in Alaska, "To
Start a Fire" about a man exposed to the elements and slowly freezing to death, or his
fictional tales about being a constable sailing a schooner chasing pirates off the coast of
California. Also unique and thrilling is the short story "A Piece of Steak" about an aging
boxer hoping to win one last fight. These were tough and gritty stories about men at their
extremity, and not tales for children.
London wrote a good tale and he understood human nature, and perhaps that's what motivated
him to become an alcoholic socialist.
@Bardon
Kaldian I enjoyed much of London's works. Although I read many of his books when
young,and I don't remember them too much, they helped inspire me to head north in the very
backyard of Burning Daylight, a best seller in it's day. His portrayal of characters of the
North seem quite believable and his description of the land and it's peculiar traits are also
accurate. The short story 'All Gold Canyon' is spot on for how a prospector prospects.
I read the Jack London Reader (for sale in Chicken, ak) a few years ago and enjoyed it
immensely as I did the Sea Wolf.
Martin Eden is a depressing read. I have only read Animal Farm so I really can't compare.
Depends how much one 'likes' to get disgruntled.
Cocooned, Americans are oblivious to their own destruction. Screwed, they're fixated by
Pornhub.
Funny, all I ever read on the Internet these days are articles about America's
destruction. This article's another one. Yet according to some pouty guy on the other side of
the planet, we're oblivious.
And Pornhub is #32 according to Alexa. That's really high, but 31 websites precede it.
I've never visited Pornhub, and I'd bet neither have 9 out of 10 Americans. Eliminate kids
under 10, adults over 80, most women, and all those without Internet access, and you're left
with a core of certain primetime lusty guys who are comfortable with pornography. Couldn't be
more than 10%.
It'd be wonderful if we could have a single calendar day, say October 21, when everyone
declares a moratorium on blithely shitting on America. Or is this part of the Jewish strategy
to keep us divided and unhappy?
"London was also a newsboy, longshoreman, roustabout, window washer, jute mill grunt, carpet
cleaner and electrician" and – not least – SPORTSWRITER!John Griffith Chaney
packed a lot of experience into his short forty year span on this wretched earth but his
stint on the Oakland Herald & later sports writing – especially about surfing
– are some of his best & consistent with his own fiery enjoyment of active outdoor
sports. Perhaps best summed up in his aphorism:"I would rather be ashes than dust." London
was not known for being a soccer fan but nonetheless, he would probably still be pleased to
know that there is in his hometown today a very large & thriving Jack London Youth Soccer
League. Anybody's guess how long it will be before the Woke Folk in town try to shut it down
for being named after a 'white supremacist'.
Eric Arthur Blair had a similarly short stay in this world – only seven more years than
London – but didn't much share his enthusiasm for the sporting life. Orwell was quite
candid in his rejection of the world's favorite past time, explaining in an essay: "I loathed
the game, and since I could see no pleasure or usefulness in it, it was very difficult for me
to show courage at it. Football, it seemed to me, is not really played for the pleasure of
kicking a ball about, but is a species of fighting." Orwell was even more pointed in a London
Tribune op-ed during his early newspaper days, commenting on a recent series of matches
between a Russian & English clubs, " the games cult did not start till the later part of
the last century. Dr Arnold, generally regarded as the founder of the modern public school,
looked on games as simply a waste of time. Then, chiefly in England and the United States,
games were built up into a heavily-financed activity, capable of attracting vast crowds and
rousing savage passions, and the infection spread from country to country. It is the most
violently combative sports, football and boxing, that have spread the widest. There cannot be
much doubt that the whole thing is bound up with the rise of nationalism -- that is, with the
lunatic modern habit of identifying oneself with large power units and seeing everything in
terms of competitive prestige."
"Orwell understood this well. It is the biggest crime to wreck anyone's heritage in a
flash."
Or beat their national team. Go Golden Dragons!
When I read about a woman dying from a rooster attack, or people falling to their death to
take selfies, or the growing number of hikers who venture out into semi- wilderness with
their cell phones but not adequate water, I always think of London's "To Build a Fire."
If London observed man's diminished capacity to measure and survive nature in his era,
what would he make of any airport or street today? Like the parasite creature in "Alien",
phones are stuck to every face encountered. Most people are not "present" in any sense when
in the public sphere now, let alone taking note of the world around them.
Great essay. I made it a point to visit Jack London's ranch on a California visit. The ranch
was a huge unfulfilled project with the sad burnt out ruins of his dream house reminding us
of his grand plans. The condition of his grown-over untended grave startled me. I find it
interesting that many men of that time viewed socialism as a panacea; however, the intellect,
ambition and energy of a man like Jack London would never have survived the ideology he
espoused.
@Paul Did
you see the "Trotsky" miniseries on Netflix? It was in Russian with English subtitles, but I
enjoyed reading them all and found it riveting. It appeared to be historically accurate to
someone like me who knows little of Russian history. Trotsky (born Lev Bronstein) was a
Ukrainian Jew who cared little for how many Russians he killed. I guess Ukies hated Russians
even back then.
In each society, you can begin to right the ship by prosecuting the biggest criminals,
with existing laws, but first, you must have the clarity and courage to identify them.
This is why I don't get your disgust at President Trump. He has the will and the position
to do just as you recommend and he would do it if the ruling class weren't trying to cut him
off at the knees 24-7. Trump is the people's first successful attempt to drive the destroyers
from the forum. I fear for coming generations if he doesn't.
@simple_pseudonymic_handle
Nathaniel Hawthorne
Herman Melville
Walt Whitman
Mark Twain
Stephen Crane
T.S. Eliot
Henry James
Tennessee Williams
Saul Bellow
John Updike
I wish the author would have done an analysis of London's "Iron Heel." I just read it for
the first time, and what he was writing about 100 years ago on the dominance of the
"oligarchs", i.e., the "iron heel" rings as true today as it did back then.
Curious also how he died so suddenly. There is a YouTube video of him at his ranch looking
as healthy as can be only a couple of days before he mysteriously died.
@AaronB
An empire exploits and abuses all natives, including those of its host nation. Just think of
how they must send these natives to foreign lands, not just to kill, but die. It's better to
be a house slave than a field one, however, so many far flung subjects of the empire will try
to sneak into the house. It's also safer there, generally. Except for rare instances, as in
9/11, the empire won't blow up natives inside its borders.
"... The conservative movement's unwholesome obsession with Israel is not an entirely organic obsession to be sure. There is a whole lot of dark kosher oligarch money lurking behind the neoconservative cause, Christian Zionism, and the Reagan/Zioboomer battalion ..."
"... there is something awfully peculiar, almost disturbing about the old guard's infatuation with Israel. I mean, why are American boomers so concerned about the Jewish state and its survival? How exactly does a tiny apartheidesque ethnostate half-way around the world affect their everyday lives? Are they simply mind-slaves to a mainstream media dominated by powerful Jews and powerful Jewish interest groups? Is this all really about scripture as Christian radio likes to contend? Or is there something else afoot here? Well, in short, there is. ..."
"... White Westerners, white Americans in particular, are a thoroughly vassalized, deracinated people. We aren't allowed to celebrate our own race's host of historic accomplishments anymore. That would be racist. We aren't allowed to put our own people first either, as all other peoples do. That would likewise be racist. White Western peoples aren't even allowed to have nations of our own any longer, nations which exist to advance our interests, and which are populated by and overseen by people like us, who share our interests and our attitudes. That also would be, you guessed it, racist. Our very existence is increasingly little more than an unfortunate, racist obstacle to a brighter, more diverse future, in the eyes of the Cultural Marxist sociopaths who rule the Western World. Needless to say, most white Americans would rather be dead than racist, and so we are naturally, quite literally dying as a result. ..."
"... The white American psyche has been tamed, broken as it were. Ziocucking is a symptom of that psychic injury. ..."
"... White Americans can not, they must not, stake claim to an identity or a future of their own, so they have essentially committed themselves to another people's identity and future instead of their own. ..."
"... Actually, Donald Trump's electoral victory is at least partially attributable to a very similar psychological phenomenon. White Americans, who have largely lost the self-confidence to stand behind their traditions and convictions, still had the gumption to vote for a man who possesses in oodles and cringy oodles, the self-same self-confidence they lack. White Americans are thus engaged in an almost unstated, indirect, vicarious defiance of Cultural Marxism via Trump/Trumpism, a tangible, albeit somewhat incoherent, symbol of open revolt against Western elites. The repressed group will of whites is longing for an authentic medium of civilizational expression, but can only find two-bit demagoguery and Israel worship. The weather is not fair in the white, Western mind. ..."
"... After all, the birthrates of Jews in Israel are at well above replacement level . Israelis are optimistic about the future. As whites in the West fall on their proverbial sword to atone for their racist past, Jews in Israel are thriving. ..."
"... that unwholesome obsession will not dissipate until whites reclaim their own history, rediscover their roots, learn to take their own side, and demand a place in the planet's future (yes, I said demand , ..."
"... Until whites have a story and a spirit of their own, they will only, and can only, live through the identities and triumphs of other races. And perhaps most critically, they will continue to be a ghost people on the march to extinction. ..."
The conservative movement's unwholesome obsession with Israel is not an entirely organic
obsession to be sure. There is a whole lot of dark kosher oligarch money lurking behind the
neoconservative cause, Christian Zionism, and the Reagan/Zioboomer battalion. Nevertheless,
whether organic or not, the boomer generation's excessive regard for Israel is today authentic
and undeniable. A strong fealty to Israel is deeply entrenched amongst boomer-generation
conservatives. Indeed, when it comes to defending Israel and its conduct, many of these types
are like samurais on meth. They don't seem to care at all if their entire state or city should
devolve into a semi-anarchic New Somalia, but god forbid some Somali congresswoman should
lambaste the sacred Jewish state. That simply can't be countenanced here in the land of the
free!
Mind you, this article is not meant to constitute a polemic against Israel, or Jewish
ethnopolitics for that matter. The BDS movement is just as wrongheaded as Ziocuckoldry, in my
humble opinion. Although there is much wrong with Israel, there is plenty right with it as
well. Despite what the modern left may believe, there is nothing inherently illegitimate about
a state like Israel, one rooted in history, in genes, in religion, and in race. States built
around a shared ethnicity or a shared religion (or, as in Israel's case, an ample helping of
both) are generally more stable and successful than diverse societies erected upon propositions
most people and peoples don't really accept, or leftist values that have ideological quicksand
for their foundations.
With that said, there is something awfully peculiar, almost disturbing about the old guard's infatuation with Israel. I
mean, why are American boomers so concerned about the Jewish state and its survival? How exactly does a tiny apartheidesque ethnostate half-way around the world
affect their everyday lives? Are they simply mind-slaves to a mainstream media dominated by
powerful Jews and powerful Jewish interest groups? Is this all really about scripture as
Christian radio likes to contend? Or is there something else afoot here? Well, in short, there
is.
White Westerners, white Americans in particular, are a thoroughly vassalized, deracinated
people. We aren't allowed to celebrate our own race's host of historic accomplishments anymore.
That would be racist. We aren't allowed to put our own people first either, as all other
peoples do. That would likewise be racist. White Western peoples aren't even allowed to have
nations of our own any longer, nations which exist to advance our interests, and which are
populated by and overseen by people like us, who share our interests and our attitudes. That
also would be, you guessed it, racist. Our very existence is increasingly little more than an
unfortunate, racist obstacle to a brighter, more diverse future, in the eyes of the Cultural
Marxist sociopaths who rule the Western World. Needless to say, most white Americans would
rather be dead than racist, and so we are naturally, quite literally dying as a result.
The white American psyche has been tamed, broken as it were. Ziocucking is a symptom of that
psychic injury. Because white boomers possess no group/tribal identity any longer, or
collective will, or sense of race pride, or civilizational prospects, because they have been enserfed by a viciously anti-white Cultural Marxist overclass, they have opted to live
vicariously through another race. White Americans can not, they must not, stake claim to an
identity or a future of their own, so they have essentially committed themselves to another
people's identity and future instead of their own. Indeed, just as the cuckold doesn't
merely permit another man to penetrate his wife, but actually takes a kind of perverse pleasure
in the pleasure of that other man, in large measure by fetishizing his dominance and sexual
prowess, the Ziocuck likewise doesn't merely allow his civilization to be debased, he takes an
equally perverse pleasure in the triumphs of other peoples and nations, and by so doing
imagines, mistakenly of course, that America itself is still as free and proud a nation as
those foreign nations he fetishizes.
Actually, Donald Trump's electoral victory is at least partially attributable to a very
similar psychological phenomenon. White Americans, who have largely lost the self-confidence to
stand behind their traditions and convictions, still had the gumption to vote for a man who
possesses in oodles and cringy oodles, the self-same self-confidence they lack. White Americans
are thus engaged in an almost unstated, indirect, vicarious defiance of Cultural Marxism via
Trump/Trumpism, a tangible, albeit somewhat incoherent, symbol of open revolt against Western
elites. The repressed group will of whites is longing for an authentic medium of civilizational
expression, but can only find two-bit demagoguery and Israel worship. The weather is not fair
in the white, Western mind.
Through this sordid, vicarious identitarianism, threats to Jewish lives become threats to
their own white lives. Jewish interests become tantamount to their own interests. It is a sad
sight to behold anyhow, a people with no sense of dignity or shame, too cowed by political
correctness to stand up for their own group interests, too brainwashed to love themselves, too
reprogrammed to be themselves, idolizing alien peoples. Nevertheless, the need for belonging in
place, time, and history, and for collective purpose, doesn't just go away because Western
elites say being white signifies nothing but "hate". As white civilization aborts and hedonizes
itself into extinction, as whites practice suicidal altruism and absolute racial denialism,
atomized white individuals seek out other histories, other stories, other peoples to attach
themselves to and project themselves onto.
White Americans have thus foolishly come to see their own destiny as inseparable from the
destiny of a people whose destiny they don't really share.
After all, the birthrates of Jews in Israel are at well above replacement level .
Israelis are optimistic
about the future. As whites in the West fall on their proverbial sword to atone for their
racist past, Jews in Israel are thriving.
As whites in America suffer from various epidemics of despair , their fellow white
Americans seem more interested in the imaginary plight of Israelis who can't stop winning
military skirmishes, embarrassing their Arab enemies, and unlawfully acquiring land and
resources in the Levant. The actual, visceral plight of their own people seems almost an
afterthought to most white Americans. The whole affair is frankly bizarre and shameful.
This peculiar psychological phenomenon of vicarious identitarianism is at least partially
responsible for the Zioboomer's undying devotion to Israel. Furthermore, that unwholesome
obsession will not dissipate until whites reclaim their own history, rediscover their roots,
learn to take their own side, and demand a place in the planet's future (yes, I said
demand , since the white race's many enemies have no intention of saving a place for
them or willingly handing them a say in that future). Until whites have a story and a spirit of
their own, they will only, and can only, live through the identities and triumphs of other
races. And perhaps most critically, they will continue to be a ghost people on the march to
extinction.
A related phenomenon is Russia-cucking. White American conservatives who have seen through
Jewish bullshit often seem to conclude that the racial predicament in America is hopeless, so
they switch to Russia-cucking. Being pro-Russia is obviously more sensible than being
pro-Israel, but it's nationalism by proxy all the same.
A presentation and reading by Hamilton Gregory, author of "McNamara's Folly: The Use of
Low-IQ Troops in the Vietnam." Because so many college students were avoiding military service
during the Vietnam War, Defense Secretary Robert McNamara lowered mental standards to induct
354,000 low-IQ men. they were known as McNamara's "Moron Corps." Their death toll in combat was
appalling. Gregory indicates at the end of his talk that the situation didn't really change.
The same practice is taking place nowadays.
England patriot says:
September
24, 2019 at 5:27 pm GMT 100 Words A lot of people mistake low IQ brutishness for genuine
bravery and strength, which is why blacks are considered by many whites to be the toughest race
and probably why they are favoured by the military.
A big weakness of the US and UK militaries is the assumption that street thugs make the most
effective and capable troops, in reality such people are often the most useless and cowardly in
an actual war zone. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All
Comments
The story is definitely true. Not only were there low moron troops but even the so called
West Point graduates with no experience in war were complete idiots. It was a two fold fiasco
because these graduates couldn't read coordinates on maps and the morons couldn't find them
and thus they often bombed our own troops.
There were a lot "friendly fire" deaths that were never reported. The carnage of Vietnam
was a disgrace from poor military strategies to morons and incompetents running them. We were
not prepared for the "Jungle Type Gorilla War" our leaders got us into and the results are
told forever on the Vietnam Memorial in Washington. What did they die for? Another
"Communist" are taking over Domino Policy when the true Communist Jews were running the stuff
in the USA and destroying us.
Two destroyers were recently collided into by slow-moving merchant ships. Someone said that
this is like a Chevy Corvette being struck by a bulldozer on the Bonneville Salt Flats while
a team of trained experts had the job of keeping the Corvette from being hit.
@A123
Any civilization that sends their Best and Brightest to the front lines is taking huge risks.
Cannon fodder troops generally come (and should come) from the lower tiers of society. This
promotes a nation's long-term health and vitality.
There is no starvation–only fasting–during Ramadan. Fasting occurs each day
from sunrise to sundown. On the other hand, Israel's high fertility rates among Orthodox and
Sephardic Jews has dysgenics written all over it. This explains why Israel's average IQ
average remains below 100. Highly religious and less-intelligent Jews are producing a
disproportionate number of the births inside Israel.
It's a lesson the US could've learned back in World War II. The US deployed black troops in
France, and instead of proving that the blacks were just as capable fighters as the whites,
the blacks engaged in typical black behavior of rape and thievery. It got so bad in areas
like Cherbourg that the local population preferred the Germans over their supposed
'liberators'.
The same thing happened earlier in the war when the Allies deployed Moroccan mercenaries
in Italy.
After the battle of Monte Cassino, these savages could rape Italian women with impunity, they
wouldn't be stopped by the French, the British or indeed the Americans, and as a result more
than 30.000 Italian women became victims of these vicious assaults.
But I bet it was all in good faith of course, after all the US was making Europe safe for
stali I mean, 'democracy'
Politicians did not want the war to become an issue among the affluent. It was the old adage
about wars: "Rich men start them; poor men fight them." There were plenty of chicken hawks
around.
The article and comments, so far, are interesting.
A military is a tool of the ruling class/caste/layer/whatever. What is moronic, or not, is
for them to decide. The only principle: is the tool good for the job?
There are several very good reasons to have "low-level IQ" troops in the military, a
modern war/combat in particular.
In an infantry company of, say, 160 men, a smart O.C. would love to have 10-20 of those
types. Plenty of jobs/assignments for them and definitely attributing to combat efficiency of
the unit.
Even better in logistics, especially in higher units/rear areas. Comparison:
warehouse/storage facilities employees in civvy street.
BTW, those guys, if/when properly treated (LEADERSHIP) can be utterly loyal and
dependable. For "experts" around, there are plenty of miserable, mind-numbing jobs/tasks in
the military, plus quite dangerous, which those guys shall do when others won't. If .treated
properly
And, one more element, especially in contemporary wars: certain moral attitude, "relaxed"
approach to human life and limb etc. Ability to commit acs of war other, more, say, smart,
"sensitive" troops, are reluctant to do.
Israel. IDF as the state tool to keep Palestinians under control.
Occupation forces of The Empire in Afghanistan and Iraq.
And one more thing: for suppressing possible internal unrest in a Western country ..For
that job you really don't want very intelligent/sensitive people.
Etc.
Big topic but, of course, not for this thread, for obvious reasons. Program.
Sorry for the interruption, guys. Feel free to resume the "bashing".
Infantry in Vietnam was known to be awful. Everyone in the military knew to avoid it. It was
openly used as a threat for non-compliance to troops elsewhere.
There were certainly exceptions. Some Marines, people wanting or needing to get their
ticket punched, etc. But before anything, Vietnam Infantry was getting the dregs. Not that I
doubt McNamera leaned into it as an opportunity.
Why in the world did they want or need all these troops? Westmorland kept asking for more
and more. After 500,000, per the pentagon papers, the JCS mood Westmorland that given US
presence in Europe, Japan, Korea, etc., there were no more extra troops.
Too bad that the US military has made a cottage industry out of revisionist accounts
regarding how it could have been "won". Showing a remarkable lack of insight into what it
means to win.
@A123
Interesting to see how a conniving Jew takes a piece about Vietnam and uses it to further his
objective of trying (quite unsuccessfully, one infers) to generate sympathy for the
Judenreich. He then doubles down with a further tangent leading somehow to Ramadan (!) It's
almost comical how transparent Jew scheming has become. It makes one wonder if the Hasbara
brigades have had to go low-IQ at this point?
Both in terms of IQ and class background, infantry in Vietnam were generally
representative of the general population. As one author assessed, "If they [soldiers in
combat units] were not the social and intellectual cream of American youth, neither were they
its dregs or castoffs."
nI saw the author of the book give at talk. I believe it was at a Tennessee Unversity. What
he described he saw as an enlisted man if I remember correctly. He was sent to OCS later and
sounded a very decent man. The conditions were awful for these guys. They were treated as
expendable by peers and officers alike.
I wonder how the IDF works this issue out. The Israelis are masters of the universe at
everything don't you know. They are utter geniuses.
All this brouhaha over Russiagate and to think that in the end it
was Ukraine that did it
Anyhow:
I am pretty sure this is a trap (for the Dems), who are initiating impeachment without even
knowing what's on the damn transcript.
It will be nice to see some questions on how exactly Hunter Biden was given a position at
Ukraine's natural gas monopoly with a monthly salary of $50,000 (in a country where the average
wage is two orders of magnitude lower) while daddy campaigned against Ukrainian corruption.
Perhaps there'll even be some good opportunities for knowledge about the Maidan false flag
to seep into the US, discourse though I'll believe it when I see it.
I do not know where the Dems are going with this. To actually get Trump out of office would
require a 2/3 majority of the senate to vote for conviction do the Dems really think there's
any set of circumstances under which they get those votes? Impeachment itself is nothing more
than "bringing charges." Bill Clinton was impeached; he still finished his term.
4D chess: the Dem establishment wants to knock off Biden and they think any extended
investigation into this Ukraine stuff may bring him down. But it could backfire: Biden still
ends up the nominee but Trump uses any dirt unearthed to portray him as a corrupt
wheeler-dealer, thereby weakening Biden's campaign.
a monthly salary of $50,000 (in a country where the average wage is two orders of
magnitude lower)
FWIW, the New York Times report suggests Hunter Biden's monthly salary for this cushy
position fluctuated, and that $50,000 was the maximum he ever received for his
services in any given month.
I wonder, if they had salary information, why not publish the full total? e.g., it could
have been [to make up a plausible number] $1,500,000 over his five years in that role (ca.
May 2014 to April 2019), ranging from $10,000 to $50,000 a month.
What would a Ukrainian look like who makes a salary as high as – one –
order of magnitude lower than Hunter Biden made for his Ukraine consulting work?
Someone made an English wiki page on Ukraine salaries:
According to that page, the salary avg. in Kiev was at 11,400 hryvnia/month in mid 2017,
while most other oblasts were at 6-7,000 hryvnia/month.
The exchange rate to USD
(nominal) in the period Sept. 2015 to Sept. 2019 has fluctuated between 21 and 29 hryvnia to
1 USD, which yields, covering the exchange rate range:
– avg. Kiev salary: something between $400 and $540/month [USD]
– avg. non-Kiev salary: something between $210 and $335/month [USD]
But the PPP-to-nominal spread for Ukraine suggests a more accurate view, when viewing the
figures in USD as above, would mean multiplying each by about 3x or even 3.33x.
So it looks like a lower-rung Kiev professional making ~1.5x to 1.75x the Kiev avg.
monthly salary, when that salary-figure is pushed up by PPP, is able to make, in one year,
what Hunter Biden may have made in a typical (not peak) month.
Your work concentrates on Jewish guilt. There is another side of it that should be
considered: Jewish strategy has, at least since the end of the Napoleonic Wars, been good for
the Jewish financial oligarchy.
The current position of Jewish financial oligarchy worldwide is highly precarious. The
only Jewish state is small and surrounded on all sides by either sea or states that range
from hostile to at best neutral. States with nuclear weapons are among its fairly close
adversaries. Stability of the area depends on the United States, a Christian power (even yet)
that is severely weakened by two decades of war [1]. Jewish populations in the Middle East
are gone, and Christian populations in the area have been severely diminished in number.
Further, the population expansion that has been required to retain control of the Israeli
government by equaling the Arab birth rate has resulted in a very large highly religious
Jewish population that apparently is supported by welfare and believes so strongly in the
power of God that it relies on divine intervention for physical security and won't join the
IDF.
The only society that tolerates Judaism, Christianity, has been severely weakened
worldwide. It is being replaced by societies that in some cases do not tolerate Judaism and
in other cases treat Judaism as one of a number of competitors for foreign market dominant
minority.
During many years of writing about or describing the terrible damage that the "special
relationship" with Israel has done to the United States the question occasionally comes up
"Given the enormous power of the Zionist lobby, what can we do to bring about change?"
It is a simple question, though one that begs for multiple answers, but it also requires
some thinking about how the Establishment, better known as the Deep State, operates in America.
The American Deep State, which has as one of its dearest principles eternal nurturing of
Israel's interests, is actually a bundle of individual enterprises that together operate to
sustain policies that are mutually beneficial. Its epicenters include financial services and
faux news media in New York and the political hub in Washington, but it also is served by
Hollywood's entertainment plus propaganda machine.
And the three parts of the Deep State are essentially interchangeable, with generals and
intelligence figures ignorant of finance winding up in the KKR Global investment firm as has
General David Petraeus and Michael Morell in Beacon Global Strategies, while leading
representatives from Wall Street do a turn in government, particularly at the Treasury
Department. Television news and entertainment also feature celebrities from across the
Establishment while Hollywood draws on all of the above and works hard to make sure the
contrived narrative about American democracy and its wonderful "allies" is promoted at every
opportunity.
Which brings us to the Israel Lobby which is an integral part of the Deep State and in some
ways one of its most powerful elements as it has a foot in all the other components plus depth
that enables it to interfere in American government at the federal, state and local levels. It
is indisputably the driving force behind U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East and even beyond
as it enforces standards on alleged anti-Semitism and engages in Lawfare and other shady
practices to protect the Jewish state. It differs somewhat from other parts of the
Establishment in that it pretends to have no such power at all, a fiction that it preserves by
pretending that its actions are all in defense of U.S. national security against evil nations
like Iran. From the Lobby's expressed point of view, Israeli and American interests just happen
to coincide.
By some estimates, there are 600 Jewish organizations active in the United States that have
at least as part of their raison d'etre the defense of Israel and Israeli interests.
They are supplemented by Christian Zionist groups like Christians United for Israel (CUFI) that
claims seven million supporters. The leading predominantly Jewish organizations like the
American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and the Foundation for Defense of Democracies
(FDD) are largely funded by Jewish oligarchs and exist to promote Israeli interests, to include
pressuring the United States into attacking Iran.
The Israel Lobby groups are awash in money, with AIPAC alone having an annual budget of more
than $100 million and 200 employees, who are able to blanket Capitol Hill and actually write
legislation for lazy congressmen. The salary and benefits of its Executive Director Howard Kohr
exceed $1 million. Against that, no organization critical of the Israeli relationship has
resources sufficient to do anything beyond surviving at a basic level and trying to get the
message out.
So what to do? First of all, there is Congress. Pat Buchanan once referred to Congress as
"enemy occupied territory." He was referring to the Israel Lobby's ability not only to control
the discussion on the Middle East but also to focus its efforts to defeat any congressman who
dared criticize the Jewish state. Politicians like Paul Findley, Chuck Percy, William
Fulbright, Pete McCloskey, James Traficant and Cynthia McKinney, who were brave enough to stand
up against Israel, found themselves out of a job after confronting well-funded and media
supported opponents at reelection time, sending the message that it was career ending to do
so.
That would suggest that it must be regarded as a given that congressmen and women will be
terrified of saying the wrong thing about Israel, but the reality is not quite so simple. I
have had numerous contacts with congressmen through the years, first by way of government
Congressional Delegations (CODELS) when I was overseas with CIA, and more recently in
Washington at various conferences and meetings. A quite surprising percentage of legislators
were privately quite willing to express their dislike of Israel and its policies, though none
of them were brave enough to go public with such sentiments. Some of them even expressed their
desire to see the Israel Lobby effectively destroyed because of its corruption of America's
institutions, surely an admirable viewpoint.
That means that there is an audience in Congress even if it is essentially passive. American
citizens who wish to become involved but are disdainful of getting active in political
campaigns or in even dealing with congressmen should recall Plato's warning that "Those who are
too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber." A good
friend of mine from California who has worked the congressional circuit on Palestinian issues,
most recently in backing the
Congresswoman Betty McCollum bill opposing Israel's military detention of children,
believes that it is necessary to be persistent to get through. She calls her congressman and
tries to set up an appointment to discuss the Middle East, saying that she is available
whenever there is an opening in the schedule and is even willing to fly to Washington if that
works best. When she is predictably put off, she persists, calling again and again until she
gets an appointment. The appointment itself is usually with a staffer, but when she gets to the
office she pushes again for another meeting, this time with the congressman. She repeats the
process as necessary.
One might argue that one woman meeting with one congressman has virtually no impact, which
may on the surface be true, but it reflects a failure to understand how congress works. If that
same congressman gets twenty-five calls on one issue, it is highlighted by the staff and the
congressional office begins to pay attention. If there are a hundred calls it is treated
seriously. Surely in every congressional district in the U.S. there are one hundred activists
willing to bug congress on the issue of the Israel relationship and the wars and devastation
that it has brought. If everyone angry about Israel were to call his or her congressmen there
would be a panic on Capitol Hill to be sure, but major unrest over the lopsided and dangerous
relationship is exactly what is needed.One particular subject to raise with congressmen is the
issue of Zionist foundations' apparent immunity from having to register as foreign agents under
the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) of 1938. Russian media outlets have been forced to
comply even though they are in no position to advance policies favorable to Moscow. The Israel
Lobby, which even writes legislation favorable to its most favored nation, is only exempted
because congress and the White House fear confronting Jewish power.
For activists who identify with the political parties, in a like fashion putting pressure on
delegates to next year's nominating conventions would also be desirable. While the Republican
Party's hawkish representatives would almost certainly be difficult to approach in that
fashion, the Democrats could prove to be much more susceptible. There has been considerable
criticism of Israel surfacing among the Democratic base, not just from the "Squad in Congress,"
most of which is now more sympathetic to the Palestinians than to the Israeli occupiers. An
uprising by the party faithful demanding an open discussion of the blank check support for
Israel is not inconceivable and it would really shake up the status quo .
The same basic formula works with the media. Send in one letter-to-the-editor criticizing
Israel and you will be ignored. Send in letter after letter and one piece might eventually
appear. If one hundred newspaper subscribers are sending in letters, the editorial staff will
begin to take notice. This has, in fact, been a development in the mainstream media over the
past five years. Disenchantment with Benjamin Netanyahu and the horror that he represents has
been growing, so much so that the genie is out of the bottle regarding Israeli "democracy." As
a result, it is now possible to read op-eds and editorials highly critical of Israel even in
Jewish-owned Establishment pillars like The New York Times . But much, much more of the
same is needed.
Finally, people who want to be freed from the Israeli yoke should support organizations that
are seeking to do just that and have been in the front line of the struggle. There is my own
Council for the National
Interest as well as If Americans
Knew , The Washington Report and
IRMEP just for starters, supplementing the
activity of a number of groups that focus on Palestinian rights. Sites like the Ron Paul Institute and Antiwar are also excellent sources of information.
All such organizations do benefit from the support of activists who are willing to speak up
and protest over the brutal behavior of the Israeli government, particularly as the Israel
Lobby has turned the United States into a co-conspirator for the Jewish state's war crimes. All
the groups are active in holding seminars and speaking events nationwide, information which can
be obtained from their websites.
So, the message is that the Israel Lobby is powerful but it is not invulnerable. We have to
keep pounding on congress, the political parties and the media if we are ever to be unshackled
from the Israeli monster. We have to do it and even more because the very future of our country
and what kind of nation we will be is at stake.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest,
a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a
more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is https://councilforthenationalinterest.org,
address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is[email protected] .
Most of the surprising material presented here is hardly hidden or kept under
lock-and-key. Nearly all the books are easily available at Amazon or even freely readable
on the Internet, many of the authors have received critical and scholarly acclaim, and in
some cases their works have sold in the millions. Yet this important material has been
almost entirely ignored or dismissed by the popular media that shapes the common beliefs of
our society. So we must necessarily begin to wonder what other massive falsehoods may have
been similarly promoted by that media, perhaps involving incidents of the recent past or
even the present day. And those latter events do have enormous practical significance.
Being the Guardian, of course, their prescription is that people should make a more
sincere effort to support the Reporters of Truth, such as the Guardian. In their retrograde
Left vs Right world, it's still up to the 'goodthinkers' to preserve our liberties from the
Boris Johnsons and Donald Trumps of the world. Never in a million years would they entertain
the possibility that Johnsons and Trumps come about because the Establishment–most
certainly including its MSM lackeys–is corrupt to its core.
As the Washington Post has it, "Democracy Dies in Darkness" -- neglecting to add, "We
supply the Darkness."
Sigal Mandelker ,
the Zionist Under Secretary of the Treasury in charge of enforcing sanctions and boycotts,
was one of the high-ranking Department of Justice officials who signed off on the
nonprosecution agreement with Jeffrey Epstein in 2008.
Was she the one who told Acosta to back off on Epstein, as he belonged to intelligence and
was above Acosta's pay grade?
Once again, the contest appears to be coming down to a choice between a "centrist"
establishmentarian corporatist with institutional backing (Joe Biden) and a left-leaning
populist progressive (Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders) preferred by Democrats, of whom 3 out
of 4 voters self-identify as progressives.
In 2016, the Democratic National Committee smooshed their thumbs all over the scale,
brazenly cheating the insurgent progressive Sanders so they could install their preferred
choice, the right-leaning Hillary Clinton. They won the battle but lost the war. Fewer than 80%
of Democrats who supported Bernie in the primaries voted for Hillary in the general election.
Disgruntled progressive voters -- especially those who sat at home on Election Day -- cost her
the race.
... If anything, Biden is even less appealing to the progressive base than Hillary
was
Warren sounded good when she said "let's break up the banks" but of course she sold out her
economic common sense to the Dem's corporate masters and had to embrace hard-core lefty
identity politics as a poor substitute.
wake up mr rall the democratic party is not monolithic and is in real likelihood of
disintegrating over the next few years into 2 parties: the hillary clinton democrats (in
reality part of the uniparty repubocrats) nad the progressive democrats who are obviously
unable to swallow any longer the fascism that IS the uniparty.
should trump be re elected i fully expect the democrats to split into 2 factions but still
use democrat in the name in whole or in part.
It has been 17 days since a four-year study of the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7
by civil engineers was made available to the media. The study concluded that fire was not the
cause of the collapse of the 47-story building. The study also concluded that "the collapse of
WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the
building."
https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2019/09/04/the-official-story-of-the-collapse-of-wtc-building-7-lies-in-ruins/
In other words, the study concludes that the building was intentionally destroyed by
controlled demolition. Controlled demolition means that there was a plan to destroy the
building and that access to the building inhabited by a number of US security agencies was
permitted in order to wire the building for demolition. This finding is consistent with what
the owner of the World Trade Center, Silverstein, said on television, that the decision was
made "to pull" the building.
"... Margolis also says the KSA's US made air defences "failed" to protect their oil installations. This maybe so. But apart from the fact that their air defences are orientated away from Yemen there's a good chance the defences were turned OFF -- apparently this is common practice in the KSA, esp on weekends. I don't believe that Margolis's "mystery" is anywhere as deep as he suggests. The Houthis have received weapons & training from Iran/Hezbollah & have demonstrated an ability to hit KSA targets with unmanned aerial weapons. ..."
"... Until better evidence appears, I'm willing to give it to the Houthis -- if for no other reason than that they deserve to get in some good licks against that vile "Kingdom" (I'd suggest they next hit the water purification plants that serve Riyadh with all its water – apparently, the city has about 3 days of water stored. Evacuating 6 million from the Capital, the Sauds would be exposed as the corrupt, negligent, incompetent, stupid, vicious frauds we all know they are. ..."
"... These Hawks are under delusional assumption that an American led war against Iran would be a "Cakewalk" ..."
"... What they do know for sure is that the military industrial complex will increase its budget during and after such a war. Follow the money! ..."
Who Launched That Mystery Attack? Eric Margolis September 21, 2019 700 Words
14 CommentsReply Email This
Page to Someone
Remember My Information
=>
◄►◄►▲▼
Remove from Library B Show Comment Next New
Comment Next New Reply Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread
Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public
Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to
recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information'
checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour. Email Comment Ignore Commenter Follow
Commenter Add to Library
Bookmark Toggle All ToC ▲▼ Search
Text Case Sensitive
Exact Words
Include Comments
Search Clear Cancel
List of
Bookmarks
The Mideast has its own variety of crazy humor. The Saudis have been blasting and bombing
wretched Yemen, one of this world's poorest nations, since 2015.
These US-supported attacks and a naval blockade of Yemen imposed by Saudi Arabia and its
sidekick ally, the United Arab Emirates, have caused mass starvation. No one knows how many
Yemenis have died or are currently starving. Estimates run from 250,000 to one million.
The black humor? The Saudis just claimed they were victims of Iranian `aggression' this past
week after the kingdom's leading oil treatment facility at Abqaiq was hit by a flight of armed
drones or cruise missiles. The usual American militarists, now led by State Secretary Mike
Pompeo after the demented warmonger, John Bolton, was finally fired, are calling for military
retaliation against Iran even though the attack was claimed by Yemen's Shia Houthi
movement.
This drama came at roughly the same time that Israel's prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, a
close ally of US president Donald Trump, vowed to annex Palestine's entire Jordan Valley if
elected. Not a peep of protest came from the US, which recently blessed Netanyahu's annexation
of Syria's Golan Heights while scourging Russia's leader, Vladimir Putin, for annexing Crimea
– a Russian possession for over 300 years.
I studied US photos of the damaged Saudi oil installations. Its oil tanks appear to be
precisely hit at the same place. After the attack, the Saudis claimed half of their oil
production was knocked out; but a day later, they vowed production would be resumed within a
week. Parts of so-called drones were shown that appeared way beyond the technological
capabilities of Yemen or even Iran. The missiles may have been supplied by Ukraine.
The Saudis, like their patron in Washington, have a poor record for truthfulness. Remember
the Saudi denials about the murder of journalist and Saudi critic Jamal Khashoggi? More
important, we have been waiting for more false flag attacks in the Gulf designed to justify a
US attack on Iran.
The pattern of so-called drone attacks against the Saudi oil installations is just too neat
and symmetrical. The Israelis have a strong interest in promoting a US-Saudi War. The attacks
in Saudi came ironically right after the anniversary of 9/11 that plunged the US into war
against large parts of the Muslim world.
As a long-time military observer, I find it very hard to believe that drones could be guided
over such long distances and so accurately without aircraft or satellites to guide them. In
Yemen, which is just creeping into the 12th century, changing a flat tire is a major
technological achievement. To date, Iran's missile arsenal has poor reliability and major
guidance problems.
Adding to the questions, the Saudis have spent billions on US-made air defense systems. They
failed to protect the oil installations. The Saudis would have been better off buying air
defenses from the Russians, at a quarter of the US selling price.
ORDER IT NOW
Trump at least showed some wisdom by so far rejecting demands from the neocons that surround
him to launch major attacks on Iran. Blasting Iran would not serve much purpose and would
expose US forces in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Somalia, and Syria to Iranian guerrilla
attacks. Saudi oil installations – after what we saw last week – are
vulnerable.
Attacking Iran, even if just from the air, risks a much wider Mideast war just as the Trump
administration – which originally campaigned against 'stupid' Mideast wars – faces
next year's elections. But the administration is under intense pressure from its pro-Israel
base to go after Iran.
Bombing Iran's oil infrastructure would be relatively easy and has been intensively planned
since early 2002. But what next? So-called 'regime change' (Washington's favorite euphemism for
overthrowing disobedient foreign governments) rarely works as planned and can get the US into
horribly messy situations. The CIA overthrew Iran's democratic government in 1953 and look
where we are today.
Perhaps the attacks on Abqaiq may cause the reckless Saudi leaders to stop devastating Yemen
and throttle back on their proxy war against Iran which has gone on since 1979. But don't count
on it.
The so called "Zionist Hawks" in Israel and Washington, who want to start a war between
the USA and Iran.
These Hawks are under delusional assumption that an American led war against Iran would be
a "Cakewalk", and that Iranians have no means to defend themselves, will capitulate –
these are of course delusional assumptions – only found in disturbed minds of a bunch
of Go-Getter Zionist Think-Tanks in Washington, DC who are eager to serve their own tribal
interests at the US expense.
The US invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, and Iraq in 2003, both are still ongoing –
have long proven how delusional are these ridiculous assumptions – Iran will be at
least 10 times harder nut to crack than Iraq was under Saddam Hussein – at least not
without serious consequences to the security of Israel, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states and the
US itself, along with serious ramification to the post WWII international order under the
USA; established since 1945.
By now, president Trump knows too well that he is being poorly served by these so called
"Zionist Hawks" – who have instigated the US unilateral withdrawal from the Iranian
Nuclear Agreement – but thanks to Trump's own instinct, and his close relationship with
Emmanuel Macron; Shinzo Abe; and of course Vladimir Putin – so far, Trump has resisted
the temptation of going to all out war against Iranians.
President Trump should ban these" Go-Getter Zionist Hawks" from the White House; they are
"Disloyal Jews" – who are eager to serve their own tribal interests at the US
expense.
Trump at least showed some wisdom by so far rejecting demands from the neocons that
surround him to launch major attacks on Iran.
He doesn't want to get involved in another Iraq (or worse) which makes excellent sense for
the US and himself on many levels.
However, if the US Deep State (with the Israelis) could set up 9/11 without President Bush
in the loop, then they could also arrange a False Flag attack on these oil installations,
without Trump's knowledge.
The CIA looks very much like an independent international criminal enterprise, and they're
used to working with their Israeli and Saudi friends.
This is a seriously flawed analysis of Yemen's and Iran's actual capabilities. We've already
seen Iran's precision strike capability in Iran and Syria and we've seen Yemen's homemade
drones and missiles do similar to this at slightly lesser differences. The parts shown by SA
are matches to Yemeni made missiles and drones such as Iran has been sharing around with
their allies. The reason they avoided the US defences was that they came from a direction
these do not cover, being pointed as they are at Iran. I'd say this was a Houthis attack and
as they say, more will be coming if the aggression from SA against Yemen does not stop. One
thing this attack has done is cool the heels of US, Saudi and Zionist warmongers. The damage
done here by relatively small attack and cheap means gives some inkling of what things might
look like after an attack on Iran. This was doubtless supported by Iran and as such a
masterstroke. We enter a new paradigm.
Saudi Arabian oil pipelines have always been vulnerable to attack. They are not well guarded
at all. This is well known by Security Experts worldwide but not well known, it would seem,
by hack 'journalists'.
Saudi Arabia is attacking Yemen as part of a long term plan to reroute it's oil pipelines
to the other side of it's country, the Red Sea side, so that it is no longer vulnerable at
the Strait of Hormuz 'choke point'. In order to get rid of the Iranian threat to it's oil as
it leaves port in the Persian Gulf, the Saudi's must sustain huge costs and PR losses to
"stabilize" Yemen by a brutal war and then transit it's oil via the Red Sea. This is also
well known by Security Experts but not 'hack journalist'.
Trump rejected neocon demands for a war with Iran as he saw his chances for re-election
vanish in the smoke of an US-Iran war. If Trump is reelected Americans will have to worry
every day about a US-Iran war.
I love this comment by Margolis, that the KSA & US have a "poor record for truthfulness"
Priceless. Apparently Genghis Khan had a poor record for brushing his feet on the mat
before entering a town for a bit of light shopping.
Margolis also says the KSA's US made air defences "failed" to protect their oil
installations. This maybe so. But apart from the fact that their air defences are orientated
away from Yemen there's a good chance the defences were turned OFF -- apparently this is
common practice in the KSA, esp on weekends.
I don't believe that Margolis's "mystery" is anywhere as deep as he suggests. The Houthis
have received weapons & training from Iran/Hezbollah & have demonstrated an ability
to hit KSA targets with unmanned aerial weapons.
Until better evidence appears, I'm willing to give it to the Houthis -- if for no other
reason than that they deserve to get in some good licks against that vile "Kingdom" (I'd
suggest they next hit the water purification plants that serve Riyadh with all its water
– apparently, the city has about 3 days of water stored. Evacuating 6 million from the
Capital, the Sauds would be exposed as the corrupt, negligent, incompetent, stupid, vicious
frauds we all know they are.
Given their age old fame for perfidy, corruption, cunning, mendacity and hatred of the
nations, along with their proclivity for high technology, my money would be on the Amish or
the Russian Old Believers as prime suspects and beneficiaries of the attacks.
The Jeffrey Epstein case is notable for the ups and downs in media coverage it's gotten over the years. Everybody, it seems, in
New York society knew by 2000 that Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell were corrupting teenage girls, but the press wouldn't cover
it. Articles by New York in 2002 and
Vanity Fair in 2003 alluded to it gently,
while probing Epstein's finances more closely. In 2005, the Palm Beach police investigated. The county prosecutor, Democrat Barry
Krischer, wouldn't prosecute for more than prostitution, so they went to the federal prosecutor, Republican Alexander Acosta, and
got the FBI involved. Acosta's office prepared an indictment, but before it was filed, he made a deal: Epstein agreed to plead guilty
to a state law felony and receive a prison term of 18 months. In exchange, the federal interstate sex trafficking charges would not
be prosecuted by Acosta's office. Epstein was officially at the county jail for 13 months, where the county officials under Democratic
Sheriff Ric Bradshaw gave him scandalously
easy treatment , letting him spend his days outside, and letting him serve a year of probation in place of the last 5 months
of his sentence. Acosta's office complained, but it was a county jail, not a federal jail, so he was powerless.
Epstein was released, and various lawsuits were filed against him and settled out of court, presumably in exchange for silence.
The media was quiet or complimentary as Epstein worked his way back into high society. Two books were written about the affair, and
fell flat.
The FBI became interested again around 2011 (
a little known fact
) and maybe things were happening behind the scenes, but the next big event was in 2018 when the Miami Herald published a
series of investigative articles rehashing what had happened. In 2019 federal prosecutors indicted Epstein, he was put in jail, and
he mysteriously died.
Now, after much complaining in the press about how awful jails are and how many people commit suicide, things are quiet again,
at least until the Justice Department and
the State of Florida finish their
investigation a few years from now. (For details and more links, see " Investigation: Jeffrey Epstein
"at Medium.com and " Jeffrey Epstein " at Wikipedia
.)
I am shocked that nobody is asking Barr why Epstein's autopsy hasn't been made public.
Also, why is nobody asking Acosta who
told him that Epstein should be treated gently because he "belongs to intelligence" and what they meant by that. Rumor is that
Mueller told him. So, Mueller has been making the rounds, yet nobody asks him.
Also, Epstein's seized video collection shows various individuals committing serious crimes so why is nobody going through
it and charging those individuals who can be identified? Is the DOJ now of the opinion that these crimes are not important enough
to pursue? And if they should point to a blackmailing operation involving a major intelligence service, that might be worth exposing?
I feel like I am almost the only person in the world asking.
Society has been corrupted by the promotion of cost-benefit moral thinking to a point where nobody can be trusted to do their
job if they think it might be 'better overall' to act corruptly.
I keep thinking of innocent Joe DiGenova assuring us that however frustrating it has been in the past, the appointment of Bob
Barr will turn everything around. Nonsense. Barr is a fat man, and as James Watson reminds us, you never want to give a fat man
a critical job. So far he is acting like a fat man. Firing a couple minor players is window dressing at best.
It was neoliberalism that ensured the redistribution of wealth up -- this was an explicit
goal.
Jewish bankers of course played their role but stress should be on bankers, not of Jewish.
Financial oligarchy should be regulated as special type of organized crime.
At the same time the rise of question of particularion and role of Jews in financial sector
is a dangerous sign . Jews are convenient scapegoats and were used as one in 1030th in Germany.
We should not forget that. As Eric Fromm said: "When Fascism came into power, most people were
unprepared, both theoretically and practically. They were unable to believe that man could
exhibit such propensities for evil, such lust for power, such disregard for the rights of the
weak, or such yearning for submission. Only a few had been aware of the rumbling of the volcano
preceding the outbreak." ( Escape from Freedom )
Also: "Fascism begins the moment a ruling class, fearing the people may use their political
democracy to gain economic democracy, begins to destroy political democracy in order to retain
its power of exploitation and special privilege." ~Thomas Clement Douglas
If you're a member of the working class, 1/3 of your pay has been stolen from you.
You would think this would be front page news every day until the problem is fixed. Not only
is that a huge amount of money for a huge portion of the country, but you would expect our left
leaning media to be all over this. There is no better evidence that capitalism, at least in its
current state, is failing. If the left actually cared about the working class, if the wave of
cultural Marxism that has spread through academia and the media was actually about the plight
of workers oppressed by a distant and uncaring elite, no fact would be repeated more often than
this.
And yet, aside from a handful of articles – such as one from the New York Times in
2011, and another from The Atlantic in 2015 – the issue hardly gets mentioned by the
media. And even when it is mentioned, it is often editorialized in a way that distorts the
problem and hides its root cause, if not outright lied about by a media with an agenda that has
little to do with helping actual workers.
The evidence for the theft of 1/3 of the working class' pay comes primarily from a left wing
think tank called the Economic Policy Institute, and comes from a comparison of productivity
growth in the economy vs the average hourly pay of non-management workers. Their graph shows
that worker pay increased steadily at basically the same rate at productivity from the 1948
until 1972. In 1972, productivity was up 92.2% from where it was in 1948 while the average
worker's hourly compensation was up 91.3%. From 1972-3, productivity rose to 97.0% higher than
its 1948 value while pay fell to only 91.0% higher than it was in 1948. Productivity and pay
both fell from 1973-4, but productivity rose again from 1974-5 while pay declined for another
year, widening the gap between productivity and pay growth to over 10% for the first time since
1948, a gap which would never close again.
Pay then rose more slowly than productivity for the rest of the 70s, fell during the 80s and
early 90s, grew slowly again during the dotcom boom of the late 90s when productivity grew far
more rapidly, and stagnated again for most of the 00s. Then from 2008-09, pay rose sharply by
almost 8% of its 1948 value. In other words, during the housing market collapse, when wealthy
investment bankers were losing a lot of money (and before they got it back during the bailout),
workers' hourly compensation jumped up faster than productivity for the first time in decades
– though not by nearly enough to close the gap, as productivity had risen by more than
100% more than pay by 2008. After the bailout, pay stagnated again, though according to many
sources pay is increasing under Trump at a faster rate than it did for most of the past few
decades.
However, for some reason, both the Economic Policy Institute's current graph and the New
York Times graph put a line through 1979 to divide the era of regular pay growth and pay
stagnation, despite the gap having grown to about 15% by then. It would seem that 1972-3, when
pay growth stagnated and then fell for the first time in decades, would be a better place to
put the line – and indeed, that is where The Atlantic's graph (and some older versions of
EPI's graph) put it. Is there a reason for this obfuscation?
There is, of course, some disagreement over EPI's findings. Right wing sources like the
Heritage Foundation claim that worker pay is actually rising at about the same rate as
productivity. Their main disagreement with EPI's findings is due to the fact that EPI doesn't
include management workers and self-employed professionals in their estimate of worker pay.
When those groups are included, pay did in fact increase at almost the same rate as
productivity – however, as the Heritage Foundation notes, only the top 20% of earners saw
their earnings rise at a faster rate than productivity since the 70s, while the middle 60% saw
far lower growth in their pay, so their findings are of little comfort to a majority of
American workers, particularly the shrinking middle class.
One final analysis, this one from BLS data published by Pew Research and Statista, both of
whom look only at wages and not productivity, actually suggests the situation may be even worse
than EPI's data suggests – where EPI shows wages grew by about 25% of their 1948 value
from 1972-2018, Pew shows worker pay peaking in 1973, falling from the mid 70s through the mid
90s, and rising slowly from the mid 90s until now with a significant jump during the 2008
recession. According to Statista, 2019 was the first year wages rose above their 1973 value
– by about $0.05 cents an hour in 2019 dollars.
Basically everyone's data suggests the same thing. After seeing solid wage growth prior to
the early 1970s, non-management worker pay stagnated from the mid 70s until the mid 90s, and
rose more slowly than productivity from the mid 90s until now with the exception of one
significant jump up during the housing market crash. The economic stagnation experienced by a
solid majority of Americans, particularly the middle class, is the driving force behind a
variety of economic, social, and political problems. It's among the reason why many Americans
eat too much cheap overprocessed food, why young people are burdened with debt to pay for
degrees to qualify for more complicated and demanding jobs that don't pay enough to pay off
their student loans, and why more women are working outside the home and choosing not to marry
as they can't find husbands capable of supporting them. It's the driving cause of both the
left's growing agitation for more socialist programs to make up for their lack of fair pay and
the new right's longing for a bygone era when the American economy was great because workers
actually got paid what their productivity was worth. Finding the cause of this problem and
solving it would relieve much of the growing polarization and political dissatisfaction that's
growing among people who are too young to remember an era when workers got real raises every
year.
The left blames this problem on a variety of factors that have little relationship to the
actual wage data, such as declining union membership and minimum wage laws that don't keep up
with inflation. Union membership has been declining since the early 1950s, so workers continued
to get raises for the first two decades of declining union membership. And while minimum wage
laws haven't kept up with inflation since about the same time worker pay began to stagnate,
that's likely a symptom of the same problem rather than the cause. Nor can this be blamed on
lower taxes on the rich, since this data looks at pre-tax income and 1/3 of your pay is being
stolen before a single dollar of taxes is taken out.
The establishment right mostly tries to dismiss the existence of the gap, despite a variety
of sources pointing to its existence and the Heritage Foundation's admission that middle class
has indeed seen their pay stagnate even as their productivity rose. It might be tempting for
some on the right to blame the problem on immigration, and changes in immigration policy in the
1960s did allow for an increase in the number of immigrants entering the country, but growth in
immigration was slow until the late 80s and early 90s. By that time pay had already been
stagnant for a while, so immigration doesn't seem to be the driving force keeping wages down,
even if it may be a small factor. This doesn't negate the many other reasons many Americans
want more control over immigration, such as preventing criminals from entering our country and
protecting our cultural values by making sure immigrants share those values before letting them
in, but we must look elsewhere to explain why worker pay is stagnant.
Other theories include the rise of automation, increased female participation in the
workforce, and corporate greed. Blaming automation implies that automation was not happening
from the 1940s through the early 1970s, or was at least not significant enough to affect worker
pay until then, and that it has happened much faster since the 70s. There's no objective way to
measure automation to test that theory, but as automation is one of the driving factors behind
increased worker productivity, it seems like automation should be increasing the availability
of goods and services to each worker. Shouldn't automation result in an economy where most
people can get more stuff for less work, rather than the same amount of stuff for more work?
There's no good explanation for why automation would result in stagnating worker pay,
especially as jobs become more high tech and require a more educated middle class that should
be able to demand higher wages relative to poorly educated and low skill workers. Instead, it
is precisely that highly educated middle class who have taken the biggest hit to their wages.
As for women in the workforce, much like the stagnant minimum wage, this appears to be more a
symptom of a greater problem than the cause – the rise of second wave feminism in the 70s
occurred as pay was stagnating, and was likely driven at least in part by women needing to work
outside the home more to make up for their husbands' stagnant pay. And considering the
significant increases in productivity and automation, workers ought to be able to provide for
their families without needing their wives to work as there should be more resources available
per worker today than there were a few decades ago when fewer women worked outside the home. As
for corporate greed, corporations were just as greedy from the 1940s until the early 70s as
they are today, and simply blaming greed does nothing to explain how the elite are able to
siphon more money out of the economy today than they did decades ago. A better explanation is
needed.
There was a major change in the way our economy is run that occurred in the early 1970s,
just before worker pay stopped growing. That change occurred in 1971, just before pay stagnated
from 1972-3. From 1944-1971, an international monetary agreement called Bretton Woods tied
the value of the dollar (and many other currencies around the globe) to the value of gold,
limiting the Federal Reserve and banking industry's ability to manipulate the money supply.
During the Bretton Woods years, changes in the money supply and value of the dollar were
primarily driven by market forces rather than by the decisions of bankers and economic elites.
The Bretton Woods years overlap so perfectly with the period when worker pay kept up with
productivity growth that the glaring lack of any mention of it by any of the think tanks and
media outlets – left, right, or center – that have written about the gap between
pay and productivity says a lot about the dishonesty of our media and academics.
Is Federal Reserve policy really capable of causing such a major economic shift? It
certainly seems to be. Consider a recent study from economist Brian Barnier of FedDashboard.com
that found that over 90% of stock market price fluctuation since 2008 has been due to Fed
policy. If the Fed can cause that much of a shift in the market, it's likely that the Fed can
cause a lot of other changes too. That same study found that from the end of WWII until the
early 70s, GDP growth caused most of the change in the stock market – as it would
normally be expected to. Then, in the mid 70s, the growth of debt based spending –
enabled by the end of Bretton Woods which gave the bankers much greater ability to expand the
money supply through loans – became the biggest factor in the stock market's movement,
causing a solid majority of stock market movement over the next few decades, first through the
expansion of consumer debt and credit cards, then by business loans and mortgages. Fiscal
policy, primarily set by the Fed, has been the driving cause of stock market movement since
shortly after the end of Bretton Woods, rather than market forces which were the driving cause
of market changes under Bretton Woods. And the worst drop in worker pay came during the 1980s
when Paul Volcker, who said that helping end Bretton Woods while he worked in Nixon's Treasury
department was the most important decision of his career, was chairman of the Federal
Reserve.
It's clear that Bretton Woods and the era when supply and demand ruled the market coincided
with the steady rise of worker pay, while the era of Federal Reserve policy dominating the
market has coincided with stagnant worker pay and wealth redistribution to the rich. Whether
this is due to inflation, as workers who aren't as economically savvy as management and owners
won't always realize that a raise that's equal to or less than inflation is not actually a
raise at all, or due to the direct creation of wealth within the banking industry and by
members of the investor class through fractional reserve banking and other tools enabled by the
Fed, or a combination of those and other factors is not entirely clear, but it is certainly
clear that there is a strong correlation between central bank meddling in the economy and
stagnating worker pay. This justifies far more investigation, and we may not have all the
answers to how the rich are gaming the system and screwing the working class without a full
audit of the Federal Reserve. But there are two more questions we can ask now without waiting
for that audit that may help shed light on who's responsible for the problem: who has been in
charge of Federal Reserve policy for the past few decades, and where is the money going?
Remember that it was Paul Volcker who was both instrumental in ending Bretton Woods,
enabling the rise of the Fed's dominance of the economy and redistribution of wealth, and who
oversaw the largest decrease in worker pay in the past half century. There's one other thing
you need to know about Paul Volcker, something that will help answer the question of who
controls Fed policy and where the money is going. Paul Volcker shares something in common with
four other recent Federal Reserve chairs during the period of wage stagnation and with an
extremely disproportionate number of billionaires – Volcker was hereditarily (though not
religiously) Jewish. Arthur Burns, who became chairman of the Federal reserve in 1970, the year
before Volcker convinced Nixon to end Bretton Woods, was the first Jewish Federal Reserve
chairman since World War 2 and ran the Fed through most of the 70s. Volcker took over the Fed
in 1979 and was followed by three more Jews in a row: Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernanke, and Janet
Yellen. While it may be tempting to blame ties to corporate or banking interests instead, only
Volcker and Greenspan had any history of working in corporate banking prior to working at the
Fed; Burns, Bernanke, and Yellen had mostly academic and government advisory experience before
their appointments to Federal Reserve chair. Last year, Trump appointed the first non-Jewish
Fed chair since the 1970s, and that year was one of the best years for wage growth since the
1970s.
Just how wealthy have the Jews become while controlling our central bank, the most powerful
financial regulatory agency in the country? Most estimates of Jewish wealth (including Jewish
sources) find that over 1/3 of American billionaires are Jewish in a country that is less than
2% Jewish, meaning you're roughly 20 times as likely to be a billionaire if you're Jewish than
if you're not. That overrepresentation is even greater at the top, where 5 of the 10 richest
Americans are Jewish according to the Times of Israel. Coincidentally, Jews are overrepresented
among the billionaire class by about the same amount as the portion of the working class' pay
that's missing from their checks. And according to one estimate, Jews were 23% of the
billionaire class in 1987; that year, workers were losing about 20% of what they should have
been getting paid based on their productivity according to EPI, about the same percent as
Jewish overrepresentation among the billionaire class. As the rich have gotten richer while the
working class have gotten robbed, the rich have also gotten more Jewish.
Of course, not all Jews benefit from the Fed's theft of the working class. Rather, it's more
likely that there is a Jewish financial cartel in much the same way there are Mexican drug
cartels, an Italian mafia, Islamic sex slave grooming gangs and terror networks, and many other
gangs whose identity is based partly on ethnic and religious affiliation. Volcker, as someone
who both was and was not Jewish, was the perfect patsy – he was ethnically Jewish enough
to be part of the tribe, but any backlash against him for his role in ending Bretton Woods and
reducing worker pay could be deflected away from the Jewish financial cartel because he was a
practicing Christian. Not all Jews have to be a part of this financial cartel for the people
responsible for stealing 1/3 of the American working class' pay to be Jewish, and those that
aren't should be just as upset about the actions of those that are as anyone else. While the
idea of a Jewish financial cartel may come off as conspiratorial to some, two of the biggest
news stories of the past year – Jeffrey Epstein and NXIVM – have been about Jewish
billionaires (the Bronfmans in the case of NXIVM) running pedophilic sex slave trading networks
which they used to blackmail and manipulate the rich, famous, and powerful. It's not much of a
stretch to assume that part of the reason why they needed those criminal networks was to help
cover up an even bigger ongoing crime.
But it is possible, if unlikely, that there is no Jewish financial cartel. In that case,
however, the resulting assumption seems much worse for the Jewish people – that five
different Jewish Federal Reserve chairs simply happened to accidentally oversee the stagnation
of the American working class' pay as Jewish investment bankers capitalized on their fiscal
policies after more than two decades of solid worker pay growth under non-Jewish Fed chairs. If
that's the case, a five for five record of screwing over the working class is more than enough
evidence that Jews should never be allowed near the halls of financial power in the United
States ever again. But, as many lower and middle class Jews are hurt just as much by the
financial theft that's been going on for decades, it would be far better to investigate the
possible existence of the Jewish financial cartel and focus our attention on the people
directly responsible for robbing a majority of Americans first, rather than directing our ire
at all Jews.
Regardless of whether or not this Jewish financial cartel exists, a few things should be
clear. First, the Federal Reserve needs a full audit and investigation to determine how corrupt
the institution has become and whether they are directly enriching particular members of the
billionaire class or just accidentally creating the kind of economy where rich and often Jewish
investment bankers profit while the rest of us stagnate. Second, we need to seriously consider
changing our monetary system, whether that means returning to a gold standard, a pseudo-gold
standard such as Bretton Woods, or some other form of stable currency that limits the
inflationary and wealth redistribution power of the banking industry. Third, Jewish control of
our financial (not to mention political) institutions must be dismantled in much the same way
our Jewish media and academics talk about dismantling white privilege, regardless of whether
the problem turns out to be a specific criminal cartel comprised mostly of wealthy and powerful
Jews or whether the problem turns out to be that the nature of the Jewish people is to manage
the economy for the good of investment bankers and upper management, rather than for the good
of the workers who produce and distribute the things we all rely on to survive and thrive.
Americans deserve an economy that works for us as much as we work for it.
There is a systematic tax theft ongoing, all under the auspices of Woke Capitalism. But
don't worry about this, let's distract you about non-existing identity controversies on
gender, trannies, homosexuals, race, religion etc. And people fall for it.
The FED is a jewish banking cartel. It is not federal. Greenspan admitted on Charlie Rose
that, "There is no government agency that has power over The Federal Reserve."
Ron Paul spent his entire career trying to end the FED and wrote a great book with that
title.
The FED causes a misallocation of resources, creates bubbles, funds wars for Israel.
I suspect that the government and financial sector have played a huge role in the decline
of the white middle class and our falling birthrates.
I read "The Creature From Jekyl Island" many years ago and the story of the origin of the
FED is quite fascinating.
It's what started happening when Nixon took the US completely off the Gold standard, which
facilitated the subsequent rise of the FIRE economy in place of real productive economic
activity.
While individual productivity continued to rise, the fruits of that productivity got
sidetracked into excessive growth of the FIRE economy.
p.s. Now that I've read the full article, I see I'm just giving a quick summary; the
article just proves my point in much greater detail.
Basically everyone's data suggests the same thing. After seeing solid wage growth prior
to the early 1970s, non-management worker pay stagnated from the mid 70s until the mid 90s,
and rose more slowly than productivity from the mid 90s until now.
In the early 1970's I remember the first Asian manufactured products starting to appear
along with digitalization and the basic internet. The article could have highlighted the
fact, since digitalization and the internet had a big part in making Asian outsourcing
technically (and economically) viable.
As the article points out, elites and their top managers did well, and from this POV, they
would do well, since they were the ones capturing the extra profitability (Western sales
prices less Asian manufacturing costs). It was their workers who lost out as local
manufacturing was shut down. Agreed that mass immigration also put a downward pressure on
wages.
IMO Neoliberalism (economic liberalism) was the academic fraud that opened the
political door to outsourcing – and it was Neoliberalism that allied with the extreme
social liberalism of open frontiers (anti-racist), LGBT, Black/White guilt narratives etc..
Also agree that Jews were heavily involved in the "progressive" push for both types of
liberalism and enabled the mass indebtedness (through the FED) that sustains it. If the
government can't cover its social spending (or the cost of its wars), it gets into debt, and
if a person has a minimum wage job then they're also heading into debt.
Productivity and pay both fell from 1973-4, but productivity rose again from 1974-5
while pay declined for another year, widening the gap between productivity and pay
growth to over 10% for the first time since 1948, a gap which would never close
again .
The reason it happened right then and there:
The oil "embargo" of 1973, totally politically arranged but giving all the big industrial
firms an excuse to freeze wages, stop hiring, and eventually ship jobs overseas.
As long as the "national bank" is a privately run corporation it cannot be fixed. It works
for its members not for its nation. Keep in mind the steel and auto factories were owned by
the same folks who run the Fed.
The entire nation started the slo-mo drop to our current status as incipient Third World
member in 1973. This isn't really surprising: A fellow might have put a down payment on a
house in 1955 with massive monthly mortgage payments like $140 and paid it off in funny money
in the 1970s. Think of it as the "bonus" that many of the Greatest Generation got.
Bur after them, the lines all go negative. And not all of them were in a position to take
advantage of the near-hyperinflation of the post-Vietnam period. It is certain, though, that
even adjusting for inflation, house payments in the Fifties were cheaper than renting a flop
is now. The Reagan "boom" was a goldmine for suburban yuppies, everyone else got the
shaft.
Volcker was hereditarily (though not religiously) Jewish
Does the author have any source for this claim at all?
Paul Volcker (b.1927)'s grandparents were all German(-born) Protestants; he was raised in
a Lutheran church in the US, and as best I can tell remains a Lutheran today.
This allegation that Volcker is Jewish seems baseless, frivolous, and
self-discrediting.
The largest reasons for wage suppression relative to worker value (productivity is a measure
of it) has to do with the steady takeover by Jews of Corporate Boards and Management since
the late 1960's.
Eastern Banks (largely Jewish owned or led) exerted their influence in Corporate America
by forcing their nominees onto Corporate Boards of the firms they lent to, or bought shares
(or were granted) of.
Management became far more Jewish as the years progressed. In fact, without Jews in
Management positions far in excess of representative ratios, Banks would simply not lend to
'White' corporations and the Greenmail and other tactics of the 1970's and 1980's were
largely attempts by Jews to hijack Companies outright.
When CEO pay went from 10x worker pay to 100x or more, there was a reason for that Jewish
GREED. Boards authorized extravagant CEO and other top Management position pay increases
beyond all reason, why? Jews were selected at a 10x to 50x higher proportion for those slots.
Hey, what's best for the tribe, right?
Off shoring was largely a Jewish phenomenon. Financial Globalism, it's Umbrella, is as
well. Offshoring and Globalism suppresses American wages more than in any other country by
far.
Lastly Wall Street sucks the wealth from American workers in countless ways. I have known
Capital Giant VP's that spent their entire career raiding pension funds, or breaking up
companies and throwing workers out by the millions to reap a few pennies on the dollar by
selling off the main assets and looting the hidden ones. Who, do you think, dominated that
practice? Jews.
In my lay understanding about the decline of wages since the 1970s, it is necessary to look
at the whole picture – not pick and choose individual factors which, on their own, are
not necessarily the answer. Obviously, the FRB has the power to affect most of those factors
(setting interest rates, quantitative easing, controlling the money supply, etc.). Obviously
the predominantly Jewish financial institutions as the FRB, Treasury and banks have the power
to affect those factors. Obviously, and ultimately, the US Government and Congress also have
the power to affect those factors.
Putting all together, the political system enables and promotes policies in favour of the
corporate elite to the detriment of the wage-slaving working class. It has been so since
aeons and it will never change until the wage-slaves assume the reigns of political power and
enact policies for their benefit. Looking at the reasons for the diminishing purchasing power
of wages is like missing the forest for the trees.
After all, one does not need to look at macroeconomic data, flow charts and whatnots to
understand that a class based society is necessarily ruled by the ruling class for its own
benefit, not for the benefit of the ruled underclass of wage slaves. Therefore, the
plutocracy in power today is doing what the previous ruling aristocracy did before, and
before that what the Patricians of Rome and the Citizens of Greece did: using political power
for selfish ends.
Yes, there was a "golden era" of raising working class incomes from the end of WWII to the
1970s – the reconstruction boom in Europe and concomitant booming imports from the US.
But that wage bonanza was predominantly due to the Cold War itself, namely to show off that
Capitalism was capable of offering a decent wage to workers in order to tame the then popular
appeal of Communism identified with the victorious USSR. Not to mention the shortage of the
workforce following the carnage.
By the 1970s, the war was a fading memory, the counterculture movement was in full swing,
the politicians treated the people and countries as their fiefdoms, the neoliberal doctrines
taking root in academia and government. No need to pretend anymore that governments cared for
the people. The mask came off and brutal Capitalism revealed its true nature: voracious greed
for the plutocracy and large sinecural bribes for the political stooges.
@anon I take back my AGREE – meant to DISAGREE (I thought there was a
way to do that within a certain period, Ron?)
I agree with most of the article with a couple of exceptions. Immigration has been a BIG
factor in the stagnation in real pay. Secondly, instead of "Jewish financial control" being
dismantled how about just "financial control" period. Are you for sound money or not, Mr.
Tripp?
"... "with considerable forethought [TV capitalists] are attempting to create a nation of morons who will faithfully go out and buy this or that product, vote for this or that candidate and faithfully work for their employers for as low a wage as possible." He said TV was America's "drug." On another occasion, he took a 60 Minutes crew to the AP office in Burlington and, in a bit of turnabout, began interrogating their reporters. So perhaps the AP's announcement this week was a bit of long-simmering retribution. ..."
"... In his essential book, Out of Order -- still, 23 years after publication, the best analysis of election coverage -- Harvard political scientist Thomas Patterson said there are only four press narratives in an election campaign: "a candidate is leading, or trailing, or gaining ground or losing ground." And: "The press dumps on losers and those who are losing support, criticizes front-runners and praises those who catch fire -- at least as long as the bandwagon lasts." ..."
"... By placing bets on one candidate over another, the media virtually prevent that disfavored candidate from gaining ground. ..."
"... This may be the first time that social media compelled the MSM to change its narrative -- from losing candidate to gaining candidate, or what Patterson calls the "bandwagon effect." ..."
"... It is now a truism of election coverage that since the coverage often contorts itself to justify them, you follow the polls. Poll numbers are everything. ..."
Last week, even before Hillary Clinton's primary victory in California assured her the Democratic presidential nomination, the
Associated Press had already declared her the presumptive nominee.
Bernie Sanders and his supporters were sore , and they had a right to be.
Although
the AP defended its decision , saying that Clinton's crossing the delegate threshold was news and they had an obligation to report
it when they did (the day before the clinching primaries) the timing and the circumstances were suspicious. It appears that AP had
been hounding superdelegates to reveal their preferences, and blasting that headline just before those primaries threatened either
to depress Sanders' vote or Hillary's or both because the contest was now for all intents and purposes over.
Sanders has never been much of a media fan.
Last October,
Mother Jones reported that way back in 1979, he wrote in Vermont's Vanguard Press , an alternative newspaper, that
"with considerable forethought [TV capitalists] are attempting to create a nation of morons who will faithfully go out and buy
this or that product, vote for this or that candidate and faithfully work for their employers for as low a wage as possible." He
said TV was America's "drug." On another occasion, he took a 60 Minutes crew to the AP office in Burlington and, in a bit
of turnabout, began interrogating their reporters. So perhaps the AP's announcement this week was a bit of long-simmering retribution.
Payback or not, Sanders and his supporters are justified in saying the mainstream media have not been entirely fair to him. But
that isn't because Sanders was anti-establishment or because he has attacked the media's monopolistic practices or because he claimed
to be leading a revolution or even because he was impatient with reporters who asked idiotic questions -- though he had done all
of those things.
Sanders was the victim of something else: the script. The media have a script for elections, and in that script the presumed losers
are always marginalized and even dismissed. The script, then, dictated that Sanders wasn't going to get favorable coverage. Or, put
more starkly, the MSM pick the losers and then vindicate that judgment.
From the moment he announced his candidacy in April 2015, the media treated Sanders as if he were unlikely to win.
In The New
York Times , that announcement was printed on page A-21, calling him a "long shot" but saying that his candidacy could force
Hillary Clinton to address his issues "more deeply." The article ended with a quote from Sanders: "I think people should be a little
bit careful underestimating me," which is exactly what The Times seemed to be doing.
By contrast, Hillary Clinton's announcement two-and-a-half weeks earlier
got prime
real estate in The Times and the judgment that the "announcement effectively began what could be one of the least contested
races, without an incumbent, for the Democratic presidential nomination in recent history." So already the roles had been cast --
though, of course, the perception that Sanders wasn't likely to beat Clinton was all but a self-fulfilling prophecy.
In his essential book, Out of Order -- still, 23 years after publication, the best analysis of election coverage -- Harvard political scientist
Thomas Patterson said there are only four press narratives in an election campaign: "a candidate is leading, or trailing, or gaining
ground or losing ground." And: "The press dumps on losers and those who are losing support, criticizes front-runners and praises
those who catch fire -- at least as long as the bandwagon lasts."
As the presumed loser from the outset, Sanders didn't get negative coverage so much as he got negligible coverage.
An analysis by the TV News
Archive of cable television coverage since January 2015 provides graphs of Clinton's and Sanders' mentions that look alike, save
for one thing: Clinton was getting vastly more coverage than Sanders. How much more? On CNN, Clinton got more than 70,000 of the
Democratic-candidate mentions, while Sanders got just under 42,000. On MSNBC, Clinton got more than 93,000 mentions to Sanders' roughly
51,000. On Fox News, she got more than 71,000 mentions to his more than 28,000. The numbers are similar on the Lexis-Nexis database
of newspapers. In the past 30 days, Clinton received 2,591 mentions, Sanders only 922. By comparison, Trump got 5,568.
The numbers, of course, are constantly being updated. But the ratios remain more or less constant.
I suppose journalists would argue that time and space are inelastic; choices have to be made as to who receives coverage. If we
give it to Bernie Sanders, they might say, why not Martin O'Malley, Jim Webb or even Lincoln Chafee? Putting aside whether there
really is too little time (on cable where the same stories are repeated endlessly?), the decision over whom to cover and whom not
to cover is determinative. By placing bets on one candidate over another, the media virtually prevent that disfavored candidate
from gaining ground.
But in spite of the dearth of MSM coverage, Sanders did gain ground. That may have been due to his very active social media
presence, which assured that the Sanders name and message were being promulgated via the ether if not on the page or on the air.
Though Trump clearly mastered how to turn social media into MSM coverage by tweeting absurdities the press couldn't resist, Sanders
used social media to mobilize support, so that he was able to rustle up a crowd for a rally at a moment's notice, and a whole lot
of money.
This may be the first time that
social media compelled the
MSM to change its narrative -- from losing candidate to gaining candidate, or what Patterson calls the "bandwagon effect."
In turn, Sanders' crowds were huge. His fundraising was large and notable for the number of small donations. And most of all, his
poll numbers began rising.
It is now a truism of election coverage that since the coverage often contorts itself to justify them, you follow the polls.
Poll numbers are everything. As Sanders' numbers climbed, and especially after he trounced Clinton in New Hampshire, the story
was suddenly that
Sanders was leading a movement of young people dissatisfied with the old politics represented by Clinton, and angry with the
system.
Of course, even as the MSM called Sanders "aspirational" and "inspirational" and "idealistic" compared to Clinton, the praise
was then undercut when pundits compared him to another tribune of the disaffected, Donald Trump. "[Sanders] and Trump are peas in
a pod,"
wrote The Washington Post' s Dana Milbank , as late as last April.
None of this reluctant praise was because the press particularly liked Sanders. I think they still thought of themselves as realists
while Sanders was something of a political Don Quixote -- an old crank. But the media are in the drama business, and the story of
Sanders' energized youth army taking on Clinton's tired apparatchiks was a compelling one, and a whole lot better than Clinton marching
over Sanders like Sherman through Georgia. Indeed, nothing stirs the media like a good fight. The amount of Sanders' coverage appreciably
rose.
The problem was, to use the buzzword of this election, the math. No matter how much money Sanders raised, how many caucuses and
primaries he won or how much enthusiasm he stirred, he couldn't beat the delegate math -- which is to say, he was a loser. To the
media, his rise was a plot twist before the narrative wound its way to the inevitable conclusion. And, as Patterson wrote of the
media, "What is said of the candidate must fit the plot." Here the plot was that Sanders was not going to win because he was not
good enough to win.
Sanders' coverage in The New York Times is a case in point, and an important one because The Times drives so much
of the MSM's coverage. It is hardly a secret that The Times has had a jones for Hillary Clinton, but that doesn't excuse its
coverage of Sanders, which even included
an
article criticizing him for not doing more of the baby-kissing and hand-shaking that candidates usually do.
Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone wrote a scathing takedown of The Times' most egregious offense: a March article by
Jennifer Steinhauer on how Sanders functioned as a legislator. Headlined "Bernie Sanders Scored Victories for Years Via Legislative
Side Doors,"
as originally published , the article recounted how effective Sanders was at attaching amendments to pieces of legislation, both
Republican and Democratic, and forging coalitions to achieve his ends. The piece was bandwagon stuff.
But then something happened. The original article, already published, underwent a transformation in which Sanders suddenly wasn't
so effective a legislator. Even the
headline was changed to
"Via Legislative Side Doors, Bernie Sanders Won Modest Victories." And this paragraph was added: "But in his presidential campaign
Mr. Sanders is trying to scale up those kinds of proposals as a national agenda, and there is little to draw from his small-ball
legislative approach to suggest that he could succeed."
Responding to angry Sanders supporters,
The Times' own public editor, Margaret Sullivan , asked why the changes were made and wrote, "Matt Purdy, a deputy executive
editor, said that when senior editors read the piece after it was published online, they thought it needed more perspective about
whether Mr. Sanders would be able to carry out his campaign agenda if he was elected president." Yeah, right.
You might note how short a step it is from losing to deserving to lose. The media always seem willing to take that step, not only
when it comes to Sanders but to any presumed loser. It may also explain why the media were so hard on Sanders' policies, ridiculing
them as pie-in-the-sky. On the other hand, Times columnist Paul Krugman, once a liberal hero, took a lot of flak from Sanders
supporters for criticizing several of the senator's proposals and favoring Clinton's. Sandernistas couldn't accept the possibility
that Krugman, whose liberal bona fides are pretty sound, was backing Clinton because he thought Sanders' proposals didn't
add up -- and not that he thought they didn't add up because he was backing Clinton. Even if Sanders was treated unfairly, he didn't
deserve to escape scrutiny just because he was a maverick.
By the same token, the press's presumption that Sanders was a loser wasn't wrong either. Sanders' claim that the system was somehow
rigged against him because of superdelegates proved not to be true. Sanders received far fewer votes than Clinton, 3.7 million less,
and he would have lost the nomination even if there had been no superdelegates, not to mention that he lost the basic Democratic
constituencies to her. What we will never know is if the race might have been different had the coverage been different -- that is,
if Sanders hadn't been
considered some outlier and preordained loser from the very beginning.
Another thing we will never know is how the coverage would have differed if it hadn't been so poll- or delegate-driven. Candidates
won't arrive at the finish line at the same time, but the media should at least let them begin at the starting line together. And
the voters should be the ones to winnow the field, not the press.
Now that Sanders has played his part juicing up the nominating drama, the media seem as eager to dispose of him as the Democratic
establishment does. They're ready to relegate him to his next role: confirmed sore loser.
A front-page story in Thursday's
edition of The New York Times griped , "Hillary Clinton Made History, but Bernie Sanders Stubbornly Ignored it," opening
with the line, "Revolutions rarely give way to gracious expressions of defeat."
No, they don't, and I don't think it is the business of the press to tell candidates when to or how to concede, much less complain
about it. The article went on to call Sanders' address after Tuesday night's primaries "a speech of striking stubbornness," as if
The Times and its barely pent-up exasperation with Sanders finally broke the dam.
But again, this isn't just what the MSM think of Bernie Sanders. It is what the media think of losers. They don't like them very
much, and they seem determined to make sure that you don't like them either -- unless they beat the press's own odds and become winners.
Neal Gabler is an author of five books
and the recipient of two LA Times Book Prizes, Time magazine's nonfiction book of the year, USA Today's biography of the year and
other awards. He is also a senior fellow at the Lear Center for the Study of Entertainment and Society and is currently writing a
biography of Sen. Edward Kennedy.
"... "Sadly, the country spent over three years and 40 million taxpayer dollars on these investigations," said Lewandowski. "It is now clear the investigation was populated by many Trump haters who had their own agenda -- to try and take down a duly elected president of the United States," Lewandowski said in his opening statement - later adding "We, as a Nation, would be better served if elected officials like you concentrated your efforts to combat the true crises facing our country, as opposed to going down rabbit holes like this hearing." ..."
"... Nadler and Schiff and those in their camp have a single-minded purpose: Never, ever , again allow the unwashed to get away with a successful rebellion. ..."
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi blasted House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler last week
over his 'Moby Dick'-like obsession with impeaching President Trump - days before Trump's 2016
campaign manager Corey Lewandowski
wiped the floor with Congressional Democrats during a contentious five-hour hearing on
Tuesday in front of Nadler's panel.
Pelosi's comments came during a closed-door Capitol Hill meeting of Democrats last week,
where she complained that Judiciary Committee aides have advanced the impeachment push "far
beyond where the House Democratic Caucus stands," according to Politico
.
" And you can feel free to leak this ," Pelosi added, according to several people who were
there.
It was the latest sign of the widening schism between Pelosi and Judiciary Committee
Chairman Jerry Nadler, two longtime allies who are increasingly in conflict over where to
guide the party at one of its most critical moments.
Both Pelosi and Nadler, who have served in the House together for more than 25 years,
insist their relationship remains strong. But their rift over impeachment is getting harder
and harder to paper over amid Democrats' flailing messaging on the topic and a growing divide
in the caucus. - Politico
And while Pelosi aides told Politico that Nadler has coordinated with her office on
investigations, legal strategy and messaging - and Pelosi has signed off on all the Judiciary
Committee's court filings against Trump, the House Speaker has been expressing skepticism for
months that a successful impeachment in the House would only lead to "exonerating" Trump on the
campaign trail after the effort dies in the GOP-led Senate.
Pelosi has privately clashed with Nadler over his aggressive impeachment agenda, arguing
the public does not support it and it does not have the 218 votes to pass on the House floor.
So far, about 137 Democrats say they would vote to open an official impeachment inquiry.
...
The relationship between the two veteran lawmakers has become strained . While Pelosi has
blocked the House from formally voting to open an impeachment inquiry, Nadler declared he is
authorized to begin one even without a House vote. -
Washington Examiner
"Am I concerned? The answer is yes!," Florida Democratic Rep. Donna Shalala told the
Washington Examiner . "In my district, I'm not getting asked about impeachment.
I'm being asked about healthcare, I'm being asked about the environment, and about
infrastructure. It's not like around the country they are thinking about impeachment. It's a
Washington phenomenon as far as I can tell."
... ... ...
During Tuesday's 'impeachment' hearing, Corey Lewandowski beat Congressional
Democrats like a red-headed stepchild - starting with his opening statement:
"Sadly, the country spent over three years and 40 million taxpayer dollars on these
investigations," said Lewandowski. "It is now clear the investigation was populated by many
Trump haters who had their own agenda -- to try and take down a duly elected president of the
United States," Lewandowski said in his opening statement - later adding "We, as a Nation,
would be better served if elected officials like you concentrated your efforts to combat the
true crises facing our country, as opposed to going down rabbit holes like this
hearing."
" As for actual 'collusion,' or 'conspiracy,' there was none. What there has been, however,
is harassment of the president from the day he won the election ."
"Corey Lewandowski was very precise," Rep. Matt Gaetz, a member of the House panel, told
Fox News ' Sean Hannity. "And House Democrats looked like a dog that had chased a car
and then caught it and then did not know what to do about it ."
Nadler and Schiff and those in their camp have a single-minded purpose: Never,
ever , again allow the unwashed to get away with a successful rebellion.
That's the reason a now 90% controlled Trump can't be allowed to escape
unscathed, no matter how otherwise useless the exercise -- even by the standards of their own
(apparent) issue agendas.
"... The United States also cannot resist the urge to meddle. Worse, U.S. officials seemingly can't even decide which faction it wants to back. Washington's official policy continues to support the GNA, which the United Nations recognizes as the country's legitimate government -- even though its writ extends to little territory beyond the Tripoli metropolitan area. President Donald Trump, however, had an extremely cordial, lengthy telephone conversation in April with Haftar and appeared impressed with Haftar's professed determination to combat terrorist groups and bring order and unity to Libya. Neither Libyan faction now seems certain about Washington's stance. ..."
"... One poster child for such continuing arrogance is Samantha Power, an influential national security council staffer in 2011 and later U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. In her new book, The Education of an Idealist , Power takes no responsibility whatever for the Libya debacle. Indeed, flippant might be too generous a term for her treatment of the episode. "We could hardly expect to have a crystal ball when it came to accurately predicting outcomes in places where the culture was not our own," she contends. American Conservative analyst Daniel Larison correctly excoriates her argument as "a pathetic attempt by Power to deny responsibility for the effects of a war she backed by shrugging her shoulders and pleading ignorance. If Libyan culture was so opaque and hard for the Obama administration to understand, they should never have taken sides in an internal conflict there. If the 'culture was not our own' and they couldn't anticipate what was going to happen because of that, then how arrogant must the policymakers who argued in favor of intervention have been?" ..."
"... Obama and company not only destroyed Libya, they also helped to unleash a wave of jihadis who are terrorizing vast swaths of west Africa, especially Mali and Burkina Faso. Their stupidity and lack of foresight is mind-boggling! ..."
"... I understand the role which the Obama administration played in getting the Libyan intervention started. However the major destruction of Libya's fragile structure of governance under Qaddafi was done by the French, Brits, and Italians. ..."
The United States cannot resist the urge to meddle. Worse, U.S. officials can't seem to
decide which faction they want to back.
The Western-created disaster in Libya continues to grow worse. Fighting between Field
Marshal Khalifa Haftar's so-called Libyan National Army (LNA) and the even more misnamed
Government of National Accord (GNA) has intensified in and around Tripoli. The LNA boasted on
September 11 that its forces had routed troops of the Sarraj militia, a GNA ally, killing
about two hundred of them. That total may be exaggerated, but there is no doubt that the
situation has become increasingly violent and
chaotic in Tripoli and other portions of Libya, with innocent civilians bearing the brunt
of the suffering.
An article in Bloomberg News provides a
succinct account of the poisonous fruits of the U.S.-led "humanitarian" military
intervention in 2011. "Libya is enduring its worst violence since the 2011 NATO-backed ouster
of Muammar el-Qaddafi, which ushered in years of instability that allowed Islamist radicals to
thrive and turned the country into a hub for migrants destined to Europe. Haftar had launched
the war as the United Nations was laying the ground for a political conference to unite the
country. It is now more divided than ever." The country has become the plaything not only of
rival domestic factions but major
Middle East powers , including Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, and the United Arab
Emirates. Those regimes are waging a ruthless geopolitical competition, providing arms and in
some cases even launching airstrikes on behalf of their preferred clients.
The United States also cannot resist the urge to meddle. Worse, U.S. officials seemingly
can't even decide which faction it wants to back. Washington's official policy continues to
support the GNA, which the United Nations recognizes as the country's legitimate government
-- even though its writ extends to little territory beyond the Tripoli metropolitan area.
President Donald Trump, however, had an extremely cordial, lengthy telephone conversation in
April with Haftar and
appeared impressed with Haftar's professed determination to combat terrorist groups and
bring order and unity to Libya. Neither Libyan faction now seems certain about Washington's
stance.
Given the appalling aftermath of the original U.S.-led intervention, one might hope that
advocates of an activist policy would be chastened and back away from further meddling in that
unfortunate country. Yet, that is not the case. Neither the Trump administration nor the
humanitarian crusaders in Barack Obama's administration who caused the calamity in the first
place seem inclined to advocate a more cautious, restrained U.S. policy.
One poster child for such continuing arrogance is Samantha Power, an influential
national security council staffer in 2011 and later U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. In
her new book, The Education of an
Idealist , Power takes no responsibility whatever for the Libya debacle. Indeed,
flippant might be too generous a term for her treatment of the episode. "We could hardly expect
to have a crystal ball when it came to accurately predicting outcomes in places where the
culture was not our own," she contends. American Conservative analyst Daniel Larison
correctly
excoriates her argument as "a pathetic attempt by Power to deny responsibility for the
effects of a war she backed by shrugging her shoulders and pleading ignorance. If Libyan
culture was so opaque and hard for the Obama administration to understand, they should never
have taken sides in an internal conflict there. If the 'culture was not our own' and they
couldn't anticipate what was going to happen because of that, then how arrogant must the
policymakers who argued in favor of intervention have been?"
The answer to Larison's rhetorical question is "extraordinarily arrogant." It is not as
though prudent foreign-policy experts didn't warn Power and her colleagues about the probable
consequences of intervening in a volatile, fragile country like Libya. Indeed, as Robert Gates,
Obama's secretary of defense, confirms in his memoir, Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War , the Obama
administration itself was deeply divided about the advisability of intervention. The Joint
Chiefs of Staff, Vice President Joe Biden, and Gates were opposed. Among the most outspoken
proponents of action were Power and her mentor, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Gates notes
further that Obama was deeply torn, later telling his secretary of defense that the decision
was a "51 to 49" call.
The existence of a sharp internal division is sufficient evidence by itself that Power's
attempt to absolve herself and other humanitarian crusaders of responsibility for the
subsequent tragedy is without merit. Indeed, it has even less credibility than Pontius Pilate's
infamous effort to evade guilt. They were warned of the probable outcome, yet they chose to
disregard those warnings.
Power, Clinton, Obama and other proponents of ousting Qaddafi turned Libya into a chaotic
Somalia on the Mediterranean, and the blood of innocents shed since 2011 is on their hands.
Given the stark split within the president's national security team, the Libya intervention was
especially reckless and unjustified. The default option in such a case should have been against
intervention, not plunging ahead.
The Trump administration should learn from the blunders of its predecessor and resist any
temptation to meddle further. America does not have a dog in the ongoing fight between Haftar
and the GNA, and we should simply accept whatever outcome emerges. Washington's arrogant
interference has caused enough suffering in Libya already.
Ted Galen Carpenter, a senior fellow in security studies at the Cato Institute and a
contributing editor at the National Interest , is the author of thirteen books and more than
eight hundred articles on international affairs. His latest book is NATO: The Dangerous Dinosaur .
The outcome in Libya is what the intent was - chaos, per the Yinon plan. The side effect
of mass immigration to Europe was warned by Gaddafi! All was known, yet the destabilization
war continued.
Obama and company not only destroyed Libya, they also helped to unleash a wave of jihadis
who are terrorizing vast swaths of west Africa, especially Mali and Burkina Faso. Their
stupidity and lack of foresight is mind-boggling!
Libya was and still is the case of a civil war into which foreign powers have intervened.
The major parties of that war have always been the Tripolitanian West and the Cyrenaican
East. Whoever is on top considers the others to be the rebels. That is how the demise of
Qaddafi began. For him Benghazi was the rebel's nest which needed some cleaning. Nothing has
changed. Haftar is the new Qaddafi.
I understand the role which the Obama administration played in getting the Libyan
intervention started. However the major destruction of Libya's fragile structure of
governance under Qaddafi was done by the French, Brits, and Italians.
You can always make things worse. It is one thing that Trump and friends are good at.
They don't consider that a criticism either, since they want what the rest of us consider
worse -- more war, more enemies, more inequality in outcomes at home, more desperation at
home giving more power to the haves over the have-nots.
Mortimer Adler's "How to Read a Book" is a timeless classic that still applies to articles
produced for electronic consumption. One of Adler's primary admonitions was to consider the
author's expertise, credibility, and potential biases. With regard to this article, scrolling
down to the end reveals the author's association with the Koch Brother financed Cato
Institute. The Koch Brothers and their money have done more to destroy American democracy
than any foreign tyrant or Presidential folly.
And oh, by the way, what did the Neocons and the Vulcans of the W Administration do to the
entire Middle East other than create a contiguous geographic belt of Iranian Shiite influence
from Tehran to Beirut?
While early Zionism was a desperate attempt to divorce the Jews from the ghetto and
their tribal obsession and make them "people like all other people,"
Zionist wanting to make Jews 'like all other people' by giving them a Jew ruled only
state to get away from non Jews is as contradictory as 'Israel is Jewish and
Democratic.'
You're never going to find logical thinking in Jews.
I'm afraid you've lost me with this one. Let's start with this:
' While early Zionism was a desperate attempt to divorce the Jews from the ghetto and
their tribal obsession and make them "people like all other people," the present adherence
to Jewishness and kinship induces a return to Judeo-centric chauvinism '
I'm afraid I don't see the distinction. As I mentioned a while back, I see Zionism as the
Jewish response to the racial nationalism that dominated thinking in Europe in the second
half of the nineteenth century. There were Frenchmen, and they had France. There were
Germans, and they had Germany. There were Greeks, and they had Greece. There were Jews, and
they should have a Jewish state.
In all of these, the nation, its land, and the ethnic entity that was its people were
perceived as indivisible -- and in point of fact, many previously amiably accepted ethnic
minorities found themselves persecuted in consequence. The Poles under Prussian rule are an
example: perfectly welcome in Frederick the Great's Prussia, but repeatedly targeted in
Wilhelmine Germany.
It had become nonsense to speak of a 'German' who wasn't German by birth, a Turk who
wasn't Turkish, etc, etc. So how would Zionism -- the Jewish equivalent of all this -- be
distinct from 'Judeo-centric chauvinism'? And indeed, in the new dispensation, Jews were
forced to choose between assimilation and Zionism; they could be 'Hungarians (or whatever) of
the Mosaic faith' or they could be Zionists -- the traditional Jewish identity had become
obsolete.
What form could 'Judeo-centric chauvinism' have taken but Zionism? Aren't the two one and
the same?
Thanks Gilad for your courageous work. I think we should always remember the ordinary Jews,
the grocers, the tailors, and all the others who have lived ordinary lives and suffered due
to the activities of their elites. We should remember the radical Jews and the artists like
Cohen, Dylan and Lou Reid to mention just a few. I could make a case that the English
elites have caused just as much trouble as elite Jews. In fact, it was the meeting of English
and Jewish elites that created the British empire.
@Iron
Lion Zion "The dichotomy of Israeli vs Jew is rhetoric from the Israeli radical-left."
well, perhaps the survey cited was invalid -- the one concerning how Jews/Israelis
self-identified.
ASAIK the original Zionist idea, or the most powerful version of it in the 20th century,
was Jabotinsky's Revisionist Zionism, which was a secular movement.
If no one in Israel any longer gives even lip service to this concept, then that is indeed
a big change. And, we have read at this site and elsewhere of the takeover of the Israeli
state by the orthodox. Pushback on this explains the stance of Avigdor Liberman and his party
members. Many of which are Russian jews who do not want to support their orthodox countrymen
and -women, who are becoming demographically overrepresented but will not serve in the armed
forces, etc.These issues were written about at this site recently. I think under the title
"the End of Israel."
Certainly that contributoin suggests that what it means to be a Jew/Israeli is changing
and that it is the Israeli "left" that is trying to maintain some kind of image of a secular
Jew who is an Israeli citizen, but is going against the contemporary flow in this effort.
@Colin
Wright The Greeks, French, Germans (etc.) that you cite were people who lived within
national borders, spoke Greek, French, German etc., were educated in these countries and
voted and fought for them (including jews) – but had many different backgrounds and a
variety of religions, though of course predominately Christian. In Europe a country define
themselves by their culture, not by 'race'. i.e. their history, language, philosophy, arts
etc.
'Race' is a jewish divide-and-rule political tool to make up for the fact that:
Judaism is simply a belief (or, rather lifestyle) system – literally a set of life
style proscriptions they call 'laws' and not technically a religion since it contains no
universal, philosophic or transcendental content.
The problem for jews is what is now called judaism, which was born after Christ and
born out of opposition to Christi anity. It is in fact not a religion but a
political movement, anti-faith and anti-religion and anti-love of humankind.
Driven by oppositionalism, they were great proselytisers. People of many different
backgrounds converted to judaism, from Ethiopians to Turkic tribes. Thus there is no "jewish
nation". There is no jewish culture either as is evidenced by jews' meagre contribution to
the arts, philosophy. There wasn't even a jewish language until hebrew was revived /
re-invented all too recently and for political reasons.
Yiddish is a true language of jews if there is one – but it is merely a dialect, not a
standalone.
The Germans destroyed themselves by falling into the jewish anti-Christian, 'racialist'
trap. To aid the Germans in WW2 you had to agree to be an unter-menschen and recognise
Germans as your uber-menschen ..how self-defeating is that?
And why should anyone be surprised that the exact same mentality rules in Israel today, since
it is the delusional heart of judaism? A fake "Racial" Supremacy is the raison
d'être of "judaism".
All of this adds up to a tragic, self-defeating and ultimately stupid (un-intelligent)
position.
Peoples tend to want their own nation state presumably because it it the most
satisfying, protective and benevolent context for individuals to mediate their lives in the
world. Unfortunately German Jews lived in a state while being of a different nation to the
majority, and had their rights suddenly taken away. In the Jewish state of Israel Jews are
having their need for imprescriptible rights met. Palestinians want their own state and those
rights that go with it.
While the Trump Administration seems to be cozying up to America's Jewish voters, here is an
article that outlines what American Jews really think of Donald Trump and his leadership:
Thanks Gilad for your courageous work. I think we should always remember the ordinary Jews,
the grocers, the tailors, and all the others who have lived ordinary lives and suffered due
to the activities of their elites. We should remember the radical Jews and the artists like
Cohen, Dylan and Lou Reid to mention just a few. I could make a case that the English elites
have caused just as much trouble as elite Jews. In fact, it was the meeting of English and
Jewish elites that created the British empire.
the placement of technical surveillance devices by Israel was clearly intended to target
cellphone communications to and from the Trump White House. As the president frequently chats
with top aides and friends on non-secure phones, the operation sought to pick up conversations
involving Trump with the expectation that the security-averse president would say things off
the record that might be considered top secret.
The Politicoreport
, which is sourced to top intelligence and security officials, details how "miniature
surveillance devices" referred to as "Stingrays" imitate regular cell phone towers to fool
phones being used nearby into providing information on their locations and identities.
According to the article, the devices are referred to by technicians as "international mobile
subscriber identity-catchers or IMSI-catchers, they also can capture the contents of calls and
data use."
Over one year ago, government security agencies discovered the electronic footprints that
indicated the presence of the surveillance devices around Washington including near the White
House. Forensic analysis involved dismantling the devices to let them "tell you a little about
their history, where the parts and pieces come from, how old are they, who had access to them,
and that will help get you to what the origins are." One source observed afterwards that "It
was pretty clear that the Israelis were responsible."
The Israeli Embassy denied any involvement in the espionage and Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu adroitly and predictably lied regarding the report, saying "We have a directive, I
have a directive: No intelligence work in the United States, no spies. And it's vigorously
implemented, without any exception. It is a complete fabrication, a complete fabrication."
The Israelis are characteristically extremely aggressive in their intelligence gathering
operations, particularly in targeting the United States, even though Trump has done the
Netanyahu government many favors. These have included moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem,
withdrawing from the nuclear deal and sanctioning Iran, recognizing Israeli sovereignty over
the Golan Heights, and looking the other way as Israel expands its settlements and regularly
bombs Syria and Lebanon.
Israel's high-risk spying is legendary, but the notion that it is particularly good at it
is, like everything having to do with the Jewish state, much overrated. Mossad has been caught
in flagrante numerous times. In 2010, an undercover Mossad hit team was caught on 30
minutes of surveillance video as it wandered through a luxury Dubai hotel where it had gone
to kill a leading Hamas official. And the notion that Mossad and CIA work hand-in-hand is also
a fiction. Working level Agency officers dislike their reckless Mossad counterparts.
Newsweek magazine's "Spy Talk" once cited
a poll of CIA officers that ranked Israel "dead last" among friendly countries in actual
intelligence cooperation with Washington.
The fact is that Israel conducts espionage and influence operations against the United
States more aggressively than any other "friendly" country, including tapping White House
phones used by Bill Clinton to speak with Monica Lewinski. Israeli "experts" regularly provide
alarmist and inaccurate private
briefings for American Senators on Capitol Hill. Israel also constantly manufactures
pretexts to draw the U.S. into new conflicts in the Middle East, starting with the Lavon Affair in Alexandria Egypt
in 1954 and including the false flag attack on the U.S.S. Liberty in 1967. In short,
Israel has no reluctance to use its enormous political and media clout in the U.S. to pressure
successive administrations to conform to its own foreign and security policy views.
The persistent spying, no matter what Netanyahu claims, is a very good reason why Israel
should not receive billions of dollars in military assistance annually. Starting in 1957,
Israel's friends stole enriched uranium from a
Pennsylvania refinery to create a nuclear arsenal. More recently we
have learned how Arnon Milchan, a Hollywood producer/billionaire born in Israel, arranged
the illegal purchase of 800 krytron triggers to use in the production of nuclear weapons. The
operation also involved current Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu.
The existence of a large scale Israeli spying effort at the time of 9/11 has been
widely reported, incorporating Israeli companies in New Jersey and Florida as well as hundreds
of "art students" nationwide. Five "dancing" Israelis from one of the companies were observed
celebrating against the backdrop of the twin towers going down.
While it is often observed that everyone spies on everyone else, espionage is a high-risk
business, particularly when spying on friends. Israel, relying on Washington for billions of
dollars and also for political cover in international fora like the United Nations, does not
spy discreetly, largely because it knows that few in Washington will seek to hold it
accountable. There were, for example, no consequences for the Israelis when Israeli
Mossad intelligence officers using U.S. passports and pretending to be Americans recruited
terrorists to carry out attacks inside Iran. Israelis using U.S. passports in that fashion put
every American traveler at risk.
Israel, where government and business work hand in hand, has obtained significant advantage
by systematically stealing American
technology with both military and civilian applications. The U.S. developed technology is
then reverse engineered and used by the Israelis to support their own exports. Sometimes, when
the technology is military in nature and winds up in the hands of an adversary, the
consequences can be serious. Israel has sold advanced weapons systems to China that incorporate
technology developed by American companies.
The reality of Israeli large-scale spying in the United States is indisputable. One might
cite Jonathan Pollard, who stole more highly classified information than any spy in history.
And then there were Ben-Ami Kadish, Stuart Nozette and Larry Franklin, other spies for Israel
who have been caught and tried, but they are only the tip of the iceberg. Israel always
features prominently in the annual FBI report called "Foreign Economic Collection and
Industrial Espionage." The 2005 report states "Israel has
an active program to gather proprietary information within the United States. These collection
activities are primarily directed at obtaining information on military systems and advanced
computing applications that can be used in Israel's sizable armaments industry." It adds that
Israel recruits spies, uses electronic methods, and carries out computer intrusion to gain the
information.
A 1996 Defense Investigative Service report noted that Israel
has great success stealing technology by exploiting the numerous co-production projects that it
has with the Pentagon. It says "Placing Israeli nationals in key industries is a technique
utilized with great success." A General Accounting Office (GAO) examination of espionage
directed against American defense and security industries described how Israeli citizens
residing in the U.S. had stolen sensitive technology to manufacture artillery gun tubes,
obtained classified plans for reconnaissance systems, and passed sensitive aerospace designs to
unauthorized users.
The GAO has concluded that
Israel "conducts the most aggressive espionage operation against the United States of any U.S.
ally." In June 2006, a Pentagon administrative judge ruled against a difficult to even imagine
appeal by an Israeli denied a security clearance, saying that "The Israeli government is
actively engaged in military and industrial espionage in the United States." FBI counter
intelligence officer John Cole has also reported how many
cases of Israeli espionage are dropped under orders from the Justice Department., making the
Jewish state's spying consequence free. He provides a "conservative estimate" of 125 viable
investigations into Israeli espionage involving both American citizens and Israelis that were
stopped due to political pressure.
So, did Israel really spy on Donald Trump? Sure it did. And Netanyahu is, metaphorically
speaking, thumbing his nose at the American president and asking with a grin, "What are you
going to do about it?"
For those who have not heard of Israeli startup Carbyne911 (partly owned by Ehud Barak, run
by former Israeli officers of the unit 8200, and to which Jeffrey Epstein donated to) here is
an interview TruNews with Whitney Webb:
Carbyne911: Israeli Tech Scheme to Weaponize 911 Emergency Call System
(Interview starts at 11:16 mark)
The rarest occurrence was when Epstein would fly without any of his usual entourage and
just one other passenger. There was only one name that jumped out from the flight manifest
as a good example of when Epstein alternated from his routine. His second meeting with
Nicole Junkermann.
The link between Nicole Junkermann, the Israeli state intelligence services and the
Israeli Defence Force is not a tenuous one. The ominously named "Reporty Homeland Security"
was the first incarnation of what is now called "Carbyne911" and is referred to as simply
"Carbyne." Described as a "global leader in public safety technology," Carbyne is a call
handling platform app that allows you to, amongst other things, stream any ongoing
emergency directly to the responding emergency services. It claims, in the information
section of a promotional video on YouTube entitled "Nicole Junkermann presents Carbyne,
They promise to combine the use of personal data, location data, live video, data from
surrounding wearable tech, and even information from parked smart cars, to deliver more
information to the emergency services who should be responding. They can pinpoint your
location, even indoors, to within three feet, and they claim that they can even collect
data from dropped calls. However, they fail to mention how they'll get the permission to
use such masses of available data. Who are these angels behind this revolutionary
technology which aims to get between a victim and the emergency services?
One of the directors of Carbyne is Nicole Junkermann. The chairman of the board of
directors is Ehud Barak, the 10th Prime Minister of Israel, the 14th Chief of Staff of the
Israel Defense Forces, former Minister of Defense and former Head of Military Intelligence
for Israel.
Another of Carbyne's directors and board members is Brigadier Pinchas Buchris, the
former Deputy Commander of an elite IDF operations unit and former Commander of the IDF
8200 Cyber Intelligence Unit. Amir Elichai is the Founder and CEO of Carbyne, he is
also a former Israeli Army officer who served in various positions in the special elite
forces and the intelligence corps. Alex Dizengof is Carbyne's Co-Founder & CTO. He's
described as a Software Architect and Algorithms Developer. Dizengof had previously
developed machine learning algorithms for robots and mobile platforms, as well as cyber
security software for the Israeli Prime Minister's Office.
The GAO has concluded that Israel "conducts the most aggressive espionage operation
against the United States of any U.S. ally."
Even a statement like this from the GAO is misleading in that it implies that the next
friendly country spying on the US (the UK, presumably) to be out-edged by Israel, when in
fact the difference is probably one of order (if not of kind) in magnitude.
FBI counter intelligence officer John Cole has also reported how many cases of Israeli
espionage are dropped under orders from the Justice Department ., making the Jewish
state's spying consequence free.
Wow.
So when Paul Craig Roberts says "US Justice Department (sic)" we now have Giraldi's total
confirmation. If fact, Roberts is being too much of a gentleman about it.
Maybe call it (((Justice Department))) from now on and get it over with.
The Israelis are characteristically extremely aggressive in their intelligence gathering
operations, particularly in targeting the United States, even though Trump has done the
Netanyahu government many favors. These have included moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem,
withdrawing from the nuclear deal and sanctioning Iran, recognizing Israeli sovereignty
over the Golan Heights, and looking the other way as Israel expands its settlements and
regularly bombs Syria and Lebanon.
I'm sure that the Israelis don't regard these as favours...
"... I guess America does not need Saudi oil any more, cause it looks like Israel is about to be made king of the Oil Kingdoms in the middle east.? ..."
I think you are correct there maybe many Americans in the USA.. It may take the few Americans who have been
allowed to see the big picture at the USA...
Clintonism was the introduction of mafia style in the US justice system and conversion of the
key law enforcement agency -- FBI -- in mafia style organization.
Re: Krugman's article on the death of American Democracy he asserts: " In less than three
years it has been transformed from an agency that tries to enforce the law to an organization
dedicated to punishing Trump's opponents."
I think that I agree with Bill Black that the roots of the criminogenic environment go
much deeper. Where was the DOJ in the prosecution of the massive banking fraud that led to
the great financial crisis ? Busy prosecuting poor people while the big fish criminals were
rescued by the corrupt institutions. I agree that Democracy dies when the institutions become
corrupt and the beneficiaries of the same corrupt institutions become smugly comfortable in
control of the narrative.
A troubling article by the New Yorker, "Clarence Thomas's Radical Vision of Race",
Points to a real world example: The profound corruption of the conservative SCOTUS that
led to Citizens United. The angst of the entitled bemoaning their good fortune, like spoiled
children.
Interestingly, one of the people the Ukrainians gave up in this exchange was Vladimir
Tsemakh, a native of the Donbass who was kidnapped by the Ukie SBU in Novorussia (our noble
"Europeans" did not object to such methods!) and declared the "star witness" against Russia in
the MH-17 (pseudo-)investigation. Even more pathetic is that
the Dutch apparently fully endorsed this load of crapola . Finally, and just for a good
laugh, check out how the infamous'
Bellingcat presented Tsemakh . And then, suddenly, everybody seem to "forget" that "star
witness" and now the Ukies have sent him to Russia. Amazing how fast stuff gets lost in the
collective western memory hole
Thus we see these apparently contradictory developments taking place: on on hand, the
Ukraine finally agreed to a prisoner swap with Russia (a painful one for Russia as Russia
mostly traded real criminals, including a least twobona fide Ukie
terrorist, against what are mostly civilian hostages, but Putin decided – correctly I
think – that freeing Russian nationalists from Ukie jails was more important in this
case) while on the other hand, the Ukronazi armed forces increased their shelling, even with
152mm howitzers which fire 50kg high explosive fragmentation shells, against the Donbass.
Whatever may be the case, this prisoner swap, no matter how one-sided and unfair, is a positive
development which might mark the beginning of a pragmatic and less ideological attitude in
Kiev.
Some very cautious beginnings of a little hint of optimism might be in order following that
exchange, but the big stuff seems to be scheduled for the meeting of the Normandy Group (NG),
probably in France. So far, the Russians have made it very clear that they will not meet just
for the hell of meeting, and that the only circumstance in which the Russians will agree to a
NG meeting would be if it has good chances of yielding meaningful results which, translated
from Russian diplomatic language simply means "if/when Kiev stops stonewalling and sabotaging
everything". Specifically, the Russians are demanding that Zelenskii commit in writing to the
so-called "
Steinmeier formula " and that the Ukrainian forces withdraw from the line of contact. Will
that happen? Maybe. We shall soon find out.
Here is my informal translation of these words:
The international order is being shaken in an unprecedented manner, above all with, if I
may say so, by the great upheaval that is undoubtedly taking place for
the first time in our history , in almost every field and with a
profoundly historic magnitude . The first thing we observe is a major
transformation, a geopolitical and strategic re-composition. We are undoubtedly
experiencing the end of Western hegemony over the world . We were accustomed to an
international order which, since the 18th century, rested on a Western hegemony, mostly
French in the 18th century, by the inspiration of the Enlightenment; then mostly British in
the 19th century thanks to the Industrial Revolution and, finally, mostly American in the
20th century thanks to the 2 great conflicts and the economic and political domination of
this power. Things change. And they are now deeply shaken by the mistakes of Westerners
in certain crises, by the choices that have been made by Americans for several years
which did not start with this administration, but which lead to revisiting certain
implications in conflicts in the Middle East and elsewhere, and to rethinking a deep,
diplomatic and military strategy, and sometimes elements of solidarity that we thought were
intangible for eternity, even if we had constituted together in geopolitical moments that
have changed. And then there is the emergence of new powers whose impact we have
probably underestimated for a long time. China is at the forefront, but also the Russian
strategy, which has, it must be said, been pursued more successfully in recent years
. I will come back to that. India that is emerging, these new economies that are also
becoming powers not only economic but political and that think themselves, as some have
written, as real "civilizational states" which now come not only to shake up our
international order but who also come to weigh in on the economic order and to
rethink the political order and the political imagination that goes with it, with much
dynamism and much more inspiration than we have. Look at India, Russia and China. They
have a much stronger political inspiration than Europeans today. They think about our planet
with a true logic, a true philosophy, an imagination that we've lost a little
bit.
... ... ...
6) " Look at India, Russia and China. They have a much stronger political inspiration
than Europeans today. They think about our planet with a true logic, a true philosophy, an
imagination that we've lost a little bit."
This is the "core BRICS" challenge to the Empire: China and Russia have already established
what the Chinese call a "Comprehensive Strategic Partnership of Coordination for the New Era".
If they can now extend this kind of informal but extremely profound partnership (I think of it
as "symbiotic") to India next, then the BRICS will have a formidable future (especially after
the Brazilian people give the boot to Bolsonaro and his US patrons). Should that fail and
should India chose to remain outside this unique relationship, then the SCO will become the
main game in town. And yes, Macron is spot on: China and, especially, Russia have a
fundamentally different worldview and, unlike the western one, theirs does have "much stronger
political" goals (Macron used the word "aspirations"), "a real philosophy and imagination"
which the West has lost, and not just a "little bit" but, I would argue, completely. But one
way or the other, and for the first time in 1000 years, the future of our planet will not be
decided anywhere in the West, not in Europe (old or "new"), but in Asia, primarily by the
Russian-Chinese alliance. As I explained here , the AngloZionist Empire is
probably the last one in history, definitely the last western one.
DNC is a criminal organization and the fact that Debbie Wasserman
Schultz escaped justice is deeply regreatable.
Notable quotes:
"... The problem facing the Democratic National Committee today remains the same as in 2016: How to block even a moderately left-wing social democrat by picking a candidate guaranteed to lose to Trump, so as to continue the policies that serve banks, the financial markets and military spending for Cold War 2.0. ..."
"... Trump meanwhile has done most everything the Democratic Donor Class wants: He has cut taxes on the wealthy, cut social spending for the population at large, backed Quantitative Easing to inflate the stock and bond markets, and pursued Cold War 2.0. Best of all, his abrasive style has enabled Democrats to blame the Republicans for the giveaway to the rich, as if they would have followed a different policy. ..."
"... The effect has been to make America into a one-party state. Republicans act as the most blatant lobbyists for the Donor Class. But people can vote for a representative of the One Percent and the military-industrial complex in either the Republican or Democratic column. That is why most Americans owe allegiance to no party. ..."
"... I'm just curious about how much longer this log-jam situation can persist before real political realignment takes place. Bernie Sander is ultimately a relic not a representative of new political vigor running through the party, like Trump he would be largely be on his own without much congressional support from his own party. ..."
"... As the 2016 election and Brexit have illuminated, globalisation is a religion for the upper middle classes. ..."
"... They just refuse to understand that political solidarity, key to any such policies is permanently damaged by immigration. ..."
"... If you make people chose between their ethnicity being displaced and class conflict, they'll pick the preservation of their ethnicity and it's territory every time. I ..."
"... My prediction: The elites in the US won't give way, people will simply become demoralised and the Trump/Sanders moment will pass with significant damage done to the legitimacy of American democracy and media but with progressives unable to deal with immigration (Much like the right can't deal with global warming) they will fail to get much done. The general population has become too atomised and detached, beaten-down bystanders to their own politics and society to mount a popular political movement. Immigrants, recent descendants of immigrants and the upper middle classes will continue to instinctually understand globalisation is how they loot America and will not vote for 'extreme' candidates that threaten this. The upper middle class will continue to dominate the overton window and use it to inject utter economic lies to the public. ..."
I hope that the candidate who is clearly the voters' choice, Bernie Sanders, may end up as the party's nominee. If he is, I'm
sure he'll beat Donald Trump handily, as he would have done four years ago. But I fear that the DNC's Donor Class will push Joe Biden,
Kamala Harris or even Pete Buttigieg down the throats of voters. Just as when they backed Hillary the last time around, they hope
that their anointed neoliberal will be viewed as the lesser evil for a program little different from that of the Republicans.
So Thursday's reality TV run-off is about "who's the least evil?" An honest reality show's questions would focus on "What are
you against ?" That would attract a real audience, because people are much clearer about what they're against: the vested
interests, Wall Street, the drug companies and other monopolies, the banks, landlords, corporate raiders and private-equity asset
strippers. But none of this is to be permitted on the magic island of authorized candidates (not including Tulsi Gabbard, who was
purged from further debates for having dared to mention the unmentionable).
Donald Trump as the DNC's nominee
The problem facing the Democratic National Committee today remains the same as in 2016: How to block even a moderately left-wing
social democrat by picking a candidate guaranteed to lose to Trump, so as to continue the policies that serve banks, the financial
markets and military spending for Cold War 2.0.
DNC donors favor Joe Biden, long-time senator from the credit-card and corporate-shell state of Delaware, and opportunistic California
prosecutor Kamala Harris, with a hopey-changey grab bag alternative in smooth-talking small-town Rorschach blot candidate Pete Buttigieg.
These easy victims are presented as "electable" in full knowledge that they will fail against Trump.
Trump meanwhile has done most everything the Democratic Donor Class wants: He has cut taxes on the wealthy, cut social spending
for the population at large, backed Quantitative Easing to inflate the stock and bond markets, and pursued Cold War 2.0. Best of
all, his abrasive style has enabled Democrats to blame the Republicans for the giveaway to the rich, as if they would have followed
a different policy.
The Democratic Party's role is to protect Republicans from attack from the left, steadily following the Republican march rightward.
Claiming that this is at least in the direction of being "centrist," the Democrats present themselves as the lesser evil (which is
still evil, of course), simply as pragmatic in not letting hopes for "the perfect" (meaning moderate social democracy) block the
spirit of compromise with what is attainable, "getting things done" by cooperating across the aisle and winning Republican support.
That is what Joe Biden promises.
The effect has been to make America into a one-party state. Republicans act as the most blatant lobbyists for the Donor Class.
But people can vote for a representative of the One Percent and the military-industrial complex in either the Republican or Democratic
column. That is why most Americans owe allegiance to no party.
The Democratic National Committee worries that voters may disturb this alliance by nominating a left-wing reform candidate. The
DNC easily solved this problem in 2016: When Bernie Sanders intruded into its space, it the threw the election. It scheduled the
party's early defining primaries in Republican states whose voters leaned right, and packed the nominating convention with Donor
Class super-delegates.
After the dust settled, having given many party members political asthma, the DNC pretended that it was all an unfortunate political
error. But of course it was not a mistake at all. The DNC preferred to lose with Hillary than win with Bernie, whom springtime polls
showed would be the easy winner over Trump. Potential voters who didn't buy into the program either stayed home or voted green.
No votes will be cast for months, so I don't know how Mr. Hudson can say that Sanders is "clearly the voters choice." He would
be 79 on election day, well above the age when most men die, which is something that voters should seriously consider. Whoever
his VP is will probably be president before the end of Old Bernie's first term, so I hope he chooses his VP wisely.
In any case I laugh at how the media always reports that Biden, who has obviously lost more than a few brain cells, has such
a commanding lead over this field of second-raters. The voters, having much better things to do, haven't even started to pay attention
yet.
And, how could anyone seriously believe in these polls anyway? Only older people have land lines today. If calling people is
the methodology pollsters are using, then the results would be heavily skewed towards former VP Biden, whose name everyone knows.
I lost all faith in polls when the media was saying, with certainty, that Hillary was a lock to win against the insurgent Trump.
Tulsi Gabbard is the only candidate beside Trump with charisma today. With her cool demeanor, she is certainly the least unlikeable.
She would be Trump's most formidable opponent. But the democrats, like their counterparts, are owned by Wall Street and the Military
Industrial Complex. Sadly, most democrats still believe that the party is working in their best interests, while the republicans
are the party of the rich.
If you watch the debates tonight, which I will not be, you will notice that Tulsi Gabbard won't be on stage. That is by design.
She is a leper. At least the republicans allowed Trump to be onstage in 2016, which makes them more democratic than the democrats.
Plus they didn't have Super Delegates to prevent Trump from achieving the nomination he had rightfully won. Something to think
about since the DNC, not the voters, annointed Hillary last time.
If the YouTube Oligarchs still allow it, I plan on watching the post-debate analysis with characters like Richard Spencer and
Eric Striker. Those guys are most entertaining, and have insights that are not permitted to be uttered in the controlled, mind-numbing
farce of the mainstream media.
Elizabeth Warren seems a more likely nominee than Sanders.
Elizabeth Warren is phony as phuck(PAP). Just like forked tongued Obama she's really just a tool for the neo-liberal establishment,
which does make her more likely.
Here is another question. Can the DNC or RNC really change institutionally fast enough?
I'm just curious about how much longer this log-jam situation can persist before real political realignment takes place.
Bernie Sander is ultimately a relic not a representative of new political vigor running through the party, like Trump he would
be largely be on his own without much congressional support from his own party.
As the 2016 election and Brexit have illuminated, globalisation is a religion for the upper middle classes. Many of
them may be progressives but they refuse to understand the very non-progressive consequences of mass immigration (Or, one should
say over-immigration) or globalisation more generally. The increasing defection of such individuals to the Liberal Democrats in
Britain is a fascinating example. They just refuse to understand that political solidarity, key to any such policies is permanently
damaged by immigration.
It is interesting to see the see-saw effect of UKip and now the Brexit party in the UK (Well, in England). With them first
drawing working class voters from Labour without increasing Conservative performance, bringing about a massive conservative majority
and now threatening to siphon voters from the Tories with the opposite effect.
But UKip and later the Brexit party almost exist through the indispensable leadership of Nigel Farage and a very specific motivating
goal of leaving the EU. I can't see a third party rising to put pressure on the mainstream parties.
If you make people chose between their ethnicity being displaced and class conflict, they'll pick the preservation of their
ethnicity and it's territory every time. I f the centre left refuses to understand this (Something that wouldn't have been
hard for them to understand when they still drew candidates from the working classes) they will continue their slide into oblivion
as they have done across the Western world. (Excluding 2 party systems and Denmark where they do understand this)
My prediction: The elites in the US won't give way, people will simply become demoralised and the Trump/Sanders moment
will pass with significant damage done to the legitimacy of American democracy and media but with progressives unable to deal
with immigration (Much like the right can't deal with global warming) they will fail to get much done. The general population
has become too atomised and detached, beaten-down bystanders to their own politics and society to mount a popular political movement.
Immigrants, recent descendants of immigrants and the upper middle classes will continue to instinctually understand globalisation
is how they loot America and will not vote for 'extreme' candidates that threaten this. The upper middle class will continue to
dominate the overton window and use it to inject utter economic lies to the public.
The novel internet mass media outlets that allowed such unpoliced political discussion to reach mass audiences will be pacified
by whatever means and America will slide into an Italian style trans-generational malaise at a national level for some time.
Here is another question. Can the DNC or RNC really change institutionally fast enough?
Trump is trying to change the RNC away from Globalist elites and towards Christian Populist beliefs and Main Street America.
I am some what hopeful, as the U.S. is not alone in this trajectory. There is a global tail wind that should help the GOP change
quickly enough.
The true test will be the 2024 GOP nomination. A bold choice will have to break through to keep the RNC from backsliding into
the clutches of Globalist failure.
I think Sanders could have beat Trump in 2016. This time around it is not that clear because so many of his supporters in 2016
feel burnt.
Badly burnt. Or Bernt. He threw his support for Hillary, even if it was tepid, and then got a bad case of Russiagateitis which
his base on the left really hated. His left base never bought Russiagate for a minute. We knew it was an internal leak, probably
by Seth Rich, who provided all the information to Assange. He still seems to be a strong Israel supporter even if has stood up
to Netanyahu.
And while it may seem odd, many of his base on the left have grown weary of the global climate change agenda.
He has not advocated nuclear power and there is a growing movement for that on the left, especially by those who think renewables
will not generate the power we need.
But since Sanders does seem to attract the rural and suburban vote more than any other Democrat, Sanders has a chance to chip
away at Trumps' base and win the Electoral College. Another horrible loss to rural and suburban America by the Democrats will
cost them the EC again by a substantial margin, even if they manage to pull off another popular vote win.
the republican party is as globalist as you can find,and I'm sure you will be the first one to inform us when the global
elite including those in America throw in the towel,
Some elite Globalist NeverTrumpers, such as George Will and Bill Kristol, have thrown in the towel on the GOP. This allows
their "neocon" followers to return to their roots in the war mongering Democrat Party. So it *IS* happening.
The real questions are:
-- Can it happen fast enough?
-- Can it be sustained after Donald Trump term limits out?
I'm not bold enough to say it is inevitable. All I will say is, "There are reasons to be at least mildly hopeful."
Has everyone forgot the last time the DNC openly cheated Sanders he said nothing publicly, but then endorsed Clinton? Sanders
knows he is not allowed to become president, his role to prevent the formation of a third party, and to keep the Green Party small.
Otherwise he would jump to the Green Party right now and may beat the DNC and Trump.
Sanders treats progressives like Charlie Brown. Once again, inviting them to run a kick the football, only to pull it away
and watch them fall. He recently backed off his opposition to the open borders crazies, rarely mentions cuts to military spending
to fund things, and has even joined the stupid fake russiagate bandwagon.
Note that he dismisses the third party idea as unworkable, when he already knows the DNC is unworkable. Why not give the Green
party a chance? Cause he don't want to win knowing he'd be killed or impeached for some reason.
@Carlton Meyer The
Stalinist DNC openly cheated Tulsi Gabbard when they left her off the debate stage last night. When asked about it on 'The View'
recently, Sanders said nothing in her defense, or that she deserved to be on the stage. Nice way to stab her in the back for leaving
her DNC position to support you last time, Bernie. Socialist Sanders wants to be president, yet is afraid of the DNC. Nice!
Those polls were rigged against Tulsi, and everyone who is paying attention knows it. But, far from hurting her candidacy by
not making the DNC's arbitrary cut, her exclusion may wind up helping her. Kim Iverson, Michael Tracey, and comedian Jimmy Dore,
anti-war progressive YouTubers with large, loyal followings, have lambasted the out-of touch DNC for its actions. Tucker Carlson
on the anti-war right has also done so.
One hopes that the DNC's stupidity in censoring her message may wind up being the best thing ever for Tulsi's insurgent candidacy.
We shall see. OTOH, who can trust the polls to tell us the truth of where her popularity stands.
@RadicalCenter Do you
forget about Trump's declaration that he wants the largest amount of immigration ever, as long as they come in legally? There
are no good guys in our two sclerotic monopoly parties when it comes to immigration. Since both are terrible on that topic, at
least Tulsi seems to have the anti-war principles that Trump does not.
@follyofwar
Agreed . she was better off absent from that snore session. They all looked weak and
pathetic. BTW, Tulsi's now gotten her 3rd qualifying poll. She'll surge back much stronger.
And maybe even smarter, if she endorses this:
That means protection against the Republican-Democratic threats to cut back Social
Security to balance the budget in the face of tax cuts for the richest One Percent and
rising Cold War military spending. This means a government strong enough to take on the
vested financial and corporate interests and prosecute Wall Street's financial crime and
corporate monopoly power.
Analogies with late Imperial Rome are by now so cliché that even your average
dullard is familiar with them. But I find that the most fascinating -- and frightening --
parallels are with another empire of more recent vintage: the Empire of Japan.
The above quote brought to my mind the political unrest in Tokyo during the 1930s. Far
from being the work of a cabal of "militarists", as postwar legend would have it, Japan's
various internecine (and often bloody) political feuds and expensive military ventures were
driven by a public heavily invested in these affairs; hoping against hope for an outlet to
vent their increasing rage over dwindling social programs and opportunities at the cost of
propping up a concurrently fattening elite class.
Analyzing events like the Ni-ni-roku jiken (2/26 Incident) can be highly
instructional for Americans seeking some manner of explanation for their present failing
political system. While it is true that this nearly successful insurrection was carried out
by ultra-nationalists, their intention was not to deny the people a voice in the running of
government with their aspiration for direct rule by the Shōwa Emperor (then as now, the
Emperor served in a quasi-religious capacity with little ability to actually govern). Rather,
they felt that parliamentary democracy was a sham that benefitted only the monied and
privileged; and that only the Emperor, as the living incarnation of the Japanese state, could
act and respond according to the sovereign will of its people. What appeared to be a desire
for authoritarianism was, in fact, the radical, ideological inversion of the Marxist concept
of a "dictatorship of the proletariat". The Shōwa Emperor, in other words, was the
instrument of effecting the will of the nation; the "Emperor of the people"
(天皇の國民 Tennō no kokumin ).
I view in a similar vein the fascination and dreams that Trump and other such figures
excite in many: The radical hope that only a leader willing to smash the system, which to all
intents and purposes appears to only serve the few, can paradoxically restore the ability of
the many to express and act. Bogged down as we are by ballooning military debt (and blood),
economic stagnation, and an ever-widening chasm between the "haves" and "have-nots", and it
becomes difficult to ignore the parallels between the US today and Japan in 1936.
This was an interesting article, but I hold no illusions about the future. There will be
no breakup of the two major parties, no viable alternatives. Things will only get worse.
I envy those in their 50s and up today -- they will likely miss out on the momentous
history that people my generation and younger will be bearing reluctant witness to.
1. Sanders votes for all the Military Expenditures (almost 50% of our National
budget).
2. Sanders voted for all the $100s of Billions giveaways to the worst -most racist –
most anti-Semitic, Apartheid, proto-Fascist Government on the planet. He is a Traitor. He
serves another Master, not America.
3. Sanders apparently, had no recorded means of employment for the first 40+ years of his
life.
4. How many times has Sanders been married? What is the significance of this?
5. Sanders said nothing: Who is the Zionist Military Hero General Woman who is blocked
from the debates by the UNDEMOCRATIC DEMOCRAP GANG??? Gabbard? I recall Hollywood (we must
pass the $Bailout) Obomber did not allow former President Carter to address his Democrap
Convention. Not very Democratic – are they?
Memories (I'm humming the lines as I vent).
Once it is understood that the United States is an Occupied Puppet Nation ,...
"... As in every election we're now being bombarded with propaganda about how "your vote makes a difference" and associated nonsense. According to the official version ordinary citizens control the state by voting for candidates in elections. The President and other politicians are supposedly servants of "the people" and the government an instrument of the general populace. This version is a myth. ..."
"... It does not matter who is elected because the way the system is set up all elected representatives must do what big business and the state bureaucracy want, not what "the people" want. Elected representatives are figureheads. ..."
"... Politicians' rhetoric may change depending on who is elected, but they all have to implement the same policies given the same situation. Elections are a scam whose function is to create the illusion that "the people" control the government, not the elite, and to neutralize resistance movements. All voting does is strengthen the state & ruling class, it is not an effective means to change government policy. ..."
"... What a politician says to win an election and what he actually does in office are two very different things; politicians regularly break their promises. This is not just a fluke but the outcome of the way the system is set up. Bush the second said he wouldn't engage in "nation-building" (taking other countries over) during the 2000 election campaign but has done it several times. He also claimed to support a balanced budget, but obviously abandoned that. Clinton advocated universal health care during the 1992 election campaign but there were more people without health insurance when he left office than when he took office. Bush the first said, "read my lips – no new taxes!" while running for office but raised taxes anyway. Reagan promised to shrink government but he drastically expanded the military-industrial complex and ran up huge deficits. Rather than shrinking government, he reoriented it to make it more favorable to the rich. ..."
"... Carter promised to make human rights the "soul of our foreign policy" but funded genocide in East Timor and backed brutal dictators in Argentina, South Korea, Chile, Brazil, Indonesia and elsewhere. During the 1964 elections leftists were encouraged by Democrats to vote for Johnson because Goldwater, his Republican opponent, was a fanatical warmonger who would escalate US involvement in Vietnam. ..."
"... Johnson won, and immediately proceeded to escalate US involvement in Vietnam. FDR promised to maintain a balanced budget and restrain government spending but did the exact opposite. Wilson won reelection in 1916 on the slogan "he kept us out of war" but then lied us into World War One. Hoover pledged to abolish poverty in 1928 but instead saw it skyrocket. ..."
I have no Idea when this article was printed, but it matters
not. This holds true for every election ever held in America.
If voting mattered they
wouldn't let us do it.
As in every election we're now being bombarded with propaganda about how "your vote makes a
difference" and associated nonsense. According to the official version ordinary citizens
control the state by voting for candidates in elections. The President and other politicians
are supposedly servants of "the people" and the government an instrument of the general
populace. This version is a myth.
It does not matter who is elected because the way the system
is set up all elected representatives must do what big business and the state bureaucracy want,
not what "the people" want. Elected representatives are figureheads.
Politicians' rhetoric may
change depending on who is elected, but they all have to implement the same policies given the
same situation. Elections are a scam whose function is to create the illusion that "the people"
control the government, not the elite, and to neutralize resistance movements. All voting does
is strengthen the state & ruling class, it is not an effective means to change government
policy.
From the same article, a list of campaign promises never kept (needs to be updated with
Obama/Trump).
What a politician says to win an election and what he actually does in office are two
very different things; politicians regularly break their promises. This is not just a fluke
but the outcome of the way the system is set up. Bush the second said he wouldn't engage in
"nation-building" (taking other countries over) during the 2000 election campaign but has
done it several times. He also claimed to support a balanced budget, but obviously abandoned
that. Clinton advocated universal health care during the 1992 election campaign but there
were more people without health insurance when he left office than when he took office. Bush
the first said, "read my lips – no new taxes!" while running for office but raised
taxes anyway. Reagan promised to shrink government but he drastically expanded the
military-industrial complex and ran up huge deficits. Rather than shrinking government, he
reoriented it to make it more favorable to the rich.
Carter promised to make human rights the "soul of our foreign policy" but funded
genocide in East Timor and backed brutal dictators in Argentina, South Korea, Chile, Brazil,
Indonesia and elsewhere. During the 1964 elections leftists were encouraged by Democrats to
vote for Johnson because Goldwater, his Republican opponent, was a fanatical warmonger who
would escalate US involvement in Vietnam.
Johnson won, and immediately proceeded to escalate
US involvement in Vietnam. FDR promised to maintain a balanced budget and restrain government
spending but did the exact opposite. Wilson won reelection in 1916 on the slogan "he kept us
out of war" but then lied us into World War One. Hoover pledged to abolish poverty in 1928
but instead saw it skyrocket. https://www.bigeye.com/elections.htm
These educated lemmings believe what they're spoon fed by CNN or Fox News. They cannot
possibly accept that they're immune to facts and disproof of their cherished assumptions
because they've been emotionally conditioned on a subconscious level, after which facts and
reasoning are emotionally reacted to like they were personal attacks.
Correct, but a little more detail on "how" it is done is needed. The trick is to hypnotize
the viewer.
This is done by using motion on the screen–left motion, right motion, left motion,
right motion seems to be the most effective technique, but getting the viewer dizzy by
constant screen motion and short cuts seems to work as well.
While the conventional wisdom was that advertising used such techniques (auto ads are the
most blatant–cars heading left, then cars heading right, then cars heading left, etc.)
to sell product, it appears that the ads are actually "prepping" the viewer to believe the
"news" that follows.
In addition, there is a lot of research out there demonstrating that "news" commentators
most important attribute is their ability to persuade others by appearing to have integrity.
This is tested using focus groups (test subjects). It is on this basis that they are
hired–and if they lose the technique or refuse to employ it–fired.
"... Corporate media polls are fake. There is no effin' way that Biden is or ever was the "front runner" for the D Party nomination. His entire candidacy is fake, so obviously contrived -- just like Hillary's -- it's a wonder that the DNC and their corporate propagandists ever believed they could get away with it. ..."
"... All their "arguments" in favor of Biden are nothing more than cover stories being laid out in advance for the purpose of validating the contrived result they are dead set on producing. Even their cover stories are goddamn coverups! ..."
Corporate media polls are fake. There is no effin' way that Biden is or ever was the "front runner" for
the D Party nomination. His entire candidacy is fake, so obviously contrived -- just like Hillary's -- it's a wonder that the DNC
and their corporate propagandists ever believed they could get away with it.
All their "arguments" in favor of Biden are nothing more than cover stories being laid out in advance for the purpose of validating
the contrived result they are dead set on producing. Even their cover stories are goddamn coverups!
The "polls" are fake. Corporate media outlets -- aka Ministries of Propaganda -- fabricate them out of whole cloth and then babble
insensately about "electability" and "inevitability," and about how the senile hack Biden is "the only one" who can beat the shitgibbon
chump, blah blah blah. The whole goddamn charade is so effin' obvious, a 3 year-old could see through it.
Come on Murca! Aren't you tired of being lied to and manipulated and robbed day after day? The fascist ratbastards in the R and
D Parties are first rate dumbasses who can't even tell believable lies anymore.
The DNC nomination will go to the candidate most likely to support the desires of the wealthy, those who own and run the country,
not to one of that group who will attempt to upset that apple cart, if elected President. That makes Joe a shoe-in and all he
has to do is not collapse as in falling to the floor requiring he be carried off by ambulance attendants, on stage, during a debate.
That selecting Joe out of that group will cause great concern among the Democratic voters such that they might just not vote
thereby throwing the election to Trump is of little concern to the DNC executive. If by some miracle Joe does become President
no harm will come to the interests of the wealthy so win or lose, it is the same win win result in the end.
Then having very (unsafely) gone off the Gaderene cliff deep end, you opined, "Trump
seems to understand that resistance to Shelly Adelson's demands about foreign policy
decisions regarding Israel is the best way to show patriotism to the USA."
Let me elaborate further on that sentence.
Trump has acceded to 2 of the 4 demands of Republican Party donor and Jew billionaire
Shelly Adelson in regards to Israel:
1) Trump has killed the Iran nuclear deal and 2) Trump has moved the US embassy to
Jerusalem.
But,
3) Trump has refused to invade Iran or start a war with Iran and 4) Trump has not dropped
a nuclear bomb on Iran.
Shelly Adelson wants the US military to invade Iran and Shelly Adelson wants the US
military to drop a nuclear bomb on Iran.
Trump knows that there is a difference between the American Empire and the United States
of America. Trump pushes military Keynesianism for the jobs and the loot for the American
people, but Trump doesn't think that the American Empire must continually be at war to
justify the war expenditures. Trump gave an interview where he spoke of the
military-industrial complex and Trump is a baby boomer who remembers Ike and his warnings
about the profiteers and scoundrels who would use the American Empire to profit off the
USA.
Trump made the wise decision to not go to war against Iran with that drone incident, and
that is a good thing. Trump may have thought about oil at two hundred dollars a barrel or he
might have thought it's better to pop the Iranians surreptitiously rather than televised on
CNN with air strikes and the like.
I do think that Trump puts the interests of Israel ahead of the interests of the USA, but
a lot of the ruling class slobs who run the American Empire don't even think that the USA
exists anymore. A lot of us voted for Trump to reclaim the sovereignty and independence of
the USA from the American Empire.
So I think Trump is in his own way being patriotic to a certain extent by giving Shelly
Adelson some of what Adelson wanted but not all.
Trump may also understand that German American women and other American women in the Great
Lakes states don't want their sons or husbands or uncles or fathers getting killed or
horribly wounded in endless wars that only benefit Israel. The German Americans, bless them,
have historically shown great reluctance to get caught up in all the endless war crud that
the JEW/WASP ruling class of the American Empire cooks up.
I won't vote for Trump because of his backstab on immigration, but I think Trump knows
that he is the government leader of a big monster and that big monster is the creature that
encompasses both the American Empire and the United States of America.
I was long winded, but there's a point in there somewhere!
" My relationship with Israel has been great," Trump said, listing some of his pro-Israel
accomplishments. "Anything is possible," he conceded, "but I don't believe it."
"Yesterday you heard the lies that Israel tried to spy on the White House, a complete
lie," Netanyahu said in a Hebrew-language video.
He then quoted Mark Levin as saying on his show that "this is exactly like the tricks
carried out by Joel Benenson. He was an adviser to Obama and now he is the adviser to [Blue
and White leaders Benny] Gantz and [Yair] Lapid."
@Charles Pewitt Trump
certainly deserves criticism for his ME policies.
However, it's pure folly to think that the alternatives to Trump would be any better, in
fact I suggest that most would be worse.
It's always interesting to see those here who are so quick to bash Trump never tell us
which of the alternative candidates they are willing to endorse and why.
Thank you, Mr. Unz, for reposting Whitney Webb's articles here. She is without doubt one
of the greatest investigative journalists of our time–a new Seymour Hersh almost.
Some have also alleged that Chertoff's mother, Livia Eisen, had links to Israeli
intelligence.
Chertoff is definitely bad seed. Here's what Wikispooks has to say about his role in the
9/11 cover-up:
Michael Chertoff – In charge of the Criminal Division in the USDOJ on 9/11.
Essentially responsible for the 9/11 NON-investigation. He let hundreds of Israeli spies
who were arrested prior to and on 9/11 go back home to Israel. He was also a prosecuting
judge in the first terrorist attack on the WTC in 1993. Chertoff purportedly holds dual
citizenship with the US and Israel. His family is one of the founding families of the state
of Israel and his mother was one of the first ever agents of the Mossad. His father and
uncle are ordained rabbis and teachers of the Talmud.
Seen some good Epstein links that commenters throw up here, thought I'd add some that I read
recently:
– A literary agent named John Brockman was pushing Epstein fairly brazenly:
"Jeffrey Epstein, the billionaire science philanthropist showed up at this weekend's event
by helicopter (with his beautiful young assistant from Belarus) He also got into trouble and
spent a year in jail in Florida. If he contacts you it's probably worth your time to meet him
as he's extremely bright and interesting the cover of the NYpost had a full-page photo of
Jeffrey and Andrew walking in Central Park under the headline: 'The Prince and the Perv.'
(That was the end of Andrew's role at the UK trade ambassador.)" https://newrepublic.com/article/154826/jeffrey-epsteins-intellectual-enabler
– Two sisters reported Epstein decades ago, nothing happened, even after one got
death threats from Ghislaine Maxwell:
Before 9/11 it would have been illegal for CIA to be operating within the U.S.
Yes, the Central Intelligence Agency -CIA, was prohibited by Law to operate within
the USA, This Law/limitation of the power of a Spy Agency, was designed to limit Government
intrusion into the lives of American Citizens. [Bitter laughter in this space]
1. Imagine how much more illegal it must be for a Spy Agency of any Foreign Government to
operate within the territorial limits of the United States.
2. Does the Zionist Spy Agency, MOSSAD , come to mind? Indeed.
3. In 2019, we Americans suffer the daily intrusion into our private affairs of as many
as 16 Secret Agencies, in addition to the most powerful Spy Agency MOSSAD , (which
certainly controls the CIA, NSA, FBI, many local Police Departments, and the other Secret
Agencies- those of the Armed forces, etc.).
*Good political news goes in this space [ ]. The dismissal of one Yahoo – by a Yahoo
– to be replaced by another Yahoo – does not count.
@Durruti The many whistleblowers (Snowden etal) have explained that international
intelligence agencies have circumvented local government restrictions on domestic
surveillance by trading data.
So, England can legally spy on Americans. America can legally spy on English folks.
Swap data.
Voila!
(Mossad can spy on everybody and trade with everybody–fun, fun, fun.)
Carbyne's current CEO, Amir Elichai, served in Unit 8200 and tapped
former Unit 8200 commander and current board member of AIPAC Pinchas
Buchris to serve as the company's director and on its board. In addition to Elichai,
another Carbyne co-founder, Lital Leshem , also served in Unit 8200 and
later worked for Israeli private spy company Black Cube. The only Carbyne co-founder that
didn't serve in Unit 8200 is Alex Dizengof, who previously worked for Israel's Prime
Minister's office.
As MintPress noted in
a past report detailing Israeli military intelligence's deep ties to American tech giant
Microsoft, Unit 8200 is an elite unit of the Israeli Intelligence corps that is part of the
IDF's Directorate of Military Intelligence and is involved mainly in signal intelligence (i.e.,
surveillance), cyberwarfare and code decryption. It is frequently described as the Israeli
equivalent of the NSA and Peter Roberts, senior research fellow at Britain's Royal United
Services Institute, characterized the unit in an interview with the
Financial Times as "probably the foremost technical intelligence agency in the world and
stand[ing] on a par with the NSA in everything except scale."
Notably, the NSA and Unit 8200 have collaborated on numerous projects, most infamously on
the
Stuxnet virus as well as the Duqu
malware . In addition, the NSA is known to work with veterans of Unit 8200 in the private
sector, such as when the NSA hired two Israeli companies , to
create backdoors into all the major U.S. telecommunications systems and major tech companies,
including Facebook, Microsoft and Google.
Both of those companies, Verint and Narus, have top executives with ties to Israeli
intelligence and one of those companies, Verint (formerly Comverse Infosys), has a history of
aggressively
spying on U.S. government facilities.
Unit 8200 is also
known for spying on civilians in the occupied Palestinian territories for "coercion
purposes" -- i.e., gathering info for blackmail -- and also for
spying on Palestinian-Americans via an intelligence-sharing agreement with the NSA.
While we can't ascertain with enough confidence the role of mossad in 9/11, all signs shows
that they did have foreknowledge of the event. To the extent comments of UNZ reflects the
attitude of common American toward the real culprits of 9/11 it spells troubles for Israel lobby
and by extension to the state of Israel in a long run. The pendulum start moving back from high
pro-Israel point it reached during Bush administration, when neocons actually run the USA foreign
policy.
Based on the impressions of the French website Panamza and subsequently
MintPress , three of these photos -- despite the heavy redaction and poor quality --
appear damning. Since 2001, even though the photos were never released until now, it had been
known that one of the Israelis arrested -- Sivan Kurzberg -- was seen in a photo "holding a
lighted lighter in the foreground, with the smoldering wreckage [of the twin towers] in the
background," according to Steven Noah Gordon, then-lawyer for the five Israelis, as cited in
a New York Times report from November 2001.
The picture of Kurzberg with the lit lighter appears to be photo #5 in the new FOIA release.
Yet, the picture released includes a visible date of September 10, 2001, the day before the
attacks, as do two other photos -- images #7 and #8 in the collection -- whereas all other
photos with dates show only the month and the year (9 '01). The FOIA release did not provide
any information as to the apparent discrepancy in dates.
While this could be explained away as the camera in question being programmed with a
slightly inaccurate date, that doesn't seem to be the case for two reasons. First, only three
out of the 14 pictures appear to carry that date and, second, previously declassified FBI
reports report an eyewitness adamantly stating that Sivan Kurzberg had visited the
Doric Apartments on September 10, 2001 at around 3 p.m. with at least one other man, with whom
he was conversing in a foreign language, and had identified himself as a "construction worker"
to a tenant (page 61 of declassified FBI report
).
In addition, the FBI report noted that a van from Urban Moving Systems, the company that
employed the five Israelis at the time of their arrest, was present and was involved in moving
a tenant out of the complex on September 10 and that the movers all had foreign accents. Thus,
images 5, 7 and 8 may have been taken at the same complex a day before the attacks.
This raises two possibilities. First, that there are two images of Kurzberg with a lit
lighter in front of the towers, one taken before the attack and one taken at the time of the
attack, and that the FBI released only one of them. Second, that Kurzberg took the picture with
the lighter only the day before the attack and his lawyer misrepresented the contents of the
photo to the New York Times. Given that the background of the photo -- particularly the
state of the towers -- is indiscernible in the recently released photo, it is difficult to
determine which is the case.
... ... ...
One report from ABC News dated June 2002 suggests that the Bush administration
intervened in the investigation. That report
states that "Israeli and U.S. government officials worked out a deal -- and after 71 days,
the five Israelis were taken out of jail, put on a plane, and deported back home [to Israel]."
If the Bush administration had cut a deal with Israel's government to cover up the incident, it
certainly would not have been
the first time a U.S. presidential administration had done so on Israel's behalf.
Further evidence that higher-ups in the administration intervened is the fact that
then-Attorney General John Ashcroft personally
signed off on the detainees' release. Upon his entering the private sector as a lobbyist
and consultant in 2005, the Israeli government became one of Ashcroft's first clients .
A cover-up certainly seems to have happened to some extent, between the destruction of
records of the investigation and the fact that official conclusions of the investigation do not
add up. In the latter case, the FBI -- in a file dated September 24, 2001–
officially stated that they "determined that none of the Israelis were actively engaged in
clandestine intelligence activities in the United States." However, that conclusion was
directly contradicted by U.S. officials a year later and by the fact that Israel's own
government
subsequently acknowledged that the five Israelis had indeed been involved in "clandestine
intelligence activities in the United States."
In addition, the new FOIA release of the photos suggests that another FBI conclusion -- that
"none of the pictures developed from the film found inside the 35-mm camera depicted the twin
towers prior to the attack" -- was inaccurate. This may explain why the images released via the
recent FOIA request were heavily edited leaving details in the background greatly obscured,
making it impossible to determine whether the photos were taken prior to or during the attacks
based solely on the state of the towers.
... ... ...
The FBI returned to search the premises of Urban Moving Systems a month later, but by that
time found:
The building and all of its contents had been abandoned by the owner of Urban Moving
Systems. This [was] apparently being done to avoid criminal prosecution after the 09/11/2001
arrest of five of his employees and subsequent seizure of his office computer systems by
members of the FBI-NK on or around 09/13/2001."
The company's owner -- Dominik Otto Suter, an Israeli citizen --
had fled to Israel on September 14, 2001, two days after he had been questioned by the FBI.
The FBI
told ABC News that "Urban Moving may have been providing cover for an Israeli
intelligence operation." Surprisingly, since at least 2016, Suter has been living in the San Francisco Bay Area,
where he works for a contractor
for major tech companies like Google and Microsoft. According to the public records database
Intelius , in 2006 and 2007 Suter also worked for a telecommunications company --
Granite Telecommunications -- that
works for the U.S. military and several other U.S. government agencies.
In addition to Urban Moving Systems, another moving company, Classic International Movers,
became of interest in connection with the investigation into the "Dancing Israelis," which led
to the arrest and detention of four Israeli nationals who worked for this separate moving
company. The FBI's Miami Division had alerted the Newark Division that Classic International
Movers was believed to have been used by one of the 19 alleged 9/11 hijackers before the
attack, and one of the "Dancing Israelis" had the number for Classic International Movers
written in a notebook that was seized at the time of his arrest. The report further states that
one of the Israelis of Classic International Movers who was arrested "was visibly disturbed by
the Agents' questioning regarding his personal email account."
While the case of the "Dancing Israelis" has long been treated as an outlier in the
aftermath of September 11, what is often overlooked is the fact that hundreds of Israeli
nationals were arrested in the aftermath of the attacks.
According to a FOX
News report from December 2001, 60 Israelis were apprehended or detained after
September 11, with most deported, and a total of 140 Israelis were arrested and detained in all
of 2001 by federal authorities. That report claimed that the arrests, ostensibly including the
"Dancing Israelis," were in relation to an investigation of "an organized [Israeli]
intelligence gathering operation designed to 'penetrate government facilities.'"
The report also added that most of those arrested, in addition to having served in the IDF,
had "intelligence expertise" and worked for Israeli companies that specialized in wiretapping.
Some of those detained were also active members of the Israeli military; and several detainees,
including the "Dancing Israelis," had failed polygraph tests when asked if they had been
surveilling the U.S. government.
A key aspect of that report, compiled by journalist Carl Cameron, also states that federal
investigators widely suspected that Israeli intelligence had prior knowledge of the September
11 attacks. In the report, Cameron stated:
The Israelis may have gathered intelligence about the attacks in advance and not shared
it. A highly placed investigator said there are 'tie-ins' but when asked for details he
flatly refused to describe them saying: 'Evidence linking these Israelis to 9-11 is
classified. I cannot tell you about the evidence that has been gathered. It is classified
information.'"
One exchange between Cameron and host Brit Hume included in the report is particularly
telling:
HUME : "Carl, what about this question of advanced knowledge of what was going to
happen on 9/11? How clear are investigators that some Israeli agents may have known
something?"
CAMERON : "Well it's very explosive information obviously and there is a great deal
of evidence that they say they have collected. None of it necessarily conclusive. It's more
when they put it all together a big question they say is, 'How could they have not known?' --
almost a direct quote, Brit."
However, it is essential to note that Israeli intelligence did attempt to warn
the U.S. government at least twice beginning in August 2001 as did the intelligence agencies of
many other countries, including France, the UK, Egypt, Russia and Jordan. Yet, no people
connected to any other intelligence agency other than Israel were caught celebrating the
attacks as they took place in the area nor were accused by mainstream media of operating a
large spy ring within the U.S. at the time. One theory to explain this discrepancy is that the
Mossad elements of which the "Dancing Israelis" and other alleged Israeli spies could have been
part of a specific section of Israeli intelligence that were acting independently as a rogue
agency. Such a possibility is not unusual given that divisions of or groups within the CIA have
been known to "
go rogue " on several occasions.
If the "Dancing Israelis", and more broadly the Mossad and the Israeli government, had
foreknowledge of September 11, why would they remain silent and not attempt to warn the
American government or public of the coming attacks? In the case of the "Dancing Israelis," why
would Israelis celebrate such an attack?
One of the detained "Dancing Israelis," Omer Marmari, told police the following about why he
viewed the September 11 attacks in a positive light:
Israel now has hope that the world will now understand us. Americans are naïve and
America is easy to get inside. There are not a lot of checks in America. And now America will
be tougher about who gets into their country."
While Marmari's statement may suggest one reason some of the "Dancing Israelis" were so
"visibly happy" in their photographs, there are also other statements made by top Israeli
politicians that suggest why the Israeli government and its intelligence agency declined to act
on apparent foreknowledge of the attack.
When asked, on the day of the 9/11 attacks, how the attacks would affect American-Israeli
relations, Benjamin Netanyahu -- the current Israeli prime minister --
told the New York Times that "It's very good," before quickly adding "Well, not very
good, but it will generate immediate sympathy." He then predicted, much as Marmari had, that
the attacks would "strengthen the bond between our two peoples, because we've experienced
terror over so many decades, but the United States has now experienced a massive hemorrhaging
of terror."
Netanyahu, in a candid conversation recorded in 2001, also echoed Marmari's claim that
Americans are naïve. In that recording, Netanyahu said :
I know what America is. America is something that can easily be moved. Moved to the right
direction. They won't get in our way. They won't get in our way 80 percent of the Americans
support us. It's absurd."
In addition, also on the day of the September 11 attacks, Netanyahu -- who at the time was
not in political office -- held
a press conference in which he claimed that he had predicted the attacks on the World Trade
Center by "militant Islam" in his 1995 book, Fighting Terrorism: How Democracies Can Defeat
Domestic and International Terrorism. In that book, Netanyahu had posited that
Iranian-linked "militants" would set off a nuclear bomb in the basement of the World Trade
Center.
During his press conference on the day of the attacks, Netanyahu also asserted that the 9/11
attacks would be a turning point for America and compared them to the 1941 attack on Pearl
Harbor. Netanyahu's statement echoes the infamous line from the " Rebuilding America's
Defenses " document authored by the neoconservative think tank, the Project for a New
Ameican Century (PNAC). That line reads. "Further, the process of transformation [towards a
neo-Reaganite foreign policy and hyper-militarism], even if it brings revolutionary change, is
likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl
Harbor."
Then again, years later In 2008, the Israeli newspaper Maariv reported that Netanyahu
had stated that the September 11 attacks had greatly benefited Israel. He was quoted as saying : "We are
benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the
American struggle in Iraq."
Indeed, it goes without saying that the aftermath of 9/11 -- which involved the U.S. leading
a destructive effort throughout the Middle East -- has indeed benefited Israel. Many of the
U.S.' post-9/11 "nation-building" efforts have notably mirrored the policy paper " A
Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm ," which was authored by American
neoconservatives -- PNAC members among them -- for Netanyahu's first term as prime
minister.
That document calls for the creation of a "New Middle East" by, among other things,
"weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria" and "removing Saddam Hussein from power in
Iraq -- an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right." As is known now, both of
those main objectives have since come to pass, each withstrong
Israeli involvement .
Update |This article was updated to include and accommodate alternative
analyses of the newly released photos as well information on Israeli intelligence warnings to
the U.S. prior to September 11, 2001 that came to the attention of MintPress after initial its
publication.
Feature photo | Four of the Israeli nationals arrested for "puzzling behavior" during the
September 11 attacks are seen casually posing together in front of the Manhattan skyline while
the September 11 attacks were in progress | Photo #1
Whitney Webb is a MintPress News journalist based in Chile. She has contributed to
several independent media outlets including Global Research, EcoWatch, the Ron Paul Institute
and 21st Century Wire, among others. She has made several radio and television appearances and
is the 2019 winner of the Serena Shim Award for Uncompromised Integrity in
Journalism.
18 years later, an important question once asked by Pat Buchanan still rings true: "Cui
bono-who benefits? – is ever the question that must be asked about Middle Eastern
terror"
Without Saudi funding, 9/11 could not have occurred. Yet Trump is seeking to cover up for
the Saudis who might be implicated in an upcoming report about 9/11.
The more that time goes by, the more it's revealed the cozy relationship between Israel
and the house of Saud, the more it is seems likely that Israel participated in 9/11.
Was it a joint venture between the two countries? One funded and provided the hijackers,
and one rigged the buildings with thermite so that they'd fall? All in an effort to get
America to take out the common threats to both Israel and Saudi Arabia (ex. Saddam, Iran,
Bashar Al Assad)?
If so, some at the highest levels of our government know, and they know that there's not
much that can be done about it.
In any event, and strangely, America did not attack Saudi Arabia in the years after 9/11,
as one would have expected given their involvement in that incident.
Instead, we are providing them with weapons, and they are now seeking to acquire nuclear
energy.
Does that really make sense?
It would if the US was being cowed into it by some form of blackmail.
Such as getting away wtih gunning down untold amounts of people in a large and popular
city and having a patsy to take the fall, no video footage evidence ever provided of the
patsy going to and from his hotel room, despite it being one of the most surveiled cities in
America.
In fact, in the hours after this mass shooting, Trump met with Sheldon Adelson, staunch
Israel-supporter and campaign financier.
And then Trump within weeks declared that the US will move its embassy to Jerusalem.
Just a strange collection of events, isn't it? Almost like being told that Epstein
actually killing himself .
I always refer to 11 September as National Reichstag Fire Day. However it happened it was
certainly used opportunistically by the yankee regime (and the zionists) to bolster the
dictatorial and authoritarian elements of the regime. I am certain that the Israelis, at the
least, were aware of the conspiracy as it occurred.
" One theory to explain this discrepancy is that the Mossad elements of which the
"Dancing Israelis" and other alleged Israeli spies could have been part of a specific
section of Israeli intelligence that were acting independently as a rogue agency .
Such a possibility is not unusual given that divisions of or groups within the CIA have
been known to "go rogue" on several occasions "
Such an explanation is wholly unnecessary. Not only is the Mossad "rogue" enough, Israel
itself is a rogue state engaged in false flag terrorism all the time. Heck, the state
itself was created by terrorism. Rogue state, rogue secret service, rogue operation,
it's all par for the course.
Whenever and wherever strange murders, government problems, assassinations, and evil presents
itself there is a good chance that Israel is involved in one way or another. From the Anthrax
letters to the 9/11 attacks who benefits and follow the money are all you need to know.
There is no other group, nation, tribe, or country that has destroyed more of mankind in
one way or another than Israel. And the worst thing about all of it is they never pay for it
and just laugh in face of the weak goy.
as early as 8:00 a.m. that day, more than 40 minutes prior to the attack.
There has been some controversy about the exact time the schlomos arrived. I would think
there are ways of finding out and not depending on the one eye witness (who came forward).
The FBI almost certainly knows. It would be significant to find that out.
Either Mossad was incredibly careless in their celebration or they wanted to be
caught. I haven't made up my mind yet as to which it was. I lean towards the latter. In
either case we've never been given an adequate explanation and deserve much better. So
naturally we are not going to get it.
And it's great to know the manager of Urban Moving Systems who had fled to Israel
within 24 hours of the attack is now back in the USA working in the Bay Area. No doubt
spying, for someone?
This foreknowledge was already blatantly apparent early on, while events were just
beginning to unfold during that fateful morning in Manhattan because alleged co-conspirator
Ehud Barak was kind enough to make a personal appearance, concurrently, directly at BBC News
headquarters in London (oh so "coincidentally", for coincidence theorists), playing the role
of spontaneous "anchor", to proclaim his scripted interpretation of what this major incident
supposedly meant and suggest future policy guidelines that the US government should adopt in
response. After years of planning for the big event he just couldn't resist putting himself
into the spotlight, very eager to lay out the intended narrative – just too
revealing!
Ehud Barak interview at BBC in London during the 9-11 attack:
Basically, they botched their operation, which was far too complex to carry out without
making tell-tale mistakes, but the media, FBI, and many others zealously covered up for them,
after the fact, with a multitude of transparent lies and distortions. However, too many
people were not fooled.
"Saudi funding" is Fake News used to deflect attention away from the real perpetrator of the
crime, the Jewish State of Israel. Overwhelming evidence shows the Israelis were deeply
involved in the attacks. where as there is NO (zilch) evidence to imolicate Saudi Arabia
IMO, 9/11 was an Israeli masterminded False Flag, with help from traitors in the WH, the FBI,
CIA, NSA and Pentagon. With lots of help from the MSM, including that 'paper of record,' the
New York Times, which has a distinguished track record of lying to Americans.
The Times lied about their good friend Uncle Joe Stalin, starving millions of Ukrainians
to death and they lied about Saddam having WMD's.
Until Americans get off their lazy asses and start raising hell about 9/11, demanding the
truth be told, we'll just keep circling the bowl, right into the cesspit of
totalitarianism.
Of course, the Israelis knew of this in advance–they participated in the planning and
carrying out of the event. This was a false flag event. The Israelis after the Levon Affair
and the attack on the USS Liberty realized they can do anything because they literally own
the news media and the own the Congress of the United States. And yes, it's about the
"Benjamins"
Israel is the classic bully that is backed up by its big brother America. Both countries
need a good bloody nose to come into line with civilized society. That bloody nose will
come.
The only discussion of 9/11 should be of the evidence in the Southern District of NY NY and
the new Grand Jury. Much of the new evidence, from real professionals including nuclear
scientists has been presented. It's a Homerun, yet the corrupt judicial system has been
sitting on it for over a year. Of course , what would one expect – from the City that
financed and sent all those Trotskyites to Saint Petersburg, Russia.There should be thousands
awaiting trials by now, but we see – nothing. America will not recover until Washington
and NY is over run by the people – similiar to the Nam protests but 10xs larger. Thanks
Unz Rev.
Israel/AIPAC run the United States government. AIPAC is the most powerful lobby in
Washington. Israel got 38 billion dollars, while we get more mexicans.
Israel takes part of that money (from our taxpayers) to buy off our leaders so they
provide more support for Israel.
The company's owner -- Dominik Otto Suter, an Israeli citizen -- had fled to Israel on
September 14, 2001, two days after he had been questioned by the FBI. The FBI told ABC News
that "Urban Moving may have been providing cover for an Israeli intelligence operation."
Surprisingly, since at least 2016, Suter has been living in the San Francisco Bay Area,
where he works for a contractor for major tech companies like Google and Microsoft.
According to the public records database Intelius, in 2006 and 2007 Suter also worked for a
telecommunications company -- Granite Telecommunications -- that works for the U.S.
military and several other U.S. government agencies.
Lol! They don't even care about optics anymore. The US is a proper Banana Republic
now.
@JimDandy LOL. They're working double overtime these days. Give em a break. The clown car
got out of the blocks fast with the first comment but then went into the ditch.
This is one of the great ones: Mossad Juval Aviv: "It's easy to put a truck bomb as we did
in London" –
It would if the US was being cowed into it by some form of blackmail.
People get blackmailed, not nations.
The people in the intelligence communities of the US, Israel, Saudi, and many other
countries are all implicated in a wide variety of crimes that the others know
about–think of it as a circle of blackmail.
At some point the members in the circle internalize the reality of the situation and start
acting as allies.
If they stick around long enough they become friends.
Of course the Mossad had foreknowledge of some kind. But so did the CIA and the Brit
SIS. And probably so did the Saudi General Intelligence Presidency.
At least the first named 3, and probably the Saudis as well, were behind long range
planning to stage such an event to justify war foreign policy.
It's plainly obvious that they were foreign agents complicit in the murder of 3000 Americans.
A normal result would be their execution or lifetime imprisonment, with their
collaborators in the US administration (who covered for them, tampered with evidence and
released them) getting the same. The threads of treason are followed through US society to
the end (the office of President), carrying the same penalties.
US society is probably building up to do this, likely illegally, given the prospects for
chaos and the hopeless state of American "justice".
@ChuckOrloski Chuck, why the hell were our "good buddies" and "best friends" the Israelis
posing for pictures with cigarette lighters during the attack? My guess it's some deep
Talmudic holy practice that is too subtle and holy for the cattle to grasp.
"The five aroused attention in New Jersey after people noticed them going to unusual
lengths to photograph the World Trade Center ruins and making light of the situation. One
photograph developed by the F.B.I. showed Sivan Kurzberg holding a lighted lighter in the
foreground, with the smoldering wreckage in the background , said Steven Noah Gordon, a
lawyer for the five."
I'd love to be chosen enough to see what the other photos contained if the NY Slimes is
willing to admit this much. You have to wade thru a lot of oy veys and tears of "A Nation
Challenged" to get to the scraps of truth:
Thanks for the informative exposé of one more crime committed against America
(9/11), by the Zionist/Jewish/Rothschild & other Financial Oligarchs,' New World
Order.
We Americans have the Moral Duty and Physical Necessity of regaining our Sovereignty
and our Honor, by Restoring Our Republic
First of all, thank you, Ron Unz, for allowing this article to be published on your site.
Secondly, does anyone on this site remember the messages workers at Odigo, the Israeli
instant messaging company, received *two hours* before the attacks. These messages seem to
have warned about the attacks. Yet, even though Israeli *civilians* know the content of the
messages, this content has never been made public to the American people.
Perhaps the next FOIA request should be for these messages.
I have long suspected that a few people in Israeli intelligence, perhaps the children of
Jews from Arab lands who grew up speaking Arabic as a first language, located an al-Qaeda
cell and encouraged the attack, perhaps offering practical assistance as well.
This kind of cause means that only a few people knew about it. Perhaps most Knesset
members had no clue whatsoever. This sort of action would be easier to conceal and would have
the additional advantage of plausible deniability as the Arabs who knew would mostly be
dead.
Not convincing. If Mossad had been involved in this operation, it would have sent serious
people as masterminds or as observers. So would have done any agency worth its salt (BND,
CIA, KGB/FSB, former Bulgarian & Romanian assassins ).
And what Mossad is supposed to have done?
Sending some guys who are overwhelmed by joy because of their machinations and . dance.
High five. Yaaay
These guys, if they had been the right stuff, would have invisibly blended into the crowd
& no one would have noticed them. They wouldn't even have blinked at the sight of
collapsing towers. Or would feign horror & astonishment.
And they dance, high fiving.
You seriously want me to believe these guys were not some neurotic looneys, but Mossad
pros?
I know a couple hundred people personally and talk to them throughout the year. Though I see
many people doubting the official story of 9/11 online, none of them are brave enough to
doubt it out loud, nor do I ever hear of others doing so. I understand the fear, of course,
but c'mon. This isn't about one's personal opinion of the O.J. Simpson trial. This is far
more important.
Will the majority of Americans ever wake up and speak up? If and when they do, what will
happen to the dollar?
"However, it is essential to note that Israeli intelligence did attempt to warn the U.S.
government at least twice beginning in August 2001 as did the intelligence agencies of many
other countries, including France, the UK, Egypt, Russia and Jordan."
However, it is even more essential to note that these "warnings" were not detailed,
actionable warnings, but a calculatedly deceptive inculpation; part of a psyop whereby the
"government" could pin the blame for 9/11 on "al Qaeda" without any kind of an
investigation.
"Even if these agents were "rogue" Mossad, there was plenty of other remote angles
from which they could have documented & celebrated the evil event."
They were inexperienced and did not take into account that the woman who called the police
noticed their suspicious behavior with the aid of strong binoculars. They were there to do
more than take some pictures and celebrate, more importantly to stage another spectacular
event, namely to set off their van, filled with explosives, at the middle of the Washington
Bridge, which, like the three World Trade buildings, would have been prepared with micro
thermite, during prior work that was done there.
To say that they were documenting the event is to downplay what they were surely up to,
which can be inferred from a contemporaneous report. Note the following quote embedded in the
link referred to in Comment #4 above:
American security services overnight stopped a car bomb on the George Washington
Bridge. The van, packed with explosives, was stopped on an approach ramp to the bridge.
Authorities suspect the terrorists intended to blow up the main crossing between New Jersey
and New York, Army Radio reported. (Jerusalem Post 09/12/01)
Media in the U.S. subsequently referred merely to explosive "residue", which is
technically correct but grossly misleading. According to reports at the time, three of the
five initial dancers were in the van, dressed in Islamic garments, with plane tickets to fly
away in different directions. A likely scenario, which was thwarted by their apprehension, is
not difficult to image in light of the Jerusalem Post report, and could have played
out like this:
Perpetrators stall van at the side of the road near the double cable at its lowest point,
flip up the front hood, as if to signal engine trouble, be seen by other drivers in their
conspicuous clothing, then escape by hailing taxis driven by accomplices, leaving the Islamic
clothes in the taxis, rendezvous with the other two dancers in Manhattan driving a different
van, then head for the airport. Authorities would soon close off the bridge to traffic, based
on reports of the suspicious vehicle, possibly set to be blown up. Helicopters with TV crews
focus on the van from above, keeping viewers in suspense until dusk, and suddenly there is a
bright flash and fireball rising from the van, as the right side of the bridge is ripped
apart, assisted by the thermite charges at the cables; both halves of the roadway fall into
the water, very spectacular, right during prime time, perhaps the cables on the northern side
might remain intact. Millions of people watching live are then led to think that Arabs not
only blew up the World Trade Center buildings but also the Washington Bridge.
The time these amateur dancers spent in custody, followed by deportation, was indeed very
lenient punishment for having presumably participated in blowing up the only bridge that
connects Manhattan with New Jersey.
@Mark JamesThere are undoubtedly agents still living and documents still unshredded
that connect the dancing schlomos from Urban Moving with the dancing schlomos in the FBI,
FAA, etc. who oversaw the destruction of the evidence under Chertoff and Mueller. Virtually
everything in the massive NFPA Code 921 Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations was
disregarded without that evidence of criminal conspiracy itself being investigated. The plain
facts of the matter will also eventually prove that the elaborate efforts at concealment by
the owners of the msm provide powerful evidence of their guilt as co-conspirators complicit
from day one in pulling off 9/11.
The msm cover up of the truth I saw from watching some of the news yesterday is so absurd
that a prize should be awarded for coining a name for it. Something to neutralize the fifth
column and their wholly owned msm's combining the words "conspiracy," which best describes
themselves, and "theory," now incredibly meaning an automatic falsification of observation,
measurement, and the laws of physics if any of it disagrees with what amounts to an official
fairytale for children about naughty Arabs who magically flew airplanes into buildings
because they hate us for our freedoms.
I caught a few minutes of Fox News yesterday. Appalling that anyone with half a brain
would swallow that bilge about 19 Arabs who couldn't handle a Cessna 150, etc. They're still
using flag-waving jingoism and country music to encapsulate the Israeli-first meme as more
American than apple pie and insinuating that pointing out absurdities with the 9/11 fairytale
is tantamount to collaboration with the enemy. I had to laugh out loud watching Sean Hannity
pretend to be so genuine in his patriotism it causes him to slip into lisping baby talk, like
he's now aping Trish Regan and Shep Smith. The conservative movement's come a long way, from
political rationalism to one of their hero's talking baby talk overnight. No wonder the left
is already doing victory laps.
Isn't that the point. Whether or not 9/11 was a conspiracy or allowed to happen, the
response to it was an actual conspiracy. The response would have been the same in either
situation, that's the point, that's the conspiracy.
In the event that an attack like 9/11 could have ever been motivated by actual terrorists,
the motivation also derives from the US slavish backing of Israel.
You seriously want me to believe these guys were not some neurotic looneys, but Mossad
pros?
You raise some intelligent points for us.
I will raise a few for you.
1. The Dancing Scum behaved quite rationally & soberly during their TV interviews in
the Entity.
They displayed no nuttiness or neurosis of any kind.
Their dress & comportment in the USA – was as swarthy scruffy Semites (Arabs). On
Entity TV, they were well shaven, washed, & 'white as the driven snow.'
2. Acting neurotic & loonyish is a good cover – in itself. Apparently, only one
witness noticed them (enough) to bother to call the police.
3. They did their job. They took their pictures. Which is not to say that other (higher
definition & more Professional pictures were not taken elsewhere). That is what happened.
We have seen some of those higher definition videos, and pictures – taken by Film Crews
& other Media employees.
4. It is difficult to take photos of a Huge Tragedy/Assault & "blended into the crowd
& no one would have noticed them. " They almost succeeded in "blended into the
crowd."
5. These Dancers might have served as a distraction. Might-Might Distract from what?
6. The Dancers reception in the Entity was quite friendly. They were treated as heroes.
Why?
Yes, there is much We-The-American-People do not know about this Assault. We agree on
that.
former Bulgarian & Romanian assassins
? Are they worth their salt?
The buildings came down. One was not even hit by a bird, let alone a plane.
Dr. Alan Sabrosky, former Director of Studies at the US Army War College , on Israel's
Attack on America on 9/11 –
"Until we demand an independent, honest, and thorough investigation and accountability for
those whose action and inaction led to those events and the cover-up, our republic and our
Constitution remain in the gravest danger." – Lt. Col. Shelton F. Lankford, U.S. Marine
Corps (ret) – Retired U.S. Marine Corps fighter pilot with over 300 combat missions
flown. Decorations include the Distinguished Flying Cross and 32 awards of the Air Medal.
"The government story is total B.S. plain and simple." – Capt. Russ Wittenberg, U.S.
Air Force, Flew for Pan Am and United Airlines for 35 years. Had previously flown the actual
two United Airlines aircraft that were hijacked on 9/11. Former U.S. Air Force fighter pilot
with over 100 combat missions.
"No Arab hijacker, ever in a million years, ever flew into the World Trade Center. And if
you got 30 minutes I'll tell you exactly why Maybe if I had a couple tries to line up a few
building, I could have done it. But certainly not the first time and certainly not at 500 or
600 miles an hour." – John Lear, over 19,000+ total hours flown in over 100 different
types of planes for 10 different airlines in 60 different countries around the world. Holds
every certificate ever offered by the FAA and has 23 different FAA type ratings. Held 17
world records including speed around the world in a Lear Jet Model 24. More at
patriotsquestion911.com
Israel accused of planting spy devices near the White House.
The miniature surveillance devices, colloquially known as "StingRays," mimic regular
cell towers to fool cellphones into giving them their locations and identity information.
Formally called international mobile subscriber identity-catchers or IMSI-catchers, they
also can capture the contents of calls and data use.
Your "argument" dear (((Sean))) Your arrogance will be your undoing.
There are quite a few longtime commenters on this website whom I've always strongly
suspected of being pro-Israeli activists operating under "deep cover."
One of the more amusing aspects of articles like this one is that it has naturally drawn a
few of them out and forced them to permanently unmask and reveal themselves
@ValmMond Don't forget the Israeli kiosks selling sunglasses key rings and hair ribbons
that littered every shopping mall. Those tiny corporations were used for a lot of HI B fraud,
SBA loan fraud importation of prostitutes, money laundering mail box drops all sorts of
things useful for both spying and crime. It was as much a cliche of Israeli immigrant small
business as manicurists are for Asian women.
@Bardon Kaldian They had foreknowledge. Foreknowledge indicates complicity. It's obvious
even for the dumbest of official version supporters. That's why the incident and the
israelis' subsequent arrest were scrubbed from most mainstream news outlets.
The high-fiving dancers' exact role in the 9/11 events is irrelevant. All 5 knew on that
morning why they were on that NJ hill overlooking lower Manhattan and what was coming to the
twin towers. Conspicuous celebration must have not been part of their job description, but
hey, it was mission accomplished and the goyim were not looking. As it turned out, they were.
But in the end, it didn't really matter. They'll keep seeing the Trees for the Forest (Gump?)
and when one of these trees falls, it shall make no noise in the zionized informational
vacuum.
Ron, Pastor Chuck Baldwin, who was a confirmed Zionist until after a Damascus moment, posted
on his site this piece about a book that names names, and provides facts. It's worth reading.
It's ironic when not just Christians–real Christians–should venerate the
truth, that anyone of conscience seeking the truth is attacked and called a truther.
As Orlov wrote about conspiracies, we don't have to get to the details on how they're
done. Let those who push the fake narrative explain all the failures on 911 and why Bush,
Cheney, the Joint Chiefs, the heads of CIA and FBI didn't resign if the perpetrators were
Muslims with box-cutters.
@Durruti "Zionist/Jewish/Rothschild & other Financial Oligarchs,' New World Order."
-- Perhaps the focus should be on the "local" organizers and yes-men, beginning with
Cheney the Traitor, Bush the lesser, Rice the Mushroom Cloud, Tenant, Mueller, and the
opportunistic higherups among the US brass -- all those who put their comfort (money and
power) before the well-being of their country. They allowed the "event" to happen (some
perhaps were actively involved in preparation for the "event"), and they made the financial
killing and literal killing of great numbers of humans in the aftermath.
At least, Israelis have been destroying the US (by pushing the US resources towards the
wars of aggression in the Middle East) to protect and promote their myth-based ideological
toy of Eretz Israel. In comparison, the US government/Pentagon have solidified into a bunch
of traitors and become engaged in the pornography of betrayal at home and mass slaughter
abroad for ba$e profiteering. The US Congress of corrupt cowards has been stinking like
rotten fish.
Until the local rot and poisoning continues, the country will be open to deadly infections
and diseases.
Because people do not understand Mathematics, particularly the sciences of Physics and
Statistics & Probability, they are susceptible to believing completely improbable and
impossible explanations that are utterly false, yet widely accepted.
It appears you were/are looking for a way to exculpate the Zionist Oligarchs from one of
their many crimes against humanity (and against my Country, America), the crime of 9/11
& the attacks on the Arab Nations – that followed. You will have to debate with
Webb, Unz, and some others to effect that denial; although the New York Times, or Haaretz
might be interested and easier pickings.
Sorry, but- get a shrink. If you seriously think that "Zionist Oligarchs" exist as some
sinister organization or actual Jewish group masterminding or controlling most of US foreign
policy- there is not anything to discuss. True: a) in the US, Jews as an ethnic group are way
over-represented in the corridors of power, constituting perhaps ~20% of American power
elites; b) Zionist Jews, and by that I mean not Jewish supporters of Israel, but "Israeli
firsters" who are Jews first & Americans second (or hardly at all) are a clear minority
in that ethnic (sub)group, no more than 20% of them (and that would be, I think,
overestimate). Israeli firsters & similar ilk are well described in Walt &
Mearsheimer's book on the Israeli lobby; just, apart from Jonathan Pollard & probably a
few other spies, there is not enough evidence to pinpoint the great pro-Israeli plot and
especially anything convincing re twin towers collapse.
The article has not shown what those dancing Israelis did actually do , except for
taking pictures & behaving like neurotics under stress. Woody Allen would have been more
persuasive as an Israeli spy.
9/11 or 11/9? When someone points gleefully to the typos, it is a sure sign he has nothing
to say or argue.
These dancers were not obviously complicit in anything & much more important –
it is not obvious that it, the twin towers collapse, was something planned or executed at
higher levels than the official version says.
The whole conspiratorial mindset is, when I think of it, similar to the later phases of
German classical philosophy, Hegel in particular. These guys (Hegel, Schelling) had built
immense, gigantic philosophical superstructures (history, metaphysics, philosophy of law,
Naturphilosophie ..) based on slim empirical evidence & tried to fit those vast
structures in the Procrustean bed of their narrow world-view. For instance Hegel refused to
acknowledge that Uranus existed because that would mean that Pythagorean structures, with
sacred number 7, were inadequate as explanatory paradigms of nature.
The same goes, on a significantly lower level, with many conspiracy theories, including
9/11 truthers. There are some info, data & events that are somehow shady, dubious or hard
to explain. Also, some data are questionable- or not, I don't know.
What better than to accept some grand & all-encompassing quasi-explanation ?
@Alfred Spooks can be divided in a few classes, at least two: masterminds &
operatives. Masterminds are rare (Wild Bill Donovan, Dulles, Canaris, Schellenberg, Heydrich,
J.J. Angleton, Beria, ). Great operatives are also rare (Rudolf Abel, Richard Sorge, Sydney
Reilly, Elie Cohen the fake Syrian ). Clumsy operatives are more frequent (the Rosenberg
couple), while some are hard to classify (Klaus Fuchs) & others are numbskulls who just
got lucky for some time (Jonathan Pollard).
If Mossad (or any other agency, Israeli, American or any combination of all spooks in the
world combined) tried to to plan & execute such a vast, breathtaking operation that would
change history, far surpassing JFK assassination or nuclear weapons secrets theft -they would
have employed qualified people & not someone worse than agent Piglet.
:See for example their clumsy Dubai operation (Google : Assassination of Mahmoud
Al-Mabhouh
also see the failed 1997 assassination attempt of Khaled Mashal in Amman,Jordan. Mossad
agents put a fast acting poison into his ear. However they were soon captured. King Hussein
of Jordan demanded that Israel turn over the antidote of the poison or Jordan would cut
diplomatic relations.
PM Netanyahu at first refused but he later agreed to send the antidote and the head of
Mossad flew to Amman with it
Respectful of your presumed experience, I am unclear with your mental mechanics upon which
you concluded that, "They were there to do more than take some pictures and celebrate, more
importantly to stage another spectacular event, namely to set off their van, filled with
explosives, at the middle of the Washington Bridge ,"
So to reiterate my point, I believe the "dancing Israelis" were Mossad pros, who had they
any concern/fears for getting caught & charged with having extremely suspicious 9/11
foreknowledge, they would not have ritually celebrated & danced in public view.
Point taken: Indeed, the weird "dancing Israelis" might have been Jewish "amateur
dancers," haha, but in no way were they amateur Mossad men.
Thanks and 'dat 'gonna be my done 'dat respect, Been_there_done_that!
@Bardon Kaldian The dancing Israelis were only caught because one of the thousands
watching the destruction of the towers had binoculars and caught them. It's often tiny things
like that that catch criminals spies whatever.
Serial killer Son of Sam was caught because one of the detectives thought to check all
parking tickets issued in each neighborhood around the time of the murder. He reasoned that
the killer didn't live in the neighborhoods where he killed and had to park in the street.
Sure enough the killer got a parking ticket near the site of the killing right date right
time.
Russian spy Colonel Abel was caught because he used fake quarters and nickels to conceal
his microdot information. The coins had too and bottom sections that unscrewed. He had his
newspaper delivered. One day he paid the paper boy using one of the 2 piece nickels. The boy
noticed. He showed it to his Dad who notified the FBI.
Had Abel bought his paper from a store or newsstand it would have been difficult or
impossible to trace. But paperboys know their customers.
Jonathan Pollard was caught because he spent so much time away from his desk working for
Israel he didn't get any work done. So his supervisor decided to fire him.
Government employees aren't at will. They can only be fired for cause. So the supervisor
set about documenting causes to fire Pollard. That investigation led to the supervisor's
discovery Pollard was working for Israel.
Had Pollard worked for an at will government contractor he might have been fired, but he
wouldn't have been caught. It was only the for cause investigation that caught him.
The dancing Israelis were caught because one woman used binoculars.
They didn't manage to keep, high profile criminal, Jeffrey Epstein alive. The prime witness
to alleged crimes of many others and the key to bring them to justice. Keeping Epstein alive
was too difficult for the nation that sent men on the moon half a century ago, and spends
billions of dollars each year on intelligence.
Now, after FOIA request made by a private citizen the FBI releases few of the photos in
very bad quality and heavily redacted. Basically worthless. Is there any reasoning behind
this as to why so few, so bad and so redacted or is this just to show the FBI is beyond and
above and does what it pleases. TPTB are just mocking us. The message is clear.
It's best to forget 9/11. They want us to remember it. Let's rather remember what happened
after, there are no mysteries about that story. We even know part of it was written before
9/11. And the results speak for themselves; hundreds of thousands killed and millions on the
run, trillions wasted. A crime much worse than 9/11 ever was – and we, more or less,
know the culprits.
After the ideology is discredited, foreign policy became less coherent and more aggressive
then nessesry. That speeds the demise of the empire. Whom the gods would destroy they first make
mad
@A123
Consider that DJT himself, you'd think, would dump Bolton, Pompeo, Pence, Berkowitz, et al if
he could inasmuch as, if he'd hired them to put up a skyscraper and their performance was
like their work in foreign policy, they'd be gone. From his work in the real world building
complex stuff he'd see right off that what marks government experts from the "best schools"
isn't their expertise, but their preternaturally lousy judgment. They look and sound like
goofballs because that's what they are, not because their geniuses. Altho Boot's apparently
out of favor, consider that Israel's costumed automatons in the Pentagon allowed themselves
to be swayed by this slobberlipped moron with drool coming out of the side of his mouth, and
he's supposedly one of the neocons' finest minds.
Since the president's performance is so utterly out of character and against America's
overseas economic interests, it follows he's being handled, and if he's being handled, it can
only be by Israel. The implication is that a parasite, which also owns the public forum in
America and through its ownership of the msm the formation of men's minds, is directing our
foreign policy. It's analogous to the way certain insect parasites like Ampulex sp take
command of their much larger prey's antenna and in so doing can direct the prey to do its
bidding by processing the prey's contact with the external world.
In his Logic of Failure Dietrich Doerner cites his research that supposed experts have no
more judgment or ability to respond to unfamiliar feedback loops in scenarios of increasing
complexity than students do. Unfolding events of increasing complexity become increasingly
opaque to these block heads in the State Dept and the president's inner circle because they
continue to follow a fairytale situational model of the ME constructed for them by Israeli
intelligence and neocon "experts."
Incredibly, they assume it correctly models outcomes despite a known 100% failure rate
that'll be compounded a hundredfold if another "call walk" breaks out with a military
powerhouse like Iran. Overall I can't believe they can be that stupid, and if they're not
that stupid, it follows they are intentionally wasting and destroying both the US economy and
its military to establish Eretz Israel as the new world empire. After that the president's
good friend Netanyahu has supposedly promised he'll toss the US on the ash heap of
history.
It's the Theater of the Absurd . I'm waiting for Mr. Pompeo to come out and tell us
that our new, duly elected president is Juan Guaidó. Or maybe Juan Valdez.
If bombing is/was punishment for use chemical weapons , US would have to keep bombing itself
to this day , as punishments for what they did to Vietnam ..And elsewhere.
Last I checked, Kansas and Nebraska are neighbors and share much the same fate.
Thomas Franks book: "What's the Matter with Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of
America" extensively documents how Democrats abandoned Kansas, his home state, and paved the
way for conservatives just like they paved the way for Trump nationally.
Of course, Thomas Franks is one of those writers who challenges the conventional liberal
narrative, embraced by Democratic elites and Paul Krugman. Questioning the shallow Democratic
narrative also outrages gullibles like EMichael and kurt.
Well, Nikolai Starikov has a chapter in one of his books about the role of snipers in
history, such as forcing Yeltsin on Russia, the Maiden in Ukraine, etc.
Speech is controlled by political correctness. Someone behind the scenes decides what
is acceptable and what is not, what is desirable or not, and even what is permissible. You
make one 'mistake' and you are out; from the teaching positions at the universities, or
from the media outlets.
And what is permissible is becoming truly weird. These are comments on an article over
at http://www.thecollegefix.com
"Poll: 73 percent of Republican students have withheld political views in class for fear
their grades would suffer".
I'm ABD (all but dissertation) in Econometrics because my adviser was a Marxist nutcase
from the London School of Economics. I couldn't fight the communists forever; not when they
held all the cards.
Reply: Medina-Merino
I left my PhD program in Anthropology when on a "field trip" , my advisor and his
idiotic tie-dyed moron of a wife (former student of his) crawled into my tent on the
first night of a 2 week research project in black leather bondage harnesses and informed
me it was time for me to join them in a "night of pure pleasure".
Fast forward I got up, got into my car, drove through the night back to campus, parked
outside of the Dean's office, stormed in with wide-blood-shot-eyes when he arrived in his
700-Series turbo-charged Special Edition BMW and told him I wanted to file a complaint
against Professor "Bondo" and when he (Dean Bozo) did not respond to my request in over a
week, I withdrew from my program (ABD also) before the "Drop Deadline" so I could get
full refund of my hard-earned TENS OF THOUSANDS of tuition dollars and used the money to
secure an attorney (who I later learned was on-the-take for the University's own legal
counsel office of "Equity & Fairness") until I ran out of money and then left town to
take a position in Scotland on a research team studying Celtic migrations to the Northern
Coast of the Iberian Peninsula, known for centuries unofficially as the "Celtic Coast". I
loved my work and worked with some amazing and HONEST and RESPECTFUL colleagues.
I learned a big lesson from this EFFIN nightmare be verrrrrrrrrrrrrrry careful of
whose hands you find your career in there are a lot of filthy, abusive, corrupt "faculty"
and even more dishonest and disingenuous and despicable "administrators" in the
contemporary academy and many have brass name-plates on their doors and hold
do-nothing-but-damage-to-the-lives-of those who are often powerless against their callous
and deliberate abuses.
Even today, on my sleepless nights I can still hear Mr. Chips rustling in his
grave
I went on to hold positions of academic renown in Europe and Latin America and
eventually returned to the US when I knew I would be able to secure adjunct positions in
the US and Canada and Puerto Rico to support myself and my family, whose lives I was able
to maintain in a stable trajectory throughout this horror!
Revenge is sweet however today when I receive requests from my former "institution of
higher learning" I respond in the SASE
"NEVER WILL I EVER GIVE YOU ONE CENT FOR NOT HAVING PROTECTED ME FROM ABUSE AT THE HANDS
OF DR. "BONDO" YEARS AGO!" Even today, he is part of campus lore and is whispered about
in hushed tones.
What happened to the "prof" he died of very painful brain cancer (poetic justice) and
his idiot wife went full-tilt into drugs and is sitting in a pool of her own pee in a
very dismal geriatric ward. And the "Dean"? He is likewise awaiting his last days in his
luxury condo in Santa Barbara, CA surrounded by like-minded Lutheran do-gooders holding
prayer circles and burning incense and rubbing crystals for each of their pathetic
selves
Here are just some of the twists and turns in the case, which has gone on for more than
three years.
Flynn's trip to Russia in 2015, where it was claimed Flynn went without the knowledge or
approval of the DIA or anyone in Washington,
was proven not to be true .
Flynn was suspected of being compromised by a supposed Russian agent, Cambridge academic
Svetlana Lokhova, based on allegations from Western intelligence asset Stefan Halper.
This was also proven to be not true.
The very strange post-dated FD-302 form on the FBI's January 2017 interview of Flynn that
wasn't filled out until August 2017, almost seven months afterward, is
revealed in a court filing by Flynn's defense team .
FBI agent Pientka became the
"DOJ's Invisible Man," despite the fact that Congress has repeatedly called for him to
testify. Pientka has remained out of sight and out of mind more than a year and a half since
his name first surfaced in connection with the Flynn case.
Now, it's not that far-fetched of an idea that the Mueller special counsel prosecutors would
hide exculpatory evidence from the Flynn defense team, since they've just admitted to having
done exactly that in another case their
office has been prosecuting .
The defense team for Internet Research Agency/Concord, more popularly known as "the Russian
troll farm case," hasn't been smooth going for the Mueller prosecutors.
Then, in a
filing submitted to the court on Aug. 30, the IRA/Concord defense team alerted Judge
Friedrich that the prosecutors just got around to handing them key evidence the prosecutors had
for the past 18 months. The prosecution gave no explanation whatsoever as to why they hid this
key evidence for more than a year.
It's hard to see at this point how the entire IRA/Concord case isn't tossed out.
What would it mean for Flynn's prosecutors to have been caught hiding exculpatory evidence
from him and his lawyers, even after the presiding judge explicitly ordered them in February to
hand over everything they had?
It would mean that the Flynn case is tossed out, since the prosecution team was caught
engaging in gross misconduct.
Now you can see why Flynn refused to withdraw his guilty plea when Judge Sullivan gave him
the opportunity to do so in late December 2018.
A withdrawal of the guilty plea or a pardon would let the Mueller prosecution team off the
hook.
And they're not getting off the hook.
Flynn hired the best lawyer he possibly could have when it comes to exposing prosecutorial
misconduct. Nobody knows the crafty, corrupt, and dishonest tricks federal prosecutors use
better than Powell, who actually wrote a compelling book about such matters, entitled "
License to Lie: Exposing
Corruption in the Department of Justice ."
Everything this Mueller prosecution team did in withholding exculpatory evidence from
Flynn's defense team -- and continued to withhold even after Judge Sullivan specifically issued
an order about it -- is going to be fully exposed.
Defying a federal judge's Brady order is a one-way ticket to not only getting fired, it's a
serious enough offense to warrant disbarment and prosecution.
If it turns out Mueller special counsel prosecutors withheld exculpatory evidence -- not
only in the IRA/Concord case, but also in the cases against Flynn, Paul Manafort, Michael
Cohen, Rick Gates, Roger Stone, and others -- that will have a huge impact.
If they are willing to withhold exculpatory evidence in one case, why wouldn't they do the
same thing in other cases they were prosecuting? Haven't they have already demonstrated they
are willing to break the rules? Tags
We have become a third-world country. Even throwing Mueller and his entire prosecutors'
team in jail would not be enough to restore confidence in our legal system. But it would be a
start.
On or about December 28, 2016, the Russian Ambassador contacted FLYNN.
c. On or about December 29, 2016, FLYNN called a senior official of the Presidential
Transition Team ("PTT official"), who was with other senior ·members of the
Presidential Transition Team at the Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Florida, to discuss
what, if anything, to communicate to the Russian Ambassador about the U.S. Sanctions. On that
call, FLYNN and 2 Case 1:17-cr-00232-RC Document 4 Filed 12/01/17 Page 2 of 6 the PTT
official discussed the U.S. Sanctions, including the potential impact of those sanctions on
the incoming administration's foreign policy goals. The PIT official and FLYNN also discussed
that the members of the Presidential Transition Team at Mar-a-Lago did not want Russia to
escalate the situation. d. Immediately after his phone call with the PTT official, FLYNN
called the Russian Ambassador and requested that Russia not escalate the situation and only
respond to the U.S. Sanctions in a reciprocal manner. e. Shortly after his phone call with
the Russian Ambassador, FLYNN spoke with the PTT official to report on the substance of his
call with the Russian Ambassador, including their discussion of the U.S. Sanctions. f. On or
about December 30, 2016, Russian President Vladimir Putin released a statement indicating
that Russia would not take retaliatory measures in response to the U.S. Sanctions at that
time. g. On or about December 31, 2016, the Russian Ambassador called FLYNN and informed him
that Russia had chosen not to retaliate in response to FL YNN's request. h. After his phone
call with the Russian Ambassador, FLYNN spoke with senior members of the Presidential
Transition Team about FL YNN's conversations with the Russian Ambassador regarding the U.S.
Sanctions and Russia's decision not to escalate the situation.
The coup plot between the international intelligence community (which includes our
FBI-CIA-etc) and their unregistered foreign agents in the multinational corporate media is
slowly being revealed.
Here’s another possibility... elites in the US Gov set on running a soft coup
against a duly elected president and his team made up a whole pile of **** and passed it off
as truth.
The Manafort thing has me totally riled since HRC's "Password" guy and his brother were
PARTNERS with manafort, did the same damn things, and were NOT investigated.
Donald Trump is many things to many people, but is not his social personna to be patient.
He is being VERY patient to let this unfold, to "give a man enough rope" or political party
and its owner, as it may be....
Donna Brazile's book is under-rated: it holds they keys as to who ran the DNC and why
after Obie bailed.
Our local community rag (Vermont) had an opinion piece last week about "The slide towards
Facism", where the author breathlessly stated that she had learned from a MSNBC expose by
Rachel Maddow that the administration was firing researchers at NASA and EPA as well as
cutting back funding for LGBTQ support groups. Oh the horror. The author conveniently forgot
that the same dyke had lied for 2 years about Russia,Russia,Russia but it's still OK to
believe any **** that drops out of her mouth.
This is the level of insanity happening around here. Of course it is Bernie's turf.
People who are so stupid and gullible deserve everything they are gonna get.
Poor Flynn. Rail-roaded by ZOG and Obama and Hillary and Co. I hope beyond hope that the
truth is revealed and that he can sue the **** out of the seditionists/(((seditionists))) who
put him into this mess such that his great-great-grandchildren will never have to work.
I also blame Trump for throwing Flynn under the bus.
If they are willing to withhold exculpatory evidence in one case, why wouldn’t they
do the same thing in other cases they were prosecuting? Haven’t they have already
demonstrated they are willing to break the rules?
Duh! Because it's easy and the media never covers it and AG Barr and FBI director Wray
will cover it all up. America no longer operates under rule of law, and now we all know it.
Never cooperate with them!
flynn didn't rape children, to buzy trying to fight liberators of iraq and afganistan from
invasion... that's his major crime.
I guess, kelly, mattis, mcmaster neither are on the child rape trend. but what can they
do? when the entire cia and doj and fbi are full on controlled and run by the pedos? it's
like when all the cardinals and the pope are pedos, what a bishop to do...
Why would CIA Rothschild'd up puppet Trump pick only the best William Barr?
Who told Acosta to cut no prosecution deal with Epstein? George Bush? Robert Mukasey? or
Bob Mueller?
Trump, Barr, Bush, Mueller all on the same no rule of law national no government
pys op , for Epstein & 9/11 clean op team Poppa Bush, Clinton, &
Mossad.
Barr: CIA operative
It is a sobering fact that American presidents (many of whom have been corrupt) have gone
out of their way to hire fixers to be their attorney generals.
Consider recent history: Loretta Lynch (2015-2017), Eric Holder (2009-2015), Michael
Mukasey (2007-2009), Alberto Gonzales (2005-2007), John Ashcroft (2001-2005),Janet Reno
(1993-2001), **** Thornburgh (1988-1991), Ed Meese (1985-1988), etc.
Barr was a full-time CIA operative, recruited by Langley out of high school, starting
in 1971. Barr’s youth career goal was to head the CIA.
CIA operative assigned to the China directorate, where he became close to powerful CIA
operative George H.W. Bush, whose accomplishments already included the CIA/Cuba Bay of
Pigs, Asia CIA operations (Vietnam War, Golden Triangle narcotics), Nixon foreign policy
(Henry Kissinger), and the Watergate operation.
When George H.W. Bush became CIA Director in 1976, Barr joined the CIA’s
“legal office” and Bush’s inner circle, and worked alongside Bush’s
longtime CIA enforcers Theodore “Ted” Shackley, Felix Rodriguez, Thomas Clines,
and others, several of whom were likely involved with the Bay of Pigs/John F. Kennedy
assassination, and numerous southeast Asian operations, from the Phoenix Program to Golden
Triangle narco-trafficking.
Barr stonewalled and destroyed the Church Committee investigations into CIA
abuses.
Barr stonewalled and stopped inquiries in the CIA bombing assassination of Chilean
opposition leader Orlando Letelier.
Barr joined George H.W. Bush’s legal/intelligence team during Bush’s vice
presidency (under President Ronald Reagan) Rose from assistant attorney general to Chief
Legal Counsel to attorney general (1991) during the Bush 41 presidency.
Barr was a key player in the Iran-Contra operation, if not the most important member of
the apparatus, simultaneously managing the operation while also “fixing” the
legal end, ensuring that all of the operatives could do their jobs without fear of exposure
or arrest.
In his attorney general confirmation, Barr vowed to “attack criminal
organizations”, drug smugglers and money launderers. It was all hot air: as AG, Barr
would preserve, protect, cover up, and nurture the apparatus that he helped create, and use
Justice Department power to escape punishment.
Barr stonewalled and stopped investigations into all Bush/Clinton and CIA crimes,
including BCCI and BNL CIA drug banking, the theft of Inslaw/PROMIS software, and all
crimes of state committed by Bush
Barr provided legal cover for Bush’s illegal foreign policy and war crimes
Barr left Washington, and went through the “rotating door” to the corporate
world, where he took on numerous directorships and counsel positions for major companies.
In 2007 and again from 2017, Barr was counsel for politically-connected international law
firm Kirkland
& Ellis . Among its other notable attorneys and alumni are Kenneth Starr, John
Bolton, Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and numerous Trump administration attorneys.
K&E’s clients include sex trafficker/pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, and Mitt
Romney’s Bain Capital.
A strong case can be made that William Barr was as powerful and important a figure in the
Bush apparatus as any other, besides Poppy Bush himself.
there is a war on america, and the DoD and men like flynn are too arrogant, dumb, and
proud to admit they have been fucked and conned deeply by men way smarter than them...
we don't need ******* brains, but killers to wage this revolution against the american
pedostate.
and that, what they master, they don't want to do.
if they want money, they should have learned to trade and not kill...
The analogy with the USSR really holds to an amazing degree. That level of censorship (aka political correctness") are
somewhat similar. Butt he main tool in the USSR was repression (often physical repression), and in the neoliberal USA it is
ostracism and exclusion. The USA is clearly became more neo-theocratic society after crisis of 2008, which destroyed the
ideology of neoliberalism ( much like WWI destroyed ideology of Bolshvism ) where symbols of faith (especially related to
neoliberalism and "political correctness") can't be challenged. but like in the USSR iff the person does not go
into politics the government leave it alone and the society is free much freer that it was in the USSR (as well as much
richer; both in Russia and the USSR the majority of population were poor often church rat poor )
People on UNZ often practice anti-neoliberalism under mask of anti-Semitism ;-). This reminds me the atmosphere of Weimar
Germany where Jews were made guilty of crimes by financial oligarchy (in which, true, Jews were overrepresented; the same is
true about the current US financial oligarchy). But the problem is finanfial oligarchy, not Jews as a nation. Blaming Jews for the
ills committed by Financial oligarchy is a classic anti-Semitism.
Another interesting question raised by commenters is "the cost of civilization". It is true that the current civilization was
created mostly by Europeans and first on all ancient Greece and Rome. But please note that their achievements were based on many
fundamental achievements made by China (silk, china, black power, to name a few), India (chess) and Arabic world (Arabic numbers,
Damask steel, astronomy achievements, etc.)
Notable quotes:
"... What the West used to accuse the Soviet Union of, is now actually clearly detectable in the United States and the United Kingdom themselves: surveillance is at every step, these days; in New York, London, Sydney, and even in the countryside. Every move a person makes, every purchase, every computer click, is registered; somewhere, somehow. And this monitoring is, mostly, not even illegal. ..."
"... Speech is controlled by political correctness. Someone behind the scenes decides what is acceptable and what is not, what is desirable or not, and even what is permissible. You make one 'mistake' and you are out; from the teaching positions at the universities, or from the media outlets. ..."
"... In such conditions, humor cannot thrive, and satire dies. It is not unlike religious fundamentalism: you get destroyed if you 'offend'. In such circumstances, writers cannot write ground-breaking novels, because true novels offend by definition, and always push the boundaries. As a result, almost nobody reads novels, anymore. ..."
"... Only toothless, 'controlled humor' is permitted. No punches can be administered intuitively. Everything has to be calculated in advance. No 'outrageous' political fiction can pass the 'invisible censorship' in the West (and so, novels as a form have almost died). ..."
"... God forbid, you dare to criticize the pro-Western elites who are ruining their countries on behalf of London and Washington, in the Gulf, Southeast Asia or Africa – that would be 'patronizing' and 'racist'. A great arrangement for the Empire and its servants, isn't it? ..."
"... you would be made to sense it: 'you are being protected from those horrible Third World monsters, madmen, perverts.' And of course, from Putin, from the Chinese Communists, from the butcher Maduro, from Assad, or from the Iranian Shi'a fanatics. The regime is fighting for you, it cares for you, it is protecting you. ..."
"... But at least, you know that your 'wise leaders' in the White House, Congress, Pentagon and security agencies, are working day and night, protecting you from countless conspiracies, from vicious attacks from abroad, and from those evil Chinese and Russians, who are busy building progressive and egalitarian societies. Lucky you! ..."
"... But suddenly. What happened, suddenly? Because something really happened. The Empire got tired of plundering the non-Western parts of the world, exclusively. Well-conditioned, brainwashed and scared, the Western public began to get treated with the same spite, as people in the plundered and miserable parts of the world. Well, not yet, not exactly. There are still some essential differences, but the trend is definitely there. The Western public cannot do too much to protect itself, really. The regime knows everything about everybody: it spies on every citizen: where he or she walks, what he or she eats, drives, flies, watches, consumes, reads. There are no secrets, anymore. ..."
"... Arriving from China, from Russia or Cuba, the first thing that strikes me is how disciplined, obedient and scared, the Europeans and North Americans really are. They subconsciously know that they are being controlled and cannot do anything about it. ..."
"... When trains get delayed or cancelled, they sheepishly murmur half-audible curses. Their medical benefits get reduced; they accept, or quietly commit suicide. Their public infrastructure crumbles; they say nothing, remembering the 'good old days'. ..."
"... The West has fought the so-called "third world" for many, long decades; oppressing it, tormenting it, looting it, violating its people. It prevented them from choosing their own governments. Now it has gone overboard: it is attempting to control and to oppress the entire world, including its own citizens. ..."
"... The US kleptocracy is being dismantled, not by the subject population but by the outside world. The kleptocracy responds by controlling what it can – its proles. The only way Americans can contribute to the end of their regime is with solidarity. Ignore your fake democracy and go over the government's head to the outside world. ..."
"... The Third Worlders obviously haven't heard the news as they're still crowding to get into the West. ..."
"... His hypocrisy in making civilization's main contributors oppressors and those who've contributed least but benefitted anyway look "oppressed" indicates this, no? ..."
"... I agree with much of the article. However, considering Johannesburg a place that is improving is a clear mistake. Maybe his ideology is confusing his thinking? In any case, White South Africa was a much better place than the current version. As is usual, almost all the murders there are black-on-black ..."
"... Vltchek's bias is that he thinks in nations, instead of corporations. ..."
"... . Vltchek does not see this, even though John Perkins 'Economic hitmen' are known even in the mainstream https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37Dvt2EqXF4 ..."
"... From what I can tell, the only time the living standard was possibly better in the UK than it is today was a brief period in the earlier 21st century before the financial crisis in 2008 and following recession, and a lot of the ridiculous political 'correctness' is about contrived, and what seems to me, unnecessary nonsense like fake 'feminism' and disingenuous 'outrage' ..."
"... And Russia and China also used to be empires, which is why they have such a large amount of territory, but writers like this would have us not think about that ..."
"... Good point the " securistan " of airports , it is very humiliating for the customers , and I think that it doesn't contributes anything to security , it is just to exert control on normal people , to degrade normal people . ..."
"... there has been a lot of overthrowing of leaders and covert action taken by the C.I.A and American governments in the 20th century and 21st century in south and central America, which they either lied to, or didn't inform the public about, and then seem to think they can later turn around and project blame on to the ordinary public for actions taken by the C.I.A or previous governments that they deliberately lied to the public about ..."
"... Speech is controlled by political correctness. Someone behind the scenes decides what is acceptable and what is not, what is desirable or not, and even what is permissible. You make one 'mistake' and you are out; from the teaching positions at the universities, or from the media outlets. ..."
"... And what is permissible is becoming truly weird. These are comments on an article over at http://www.thecollegefix.com "Poll: 73 percent of Republican students have withheld political views in class for fear their grades would suffer". ..."
"... And Clinton, Bush or Blair weren't nasty? How about Abu Ghraib prison for a taste of US rule and administration. ..."
"... Considering the introductory photo, data suggests that homelessness in US has been declining over the past 10-15 years. ..."
"... It is unrestrained, no holds barred, capitalism that has brought us to this parlous state . ..."
"... "Why are the people of London, Paris, Long Angeles looking so concerned, so depressed? " Because they are being replaced ? ..."
"... "It is far from clear whether 'good intentions plus stupidity' or 'evil intentions plus intelligence' have wrought more harm in the world." Nothing has inflicted more damage to the people of this planet than Leftism, which we should never forget mass murdered over 60 million Russians for the unpardonable sin of being white Christians with a country of their own. ..."
"... As Pelosi said: If this capitol (US) crumbles, the one thing that would remain is our commitment to aid/ our cooperation with Israel. ..."
"... I think Russel Means said it best: "Welcome to the American Reservation Prison Camp". https://www.youtube.com/embed/aN9ssrVTkk8?feature=oembed ..."
"... I left America in 1999 and returned only once. The US has gone way downhill. The living standard of the nineties would make the living standard of today look abysmal. If someone had told me (I was born in 1974) in the nineties that anyone would have to live at home past the age of 20 or the water of Flint would be poisoned or that sober white people-entire white families-would be homeless I would scoff at such an idea. ..."
"... ...Their obscene theft and fraud via their control of the Financial System have impoverished Americans greatly, particularly the working class. Their dominance of Corporate Boards, enabled by their ill gotten wealth, enables Corporate Upper Management to earn 100's of times more than a worker, instead of 10's times the ratio of the era of real economic growth. Their takeover of the legal system (Lawyers and judges) allows them to suck wealth from the people on a monumental scale. ..."
"... Their control of Media and Hollywood allows brainwashing and false narratives on a stupendous scale. ..."
"... This article is typically one-sided: the upper-middle and upper classes in the USA are doing very, very well, with booming wealth and incomes, and the areas where they live have the best facilities and infrastructure. Their economic situation is very different from that of most of the population. ..."
"... Those upper and upper-middle classes have simple decided to let the USA middle and working classes sink. The USA middle and working classes have been made redundant by offshoring all the industries infected with worker unions or replacing their workers with illegal immigrants; mexican servants and chinese workers never disobey, never strike. ..."
"... The model chosen by the USA elites is the brasilian/"Elysium" one: favelas for the many, splendid gated communities for the few. That model is not new: it is the 19th century Dickensian London model. ..."
Many have already noticed: The U.S. really, really doesn't feel like the world leader, or even as a 'first world country'. Of
course, I write that sarcastically, as I detest expressions like 'first world', and the 'third world'. But readers know what I mean.
Bridges, subways, inner cities, everything is crumbling, falling apart. When I used to live in New York City, more than two decades
ago, returning from Japan was shocking: the US felt like a poor, deprived country, full of problems, misery, of confused and depressed
people, homeless individuals; in short – desperados. Now, I feel the same when I land in the US after spending some time in China.
And it gets much worse. What the West used to accuse the Soviet Union of, is now actually clearly detectable in the United
States and the United Kingdom themselves: surveillance is at every step, these days; in New York, London, Sydney, and even in the
countryside. Every move a person makes, every purchase, every computer click, is registered; somewhere, somehow. And this monitoring
is, mostly, not even illegal.
Speech is controlled by political correctness. Someone behind the scenes decides what is acceptable and what is not, what
is desirable or not, and even what is permissible. You make one 'mistake' and you are out; from the teaching positions at the universities,
or from the media outlets.
In such conditions, humor cannot thrive, and satire dies. It is not unlike religious fundamentalism: you get destroyed if
you 'offend'. In such circumstances, writers cannot write ground-breaking novels, because true novels offend by definition, and always
push the boundaries. As a result, almost nobody reads novels, anymore.
Only toothless, 'controlled humor' is permitted. No punches can be administered intuitively. Everything has to be calculated
in advance. No 'outrageous' political fiction can pass the 'invisible censorship' in the West (and so, novels as a form have almost
died). Those who read in Russian or Chinese languages know perfectly well, that the fiction in Russia and China, is much more
provocative and avant-garde .
In the West, poetry has died, too. And so has philosophy, which has been reduced to a boring, stale and indigestible academic
discipline.
While Hollywood and the mass media keep producing, relentlessly, all sorts of highly insulting and stereotypical racist junk (mainly
against the Chinese, Russians, Arabs, Latinos and others), great writers and filmmakers who want to ridicule the Western regime and
its structure, have already been silenced. You can only humiliate non-Westerners in a way that is approved (again: somewhere, somehow),
but God forbid, you dare to criticize the pro-Western elites who are ruining their countries on behalf of London and Washington,
in the Gulf, Southeast Asia or Africa – that would be 'patronizing' and 'racist'. A great arrangement for the Empire and its servants,
isn't it?
We all know what has happened to Julian Assange, and to Edward Snowden. In the West, people are disappearing, getting arrested,
censored. Millions are losing jobs: in the media, publishing houses, and in the film studios. The Cold War era appears to be relatively
'tolerant', compared to what is taking place now.
Social media constantly represses 'uncomfortable' individuals, 'unacceptable' media outlets, and too 'unorthodox' thoughts.
Travel has become a boot camp. This is where they break you. Move through the Western airports and you will encounter the vulgar,
insulting ' securistan '. Now, you are not just expected to pull down your pants if ordered, or take off your shoes, or throw away
all your bottles containing liquids: you are expected to smile, to grin brightly, like an idiot. You are supposed to show how eager,
how cooperative you are: to answer loudly, looking straight into the eyes of your tormentors. If you get humiliated, still, be polite.
If you want to fly, show that you are enjoying this stupid and useless humiliation, administered for one and only reason: to break
you, to make you pathetic and submissive. To teach you where you really belong. Or else. Or else! We all know what will happen if
you refuse to 'cooperate'.
Now, 'they' will use double-speak to let you know that all this is for your own good. It will not be pronounced, but you would
be made to sense it: 'you are being protected from those horrible Third World monsters, madmen, perverts.' And of course, from Putin,
from the Chinese Communists, from the butcher Maduro, from Assad, or from the Iranian Shi'a fanatics. The regime is fighting for
you, it cares for you, it is protecting you.
Sure, if you live in the UK or the US, the chances are that you are deep in debt, depressed and with no prospects for the future.
Maybe your children are hungry, maybe, in the US, you cannot afford the medical care. Most likely, you cannot afford housing in your
own city. Perhaps you are forced to have two or three jobs.
But at least, you know that your 'wise leaders' in the White House, Congress, Pentagon and security agencies, are working
day and night, protecting you from countless conspiracies, from vicious attacks from abroad, and from those evil Chinese and Russians,
who are busy building progressive and egalitarian societies. Lucky you!
Except: something does not add up here. For years and decades, you were told how free you were. And how oppressed, unfree, those
against whom you are being protected, are. You were told how rich you are, and how miserable "the others" were.
To stop those deprived and deranged hordes, some serious measures had to be applied. A right-wing death-squad in some Central
American or Southeast Asian country had to be trained in US military camps; a thoroughly absolutist and corrupt monarch had to be
supported and pampered; a military fascist coup had to be arranged. Millions raped, tens of thousands of corpses. Not pretty at all,
but you know necessary. For your own good, North American or European citizens; for your own good . Even for the good of the country
that we designated for our 'liberation'. Few dissidents in the West have been protesting, for decades. No one has been paying much
attention to them. Most of them became 'unemployable', and were silenced through misery and the inability to pay their basic bills.
But suddenly. What happened, suddenly? Because something really happened. The Empire got tired of plundering the non-Western
parts of the world, exclusively. Well-conditioned, brainwashed and scared, the Western public began to get treated with the same
spite, as people in the plundered and miserable parts of the world. Well, not yet, not exactly. There are still some essential differences,
but the trend is definitely there. The Western public cannot do too much to protect itself, really. The regime knows everything about
everybody: it spies on every citizen: where he or she walks, what he or she eats, drives, flies, watches, consumes, reads. There
are no secrets, anymore.
You are an atheist? No need to 'confess'. You are confessing every minute, with each and every computer click, by pressing the
remote control button, or by shopping on Amazon.
Is Big Brother watching? Oh no; now there is much more detailed surveillance. Big Brother is watching, recording and analyzing.
General Pinochet of Chile used to brag that without his knowledge, no leaf could ever move. The old, fascist scumbag was bragging;
exaggerating. On the other hand, Western rulers say nothing, but they clearly know what they are doing. Without their knowledge,
nothing moves and nobody moves.
Arriving from China, from Russia or Cuba, the first thing that strikes me is how disciplined, obedient and scared, the Europeans
and North Americans really are. They subconsciously know that they are being controlled and cannot do anything about it.
When trains get delayed or cancelled, they sheepishly murmur half-audible curses. Their medical benefits get reduced; they
accept, or quietly commit suicide. Their public infrastructure crumbles; they say nothing, remembering the 'good old days'.
Why is it that I feel hope, I laugh with the people, in Mexico City, Johannesburg or Beijing? Why is there so much warmth in the
geographically cold cities of Vladivostok or Petropavlovsk in Kamchatka? Why are the people of London, Paris, Long Angeles looking
so concerned, so depressed?
Some historically poor countries are on the rise. And the people there show appreciation for every tiny improvement. Nothing is
more beautiful than optimism.
The West has fought the so-called "third world" for many, long decades; oppressing it, tormenting it, looting it, violating
its people. It prevented them from choosing their own governments. Now it has gone overboard: it is attempting to control and to
oppress the entire world, including its own citizens.
As various countries all over the world are getting back onto their feet, resisting pressure from Washington, London, Paris and
Berlin, people in the West are increasingly getting treated by their governments with the spite that used to be reserved exclusively
for the "under-developed nations" (yes, another disgusting expression).
Clearly, the West has "learnt from itself".
While countries like Russia, China, Vietnam, Mexico, Iran and others are surging forward, many previously rich colonialist and
neo-colonialist empires are now beginning to resemble the "Third World".
These days, it is very sad being a writer in New York City or in London. Just as it is frightening to be poor. Or being different.
All over the world, the roles are being reversed.
[First published by NEO – New Eastern Outlook – magazine of the Russian Academy of Sciences]
Andre Vltchek is a philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He has covered wars and conflicts in dozens
of countries. Four of his latest books are
Related Pieces by Author
All it means is that nothing of importance will happen domestically. The US kleptocracy is being dismantled, not by the subject
population but by the outside world. The kleptocracy responds by controlling what it can – its proles. The only way Americans
can contribute to the end of their regime is with solidarity. Ignore your fake democracy and go over the government's head to
the outside world.
Mr Vitchek , as usual you are spot on. I enjoy your work and eagerly look forward to see your your ever honest and perspicacious
insight. Keep up the great work.
Even if the US had done NOTHING to exploit Latin America, I would think most of Latin America would be piss poor. Granted, Latin
America was exploited by Spanish whites, but it was hardly a paradise when ruled by Aztec human sacrificers.
And what would Africa be today if white man had NEVER set foot there? It'd be a land of ugabuga savages. At least with western
influences, the black savages have cell phones and plenty of food and medicine to explode their population.
@Priss Factor We will all be 'ugabuga' savages when those wonderful weapons of the white man i.e. nuclear weapons are used.
Yet, somehow, no one cares. But we are reminded how great someone's tribe is . In the meantime, nuclear weapons are in the water,
on the the land, in space, will be coming to every school yard and block . No problem. Trump and Netannazi threatening to nuke
adversaries. No problem. Anyone heard of Hiroshima and Nagasaki before? No problem.
The race warriors will be happy to see blacks going "back" to Africa, Indians to India, Chinese to China Ok you get the picture.
But "whites' will stay in the Americas , right?
@Ole C G Olesen Apparently he wants to look proud, smug is the best he can do? His hypocrisy in making civilization's main
contributors oppressors and those who've contributed least but benefitted anyway look "oppressed" indicates this, no?
The West
has given too much and demanded too little in exchange – is now reaping the "rewards" – the hordes on its doorsteps and the world's
chief swindlers running the show. The gentile West has forgotten how to say no it has accepted so many lies. Forgot charity begins
at home and most of it belongs there.
@elcid GangstaRap replacing Beethoven, blacks and browns replacing whites. Once whites are out of the way the plug will be
pulled on handouts. Globalist population culling will begin in earnest. No more food wasted on useless eaters.
@F. Fondrement You are exactly right. But the Rocket Scientists on here, and their ilk, will never agree to solidarity with
anybody, even at the risk of their lives or livelihoods, because their insane prejudices come first.
@Exile You only see what you want to see. They simultaneously push both anti-PoC/ThirdWorld and pro-PoC/ThirdWorld messages.
Don't you get it? That's the point. Keep the lower classes squabbling amongst one another. Is this kind of rather obvious truth
over the head of your ilk or something. Because you shore do have a hard time understanding it.
This article seemed like it was going to touch upon something important, but then it went off the rails early and often. The mindless
repetition of trite anarchist catchphrases is both tiresome and disappointing at this stage of the game. The status quo needs
good criticism, but this isn't it. Of particularly noteworthy awfulness was this bit:
In such circumstances, writers cannot write ground-breaking novels, because true novels offend by definition, and always
push the boundaries.
Baloney. A true novel does not offend by definition. A true novel, like all true art, uplifts. It confirms the verities of
the eternal world when the vagaries of the sublunary world are starting to get you down and coarsen your thinking. The whole "art
as revolution" thing is pure modernist materialist horseshit, as was the rest of this essay.
@Ole C G Olesen And YOU ..ANDRE VITCHEK and People of Your HYPOCRITICAL CULTURAL MARXIST ( in reality Jewish subversive
) Calibre ..have been Major Contributors to that development ! .. Are You proud ?
Stop blaming it on the Commies. It is unrestrained, no holds barred, capitalism that has brought us to this parlous state,
and the money grubbers won't let up until they have sucked the last drop of blood from us.
Neither Malcolm X nor Charles Manson managed to get the blacks to storm Beverly Hills and give the residents there
slaughter. The blacks did take Detroit but not with a fight, more like through white flight, and what good did that do them? The
whites are no better; the extremes of the more woke ones are fighting it out on the streets against each other. There doesn't
appear to be any struggle on the horizon in the US requiring any solidarity, most are just trying to survive and into whatever
for themselves.
I remember reading some left wing US website a while back that announced a particular date as the start of a nationwide revolution
and called up people to turn up in each city at a specific time and place to the start mass protests and the revolution. The appeal
was bombastic, serious, well worded, and convincing, well perhaps to the more naive. I followed the news and nothing happened.
Absolutely nothing. I doubt anybody turned up and if they did it couldn't have been more than a handful. Really funny. Sort of
like Andre here calling for international revolution but who's following, or even reading? Not many, and definitely not enough
to make it happen.
Great. Another anti-white, blame-the-victim, "you are destroying yourself" article. Fortunately, these "Why is the West Suiciding?"
articles are less effective than before, now that we realize who the leaders of global plunder are. We know who is erecting the
gay disco casino gulag -- and they aren't Western.
The West is still oppressing the third world. Pres. Obama called Ugandans "odious" for no good reason. Peter Tatchell sends his
agents to Jamaica to investigate car burnings. Robert Mugabe was excoriated for his "pigs and dogs" remark.
White nurses whine about "FGM", not just in their own countries but abroad as well. We're supposed to take in women who are
"refugees" from their traditional cultures. Photos of a Somali adulterer who was half-buried and stoned to death made the rounds
on the Internet, with nasty comments from Europe, North America, and Oceania.
That "people of color" might just look at these things differently never seems to occur to the white progressive.
Fiction is a lie that tells the truth. The author is right for the wrong reasons. A manuscript by a white male is considered garbage- unless he is sufficiently woke
or Jewish. (They seem to have a lot of publishing power). But a black transsexual from Chi-Town his crap manuscript will be acquired by HBO and he will be courted by the Ivy League.
Identity politics is the great threat to literature, as it is to everything else
Exhibit A-
Whining No Talent Punk Ass B*tch Ta- Nesi Coates.
Exhibit B- Jericho Brown- Of course he is married to a man. A "Poet" https://www.jerichobrown.com is the recipient of fellowships from the Guggenheim Foundation, the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study at Harvard, and
the National Endowment for the Arts, and he is the winner of the Whiting Writer's Award. Brown's first book, Please (New Issues
2008), won the American Book Award. His second book, The New Testament (Copper Canyon 2014), won the Anisfield-Wolf Book Award.
His third collection is The Tradition(Copper Canyon 2019). His poems have appeared in The Bennington Review, Buzzfeed, Fence,
jubilat, The New Republic, The New York Times, The New Yorker, The Paris Review, TIME magazine, and several volumes of The Best
American Poetry. He is an associate professor and the director of the Creative Writing Program at Emory University.
-just look at all his goodies- set for life. How he must laugh at how he has hustled the system
Then read his poems. It would be funny but its too alarming.
@Reg Cæsar Are you actually defending Robert Mugabe?
Which behavior- Zimbabwe's peak month of inflation when it hit 79.6 billion perce nt month-on-month or his billion of
dollars in hidey holes, stolen, while the masses ate corn cobs? May he rot with the worms.
I laugh with the people, in Mexico City, Johannesburg or Beijing
I agree with much of the article. However, considering Johannesburg a place that is improving is a clear mistake. Maybe his
ideology is confusing his thinking? In any case, White South Africa was a much better place than the current version. As is usual,
almost all the murders there are black-on-black
It will get worse until it gets better.
Until manufacturing is back in the US/the West, people will continue to suffer. Selling jobs, labors to foreigners i.e. outsourcing is selling your own country and is a losing strategy.
A general suggestion to Ron Unz would be to include captions for images such as the one at the top of this article. As for the substance of this article: the decline in American living standards isn't from oppressing the third world as much
as it is from importing the third world.
The decline in infrastructure is partly due to our highly litigious society, powered by a surfeit of lawyers, which dramatically
increases the cost and construction time for new infrastructure. It's also partly due to public sector unions, which consume so
much in resources that little is left to maintain infrastructure. When a Port Authority of NY and NJ patrolman is making
$400k for standing
on a bridge, there is less money available to renovate the bridge.
@Commentator Mike They would be the silly-billys who believe what they see on television.
They'll be coached by their handlers to game the system and still be better off than where they came from. At the expense of
the already beleaguered taxpayers, natch.
During Obama's farewell speech he caused chuckles all over when he described the US as "the envy of the world" but as long
as they can count on the Knights of Columbus, the Hebrew Immigration Society and however many more, it will continue.
But it's a sign of failure, not success, when non-oppressed foreigners help our plutocrats plunder the truly oppresseed, actual
American taxpayers with no voice and few options. Short of a solar fireball taking out this whole hemisphere, I see no solution.
Vltchek's bias is that he thinks in nations, instead of corporations. Sure, the west is bad, but that does not automatically imply
that the East is good. For example, That the West lost the war in Syria, is good for Assad, Putin, Xi maybe and others who exploit
the Iranian Gas fields in the Persian Gulf, or are happy that gas flows from Russia to the EU, instead of from Qatar to the EU.
But for the Syrian population it will hardly make a difference if the exploits are shared by Gazprom or Exxon. One can rejoice
that the bombing stopped in Syria. But the bombing was not meant for the Syrian people, it was meant for making it possible to
let some corporations interests prevail over other corporations, and the population was only useful to let one corporation win
over the other: either as cannon fodder, or (when they were lucky enough to flee to the EU) as cheap labor. Vltchek does not see
this, even though John Perkins 'Economic hitmen' are known even in the mainstream
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37Dvt2EqXF4
I agreed with most of this article, but 'the west' isn't a country. Which countries specifically is the writer talking about?
Also, from a lot of writers there is assumption and projection about what they think the situation is like in the U.K that
doesn't always seem to reflect reality.
E.g
"While countries like Russia, China, Vietnam, Mexico, Iran and others are surging forward, many previously rich colonialist
and neo-colonialist empires are now beginning to resemble the "Third World"".
From what I can tell, the only time the living standard was possibly better in the UK than it is today was a brief period
in the earlier 21st century before the financial crisis in 2008 and following recession, and a lot of the ridiculous political
'correctness' is about contrived, and what seems to me, unnecessary nonsense like fake 'feminism' and disingenuous 'outrage'
And Russia and China also used to be empires, which is why they have such a large amount of territory, but writers like this
would have us not think about that
@obwandiyag "They simultaneously push both anti-PoC/ThirdWorld and pro-PoC/ThirdWorld messages. Don't you get it? That's
the point. Keep the lower classes squabbling amongst one another"
True, they also seem to pursue whatever strategy suits their particular agenda at the particular time and expect people to
have memories like goldfish, this reminds me of what George Orwell wrote about in the book '1984'
@Willem This needs to be spoken out more.
There is an entirely cadre of West BAD, East GOOD posters here. But I think this narrative too will fall. China is moving up in the world, colonizing stuff, this will not be deniable anymore in the future.
True, suicide is an extremely effective option to stop the pain of a miserable existence. It has become an epidemic among white
males, especially in rural areas.
Unz.com is a sort of White Man's Ghost Dance as another iteration of native-born Americans gets shoved onto a reservation
too, to make way for the space GloboHomo needs. It's hard to take. Many think being dead is better off. We're all Injuns now.
Actually, they spew hatred against their government, not against their people, so that they can invite more non-white/non-asian
in, while destabilizing the enemy government so even more immigrate. It's a constant and consistent strategy.
Good point the " securistan " of airports , it is very humiliating for the customers , and I think that it
doesn't contributes
anything to security , it is just to exert control on normal people , to degrade normal people .
About 4 years ago I took a plane in Copenhague , the europeans we had to take out our belts , and answer to silly questions
, but before us was a group of arabs , all the women ( or whatever ) wore the burka just showing their eyes , arab men wore european
clothes , they were passed quickly , no questions , no searches . I was wondering it the women could have a bomb under the burka
, fortunately they took another plane .
Now I try yo avoid planes as much as possible .
The sun sets in the west , it looks like the sun is setting for the west , the Kairòs . History will tell what happened , too
many wars , taxes , freeky ideologies , toxic bureacracies , greed , arrogance , apostasy . ??
I do agree with you, but there has been a lot of overthrowing of leaders and covert action taken by the C.I.A
and American governments in the 20th century and 21st century in south and central America, which they either lied to, or didn't
inform the public about, and then seem to think they can later turn around and project blame on to the ordinary public for actions
taken by the C.I.A or previous governments that they deliberately lied to the public about
It seems that the government and mainstream media lie most of the time, except on smaller or more local issues.
They seem to be tripping themselves up more and more now though
Speech is controlled by political correctness. Someone behind the scenes decides what is acceptable and what is not, what
is desirable or not, and even what is permissible. You make one 'mistake' and you are out; from the teaching positions at the
universities, or from the media outlets.
And what is permissible is becoming truly weird. These are comments on an article over at
http://www.thecollegefix.com "Poll: 73 percent of Republican students
have withheld political views in class for fear their grades would suffer".
I'm ABD (all but dissertation) in Econometrics because my adviser was a Marxist nutcase from the London School of Economics.
I couldn't fight the communists forever not when they held all the cards.
Reply: Medina-Merino
I left my PhD program in Anthropology when on a "field trip" , my advisor and his idiotic tie-dyed moron of a wife (former
student of his) crawled into my tent on the first night of a 2 week research project in black leather bondage harnesses
and informed me it was time for me to join them in a "night of pure pleasure".
Fast forward I got up, got into my car, drove through the night back to campus, parked outside of the Dean's office, stormed
in with wide-blood-shot-eyes when he arrived in his 700-Series turbo-charged Special Edition BMW and told him I wanted to
file a complaint against Professor "Bondo" and when he (Dean Bozo) did not respond to my request in over a week, I withdrew
from my program (ABD also) before the "Drop Deadline" so I could get full refund of my hard-earned TENS OF THOUSANDS of
tuition dollars and used the money to secure an attorney (who I later learned was on-the-take for the University's own legal
counsel office of "Equity & Fairness") until I ran out of money and then left town to take a position in Scotland on a research
team studying Celtic migrations to the Northern Coast of the Iberian Peninsula, known for centuries unofficially as the
"Celtic Coast". I loved my work and worked with some amazing and HONEST and RESPECTFUL colleagues.
I learned a big lesson from this EFFIN nightmare be verrrrrrrrrrrrrrry careful of whose hands you find your career in there
are a lot of filthy, abusive, corrupt "faculty" and even more dishonest and disingenuous and despicable "administrators"
in the contemporary academy and many have brass name-plates on their doors and hold do-nothing-but-damage-to-the-lives-of
those who are often powerless against their callous and deliberate abuses.
Even today, on my sleepless nights I can still hear Mr. Chips rustling in his grave
I went on to hold positions of academic renown in Europe and Latin America and eventually returned to the US when I knew
I would be able to secure adjunct positions in the US and Canada and Puerto Rico to support myself and my family, whose
lives I was able to maintain in a stable trajectory throughout this horror!
Revenge is sweet however today when I receive requests from my former "institution of higher learning" I respond in the
SASE
"NEVER WILL I EVER GIVE YOU ONE CENT FOR NOT HAVING PROTECTED ME FROM ABUSE AT THE HANDS OF DR. "BONDO" YEARS AGO!" Even
today, he is part of campus lore and is whispered about in hushed tones.
What happened to the "prof" he died of very painful brain cancer (poetic justice) and his idiot wife went full-tilt into
drugs and is sitting in a pool of her own pee in a very dismal geriatric ward. And the "Dean"? He is likewise awaiting his
last days in his luxury condo in Santa Barbara, CA surrounded by like-minded Lutheran do-gooders holding prayer circles
and burning incense and rubbing crystals for each of their pathetic selves
When I used to live in New York City, more than two decades ago, returning from Japan was shocking: the US felt like a poor,
deprived country, full of problems, misery, of confused and depressed people, homeless individuals; in short – desperados.
Gee, and those were good days in NYC. Resist: Pay for everything with cash, wear sunglasses and a hoodie (ideally black so you'll be confused with AntiFa and therefore
left un-molested by the police), and use a flip phone with a removable battery if you have to use anything at all. No, you won't
win, but you'll drive them nuts.
"White nurses whine about "FGM", not just in their own countries but abroad as well. We're supposed to take
in women who are "refugees" from their traditional cultures. Photos of a Somali adulterer who was half-buried and stoned to death
made the rounds on the Internet, with nasty comments from Europe, North America, and Oceania.
That "people of color" might just look at these things differently never seems to occur to the white progressive"
Although I did agree with a lot of Andre Vitchek's article, people like him seem to want people to believe that the 'pervert'
and harsh treatment of women thing in certain countries is just propaganda, as if a lot of people haven't ever met people from
some of these countries or been to some of these countries themselves
Of course there has been propaganda regarding accusations against certain leaders etc, but some countries do have the social
issues that you touched on above
"The US kleptocracy is being dismantled, not by the subject population but by the outside world"
I think the establishment have done a good job that themselves
"The only way Americans can contribute to the end of their regime is with solidarity. Ignore your fake democracy and go
over the government's head to the outside world"
@TKK Ditto with Zadie Smith who the NY Jewish publishing mafia and its attendant media have anointed the reigning queen of
mulatto lit. Her books are so eminently unreadable, much less publishable. American "culture" is such a con game. There should
be a brand of bulk toilet paper called "New York Times Best Seller".
Vltchek is wrong about Johannesburg, though. Last I heard–just a couple days ago -- the natives were restless, unemployed, rioting
in the streets and looting like crazy:
He should have just abolished money and started trading in bananas. What's worth more, a kilo of bananas or a kilo of printed
paper notes that were needed to buy a kilo of bananas? Consider the resources and the work that went into manufacturing those
paper notes and into growing and picking the bananas? Which is more valuable? Hmm At least you can eat the bananas but not the
paper money. Shows how ridiculous the whole economy is. Anywhere and everywhere for that matter. And now it's just electronic
money. And if it becomes inflationary you'll just have to keep adding zeros on your keyboard when making payments and have enough
zeros after whatever number in your account. But those bankers in charge of the economy just add the zeros to their own accounts
as they please inventing money out of thin air, whether paper or electronic.
Yes Mugabe was a nasty piece of work but he had a sense of humour. And Clinton, Bush or Blair weren't nasty? How about Abu Ghraib prison for a taste of US rule and administration.
Considering the introductory photo, data suggests that homelessness in US has been declining over the past 10-15 years.
there is a downward trend. In the nine year period – which includes the economic crisis – the number of homeless in the
US fell by almost 100,000 people.
Wikipedia has a long entry for "The Hardy Boys" series of books for young boys. It tracks, in detail, the 1960 to 1980 changes,
which include switching to nonstop action, a dumbed-down writing style, and increased adherence by the boys to regulations and
laws. Commentators call the books "eviscerated." I have posted before on how higher education has "refreshed" the curriculum;
but the evisceration begins earlier than that.
Joann, do you think Conrad was himself recommending "exterminate all the brutes" or was he damning the predictable
outcome of the leftist mind? If Conrad were alive today he'd heartily agree with Dietrich Doerner, who writes in his Logic of
Failure (1997), "It is far from clear whether 'good intentions plus stupidity' or 'evil intentions plus intelligence' have wrought
more harm in the world." Nothing has inflicted more damage to the people of this planet than Leftism, which we should never forget
mass murdered over 60 million Russians for the unpardonable sin of being white Christians with a country of their own.
Have a look at Burton's Wanderings in West Africa. Burton was one of the great travelers and polymaths of the 19th century
and had no use for either the Africans or the Europeans he found interacting along Africa's west coast. Africans may have been
technologically backward, but they were more racist than the Europeans and twice as cunning when it came to exploiting the other.
I haven't read Linquist's Exterminate All the Brutes, but I have read leftist crap ironically blaming Western Civilization
for imposing on African countries -- not the art, architecture, music, philosophy, morals, ethics, science, education, technology,
medicine, and other achievements of the West -- but the lethal cultural degeneracy almost entirely attributable to the ongoing
ascendency of the racially supremacist Jewish Left, destroying the West far more than anywhere in Africa and due mainly to International
Jewry's ownership of the public forum and so the formation of men's minds throughout much of the world.
The west is going down because of its Israel first mania for the past hundred years.
Infrastructure is it good for Israel first? No, who needs that. Third world nationals fleeing nations raped of resources for Israel firster corporations to the west. It is OK as Mad Albright said about 500000 Iraqi children dying from ZUS sanctions. Israel/US do nine eleven and blame it on Muslims
a)Trillions of dollars spent in the past 18 years destroying the Middle East using that nine eleven excuse.
b)Seven Nations to Destroy theme for this destruction to create a Eretz Israel. Lovely theme comes from some 500 BC scribblings
– Deuteronomy 7.1-2
Trillions could have been used to built up the west. Destruction was more "important". It is all about the west's 500 BC values.
At least the non-western world likes to live in the present. The west is in the Zion vortex of 500 BC values.
As Pelosi said: If this capitol (US) crumbles, the one thing that would remain is our commitment to aid/ our cooperation with Israel.
She summed up why the west is falling apart in the past hundred years.
...We have plenty of money for destroying the middle east for Israel , 7 trillion and counting and plenty of money for hundreds
of billions of welfare for Israel and providing military assistance for Israel and so the money is there, but just not for America,
Israel is the chosen land, chosen to destroy America.
@Commentator Mike "The Third Worlders obviously haven't heard the news as they're still crowding to get into the West."
That's because the don't care about FREEDOM, they are coming because they want FREE SHIT. Scavengers never care how majestic the carcass they pic clean once was, they are only there to strip it to the bone.
Regarding the "security" farce at the airports – I don't think the purpose of the harassment is to "break" you, but to remind
you of "9/11" and them evil Muslim terrorists who are to blame for all of this.
@Commentator Mike The Third Worlders obviously have heard that the 1st world is just like the 3rd world now so they're going
to fit in perfectly well hence the rush to get in
@Franz When I was young in Southeast Michigan, a few Irish and English and Germans still immigrated. That was about 40 years
ago when I was five years old. Late seventies (I was born in 1974).
Nobody and I mean nobody, from Germany or Ireland would immigrate to Michigan today. People in India would not want to drink Flint's water.
I left America in 1999 and returned only once. The US has gone way downhill. The living standard of the nineties would make
the living standard of today look abysmal. If someone had told me (I was born in 1974) in the nineties that anyone would have to live at home past the age of 20 or the
water of Flint would be poisoned or that sober white people-entire white families-would be homeless I would scoff at such an idea.
At the rate we are going, India will be superior to America in the next 20 years. Russia was always poor. Always. China has improved vastly in twenty years and we can argue why. UK was probably at an economic peak 20 years ago.
...I guess many Security companies got rich with 9/11 , who are the mother companies of the thousands of " security " guards around
the globe ? ,can you imagine ? , What percentage of the plain ticket goes to this " security " guys ? . By the way most of the
airport security guards did not finish High School .
@Ole C G Olesen Andre Vitchek has a moral consensus, unlike the rest of the First World citizens, they are morally defunct,
they even don't feel guilty for the crime against humanity, crime against peace and war crime they have been committing. They
regards those crimes as White man's burden, and whatever they do it is necessary with good intention.
@Johnny Walker Read Thanks for posting, "Welcome to the American Reservation Prison Camp."
Didn't know this existed, until now. For decades while watching everything that I loved being destroyed, from wholesome communities to natural habitats, I'd catch
myself saying, "now I know what it must of felt like to be American Indian." Today in Yuma Arizona, the Mourning Doves are silent, as another hunting season takes its unnecessary toll.
Aug 16, 2019 Sunset in the Golden State – Ep 4: How the West Was Lost
Stefan Molyneux, Host of Freedomain Radio, travels to California to unravel all of the political, economic, moral and demographic
complexities of the Golden State.
Jul 6, 2014 Century of Enslavement: The History of The Federal Reserve
What is the Federal Reserve system? How did it come into existence? Is it part of the federal government? How does it create
money? Why is the public kept in the dark about these important matters?
This is a *BIG* picture view of the world in one link.
June 13, 2016 Which Corporations Control The World? A surprisingly small number of corporations control massive global market shares. How many of the brands below do you use?
@Priss Factor I would not go that far in rationalizing.
If one's teenage son use helpless old neighbor's backyard for rowdy parties, one can not just say that yard looks like shit anyway.
No I don't believe Conrad was giving direct advice here.
I do have a tendency to simplify, I have learned that in the ad business, and I'm still adapting to this platform. Getting the news media and Hollywood into their hands really was a
neoliberals stroke of genius that could only happen with the
aloofness that owning the international banking business supplies you with.
Then they owned psychology, and now all of academia.
It takes serenity to plan on such scale.
I don't see us getting out of this trap.
@wayfarer I think Russel Means is one of the most intelligent and honest human beings America ever birthed. If I had my way
this video would be required viewing in every American History class.
...Their obscene theft and fraud via their control of the Financial System have impoverished Americans greatly, particularly the
working class. Their dominance of Corporate Boards, enabled by their ill gotten wealth, enables Corporate Upper Management to earn 100's of
times more than a worker, instead of 10's times the ratio of the era of real economic growth. Their takeover of the legal system (Lawyers and judges) allows them to suck wealth from the people on a monumental scale.
Their control of Media and Hollywood allows brainwashing and false narratives on a stupendous scale.
Their control of Government through their essentially owning or being every single Congressperson or Senator means that
they control the taxation and spending that cripples workers...
This article is typically one-sided: the upper-middle and upper classes in the USA are doing very, very well, with booming wealth
and incomes, and the areas where they live have the best facilities and infrastructure. Their economic situation is very different
from that of most of the population.
Those upper and upper-middle classes have simple decided to let the USA middle and working classes sink. The USA middle and working
classes have been made redundant by offshoring all the industries infected with worker unions or replacing their workers with
illegal immigrants; mexican servants and chinese workers never disobey, never strike.
Part of this strategy has been to separate geographically, by means of property prices, lower and middle income people and upper-middle
and upper income people, by building residential estates that unlike old mixed cities are targeted explicitly at a specific income
bracket.
The model chosen by the USA elites is the brasilian/"Elysium" one: favelas for the many, splendid gated communities for the
few. That model is not new: it is the 19th century Dickensian London model.
"White Teeth". That's her pièce de résistance. Before I cancelled my New Yorker subscription, they published 2 (two) of her short stories. I read them, and thought I was
having a mild stoke. Non linear. No plot. What was her "talent?" Now, when I want to read a short story, I always go back to:
To Build a Fire, by Jack London.
This section still grabs me by the throat, every time I read it.
Following at the man's heels was a big native dog. It was a wolf dog, gray-coated and not noticeably different from its
brother, the wild wolf. The animal was worried by the great cold. It knew that this was no time for traveling. Its own feeling
was closer to the truth than the man's judgment. In reality, it was not merely colder than 50 below zero; it was colder than
60 below, than 70 below. It was 75 below zero. Because the freezing point is 32 above zero, it meant that there were 107 degrees
of frost.
The dog did not know anything about temperatures. Possibly in its brain there was no understanding of a condition of very cold,
such as was in the man's brain. But the animal sensed the danger. Its fear made it question eagerly every movement of the man
as if expecting him to go into camp or to seek shelter somewhere and build a fire. The dog had learned about fire, and it wanted
fire. Otherwise, it would dig itself into the snow and find shelter from the cold air.
Now compare this to the man:
But all this -- the distant trail, no sun in the sky, the great cold, and the strangeness of it all -- had no effect on
the man. It was not because he was long familiar with it. He was a newcomer in the land, and this was his first winter.
The trouble with him was that he was not able to imagine. He was quick and ready in the things of life, but only in the things,
and not in their meanings. Fifty degrees below zero meant 80 degrees of frost. Such facts told him that it was cold and uncomfortable,
and that was all. It did not lead him to consider his weaknesses as a creature affected by temperature. Nor did he think about
man's general weakness, able to live only within narrow limits of heat and cold. From there, it did not lead him to thoughts
of heaven and the meaning of a man's life. 50 degrees below zero meant a bite of frost that hurt and that must be guarded against
by the use of mittens, ear coverings, warm moccasins, and thick socks. 50 degrees below zero was to him nothing more than 50
degrees below zero. That it should be more important than that was a thought that never entered his head.
As he turned to go, he forced some water from his mouth as an experiment. There was a sudden noise that surprised him. He tried
it again. And again, in the air, before they could fall to the snow, the drops of water became ice that broke with a noise.
He knew that at 50 below zero water from the mouth made a noise when it hit the snow. But this had done that in the air. Undoubtedly
it was colder than 50 below. But exactly how much colder he did not know. But the tem- perature did not matter.
But I remain convinced that what we are witnessing, what we are living through is nothing short of The Pyrrhic Victory of Jewish Supremacy Inc. As one of the Tribe once told me many years ago, "We're the smartest and the dumbest people at the same time." I think all of their smarts moves in one direction – total destruction. Which, of course, eventually includes them as well.
Their single-mindedness of purpose has been their strength (if that's what you want to call it). But it's also their weakness.
As with all parasitic predators, they're good at infiltration, subversion, betrayal, disintegration, and destruction. But they're no damned good at social-management. And it shows. Everywhere. Just look around. It couldn't be more obvious. All of the social-institutions under their control are in free fall. Teaching-Learning institutions, Economic institutions, Government institutions.
All of them.
With the tunnel vision of a psychotic Dracula, they're so focused on killing their victims while they sleep and sucking all
of their blood, that they can't feel the tickling of the poisonous spider crawling up their leg. Nor do they realize that they've already poisoned the blood of their victims. Why can't they see this? Because they're pathologically self-engrossed.
Hang tight. Because things are moving so fast we might just live to see the day when their global Ponzi scheme collapses and
the cat comes out of the bag for all to see (not just us).
When that day comes people will no more fear the accusation of antisemitism than a person caught outside during a hurricane
will fear being called a burglar for taking cover in the first house they see.
I laugh with the people, in Mexico City, Johannesburg or Beijing
Virtue-signal much?
While countries like Russia, China, Vietnam, Mexico, Iran and others are surging forward, many previously rich colonialist
and neo-colonialist empires are now beginning to resemble the "Third World".
Russia didn't have colonies?
Now if you wanted to argue that those colonies only benefited a tiny handful of ((Russians)) and international elites, at the
direct expense of the Russian people, (exactly like the ZUSA today), then I'd agree.
But it seems to me that what you're tying to do is blame the average white middle and working class American (and Brits and
French and others..) for all the injustices of the world, and so as they're crushed by the burgeoning Orwellian police state and
treated as second class citizens in favor of all immigrants and non-whites, that they're getting what they deserve, huh?
Just as it is frightening to be poor. Or being different. All over the world, the roles are being reversed.
ahh, being poor and different'. (white people have never known what it's like to be poor, huh?)
So it sounds to me like you're celebrating the undercurrents of what's roiling in South Africa.
I only wish you could be there, on some remote farm outside of your lovely Johannesburg, as those who're reversing the roles
come in to exact their justice, and listen as you howl, 'No No!, I'm a good white! Do what you want to the farmer and his family,
but I'm on your side, and celebrate (with gloating snide) the roles being reversed!'.
I'd love to see your reaction when they ponder your respective 'goodness' from your white face.
I laugh with the people, in Mexico City, Johannesburg or Beijing
I agree with much of the article. However, considering Johannesburg a place that is improving is a clear mistake. Maybe
his ideology is confusing his thinking? In any case, White South Africa was a much better place than the current version. As
is usual, almost all the murders there are black-on-black
South Africa was way safer and more civilized under white rule. Just ask farmer Hans Bergmann who grows food that feeds the
very blacks trying to kill him.
The author is talking more about U.S. foreign policy e.g. United Fruit Company, the Iran coup, the Guatemala coup, CIA failed
hits on Castro, Air America, Grenada, Panama, Iran, USAID etc.
The advent of European civilization that wasn't perfect but has largely benefited browns and blacks be it health, food security,
infrastructure and technologies like the Internet.
As for the current backwardness, the American economist Michael Todaro has documented the challenges these countries face in
his book Economic Development. Todaro, however, doesn't factor IQ into the equation and instead uses coded language like 'lack
of competent manpower' (paraphrasing).
@Joe Wong Think of this this way chump, when the USA was 90% White, it fought Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan,
which you obviously support.
Now the USA is only 65% White and it invades and destroys the Middle East and Libya. So by becoming less White, is the USA becoming
a more compassionate country?
The author is talking more about U.S. foreign policy e.g. United Fruit Company, the Iran coup, the Guatemala coup, CIA failed
hits on Castro, Air America, Grenada, Panama, Iran, USAID etc.
ahh yes
It's all the American working class WHITE men who DID IT!!
Flay the skin from their bones for imposing the Shah on Iran!
Reverse the roles and see their children raped for what they did to Guatemala and Panama and South Africa!
Russia and France and Japan and England are all victims of these serial racists who continue to refuse to be gay!
It's the American working class white man who has and continues to cause all the problems of the planet. Why don't we just
castrate them all and finally, at long last live in an utopian paradise?
In our time, we are endlessly brainwashed to love all the things that we can buy.
Meanwhile, people are being bombed, terrorized, sanctioned, etc. across the world ... We
can't complain since we got lots of toys to play with.
And here I think one has an enormous area in which the ultimate revolution could
function very well indeed, an area in which a great deal of control could be used by not
through terror, but by making life seem much more enjoyable than it normally does.
Enjoyable to the point, where as I said before, Human beings come to love a state of things
by which any reasonable and decent human standard they ought not to love and this I think
is perfectly possible.
"Happiness" with our toys is being used to keep us quiet.
"The dictatorships of tomorrow will deprive men of their freedom, but will give them in
exchange a happiness none the less real, as a subjective experience, for being chemically
induced. The pursuit of happiness is one of the traditional rights of man; unfortunately,
the achievement of happiness may turn out to be incompatible with another of man's rights
-- namely, liberty."
...press has complete control to filter everything to look rosey for them, demonize any
dissidents, and the masses fall for it. Why? They do not allow any counter arguments...
A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all-powerful executive
of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not
have to be coerced, because they love their servitude.
...bread and circus propaganda. They want to keep that way. Any one who dissents is a
"hater".
What I may call the messages of Brave New World, but it is possible to make people
contented with their servitude. I think this can be done. I think it has been done in the
past. I think it could be done even more effectively now because you can provide them with
bread and circuses and you can provide them with endless amounts of distractions and
propaganda.
...Pleasure trick keeps one from looking at what our rulers are doing.
As political and economic freedom diminishes, sexual freedom tends correspondingly to
increase. And the dictator will do well to encourage that freedom it will help to reconcile
his subjects to the servitude which is their fate.
...using their MSM to make massive herds of humans all over the earth to love their
servitude to Zion uber alles.
The question of the next generation will not be one of how to liberate the masses, but
rather, how to make them love their servitude
Giuliani is already a 9/11 suspect because he managed the entirely illegal destruction of
key evidence before investigators ever saw it. In March 2002, the U.S. House Committee on
Science reported:
"In the month that lapsed between the terrorist attacks and the deployment of the [FEMA]
BPAT team, a significant amount of steel debris -- including most of the steel from the
upper floors -- was removed from the rubble pile, cut into smaller sections, and either
melted at the recycling plant or shipped out of the U.S. Some of the critical pieces of
steel -- including the suspension trusses from the top of the towers and the internal
support columns -- were gone before the first BPAT team member ever reached the site.
Later, in October 2001, Queen Elizabeth II named Giuliani Knight Commander of the
Most Excellent Order of the British Empire for his "outstanding help and support to the
bereaved British families in New York."and gave additional honors to the former NY Police
Commissioner Bernard Kerik and Fire Commissioner Thomas Von Essen, making each a Commander of
the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire.
But sure, cough cough, none of those glorious awards could have had anything to do with
the gold , or the successful destruction of evidence, but rather were based on the
trio's service to British subjects after the 9/11 attacks.
This documentary interrogates the notion that Osama Bin Laden single-handedly runs the
pervasive Al Qaeda terrorist network by examining its inception, its links to Western
intelligence, the double agents and fictitious characters that populate its ranks, and the
fraudulent ways the Al Qaeda myth is propagated in the controlled corporate media.
Sam J.
says:
September 5, 2019 at 8:17 pm GMT 100 Words
@utu We don't need finite element analysis. The building fell roughly 108 feet where the
only thing holding it up was air. It had no support at all when it fell. Somehow all the steel
columns and concrete ceased to give the building any support. All failing within milliseconds
of each other supposedly from a few fires on four floors or so. Demo. Had to be. No other
explanation. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread
Display All Comments
@Barry Gordon Definitely not. Larry said (quoting from memory): "I was talking with the,
er fire department commander, and we were saying, you know, there has been such terrible loss
of life, maybe the best thing to do is pull it. So we made that decision to pull and we
watched the building collapse."
There were no firefighters in WTC-7. (If there had been, he wouldn't say "it," he would
say "them." But there weren't any, so the grammatical point is irrelevant.)
The "decision to pull" – "watched it collapse" statement, as all native English
speakers know, carries a close causal and chronological link. Making the decision to pull
caused the collapse, and the collapse happened shortly after the decision was made.
If there had been firefighters in the building at 11 a.m. rescuing Barry Jennings and
Michael Hess (the only reports of firefighters ever entering WTC-7) and if Larry and his
friend posing as a "er fire department commander" had "pulled" them out then, and watched the
building collapse at 5:20, six hours later, OBVIOUSLY Larry wouldn't have said it the way he
said it. He would have said "we pulled the firefighters out of the building in the morning.
Later that evening, when it collapsed, we were glad we had" or something to that effect.
Those of us researching 9/11 in 2004 made a huge stink about Larry's confession, which was
well known by then. It was only many years later when Larry finally put out his silly alibi
about "pulling firefighters."
Only a fool or someone ignorant of colloquial English could think Larry was talking about
pulling out firefighters. These people must really think we're stupid.
For instance, Silverstein is not a 'confessed participant' in the destruction of the
WTC.
ROTFL! So his life really was saved by a lucky appointment with a dermatologist; and his
kids really were saved by luckily being late; and he wasn't actually lying when he lied about
having a telephone conversation with the "fire dept. commander"; etc.?
"His statement about 'pulling it' is ambiguous."
To the extent it was ambiguous, it was *calculatedly* ambiguous; i.e., his use of the word
"pull" was a lexical ambiguity intended to imply controlled demolition, thereby assuaging the
cognitive dissonance of the masses, but allow for (implausible) deniability later based on
semantics.
@Intelligent Dasein You might be right about the meaning of Larry Silverstein's statement
"we made the decision to pull it". I have often wondered why he would have said such a thing
if he meant initiate the controlled demolition of Building 7. However, that doesn't change
the fact that Building 7 collapsed due to controlled demolition. It collapsed into its own
footprint at free fall speed. There is only one thing that can cause that – controlled
demolition. In fact Building 7 is the Achilles heel of the official narrative about 9/11. It
is the only thing one needs to know to know that the official version is pure BS. Every other
fact disproving the official narrative of 9/11 is simply icing on the cake. But nice try
anyway at your red herring.
Obvious lie, the Fire Chief is not going to ask the building owner for permission to pull
his men out.
Never mind what he meant by what he says he said. I say Silverstein was and is lying about
the whole thing, because he never said it. Only later in order to make it look like he was
more interested in the lives of firefighters than his properties did he pretend there was any
such decision on his part. So it was a attempt to burnish his reputation as a humanitarian
for who lives are more important than a healthy balance sheet.
But Barrett thinks Silverstein was virtually admitting that he murdered thousands of
people. This would be an act of self immolation if he did it and them stayed in the country;
does Barrett not understand that Silverstein would be virtually committing suicide? A queue
of self appointed judge jury and executioners would form to kill him. In no time at all there
would be the begining of attempts on his life, and finally one would work no matter what the
security. How can anyone believe the Truthers believe what they is true, if they are not even
willing to do what the Pizzagate nut did, let alone punish a mass murderer. This article of
Barrett stinks of a total lack of seriousness .
I f many people saw those planes, would you mind posting a link or two to support
your claim?
There is no credible airplane wreckage at any of the alleged 9/11 crash sites; not at the
WTC, not at the Pentagon, and not at Shanksville.
Additionally, according to Pilots for 9/11 Truth, there were automatic ACARS returns from
two of the allegedly hijacked airliners from some time after their reputed crashes.
For example, Flt. 93 was tracked to the vicinity of Champaign, Illinois well after it was
said to have crashed near Shanksville, Pennsylvania.
When the FBI got "Let's Roll" Todd Beamer's cell phone records from Verizon, they found
his phone had made more than a dozen calls after Flt. 93's reputed crash.
It is possible there were aircraft of some kind flying around in the vicinity of the WTC
at about the right time, in the same way that a large plane flew low over the Pentagon, but
did not crash into it. It seems there were at least a few liars operating around the
Pentagon, and nothing to rule out liars around the WTC.
Whatever anyone saw, the lack of the expected large amount of airplane debris at any of
the crash sites argues strongly that there were in fact no hijacked jetliner crashes on
9/11.
@Sparkon Very importantly, Sparkon said: "Whatever anyone saw ,"
Hey Sparkon!
Please look at the article/video (linked below) & listen to NYFD 9/11 witness &
survivor, Rudy Dent, speak & describe what he saw? Ideally many other commenters &
Kevin Barrett will tune-in & listen to every word he said? Thanks, continue sparking,
& my respect, Sparkon.
Paul Craig Roberts has a short piece dated yesterday, "The Official Story of the Collapse of
WTC Building 7 Lies in Ruins." He quotes a resolution of the Franklin Square and Munson Fire
District, and in it is this:
the overwhelming evidence presented in said petition demonstrates beyond any doubt that
pre-planted explosives and/or incendiaries -- not just airplanes and the ensuing fires --
caused the destruction of the three World Trade Center buildings,
I'm skeptical. WTC 1 & 2 collapsed starting from the top: the top floor went first,
then the next below, etc. WTC 7 collapsed from the bottom: the bottom floor went first,
lowering all the floors above, then what had been the floor above collapsed, continuing to
lower all the floors above.
WTC 1 & 2 each "melted" like a candle lit at the top. WTC 7 melted like an unlit
candle resting on a hot stove.
I think WTC 1 & 2 probably collapsed as we have been told – see the articles
here –
and that WTC 7 probably collapsed from planted explosives – the University of Alaska
research project bears it out.
It has always been clear that the official 9/11 narrative was intended for those with
i.q.'s of Stygian depth or so intellectually lazy as not to be bothered with the most
rudimentary facts and the exercise of common sense, their heads buried in the sand of
popular entertainment and sports.
Not so much. I bought and read the official 9/11 Commission Report and accepted its
account of inter agency bungling and security failures, and it's We Must Do Better message in
our fight against terrorism.
It was only years later that I came across an account of the collapse of Building 7 (that
same day), and couldn't understand why it was never mentioned in the Report.
That lead on to the technical questions that made the goverment "Collapse by Fire"
explanation impossible. Up to that point, it seemed quite straightforward that planes hit the
buildings and that they collapsed. I wasn't one of the technical people who immediately
realized that there was something wrong (like for instance Donald Trump):
@Intelligent Dasein See this interview on Dutch TV with a demolition expert, the late
Danny Jowenko. He was unaware of the story about WTC 7 but after seeing the video he was
convinced that this was a controlled demolition. What makes his analysis more convincing is
that he obviously didn't suspect foul play and believed that, timewise, it could, though very
difficult, all have been prepared after Silverstein gave the command "pull it". Anyone who is
a bit more informed about the circumstances knows that this would have been impossible.
The main point is his conviction that we were dealing here with a controlled
demolition.
He claimed that "pulling it" meant pulling the firemens' efforts to save the building.
True? Maybe, maybe not.
Having watched the video of him talking about it and his body language I'm inclined to
believe he knew beforehand it was wired for demolition. Also it was that building that was
reported to have fallen before it actually did on tv. Then you had the collapse of the
building which looked like a controlled demolition much more so than the twin towers did as
they came down.
Silverstein wasn't the mastermind though. It was probably one of the US alphabet agencies
that did the planning.
@Whitewolf Here's Silverstein's complete 'pull it' statement from Youtube:
"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not
sure they were going to be able to contain the fire. I said you know we've had such terrible
loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is, pull it. And they made that decision to
pull, and we watched the building collapse."
Clearly Silverstein is talking about the Fire Department's personnel. He says 'you know
we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is, pull it.' In other
words he is implying that pulling the 'whatever' will save lives. Now pulling the 'building'
will in fact kill more firefighters, so he is not talking about pulling the building. He is
talking about pulling the fire fighting operation.
A further clue is the next sentence. 'And they made that decision to pull'. This means
that Silverstein is saying 'the Fire Department pulled the 'whatever'. Now to say that the
Fire Department pulled the building by controlled demolition is completely insane. How are
the Fire Department going to set up a demolition job in two hours with everybody watching?
What Silverstein is saying is that the Fire Department pulled the firefighting operation from
the building.
Later, they watch the building collapse. This does not mean that the building collapsed
immediately after the Fire Department pulled the firefighting operation from the building. It
can mean at any time after this.
Its true that Silverstein's statement is poorly worded, but that's often the case in off
the cuff speech. The amount of idiocy expended on this statement of Silverstein's, including
by K Barrett, never ceases to amaze. Its a sure sign that any person who thinks Silverstein
is a "confessed participant in the controlled demolition of Building 7", is an utter
moron.
Neither Silverstein, nor the Fire Department, could ever have been in control of the
demolition of WTC7. This would have been under the total control of the 9/11 plotters,
operating from some central control room somewhere in the city. Silverstein undoubtedly would
have known that WTC7 would be demolished, obviously since this would have been part of the
deal he made with the plotters.
WTC7 was originally supposed to have been hit by Flight 93, but this flight was late
taking off and the plane re-routed. Silverstein knew therefore that the building had to be
pulled at some stage, since it was packed with explosives which might otherwise be
discovered. Perhaps this knowledge,by a process of Freudian slippage, entered into his
speech.
Apart from these sorts of stupidities, this article by K Barrett is quite good.
A child of Holocaust survivors...he was born in Tel Aviv, Israel.
She worked in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York as
Assistant U.S. Attorney before becoming Counsel to the Deputy Attorney General, where she
worked on national security and counterterrorism. She was Counselor to the Secretary of
Homeland Security before she worked in the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice
as Deputy Assistant Attorney General.
What are Sigal Mandelker' connections to this illustrious group?
Even while he was allegedly pimping girls and running heroin, Larry Silverstein served
as president for United Jewish Appeal of New York.
As for Epstein, he was the boy toy and protégé of Les Wexner, co-founder
of the Mega Group of Jewish billionaires associated with the World Jewish Congress, the
Anti-Defamation League, and other pro-Israel groups.
Reads like the best of the best among Israel-firsters: Pimps, drug-dealers, thugs from the
ADL, major mafioso-philanthropists for Israel, WJC activists with a special fondness for the
illegal settlers' terrorism against native Palestinians, and the most active promoters of the
Wars for Eretz Israel, including a war-in-making against Iran.
In our time, we are endlessly brainwashed to love all the things that we can buy.
Meanwhile, people are being bombed, terrorized, sanctioned, etc. across the world ... We
can't complain since we got lots of toys to play with.
And here I think one has an enormous area in which the ultimate revolution could
function very well indeed, an area in which a great deal of control could be used by not
through terror, but by making life seem much more enjoyable than it normally does.
Enjoyable to the point, where as I said before, Human beings come to love a state of things
by which any reasonable and decent human standard they ought not to love and this I think
is perfectly possible.
"Happiness" with our toys is being used to keep us quiet.
"The dictatorships of tomorrow will deprive men of their freedom, but will give them in
exchange a happiness none the less real, as a subjective experience, for being chemically
induced. The pursuit of happiness is one of the traditional rights of man; unfortunately,
the achievement of happiness may turn out to be incompatible with another of man's rights
-- namely, liberty."
...press has complete control to filter everything to look rosey for them, demonize any
dissidents, and the masses fall for it. Why? They do not allow any counter arguments...
A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all-powerful executive
of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not
have to be coerced, because they love their servitude.
...bread and circus propaganda. They want to keep that way. Any one who dissents is a
"hater".
What I may call the messages of Brave New World, but it is possible to make people
contented with their servitude. I think this can be done. I think it has been done in the
past. I think it could be done even more effectively now because you can provide them with
bread and circuses and you can provide them with endless amounts of distractions and
propaganda.
...Pleasure trick keeps one from looking at what our rulers are doing.
As political and economic freedom diminishes, sexual freedom tends correspondingly to
increase. And the dictator will do well to encourage that freedom it will help to reconcile
his subjects to the servitude which is their fate.
...using their MSM to make massive herds of humans all over the earth to love their
servitude to Zion uber alles.
The question of the next generation will not be one of how to liberate the masses, but
rather, how to make them love their servitude
Instead, imagine that human face staring mesmerized into the screen of some kind of
nifty futuristic device on which every word, sound, and image has been algorithmically
approved for consumption by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency ("DARPA") and its
"innovation ecosystem" of "academic, corporate, and governmental partners."
I'd say we're already 80% there. The good news is that the truth can't be further
suppressed without ever increasing oppression which in turn exposes the lies of the
oppressor. Everything changes when the lies stop working on their own and the liar resorts to
force. His audience switches from being cooperative dupes to uncooperative rebels who will
have to be forced into compliance. That's a very different environment and the clock starts
ticking.
The other good news is that we already have a critical mass of people who are fairly
red-pilled and they can't be plugged back into the matrix. It doesn't work like that.
"Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been
repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered.
And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing
exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right." ― George Orwell,
1984
"Now I will tell you the answer to my question. It is this. The Party seeks power entirely
for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in
power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from
the oligarchies of the past in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who
resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists
came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own
motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly
and for a limited time, and that just around the corner there lay a paradise where human
beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power
with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not
establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in
order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of
torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now you begin to understand me."
― George Orwell, 1984
but the global capitalist ruling classes need to keep everyone whipped up into a
shrieking apoplectic frenzy over anything other than global capitalism until they can win
the War on Populism and globally implement the New Normality, after which the really
serious reality policing can finally begin.
A plurality of idiots is already whipped up into " a shrieking apoplectic frenzy" over
things that are nothing but magnified trivia or worse than useless. Hymiewood and the
entertainment industrial complex, which includes but is not limited to counter-cultural
merde celebrity gossip and vacuous spectator sports, has done what no top down
totalitarian (whether soft or hard) agenda could ever hope to do.
Panem et circenses no longer require a geographically fixed venue, of course.
All the kosher vanguard of Antichrist requires is enough slack jawed infotainment
consumers to gaze in passive and somnolent wonderment at the flat screen. The screen is a
modern day temple of Moloch wherein the physical sacrificing of offspring is not necessary
(there is enough of that nowadays anyway). The only sacrifice required is that of one's
conscience and reason- to make one a better and more inclusive citizen, of course.
If you want a vision of the future, don't imagine "a boot stamping on a human face -- for
ever," as Orwell suggested in 1984 . Instead, imagine that human face staring mesmerized
into the screen of some kind of nifty futuristic device on which every word, sound, and image
has been algorithmically approved for consumption by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency ("DARPA") and its
"innovation ecosystem" of "academic, corporate, and governmental partners."
The screen of this futuristic device will offer a virtually unlimited range of
"non-divisive" and "hate-free" content, none of which will falsify or distort the "truth," or
in any way deviate from "reality." Western consumers will finally be free to enjoy an
assortment of news, opinion, entertainment, and educational content (like this Guardian
podcast about a man who
gave birth , or MSNBC's latest bombshell about
Donald Trump's secret Russian oligarch backers ) without having their enjoyment totally
ruined by discord-sowing alternative journalists like Aaron Maté or satirists like
myself.
"Fake news" will not appear on this screen. All the news will be "authentic." DARPA and its
partners will see to that. You won't have to worry about being "influenced" by Russians, Nazis,
conspiracy theorists, socialists, populists, extremists, or whomever. Such Persons of Malicious
Intent will still be able to post their content (because of "freedom of speech" and all that
stuff), but they will do so down in the sewers of the Internet where normal consumers won't
have to see it. Anyone who ventures down there looking for it (i.e., such "divisive" and
"polarizing" content) will be immediately placed on an official DARPA watchlist for "potential
extremists," or "potential white supremacists," or "potential Russians."
Once that happens, their lives will be over (i.e., the lives of the potentially extremist
fools who have logged onto whatever dark web platform will still be posting essays like this,
not the lives of the Persons of Malicious Intent, who never had any lives to begin with, and
who by that time will probably be operating out of some heavily armed, off-the-grid compound in
Idaho). Their schools, employers, and landlords will be notified. Their photos and addresses
will be published online. Anyone who ever said two words to them (or, God help them, appears in
a photograph with them) will have 24 hours to publicly denounce them, or be placed on
DARPA’s watchlist themselves.
Libya war was a pure oil grab. Pretexts always can be found.
Notable quotes:
"... Is intervention likely to impel more violence in the long term? Do policymakers actually know enough about the situation on the ground to make the "right" decisions? Is the American public willing to commit itself to years-long reconstruction efforts? Honest answers here may not sit well with idealism. In many instances, the most moral act is not to act at all. ..."
"... The most telling part of Power's career in government was that she served as ambassador to the U.N. at a time when the U.S. was enabling and supporting the Saudi coalition war on Yemen, and as part of the administration she had nothing to say about the crimes being committed against Yemeni civilians by coalition forces with U.S. military assistance and weapons. ..."
"... As Bessner notes, she doesn't have much to say about the abuses of U.S. clients in her book. She has been eager to advocate for using force against hostile or pariah regimes when they commit atrocities, but when client states use American weapons to commit the same atrocities while enjoying full U.S. backing Power didn't so much as utter a protest. After she left government and Trump became president, Power criticized U.S. support for the war, but when she was in a position to challenge a monstrous policy from inside the administration she apparently said nothing. ..."
"... And no one with enough intellectual honesty to mention that she was among the greatest enablers of Yemenis' suffering yet before the said "Tyrant" (who might be a tyrant to anyone but her social class) entered the office. Profiles in cowardice, all of them. ..."
Daniel Bessner has written a very interesting
review of Sar's memoir, The Education of an Idealist . Here he focuses on her narrow thinking about "humanitarian" intervention:
If you accept Power's premises, then humanitarian intervention boils down to a purely philosophical inquiry: Is it right to
save lives if one has the capacity to do so? The answer, of course, is yes. The problem, though, is that intervention is not a
thought experiment; it takes place in a world of brutal realities. In particular, humanitarian forces confront radical uncertainty.
Is intervention likely to impel more violence in the long term? Do policymakers actually know enough about the situation on the
ground to make the "right" decisions? Is the American public willing to commit itself to years-long reconstruction efforts? Honest
answers here may not sit well with idealism. In many instances, the most moral act is not to act at all.
Can military intervention ever be humanitarian? It may be possible in theory, but as Bessner notes it doesn't work that way in
practice. "Humanitarian" interventionists want the wars they support to be judged by their intentions to save lives and not by the
results of ensuing chaos, instability, and violence. Taking sides in foreign conflicts inevitably means deciding that our government
should end the lives of some people that have done nothing to us because we have concluded that it is the right thing to do. That
takes for granted that our government has the right to act as judge and executioner in other people's wars simply because we have
the power to affect the outcome. When we think about "humanitarian" intervention this way, we can see that it is driven by the worst
kind of arrogant presumption. The first question we should ask is this: what gives us the authority to interfere in another country's
internal conflict? We should also ask ourselves what gives us the right to cast aside international law whenever we deem it necessary.
Isn't "humanitarian" intervention in practice little more than international armed vigilantism?
The Libyan war is one example of just such a "good" intervention that pretty clearly caused more harm than it prevented. It also
violated most of the requirements of the "responsibility to protect" doctrine that was invoked to justify it. Like more than a few
other die-hard Libyan war supporters, Power remains convinced that it was the right decision, because she doesn't ask the questions
that would force her to confront the harm that the intervention did to Libya and the surrounding region. Bessner comments:
Power never really asked these questions, because ultimately, as the historian Stephen Wertheim has argued, she considers humanitarian
intervention a categorical imperative (as long as it doesn't involve U.S. allies, of course).
That last qualification is an important one, and it gets at the heart of what is wrong with "humanitarian" interventionism in
the U.S. and the West. If a government is considered to be on "our" side, it can commit war crimes with impunity, devastate whole
countries, and starve tens of millions of people, and the most vocal "humanitarian" interventionists will usually have nothing to
say about it. I have remarked on several occasions that "humanitarian" interventionists just ignored the catastrophe in Yemen despite
the fact that it was the world's worst man-made humanitarian disaster, and it has only been in the last year or two that any of them
have spoken up about it now that it is Trump's policy.
The most telling part of Power's career in government was that she served as ambassador to the U.N. at a time when the U.S. was
enabling and supporting the Saudi coalition war on Yemen, and as part of the administration she had nothing to say about the crimes
being committed against Yemeni civilians by coalition forces with U.S. military assistance and weapons.
As Bessner notes, she doesn't
have much to say about the abuses of U.S. clients in her book. She has been eager to advocate for using force against hostile or
pariah regimes when they commit atrocities, but when client states use American weapons to commit the same atrocities while enjoying
full U.S. backing Power didn't so much as utter a protest. After she left government and Trump became president, Power criticized
U.S. support for the war, but when she was in a position to challenge a monstrous policy from inside the administration she apparently
said nothing.
Bessner observes that railing against hostile and pariah states while letting clients off the hook makes no sense if the goal
is to minimize the harm to civilians:
Her approach does not make much sense from a pragmatic perspective either: U.S. officials have the highest likelihood of ending
human rights abuses in countries that depend on us; there is little point in spending political capital in a mostly quixotic attempt
to transform antagonists like North Korea.
Of course, it is much safer politically to denounce the states with which our government has no ties or influence, and it is much
easier to remain silent about the crimes of client states that have significant clout in Washington. The point here is not just that
Power failed her own test when she served in government, but that the impulse to intervene on "humanitarian" grounds amounts to agitating
for war against certain governments while giving U.S. clients a free pass to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity with our
government's blessing.
There's yet one more reason to why she wasn't saying anything about Yemen when in office beside the one that it were her guys
who directed that war then. Perhaps less phony, but, I'd rather say, more tragic. It's much easier to criticize someone for neglecting
his duties than not to neglect those duties when you've got them yourself.
I almost see those lemmings on her Twitter chirping:
'Oh, you're so brave, you're standing up to the Terrible Orange Tyrant.' (Not that the "Tyrant" was even aware that she's standing
up to him).
And no one with enough intellectual honesty to mention that she was among the greatest enablers of Yemenis' suffering
yet before the said "Tyrant" (who might be a tyrant to anyone but her social class) entered the office. Profiles in cowardice,
all of them.
Come on guys can't you see how obvious it is that
Epstein DID commit suicide? Bill Barr's work under Bush Sr. was flawless and he definitely
covered up absolutely nothing for Bush Sr., so he's definitely not trying to cover up anything
here, especially not for high-profile people in Epstein's black book. What's there to cover up
anyway? Prison cameras malfunction all the time while security guards are asleep while suicidal
prisoners are taken off of suicide watch within a matter of days while they sign their will a
few days prior while their dead bodies have different noses and ears from all other photographs
of them while they commit suicide by generating enough force in a maximum security prison cell
while their cellmate was removed only a few hours prior while the prison guards are refusing to
talk about the suicide while the medical examiner is the same guy that did other high profile
deaths.
Can't you all see the pattern here? The MSM's official narrative is ALWAYS truthful! Calm
your anxiety with all these conspiracies! Don't worry, soon we'll see that his body was
cremated and witnessed only by John Brennan, James Clapper, and James Comey, who will tell us
that Epstein made his millions not by some Mossad/CIA brownstoning operation, but by learning
all the tricks of the financial trade from Ghislaine's hardworking and highly-esteemed
father!
Trust you me, the great people at the apex of the immaculate FBI will tell us that his huge
estates weren't used for orgies and entrapment and especially not child sacrifice, but that all
those cameras he had were for conducting Ivy-League-caliber studies on what politicians like to
do in their free time when the pressure is off! That whole "teenage sex slave novel" that
Barr's father wrote? It h
ad nothing to do with Epstein but everything to do with a healthy masturbatory porn habit
which we all should aspire to have under such sublimating creative control! Did he traffic
thousands of underage girls? Well of course he did, but I don't see YOU asking how old YOUR
favorite porn stars are, Mr. Saint! Did the elite politicians, scientists, royals, etc,
actually have sex with any of the ALLEGED victims under duress when they were under the age of
consent? Of course not, those "victims" are all just latecomers to the #MeToo bandwagon
desperate for their 15 minutes of fame!
Why is no one prosecuting anyone having sex with "underage" girls in the entire library of
videos that the FBI found? Because it's all deepfakes, it's all been digitally doctored with
CGI by Epstein's haters who are jealous of his easily-explainable meteoric rise to the top of
society and all the strong friendships he's made along the way!
What about Acosta "admitting" that Epstein was part of intelligence? Well that's simple:
Acosta is a fucking liar! Why do you think he resigned as Labor Secretary? Because he was too
embarrassed about the lie he told! Why did Epstein get a "slap on the wrist" back in 2008?
Because the court wanted to make his accuser feel "vindicated" knowing full well she was full
of shit but too much of a basket case to handle the truth about her being a liar!
Elite pedophile rings and devil worshippers have been around for centuries. That means they've
survived the test of time so much so that they've practically perfected their methods to keep
getting their way despite any attempts by any justice systems anywhere in the advanced world.
By its definition justice is reactive while crime is proactive, therefore they're always one
step ahead of us and always have been, which is why they're never fully eradicated, like that
1% of bacteria that survives an antibacterial cleaning and grows back.
What do you think they're doing with the size of the distance of that full step ahead? Part
of that distance is the time they spend laughing at the justice system in the form of "I can't
believe how stupid the people are that they let us get away with it again.
They must not really care about the crimes we commit, so I guess we can keep on going
because they're communicating they don't really want to punish us if this is the best they can
do." The message we send to them is just that fucking simple. Justice never learns its lesson
after all these centuries, like someone stuck in a subconscious rut and thinks it can't even
think how to escape the infinite karmic loop.
Hence why some in the Intelligence Community need to be above the law, so that they can
proactively fight crime before it's committed by people who have a record for perpetrating it.
Albeit fighting crime in this manner is difficult because the perpetrators use extreme
deception to shapeshift their stories and their identities and their residences and their
businesses and their work and their occupation and their social circles, etc, as a means of
evasion, the IC has to resort to the very same tactics and strategies the perpetrators use, as
"the more you stare into the abyss the more it stares back at you"
And some within the IC themselves get corrupted and turned over to the dark side. Evil is a
being and like all beings made of mass and energy it will always exist and to minimize its
effects it needs to be fought with unconventional methods like psychological warfare, economic
warfare, etc, outside of the world's traditional reactive justice systems. At this point in the
centuries-old game, the Information Age, it's good to spread more deep awareness so that this
evil is more easily recognizable and thus that much easier to deal with, as dark always
retreats from light.
"... Pedophilia infects both political parties , for example see "Congress's forgotten pedophile " which appeared in "The Outline" and discussed the case of former Republican Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert . The Deep State likely grooms and seeks out pedophile politicians as they are so easy to blackmail. ..."
Pedophilia infects both political parties , for example see "Congress's forgotten
pedophile " which appeared in "The Outline" and discussed the case of former Republican
Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert . The Deep State likely grooms and seeks out pedophile
politicians as they are so easy to blackmail.
More generally, which media outlets seem to be trying to brush Epstein's death under the
rug?
Not the National Enquirer:
Jeffrey Epstein Murder Cover-up Exposed! Death Scene Staged to Look Like Suicide.
Billionaire's Screams Ignored by Guards! Fatal Attack Caught on Jail Cameras!
Autopsy is Hiding the Truth!
No doubt there's a massive media coverup. You can just tell by the headlines, "Epstein died
by apparent suicide ". How did they know it was a suicide? All we could possibly know
was the cause of death -- a broken neck. No one knows for certain the hanging was done by
himself or someone else. But no detective work necessary, the media has already decided for
us.
Whitney Webb has done a ton of research on these issues: Barr, Mena airport,
Iran-Contra, guns and dope, and Clinton; he worked for Casey, CIA director under Reagan, as
they say, there are no ex-spies.
Epstein has a "history" that explains a lot. When you run through it, it's clear that the
Epstein story is about much more than young girls and political blackmail. In fact CIA
airfields, drug running, Clintons, money laundering, assassinations etc. The conclusion is
that Epstein is only the visible tip of the iceberg.
The Sott.net article is a 100% necessary article to print out and read carefully. It
explains better than anything else I've read about how and why the US is in the place it is
today.
@utu Jean-Luc Brunel is Jewish. He had a nasty reputation for drugging young women and
raping them once they became helpless. His "modeling agency" had offices in Paris, N.Y., and
Tel Aviv. He's in Israel right now, laying low.
So Dutch government participated is Stuxnet and MH17 false flag operation. Nice...
Notable quotes:
"... The first-of-its-kind virus, designed to sabotage Iran's nuclear program, effectively launched the era of digital warfare and was unleashed some time in 2007, after Iran began installing its first batch of centrifuges at a controversial enrichment plant near the village of Natanz. ..."
"... The courier behind that intrusion, whose existence and role has not been previously reported, was an inside mole recruited by Dutch intelligence agents at the behest of the CIA and the Israeli intelligence agency, the Mossad, according to sources who spoke with Yahoo News ..."
@Lot Iran is also
involving into Israel-India relationship. Netanyhooo has cancelled his visit just 2 weeks
before the election – Haaretz.
And now we don't hear much about terrorism on Europe soil but bit by bit we hear the
terrorism committed by Dutch Norwegian Danish against Iran . Justice ? It will arrive one day
. Dutch will be supposed so will be the numerous pundits . Why Dutch? Yes that question will
find its answer "why Afghanistan ?" after 911.
"Revealed: How a secret Dutch mole aided the U.S.-Israeli Stuxnet cyberattack on Iran
--
For years, an enduring mystery has surrounded the Stuxnet virus attack that targeted Iran's
nuclear program: How did the U.S. and Israel get their malware onto computer systems at the
highly secured uranium-enrichment plant?
The first-of-its-kind virus, designed to sabotage Iran's nuclear program, effectively
launched the era of digital warfare and was unleashed some time in 2007, after Iran began
installing its first batch of centrifuges at a controversial enrichment plant near the
village of Natanz.
The courier behind that intrusion, whose existence and role has not been previously reported,
was an inside mole recruited by Dutch intelligence agents at the behest of the CIA and the
Israeli intelligence agency, the Mossad, according to sources who spoke with Yahoo News."
The DCCC came under fire for implementing a
blacklist for any
organization that assisted any left-wing challenger to an incumbent corporate Democrat. This caused a lot of anger and backlash
on the left.
The DSCC saw this and thought
"We can do one better."
Before the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee endorsed former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper in a 2020 Senate race,
it pressured consultants from at least five firms not to work with a leading progressive in the race, the candidate told The
Intercept.
Andrew Romanoff, who is one of more than a dozen candidates vying for Republican Sen. Cory Gardner's seat, told The Intercept
that multiple consultants turned down jobs with his campaign citing pressure from the DSCC.
"They've made it clear to a number of the firms and individuals we tried to hire that they wouldn't get any business in
Washington or with the DSCC if they worked with me," Romanoff said. "It's been a well-orchestrated operation to blackball ragtag
grassroots teams."
At least five firms and 25 prospective staff turned down working with his campaign, said Romanoff, who has raised more than
$1 million in individual contributions so far. "I spoke to the firms, my campaign manager spoke to the staff prospects," he
said. "Pretty much everyone who checked in with the DSCC got the same warning: Helping us would cost them."
Shameless, but not surprising.
I support a #GreenNewDeal
& #MedicareForAll . Those
priorities don't sit well with the party bosses & powerbrokers in Washington -- but I'm not running to represent them.
I'm running to represent the people of Colorado. They deserve a fair shot too.
https://t.co/oeitawXHA9
Just to be clear, there is no incumbent Democrat in this race.
The DSCC is simply blacklisting progressive groups - period. It doesn't stop at consultants.
Individuals connected to a handful of campaigns across the country said they've heard about interventions by national Democrats,
either in the form of the DSCC pressuring consultants not to work with progressive candidates, or Senate Minority Leader Chuck
Schumer telling people not to run for office in the first place.
"First they came for the House candidates; now they're gonna come for the Senate candidates," said Heather Brewer, who is
managing the Senate campaign of New Mexico Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver, a progressive who was snubbed by the
DSCC, which made an early endorsement of Ben Ray Luján, a member of House Democratic leadership. "It's not rocket science to
see where this is heading.
Getting back to Hickenlooper, the Democratic establishment has rushed to endorse him despite a
half dozen
women were already running for the seat.
The DSCC has also picked winners before the primaries in other important races.
Socialprogressive on Fri, 08/30/2019 - 1:59pm gjohnsit on Fri, 08/30/2019 - 2:14pm
In 2017, nearly two-thirds of the over 1,000 candidates the Working Families Party endorsed won their elections, including
Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner and Jackson, Mississippi, Mayor Chokwe Antar Lumumba. Just last year, the party
helped install 457 candidates in local and statewide offices, out of the 820 candidates it endorsed across 38 states. The electoral
successes the party shared in 2018's blue wave have continued into 2019: Over the course of five months, their chosen candidates
were elected into more than 50 offices at local and municipal levels, including on city councils and school boards, in nine
states.
The organization in some ways serves as a complement to at least a wing of the Democratic Party: by focusing on nonpartisan
positions in local politics, the group has been able to install progressive officials on city councils and school boards, while
also helping increase voter turnout for both partisan and nonpartisan elections. As Bob Brady's reaction to Kendra Brooks demonstrates,
however, Democrats don't always see it that way.
"We should be seen as a welcoming force to build the Democratic Party toward 2020," Brooks, a small business owner and mother
of five, said in an interview last month. "It doesn't have to be 'either or,'" she continued. "It should be 'this and.' Like,
yes, the Democratic Party is the largest party here in Philadelphia. And why can't we have a strong independent base as well?
So we, together -- Democrats and independents -- can have a stronger base toward 2020."
The WFP is known for running independent progressive candidates that challenge corporate-friendly Democratic politics. Their
vision is to not only win races but organize around local and municipal elections, building capacity for the left to make gains
beyond Election Day. Their policy priorities include expanding workers' rights, opposing right-to-work laws, raising the minimum
wage, reforming drug scheduling and misdemeanor sentencing, and establishing paid family medical leave.
This may, or may not, be the case with your State, County or Local branches, but it is certainly the case for the National
Party and any organization whose initials begin with "D" and end with "C".
From Jacobin :
The DNC
Doesn't Want a Climate Debate for a Reason
The DNC has banned the Democratic presidential candidates from taking part in any debate on the most urgent issue of our
time: climate change. The party's fealty to plutocratic donors and centrist has-been politicians has never been more apparent.
.......................
While tech money is important, the biggest donors to the DNC in the 2020 cycle are overwhelmingly financial companies, whether
hedge funds, private equity, or more traditional investment management. Obviously, most of these firms want to be able to continue
to invest in fossil fuels as well as in companies looting the Amazon. Such companies are run by -- and depend on the continued
existence of -- the very rich, our planet's biggest liability. (Not only do they create immense pollution through private jets
and multiple homes, the rich also support such lifestyles through immensely planet-ravaging investments.) The finance class
does not want to hear plain talk about solutions to climate change; in many cases, they are getting rich from destroying the
planet and do not wish to stop doing this. That's probably why DNC head Tom Perez called the idea of a climate debate "dangerous."
One place to start looking for a historical analogy for the Democrats would be the Vichy regime in France between 1940 and
1942. The Vichy French were collaborators, agreeing on their own to (for instance) send France's Jews to Auschwitz to be exterminated.
The difference, of course, is that France was invaded by Nazi Germany in 1940, whereas the Democratic Party leadership appears
to have decided to steer the entire party into collaboration with the Republican Party on its very own, without any invasion or
anything of that sort.
Of course, the Vichy regime collapsed after the Allies took over the French colonies in North Africa in 1942, and from 1942
to 1944 the whole of France was ruled directly from Berlin. The Democrats, on the other hand, have yet to feel the sort of pressure
that would make them reveal their true colors and switch parties. On the other hand, there was a close call under Obama:
Yep, that's what they did. Good ole' Debbie Wasserman-Schultz bundled up the party contributions and sent them off to Obama
and to the second Clinton, leaving downticket races in the states high and dry. By the end of 2016 there were six states with
Democratic Party trifectas (Democratic governors ruling Democratic legislatures) and 26 states with Republican trifectas, even
though in membership terms the Republican Party was still a minority party.
This may, or may not, be the case with your State, County or Local branches, but it is certainly the case for the National
Party and any organization whose initials begin with "D" and end with "C".
From Jacobin :
The
DNC Doesn't Want a Climate Debate for a Reason
The DNC has banned the Democratic presidential candidates from taking part in any debate on the most urgent issue of
our time: climate change. The party's fealty to plutocratic donors and centrist has-been politicians has never been more
apparent.
.......................
While tech money is important, the biggest donors to the DNC in the 2020 cycle are overwhelmingly financial companies, whether
hedge funds, private equity, or more traditional investment management. Obviously, most of these firms want to be able to
continue to invest in fossil fuels as well as in companies looting the Amazon. Such companies are run by -- and depend on
the continued existence of -- the very rich, our planet's biggest liability. (Not only do they create immense pollution
through private jets and multiple homes, the rich also support such lifestyles through immensely planet-ravaging investments.)
The finance class does not want to hear plain talk about solutions to climate change; in many cases, they are getting rich
from destroying the planet and do not wish to stop doing this. That's probably why DNC head Tom Perez called the idea of
a climate debate "dangerous."
The Democrats, on the other hand, have yet to feel the sort of pressure that would make them reveal their true colors and switch
parties.
But since the 2016 rigged primary they've been exposing themselves more and more.
Remember
this
from 2018?
Our Revolution, the progressive group formed after Bernie Sanders's presidential run in 2016, just endorsed a Democrat who
found herself the subject of a Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee attack ahead of Tuesday's Texas primary...
The DCCC took a square shot at Moser last week, publishing an opposition research memo on its website against Moser.
Now add in the blacklisting and the picture is almost complete.
One place to start looking for a historical analogy for the Democrats would be the Vichy regime in France between 1940 and
1942. The Vichy French were collaborators, agreeing on their own to (for instance) send France's Jews to Auschwitz to be exterminated.
The difference, of course, is that France was invaded by Nazi Germany in 1940, whereas the Democratic Party leadership appears
to have decided to steer the entire party into collaboration with the Republican Party on its very own, without any invasion
or anything of that sort.
Of course, the Vichy regime collapsed after the Allies took over the French colonies in North Africa in 1942, and from 1942
to 1944 the whole of France was ruled directly from Berlin. The Democrats, on the other hand, have yet to feel the sort of
pressure that would make them reveal their true colors and switch parties. On the other hand, there was a close call under
Obama:
Yep, that's what they did. Good ole' Debbie Wasserman-Schultz bundled up the party contributions and sent them off to Obama
and to the second Clinton, leaving downticket races in the states high and dry. By the end of 2016 there were six states with
Democratic Party trifectas (Democratic governors ruling Democratic legislatures) and 26 states with Republican trifectas, even
though in membership terms the Republican Party was still a minority party.
One place to start looking for a historical analogy for the Democrats would be the Vichy regime in France between 1940 and
1942. The Vichy French were collaborators, agreeing on their own to (for instance) send France's Jews to Auschwitz to be exterminated.
The difference, of course, is that France was invaded by Nazi Germany in 1940, whereas the Democratic Party leadership appears
to have decided to steer the entire party into collaboration with the Republican Party on its very own, without any invasion
or anything of that sort.
Of course, the Vichy regime collapsed after the Allies took over the French colonies in North Africa in 1942, and from 1942
to 1944 the whole of France was ruled directly from Berlin. The Democrats, on the other hand, have yet to feel the sort of
pressure that would make them reveal their true colors and switch parties. On the other hand, there was a close call under
Obama:
Yep, that's what they did. Good ole' Debbie Wasserman-Schultz bundled up the party contributions and sent them off to Obama
and to the second Clinton, leaving downticket races in the states high and dry. By the end of 2016 there were six states with
Democratic Party trifectas (Democratic governors ruling Democratic legislatures) and 26 states with Republican trifectas, even
though in membership terms the Republican Party was still a minority party.
This may, or may not, be the case with your State, County or Local branches, but it is certainly the case for the National
Party and any organization whose initials begin with "D" and end with "C".
From Jacobin :
The
DNC Doesn't Want a Climate Debate for a Reason
The DNC has banned the Democratic presidential candidates from taking part in any debate on the most urgent issue of
our time: climate change. The party's fealty to plutocratic donors and centrist has-been politicians has never been more
apparent.
.......................
While tech money is important, the biggest donors to the DNC in the 2020 cycle are overwhelmingly financial companies, whether
hedge funds, private equity, or more traditional investment management. Obviously, most of these firms want to be able to
continue to invest in fossil fuels as well as in companies looting the Amazon. Such companies are run by -- and depend on
the continued existence of -- the very rich, our planet's biggest liability. (Not only do they create immense pollution
through private jets and multiple homes, the rich also support such lifestyles through immensely planet-ravaging investments.)
The finance class does not want to hear plain talk about solutions to climate change; in many cases, they are getting rich
from destroying the planet and do not wish to stop doing this. That's probably why DNC head Tom Perez called the idea of
a climate debate "dangerous."
political consultant.
And I get hired by some leftie.
And I do my job.
I would never, ever get hired by an establishment Democrat.
EVER.
This is just an insidious, capitalistic freeze out of democracy. Lefties need to starve. We Democrats of Correct (Right) Thinking
make that happen every day, all day long.
But watching this unfold after 2016, I can't say I'm surprised. Of course they were going to sabotage progressive candidates.
The means may be news, but not the motivation.
But watching this unfold after 2016, I can't say I'm surprised. Of course they were going to sabotage progressive candidates.
The means may be news, but not the motivation.
Some do it with vinegar, some with honey, or, at least, a feint at honey:
Job offer from the Obama Administration
On September 27, 2009, Michael Riley of the Denver Post reported that Romanoff was offered a position in the Obama Administration
in exchange for not running for U.S. Senate against Michael Bennet.[21] According to Riley, Jim Messina, deputy Chief of Staff
to President Barack Obama, made a phone call to Romanoff offering him various positions in the Obama Administration, including
one at the United States Agency for International Development. Romanoff turned down the offer.[22]
Romanoff issued a statement on June 2, 2010, in which he confirmed that Messina had contacted him on September 11, 2009
and told him that President Obama was going to support Bennet in the Democratic primary. Romanoff told Messina that he would
be running anyway and Romanoff states, as reported by the Washington Post, that Messina "suggested three positions that might
be available to me were I not pursuing the Senate race. He added that he could not guarantee my appointment to any of these
positions." White House deputy press secretary Bill Burton told the Post that "Mr. Romanoff was recommended to the White House
from Democrats in Colorado for a position in the administration. There were some initial conversations with him, but no job
was ever offered." Messina sent Romanoff job descriptions for three positions: an administrator for the Latin America and Caribbean
Bureau within USAID, the chief of the Office of Democracy and Governance within USAID, and the director of the U.S. Trade and
Development Agency.[23][24]
On June 10, 2010, KDVR reported that Bennet said he had known about the White House's offer to Romanoff.[25]
@HenryAWallace
Now I find out I was wrong. What a slick prick he was/is.
Some do it with vinegar, some with honey, or, at least, a feint at honey:
Job offer from the Obama Administration
On September 27, 2009, Michael Riley of the Denver Post reported that Romanoff was offered a position in the Obama Administration
in exchange for not running for U.S. Senate against Michael Bennet.[21] According to Riley, Jim Messina, deputy Chief of
Staff to President Barack Obama, made a phone call to Romanoff offering him various positions in the Obama Administration,
including one at the United States Agency for International Development. Romanoff turned down the offer.[22]
Romanoff issued a statement on June 2, 2010, in which he confirmed that Messina had contacted him on September 11, 2009
and told him that President Obama was going to support Bennet in the Democratic primary. Romanoff told Messina that he would
be running anyway and Romanoff states, as reported by the Washington Post, that Messina "suggested three positions that
might be available to me were I not pursuing the Senate race. He added that he could not guarantee my appointment to any
of these positions." White House deputy press secretary Bill Burton told the Post that "Mr. Romanoff was recommended to
the White House from Democrats in Colorado for a position in the administration. There were some initial conversations with
him, but no job was ever offered." Messina sent Romanoff job descriptions for three positions: an administrator for the
Latin America and Caribbean Bureau within USAID, the chief of the Office of Democracy and Governance within USAID, and the
director of the U.S. Trade and Development Agency.[23][24]
On June 10, 2010, KDVR reported that Bennet said he had known about the White House's offer to Romanoff.[25]
I somehow doubt that either was original with her, but I can't prove anything, so I'll give her the attribution:
One is "How's that hopey changey thing working out for you?"
(Could hardly be worse, but thanks for asking, Sarah.)
The other is WTF, as in the video below.
BTW, ever since I read that government had to spend a bundle changing the name of the Work Incentive Program for welfare parents,
I've known to check acronyms before putting anything out there or naming organizations. (Rejected a great name for a new political
party because the acronym was unfortunate: Great American Party.)
Apparently, though, none of the highly-paid geniuses in the White House or among Obama's independent contractor political advisors
knew to do that. Beggars the imagination, that does. After all, it's not as though the SOTU gets gone over with a fine tooth comb,
or gets a lot of media coverage or anything./s
Anyway, enjoy the WTF video (even though it's Sarah Palin's zinger):
We still aren't a very strong blue state despite recent elections. Not sure Romanoff was up to the task, wouldn't be at all
happy with Hickenlooper as a senator, he's like everything they accuse Democratic senators from CO of being, but in his case it's
true. Romanoff should have taken the job offer.
The top of the Democratic Party hasn't learned much from 16, and there aren't that many great candidates coming up through
the ranks.
BTW, I don't know if you read my post or the wiki article from which I quoted carefully: Whether or not any actual job offer
was made is controversial. At least, according to the Obama administration.
Bribing someone not to run against your boy? Not nice and maybe illegal. So they fudged. However, both Romanoff and Obama's
guy referred to it as an "offer." So, once again, we have shady Obama slithering around, relying on exact wording, etc.
We still aren't a very strong blue state despite recent elections. Not sure Romanoff was up to the task, wouldn't be at
all happy with Hickenlooper as a senator, he's like everything they accuse Democratic senators from CO of being, but in his
case it's true. Romanoff should have taken the job offer.
The top of the Democratic Party hasn't learned much from 16, and there aren't that many great candidates coming up through
the ranks.
The only other putative American conspiracy theory I'm aware of where a larger percentage of
the public does not believe the official story than does believe it is JFK's assassination .
@Jeff Stryker You
keep posting this question,but the premise is most doubtful. One would quickly be arrested
and quite possibly be shot and/or beaten half to death before the police arrived if you tried
approaching little girls in a trailer park offering money for sex .
Maxwell never had any contact with the schoolgirls, none of them said she met them.
Epstein's co conspirators getting him schoolgirls from Palm Beach High were other schoolgirls
who he paid a commission for bringing him girls, The main one was the 14 year old we hear so
much about and she recruited mainly her friends and relatives. It did not last long because
she got into a fight about it and then blabbed to the school psychologist about the whole
thing. The police found out from her who all the girls were and Epstein was arrested. Really
sophisticated intelligence operation.
Virginia Giuffre (nee Roberts), now in her thirties, was 17 and already studying to become
a masseuse when she met Maxwell at Trump's resort where she and her father both worked, and
was offered a job to start with Einstein in that capacity. Her father knew of Epstein as did
everyone in Palm Beach back then, and drove her to Epstein's house for the interview being
quite happy with the whole thing.
Guess that's why the largest percentage #MeToo offenders are Jews.
Yes, and they can't all be working for Mossad. Are Weinstein's female assistants being
assumed to be his accomplices in the rape of multiple women. Rape is what he is about to
stand trial for. I would say that rape is a much more serious offence than having consensual
sexual contact with a under age girl and paying her. There are several accounts of
Weinstein's assistants (who all knew what he was like) suddenly disappearing and leaving
young actresses alone with him. Was that a Mossad plot too? Or, do Weinstein's factotums get
a pass because they were Gentiles?
Weinstein's crimes are "predatory sexual assault," which carry a potential life sentence.
If Epstein was not prosecuted to the full extent of the laws it might have something to do
with those laws getting a little out of balance with the seriousness of the crime Epstein
committed. when compared with non prostitution offences. A 14 year old who hears she get big
money for giving a super rich old (to her) guy a massage and goes along to his house knowing
sexual contact short of full intercourse is part of the deal and leaves with several hundred
of dollars is in a very different category to a woman who is forcibly assaulted when a young
adult by a big shot movie producer.The Sopranos's Annabella Sciorra is saying Weinstein raped
her in 1993-94. H cannot be prosecuted for it now as too much time has passed. Mossad
plot?
@Jeff Stryker You
can't blame the victims or their parents all the time. The network of sex trafficking is so
powerful because it has no scruples at all.
This article explains how an young 22 year old English native Caucasian woman was sex
trafficked in London. She was walking down a street, when approached by photographer for
casting work. She went along with it. It soon went downhill very quickly. She ended up as a
slave in London. Lucky, she got out. Many girls probably could not get out and live to tell
about it.
Clinton’s vote to authorize the invasion of Iraq puts her in the cold-blooded
murderer class. By the standards of the Nuremberg Trials, many of the people in power at that
time were and are war criminals, and Clinton was certainly one of the people who could be
charged with war crimes. (But I suppose she could have pleaded ignorance, incompetence, and
indolence in mitigation.) All of this is completely out in the open.
I don’t know if it should be considered ‘corruption’, however. A crime
against humanity is not exactly corrupt if the perpetrators and almost everyone else believe
the perpetrators ought to be doing the crime, that it is their duty, their job. It might be
better if they were corrupt, if they slacked off. But Clinton, going by some of her other
well-known activities, seems to have been enthusiastically industrious at getting people
killed — or maimed, tortured, terrorized, raped, starved, impoverished, and the other
normal works of war. Not that this makes her much different from a lot of other people.
“We came, we saw, he died. Tee hee hee!”
“Did it have anything to do with your visit?”
“I’m sure it did.”
From a non-legal perspective at least, that makes her an accessory to murder, doesn’t
it?
@anonymous The Christian Zionists, exemplified by John Hagee and his "Christians United
for Israel." for years, from the pulpi has pleaded for the bombing of Iran. He is Netanyahu's
Useful Idiot.
The 60-70 million strong Christian Zionists are Trump's base. He has no hope of being
re-elected without them. Thus, Trump is just as beholden to these dispensationalists as he is
to Adelson and Netanyahu. The same can be said for the entire republican party.
I will make this very simple. The DNC emails that ultimately were published on Wikileaks
likely originated with a DNC staffer, Seth Rich. It was not the Russians. The decision to blame
the Russians was an intelligence construct that was concocted once U.S. and British
intelligence officials plotting against Donald Trump realized that Rich had downloaded the
emails and was communicating with Julian Assange and his cohorts.
Here are the facts:
It was
29 April 2016 , when the DNC claims it became aware its servers had been penetrated. No
claim yet about who was responsible.
According to CrowdStrike founder , Dimitri Alperovitch, his company first supposedly
detected the Russians mucking around inside the DNC server on 6 May 2016. A CrowdStrike
intelligence analyst reportedly told Alperovitch that:
Falcon had identified not one but two Russian intruders: Cozy Bear, a group
CrowdStrike's experts believed was affiliated with the FSB, Russia's answer to the CIA;
and Fancy Bear, which they had linked to the GRU, Russian military intelligence.
The Wikileaks data shows that the last message copied from the DNC network is dated Wed,
25 May 2016 08:48:35.
10 June 2016--CrowdStrike waited until 10 June 2016 to take concrete steps to clean up
the DNC network. Alperovitch told Esquire's Vicky Ward that: 'Ultimately, the teams decided
it was necessary to replace the software on every computer at the DNC. Until the network was
clean, secrecy was vital. On the afternoon of Friday, June 10, all DNC employees were
instructed to leave their laptops in the office."
On June 14, 2016, Ellen Nakamura, a Washington Post reporter who had been briefed by
computer security company hired by the DNC -- Crowdstrike--, wrote:
Russian government hackers penetrated the computer network of the Democratic National
Committee and gained access to the entire database of opposition research on GOP
presidential candidate Donald Trump, according to committee officials and security
experts who responded to the breach.
The intruders so thoroughly compromised the DNC's system that they also were able to
read all email and chat traffic, said DNC officials and the security experts.
The intrusion into the DNC was one of several targeting American political
organizations. The networks of presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump
were also targeted by Russian spies, as were the computers of some Republican political
action committees, U.S. officials said. But details on those cases were not
available.
15 June, 2016, an internet "personality" self-described as Guccifer 2.0 surfaces and
claims to be responsible for the hacks but denies being Russian. However, the meta data in
the documents posted by Guccifer 2.0 appear to be deliberately crafted to show "Russian"
involvement.
The DNC emails that were released on July 22, 2016 by Wikileaks covered the period from
January 2015 thru 25 May 2016.
The FSB is not really Ruusias CIA equvalent though. It is more akin to an unholy alliance of
homeland security and the FBI. GRU is kind of like DIA + the army, navy, air force and marine
intelligence. Closest thing to the CIA Russia has would be the SVR, but their overall remit
is still somewhat different.
Nice laydown. One really needs this sort of step-by-step letdown to get and keep the facts
straight.
Some sort of link chart/diagram that could be updated as needed would be great.
Between the DNC emails, the Steele faux-dossier, Seth Rich, Guccifer 2.0, and whatever
connection there might be to Skripal and the British, it's really challenging to keep all the
players and actions in the right relationship to one another.
One side question: Where does DC Leaks fit into this?
Please remember that many people voted for Trump just because they can't vote for warmonger
Hillary and/or to show middle finger to the Washington neoliberal establishment.
Everybody understand that he is just another billionaire with very shady past and
questionable connection in NYC, but some people hoped that like FDR he can be the traitor of his
own class. They were severely disappointed.
Voting is severely screwed in the USA as you are allowed to select out of two usually
pre-selected by the elite candidates (Pepsi-Cola choice) but that all we have.
With all her warts, Tulsi foreign policy agenda is the most realistic and anti-war among all
Democratic Candidates. And that's something to vote for.
Just rewatched your appearance on "CrossTalk on Tulsi Gabbard: Peace Candidate." I've been
somewhat manic about championing her, generally sharing her anti-war message, but
periodically suffering some sucker-punch. Her supporters point to the smear campaign launched
at her by neocons and neolibs as evidence of her threat to the MIC and establishment. There's
a disconnect in that assertion. I wonder if either side realizes how conventional her
positions are in general. Is there any real evidence that her understanding (lack of same) on
Israel or Iran has change since she made this dreadful speech in 2015 to the CUFI conference?
Frightening.
Tulsi Gabbard Speaks to Right-Wing Christians United for Israel Conference 2015
@anon
True, her views on Iran and Syria (even after she visited and met with Bashar al-Assad) are
dreadful and she is careful to say the right things about Israel. But she is at the same time
the only candidate seriously talking about ending all the wars so she deserves support at
least for that message, if only because it might force some others to confront the issue.
Let's face it, our search for a truly acceptable candidate will not find one in either major
party.
Does Israel Interfere in American Elections? Ask Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib Philip Giraldi August 27, 2019
1,800 Words 89
CommentsReply
Email This Page to Someone
Remember My Information
=>
List of Bookmarks
◄►◄►▲▼ Remove
from Library B Show Comment
Next New Comment Next New Reply Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This
Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public
Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to
recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information'
checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour. Email Comment Ignore Commenter Follow
Commenter
Bookmark Toggle All ToC ▲▼
Add to Library Search Text Case Sensitive Exact Words Include Comments
Search Clear Cancel
Does anyone remember what the Mueller investigation was all about? It was to determine
whether the team surrounding candidate and then president-elect Donald Trump had colluded with
a foreign power, presumed to be Russia. It did not discover any such collaboration to get Trump
elected president, but it did discover a foreign nation that had directly intervened with key
players surrounding president-elect Trump to get them to do it a favor. That country was
Israel, but somehow the media never quite managed to pull it all together even if leading
public intellectual Noam Chomsky was able to,
saying " if you're interested in foreign interference in our elections, whatever the
Russians may have done barely counts or weighs in the balance as compared with what another
state does, openly, brazenly and with enormous support. Israeli intervention in US elections
vastly overwhelms anything the Russians may have done, I mean, even to the point where the
prime minister of Israel, Netanyahu, goes directly to Congress, without even informing the
president, and speaks to Congress, with overwhelming applause, to try to undermine the
president's policies "
This is how Jewish power works on behalf of the Jewish state. It is done right out in the
open, at least if one knows where to look, and it operates by what the intelligence community
would refer to as misdirection. That means that you never talk about Israel itself, except in a
positive, laudatory fashion, you never mention Jewish power in America, and, finally, you have
in reserve some fabricated threats that can be surfaced to dominate discussion and render
Israel's malign activity invisible.
Currently, the Russian threat is the enemy du jour . Even though we now know that
"Russiagate" never existed in any serious form, it continues to be hyped by both the Democratic
Party and by the accommodating media as the over-the-horizon threat to American democracy. It
is now being claimed, minus any real evidence, that the Kremlin has a plan to ruin the upcoming
2020 election by way of nationwide tampering with the voting machines and the electronic
tallying procedures. Oddly enough, the states, where the voting actually takes place,
have not noticed any attempted Russian interference. As the story goes, if the Russians are
successful, no one will have any confidence in the results and the American republican
experiment will collapse in ruins.
No one is, of course, asking why Moscow would want to change a United States that, for all
its power, is so politically inept and corrupt from top to bottom that it found itself unable
to stage a coup in Venezuela. If the U.S. government collapses, it might well be replaced by
something more authoritarian and, dare I say, more efficient, that would certainly pose a
greater threat to Russia, so why would Putin want that?
Nevertheless, many people who should know better are hyping the threat. I sometimes peruse
the Defense One website, a warmhearted place funded by defense contractors where all
those people who want to blow up the world can share bon mots and grin about all the
money they are making.
Last week I noted a
particularly loathesome article on the site "Here's what foreign interference will look
like in 2020," written by one Uri Friedman, who I presume to be – inevitably – an
Israeli. Uri is very upset about all those evil countries that will be/might be interfering in
the election, to include Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Venezuela, Syria, North Korea and
the United Arab Emirates – though he does exclude the one country that is most likely to
interfere, which is, of course, Israel. Uri is described as a "a senior associate editor at The
Atlantic, where he oversees the Global Channel." The Atlantic is in fact a media black hole,
where all semi-literate journos of a globalist persuasion go to die.
Uri begins with the sub-headline, "The incentives for foreign countries to meddle are much
greater than in 2016, and the tactics could look dramatically different" followed by:
"Russia is 'doing it as we sit here.' This stray line, buried in seven hours of
testimony on Capitol Hill, wasn't just Robert Mueller's way of rebutting the charge that
his investigation into the Kremlin's interference in the 2016 presidential election amounted to
a two-year, $32 million witch hunt. It was also a blunt message to the lawmakers arrayed before
him, the journalists hunting for a bombshell, and the millions of Americans monitoring the
proceedings: We're all here fighting the last war, when we really should be bracing ourselves
for the coming one. The Russians 'expect to do it during the next campaign,' the special
counsel continued, and 'many more countries are developing capability to replicate' Moscow's
model."
Friedman states that "It's unclear whether the Russian government will reprise most infamous
and innovative act in 2016: the hacking and leaking of emails from the Democratic Party and
Hillary Clinton's campaign" before moving on to the details of Moscow's alleged subversion. He
considers all allegations about Russia to be truthful even when they were never proven. The
Democratic National Committee never cooperated with the FBI after their supposed hack, but
instead used their own very suspect firm to do the investigation. And the Mueller investigation
took that report at face value in spite of the company's very clear conflict of interest.
That about sums up Friedman's rather lengthy and convoluted argument, though he does omit
any consideration of how many foreign elections the United States government acting through its
intelligence agencies interferes in each year. Or indeed how much CIA Director John Brennan and
the FBI's James Comey themselves interfered in the 2016 election on behalf of Hillary Clinton.
But he does speculate that "This is the shoe that didn't drop in 2016. A Senate Intelligence
Committee
report released in July found that while there's no evidence that votes were altered or
vote tallies manipulated during the past U.S. presidential election, the Russians likely
targeted election systems in all 50 U.S. states, including research on 'election-related web
pages, voter ID information, election system software, and election service companies.' In a
couple of cases, the Russians succeeded in breaching state election infrastructure. Among the
theories aired in the report about Moscow's motivations is that it was cataloging 'options or
clandestine actions, holding them for use at a later date.'"
In other words, Friedman actually concedes that Russia didn't do anything and the evidence
that it is planning an attack for 2020 is thin to non-existent. But here in the United States,
other foreign agents are hard at work to remove the two Muslim women elected to the House of
Representatives in 2018 "for Jewish reasons."
Philip Weiss of Mondoweiss reports how the tale
of powerful Detroit region-based Jews raising money and pulling in political markers to try to
defeat Rep. Rashida Tlaib has been circulating on the web. Per Weiss, Ron Kampeas of the Jewish
Telegraphic Agency
reported on a gathering of Jewish power brokers in Detroit three weeks ago, arranged by a
leading Jewish organization, at which they vowed to raise money to get rid of Tlaib because she
supports a boycott of Israel. Tlaib is a Muslim woman and is a U.S. born and raised
Palestinian-American.
Tlaib responded to the story on twitter: "This type of hate
never succeeds when the truth is on our side. Palestinians *are* dehumanized. Those who want to
suppress the truth by trying to discredit me can #bringit . My sidy [grandmother in
Palestine] taught me of the days where everyone lived side by side in peace & that is what
I will fight for."
The meeting was held at Bloomfield Hills Michigan branch office of the Jewish Federation,
the largest Jewish group in the United States. It included many local Jewish leaders and
potential political donors who are clearly not bothered by dual loyalty, but it did not appear
to include anyone who actually lives in Tlaib's district. Nevertheless, consensus was quickly
established that "the Palestinian-American freshman in the 13th District [Tlaib] has got to
go."
One participant declared "We in this community will go against Rashida Tlaib" while another
described how there had already been an approach to Brenda Jones, the Detroit City Council
president, who had been defeated in 2018 by Tlaib. Money was being raised for her campaign,
according to another participant.
The thinking in the room was that the African-American community in the 13th Congressional
District would support a single black candidate -- likely Jones -- and that candidate would
also be able to draw on considerable pro-Israel support for funding and favorable media
coverage.
There was some pushback, with a rabbi telling Kampeas that a Jewish organized effort to
remove Tlaib would be "catastrophic." He observed that it would be such an open and blatant
demonstration of Jewish power that it would be a major setback to the effort to keep younger,
more liberal Jews, who are suspicious of power politics, engaged.
The rabbi was being naïve. Removing politicians who are not fully on board with the
Israel agenda is normal practice and has been for many years. Just ask Senators William
Fulbright and Chuck Percy or Congressmen Paul Findley, Pete McCloskey, and Cynthia McKinney.
Criticizing Israel means not being reelected to Congress next time around, and it is not
because Israel is greatly loved by voters. It is because Jewish-American citizens who are
protective of Israel are willing to organize and collect money to support alternative
candidates in any congressional district in the country, even where they do not reside, just as
they plan on doing to Tlaib. Their goal is to defeat anyone who dares to say anything against
Benjamin Netanyahu and his gang of war criminals or, even worse, suggest that Palestinians just
might be human beings and might actually have rights.
Israel has the most powerful foreign policy lobby in Washington but it operates as freely as
it does by pretending that it has no power at all, that American involvement in the Middle East
is driven by U.S. interests. That is complete nonsense and has been so for over fifty years as
the Lobby has tightened its grip. Until more congressmen like Rashida Tlaib get elected and
begin to speak out, the corrupt status quo will, unfortunately, continue to prevail.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest,
a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a
more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is
councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its
email is[email protected] .
As much as I despise Tlaib and Omar's politics, they are doing the USA a valuable service by
exposing the "elephant in the room" and the loyalty oaths to israel that most of their
compatriot congress critters sign. Being "people of color" they can get away with offending
our jewish zionist masters.
Signing ANY "loyalty oath" to a foreign country should be grounds for immediate loss of
united States citizenship and mandatory permanent deportation. This should also apply to any
united States citizen who serves in a foreign country's military
I don't know enough about Tlaib's politics –which I would think are pretty much
standard Dem– to worry about her career as a Rep. I would imagine she's Israel's #1
target for defeat for obvious reasons. It may be poor strategy in MI for Ms Tlaib to mention
this. But she may have no choice.
It appears to me that Trump –not Tlaib– will be the cause of Israeli
participation in the 2020 election with the Pres making it clear that (Jewish) support for
Democrats demonstrates disloyalty towards Israel. Likud will be happy to take up that
charge from Trump. Even though they probably understand it would look bad. I don't think they
can resist.
Can you imagine Netanyahu making a case for attacking Iran to Liz Warren (ha)? I don't
think so.
Does Israel interfere in American elections? This is an important question, though seldom
(publicly) asked.
This steady omission goes to demonstrate the distorting influence enjoyed by Israel and
its domestic lobbies. Americans are simply not free to ask questions that make Jews feel
uncomfortable or 'threatened'.
For those who dare to look however, 'Israeli influence' in America is very tangible,
extremely vast, and highly destructive. It must therefore be examined. Here are four
additional reasons why:
1) Jews of the world are not only spread out far and wide, but they are all
automatically eligible for Israeli citizenship. This is the Israel's 'Law of Return'.
This Zionist pact imparts every Jew with dual-loyalties.
Meanwhile, non-Jews born inside Israel have a lower status there and fewer rights. These
official disparities speak volumes about how Jews see themselves in relation to non-Jews.
It's a warning to us all.
2) Israeli-Americans also tend to be highly-placed as well as exceptionally active, both
politically and culturally. Often they coalesce as a distinct and separate group
inside host nations around the advancement of specifically Jewish objectives. This
includes the elevation of Israel over all other concerns.
3) Jews openly and shamelessly use their positions of power inside America to harness US
military, diplomatic, and economic power for the benefit of Israel. This is dual loyalty in
action. Zionist nepotism has caused numerous and unnecessary foreign wars, a stream of
American fatalities, and immense civilian suffering.
Israel has the most powerful foreign policy lobby in Washington but it operates as
freely as it does by pretending that it has no power at all, that American involvement in
the Middle East is driven by U.S. interests. That is complete nonsense and has been so for
over fifty years as the Lobby has tightened its grip. Until more congressmen like Rashida
Tlaib get elected and begin to speak out, the corrupt status quo will, unfortunately,
continue to prevail.
@Mark
James Obama team did Libya. Biden worked on coups in Ukraine and Brazil.
Hillary worked on the coup in Honduras in 2009. Obama's got soft coups in Argentina and
Paraguay.
If Obama's team could do all this in his Dem time. No doubt Liz Warren if elected could do
the same.
She might get away with it more than Trump would, since with her in "power" the "free"
Zion press could twist words easier to make it look "good" to attack Iran.
It is harder to "twist" words for attacks on Iran or any place with Trump in "power".
Trump is "hated" by our Zion free press yet he does all can for Israel uber alles.
Israel through AIPAC certainly influences Congress . Eric Gallagher , a top official with
AIPAC from 2010 to 2015 is said to have informed a reporter that " Getting $38 billion in
security aid matters to Israel, which is what AIPAC just did."
Who owns the computers which count the votes ?
I think "Jewish State" is a misnomer. Israel is a Zionist state, which has nothing to do with
Judaism. Zionism is the antithesis to Judaism and an insult to Jewish believers. There are
hundreds of thousands of Jews who despise the Zionist regime; for them, its anathema.
It's an open secret that the Zionist control the US Congress, the Trump administration,
the Media, what have you (Ariel Sharon). The Russian hoax was made up by the
Zionist-controlled New York Times, CNN, MSNBC and the rest of mainstream media-crowd. Not
Russia colluded, but the Zionist regime and their lobbies run the show by intervening openly
in US elections and the American political process. I remember the disgraceful behavior of
both Houses of Congress jumping from their seats 29 times listening to Netanyahu's rant
against President Obama. What a shame, but these bought representatives thought they acted
usually. Just recently, the Freshmen in Congress came back from a brainwashing mission to
Israel. Now they are all for the Zionist regime.
I'm still wondering why even Phil Geraldi repeats the same old story about meddling and
collusion again and again. Right from the start, it has been a conspiracy by crooks such as
Brennan, Clapper, Comey and a bunch of subordinate Hillary Clinton sycophants to topple a
sitting US President. Thank God, the senile Robert Mueller testified before Congress to clear
Trump finally from all that smear. Firstly the New York Times realizes that with the Russian
hoax nobody could be drawn from the woodwork any longer; they quickly switched Trump's
apparent racism.
Rashida Tlaib's freshman-term in the House may also be her last one if she further
"insults" US Zionists with the truth about the Zionist regime and their power in the US. The
way of the Zionist lobby is paved with political dead. A prominent one was the just deceased
courageous and exceptional Paul Findley.
@Wizard
of Oz None of what you cite is actually a crime but Congress has chosen to believe that
Trump's alleged collusion with Russia is sufficient grounds for impeachment when combined
with allegations of obstruction of justice and violation of the emoluments issue. Note that
all those issues are alleged, not demonstrated, except possibly for the emoluments .
There seems to be no lack of U.S. DOD money concerning the perpetual wars for Israel, but
there sure is a shocking shortage of U.S. HUD funds for a growing number of indigent
Americans seeking some affordable housing.
All true from both yourself and Paine/Plp except "Hard for the status quo to form a
consensus" which is inherently false based purely on semantics. The status quo must always be
a consensus of sorts or it would not be the status quo regardless of how sordid a sort of
consensus it represents. At the very least our status quo represents the effective majority
consensus of the political elite over matters of governing and simultaneously the effective
consensus of the governed to not overwhelmingly reject the majority consensus of the
political elite. This is not to say that the governed are happy about what they get, but if
they overwhelmingly rejected the political establishment then it would no longer be the
status quo political establishment. Elites learned since the Great Depression that if they
limited their abuse of the common man sufficiently then the combination of general public
apathy regarding politics and the bureaucracy along with the inherent fear of ordinary people
taking action to bring about uncertain change would forever preserve complete elite control
of government apparatus.
But EMichael has the chutzpah to declare categorically that voters don't care about
economic issues. What a rube!!!
As one famous Democrat said, "It's the economy, stupid." Nowadays Democrats can barely
utter the word 'economy' or broach kitchen table issues--corrupt, sclerotic, and
pathetic.
The choice in 2020: Trump, who voices many voters' concerns, vs. generic corrupt and
sclerotic Democrats who offer nothing, have no message, and a track record of shipping jobs
to China.
Since voting for Bill Clinton in 1992, I have voted third party except for once because I
could not vote for the lesser of two evils because either choice was evil.
"... And what did the spying involve? In such intelligence work, wiretaps are recorded; transcripts are made. The same can be true for person-to-person conversations between FBI informants and Trump campaign figures. In May, Trey Gowdy, the former Republican congressman who read deeply into Trump-Russia materials when he was in the House, strongly implied the FBI had transcripts of informant communications. ..."
"... "If the bureau is going to send an informant in, the informant is going to be wired," Gowdy told Fox Business' Maria Bartiromo. "And if the bureau is monitoring telephone calls, there's going to be a transcript of that." ..."
"... "Where are the transcripts, if any exist," Gowdy continued, "between the informants and the telephone calls to George Papadopoulos?" ..."
"... And then the biggest questions: If there was evidence gained from the wiretapping and informing, what was it? Was it valuable? What did it tell the FBI about Russia and the Trump campaign? And did it prove that the Justice Department was right all along to spy on the campaign -- that the spying was, in the words of Attorney General William Barr, "adequately predicated"? ..."
"... Here is why Republicans are skeptical. Special counsel Robert Mueller had access to the results of the FBI's spying, and Mueller could not establish that there was any conspiracy or coordination between Russia and the Trump campaign. After a two-year investigation with full law enforcement powers, Mueller never alleged that any American took part in any such conspiracy or coordination. ..."
"... And even if it were entirely declassified, Horowitz will not tell the whole story of spying and the 2016 election. Horowitz is the inspector general of the Justice Department and does not have the authority to investigate outside the department. For example, he cannot probe the actions of the Central Intelligence Agency and its then-director John Brennan during the period in question. ..."
There will be much to learn in
Inspector
General Michael Horowitz's upcoming report on the Trump-Russia investigation, but most of it will likely boil down to just two
questions. One, how much did the Obama Justice Department spy on the Trump campaign? And two, was it justified?
Many Democrats would immediately protest the word "spying." But the public already knows the FBI secured a warrant to wiretap
low-level Trump adviser Carter Page a few months after Page left the campaign. The public also knows the FBI used informant
Stefan Halper to gather information on other Trump campaign figures. And the public knows the FBI sent an undercover agent who
went by the alias "Azra Turk" to London to tease information out of another low-level Trump adviser, George Papadopoulos.
Was that all? Were there more? Horowitz should give definitive answers.
And what did the spying involve? In such intelligence work, wiretaps are recorded; transcripts are made. The same can be true
for person-to-person conversations between FBI informants and Trump campaign figures. In May, Trey Gowdy, the former Republican congressman
who read deeply into Trump-Russia materials when he was in the House, strongly implied the FBI had transcripts of informant communications.
"If the bureau is going to send an informant in, the informant is going to be wired," Gowdy told Fox Business' Maria Bartiromo.
"And if the bureau is monitoring telephone calls, there's going to be a transcript of that."
"Where are the transcripts, if any exist," Gowdy continued, "between the informants and the telephone calls to George Papadopoulos?"
The "if any exist" was Gowdy's way of casting his statements as a hypothetical, but there was no doubt he was speaking from the
knowledge he gained as a congressional investigator.
And then the biggest questions: If there was evidence gained from the wiretapping and informing, what was it? Was it valuable?
What did it tell the FBI about Russia and the Trump campaign? And did it prove that the Justice Department was right all along to
spy on the campaign -- that the spying was, in the words of Attorney General William Barr, "adequately predicated"?
Here is why Republicans are skeptical. Special counsel Robert Mueller had access to the results of the FBI's spying, and Mueller
could not establish that there was any conspiracy or coordination between Russia and the Trump campaign. After a two-year investigation
with full law enforcement powers, Mueller never alleged that any American took part in any such conspiracy or coordination.
So, Republicans know the end result of the investigation, but they don't know how it began. Yes, they know the official story
of the start of what the FBI called Crossfire Hurricane -- that it began with a foreign intelligence service (Australia) telling
U.S. officials that Papadopoulos appeared to have foreknowledge of a Russian plan to release damaging information about Hillary Clinton.
But they don't think it's the whole story.
That's where Horowitz comes in.
There's one big potential problem that people on Capitol Hill are talking about, and that is the issue of classified information.
Everyone expects a significant amount of Horowitz's report to be classified. How much, no one is quite sure. But the fact is, the
report was done to tell the American people what the nation's intelligence and law enforcement agencies did during the 2016 election.
Issuing a report with page after page blacked out would not be a good way to do that. But no one will know the extent of the classification
issue until Horowitz is ready to go public.
And even if it were entirely declassified, Horowitz will not tell the whole story of spying and the 2016 election. Horowitz
is the inspector general of the Justice Department and does not have the authority to investigate outside the department. For example,
he cannot probe the actions of the Central Intelligence Agency and its then-director John Brennan during the period in question.
That will be the role of another investigator, John Durham, the U.S. attorney appointed by Barr to investigate the origins of
the Trump-Russia probe. Durham is working with the support of top Republicans on Capitol Hill, like Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman
Lindsey Graham, who recently said, "I really am very curious about the role that the CIA played here."
But first, the Horowitz report. It will be an important step in answering the questions of how much spying took place and whether
it was justified. It's long past time Americans learned what happened.
"... I've always wondered if the whole MeToo movement was orchestrated by a hidden hand ..."
"... It seemed like the MeToo was weaponized ..."
"... Back then Allyssa Milano and others were telling us that we must believe all women (so now guilty until proven innocent), but those same women have been completely silent when one of Epstein's accusers said she was forced to have sex with Bill Richardson (D) and George Mitchell (D), both of whom denied the allegation ..."
I've always wondered if the whole MeToo movement was orchestrated by a hidden
hand – same for those horrible pussy hats they came out with after Trump was elected.
It seemed like the MeToo was weaponized and ready to go when Kavanaugh was nominated (and
I'm not a fan–he's connected to Bush and the Patriot Act). They brought out Dr. Chrissy
Fraud and Julie Swetnick (who seemed quite mentally unstable with her accusations that
Kavanaugh was connected to gang rape parties).
Back then Allyssa Milano and others were
telling us that we must believe all women (so now guilty until proven innocent), but those
same women have been completely silent when one of Epstein's accusers said she was forced to
have sex with Bill Richardson (D) and George Mitchell (D), both of whom denied the
allegations.
And, of course, such accusations were barely mentioned in the MSM.
@renfro That mixture
of grandeur and victimhood has always reeked of sociopathy to me.
The sociopath believes he's above other men: God, history or fate has chosen him, and
others are beneath him and exist for his benefit, their wants, desires, hopes and dreams
being of trivial consequence. Plus, the sociopath, when caught in the aftermath of his
crimes, blames other and refuses to accept responsibility for his actions.
"... I've always wondered if the whole MeToo movement was orchestrated by a hidden hand ..."
"... It seemed like the MeToo was weaponized ..."
"... Back then Allyssa Milano and others were telling us that we must believe all women (so now guilty until proven innocent), but those same women have been completely silent when one of Epstein's accusers said she was forced to have sex with Bill Richardson (D) and George Mitchell (D), both of whom denied the allegation ..."
I've always wondered if the whole MeToo movement was orchestrated by a hidden
hand – same for those horrible pussy hats they came out with after Trump was elected.
It seemed like the MeToo was weaponized and ready to go when Kavanaugh was nominated (and
I'm not a fan–he's connected to Bush and the Patriot Act). They brought out Dr. Chrissy
Fraud and Julie Swetnick (who seemed quite mentally unstable with her accusations that
Kavanaugh was connected to gang rape parties).
Back then Allyssa Milano and others were
telling us that we must believe all women (so now guilty until proven innocent), but those
same women have been completely silent when one of Epstein's accusers said she was forced to
have sex with Bill Richardson (D) and George Mitchell (D), both of whom denied the
allegations.
And, of course, such accusations were barely mentioned in the MSM.
"It is virtually impossible to think of any country, powerful or weak ..that exercises such
complete control over any other country, powerful or weak, rich or poor as Zionist Israel
does over our country, the US of A."
Much of this has to do with American Capitalism. If the US was NOT oligarchic, or mired in
trillions of $$ for The Elite, you wouldn't have these Zionist Jews obviscating, manipulating
and "pulling the wool over our eyes" the way they do now.
Frankly, I am sickened by folks like Alan Dershowitz & most of the MEDIA Jewish bosses
that run Hollywood and MSM.
I know, personally, there are wonderfully creative, intelligent, insightful Jewish people
out there. I want all the Giliad Atzmon's, Max Blumenthal's, Norman Finklestein's and
thousands more to radiate their special gifts upon this sordid, illiterate and greedy nation
called America.
It's likely G-Max spent the spring in Manchester BTS, Ma. She left and where she is this
summer isn't public (yet). It does make sense in some minds that she is an informant.
And for that reason, private but not on the run from law enforcement.
After Epstein's death you would have thought that she would have moved to the top of the
list of people to be charged with related crimes to JE? If she has it's been very quiet.
@Tony Ryals Don't
forget that Maxwell's publishing empire started by getting publishing rights to much of
Germany's scientific papers.
As a British intelligence officer in Occupied Germany, he was in an excellent position to
blackmail or threaten any number of people in order to get his way. Shooting people himself
is not the easiest way of doing things. There are better ways in a country where people are
starving.
Curiously, Isabel followed in the family tradition of filing for bankruptcy in December 2015
despite having been a multi-millionaire. That move may have been related to the untimely demise
at age 56 of her third husband, the infamous con man Al Seckel who, she later found out, was
not legally her husband since he was still married to his first wife. In 2015, when he
reportedly died, he was potentially on the hook for millions
Seckel befriended and bewitched the Nobel Prize-winning physicists Richard Feynman and
Murray Gell-Mann among other neuroscientists, as well as academics and even magicians like
James Randi.
Seckel then used those contacts to sell rare books to prestigious customers who were often
hoodwinked out of thousands in bad deals. He moved on to co-opt the burgeoning field of optical
illusion, popularizing the art of manipulating images by using research from others in books he
wrote.
(His daughter, Elizabeth Seckel, has built on her father's work in optical illusion by
pioneering something called "mirror box therapy." Seckel brought her method, sponsored by the
Clinton Global Initiative, to Haiti after the earthquake in 2012 to help recent amputees with
their phantom limb pain.)
In 2010, Seckel hosted a scientific conference on Jeffrey Epstein's infamous private island
with Gell-Mann, Leonard Mlodinow, who was Stephen Hawking's co-author, and MIT's Gerald
Sussman.
Oppenheimer told The Daily Beast this week that there was "no evidence" that Seckel or any
of the scientists at the island party were involved in any sexual activity with young
girls.
In 2004 Seckel gave a TED talk that's been viewed almost 2.5 million times about "perceptual
illusions that fool our brains."
Because of Seckel's shady past, it was not surprising that vague reports of his death -- a
perceptual illusion perhaps? -- began popping up just weeks after Oppenheimer's July 2015 story
exposed him to hordes of creditors.
A paid obituary was published on Legacy.com, supposedly after appearing in the San Gabriel
Valley Tribune, but it does not appear on the paper's website. One report has circulated around
various Seckel-obsessed corners of the internet that his body was found at the bottom of a
cliff near the home in France where he had moved with Isabel.
But The Daily Beast could not locate any officials in the town where Seckel was last known
to live who had any report of his death. Oppenheimer and others said they have not yet found
proof, either. The Daily Beast was unable to reach Isabel Maxwell or Elizabeth Secker for
comment.
"High school is never over" explains in part the Epstein compulsive following. It was, in
H.S., important to get invited to cool parties. Lolita Island was the cool party, where you
could finally make it with H.S.-age icy, perfunctory, uninteresting girls -- it doesn't get
any cooler than that. It's not just an Epstein phenomenon; Kim and his inner circle had/have
100 personal cheerleaders.
@Jeff Stryker You
keep posting this question, but the premise is most doubtful. One would quickly be arrested
and quite possibly be shot and/or beaten half to death before the police arrived if you tried
approaching little girls in a trailer park offering money for sex .
Maxwell never had any contact with the schoolgirls, none of them said she met them.
Epstein's co conspirators getting him schoolgirls from Palm Beach High were other schoolgirls
who he paid a commission for bringing him girls, The main one was the 14 year old we hear
so much about and she recruited mainly her friends and relatives. It did not last long
because she got into a fight about it and then blabbed to the school psychologist about the
whole thing. The police found out from her who all the girls were and Epstein was
arrested. Really sophisticated intelligence operation.
Virginia Giuffre (nee Roberts), now in her thirties, was 17 and already studying to become
a masseuse when she met Maxwell at Trump's resort where she and her father both worked, and
was offered a job to start with Einstein in that capacity. Her father knew of Epstein as did
everyone in Palm Beach back then, and drove her to Epstein's house for the interview being
quite happy with the whole thing.
Guess that's why the largest percentage #MeToo offenders are Jews.
Yes, and they can't all be working for Mossad. Are Weinstein's female assistants being
assumed to be his accomplices in the rape of multiple women. Rape is what he is about to
stand trial for. I would say that rape is a much more serious offence than having consensual
sexual contact with a under age girl and paying her. There are several accounts of
Weinstein's assistants (who all knew what he was like) suddenly disappearing and leaving
young actresses alone with him. Was that a Mossad plot too? Or, do Weinstein's factotums get
a pass because they were Gentiles?
Weinstein's crimes are "predatory sexual assault," which carry a potential life sentence.
If Epstein was not prosecuted to the full extent of the laws it might have something to do
with those laws getting a little out of balance with the seriousness of the crime Epstein
committed. when compared with non prostitution offences. A 14 year old who hears she get big
money for giving a super rich old (to her) guy a massage and goes along to his house knowing
sexual contact short of full intercourse is part of the deal and leaves with several hundred
of dollars is in a very different category to a woman who is forcibly assaulted when a young
adult by a big shot movie producer.The Sopranos's Annabella Sciorra is saying Weinstein raped
her in 1993-94. H cannot be prosecuted for it now as too much time has passed. Mossad
plot?
Wexner, owner of Bath and Body Works, Victorias Secret and The Limited, heads a group of
politically active Jewish billionaires intent on solving Israel's issues with American military
lives.
@Sean Good questions.
Answer: Chutzpah? Alternate answer: Dersh didn't find it radioactive when he went down to
Palm Springs and started digging up dirt on Epstein's accusers. At what point would he find
it radioactive?
After all, Jeff and Jizzaline were on a free pass for the next 15 years scooting about on
a magic carpet– ie.– they were accepted. Also, the recent Labor Secretary openly
stated he, as a prosecutor, was told to leave it alone– 'Epstein belonged to
intelligence.' What's not to like?
The only real surprise was the recent indictment. Why now? (needs research) NOW Dersh
finds it radioactive.
Comment on Wexner– Can you really take Wexner's excuses at face value? We recently
found out from Whitney Webb that Wexler installed monitoring equipment throughout the Upper
East Side mansion he then 'gave' to Epstein. There's evidently more to this case than Epstein
himself. Webb then connects Wexler to organized crime and well-heeled organized
Zionism– both sponsors of multi-farious sex/blackmail schemes stretching back decades
(as in Meyer Lansky and Roy Cohn). Jizzaline wasn't considered radioactive at Chelsea
Clinton's wedding. Looks like pedophilia is as Zio-American as apple pie.
This so-called mutual 'defense alliance' pact is not only extremely dangerous, but it
clearly serves only one of the parties.
Notable quotes:
"... As the old joke goes: Israel would never want to become the 51st state because then it would only have 1 senator instead of controlling all 100. ..."
"... It is painfully clear that the US is a jewish-controlled oligarchy in all but name and no other explanation can sufficiently explain the fact that Israel can do almost whatever it wants without ever having to face any pushback, instead it just gets more. This includes middle-eastern wars for which the goyim should sacrifice their sons. ..."
"... Mossad must have some serious dirt on Graham, maybe videos of him with little boys. ..."
"... SC politicians are the best to coerce/blackmail because they are a one party state. Any idiot with an (R) after his name is sure to get elected and re-elected no matter what they do. ..."
"... Now its true Israel could not 'occupy' Iran but that does not mean Israel could not destroy Iranian military capability but the cost could be higher than in 67 or 73 unless Israel has some way to neutralize Hebollah's missile arsenal in Lebanon. ..."
"... The Democraps support the Iranian People? Traitor Sen. Shumer will give up his Zionist Entity citizenship and become a loyal American? Ms Pelosi, Biden, Booker, Ms. Maxwell ..."
"... Casino Trump this. Casino Trump that! He is an Actor/crook. He is part of that Hologram/Matrix/make believe/Professional 'Wrestling' entertainment for an imprisoned and daily looted Nation. A Nation that once was Free. ..."
"... Casino Trump is another of the post (un) constitutional Hollywood Presidents. Trump, Hollywood Obomber, Bill (that wasn't sex) Clinton ..."
"... None of these have/had any power. They are actors, and crooks. Do not look for power here. The power that controls us is hidden from our view. ..."
"... According to the Times of Israel, Graham says that the [proposed] pact would show the international community that "an attack against Israel would be considered an attack against the United States." ..."
As the agreement between the two countries would be a treaty ratified by the Senate, it
would be much more difficult to scrap by subsequent administrations than was the Iran nuclear
deal, which was an executive action by President Obama. And clearly the statements by Graham,
Makovsky and Ruhe reveal this treaty would serve as a green light for an Israeli attack on
Iran, should they opt to do so, while also serving as a red light to Tehran vis-à-vis an
ironclad US commitment to "defend" Israel that would serve to discourage any serious Iranian
retaliation. Given that dynamic, the treaty would be little more than a one-way security
guarantee from Washington to Jerusalem.
Furthermore, in outlining what circumstances would trigger US intervention on Israel's
behalf, the JINSA/Graham document cites, inter alia , "the threat or use of weapons of
mass destruction." It also allows Netanyahu to call for assistance after defining as
threatening any incident or development "that gives rise to an urgent request from the
Government of Israel." It appears then that Netanyahu could demand that the US attack Iran
should he only perceive a threat, however vague that threat might in reality be.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been claiming Iran is "
three to five years " and "possibly weeks" away from a nuclear weapons capability since
1992 and pushing Washington to attack Iran so he obviously would welcome such a treaty for
strategic reasons as well as to shore up his upcoming re-election bid. President Trump, with
whom Graham has discussed how the agreement would work, has a similar interest in appearing
strong for Israel to help his own campaign in 2020.
It is worth noting that in 2010 Netanyahu ordered the Israel Defense Force (IDF) to prepare
to strike Iran but 'Israel's security chiefs refused: Gabi Ashkenazi, the head of the IDF, and
Meir Dagan, the head of the Mossad at the time, believed that Netanyahu and the Defense
Minister Ehud Barak were trying to "steal a war" and the order was not carried out. The attacks
were also rejected by two ministers, Moshe Yaalon and Yuval Steinitz, which left Netanyahu
without the necessary majority to proceed.
Ashkenazi claimed in a 2012 interview about the episode that he was convinced that an attack
would be have been a major strategic mistake. Meir Dagan said in 2012, after leaving his role
as Mossad chief, that a strike
would be "a stupid thing" as the entire region would undoubtedly be destabilized, requiring
repeated Israeli and American interventions.
And there are other issues arising from a "defense treaty." Defense means just that and
treaties are generally designed to protect a country within its own borders. Israel has no
defined borders as it is both expansionistic and illegally occupying Palestinian land, so the
United States would in effect be obligated to defend space that Israel defines as its own. That
could mean almost anything. Israel is currently bombing Syria almost daily even though it is
not at war with Damascus. If Syria were to strike back and Graham's treaty were in place,
Washington would technically be obligated to come to Israel's assistance. A similar situation
prevails with Lebanon and there are
also reports that Israel is bombing alleged Iranian supply lines in Iraq, where the US has
5,000 troops stationed.
The real problem is that the Trump administration is obsessed with regime change in Iran,
but it has so far been unable to provoke Iran into starting a conflict. Graham's proposed
treaty just might be part of a White House plan to end-run Congress and public opinion by
enabling Israel to start the desired war, whereupon the US would quickly follow in to "defend
Israel," obliged by treaty to do so. What could possibly go wrong? The correct answer is
"everything."
Two world wars began because of unconditional pledges made by one country to come to
assistance of another. On July 5, 1914, Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany
pledged his country's complete support for whatever response Austria-Hungary would choose to
make against Serbia after the June 28 th assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand
of Austria by a Serbian nationalist during an official visit to Sarajevo, Bosnia. This fatal
error went down in history as Germany's carte blanche or "blank check," assurance to
Austria that led directly to WW I.
In September 1939, World War II began when Great Britain and France came to the assistance
of Poland after the German Army invaded, fulfilling a "guarantee" made in March of that year.
What was a regional war, and one that might have been resolved through diplomacy, became
global.
One would think that after such commitments were assessed by historians as the immediate
causes of two world wars, no one would ever consider going down that road again. But that would
be reckoning without Republican Senator Lindsey Graham who has been calling for a "defense
treaty" with Israel since last April. In his most recent foray, Graham announced late in
July that
he is seeking bipartisan support for providing "blank check" assurances to Israeli Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and is hoping to be able to push a complete defense treaty through
the Senate by next year.
In making his several announcements on the subject, Graham has been acting as a
front man for both Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and also for The Jewish
Institute for the National Security of America (JINSA), which wrote the basic document that
is being used to promote the treaty and then enlisted Graham to obtain congressional
support.
Speaking to the press on a JINSA conference call, Graham said the proposed agreement would
be a treaty that would protect Israel in case of an attack that constituted an "existential
threat". Citing Iran as an example, Graham said the pact would be an attempt to deter hostile
neighbors like the Iranians who might use weapons of mass destruction against Israel. JINSA
President Michael Makovsky elaborated on this, saying, "A mutual defense pact has a value in
not only deterring but might also mitigate a retaliatory strike by an adversary of Israel, so
it might mitigate an Iranian response (to an attack on its nuclear facilities)."
JINSA director of foreign policy Jonathan Ruhe added that "An Israeli strike on Iran's
nuclear program would not activate this pact, but a major Iranian retaliation might. – An
Israeli unilateral attack is not what the treaty covers, but rather massive Iranian retaliation
is what we are addressing."
Israel has long been reluctant to enter into any actual treaty arrangement with the United
States because it might limit its options and restrain its aggressive pattern of military
incursions. In that regard, the Graham-JINSA proposal is particularly dangerous as it
effectively permits Israel to be interventionist with a guarantee that Washington will not seek
to limit Netanyahu's "options." And, even though the treaty is reciprocal, there is no chance
that Israel will ever be called upon to do anything to defend the United States, so it is as
one-sided as most arrangements with the Jewish state tend to be.
The treaty talk is just more psychological warfare on Iran . Iran is too big for Israel to
start a fight that the US might not join in. If the Israeli armed forces can refuse (although
I don't believe that actually happened) so could the US. No, Israel is going to have to put
up with an Iranian bomb. Nothing is going to happen.
As the old joke goes: Israel would never want to become the 51st state because then it would
only have 1 senator instead of controlling all 100.
It is painfully clear that the US is a jewish-controlled oligarchy in all but name and no
other explanation can sufficiently explain the fact that Israel can do almost whatever it
wants without ever having to face any pushback, instead it just gets more. This includes
middle-eastern wars for which the goyim should sacrifice their sons.
Sadly it would not surprise me at all if they go through with this.
What a complete abomination America has become. Shameful.
I wonder what the american population of the 1760s would have done were they alive today?
However, the so-called patriots of today are so easily duped that they believe the utter joke
of a creature currently occupying The White House actually has any interest other than his
own in mind every time he opens his mouth
Lets see, you have an Administration, a Senate, a Congress, a Supreme Court that all, for
decades, obviously have been completely compromised. Your two political party system works
like a charm controlling you all.
Any time something a little too fishy is going down, something that just might be a little
too obvious and there is a chance a few too many might actually react in some meaningful way,
well, then they won`t even break a sweat distracting you throwing some trivial Right vs. Left
stick that quickly becomes The Only Issue in your whole world. Man the cannons, for Christ`s
sake! It`s The Stick! The Stick!
It is kind of funny, but only when one forgets what is actually at stake.
People today have become so stupid, so easily manipulated, so emasculated that the traitorous
vermin that are supposed to represent you don`t even bother coming up with a half-decent
excuse anymore whenever they feel like penetrating you.
This mutual defense treaty is just one more up the collective behind of "we the people."
Mossad must have some serious dirt on Graham, maybe videos of him with little boys.
SC politicians are the best to coerce/blackmail because they are a one party state. Any
idiot with an (R) after his name is sure to get elected and re-elected no matter what they
do.
As most one party states it produces the most idiotic/corrupt politicians, like Mark
Sanford. Nikki Haley the Zionist moron was greatly compromised with her known affairs and
today tweeted a rumor no one has heard of but her about her alleged affair with Mike Pence --
a tweet to end a rumor started by herself, such is her idiocy.
Other one party states are mostly (D) and they are protected by a colluding media, no
matter how idiotic or corrupt.
Mutual defense? Sure, like Israel is going to defend the US.
Any idiot who votes for this bill doesn't just need to be voted out of office, they need to
be hung from the nearest lamp-post; preferably in their district or home state.
Iran is no bigger than Egypt and Israel took on Egypt in 1967 and 1973 and
prevailed despite Egypt then being a client state of the USSR. Egypt was also able to bring
the full strength of its army to bear on Israel in the Sinai something Iran could not
possibly do for the foreseeable future.
Now its true Israel could not 'occupy' Iran but that does not mean Israel could not
destroy Iranian military capability but the cost could be higher than in 67 or 73 unless
Israel has some way to neutralize Hebollah's missile arsenal in Lebanon.
Despite all efforts of the MSM and our government to align the USA with Israel, Trump would
be making a major mistake to support such a treacherous alliance.
Many of us do not want an alliance with Israel and see those who seek such alliances as
our enemy.
Graham may be able to get away with his treachery down in South Carolina, filled as it is
with brain-dead evangelical Christians, but I am hoping that there are enough patriotic
Americans left with an ounce of brains who would not support this perfidious alliance and any
supporting politician such as Trump.
The pro-Israel crowd in the USA is large but among the alt right crowd I would think they
would comprise a distinct and deluded minority.
Iran is a big place that has been given time to hide the nuclear facilities
(which is what I presume we are talking about) and duplicate them. The Israeli Air Force are
not going to to get landed with such a difficult mission by exaggerating the odds for
success.
I suspect their supposed 'refusal' was merely saying not having the element of
surprise an air strike on Iran's nuclear facilities might well not work And why would the
current Israeli PM take the risk of ordering it knowing if there was a failure those generals
would loudly proclaim they told him it would not work? I wonder if Israel does not wonder if
Saudi Arabian leadership with its lack of political constraints is behind a lot of this
agitation against Iran.
The real problem is that the Trump administration is obsessed with regime change in
Iran,
And the Democrap Gang no longer exists? You do not mention them in your entire
article.
The Democraps support the Iranian People? Traitor Sen. Shumer will give up his Zionist
Entity citizenship and become a loyal American? Ms Pelosi, Biden, Booker, Ms. Maxwell, some
Gay Transvestite? eh!I wish I could make the Democrap gang disappear. Nicely done. I get it;
you are concentrating on the Repub gang.
What's up? Have you been given a different assignment? A threat? Were you the recipient of
a Massage in one of Epstein's Pleasure Palaces? Now you pump for the Democraps?
Casino Trump this. Casino Trump that! He is an Actor/crook. He is part of that
Hologram/Matrix/make believe/Professional 'Wrestling' entertainment for an imprisoned and
daily looted Nation. A Nation that once was Free.
Think Power. Think how a Puppet -Nation and its people are controlled.
Most likely Jeffrey Epstein has been controlling the United States for the last 30 years.
There has been a Regime Change; Epstein is Retired (one way or other), and you direct
attention to Casino Trump, as if he makes any decisions in America, or anywhere else.
Concluding Repetition:
Casino Trump is another of the post (un) constitutional Hollywood Presidents.
Trump, Hollywood Obomber, Bill (that wasn't sex) Clinton – Do I need a verb? None of
these have/had any power. They are actors, and crooks. Do not look for power here. The power
that controls us is hidden from our view.
We know who our rulers are: they are our enemy: They murdered JFK and many other
Americans. They are coming for us!
When Jews served Wasps, they were merely playing a game to gain more power for themselves.
When Wasps serve Jews, they are total dogs in their subservience.
Jews have stronger identities and personalities than Wasps. For Jews, the dominant power
must ultimately be Jewish. For Anglos, the dominance of power matters most, and ultimately it
doesn't matter who holds it. Anglos will suck up to any group with the most power. Since Jews
now have the most power, Anglos are total toadies their servility to Jews.
Jews vs Wasps:
Jews: WE must have the power.
Wasps: We must serve the POWER.
Thus, even when Jews didn't have top power, they did everything to get it. In contrast,
once top power went over to Jews, Anglos were perfectly content to serve Jews as the new
boss.
@lavoisier CUFI (Christians United for Israel ) alone claims 7 million members, roughly equal to total number of Jews in
U.S., and by definition Hagee's flock is more pro-Israel than the average Jew.
In defense of the Kaiser, Germany had had a long defensive alliance with Austria-Hungary.
Many Germans lived there and German was a major language spoken there as well. The two
countries shared a border that ran for hundreds of miles across central Europe. The Kaiser
was close personal friends with both the Archduke and his wife. He had just returned from a
visit to them when he heard of the cruel assignation. Eye-witnesses said he turned as white as
a ghost. The Kaiser envisioned swift action against Serbia and never imagined a wider war. In
any case he had a real and large army to back up his pledge.
Chamberlain in contrast was an idiot. The pledge to Poland was sheer insanity. There was
absolutely nothing Britain could have done in 1939 to have saved Poland from German
(and also Soviet) invasion.
The Poles were – incredibly – even more stupid in believing in the pledge and
actually expecting serious military aid. Dumb and dumber.
According to the Times of Israel, Graham says that the [proposed] pact would show the
international community that "an attack against Israel would be considered an attack against
the United States."
This so-called mutual 'defense alliance' pact is not only extremely dangerous, but it
clearly serves only one of the parties.
We don't need tiny, distant, belligerent Israel to defend Empire America. How utterly
absurd.
The US is already a far-flung, rogue, military colossus. It's Zio-Washington that needs to
be restained–not burdened with additional, extra-national obligations that serve a
rogue, supremacist state.
As crazy as they are, Graham's unbalanced, pro-Israel bona fides are now
mainstream. This bizarre political zeitgeist speaks volumes.
Virtually all of Congress, as well as America's vaunted Fourth Estate, have been captured.
And the zombie majority who live amongst us have barely noticed.
What Americans need desperately is a viable defence against the malign and overpowering
influence of Israel and its army of highly-placed, pro-Zionist influencers. Their domestic
impact is the core problem that we are facing.
Waterboy Graham is merely one contaminated mind-body among countess others. He is infected
with a disease without a name. It continues to spread.
The US has lost its independence. We have fallen low. We are still dropping.
In other words, if, say Israel actually goes ahead and openly attacks Iran (as opposed to
merely conducting assassinations and terrorist bombings there as she does now) and Iran does
the unthinkable and retaliates, then we would attack Iran.
Isn't this a great idea? We can let Israel decide if we should go to war with Iran.
@unit472 Egypt is 386,662 sq mi and except for the Sinai is mostly flat with its
population centers close to Israel. Iran is 636,374 square miles of mostly mountain ranges
and deep valleys with its major population center Tehran remote from Israel or the sea.
Tehran is also close to Russia. Egypt was easy to attack with tanks while Iran would need to
be hit with aircraft only. Getting an aircraft carrier near Iran would be a nightmare as Iran
has Russian Sunburn missiles which could hit any American ship from hundreds of miles away
and they travel so close to water they can't be detected on radar.
@Just a thought without being compromised one cannot access to "significant" political
representation in the USA: the hidden "conditionality" of the Judeo-Zionist master. the
latter should be sure to "pilot" every step of the eventual political action of the former.
just have a look around you.
Israel is said to have about 150 nukes ready to go and a good percentage of that arsenal is
pointed towards Iran. I guess this isn't enough for them. They want the certainty of a US
threat of overwhelming force to intimidate Iran into non-action should the IDF hit
them with a surgical strike of bunker-buster bombs to hit underground facilities.
So would the signing of a mutual defense pact work? Maybe. I just don't think Sen. Graham is
representative of his fellow members of congress no matter how allied they are with
AIPAC. I think this goes to far even for them. I don't think it would be approved of,
it's a fantasy.
* Phil I noticed Iran did some pr work last week on NBC news (with L.Holt). They should do
more of it and stay away from the International shipping lanes. I doubt the country will ever
be thought well of by Americans –nor should they really– but that doesn't mean
they should be treated like the next likely targets of the US military.
They may be to proud to beg not to be attacked but sending some rep out in front of a TV
camera to say that they really don't want it to happen, I think can work well when done
correctly. Smile a bit and say 'let's not do this.'
"An Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear program would not activate this pact, but a major
Iranian retaliation might".
Ah yes – the usual Western attitude.
For us to attack them is normal and quite justified (even with nuclear weapons, even if we
kill literally millions of them and destroy their infrastructure).
But for them to defend themselves is wicked aggression.
"Cet animal est tres mechant.
Quand on l'attaque, il se defend".
On July 5, 1914, Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany pledged his country's complete support for
whatever response Austria-Hungary would choose to make against Serbia after the June 28th
assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria by a Serbian nationalist during an
official visit to Sarajevo, Bosnia. This fatal error went down in history as Germany's carte
blanche or "blank check," assurance to Austria that led directly to WW I.
An often overlooked treaty was the one between Belgium and the United Kingdom. Without
that treaty WW I would have remained a fire in the backyard. Belgium would never have engaged
the fight against Germany without Britain's assurances. The skirmish between the Germans and
the French would have lasted for less than two months.
The situation with Israel is however different. The US can't do anything without pulling
of a greater war that they will finally loose. Personally, I can't wait to see the American
fleet reduced like the Russian one in the war of 1904-1905. (The grudge is not against
Americans but against their war hawks with their jingoism and imperialism.) Actually I think
that this would be the event that splits the world in pro and anti Zionism.
y idiot who votes for this bill doesn't just need to be voted out of office, they need
to be hung from the nearest lamp-post; preferably in their district or home state.
Agreed, but who is going to vote them out? Many Americans are idiots too. Most Americans
would rather watch America's Got Talent or Dancing With The Stars than be informed about
important issues.
Graham may be able to get away with his treachery down in South Carolina, filled as it
is with brain-dead evangelical Christians, but I am hoping that there are enough patriotic
Americans left with an ounce of brains who would not support this perfidious alliance and
any supporting politician such as Trump.
I doubt there are enough Americans that are not brain dead.
The pro-Israel crowd in the USA is large but among the alt right crowd I would think
they would comprise a distinct and deluded minority.
But the alt-right crowd is a minority of a minority not going to happen. This countries
problems will not be solved with elections.
One od these days Mexico is going to make an offer to Trump to buy Texas ,New Mexico ,
Arizona and California . And Cuba will make an offer for Florida .
Sounds like some of the more realistic military guys, told the Jewboys in Congress , that
Hezbollah can do some serious damage to Israel. Especially when they get some help from the
Iranians and others – sitting in Syria. Might even even take back " TrumpLand in the
Golan. Israel could be in deep shit if everyone gets POd and fed up. If we see this as
informed commenters – they have seen it – even longer. Thanks Unz Rev.
Before i really began researching the issue the historical persecution of Jews used to be a
source of amazement to me as the small number of them I knew were fine. A bit grasping and
pushy but smart and humourous as well. What emerged from my research could be summarised as
'they never know when to stop pushing irrespective of the wealth and control they achieve'.
Eventually the goyim
revolt and we know the rest.
I get a sense that we're seeing the beginnings of this in the West today but instead of
pulling back 'our' Jews are rubbing salt in the wound. In many ways Jews would be better off
if their proportion of the host population were minuscule even though this would result in
less tribal power. Chaim Weizman identified this when he said "[w]henever the quantity of
Jews in any country reaches the saturation point, that country reacts against them. [This]
reaction cannot be looked upon as anti-Semitism in the ordinary or vulgar sense of that word;
it is a universal social and economic concomitant of Jewish immigration, and we cannot shake
it off."
All you anti-Christian Unz commenters need to realize that the Jews, being Chosen by God,
have a monopoly on spiritual blessings. No American is capable of conjuring his own spiritual
blessings, they must come from the Jews. And in gratitude for those spiritual blessings,
Christian America owes it to the Jews to give them material wealth in return.
"For if the Gentiles have shared in the Jews' spiritual blessings, they owe it to the
Jews to share with them their material blessings." (Romans 15:27)
Right there, in plain and simple terms, is God's Will for America's foreign policy.
"Gentiles owe it to the Jews." Cough up that cash or burn in hell! DEUS VULT!
You anti-Christian heathen are going to burn in hell because you can't accept that God has
made the Jews his Chosen ones to market Salvation services to Whites who cannot provide
Salvation for themselves.
" We worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews ." John
4:22
Sure, if Whites could find another Salvation provider, then they wouldn't have to worship
the Jews. But until then, you're risking your eternal life if you don't worship God's will
that the Jews are Supreme. "The Jew First!" (Romans 1:16) DEUS VULT!
The USA and all western countries, which all have good relations with Israel and many
strongly support Israel, all pay a heavy price for that. According to the US gov't., Osama
Bin Laden led Al-Qaeda's attack on the USA in September 2001. As is typical with the USA's
media, it didn't want the US public to know why Osama Bin Laden did this, so it's hard to
find his communication with the US where he laid out his complaints. He had several,
including US troops in Saudi Arabia and US strong support for Israel against Arabs. I
remember the first "terrorist attack". I put it in quotes only because the US is only opposed
to terrorism when it or one of its allies is attacked. It was the 1972 attack on Israeli
athletes at the Munich Olympics in 1972. From that point on, there were several other attacks
against Israel including a hijacked Israeli airline at Entebbe and there were allegations
against various Arab countries, including Libya of conducting terrorist attacks against
"American interests". Reagan bombed Libya (and killed Gaddafi's daughter) to retaliate
against Libya's supposed attack on a Berlin disco and I believe he was accused of other
attacks as well. I doubt the accuracy of those claims, but it's unmistakable that the US and
the west were soon Arab targets for their strong support of Israel. At some point Israel may
have carried out, or at least supported attacks on the west so Arabs could be blamed. That is
where the idea Israel carried out the Sept. 11 attacks comes from.
As someone on a podcast commented a while back, years ago travel was such a pleasure,
until probably September 2001 when the US began the heavy security precautions every time you
take a flight. Stripping down (belt, shoes, watch, and anything else necessary to pass the
security checks) as well as unpacking your luggage to pass their test. These checks are all
necessary because of the west's strong support of Israel. East European and Asian countries
have no such terrorism problem, but they are probably pulled into the airport mess because
travel is international. Airline travel used to be a pleasure, but its now very unpleasant
thanks to our ties to Israel. Until around September 2001, we had to listen to the constant
backslapping of Israel by our Jewish media about their great security precautions and their
glorious military (that's new for the Jews who for centuries had a poor reputation as
soldiers) with the often repeated "let the Israelis do it" when the US was contemplating
revenge for something the Arabs supposedly did.
As with air travel, any alliance with Israel is no benefit to anyone except Israel. No
Arab country likes them and would only ally with them if they are useful. Meanwhile, the
world is made miserable with things like travel, high gas prices and other discomforts for
its support of Israel. Most people don't even know the world's oil prices took a huge jump in
1973 for the US support for Israel in the 1973 Arab-Israeli war when OPEC announced its
worldwide embargo against the USA and its allies for the USA's interference in that war on
Israel's behalf. Oil prices never went back to their normal level after that.
"Speaking to the press on a JINSA conference call, Graham said the proposed agreement would
be a treaty that would protect Israel in case of an attack that constituted an "existential
threat".
We already provide this level of support.
Signing onto something as fluid as "existentialist threat" sounds a tad dicey. And just to
be clear, I think the US should exercise caution on these types of treaties. The agreements
with the Phillipines and Japan may already be causing some tension.
An often overlooked treaty was the one between Belgium and the United Kingdom. Without
that treaty WW I would have remained a fire in the backyard. Belgium would never have
engaged the fight against Germany without Britain's assurances. The skirmish between the
Germans and the French would have lasted for less than two months.
I don't know from what planet you hail, but Belgium did NOT "engage a fight against
Germany", rather the other way around. And the Germans were nasty fuckers too, not all of the
"atrocity stories" were fake news.
Also, that treaty could either be interpreted as "The British Empire will not attack
Belgium in the case of an European War" (likely) or "The British Empire will defend Belgium
in case it is attacked" (unlikely). The second interpretation was upheld in parliament by a
tiny margin – the political goal was to uphold continental balance of power and the
secret and privately made assurances about French/Imperial mutual support.
@Nik Here you go Nik, straight from the horses ass. Bolshevism was founded by the "Cabal"
for the purpose of enslaving the entire world in a one world government communist
dictatorship.
"Nobody knows that Zionism
appeared as a Marxist movement,
a socialist one Zionism is actually a revolution."
Sergei Lezov, scientist at the Soviet Academy of Science,
Institute for Scientific Information.
Strana i Mir magazine (Munich), No. 3, 1988, p. 94.
"The ideals of Bolshevism
at many points are consonant with
the finest ideals of Judaism."
Jewish Chronicle, 4th April 1919 (London).
Graham proves once again that congress is the lower house of the knesset and that they will
do anything that zionists that rule the zio/US want and by the way the zionists have had the
zio/US in a virtual mutual defense agreement since JFK's assassination, when the zionists had
JFK shot in front of America and sealed the deal about who was really running the country!
Read these books to see who runs America, JFK the CIA and Vietnam by Col. L. Fletcher
Prouty and Blood in the Water by Joan Mellen and The Secret Team by Col. L. Fletcher Prouty ,
and The Committee of 300 by John Coleman, all can be had on amazon.
@anon Hagee has seven million followers? We should call his and his followers' religion
something like CUFI-ism because of its radical departure from anything resembling
Christianity, and not least because CUFI-ism has no sixth or seventh commandments. With a
wife and two little kids at home, Reverend Hagee was apparently in church snortin' his
alleluias between the legs of another woman who he then married, mocking sin with brazen
scandal.
I gather these delusional CUFI's cheer when Israel and its American surrogate mass murder
hundreds of thousands of God's innocent children in Arab lands by aerial incineration and
point-blank shooting on street patrols. Such are America's "heroes in uniform," who,
incredibly, just yesterday were being labeled baby killers by the kosher msm, back when their
chief objective was overthrowing the government of the United States. As a Vietnam combat vet
I can vouch for the seething, almost spluttering hatred spewed in my and my wife's face in
the early 70's at a Jewish party we attended in our building in NYC. Now that the Army is
doing International Jewry's bidding, its flacks like Sean Hannity tell us you're all of a
sudden a hero for being in uniform in service to Israel.
If America's culture and so its destiny is essentially a reflection of its religion, we
can reasonably judge our prospects by the CUFI's and their evangelical preachers who've
turned Christianity into a mass-murdering cult that'd make Moloch blush, where God's favor is
judged by the SUV or pick up you drive to the Sunday rock concert at some modernistic temple
of statolatry. The pride and smugness of these CUFI's and evangelicals is by itself enough to
ensure we're doomed, assuming there's any cosmic justice left. If you haven't seen it, I
recommend having a look at the video of Kenneth Copeland and Jesse Duplantis defending their
private jets. As Brother Copeland put it, they can't fly on commercial airlines because they
can't talk to God in them tubes filled with demons.
@A.R A.R. piqued my interest when having commented: "What a complete abomination America
has become. Shameful. I wonder what the american population of the 1760s would have done were
they alive today?"
Apparently, the percentage of colonial settler Jews in "The New World" Injun' lands was
small.
Nonetheless, and according to
Norman H. Finkelstein's short article, (linked down below), "The Revolutionary War & The
Jews," a sizeable majority of Jews favored the "Patriot" vision of a new & free Homeland,
but ambitious Jew businessmen had mixed feelings, given the advantageous mercantile freedoms
they enjoyed under British rule.
Haha. Today's Shabbos goy, Senator Lindsey Graham, would have been the Moneychanger Jews
main-Southern Man spokesman. (Zigh)
Would not surprise me had sneaky pro-King George Jews lobbied London to do a False Flag
attack upon Independence Hall, & blame the terror attack on extremist French "Yellow
& Black Robed Vests."
Even without this blank-check Treaty, the Jewish State has been a disaster for America and
the world. "Brain dead" Carolinians who keep Graham in the Senate? How about brain dead New
Yorkers who keep Israel-first Chuck Schumer there? Or our brain dead servile Congressmen, who
jumped to their feet 26 times to give the liar Netanyahu standing ovations? Who vote for
every Neocon war-for-Israel in the Middle East? Or brain dead Boobus Americanus, who has been
lobotomized by Zionist control of Congress, White House, Supreme Court, CIA, FBI, the Justice
Department, Media, Pentagon, Academe, NPR, daily newspapers and monthly magazines?
This defense contract will most definitely be Trump's "excuse" for war with Iran. Iran was
slated for war back in 2001.
The author is incredibly astute.
Trump is sounding more unhinged as the days go on. Imagine telling Jews that they are bad
Jews if they don't support Israel.
Some Jews disagreed with the statement and called him "anti-semetic". I frankly don't know
how they got to "anti-semetic" with that statement, but they managed. It was convoluted
reasoning. Notice that while they called it "anti-semetic", appearing to take issue with it
on that basis, none of them disagreed that they are "loyal" to Israel.
I personally feel no loyalty to Ireland or France because of my background and have no
problem at all saying it.
@Mark James I beg to differ on your assertion that israel has "delivery systems" for its
nuclear weapons.
I hope I am wrong, BUT fear that I am right
If a nuclear device is "lit off" in an American or European city, it will have Israel's
fingerprints all over it. Israel is desperate to keep the American money spigot running, as
well as sabotaging the Palestinian "peace process" that the world wants it to take
seriously.
In fact, if a nuclear device is "lit off" anywhere in the world, it will have come from
Israel's secret nuclear "stockpile".
The "power outage" in Atlanta was a convenient excuse for Israel to perform a logistical
"sleight of hand", as an Israeli plane was allowed to land and take off during the "power
outage" without receiving customs clearance or inspection. This is one of many Israeli
companies that possesses a "special exemption" granted by the U S government that frees it
from customs inspections.
Just maybe another one of Israel's nukes was just being pre-positioned or nuclear triggers
(tritium) were being renewed, getting ready for "the big one".
As most Americans are tired of all of the foreign wars being fought for Israel's benefit,
another "incident" on American soil would be enough to galvanize the American public, once
again, (just like WTC 9-11) to support another war for Israel's benefit. Israel's "samson
option" is a real threat to "light one off" in a European or American city, if Israel's
interests are not taken seriously.
Israel refuses to abide by IAEA guidelines concerning its nukes as they are already
distributed around the world. Israel would not be able to produce all of them as most of them
are not in Israel, proper.
No "delivery systems" are needed as Israel's nukes are already in place. Look for another
false flag operation with the blame being put on Iran or Syria. You can bet that some Iranian
or Syrian passports will be found in the rubble.
Israel has also threatened to detonate nuclear devices in several US cities. Talk about
total INSANITY; the so-called Samson Option is it.
Well!
Jews! Jews! and again Jews!
Anywhere you turn your head you will see ONLY Jews and .what is best for israel.
Former Malaysian Prime Minister, Mohamed Mahathir said:
"The Europeans killed six????? million Jews out of 12 million. But today the Jews rule this
world by proxy. They get others to fight and die for them."
Of course they rule the world by proxy.
They are capable to murder a barefoot Palestinian kid and nothing else. Which they are doing
it daily.
And then we have this traitor Lindsey Graham. I remember him a few years ago, walking in
arms with lunatic John McCain and the other guy, jew Joe Lieberman.
Remember this trio?
Now this flaming faggot [Patti LuPone ask Lindsey Graham to "come out"] wants American kids
to go fight and die for israel. Why he does not do it by himself?
The Revolutionary Guard Corps of Iran will take care of him.
Finally Mr. Giraldi is missing something in his article.
How about ..if Iran has the same defense agreement, with Mr. Putin?
Then what?
@anastasia The MSM in the zio/US and in zio/Britain and zio/Europe is controlled by
zionists and so Israel is the golden calf and can bomb the hell out of Syria and Iraq and
Yemen and Palestine and shoot Palestinian men, women and children almost daily and not a word
is heard!
However when Israel and the zio/US finally attack Iran , that will be a bridge too far,
and Russia will come in on the side of Iran, and finally these satanic zionists will have the
nuclear hell they have been wanting!
I have a feeling that the Zionist are going to get their Iran war.
The US public are idiotic enough to vote for Graham, and Trump is a turncoat with his "No
ME wars " pledge. And they're both probably being blackmailed. The Russians aren't going to
get into a war with the US over Iran, and Europe won't do anything as usual.
There is however, a question mark over the Chinese. Iran is their main source of oil
imports and they have been making big investments in the country. Also they're very irritated
by the ongoing Hong Kong colour revolution (the US trying to do to China what they did to
Russia with the Ukraine) and the arrest in Canada of a top Huawei executive (on a US
warrant).
The Chinese in combination with the Russians, are trying to exit from the US dollar, so
between them they would likely make an Iran war very messy, even without being directly
involved. The Iraq war was vastly expensive for the US and an Iran war could be more of the
same, especially when oil traffic through the Gulf is halted.
So this "defence" agreement with Israel could turn out very badly for the US public.
@Patrikios Stetsonis The overwhelming question, Patrikios Stetsonis asked: "What bout
..if Iran has the same defense agreement, with Mr. Putin? Then what?"
Then the American-Israeli must hesitate and hope for President Putin's government to
change & ideally throw the Islamic Republic "under the bus."
Thanks for projecting such intelligent foresight into Supremacist Jew planning, Patrikios!
Maybe even the pathetic Lindsey Graham, is party to the obstacle?
Rich: Abundant possessions, especially material wealth.
Selfish: Unquiet with one's own well-being without regard for others.
Beggar: One who lives by asking for gifts or charity.
Backlash to neoliberalism fuels interest in national socialism ideology... and netional
socialist critique of financial oligarchy controlled "democratic states" was often poignant and
up to a point. Which doesn't means that the ideology itself was right.
However, as the people cannot spontaneously make and express their opinion on a mass scale,
the media comes to play a critical role in shaping public opinion: "The decisive question is:
Who enlightens the people? Who educates the people?" The answer is, of course,
the media. In this, Hitler's assessment is an exaggerated version of what Alexis de Tocqueville had
observed a century earlier in his classic work, Democracy in America :
When a large number of press organs manage to march along the same path, their influence
in the long run becomes almost irresistible, and public opinion, always struck upon the same
side, ends up giving way under their blows.
In Western democracies, Hitler claims: "Capital actually rules in these countries, that is,
nothing more than a clique of a few hundred men who possess untold wealth." Furthermore
"freedom" refers primarily to "economic freedom," which means the oligarchs' "freedom
from national control." In a classic self-reinforcing cycle, the rich and powerful get
richer and more powerful through influence over the political process. Today, this has
culminated in the existence of the notorious "1%" so demonized by Occupy Wall Street.
The oligarchs, according to Hitler, establish and control the media:
These capitalists create their own press and then speak of "freedom of the press." In
reality, every newspaper has a master and in every case this master is the capitalist, the
owner. This master, not the editor, is the one who directs the policy of the paper. If the
editor tries to write something other than what suits the master, he is outed the next day.
This press, which is the absolutely submissive and character slave of its owners, molds
public opinions.
Hitler also emphasizes the incestuous relations and purely cosmetic differences between
mainstream democratic political parties:
The difference between these parties is small, as it formerly was in Germany. You know
them of course, the old parties. They were always one and the same. In Britain matters are
usually so arranged so that families are divided up, one member being conservative, another
liberal, and a third belonging to the Labour Party. Actually all three sit together as
members of the family and decide upon their common attitude.
This cliquishness means that "on all essential matters . . . the parties are always in
agreement" and the difference between "Government" and "Opposition" is largely election-time
theatrics. This critique will resonate with those who fault the "Republicrats," the
"Westminster village," or indeed the various pro-EU parties for being largely
indistinguishable. This is often especially the case on foreign policy, Chomsky's area of
predilection.
Hitler goes on, with brutally effective sarcasm, to describe how it was in these democracies
where the people supposedly rule that there was the most inequality: "You might think that in
these countries of freedom and wealth, the people must have an unlimited degree of prosperity.
But no!" Britain not only controlled "one-sixth of the world" and the impoverished millions of
India, but itself had notoriously deep class divisions and suffering working classes. There was
a similar situation in France and the United States: "There is poverty – incredible
poverty – on one side and equally incredible wealth on the other." These democracies had
furthermore been unable to combat unemployment during the Great Depression, in contrast to
Germany's innovative economic policies.
Hitler then goes on to mock the Labour Party, which was participating in the government for
the duration of the war, for promising social welfare and holidays for the poor after the war:
"It is is remarkable that they should at last hit upon the idea that traveling should not be
something for millionaires alone, but for the people too." Hitlerite Germany, along with
Fascist Italy, had long pioneered the organization of mass tourism to the benefit of working
people. (Something which traditionalists like the Italian aristocrat Julius Evola bitterly
criticized them for.)
Ultimately, in the Western democracies "as is shown by their whole economic structure, the
selfishness of a relatively small stratum rules under the mask of democracy; the egoism of a
very small social class." Hitler concludes: "It is self-evident that where this democracy
rules, the people as such are not taken into consideration at all. The only thing that matters
is the existence a few hundred gigantic capitalists who own all the factories and their stock
and, through them, control the people."
... ... ...
In practice, Western liberal regimes' democratic pretensions are exaggerated. Various
studies have found that when elite and majority opinion clash, the American elite is over time
able to impose its policies onto the majority (examples of this include U.S. intervention in
both World Wars and mass Third World immigration since the 1960s, opposed by the people and
promoted by the elite)
... ... ...
In fact, all regimes have different elite factions and bureaucracies competing for power.
All regimes have a limited ideological spectrum of authorized opinion, a limited spectrum of
what can and cannot be discussed, criticized, or politically represented. This isn't to say
that liberal-democratic and openly authoritarian regimes are identical, but the distinction has
been exaggerated. I have known plenty of Westerners who, frothing at the mouth at any mention
of the "authoritarian" Donald Trump or Marine Le Pen, were quite happy to visit, do business,
or work in China, Singapore, the United Arab Emirates, or Israel (the latter being a perfect
Jewish democracy but highly authoritarian towards the Palestinians). Westerners really are sick
in the head.
The liberals' claim to uphold freedom of thought and democracy will ring hollow to many: to
the Trump supporters and academics (such as Charles Murray) who were physically assaulted for
attending public events and to those fired or punished for their scientific beliefs (James
Watson, James Damore, Noah Carl).
What the ideal regime is surely depends on time and place. Jean-Baptiste Duchasseint, a
politician of the French Third Republic, had a point when he said: "I prefer a parliamentary
chamber than the antechamber of a dictator." Liberal-democracies allow for regular changeovers
of power, transparent feedback between society and government, and the cultivation of a habit
of give-and-take between citizens. But it would be equally dishonest to deny
liberal-democracy's leveling tendency, its unconscious (and thereby, dangerous) elitism and
authoritarianism (dangerous because unconscious), its difficulty in enforcing values, its
promotion of division among the citizenry, or, frequently, its failure to act in times of
emergency. The democrats claim they are entitled to undermine and destroy, whether by peaceful
or violent methods, every government on this Earth which they consider "undemocratic." This
strikes me as, at best, unwise and dangerous.
The question is not whether a society "really has" free speech or democracy. In the
absolute, these are impossible. The question is whether the particular spectrum of free
discussion and the particular values promoted by the society are, in fact, salutary for that
society. In China, unlike the West, you are not allowed to attack the government. Yet, I
understand that in China one is freer to discuss issues concerning Jews, race, and eugenics
than in the West. These issues, in fact, may be far more important to promoting a healthy
future for the human race than the superficial and divisive mudslinging of the West's
reality-TV democracies.W
Nice well written & researched thought provoking article by Guillaume Durocher.
Hitler most likely served the Zionist Bankers, as his "Night of the Longknives" –
1934, rid the Nazi movement of its anti-capitalist element.
Hitler did not effectively criticize Zionism or the ruinous financial system. He blamed
the Versailles Treaty for most of Germany's ills.
Noam Chomsky has had more serious political and economic analysis to offer over the
decades, than most any other American. He has authored more than 100 books.
Hitler and his movement led the German people into the trap (perhaps a Zionist trap), of
ruinous (to Europe), Imperialist Conflict, and in that, and in his racialist approach,
resembles Churchill, and the British Royal Family more than he could ever admit.
Strikingly, Hitler does not mention Jewish media ownership or influence at all,
At 3:21 in the archive.org video he refers to "das auserwählte Volk" (the chosen
people) which supposedly controls and directs all parties for its own interests.
Anyway, do you really think it's a good idea for modern nationalists to link themselves to
Hitler and the 3rd Reich (because many of your articles could be interpreted that way, as if
Hitler was some profound thinker who has to be read by every nationalist today)?
Yes, the man wasn't as stupid as is often claimed today, and some elements of Nazism are
certainly attractive if seen in isolation but the fact remains that Hitler, without any
really compelling necessity, initiated one of the most destructive wars in history and then
had his followers commit some of the worst mass murders ever.
The "revisionists" posting on UR may be able to ignore that, but most people won't.
In practice, Western liberal regimes' democratic pretensions are exaggerated. Various
studies have found that when elite and majority opinion clash, the American elite is over
time able to impose its policies onto the majority (examples of this include U.S.
intervention in both World Wars and mass Third World immigration since the 1960s, opposed
by the people and promoted by the elite).
That's it? "Western liberal regimes' democratic pretensions are exaggerated"?
There are differences in _every_ society between different groups, which include different
income levels. In the Western liberal regimes of the 1950s and 1960s, daily life was more or
less left alone, and it was quite possible to over-rule the rich. There was a 90% tax on
income over a fairly modest amount of income! As for the "American elite is over time able to
impose its policies onto the majority" it wasn't the rich who do that back then, nor is it
the rich who do it now. It's the Left, acquiesced to by the rich. The difference is that the
rich now rich with political sufferance, or perhaps because of politics, which was much less
the case back then.
In other words, the article as a deception from start to end. Minerva's owl flies at dusk
(you understand things when they're ending), and the deception becomes more obvious as our
current system fails.
Another one whitewashing Fascism to make it an acceptable ideology to save the white race.
The first edition killed 12 million Germans, twice as many Russians and many more millions of
other Europeans. What for? To make America great, perhaps
The author is unfurling his full colours; maybe grateful for Hitler's mercy on France?
Agree that the article is a very good one. Clever idea to compare Hitler with Chomsky,
"bien étonnés de se trouver ensemble." However, Hitler was certainly not
alone in his lucid criticism of "western democracy," nor is Chomsky the only lucid
post-Hitlerian critic of what is called democracy. Who does not recall Michael Parenti's
wonderful Democracy for the Few, from 1974?
As for Hitler being genuine, or intellectually honest in his criticism, better not even
ask. Like all major politicians, including FDR, the repulsive Churchill, Stalin e tutti
quanti, Hitler was a psychopath and a murderer. Anyone still nurturing romantic thoughts
on Hitler better read Guido Giacomo Preparata, Conjuring Hitler. How Britain and America
Made the Third Reich (2005). Best proof that Preparata was absolutely right with his
richly documented book is the fact that his academic career was abruptly ended: no tenure for
dissidents, especially when they write books containing uncomfortable truths.
The only people allowed to tell "uncomfortable truths" are used-car salesmen and swindlers
such as Al Gore.
Adolf Hitler Speech: Löwenbräukeller Munich November 8 1940
When I came to power, I took over from a nation that was a democracy. Indeed, it is now
sometimes shown to the world as if one would be automatically ready to give everything to
the German nation if it were only a democracy. Yes, the German people was at that time a
democracy before us, and it has been plundered and squeezed dry. No. what does democracy or
authoritarian state mean for these international hyenas! That they are not at all
interested in. They are only interested in one thing: Is anyone willing to let themselves
be plundered? Yes or no? Is anyone stupid enough to keep quiet in the process? Yes or no?
And when a democracy is stupid enough to keep quiet, then it is good. And when an
authoritarian government declares: "You do not plunder our people any longer, neither from
inside nor from outside," then that is bad. If we, as a so-called authoritarian state,
which differs from the democracies by having the masses of the people behind it; if we as
an authoritarian state had also complied with all the sacrifices that the international
plutocrats encumbered us with; if I had said in 1933, "Esteemed Sirs in Geneva" or
"Esteemed Sirs," as far as I am concerned, somewhere else, "what would you have do? Aha, we
will immediately write it on the slate: 6 billion for 1933, 1934, 1935, all right we will
deliver. Is there anything else you would like? Yes, Sir we will also deliver that" Then
they would have said: "At last a sensible regime in Germany."
Western media is not "cooperative", they are owned.
JP Morgan famously bought up controlling interest in major newspapers in 1917 to prevent
significant media opposition to the US entering WWI. The Counsel on Foreign Relations was
created in the early 1920s to maintain control over the national dialog and they have ever
since. The CIA Project Mockingbird tightened control. Every presidential cabinet since is
saturated with CFR members. As a result most Americans are disastrously misinformed about
just about everything. 1984 happened decades before 1984.
@Hans Vogel Parenti's book is one of the few assigned college textbooks I still have on
my shelf. A classic that I rarely hear spoken of; I guess my liberal arts education wasn't
entirely wasted.
Extolling Hitler and/or the Nazis is, apart from anything else, totally counter-productive.
We can argue about the rewriting of history but the simple fact is that any association with
him/them is poisonous to the public mind.
What I took from the piece was that Hitler, despite being an evil bastard, was right about
some things. This shouldn't be surprising and isn't a defense of Nazism (which as a Christian
I have to regard as evil.) The fact that Hitler and Chomsky agree shows this isn't a defense
of Nazism.
@German_reader So called revisionists are bunch of morons. Hitler was, without lapsing
into moralizing, a very specific product of a very specific time, a charismatic leader of a
great humiliated nation during a deep crisis in all Western civilization (this includes
Russia, too).
Now, Europe & Europe-derived peoples face a completely different crisis (or various
crises), so that what Hitler was or wasn't is utterly irrelevant to our contemporary
condition & its challenges.
It does no good to try to defend Hitler, regardless of the many correct observations he made
over the years of his public life. He was as important a commentator as, say, Paul Krugman,
but his opinions will never overcome his actions. Comparing him to Krugman or Chomsky makes
an interesting debating point, but ultimately fails for lack of context.
If you are trying to argue that capitalist democracy, Anglo-American style, has grievous
flaws, you're going to have to show what they are and why they will lead to calamity. I'd say
we need a real discussion on federal budgeting insanity, for one, which threatens the
economic downfall of the West and, probably, of the universe, except maybe for Russia, which
has already suffered through its great downfall. How that connects to Anglo-American
democracy is simple: the British borrowed and made war around the world to its virtual
collapse and then had the great insight to be able, via FDR, to tie the prosperity of the
United States to its failures, until the great engine of prosperity that we once were comes
clanking to pieces.
The fascists weren't wrong on policy during peacetime, but were too optimistic about being
able to take over the world by war.
Both the liberal (Democratic) and conservative (Republican) wings of the U.S.
aristocracy hate and want to conquer Russia's Government. The real question now is whether
that fact will cause the book on this matter to be closed as being unprofitable for both
sides of the U.S. aristocracy; or, alternatively, which of those two sides will succeed in
skewering the other over this matter.
At the present stage, the Republican billionaires seem likelier to win if this internal
battle between the two teams of billionaires' political agents continues on. If they do,
and Trump wins re-election by having exposed the scandal of the Obama Administration's
having manufactured the fake Russiagate-Trump scandal, then Obama himself could end up
being convicted. However, if Trump loses -- as is widely expected -- then Obama is safe,
and Trump will likely be prosecuted on unassociated criminal charges.
To be President of the United States is now exceedingly dangerous. Of course,
assassination is the bigger danger; but, now, there will also be the danger of
imprisonment. A politician's selling out to billionaires in order to reach the top can
become especially risky when billionaires are at war against each other -- and not merely
against some foreign ('enemy') aristocracy. At this stage of American 'democracy', the
public are irrelevant. But the political battle might be even hotter than ever, without the
gloves, than when the public were the gloves.
"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of
acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum -- even encourage the
more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking
going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the
limits put on the range of the debate."
Yes that quotation by Chomsky is exactly correct, and Chomsky is an expert in that
area.
He is a loyal servant of the oligarchs, the MIT intellectual who has devoted his life
to keeping the lid on acceptable debate but is silent on the most important event of the 21st
Century in order to serve his Zionist masters.
Any person who goes beyond that accepted level of debate is either ostracized, imprisoned
or assassinated.
Liberal-democracies allow for regular changeovers of power, transparent feedback between
society and government, and the cultivation of a habit of give-and-take between
citizens.
Except that is not true at all. All major Western countries today, UK, France, USA and
Germany, are ruled by an effective one-party state, stabilized and its agenda multiplied by
its media companies, often state owned, the agenda enforced by apparatschiks, secured by the
police force and internationalized physically with the military and with great propaganda by
the media-entertainment complex – today even effectively monopolized by US companies
like Google/YouTube and Facebook.
Whether you look at BREXIT, votes on an EU constitution, or the Donald Trump presidency:
what the majority of the people want is not important to the permanent ruling and owning
class.
The politicians and sanctioned talking-heads are there to deceive us. Obama und Trump are
two sides of the same coin: carefully crafted advertisement campaigns to secure the interests
and goals of the elite in the long run.
Progressiv interests first with Obama and now reactionary interests have been encorporated
as messages and propaganda to neuter both. Now the left talks about gender neutral toilets,
trans kids and pronouns, instead of stagnant wages for decades and a predatory elite. Just
like the right talks about Trump's tweets, Q and is lost in the media skinner-box and his
personality cult, while Trump himself broke every single point he campaigned on (Except those
that serve the 1% and Israel.) and is owned by the same lobby which produces the artificial
reality Trump cultists bought into.
Political-media theater was and is orchestrated, so the true core of power stays untouched
and stable: the very small capitalist class who owns 90% of the net wealth in the USA (it's
getting increasingly similar in Europe as it is being Americanized in the process of
globalization); the superordinate megacompanies; the military-industrial complex; Wall Street
and (Central) Banking; special interests and lobbies of which the Israeli-Jewish Lobby is the
strongest.
And the cultural totalitarianism of today and its artifical reality is superior to
that of the old physical dictatorships, because in mass-media democracy not only does the
subject believe himself to be free, because the tools of his own enslavement are not visible;
only in it the subject gives his own concession to his own subjugation by his vote. While all
paths to real change, revolution or revolt are as cut off from him as under Stalin or
Mao.
Well, if the idea is to spread the message, any mention or reference to Hitler will be
totally devastating in the public arena. It's like participating in a marathon run and start
off by cutting off your legs.
Just recently I saw some posts on facebook from someone local to me preaching about Nordic
brotherhood. He posted few pictures and all of them had Hitlers face somewhere in the
background. FB shut it down within hours
What's interesting is the same message could have been presented differently without much
effort. Sliding past FB filters for days or even weeks and possibly influenced some people in
the meantime. So I wonder who was actually behind it – my guess is either a complete
idiot or someone eager to vilify nationalism and people concerned with racial issues.
@Exile " . . . [I]f sources as divergent as Hitler and Chomsky agree on the flaws of
capitalism/neo=liberal democracy, it lends credibility to those criticisms . . .".
Exile, that's exactly how I read it.
Our political problems aren't that difficult to understand:
Democrats – Sell-out to crony capitalism and global capitalism. Offers an Identity
Politics Plantation for rent-seekers and legitimacy-seekers as political camouflage.
Republicans – Sell-out to crony capitalism and global capitalism. Offers a Freedom
and Opportunity Plantation as political camouflage.
As far as I can tell, we really don't have an American or Americanist politics that tells
me I ought to give a meaninful damn about my fellow citizens in the 'hood, the gated 'burbs,
and everywhere else because, fuckin' 'ey, they're my fellow Americans.
Durocher's not romanticizing or white-washing here, he's making a serious point: if
sources as divergent as Hitler and Chomsky agree on the flaws of capitalism/neo=liberal
democracy, it lends credibility to those criticisms and makes it harder to refute them by
ad hominem or accusations of bias on the part of the critics.
Lordy. _That_ is your argument? The big loser in WW II and an academic agree that US
society should be reorganized? Add in Pol Pot, Stalin, Marx, Trotsky, Putin, Mussolini, and
BLM, not to mention the Wobblies, if you like. The argument remains unconvincing. Peterson's
"first, demonstrate your competence by cleaning and organizing your room and then your home
and your affairs, _then_ try to re-make the world. None of the above, except perhaps Putin,
could have passed that test.
Q: Is Marxism a science or a philosophy?
A: Philosophy. If it were a science they'd have tried it out on dogs first.
@Miggle And how can there be "checks" when everything is "classified", and when Julian
Assange has to be murdered in a US prison but it will be made to look like suicide?
"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of
acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum -- even encourage the
more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking
going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the
limits put on the range of the debate. – Noam Chomsky"
COMMENT: Chomsky is talking about the Overton window: the range of ideas that "The Powers
That Be" (TPTB) will allow in public discussion.
EXAMPLES:
(1) Tucker Carson recently went outside the Overton window, when he said "white supremacy is
a hoax", then TPTB immediately "vacationed" him for political reeducation, and now he is
safely back within the window, rattling his cage on issues harmless to TPTB.
(2) The Controlled Protest Press (CPP) will often blame economic problems on the
Federal-Reserve making wrong moves, and suggest the right moves the Fed should make instead,
as the correct solution. But the CPP will never suggest that the correct solution is to end
the Fed and the private currency they issue, and to return the currency-issuing power to the
government, as required by the constitution (Article I Section 8). Because that's outside the
Overton window.
(3) The CPP will often complain about the government ignoring warning signs before the
9/11 attack, and botching their response after it happened. But the CPP will never suggest
the whole thing was an inside job to garner public support for bankers oil wars in the middle
east. Because that's outside the Overton window.
when elite and majority opinion clash, the American elite is over time able to impose
its policies onto the majority (examples of this include U.S. intervention in both World
Wars and mass Third World immigration since the 1960s, opposed by the people and promoted
by the elite).
@Professional Stranger CHOMSKY himself always stays within the Overton window, and makes
a show of it:
https://www.youtube.com/embed/ZrEDo9ChSdQ?feature=oembed
Chomsky goes beyond maintaining a strategic silence on 9/11, to inciting smear-campaigns
against skeptics of the official narrative of 9/11. He demeans "truthers": "Their lives are
no good Their lives are collapsing They are people at a loss Nothing makes any sense They
don't understand what an explanation is They think they are experts in physics and civil
engineering on the basis of one hour on the Internet."
I think you should ask the Slavic untermenschen; Poles, Czechs, Serbs, Byelorussians &
Ukranians what their experience of occupation by the Wehrmacht was like. Poland alone lost 5
million civilians with Ukraine losing a similar number.
To be President of the United States is now exceedingly dangerous. Of course,
assassination is the bigger danger; but, now, there will also be the danger of
imprisonment. A politician's selling out to billionaires in order to reach the top can
become especially risky when billionaires are at war against each other -- and not merely
against some foreign ('enemy') aristocracy.
Interesting concept. When the elites go after each other; that is when you know empire is
in rapid decline.
Other powers may just simply wait it out.
@JackOH You summed up very well the nature of the duopoly ruling the US for donkey's
years. Representative democracy is a licence for political power by a small clique over the
people. Obviously, both Fascism (Hitler) and Socialism (Marx) agree on that, but for
different reasons. And so does anyone with some basic understanding of how the political
process works.
But the article goes further than stating the obvious: the intention – in my mind
– is to show that, because Hitler and Chomsky are in agreement about the deception of
"democracy", then Fascism is a reputable ideology, so much so that Chomsky, by association,
gives his imprimatur to that perception. Durocher (a self-declared racist) is just another
purveyor of the Nazis' lies attempting to dress that ideology with respectable robes.
Nothing new there. Afterall Hitler also called his political party "Socialism", the term
stolen from the party he infiltrated for its popular appeal. As soon as he grabbed
dictatorial power he imprisoned the socialists.
@Biff Roman elites started to attack each other in 133 B.C., and the civil wars lasted a
century. The Roman Empire survived several centuries after that.
@Mikemikev Why not stick to discussing the ideas in the essay?
It is pathetic to fall back on the ad hominem "Hitler!" excuse for not engaging with the
ideas.
Perhaps Durocher is wrong in the ideas he attributes to Hitler.
For myself I have always found it interesting that the basic concept of "national"
"socialism" (let's just look at those words separately) seems to bear thinking over: A
socialism that is not a international system but is based on a nation. Obviously how you
define a nation is pretty important.
Interestingly, now the Jews/Zionists have defined themselves as a nation (whether or not
the citizens of this nation actually live in Israel). And the point of this nation certainly
appears to be to confer all of the benefits of citizenship in the nation only on that
nation's citizens and on no others. Many of the benefits of citizenship seem to be of a
socialist nature: quite a few freebies such as education, health care, vacations at the
seashore in special hotels, free housing (on land stolen from the natives), etc. etc. So,
this Jewish nation certainly seems to espouse a version of socialism that is nation-based.
I.e., national socialism.
@The_seventh_shape We'll see. Stalin asked "how many divisions does the Pope have?" The
Chair is still there, the Soviet Union is gone – God works in mysterious ways.
TURTLE in COMMENT 169: There is. or at least was, a professor in the Department of
Materials Science & Engineering at MIT, where Chomsky is Professor Emeritus of
Linguistics, who spoke out publicly regarding certain anomalies found in the debris of the
twin towers (not Building 7). Prof. Chomsky could have simply walked across campus and, no
doubt, gotten an audience with his fellow faculty member, had he chosen to do so.
Ridiculing the public statements of someone with actual expertise in a relevant field by
implying that none who have spoken out are qualified to do so is intellectually dishonest
in the extreme.
Chomsky is a fraud.
STRANGER: Agreed! There are also the 1500 architects and engineers at "Architects &
Engineers for 9/11 Truth" https://www.ae911truth.org/ who have spoken out, and who
are well qualified to do so. Same goes for Pilots for 9/11 Truth http://pilotsfor911truth.org/ .
Fascinating! I'm reminded of Noam Chomsky's Manufactured Consent quite a bit lately
due to the reckless deplatforming. As a "recovering anarchist," I sometimes wonder have I
moved right? Or has the left moved left? Thank you for writing!
Chomsky has valid critiques of US power and its use. He points out the evil done in the name
of the people re: capitalism (which benefits those who live off their capital. These people
travel the world in search of people to screw over and drop like bad habits. See – wood
and coal industries in West Virginia, USA.
That Israel is a ethno state is no coincidence, it is exactly the belonging to the group
which makes for a strong nation. All of "us" against all of "them". That Israel doesn't have
the mass influx of aliens as white European nations must suffer should be instructive. They
learned this from the NDSP as evidenced by the tactics of ghettoization on the Palestinians.
They even have the strange belief that walls work.
Civic nationalism makes a lotta sense, but one must feel connection to the land, the
people and the overarching nation of which they are a part. What multicultural gubbamint has
lasted without friction between its peoples and for how long? Most western nations are the
only ones with the multiculti death wish. Why do people migrate to hideous racist white
nations? Do they can gripe about whatever they want while living high on the hog, of
course!
Why don't people migrate to Israel, Japan, Cape Verde or Burundi? Because they either
don't let many "others" in by defacto law or nobody wants to go because of dejure common
sense.
If the neoliberal ruling classes expect to keep the American masses worked up into a
white-eyed hysteria over "fascism" until November 2020, they're going to need to get some
better Nazis. The current Nazis are just not going to cut it. They are neither scary nor Nazi
enough. OK, the militia ones look kind of scary, and that "Based Spartan" guy looks kind of uh,
weird, but most of them just look like regular old rednecks. How hard would it be to get them
some brown shirts, or those khaki pants like they wore in Charlottesville, or some other type
of Nazi-like uniform?
And some jackboots. People love those jackboots.
Seriously, the Resistance need to get their official narrative optics in order, and they
need to do it without delay. Millions of liberals are standing by to be brainwashed into a
year-long frenzy of manufactured mass "fascism" hysteria, but they are going to need some
halfway convincing Nazis to spastically freak out over. A few hundred bozos in MAGA hats
parading around with American flags does not exactly a Sturmabteilung make.
"... Obviously, a large fraction of everything described by our government leaders or presented in the pages of our most respectable newspapers -- from the 9/11 attacks to the most insignificant local case of petty urban corruption -- could objectively be categorized as a "conspiracy theory" but such words are never applied. ..."
"... Put another way, there are good "conspiracy theories" and bad "conspiracy theories," with the former being the ones promoted by pundits on mainstream television shows and hence never described as such ..."
"... by the time we attacked Iraq in 2003, polls revealed that some 70% of the American public believed that Saddam was personally involved in the destruction of our World Trade Center. By that date I don't doubt that many millions of patriotic but low-information Americans would have angrily denounced and vilified as a "crazy conspiracy theorist" anyone with the temerity to suggest that Saddam had not been behind 9/11, despite almost no one in authority having ever explicitly made such a fallacious claim. ..."
"... Based on an important FOIA disclosure, the book's headline revelation was that the CIA was very likely responsible for the widespread introduction of "conspiracy theory" as a term of political abuse, having orchestrated that development as a deliberate means of influencing public opinion. ..."
"... So as a means of damage control, the CIA distributed a secret memo to all its field offices requesting that they enlist their media assets in efforts to ridicule and attack such critics as irrational supporters of "conspiracy theories." Soon afterward, there suddenly appeared statements in the media making those exact points, with some of the wording, arguments, and patterns of usage closely matching those CIA guidelines. The result was a huge spike in the pejorative use of the phrase, which spread throughout the American media, with the residual impact continueing right down to the present day. Thus, there is considerable evidence in support of this particular "conspiracy theory" explaining the widespread appearance of attacks on "conspiracy theories" in the public media. ..."
"... But although the CIA appears to have effectively manipulated public opinion in order to transform the phrase "conspiracy theory" into a powerful weapon of ideological combat, the author also describes how the necessary philosophical ground had actually been prepared a couple of decades earlier. Around the time of the Second World War, an important shift in political theory caused a huge decline in the respectability of any "conspiratorial" explanation of historical events. ..."
"... Meanwhile, Strauss, a founding figure in modern neo-conservative thought, was equally harsh in his attacks upon conspiracy analysis, but for polar-opposite reasons. In his mind, elite conspiracies were absolutely necessary and beneficial, a crucial social defense against anarchy or totalitarianism, but their effectiveness obviously depended upon keeping them hidden from the prying eyes of the ignorant masses. His main problem with "conspiracy theories" was not that they were always false, but they might often be true, and therefore their spread was potentially disruptive to the smooth functioning of society. So as a matter of self-defense, elites needed to actively suppress or otherwise undercut the unauthorized investigation of suspected conspiracies. ..."
"... This argument may be more than purely hypothetical. A crucial turning point in America's renewed Cold War against Russia was the passage of the 2012 Magnitsky Act by Congress, punitively targeting various supposedly corrupt Russian officials for their alleged involvement in the illegal persecution and death of an employee of Bill Browder, an American hedge-fund manager with large Russian holdings. However, there's actually quite a bit of evidence that it was Browder himself who was actually the mastermind and beneficiary of the gigantic corruption scheme, while his employee was planning to testify against him and was therefore fearful of his life for that reason. Naturally, the American media has provided scarcely a single mention of these remarkable revelations regarding what might amount to a gigantic Magnitsky Hoax of geopolitical significance. ..."
"... To some extent the creation of the Internet and the vast proliferation of alternative media outlets, including my own small webzine , have somewhat altered this depressing picture. So it is hardly surprising that a very substantial fraction of the discussion dominating these Samizdat-like publications concerns exactly those subjects regularly condemned as "crazy conspiracy theories" by our mainstream media organs. ..."
"... Such unfiltered speculation must surely be a source of considerable irritation and worry to government officials who have long relied upon the complicity of their tame media organs to allow their serious misdeeds to pass unnoticed and unpunished. Indeed, several years ago a senior Obama Administration official argued that the free discussion of various "conspiracy theories" on the Internet was so potentially harmful that government agents should be recruited to "cognitively infiltrate" and disrupt them, essentially proposing a high-tech version of the highly controversial Cointelpro operations undertaken by J. Edgar Hoover's FBI. ..."
A year or two ago, I saw the much-touted science fiction film Interstellar , and
although the plot wasn't any good, one early scene was quite amusing. For various reasons, the
American government of the future claimed that our Moon Landings of the late 1960s had been
faked, a trick aimed at winning the Cold War by bankrupting Russia into fruitless space efforts
of its own. This inversion of historical reality was accepted as true by nearly everyone, and
those few people who claimed that Neil Armstrong had indeed set foot on the Moon were
universally ridiculed as "crazy conspiracy theorists." This seems a realistic portrayal of
human nature to me.
Obviously, a large fraction of everything described by our government leaders or presented
in the pages of our most respectable newspapers -- from the 9/11 attacks to the most
insignificant local case of petty urban corruption -- could objectively be categorized as a
"conspiracy theory" but such words are never applied. Instead, use of that highly loaded phrase
is reserved for those theories, whether plausible or fanciful, that do not possess the
endorsement stamp of establishmentarian approval.
Put another way, there are good "conspiracy theories" and bad "conspiracy theories," with
the former being the ones promoted by pundits on mainstream television shows and hence never
described as such. I've sometimes joked with people that if ownership and control of our
television stations and other major media outlets suddenly changed, the new information regime
would require only a few weeks of concerted effort to totally invert all of our most famous
"conspiracy theories" in the minds of the gullible American public. The notion that nineteen
Arabs armed with box-cutters hijacked several jetliners, easily evaded our NORAD air defenses,
and reduced several landmark buildings to rubble would soon be universally ridiculed as the
most preposterous "conspiracy theory" ever to have gone straight from the comic books into the
minds of the mentally ill, easily surpassing the absurd "lone gunman" theory of the JFK
assassination.
Even without such changes in media control, huge shifts in American public beliefs have
frequently occurred in the recent past, merely on the basis of implied association. In the
initial weeks and months following the 2001 attacks, every American media organ was enlisted to
denounce and vilify Osama Bin Laden, the purported Islamicist master-mind, as our greatest
national enemy, with his bearded visage endlessly appearing on television and in print, soon
becoming one of the most recognizable faces in the world. But as the Bush Administration and
its key media allies prepared a war against Iraq, the images of the Burning Towers were instead
regularly juxtaposed with mustachioed photos of dictator Saddam Hussein, Bin Laden's
arch-enemy. As a consequence, by the time we attacked Iraq in 2003, polls revealed that some
70% of the American
public believed that Saddam was personally involved in the destruction of our World Trade
Center. By that date I don't doubt that many millions of patriotic but low-information
Americans would have angrily denounced and vilified as a "crazy conspiracy theorist" anyone
with the temerity to suggest that Saddam had not been behind 9/11, despite almost no one
in authority having ever explicitly made such a fallacious claim.
These factors of media manipulation were very much in my mind a couple of years ago
when I stumbled across a short but fascinating book published by the University of Texas
academic press. The author of Conspiracy Theory in Americawas Prof. Lance deHaven-Smith, a former president of
the Florida Political Science Association.
Based on an important FOIA disclosure, the book's headline revelation was that the CIA was
very likely responsible for the widespread introduction of "conspiracy theory" as a term of
political abuse, having orchestrated that development as a deliberate means of influencing
public opinion.
During the mid-1960s there had been increasing public skepticism about the Warren Commission
findings that a lone gunman, Lee Harvey Oswald, had been solely responsible for President
Kennedy's assassination, and growing suspicions that top-ranking American leaders had also been
involved. So as a means of damage control, the CIA distributed a secret memo to all its field
offices requesting that they enlist their media assets in efforts to ridicule and attack such
critics as irrational supporters of "conspiracy theories." Soon afterward, there suddenly
appeared statements in the media making those exact points, with some of the wording,
arguments, and patterns of usage closely matching those CIA guidelines. The result was a huge
spike in the pejorative use of the phrase, which spread throughout the American media, with the
residual impact continueing right down to the present day. Thus, there is considerable evidence
in support of this particular "conspiracy theory" explaining the widespread appearance of
attacks on "conspiracy theories" in the public media.
But although the CIA appears to have effectively manipulated public opinion in order to
transform the phrase "conspiracy theory" into a powerful weapon of ideological combat, the
author also describes how the necessary philosophical ground had actually been prepared a
couple of decades earlier. Around the time of the Second World War, an important shift in
political theory caused a huge decline in the respectability of any "conspiratorial"
explanation of historical events.
For decades prior to that conflict, one of our most prominent scholars and public
intellectuals had been historian Charles Beard , whose influential writings
had heavily focused on the harmful role of various elite conspiracies in shaping American
policy for the benefit of the few at the expense of the many, with his examples ranging from
the earliest history of the United States down to the nation's entry into WWI. Obviously,
researchers never claimed that all major historical events had hidden causes, but it was widely
accepted that some of them did, and attempting to investigate those possibilities was deemed a
perfectly acceptable academic enterprise.
However, Beard was a strong opponent of American entry into the Second World War, and he was
marginalized in the years that followed, even prior to his death in 1948. Many younger public
intellectuals of a similar bent also suffered the same fate, or were even purged from
respectability and denied any access to the mainstream media. At the same time, the totally
contrary perspectives of two European political philosophers, Karl Popper and Leo Strauss , gradually gained ascendancy in
American intellectual circles, and their ideas became dominant in public life.
Popper, the more widely influential, presented broad, largely theoretical objections to the
very possibility of important conspiracies ever existing, suggesting that these would be
implausibly difficult to implement given the fallibility of human agents; what might appear a
conspiracy actually amounted to individual actors pursuing their narrow aims. Even more
importantly, he regarded "conspiratorial beliefs" as an extremely dangerous social malady, a
major contributing factor to the rise of Nazism and other deadly totalitarian ideologies. His
own background as an individual of Jewish ancestry who had fled Austria in 1937 surely
contributed to the depth of his feelings on these philosophical matters.
Meanwhile, Strauss, a founding figure in modern neo-conservative thought, was equally harsh
in his attacks upon conspiracy analysis, but for polar-opposite reasons. In his mind, elite
conspiracies were absolutely necessary and beneficial, a crucial social defense against anarchy
or totalitarianism, but their effectiveness obviously depended upon keeping them hidden from
the prying eyes of the ignorant masses. His main problem with "conspiracy theories" was not
that they were always false, but they might often be true, and therefore their spread was
potentially disruptive to the smooth functioning of society. So as a matter of self-defense,
elites needed to actively suppress or otherwise undercut the unauthorized investigation of
suspected conspiracies.
Even for most educated Americans, theorists such as Beard, Popper, and Strauss are probably
no more than vague names mentioned in textbooks, and that was certainly true in my own case.
But while the influence of Beard seems to have largely disappeared in elite circles, the same
is hardly true of his rivals. Popper probably ranks as one of the founders of modern liberal
thought, with an individual as politically influential as left-liberal financier George Soros claiming to
be his intellectual disciple . Meanwhile, the neo-conservative
thinkers who have totally dominated the Republican Party and the Conservative Movement for
the last couple of decades often proudly trace their ideas back to Strauss.
So, through a mixture of Popperian and Straussian thinking, the traditional American
tendency to regard elite conspiracies as a real but harmful aspect of our society was gradually
stigmatized as either paranoid or politically dangerous, laying the conditions for its
exclusion from respectable discourse.
By 1964, this intellectual revolution had largely been completed, as indicated by the
overwhelmingly positive reaction to the famous article by political scientist Richard
Hofstadter critiquing the so-called "paranoid
style" in American politics , which he denounced as the underlying cause of widespread
popular belief in implausible conspiracy theories. To a considerable extent, he seemed to be
attacking straw men, recounting and ridiculing the most outlandish conspiratorial beliefs,
while seeming to ignore the ones that had been proven correct. For example, he described how
some of the more hysterical anti-Communists claimed that tens of thousands of Red Chinese
troops were hidden in Mexico, preparing an attack on San Diego, while he failed to even
acknowledge that for years Communist spies had indeed served near the very top of the U.S.
government. Not even the most conspiratorially minded individual suggests that all alleged
conspiracies are true, merely that some of them might be.
Most of these shifts in public sentiment occurred before I was born or when I was a very
young child, and my own views were shaped by the rather conventional media narratives that I
absorbed. Hence, for nearly my entire life, I always automatically dismissed all of the
so-called "conspiracy theories" as ridiculous, never once even considering that any of them
might possibly be true.
To the extent that I ever thought about the matter, my reasoning was simple and based on
what seemed like good, solid common sense. Any conspiracy responsible for some important public
event must surely have many separate "moving parts" to it, whether actors or actions taken, let
us say numbering at least 100 or more. Now given the imperfect nature of all attempts at
concealment, it would surely be impossible for all of these to be kept entirely hidden. So even
if a conspiracy were initially 95% successful in remaining undetected, five major clues would
still be left in plain sight for investigators to find. And once the buzzing cloud of
journalists noticed these, such blatant evidence of conspiracy would certainly attract an
additional swarm of energetic investigators, tracing those items back to their origins, with
more pieces gradually being uncovered until the entire cover-up likely collapsed. Even if not
all the crucial facts were ever determined, at least the simple conclusion that there had
indeed been some sort of conspiracy would quickly become established.
However, there was a tacit assumption in my reasoning, one that I have since decided was
entirely false. Obviously, many potential conspiracies either involve powerful governmental
officials or situations in which their disclosure would represent a source of considerable
embarrassment to such individuals. But I had always assumed that even if government failed in
its investigatory role, the dedicated bloodhounds of the Fourth Estate would invariably come
through, tirelessly seeking truth, ratings, and Pulitzers. However, once I gradually began
realizing that the media was merely "Our American Pravda" and perhaps had
been so for decades, I suddenly recognized the flaw in my logic. If those five -- or ten or
twenty or fifty -- initial clues were simply ignored by the media, whether through laziness,
incompetence, or much less venial sins, then there would be absolutely nothing to prevent
successful conspiracies from taking place and remaining undetected, perhaps even the most
blatant and careless ones.
In fact, I would extend this notion to a general principle. Substantial control of the media
is almost always an absolute prerequisite for any successful conspiracy, the greater the degree
of control the better. So when weighing the plausibility of any conspiracy, the first matter to
investigate is who controls the local media and to what extent.
Let us consider a simple thought-experiment. For various reasons these days, the entire
American media is extraordinarily hostile to Russia, certainly much more so than it ever was
toward the Communist Soviet Union during the 1970s and 1980s. Hence I would argue that the
likelihood of any large-scale Russian conspiracy taking place within the operative zone of
those media organs is virtually nil. Indeed, we are constantly bombarded with stories of
alleged Russian conspiracies that appear to be "false positives," dire allegations seemingly
having little factual basis or actually being totally ridiculous. Meanwhile, even the crudest
sort of anti-Russian conspiracy might easily occur without receiving any serious
mainstream media notice or investigation.
This argument may be more than purely hypothetical. A crucial turning point in America's
renewed Cold War against Russia was the passage of the 2012 Magnitsky Act by Congress,
punitively targeting various supposedly corrupt Russian officials for their alleged involvement
in the illegal persecution and death of an employee of Bill Browder, an American hedge-fund
manager with large Russian holdings. However, there's actually quite a bit of evidence that
it was Browder himself who was actually the mastermind and beneficiary of the gigantic
corruption scheme, while his employee was planning to testify against him and was therefore
fearful of his life for that reason. Naturally, the American media has provided scarcely a
single mention of these remarkable revelations regarding what might amount to a gigantic
Magnitsky Hoax of
geopolitical significance.
To some extent the creation of the Internet and the vast proliferation of alternative media
outlets, including my
own small webzine , have somewhat altered this depressing picture. So it is hardly
surprising that a very substantial fraction of the discussion dominating these Samizdat-like
publications concerns exactly those subjects regularly condemned as "crazy conspiracy theories"
by our mainstream media organs.
Such unfiltered speculation must surely be a source of
considerable irritation and worry to government officials who have long relied upon the
complicity of their tame media organs to allow their serious misdeeds to pass unnoticed and
unpunished. Indeed, several years ago a senior Obama Administration official argued
that the free discussion of various "conspiracy theories" on the Internet was so potentially
harmful that government agents should be recruited to "cognitively infiltrate" and disrupt
them, essentially proposing a high-tech version of the highly controversial Cointelpro operations
undertaken by J. Edgar Hoover's FBI.
Until just a few years ago I'd scarcely even heard of Charles Beard, once ranked among the towering figures of
20th century American intellectual life . But the more I've discovered the number of
serious crimes and disasters that have completely escaped substantial media scrutiny, the more
I wonder what other matters may still remain hidden. So perhaps Beard was correct all along in
recognizing the respectability of "conspiracy theories," and we should return to his
traditional American way of thinking, notwithstanding endless conspiratorial propaganda
campaigns by the CIA and others to persuade us that we should dismiss such notions without any
serious consideration.
Pat lost its touch with reality " Around the world, America is involved in quarrels, clashes
and confrontations with almost too many nations to count." That's what empires do. Why he can't
understand this simple fact?
Friday, President Donald Trump met in New Jersey with his national security advisers and
envoy Zalmay Khalilzad, who is negotiating with the Taliban to bring about peace, and a U.S.
withdrawal from America's longest war.
U.S. troops have been fighting in Afghanistan since 2001, in a war that has cost 2,400
American lives.
Following the meeting, Trump tweeted, "Many on the opposite sides of this 19 year war, and
us, are looking to make a deal -- if possible!"
Some, however, want no deal; they are fighting for absolute power.
Saturday, a wedding in Kabul with a thousand guests was hit by a suicide bomber who,
igniting his vest, massacred 63 people and wounded 200 in one of the greatest atrocities of the
war. ISIS claimed responsibility.
Monday, 10 bombs exploded in restaurants and public squares in the eastern city of
Jalalabad, wounding 66.
Trump is pressing Khalilzad to negotiate drawdowns of U.S. troop levels from the present
14,000, and to bring about a near-term end to U.S. involvement in a war that began after we
overthrew the old Taliban regime for giving sanctuary to Osama bin Laden.
Is it too soon to ask: What have we gained from our longest war? Was all the blood and
treasure invested worth it? And what does the future hold?
If the Taliban could not be defeated by an Afghan army, built up by the U.S. for a decade
and backed by 100,000 U.S. troops in 2010-2011, then are the Taliban likely to give up the
struggle when the U.S. is drawing down the last 14,000 troops and heading home?
The Taliban control more of the country than they have at any time since being overthrown in
2001. And time now seems to be on their side.
Why have they persevered, and prevailed in parts of the country?
Motivated by a fanatic faith, tribalism and nationalism, they have shown a willingness to
die for a cause that seems more compelling to them than what the U.S.-backed Afghan government
has on offer.
They also have the guerrillas' advantage of being able to attack at times and places of
their own choosing, without the government's burden of having to defend towns and cities.
Will these Taliban, who have lost many battles but not the war, retire from the field and
abide by democratic elections once the Americans go home? Why should they?
The probability: When the Americans depart, the war breaks out anew, and the Taliban
ultimately prevail.
And Afghanistan is but one of the clashes and conflicts in which America is engaged.
Severe U.S. sanctions on Venezuela have failed to bring down the Nicholas Maduro regime in
Caracas but have contributed to the immiseration of that people, 10% of whom have left the
country. Trump now says he is considering a quarantine or blockade to force Maduro out.
Eight years after we helped to overthrow Col. Moammar Gadhafi, Libya is still mired in civil
war, with its capital, Tripoli, under siege.
Yemen, among the world's humanitarian disasters, has seen the UAE break with its Saudi
interventionist allies, and secessionists split off southern Yemen from the Houthi-dominated
north. Yet, still, Congress has been unable to force the Trump administration to end all
support of the Saudi war.
Two thousand U.S. troops remain in Syria. The northern unit is deployed between our Syrian
Kurd allies and the Turkish army. In the south, they are positioned to prevent Iran and
Iranian-backed militias from creating a secure land bridge from Tehran to Baghdad to Damascus
to Beirut.
In our confrontation with Iran, we have few allies.
The Brits released the Iranian tanker they seized at Gibraltar, which had been carrying oil
to Syria. But when the Americans sought to prevent its departure, a Gibraltar court ruled
against the United States.
Iran presents no clear or present danger to U.S. vital interests, but the Saudis and
Israelis see Iran as a mortal enemy, and want the U.S. military rid them of the menace.
Hong Kong protesters wave American flags and seek U.S. support of their demands for greater
autonomy and freedom in their clash with their Beijing-backed authorities. The Taiwanese want
us to support them and sell them the weapons to maintain their independence. The Philippines
wants us to take their side in the dispute with China over tiny islets in the South China
Sea.
We are still committed to go to war to defend South Korea. And the North has lately
test-fired a series of ballistic missiles, none of which could hit the USA, but all of which
could hit South Korea.
Around the world, America is involved in quarrels, clashes and confrontations with almost
too many nations to count.
In how many of these are U.S. vital interests imperiled? And in how many are we facing
potential wars on behalf of other nations, while they hold our coat and egg us on?
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made and
Broke a President and Divided America Forever."
This is a very weak article full of emotion but does not clarifing anything. Zionisn is just
far right Jewish nationalism colored by the occupation of Palestine. Nothing special about it and
in a sense critique of Israel for Zionism falls short. whether Zionists control the USA via fifth
column or the USA elite thinks that Zionist policies in Middle East are perfectly compatible with
the USA geopolitical goals in the region remains to be seen. I suspect the latter.
In this case calling Trump Zionist puppet completely misses the point. The USA and Israel
currently are fellow travelers. That might change in the future.
Incident with Representative [Ilhan] Omar and Representative [Rashida] Tlaib is just a minor
insident and should be trated as such.
Notable quotes:
"... The likelihood that Donald Trump will be impeached (and it's the House of Representatives that impeaches, not the Senate) for any action that pleases Israel is zero. ..."
"... "Why not just support a Gabbard campaign?" Because we've been swindled by two "antiwar" candidates in a row already. We don't want to be slow learners, do we? ..."
"... If the Zionist Enterprise and Uncle Sam (and their apologists) are resentful about the strategic depth Iran has created in Syria they should not have supported a bunch of whack job head choppers like HTS, Al Qaeda, ISIL, etc., etc. Blow back pure and simple like 9/11 and US intervention in Afghanistan. ..."
"... On November 22, 1963, our last Constitutional Government was overthrown in a Coup D'état, with our last Constitutional President, John F. Kennedy , assassinated in a hail of bullets. ..."
"... You really have to have a lot of chutzpah to claim that Trump isn't presidential. After 32 years of Clinton, Bush II, Obama? What is wrong with you, Phil? ..."
"... I like Giraldi generally, that said the whole "acting Presidential" thing is way, way overrated -- that's what we've had for decades an "actor" reading a teleprompter, part of the Uniparty team selected to screw average normal Americans of all races ..."
"... As though the ziostate is a separate country from the Imperialist States of Amerikastan, instead of a parasitic twin. And as though the Imperialist States of Amerikastan is in any way innocent of the crimes of the ziostate. ..."
"... Old pensioners , even younger are political, pathetic amateurs.. Amateurs or worse. Daily declarations of never ending and growing up and up "Uber Love" for Israel means what ? Emptiness , absence of any ability ? ..."
"... Looks like President and administrations become more and more lost and lost their way in our world ? Can not USA acts and even understand, on its own, what is going on around?? ..."
"... They push Iran and Russia together,after they did the same with China, Venezuela /with 6 millions of Columbians in there/, and Turkey, before.. USA lost Syria ..."
"... And if you need a good reason to not impeach Trump here it is: Mike Pence would become President. ..."
"... Mega Group, Maxwells and Mossad: The Spy Story at the Heart of the Jeffrey Epstein Scandal ..."
"... The picture painted by the evidence is not a direct Epstein tie to a single intelligence agency but a web linking key members of the Mega Group, politicians, and officials in both the U.S. and Israel, and an organized-crime network with deep business and intelligence ties in both nations. ..."
"... "Hey, let's buy Greenland!", "Let's send a guy to Mars!". Swear to God, every day's a new adventure with this guy. ..."
"... Ignoring someone is the strongest form of bullying. BDS is this stupid path that will lead to violence just like picking up a stick in the first place. The way to deal with Israel and the Empire is by demanding the declassification of all historical secrets, and having an open conversation. We haven't done this for a century as a society. ..."
"... When that happens, it will become clear Israel has always been a colonial project of European and Jewish elites (at the top the %es warrant the statement), that human rights interventions have been designed with neo-colonial intentions in mind from the get-go (after all the creation of Israel was the first such neo-colony), and that the only way to solve this issue is through full on decolonisation. ..."
"... Trump is an idiot and a puppet of Israel. Our Congress is controlled by Israel. Trump isn't Presidential is true. But Giraldi once again seems to be clueless of all the underhanded foreign policy games Obama played. Obama is a cool Crime Lord if there ever was one. ..."
"... The CIA and the other Intelligence agencies protected Obama because he let them do whatever they wanted. Obama's fiasco in Libya was covered up and according to my friends in the CIA is one the greatest foreign policy failures in American history. But Giraldi once again ignores this type of stuff. ..."
"... Pence is also an idiot and nutbag ZioChristian. What Giraldi doesn't seem to understand is that even though Trump is an idiot etc. look at the Democrats and what does the populace see? For many they see that he is less evil than all the Democrats running. ..."
"... First I was glad to see Tlaib had the smarts to tell the Likudniks to pound sand with their new invitation. It would to me, quickly evolve into a fiasco (probably as soon as she got off her flight). Good move by the Rep. If this is a zero-sum game, she wins not Trump/Netanyahu. ..."
"... I see no stomach for impeachment during the election cycle. As well as no chance for a senate conviction. Vile crook that he is, he was elected. Now it's up to voters to make that decision again. Yes on a personal level he's terrible but if we are lucky he won't do catastrophic damage. Like Bush. ..."
"... I agree with Mr. Giraldi entirely on this matter. Unfortunately, given that the Democratic Party is determined to present voters with less than reasonable alternatives, I am fully confident that we will be enjoying another four-year term with this imbecilic, Zionist bootlick as our head-of-state ..."
"... But it is true that Trump -- like every President since LBJ -- has become an obsequious waterboy for the Zionist mafia. For me, this marks Trump's greatest failure. Wasn't he going to 'Make America Great Again'? How can a nation be great if it is not sovereign? ..."
"... A guy with interesting views about the end of the world probably shouldn't be put in a position where he could actually end it. ..."
"... Business as usual for US Presidents for at least 70 years, perhaps at least 120 years. Under the principles of equity, these would not justify impeachment. ..."
"... I really hate to admit this but you may be correct. I do think Trump is anti-war. But he's too erratic and nobody should trust him. Netanyahu is gaming him but I don't think he trusts Trump either. ..."
"... Impeachment is inherently political and there are plenty of good reasons to impeach Trump as there were to impeach Obama, Bush II, Clinton and for that matter such all time greats as Lincoln and FDR. There are better reasons not to impeach him. If impeachment fails it paves the way for a backlash that would lead to Trump's re-election by a landslide and more subservience to Israel than ever. ..."
"... If it succeeds, he is followed by Pence and more subservience to Israel than ever. And if a Democrat other than Tulsi Gabbard gets elected in 2020, keep in mind that the Democratic establishment is solidly pro-Israel as well. Only among some of the Democratic rank-and-file is there any opposition to doing the bidding of the Israeli government. ..."
"... Haven't you Bush-Cheney-Trump Republicans noticed that every four years Americans rent a pig in a poke for the next four years. ..."
It is astonishing to observe some Americans twisting themselves into pretzels so they can
continue to make excuses to explain the bizarre behavior of President Donald Trump on the world
stage. The line most commonly heard is that he has "kept us out of new wars." The reality is
somewhat different. He has kept us in old wars in Afghanistan and Syria that he could have
ended while also needlessly ratcheting up tension with countries like Russia, Venezuela, Iran
and China that could easily escalate into armed conflict. The situation with Moscow is
particularly dangerous as President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly warned that his country's
defense doctrine includes going nuclear if there is an attack on Russia by a superior
force.
But the most frightening aspect of the current situation is the feeling that the man whose
finger is on America's nuclear trigger is not quite sane. The steady stream of insulting and
vulgar tweets that seem to serve as a substitute for more substantial mental activity reveals a
man who is profoundly ignorant, completely narcissistic and hopelessly insecure. To say the
least, Trump is not presidential. He is not even rational except in a conniving, manipulative
fashion intended to embarrass his adversaries and place them on the defensive. And his enemies
list appears to include all Americans who are not "with him."
The Constitution of the United States in Articles I and II details the procedure for
impeachment by the Senate of a president who commits "treason, bribery, or other high crimes
and misdemeanors." I believe that threshold has finally been crossed. It was crossed last
Thursday when
President Trump telephoned either Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu or some other senior
Israeli government official before, one hour later, tweeting the following: "It would show
great weakness if Israel allowed Representative [Ilhan] Omar and Representative [Rashida] Tlaib
to visit. They hate Israel and all Jewish people. And there is nothing that can be said or done
to change their minds. Minnesota and Michigan will have a hard time putting them back in
office. They are a disgrace!"
Netanyahu then followed Trump's lead with a series of tweets of his own,
banning the visit of the two congresswomen because "Only a few days ago, we received their
itinerary for their visit in Israel, which revealed that they planned a visit whose sole
objective is to strengthen the boycott against us and deny Israel's legitimacy. For instance:
they listed the destination of their trip as Palestine and not Israel the itinerary of the two
Congresswomen reveals that the sole purpose of their visit is to harm Israel and increase
incitement against it."
The two women are in fact the only two congressional supporters of the non-violent Boycott,
Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement that seeks to use economic pressure to convince Israel
to end its brutal occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, meaning that the other 533
members of congress are not so inclined. BDS supporters have been blocked from travel to Israel
under an anti-boycott law passed by the Knesset in March 2017, suggesting that free speech in
Israel is conditional.
Even though BDS is a non-violent protest movement, it has been condemned by the U.S.
Congress and also by nearly all Jewish groups in America, quite possibly because it is having a
real impact in an environment where legitimate criticism of Israel is effectively forbidden.
There is considerable irony in the fact that Jewish groups have in the past used boycotts to
advance their own tribal interests while condemning the use of the same tactic when it is
employed against Israeli oppression.
The Israeli ban was subsequently partially lifted to allow Tlaib to travel to the occupied
West Bank to visit her 90 year old grandmother, but the congresswoman indicated that
she has refused the offer as she is being treated "like a criminal." Clearly, Netanyahu and
Trump saw political benefit coming out of the exchange. Netanyahu is facing re-election in two
weeks and will be able to boast of his demonstrated ability as a "strong leader" to obtain
maximum support for anything he does from the White House. Trump is also already running for
re-election next year and is working hard to make Israel an issue, labeling the Democrats as
the party that is anti-Israel and anti-Semitic. He will also expect Netanyahu to do him favors
as appropriate closer to the actual U.S. election.
So much for the view from the two heads of government. The other perspective, and why the
president should be impeached, is that Trump's decision was, as usual, to propagate a
disgusting and deliberate lie that is also extremely damaging to actual United States interests
as well as to our form of government.
To put it in simplest terms, President Trump is conniving with a foreign government headed
by a war criminal to block the entry of and also demonize two congresswomen whose political
views differ from his own. He is endangering the women, who have already received death
threats, by expanding on the lies that are being circulated about them due to their criticism
of Israel's appalling human rights record.
Netanyahu, for his part, would prefer that prominent observers not be able to report on the
actual conditions prevailing on the West Bank and in Gaza. Indeed, Israel's occupation of much
of the West Bank is an ongoing crime that is carefully hidden from most foreign visitors.
Netanyahu's government already carefully manages the summer recess annual pilgrimage by members
of Congress, such as the one that ended last week where 31 Republicans and 41 Democrats made
the journey to kiss the prime minister's ring. And it should be noted that as Omar and Tlaib
are only two of a handful of Democratic lawmakers who dare to criticize Israel, their impact on
party policy is decidedly limited, rendering even more incomprehensible the panic over their
travels.
There are a number of other things wrong with what took place between Trump and Netanyahu
vis-à-vis the two congresswomen. First of all, Israel is the top recipient of U.S.
military aid at more than $3 billion each year. It also profits from trade arrangements,
co-production projects and charitable contributions from American Jews and Christian Zionists
that amount to an estimated three times that much annually. That members of Congress should
have the right, even the obligation, to visit Israel to see where all that money goes should be
unquestioned and it has, indeed, been unchallenged prior to this incident. Tlaib and Omar are
the first congressmen to be denied entry to Israel. That Trump apparently orchestrated the
entire incident in connivance with a foreign government in support of his own political
ambitions and that foreign power's narrow interests is a clear abuse of executive power.
To be sure, numerous Democrats have decried the Israeli decision, but they have tended to
frame it in such a way as to praise Israel while also slamming Trump. They note, in a friendly
way, that it will hurt Israel's otherwise pristine image as an upstanding democracy and close
ally, both of which assertions are in any event demonstrably false. Speaker of the House Nancy
Pelosi issued a statement
that was typical, saying "As one who loves Israel, I am deeply saddened by the news that Israel
has decided to prevent Members of Congress from entering the country. Last month, Israeli
Ambassador Dermer stated that, 'Out of respect for the U.S. Congress and the great alliance
between Israel and America, we would not deny entry to any Member of Congress into Israel.'
This is a sad reversal and is deeply disappointing. I pray that the Government of Israel will
reverse that denial. Israel's denial of entry to Congresswomen Tlaib and Omar is a sign of
weakness, and beneath the dignity of the great State of Israel. The President's statements
about the Congresswomen are a sign of ignorance and disrespect, and beneath the dignity of the
Office of the President."
Senator Bernie Sanders was one of the few legislators to actually approach the heart of the
matter,
saying "The idea that a member of the United States Congress cannot visit a nation which,
by the way, we support to the tune of billions and billions of dollars is clearly an outrage.
And if Israel doesn't want members of the United States Congress to visit their country to get
a firsthand look at what's going on -- and I've been there many, many times -- but if he
doesn't want members to visit, maybe [Netanyahu] can respectfully decline the billions of
dollars that we give to Israel."
Even the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) disapproved of the decision,
stating in a tweet that "We disagree with Reps. Omar and Tlaib's support for the
anti-Israel and anti-peace BDS movement, along with Rep. Tlaib's calls for a one-state
solution. We also believe every member of Congress should be able to visit and experience our
democratic ally Israel firsthand."
One of the few Republicans to enter into the discussion was Senator Marco Rubio of Florida,
who
characteristically tweeted what amounted to an attack on the congresswomen, stating that it
was a mistake for the Israeli government to deny them entry because "Being blocked is what they
really hoped for all along in order to bolster their attacks against the Jewish state."
Trump's attack on the two congresswomen comes on top of another bizarre foreign policy
related intervention. It involved
sending his official hostage negotiator Robert O'Brien to Stockholm on the taxpayers' dime
to obtain freedom for an American rap musician ASAP Rocky who was in jail after having gotten
into a fight with some local boys. Trump did not actually know Rocky, but he was vouched for by
the likes of Kim Kardashian and Kanye West, both of whom have had nice things to say about the
president. Trump also exercised his usual disregard for standard diplomatic courtesy by
tweeting
furiously against Sweden's prime minister, Stefan Lofven, over Rocky's detention. The
negotiator was instructed to threaten Sweden that if they did not release Rocky there would be
"negative consequences" for the bilateral relationship.
And if you need more good reasons to impeach Donald Trump, here they are:
Trump has twice
attacked Syria with cruise missiles based on flawed intelligence without a declaration of war
and without Damascus representing an actual threat. That is a war crime and the stationing of
American soldiers in Syria without the consent of that country's government is also illegal.
The Trump administration's "Justice" Department is seeking to extradite truth-teller Julian
Assange of WikiLeaks so he can be locked up for life or killed in prison like Jeffrey Epstein.
America's Secretary of State and National Security Advisors are implementing policies that
impose punitive sanctions that have served to starve or otherwise kill thousands of
Venezuelans, Iranians and Yemenis. Far from being Russian President Vladimir Putin's patsy,
Trump has unnecessarily escalated tensions with Moscow more than any American president since
the end of the cold war by moving NATO troops up to the Russian border and arming Ukraine,
putting our nation and much of the world at risk of a nuclear exchange whether by accident or
design. Trump has unnecessarily withdrawn from an Iranian nuclear agreement and from two arms
treaties with Russia, all of which enhanced the national security of the United States. The
Trump administration has continued to lavish support on the Middle East's two kleptocracies
Saudi Arabia and Israel, endorsing everything they do. The tilt towards Israel, including U.S.
recognition of sovereignty over illegally occupied East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, has
been particularly unfortunate as it could lead to a major war in the region with the U.S.
placed right in the middle of the conflict.
Finally, there are certainly some who oppose getting rid of Trump because it would give us
Mike Pence as acting president. True enough, and Mike certainly has some interesting Christian
Zionist views about the end of the world, but how could he possibly be worse than Donald
Trump?
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National
Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that
seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is
councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its
email is [email protected] .
Let me help. What you are actually advocating is better represented by this:
GIRALDI Endorses MIKE PENCE for President
Did you forget that the VP takes the Presidency if the sitting President is impeached?
Do you really believe that PENCE would be better than Trump on foreign policy?
__________
He has kept us in old wars in Afghanistan and Syria that he could have ended
Trump has drawn down troops from Afghanistan.
The primary issue with pulling troops out of Syria is Iran, although Turkey and the deep
state bureaucracy are also complicating factors. Hopefully, Iran's impending exit from Syria
will allow Trump to also exit.
Iranian troops are in conflict with Assad and they are rapidly wearing out its welcome in
Syria (1):
the Iranian Revolutionary Guards "took over the al-Nurain Mosque and houses around it on
Korniche Street in the city, where they prevented civilians, members of regime forces, and
NDF from entering or passing through the area, without orders from the command forces
located in al-Mayadin."
Iran is also intentionally provoking Russia and undermining Putin's credibility (2):
due to the permanent infiltration efforts conducted by Iran and Hizbullah, a very unique
situation has unfolded on the ground. Hizbullah and pro-Iranian proxies' checkpoints,
coordinated by the regime's Fourth Division deployed in the area, have been erected almost
adjacent to the Russian checkpoints. Pro-Iranian patrols have been patrolling the area in
the very same axis patrolled by the Russians. As a result, frictions between the Russian
and the pro-Iranian proxies occur from time to time, creating tensions between Moscow and
Tehran.
It is now a test of wills between Ayatollah Khamenei and Putin, and it is pretty clear
that Putin is going to win.
It's not saying much but Trump seems to be the sanest of the bunch. Even Sanders wants more
militarism. His support for Israel, though less overtly obnoxious, achieves the same end
result. I could possibly exclude Gabbard. Why not just support a Gabbard campaign?
The likelihood that Donald Trump will be impeached (and it's the House of Representatives
that impeaches, not the Senate) for any action that pleases Israel is zero.
Tulsi Gabbard should embrace the BDS movement and move ahead of the other candidates. This is
in spite of her ill-advised vote recently to condemn BDS. It would be a dramatic about face
-- she will be vilified no matter what she does, but she will please a large and growing
segment of the electorate, not unlike Ross Perot's Independence Party.
"Mike certainly has some interesting Christian Zionist views about the end of the world, but
how could he possibly be worse than Donald Trump?"
Mike Pence could be worse than Hillary Clinton without half trying. For that matter, he
could be worse than GW Bush without breaking a sweat. You underestimate him, Phil.
"Why not just support a Gabbard campaign?" Because we've been swindled by two
"antiwar" candidates in a row already. We don't want to be slow learners, do we?
If the Zionist Enterprise and Uncle Sam (and their apologists) are resentful about the
strategic depth Iran has created in Syria they should not have supported a bunch of whack job
head choppers like HTS, Al Qaeda, ISIL, etc., etc. Blow back pure and simple like 9/11 and US
intervention in Afghanistan.
Yes, The entire post November 22, 1963 American Government, with only a few exceptions
should be Impeached.
On November 22, 1963, our last Constitutional Government was overthrown in a Coup
D'état, with our last Constitutional President, John F. Kennedy , assassinated in a
hail of bullets.
If you (Giraldi), read Unz' article on the subject of the Coup, and just who performed the
Coup, or a dozen other articles to the point, you should understand that our
post-constitutional government has been increasingly controlled by Foreign Zionist Banking
Oligarchs. Our so-called 'elected Representatives' function as bought Minions of the
Rothschilds , and live in fear of their MOSSAD and puppet CIA police.
I assume you have read your own articles on the subject of just who controls the USA. Or
do I have to cite them for you?
You advocate an Impeachment Process to be brought against Casino Trump . And who,
pray tell, will do the impeaching? You are advocating an effort that lends a certain
Legitimacy to a pathetic Puppet government, long at the service of the Zionist World Order.
Do you dream that the pathetic band of almost 537 Traitors are up to the task?
You expect a Congress, perhaps led by the Democrap Gangers, to begin the process of
removing the current Hollywood actor ("You're Fired"), in a pretend Constitutional Process
performed by a Pretend Constitutional Government.
Ron Unz -- er. Philip Giraldi, our Yellow Brick Road to Liberty involves, of
necessity, a Restoration of Our Republic, with a restoration of our Constitution, with a
restoration of our honor, and a restoration of our Beloved Nation's Sovereignty.
But I will deal with you as a well meaning and brave American, a friend. If you have a way
to trigger, or begin the process of impeachment of Casino Trump, even in the Pretend World we
will have to live in to swallow the Show, I and my friends will do all we can to follow your
lead.
This is your article and your lead. Hell! We might get lucky. On with the show. You will
not fight alone.
Now. if your article is just an intellectual appeal to the powers that be (whomever they
are), to advance an impeachment show for us to passively observe, a show where nothing
essential will change, and nothing will be learned, then our Citizens will have no option but
to continue following the Foreign Zionist controlled Democrap & Republicant Gangs to
Hell.
You really have to have a lot of chutzpah to claim that Trump isn't presidential. After
32 years of Clinton, Bush II, Obama? What is wrong with you, Phil?
You evidently are a one-issue guy with a hitherto serious case of Trump Derangement
Syndrome.
You've know joined the ranks of The Mooch and that lunatic Kristol.
I like Giraldi generally, that said the whole "acting Presidential" thing is way, way
overrated -- that's what we've had for decades an "actor" reading a teleprompter, part of the
Uniparty team selected to screw average normal Americans of all races
Ppersonally not having been a Trump fan ever -- I like the fact that he doesn't act like
an actor teleprompter reading robot and that he swings back at the lying Propagandist
Mainslime Media and Dems who are complete insane lunatics at this point (I was a Dem myself
for 40 years and even voted for Obama the first time -- no more.
They are actively plotting to destroy the country by importing "replacement" illegal
aliens to vote for them as sane people won't and Identity "hate whitey" politics -- why would
any sane "white" person vote for them?).
Do I like all Trump is doing? No. His Israel "love" and Javanka etc .But who exactly would
Mr. Giraldi recommend we support/vote for that has any possible chance of getting elected who
is not a pre-selected Uniparty stooge/traitor? Trump is all we got, and by his wide range of
obvious enemies we can tell he is also obviously not fully "on board" with the cretins of the
Deep State -- and those who "run" things view him as a threat, gotta like that .
If I have to choose between Trump and those two harpies then Trump is in. Those two women are
fake Americans who should go back to where they came from.
As though the ziostate is a separate country from the Imperialist States of Amerikastan,
instead of a parasitic twin. And as though the Imperialist States of Amerikastan is in any
way innocent of the crimes of the ziostate.
@getaclue Elites do not
let anybody from the younger generation up , through filter. Old pensioners , even
younger are political, pathetic amateurs.. Amateurs or worse. Daily declarations of never
ending and growing up and up "Uber Love" for Israel means what ? Emptiness , absence of any
ability ?
Looks like President and administrations become more and more lost and lost their way
in our world ? Can not USA acts and even understand, on its own, what is going on
around??
They push Iran and Russia together,after they did the same with China, Venezuela /with
6 millions of Columbians in there/, and Turkey, before.. USA lost Syria ..And what about
Yemen ? At the same time they expose Israel, towards many dangerous developments in that area
around .And in the whole world.. Negativity against Israel is growing..
They/together/ never solve and end, this horrible situation with Palestine.. Sanction are
deadly weapon against all children and their future everywhere..Are the they blind ? As well
? Have They declared sanctions on their own sights ??
Your ridiculous, TDS-fueled list of President Trump's alleged sins does not include a
single high crime or misdemeanor. It merely states your despicable preference for a world run
by Mohammedans and a country run by the likes of those Mohammedan Congress-snakes.
Repeat these words in front of your local imam -- hopefully as the blood spurts from a
camel's throat on Eid; it earns you extra points and a delicious camel steak.
"There is no god but Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet."
Until you do that, we will know that you lack the courage of your convictions.
Would changing potus or any puppet make any real difference, at all, when the clear
cancerous origin of the decline of the usa, and in fact, the entire western world is not
completely eliminated?
With US Liberty, JFK, and 911 in mind, here is an opportunity to expose and eliminate.
Mega Group, Maxwells and Mossad: The Spy Story at the Heart of the Jeffrey Epstein
Scandal
The picture painted by the evidence is not a direct Epstein tie to a single
intelligence agency but a web linking key members of the Mega Group, politicians, and
officials in both the U.S. and Israel, and an organized-crime network with deep business and
intelligence ties in both nations.
"Hey, let's buy Greenland!", "Let's send a guy to Mars!". Swear to God, every day's a new
adventure with this guy. The Gonzo Presidency, like going to Vegas with Hunter S.
Thompson.
Ignoring someone is the strongest form of bullying. BDS is this stupid path that will
lead to violence just like picking up a stick in the first place. The way to deal with Israel
and the Empire is by demanding the declassification of all historical secrets, and having an
open conversation. We haven't done this for a century as a society.
When that happens, it will become clear Israel has always been a colonial project of
European and Jewish elites (at the top the %es warrant the statement), that human rights
interventions have been designed with neo-colonial intentions in mind from the get-go (after
all the creation of Israel was the first such neo-colony), and that the only way to solve
this issue is through full on decolonisation.
Trump is an idiot and a puppet of Israel. Our Congress is controlled by Israel. Trump
isn't Presidential is true. But Giraldi once again seems to be clueless of all the
underhanded foreign policy games Obama played. Obama is a cool Crime Lord if there ever was
one.
He is most likely a product of his mother and other relatives being in the CIA chain if
you investigate thoroughly. The CIA and the other Intelligence agencies protected Obama
because he let them do whatever they wanted. Obama's fiasco in Libya was covered up and
according to my friends in the CIA is one the greatest foreign policy failures in American
history. But Giraldi once again ignores this type of stuff.
America is a Military Industrial-Intelligence Police State. Our leaders are just players
in the game. Trump realizes he is not in charge of the foreign policy and most of the
Intelligence Agencies have gone rogue. They answer to the Corporations of the World not to
Nations. Just look at the debacle of the FBI and the Trump investigation. Who was in charge
and what were they trying to do? They were trying to prevent Trump from becoming president
and the NSA who were monitoring everything did what? Just like William Binney former NSA
intelligence officer stated how far they have gone in their own game plan against the
citizens of the USA.
Pence is also an idiot and nutbag ZioChristian. What Giraldi doesn't seem to
understand is that even though Trump is an idiot etc. look at the Democrats and what does the
populace see? For many they see that he is less evil than all the Democrats running.
Once again this seems like a rather naive analysis from someone with the credentials of
Giraldi.
@obwandiyag I wonder why
Obama, the Clintons, Bush 1&2, etc. get no "good reasons to impeach" list.
Trump is small beer in comparison. Generally you do good work, Phil Giraldi, but this time
your avoiding the big picture . while you ignore the 2016 alternative, Hillary.
First I was glad to see Tlaib had the smarts to tell the Likudniks to pound sand with
their new invitation. It would to me, quickly evolve into a fiasco (probably as soon as she
got off her flight). Good move by the Rep. If this is a zero-sum game, she wins not
Trump/Netanyahu.
I see no stomach for impeachment during the election cycle. As well as no chance for a
senate conviction. Vile crook that he is, he was elected. Now it's up to voters to make that
decision again. Yes on a personal level he's terrible but if we are lucky he won't do
catastrophic damage. Like Bush.
# As an aside just a note on Sen. Gillibrand calling for forgiveness in the cases of Al
Franken and Mark Halperin. The NY'er is a skilled politician but this is a bit too obvious.
Would she be calling for second chances if their surnames were Smith and Jones? I don't think
so. Not in the current atmosphere of 'me to.'
She was doing this to make amends for damage done to her among liberals and Jews. Not
because she has second thoughts, about whether she was wrong about them initially.
I agree with Mr. Giraldi entirely on this matter. Unfortunately, given that the
Democratic Party is determined to present voters with less than reasonable alternatives, I am
fully confident that we will be enjoying another four-year term with this imbecilic, Zionist
bootlick as our head-of-state .
My take on Trump is that he knows something that not every politician knows: to bring down
those who are the greatest threat to your country, you sometimes have to give them all they
want and more, after which you'll shed crocodile tears at the news of their demise. Just give
them more rope!
Interesting article (as usual) by Philip Giraldi. I'm not sure that I'm ready to throw in the
towel on Trump however -- though I'm getting close.
As for Trump, he is far more of a leader and independent thinker than his VP, so the idea
of having Zio-devout, 'end-of-times' Pence take over for Trump seems rash.
But it is true that Trump -- like every President since LBJ -- has become an
obsequious waterboy for the Zionist mafia. For me, this marks Trump's greatest failure.
Wasn't he going to 'Make America Great Again'? How can a nation be great if it is not
sovereign?
Trump is manifesting some of the usual, toxic symptoms and embracing some of the bizarre,
extra-national 'values' that make a politician 'mainstream' in America.
These values include 1) eager capitulation to the Zionist community involving all 'matters
of concern' to World Jewry, and 2) don't forget the first part.
These crypto-Zionist 'values' however cause immense and toxic distortions in US policies,
our nation's intellectual climate, and American culture in general. This is no small matter.
As a consequence, the issue of oversized Jewish influence in the West is not supposed to be
addressed -- much less critically examined and dealt with.
If a problem cannot be addressed, how can it be understood and contained?
It can't.
... ... ...
Exhibiting a 'hostility' towards Israel or discharging a virulent 'whiff' of anti-Semitism
can easily become a political death sentence. This is power. This is Jewish-Israeli
power.
Americans exist in a heavily monitored, strategically censored, post-Holocaust,
pro-Zionist, white-guilt-tripping, fabricated kosher wonderland. Therefore, do say the
right thing. Never say the wrong thing. Never. Indelicate speech has how been
criminalized. That's BAD.
Preemptive bombing and wholesale annihilation on the other hand has been sanctified.
Democracy! It's all very strange and twisted. But perfectly normal now.
If nothing else, 'reckless and insane' Trump's steady and deliberate subservience
to the Zionist establishment proves how astonishingly powerful they are.
Mike certainly has some interesting Christian Zionist views about the end of the world,
but how could he possibly be worse than Donald Trump?
You've answered your own question. A guy with interesting views about the end of the
world probably shouldn't be put in a position where he could actually end it.
I believe that threshold has finally been crossed. It was crossed last Thursday when
President Trump telephoned either Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu or some other senior
Israeli government official before, one hour later, tweeting the following .
Not a crime, not an impeachable offence.
The other perspective, and why the president should be impeached, is that Trump's
decision was, as usual, to propagate a disgusting and deliberate lie
Impeaching a politician for lying; now that's rich!
that is also extremely damaging to actual United States interests as well as to our form
of government.
Trump would be at the end of a very long line if you are talking about his collaboration
with Israel.
beneath the dignity of the Office of the President.
Still no crime or impeachable offence there. Dignity of the Office of the President? The
Rubicon was crossed a long time ago.
And if you need more good reasons to impeach Donald Trump, here they are .
Business as usual for US Presidents for at least 70 years, perhaps at least 120 years.
Under the principles of equity, these would not justify impeachment.
I must disagree with Mr. Giraldi on this one. Trump is smart like a fox. He KNOWS the
machinations and dirty dealings of the jews as he has had to deal with jews all of his life.
There is a saying: "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer". It is possible that
Trump is doing just that.
Trump KNOWS that the "deep state" is real and has "eliminated" those who do not "toe the
line" and is smart enough to know that. Trump's "weak spot" is the appointment of his
son-in-law Kushner to handle his "foreign policy" arrangements. All in all, Trump IS "getting
things done".
With any other president but Trump, you would be doing Israel's fighting
I really hate to admit this but you may be correct. I do think Trump is anti-war. But
he's too erratic and nobody should trust him. Netanyahu is gaming him but I don't think he
trusts Trump either. Bottom line is Trump doesn't think spending the money is worth it
and not even the Israel lobby can convince him (we hope). Bottom line is everyone who deals
with him thinks he's nuts. Sooner or later that's going to catch up and bite us.
@Olifant So that's how
44D chess is played? You give the enemy so much support and resources that they just seize up
from all the goodies? Sounds legit.
Man, I wish I was smart enough to play on that level.
@Rich Yes I agree, it's
all about the Benjamin's. Neither of the two women are anti-white or anti-American but it
sounds like you in fact are a racist, just like Trump.
Holy smokes is there a lot of MAGA boomers railing in defence of Trump. The orange clown
should have been booted out of office on the very day he invited the swamp to infest his
government.
@Olifant It is this
idiotic hope that puts you on equal footing with any Clintonista, Bushie, Obama Maniac or
Drumpfter.
They are all the same idiotic "believers". No. Trump is owned lock, stock and barrel by
Chabad sect. To suggest anything different is foolish or obvious deception.
-- France wants cooperation with Russia.
-- Germany wants cooperation with Russia.
-- Russia should rejoin G8, according to these European countries.
-- American's hubris is now plain to see for everyone.
-- Israel's hubris is now plain to see for everyone.
-- We are not going to buy expensive American LNG.
-- Our gas will not flow through Ukraine.
Before Trump this was unthinkable! I don't know how that would work out with Pence.
Changing foolishness for pure evil is risky. Please let us hate Trump but don't get rid of
him!
@Wally What is the point
of giving reasons to impeach the Clintons and Bushes, when it is Trump who is the incumbent
of the White House? Your post makes absolutely no sense and seems little more than a feeble
attempt at giving cover in regard to Trump's erratic behaviour.
Trump letting the neocons back into the White House, particularly giving the egregious Bolton
the NSA chair, was a much more momentous event than mean tweets or interference in the Squad
Qwainz travel plans. Syria and Iran sabre-rattling and ham-fisted destabilization efforts in
Venezuela and Hong Kong are a lot worse than this as well. None of it is impeachment-worthy.
Phil's venting here. No one's more critical of Trump's Zio-cucking than I am, but talking
about impeachment over this or any of the other aggregate offenses he lists isn't serious.
Phil's not writing a Hopkins Russiagate /sarc piece but it comes across like one.
The entire US Congress is Israeli-occupied territory (h/t Pat Buchanan). Mossad's latest
blackmailer of America's Davos-tier was just strangled to death in custody. If Zio-cuckery is
impeachable, we might as well call a new constitutional convention and send all three
branches packing. That's the ugly truth and worrying over the Qwainz is just a trivial
sideshow distraction for the cucks and anti-cucks alike.
November 2020 is roughly 15 months away. I watched a Trump rally on Fox the other night. He
was sharp as a razor. Even when speaking impromptu on a few subjects, he didn't misspeak or
struggle for or with words. One might not like a great deal of what he does, but he is quite
in control of his faculties.
@Kelso Agreed. Tulsi
needs to get off the fence and make a clear statement regarding Israel and her own plans, if
any, to deal with Zionist influence on the US gov.
It's not President Trump that needs impeaching, it's the entire Federal Government that
should be excised from the planet. It's the system, not any particular individual that's the
real problem. It's the concentration of power and the usurpation of control by unelected
bureaucrats commonly referred to as the 'deep state' that threatens the entire world.
"The way to get rid of corruption in high places is to get rid of high places." -- Frank
Chodorov
Get rid of Trump and a new moron will take his place. We need to get rid of the Nancy
Pelosi's and the Chuck Shumer's along with the monstrosities like the NSA, CIA, Air Force,
Army, Raytheon, etc so the people of the 50 states can separately decide on how they want to
proceed. It is the monopoly of the Fed Gov that's the real problem not any particular
pinhead.
Impeachment is inherently political and there are plenty of good reasons to impeach Trump
as there were to impeach Obama, Bush II, Clinton and for that matter such all time greats as
Lincoln and FDR. There are better reasons not to impeach him. If impeachment fails it paves
the way for a backlash that would lead to Trump's re-election by a landslide and more
subservience to Israel than ever.
If it succeeds, he is followed by Pence and more subservience to Israel than ever. And
if a Democrat other than Tulsi Gabbard gets elected in 2020, keep in mind that the Democratic
establishment is solidly pro-Israel as well. Only among some of the Democratic rank-and-file
is there any opposition to doing the bidding of the Israeli government.
Pence could be much worse than Trump; he could be Trump unleashed to do what Trump only
threatened. Trump is just the tail of the dog anyway. It is the power of the deep state that
needs to be diminished, and there are many peaceful ways to accomplish that.
Trump is a wholly owned promoter of zionism and a puppet of the zionists who has sold out
America and Americans who thought they were getting a change from the warmongers and the MIC
and the zionist control over the zio/US government only to find they elected a Trojan Horse
of zionism who will do anything his zionist overlords tell him to do.
JFK was the last patriot POTUS and that is why he was shot in full view of the American
people, shot as an example that the satanic overlords of America were still in charge!
If interested read the book JFK, the CIA and Vietnam by Col. L. Fletcher Prouty, can be
had on amazon.
@Lot Attacking Israel
involves attacking the system which supports Israel. It is 1 pragmatic . It is 2 moral and 3
ethical to do so when it is found out that these forces have been lassoed roped penned and
put into serving parasitic Israel 24/7 . At least the offspring of the skates will have a
better future .
@Charles Martel I told
you not to read that Scofield Bible again but you didn't listen . Not only that you also sat
down bowed head listening to fat misshaped Hagee in your local CUFI outlet . Don't do that .
Get some crayons and start drawing Star of David on your viagra worked dick . There is
Canadian nurse who I knew in Detroit , used to talk a lot about My Brothers Keeper . May be
she also knew the real keeper Epstein . Lot of kept .
No one (who I ever hear or read) who claims Trump should be impeached knows what that even
means. Similarly to being indicted, being impeached means a political figure stands trial.
Being impeached guarantees nothing -- Bill Clinton was impeached and naturally it turned into
a farce, whether he was provably guilty of what he was accused or not. Even more importantly
there's the little matter of having a REASON to impeach. Hating an individual -- even when
that person is an oddball, as is certainly the case with Trump -- because that person behaves
eccentrically in your eyes is not and never will be "impeachable".
Phil, here's the thing: on the evil scale of 1 to 10 Trump is a 9.5, but everyone else around
him is a 9.9 or 10. So we are stuck with the fool for now.
Accidental war is possible but the trend is towards more shouting and screaming followed by
climb down. Unless Pompeo fat or Bolton walrus drown accidentally or intentionally in some
Israeli supplied water , war remains a possibility , Even the frowning might not help . It
can be blamed on Iran . Israel might supply the water if it feels Pomeo might get tired of
being told what to do and start telling the truth behind war against Iran .
The real concern is recession . If that hurts Trump's re-election , he might do something
stupid . He might buy the water from Israel with trillions of dollars ( just the advice on
how to initiate the war against Iran but AIPAC-Likud charges for that ) and drown the USA .
There is no climbdown. Iran will be in ruins . Trump will be the president . America has seen
it's last president .
Another ' Richard Pearle ' will say to Americans "Pompeo and Bolton didn't do the job and
Neither Trump did as was told . They didn't listen . We tried to help but they couldn't carry
out . They are not Roosevelt Churchill or Reagan . We were mistaken , "
Trump has not broken any laws, even though his behavior is inappropriate. Even if he colluded
with Russia during the 2016 presidential campaign, he did not break any laws in doing so.
Even though his collaboration with Israel is inappropriate, he did not break any laws in
collaborating. Neither in the case of collaborating with Russia nor with Israel did he commit
treason against the USA or accept illegal campaign contributions from their governments,
which would be the only way the collaboration would be illegal. So there is no legal basis on
which to impeach him. Additionally, there is a principle of sovereign immunity that, in fact
if not in theory, has some limited application to the president, it would not be possible to
successfully remove a president from office, even if he was guilty of a crime, unless it was
an extremely serious one. So trying to impeach Trump would be a complete waste of time.
Impeaching Trump would be even more ridiculous than impeaching Clinton was.
And the CANNON FODDER occupation of the shithole Afghanistan will continue apace during the
reign of the OLD FARTING BOOMER GRANNY POTUS Elizabeth Warren .on the advice of Irish Skank
Samantha Powers and the midget mulato negro Susan Rice .
Sorry you Goys are all doomed. The next president ,Democrat or the orangegutan will continue
to bow before the real emperor, Netanyahu.
The only way to get rid of virus of Zionism is to implement a real American constitutional
government where loyalty will be 100% to the US and not to foriegn governments. Best of luck
to all of you Goys.
@Wally I concur, Wally,
exept for your use of the term "small beer." Love him or hate him, there's nothing small beer
about Mr. Trump.
It seems to me that those advocating for Trump's impeachment could, unwittingly, guarantee
his re-election. Most, I think, don't like a legally elected president to be impeached over
policy differences. Using that criteria, every president could be impeached.
Mr. Giraldi asks if VP Pence could "possibly be worse than Donald Trump." Emphatically I
say that he not only COULD be, but quite likely WOULD be. One example: Trump should have
never sent such a huge naval presence into the Persian Gulf, but, who knows, Pence may have
done so even sooner. And, after that Iranian shoot down of the US drone, would Pence, an
Israel-first neocon in good standing, have held back from retaliating?
Lastly, I find it a little odd that Mr. Giraldi uses the Omar/Tlaib incident as grounds
for impeachment. Trump was ill-advised to say what he did (sadly a nearly daily occurrence),
but that seems like a minor incident, similar in severity to the republicans ridiculous
attempt to impeach Clinton over lying about Lewinsky's semen stained blue dress. The easy way
to get rid of Trump is the way this country usually does it -- vote him out of office at the
ballot box, not make him a martyr by trying to get rid of him a few months before next
November's election. Besides, the Senate will never convict.
In regards to impeachment, we patriots are screwed, Pence is just as bad as Trump , and in
regards to the elections for POTUS , the demon-rats and the republi-cons are the same zionist
controlled bullshit, until Americans wake up to that fact, nothing will change. The
demon-rats are the zio/US version of the bolsheviks and the republi-cons are a farce!
rich: abundant possessions, especially material wealth.
selfish: unquiet with one's own well-being without regard for others.
beggar: one who lives by asking for gifts or charity.
Now Trump has done more for Israel as per request of Israel, US media and some in Israeli
media are blaming Trump for wrecking"bipartisan support" to Israel and for endangering
"special relationship"
Thats the way Zionist work . They prod they force they bribe or blackmail and get the
things done .Then they blame the perpetrator for doing what Israel has been asking them them
do.
Iran war will be another example of 'wrecking bipartisan relationship" or "special
relationship being endangered " by the Zionist media because of the danger of Israel would be
pointed out correctly to be the mastermind to be the payer to be the controller to be the
open and only figure forcing some corrupt lawmakers do it
@anon Warning: prions in
camel steaks have an adverse effect on peoples' brains to the extent that they can't frame a
coherent thought. Lay off the steaks!
Haven't you Bush-Cheney-Trump Republicans noticed that every four years Americans rent a
pig in a poke for the next four years.
Four years later, the voters can extend the rental or rent a new pig.
No accountability, other than impeachment, which like the presidential election, is
political.
By impeaching Sheldon Adelson's pet pig, Americans hold the Bitter Twitter accountable for
risking an accidental or insane nuclear exchange with Russia. Hold him accountable for
exploding the national debt to create an asset bubble for the finance racket. And hold him
accountable for flooding the country with legal and illegal immigrants and prisoners released
to keep up with the Kardashians.
That's why Philip Giraldi is right about impeachment. Where his critics show their
ignorance is their certainty that the process automatically leads to Pence. It could easily
lead to the Nixon alternative. The bipartisan impeachment of Nixon was the last step of a
negotiated deal as Watergate unfolded. First Agnew resigned. Then Nixon and the House made
Gerald Ford vice president. "We gave Nixon no choice but Ford," House Speaker Carl Albert
recalled later (Ford's Wikipedia page).
In the last act, Tricky Dick resigned in return for a pardon. The danger of Pence begs for
a similar outcome.
-- Comparatively speaking, Trump is indeed small beer next to the warmongering of Hillary
'forcefully ending the Russian presense in Syria' Clinton, for example.
-- And while Trump blusters about places like Iran, he's nowhere close to McCain school of
'attack now, ask questions later'.
-- Trump's "sending" of naval forces is hardly the same as actually attacking with those
forces.
-- BTW, the impeachment of Clinton was based upon his lying under oath concerning his
sexual abuse of Gennifer Flowers, not about his semen on Lewinsky.
-- Trump's re-election is guaranteed. Hell, he now has a +50% rating with Hispanics and
there are more & more some blacks who are tired of being on the neo-Marxist plantation
and are seeing through their game.
Well Doc Giraldi, as an outsider, I understand your disgust and change of tack. However,
although I don't know about Tlaib, she seems rather sensible, unlike her three insane allies.
Also, Omar is a multiple violator of your U.S. immigration law. That is a fact. Easy to
ascertain. It is only by many others of the same stripe being dumped in the same area, many
also liars, and I would not doubt, many voters intimidated by people with whom she is
conected (the large Somali population dumped there and/or brainwashing, from mainly Jewish
sources) other voters had no say in her election.
So. impeach Trump on the grounds you state, it would be great for your USA. It would never
be permitted. He is the greatest dupe of your colonial masters in Israel to date. You would
know that. Likewise, ejection of Omar from her seat and deportation for immigration fraud are
perfectly legal and sane, and will never happen.
I must have missed the part where Giraldi offered up a list of replacement politicians who,
as President, who could be relied upon to put illegal immigration on the front burner (until
Trump, that was a grand total of ZERO) ..rework the insane, suicidal sweetheart deal we had
previously arranged with China .and could credibly give Israel and its countless agents,
apologists and apparatchiks throughout the West, what-for.
All things considered, two out of three ain't bad.
Hey, nobody (except the neverTrumpers who intend to shit all over him and his family the
very moment he's out of office, the same as any michaelmoore would) is happy about
Trump's kowtowing to Team Shmuel certainly nobody in his "base" is crazy about this setup
.but I have the oddest feeling that Trump assiduously licks those Hebraic hindquarters as the
Cost of Doing Business (ie, the only reliable Assassination Insurance an American President
can hope to purchase).
In the end, it's all about the art of the deal; and from Robert Maxwell to Jeffrey Epstein
and all points between, history tells us that the greatest ability any power-broker can
demonstrate is survivability . Ask Bubba.
Trump and his opponents are all scum. Trump is a 'racist' in the sense that he favors Zionist
supremacism over the much-oppressed Palestinians. He also praises criminal blacks while
having done nothing for whites. But of course, NYT is okay with Trump's pro-Zionist bigotry.
@Buzz
Baldrin As I type this I am listening to Mike Pence lead an all-star cast to discuss the
Trump-PENCE space initiative (s), including the 6th branch of DoD, the Space Force.
It should be excitin g but it is terrifying: DoD is "unified" with the intelligence
agencies & space force -- to ensure a total, space-based surveillance state.
US will collaborate "with its allies" -- i.e. Israel. Pence's quasi-religious delusions,
and the broadly shared Abrahamic ideology: that Abrahamics possess the RIGHT idea, and have
not only the RIGHT but the obligation to impose that ideology on all mankind -- will have at
his ready access the most powerful & intrusive technology.
Those technologies will be militarized.
It would be a mistake to misunderestimate the ambition, cunning, and delusional vision of
Mike Pence.
@Realist "Trump
like most elected officials serves at the pleasure of the Deep State." If that were true,
there would have been no Spygate coup. The Deep State doesn't quite have the lock on US
elections you think it does.
I am actually thinking, Trump is a true gift. He keeps showing the US unmasked, raw, vile and
criminal as it is, and in good company with the criminal jewish entity.
What has been done for decades, masked and filtered away as democracy BS, freedom defending
BS, "american values" aka corruption, intimidation and threats, is becoming under Trump just
blatantly obvious for every one to see. The US administration are a mafia, a crime syndicate
that spreads tumors with its military.
With television cameras rolling, on February 12, 1999 the whole world watched as the
senators stood up to vote inside the chamber. 55 Senators voted "not guilty" on the charge
of perjury. The Senate split 50/50 against Clinton when it came to the charge of
obstruction of justice. This meant that the 2/3 majority was not achieved, the President
was acquitted and allowed to serve out the rest of his term of office up until January
2001.
A month later and twelve days after his get of Dodge card was given to him, the war on
Yugoslavia was put in place.
Twenty years ago in the early hours of March 24, 1999, NATO began the bombing of the
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. "The operation was code-named "Allied Force " -- a cold,
uninspired and perfectly descriptive moniker" according to Nebosja Malic.
Impeachment is the branding rode for Z Puppet Presidents by the our warmongering ZUS
rulers. Our "presidents" are treated like cattle too, just like us little people.
Trump is like the old story of the bottle of whiskey which the southern planter gave to his
slave as a present. When the planter asked the slave what he thought of the whiskey, the
slave replied, "perfect." The planter then asked the slave what he meant by saying the
whiskey was perfect.
The slave said, "if it was any better, you wouldn't have given it to me, and if it was any
worse, I couldn't have drunk it."
That is Trump in a nutshell. He is certainly a "perfect" president, as he is palatable to
both the Zionists and the kosher conservatives who are, at present, not attempting to
accelerate the collapse of Euro-Christian heritage America, and totally odious to those who
are attempting to do so.
Trump is no great statesman, as he has a very limited perspicacity in a world historical
context. His only virtue is that he is not his Democratic rivals. The bar of American
politics is set abysmally low in any case.
1)Draft the Chickenhawk-Warhawk Coward Sean Hannity into the US Army Combat Engineer .Sean
gets to do IED locating and defusing duty
2) Draft every White Male sitting in every SEC Football Stadium this fall screaming:"WHAT
A STUD TYRONE!!!" No Draft deferments ..US Army .Combat Engineer duty locating and defusing
road IEDs in Afghanistan .
3) Draft the homosexual PEDERAST writers for The Nation Review Into the US Army Combat
Engineer duty searching for locating defusing .road IEDs in Afghanistan
'Conspiracy theory' is how the mainstream media characterizes any narrative that differs
from their reporting of the official line. What is a conspiracy theory? Can it be defined in
categorical terms? Can a conspiracy theory be validated forensically or refuted by similar
means? What criteria can be used to differentiate between a conspiracy theory and theoretical
musings?
The labelling of a theory as 'conspiratorial' is an attempt to discredit its author/authors
and deny its validity. A 'conspiracy theory' usually involves an explanatory thesis that points
to a malevolent plot often involving a secretive interested party. The term 'conspiracy theory'
has a pejorative connotation: its use suggests that the theory appeals to prejudice and/or
involves a farfetched, unsubstantiated narrative built on insufficient evidence.
Those who oppose conspiracy theories argue that such theories resist falsification and are
reinforced by circular reasoning, that such theories are primarily based on beliefs, as opposed
to academic or scientific reasoning.
But this critique is also not exactly based on valid scholarly principles. It isn't just
'conspiracy theories' that resist falsification or are reinforced by circular reasoning. The
philosopher Karl Popper, who defined the principle of falsifiability, would categorically
maintain that Freudian psychoanalysis and Marxism fail for the same reasons. The Oedipal
complex, for instance, has never been scientifically proven and can't be scientifically
falsified or validated. Marxism also resists falsification. Despite Marx's 'scientific'
predictions, the proletarian revolution never occurred. I have personally never come across
anyone who refers to Marx or Freud as 'conspiracy theorists.' 'Resisting falsification' and
"reinforced by circular reasoning," are traits of non-scientific theories and do not apply only
to 'conspiracy theories.'
The Oxford English Dictionary defines conspiracy theory as "the theory that an event or
phenomenon occurs as a result of a conspiracy between interested parties; spec. a belief
that some covert but influential agency (typically political in motivation and oppressive in
intent) is responsible for an unexplained event".
The Oxford dictionary does not set forth the criteria that define a conspiracy theory in
categorical terms. The history of mankind is saturated with references to hidden plots led by
influential parties.
The problem with refuting conspiracy theories is that they are often more elegant and
explanatory than the official competing narratives. Such theories have a tendency to ascribe
blame to hegemonic powers. In the past, conspiracy theories were popular mostly amongst fringe
circles, they are now becoming commonplace in mass media. Alternative narratives are widely
disseminated through social media. In some cases, they have been disseminated by official news
outlets and even by the current American president. It is possible that the rapid rise in
popularity of alternative explanatory theories is an indication of a growing mistrust of the
current ruling class, its ideals, its interests and its demography.
The response to the story of Jeffrey Epstein's suicide is illustrative. The official
narrative provoked a reaction that was a mixture of disbelief expressed in satire and inspired
a plethora of theories that attempted to explain the saga that had escalated into the biggest
sex scandal in the history of America and beyond.
The obvious question is what has led to the increase in popularity of so called 'conspiracy
theories'? I would push it further and ask, why is a society that claims to be 'free' is
threatened by the rise of alternative explanatory narratives?
In truth, the question is itself misleading. No one is really afraid of 'conspiracy
theories' per se. You will not be arrested or lose your job for being a 'climate change
denier.' You may speculate on and even deny the moon landing as much as you like. You are free
to speculate about Kennedy's assassination as long as you don't mention the Mossad . You can even
survive being a 911 truther and espouse as many alternative narratives as you like, however,
the suggestion that ' Israel did 911' will get you
into serious trouble. Examining 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion' as a fictional,
however
prophetic , piece of literature can lead to imprisonment in some countries. Digging into
the true origin of Bolshevism and the demographics of the Soviet revolution is practically a
suicidal act. Telling the truth about Hitler's agreement with the Zionist agency
will definitely result in your expulsion from the British Labour party and you will be accused
of being
at the least, theoretically conspiratorial .
"... Liberal use of the word "conspiracy" simply distorts reality. For instance, were founding fathers of America conspirators? They certainly worked against the established order; they must have been secretive, at least in the beginning-otherwise they would have been hanged; British crown surely looked on their activities as something malign, from their perspective. ..."
"... In American jurisprudence a "conspiracy" is a common felony charge, legally defined as collusion between at least two people to commit a criminal act – which could in itself merely constitute a misdemeanor. Just because people may openly indulge in such actions, presumably because they feel immune to prosecution, does not mean that they are not engaging in conspiratorial behavior. ..."
"... "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize." – Voltaire ..."
The 'Enemy Outside' could be a legitimate American patriotic/nationalist reaction to foreign
domination of American foreign policy. This kind of argument is supported by well-researched
academic studies such as that of Mearshehimer and Walt as well as that of
James Petras who studied the Israel Lobby and its impact. Such hostile foreign domination
has been explored by various media outlets including Al Jazeera's exposé of the Israel
Lobby in both Britain and the USA . The current American
administration and its biased policy in favour of Israeli positions gives credence to those who
see Israel as the 'enemy outside.' Yet, none of the above has 'conspired' behind the scenes.
All is done in the open. You just can't discuss it in the open.
... ... ...
In my recent book Being in Time
, I argue that Jews tend to dominate the discourses that are relevant to their existence and
interests. I refer to it as Jewish survival instinct. Jewish activists and intellectuals also
tend to dominate the dissent to problematic symptoms associated with their group identity: Jews
are often, for instance, associated with capitalism, banking and wealth in general, and Jews
are also equated with Marxist and socialist opposition to capitalism, banking and wealth.
Obviously, many Jews are associated with the Jewish State and the Zionist project but it is no
secret that Leftist Jews also dominate the anti Zionist discourse and politics. Jews, at least
in the eyes of some, are leading pro immigration advocates. But some of the most vocal anti
immigration and anti Muslim campaigners are also
Jewish. In Being in Time I argue that the fact that Jews dominate both polls of pretty much
every topic relevant to their existence isn't necessarily 'conspiratorial.' It is only natural
for ethical and humanist Jews to oppose Zionism, or Wall Street. It is also natural based on
their history, for Jews as a group to simultaneously oppose and support immigration. Natural as
it may be, the presence of Jews in key ideological, political, cultural and financial positions
is undeniable. It is more than likely that their domination on both sides of so many crucial
political debates invites conspiratorial thoughts.
Jewish economist Murray Rothbard contrasts "deep" conspiracy theories with "shallow" ones.
According to Rothbard, a shallow theorist observes an event and asks, who benefits? He or she
then jumps to the conclusion that the posited beneficiary is responsible for covertly
influencing events. Under this theory, Israel benefiting from the events of 9/11 made it into a
prime suspect. This is often a completely legitimate strategy and is exactly how detective and
investigative researchers operate. In order to identify the culprit, they may well ask who
would benefit from the crime. Of course this is only a first step towards substantiation.
According to Rothbard the "deep" conspiracy theorist begins with a hunch and then seeks out
evidence. Rothbard describes deep conspiracy theory as the result of confirming whether certain
facts actual fit one's initial 'paranoia.' This explanation pretty much describes a lot of how
science works. Any given scientific theory defines the realm of facts that may support or
refute its validity. Science is a deductive reasoning process, so that in science, it is the
theory that defines the relevance of the evidence. Would Rothbard describe Newtonian physics as
'deeply conspiratorial'? I doubt it. My guess is that, bearing Rothbard in mind, attributing a
'conspiratorial nature' to a theory is an attempt the deny the relevance of the evidence it
brings to light.
If for instance, the theory that Epstein was a Mossad agent is 'conspiratorial,' then the
facts that he was a business partner of Ehud Barak and
involved in a company that uses Israeli military intelligence tactics become irrelevant. The
same applies to former Federal Prosecutor Alex Acosta's admission that Epstein belonged to
intelligence and that was why he was the beneficiary of a laughable plea deal. If, for
example, the theory that it was the Jews who led the 1917 Bolshevik revolution is
'conspiratorial,' then the facts regarding the demography that led
the revolution and its criminal nature are of no
consequence. The labelling of a theory as conspiratorial is an attempt to erase uncomfortable
evidence by reprioritising the relevance of certain facts.
It seems that Rothbard and others have failed to produce categorical criteria to identify or
define Conspiracy Theories. We may have to accept that as of now, there is no categorical
standard to define a conspiracy theory. We may have to learn to live with the fact that some
theories are superior; simpler and more elegant than others. We will have to accept that some
of these theories make a few people pretty uncomfortable and they will explore every avenue to
discredit such theories and their authors. Attributing a conspiratorial nature to an
explanatory theory is just one of these methods.
Another great article by Gilad which shines a much-needed light on why people who question
the official version of reality must be demonized. Group think must be imposed on all the
wayward sheep if they are to be herded off to market.
Reminds me of a quip "The Jews definitely don't run the media, banking system, or dominate
politics; and don't you dare argue they do or they'll deplatform you, lock you out of payment
systems, and get legislation passed against you."
It is only natural for ethical and humanist Jews to oppose Zionism, or Wall Street.
How are Zionism and the Wall Street banker Jews connected? Does the author understand that
Zionism is the opposite to internationalism? That Zionism is the call to resettle all Jews in
Palestine?
All these neo-Nazi thinkers using the word Zionism for something else disturb me. Zionism
is a natural ally to White supremacy, can't you see? Zionists literally support cleansing
White countries out of all Jews!
Another boon to that strategy is that it would be incredibly easy to enact the Final
Solution when their entire race lives on a few square kilometres of a far-away desert. Just
choose the appropriate weather conditions when the wind blows to another desert.
Disclaimer: I use the words "neo-Nazi", "racism" and "White supremacy" with an obviously
positive meaning. Modern kids understand far more things than in the late previous century,
but these words (including "Zionism") still scare and escape them.
Zionism is the call to resettle all Jews in Palestine
Wrong on several accounts. Zionism is the political wing of international finance. That is
why the Jewish embezzlers send all of the money there, and flee there.
Zionism is not about Palestine, it is about Eretz Israel – from the Nile to the
Euphrates, and South into Jordan and Saudi Arabia. It is about controlling the oil reserves
in that area, which, at the time Zionism was formed, was the world's largest known oil
reserves. That is why Israel has never declared its borders, and refuses to do so.
Gilad, surely you know that the "theory conspiracy" is the most sinister conspiracy of them
all. Once consigned to theory, an explanation of events becomes an easy target for any party
threatened by its potential influence.
Last I checked, the CIA doesn't hold any copyright for it.
@j2 I hope you realize that when Jewish people read your post they are thinking you are
from another planet, that is the conspiracy. They scratch their collective heads.
Most Jews are trying to get thru the day like you, figuring out how to earn a living and
maybe go on vacation. Personally I have not been on one in 15 years I am so stressed about
supporting myself in the arts.
You do realize you are mentally ill? Jews do not have time to conspirer against anyone. Would
you have time to create intentional chaos in the world to take it over?
I like the Neo Nazis more then the conspiracy crazies, they just hate Jews for no reason. Not
like you with your invasion of the body snatchers scenario.
@Gilad Atzmon The mentioned Murray Rothbard said of Revisonism:
"Revisionism has the general function of bringing historical truth to a public that had
been drugged by wartime lies and propaganda.
Now revisionism teaches us that this entire myth, so prevalent then and even now about
Hitler, and about the Japanese, is a tissue of fallacies from beginning to end. Every plank
in this nightmare evidence is either completely untrue or not entirely the truth. If people
should learn this intellectual fraud about Hitler's Germany, then they will begin to ask
questions, and searching questions, about the current World War III version of the same
myth. Nothing would stop the current headlong flight to war faster, or more surely cause
people to begin to reason about foreign affairs once again, after a long orgy of emotion
and cliché.
For the same myth is now based on the same old fallacies. And this is seen by the
increasing use that the Cold Warriors have been making of the "Munich myth": the
continually repeated charge that it was the "appeasement" of the "aggressor" at Munich that
"fed" his "aggression" (again, the Fu Manchu, or Wild Beast, comparison), and that caused
the "aggressor," drunk with his conquests, to launch World War II. This Munich myth has
been used as one of the leading arguments against any sort of rational negotiations with
the Communist nations, and the stigmatizing of even the most harmless search for agreement
as "appeasement." It is for this reason that A.J.P. Taylor's magnificent Origins of the
Second World War received probably its most distorted and frenetic review in the pages of
National Review.
The task of revisionism has been to penetrate beneath these superficialities and
appearances to the stark realities underneath -- realities which show, certainly in this
century, the United States, Great Britain, and France -- the three great "democracies" --
to be worse than any other three countries in fomenting and waging aggressive war.
Realization of this truth would be of incalculable importance on the current scene.
For revisionism, in the final analysis, is based on truth and rationality. Truth and
rationality are always the first victims in any war frenzy; and they are, therefore, once
again an extremely rare commodity on today's "market." Revisionism brings to the artificial
frenzy of daily events and day-to-day propaganda, the cool but in the last analysis
glorious light of historical truth. Such truth is almost desperately needed in today's
world."
– Righteous Jew, Murray Rothbard, Review of The Origins of the Second World War,
1966 http://mises.org/daily/2592
Yes, there's considerable truth to your point. But, I it ignores the issue
of "organised jewry/zionism". This minority within a minority basically exists to push the
Israel/Jewish interest.
AIPAC is a good example. Soros, the gambling billionaire & the
Power Rangers guy are also examples.
"Average" Jew's may or may not give support to such entities.
@Adûnâi "That Zionism is the call to resettle all Jews in Palestine?"
The goals of zionism included the establishment of a nation, but it doesn't follow that
resettling all jews there is another goal. The primary goal is the establishment of control
over all other nations by this one nation established supposedly as a homeland for jews.
That would seem to involve keeping the diaspora jews in place in other countries.
I hate the word "conspire." It only takes people acting in consensus to
cause harm, and while acting only in consensus, instead of conspiracy, may remove moral
culpability, harm may still be inflicted.
The angry wasps who sting you are not conspiring, only acting in consensus to fulfill the
biologic imperative to protect the nest, but they can nonetheless cause harm.
As usual, interesting, but not quite satisfactory article.
I don't find Walker's 5 points convincing at all. Simply, this is a bad model. As for
Rothbard's "deep conspiracy"- this is a word-juggling, nothing more. It is better to stick to
usual definitions one can find in ordinary media, for instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory
To be a conspiracy, you have to have:
* small group of conspirators, some kind of secret society (whether an individual would
qualify?)
* their activity being illegal or against the law
* sinister motives & goals
Liberal use of the word "conspiracy" simply distorts reality. For instance, were founding
fathers of America conspirators? They certainly worked against the established order; they
must have been secretive, at least in the beginning-otherwise they would have been hanged;
British crown surely looked on their activities as something malign, from their
perspective.
But all revolutionary movements & most social activities share these traits simply
because such are human nature & societies.
Hardcore conspiratorial world-view is something else. It posits at least two dogmas: a)
everything is not as it looks like, the consensus social reality is, somehow, appearance, b)
everything that happens has a cause, nothing is coincidental, random etc.
GA has enumerated many so called conspiracies (fake Moon landing, 9/11, Protocols of
Elders, Jewish activism in human rights era ..). I doubt those historical (non)events have
much in common.
So was Epstein's case some kind of conspiracy?
Secrecy? Well, he was quite open about many things, but evidently Lolita express was not
publicized. The fact is that he had hidden those underage prostitution activity, not to speak
about possible money laundering & perhaps Mossad connection. So- check.
Against the law & illegal ? Check.
Sinister? Check.
So, I would say that Epstein case, as is usual with prostitution rings & shady
financial deals & all other dirt was a conspiracy. But it is not a conspiracy theory yet.
Such sleazeball activity has been with us from the beginning. It would be much bigger if it
really involved spying, intelligence, blackmail or something similar.
Most so called conspiracy theories are nothing like "conspiracy", but reflect trends in
societies which ruling classes, from their own interests, try to manipulate with. Unz has
written extensively about that (McCain & Vietnam prisoners silence; FBI & Sibel
Edmonds,..)- see http://www.unz.com/article/our-american-pravda/
I think we need a more precise term, otherwise it is not more than a world-view of an
obscurantist paranoiac.
For obvious reasons Jews are alarmed by theories that focus on their politics, culture,
religion, folklore etc. It seems that Jewish bodies have been sufficiently forceful to
silence most attempts to criticise Jewish and Israeli politics. That leads to the question
of why Jews, Zionism, Judaism and Jewishness are so often the subject of conspiratorial
theories.
Not very obvious to someone like you, who fits every concoction you can think of, then
wraps it into a philosophy or mathematical theorem to help you sell it to the pseudo
intelligent Jew haters, allowing you to escape the Neo Nazi racists. You use your
intellectual prowess to hide your sadistic joy at watching the destruction of the Jewish
people, which proves your theory:
Behold the set up of the world and its non Jews (by the Jews) for their own gain thru an
elaborate plot created by their god who chose them. Everything in the world is set in motion
by this plot of the chosen.
The Jews were involved in the greatest conspiracy the world has ever known. The killing
of the savior of the world, the son of god . I think you can cut to the chase scene by
saying that all conspiracy theories from that time on involving the Jews were based on a
version of that plot, which also involved the Romans as co conspirators.
So the conspiracy is baked into the cake of the Jewish story. That is why it is forbidden
to discuss Jewish conspiracy theories. It took Vatican 2 to finally let go of the Roman
Catholic conspiracy of the Jews killing Christ, and put the blame on the Romans.
Zionism was an attempt to center the Jewish existence to a land and their own political
universe, so as to be able to control their own narrative, removing them from Christian
Europe.
Your conspiracy is hyper conspiratorial as only Jewish conspiracies interest you, nothing
tangential or counter conspiratorial to the Jews will ever work. You manipulate to come to
the same conclusion over and over. Ever wonder what an Islamic conspiracy theory would look
like?
Your one conspiracy theory regarding the Jews is tainted with craziness.
I suspect that one is allowed to deviate from the official narrative and speculate on
hidden plots on any given topic except probably the Jewish related ones.
Hello that is all anyone talks about!!. This site is dedicated to Jewish conspiracy
theories.
What fucking planet do you live on?
It is all a locked and loaded emotional story for you. Your writings contain no logic like
your Athens model. To me you are a total nut job.
Even us little nobodies have to be careful regarding "conspiracies". When i started my
current job 3 yrs ago i made the mistake of taking a book on 9/11 out of my bag and it was
sitting on my desk. The little jerk who sat in front of me saw it and immediately typed the
author and title into a search engine .and BaMB! There it was the author was a hollowcost
denier, he informed me!! After that he was colder than he had been before and other
co-workers gave me dirty looks so I know the little jerk went off and gossiped on me. The guy
is christian zionist although he looks jewish and has a jewish last name.
Needless to say, I had a rocky first year and didn't quite fit in, which actually makes me
feel good. Who'd want to fit in with a place like that. Luckily, my stats were good enough to
qualify to work at home so I at least escaped that little butcher market of a workplace.
You never know how quickly you can be accused of being a Conspiracy theorist or worse. It
sneaks up on you when you least expect it.
@Wally Back in 1966 many Jews saw revisionism as a valid and even necessary outlook,,,
this changed when holocaust revisionism pointed at cracks in the Zionist H narrative .
@animalogic This is why I recommend to differentiate between Jews (the ppl), Judaism (the
religion) and Jewishness (ideology, politics and culture) I made a conscious choice not to
talk about 'the Jews' as I do not posses the means to study them as a group. I hardly speak
about Judaism as I am not an expert but i do criticise Jewishness: the culture, the politics,
the identity, the ideology Once we pass this stage we can also move forward and look into
'self identifying Jews' and examine what this means i.e. what exactly they identify with
however, the suggestion that 'Israel did 911' will get you
the following message at the link you provided:
" This account has been terminated due to multiple or severe violations of YouTube's
policy prohibiting hate speech. "
He operated in the open. I am afraid that there is not much evidence of Jewish
conspiracies.
In American jurisprudence a "conspiracy" is a common felony charge, legally defined as
collusion between at least two people to commit a criminal act – which could in itself
merely constitute a misdemeanor. Just because people may openly indulge in such actions,
presumably because they feel immune to prosecution, does not mean that they are not engaging
in conspiratorial behavior.
Maybe you could expand your limited (circular) definition of " Jewish Power "
– paraphrasing: the ability to prevent open discussion of Jewish power – to
include the ability to openly engage in conspiratorial acts without fear of legal
retribution.
"The Jews were involved in the greatest conspiracy the world has ever known. The killing of
the savior of the world, the son of god. I think you can cut to the chase scene by saying
that all conspiracy theories from that time on involving the Jews were based on a version of
that plot, which also involved the Romans as co conspirators. "
and concerning Atzmon:
"Your one conspiracy theory regarding the Jews is tainted with craziness."
You are sadly ignorant of the history of Jewish messianism. If you want to find crazy
people, you should study them and see how mentally ill some of your own people were. I give
you another lesson of the history of Jewish messianism, you will see that killing Jesus has
not been the source of the conspiracy theories of Jews.
Jews conspired against Rome for 600 years. Three times they started a war (66, 115 and
132), once they tried to build a temple (363) and once they joined Parsians in a war (614),
later they helped Muslims to conquer Spain in a conspiratoral manner, and also Levant. But
after they had lost to Heracleios, Jewish leaders considered having made a pact with gentile
kings (not only the Emperor of Byzantium) that Jews will not rebel against the king before
the time the Messiah comes. To justify this pact they referred to the Song of Songs, a
messianic text of the love of the Messiah and Israel, to the verse that the bride must not
wake up love before it is its time. That is, Jews never made any permanent promise to be
loyal to the king, it was just for the time. But there was to be the end of the times, the
time when the Messiah arrives. Many Messiah aspirants arrived, but none got wide support,
most were either magicians (David Alroy) or kabbalists (Abraham ben Abulafia). So up to the
time when British puritans got the crazy idea that American Indians are a Lost Tribe of
Israel. Finding the lost tribes meant the end of the times. Manesseh ben Israel supported
this interpretation and under British and Dutch Jewish influence Shabbatai Zevi started
preaching that he is the Messiah, the year was 1648. Over half of Jews believed in him, but
the mission failed. But it did not stop, it continued in two fronts. The less important was
Donmeh. Jacob Frank got his crazy idea of being the Messiah from Donmeh. The important front
was that European occultists, later to be Fremasons, accepted this idea. Some Jews joined
Freemasons. Some were converted Frankists, some were assimilated Jews. Some were powerful,
like Cremieux and Rothschild. This started the pre-Zionist conspiracy for creating Israel and
gaining world power.
I perfectly well understand that a secular Jew, who has rudimentary understanding of
Kabbalah and no knowledge of the history of Jewish messianism, like you, Fran Taubman, does
not know anything about this. But why do you write your nonsense comments and accuse other
people of crazyness when it is you who are remarkably ignorant of the religion and history of
your people?
My dear Fran, try to concentrate. I actually argue repeatedly in the piece above and through
my entire body of work that there are NO Jewish conspiracies! All is done in the open, from
AIPAC, to ADL, to Israeli criminality, to Epstein and the organised crime apparatus he was
part of the only thing we see evidence of is an orchestrated relentless attempts to suppress
the discussion of these topics. Far from being a great surprise, all you do on this thread
and others is just that, desperately trying to supress the discussion the J political,
cultural and identitarian symptoms
The impression one gets after watching the routine interviewing and watching the targeted
questions by the interviewers of those potentially guilty of a crime either in a police head
quarter or in s court are nothing but a conspiracy theory built around loose connections ,
possibilities, absence of better explanations and presence of reasons of economic, religious,
identity -based reasons , or based on emotions .
Often those who deride the ' conspiracy theorist' use the argument that no direct evidence
is seen or shown to exist .
With that argument a killer can also challenge the accuser "did you see me killing "
Conspiracy theory is also a theory that explains entirely or partly certain crimes .
Dismissing them is the best defense the criminal minds and their apologist can unfortunately
can employ often successfully.
@Gilad Atzmon Politely & patiently, and to Fran Taubman, Gilad Atzmon tried to (in
futility) explain:
" there are NO Jewish conspiracies! All is done in the open, from AIPAC, to ADL, to Israeli
criminality, to Epstein and the organised crime apparatus he was part of the only thing we
see evidence of is an orchestrated relentless attempts to suppress the discussion of these
topics."
Dear Gilad Atzmon,
Re; above, In my Amerika, the only example of Israeli accountability for evident
commitment of high (political) espionage crimes was Jonathan Pollard's arrest &
imprisonment.
Of course, contemporary Jewish lesser criminals, for examples, the (temporarily punished)
Marc Rich, Bernie Madoff, and Harvey Weinstein were held accountable to flexible & unjust
US law. Haha. Jeffrey Epstein almost had his day in US court.
The great elite Jewish advantage in western nations is unaccountability for their
crimes.
In my "Homeland," those routinely committed by AIPAC & the ADL are enshrined as
virtues.
Unaccountable to conscience, the ideologically blind & evangelical Fran Taubman, has
no need to "concentrate" on what intellectual advantage you try to give her.
Very sad because ever objective international Elders of Zion even recognize the fact of
prized-Jewish unaccountablity for the worst crimes ever committed against mankind. They are
likely grateful for having such "Crime & Punishment" exemption
The issue is the Jewish mind's 'unwillingness to consider criticism'. I
dated a woman like that. It was an impossible task to come to consensus. In her case it was
narcissism, in the Jewish case it is the Avodah Zarah of chosenness. After all – if you
are God chosen, why look inside for fault? All fault naturally is external to your blessed
self.
This is the problem. And this is where the downfall of the Jewish faith will come from.
After all, the only reform Judaism recognises is prophetic or messianic – entities
external to current Judaism that would force change on the unwilling. And given Christ's end,
and the prophets before – not sure many want to try this predictable path!
Most Jews I have ever met have been profoundly profoundly paranoid people
driven to bizzare behaviours by their covert animus against the people they live in the same
country with. They also without exception viewed the world as being us against them and this
was a world view over time that they were decidedly not capable of hiding even with their
best efforts.
By the way hasbara when you are going to point out that you are an ordinary Jewish person
who is so financially stressed she does not have the time to go on vacation you might want to
consider the fact that you have all the time in the world to get into paragraphs long
arguments in the comment section of *every single Gilad Atzmon article* . Kind of makes a
nonsense of your pretentions of being poor and stressed no? (An ordinary Jew lol-what even is
that, you yourself admit that they "scratch their collective heads' i.e that they are a
collective).
Anyway you should reconsider your piss poor defence of Jews. Just look at the comment
sections on Unz to see rampant Jewish ethnocentrism.
It is my belief that Epstein is alive and is in Israel, and since the zio/US is under the
control of zionists this fits the picture, and since the zionists got away with the attack on
the WTC on 911, they can get away with anything!
Zionism is not about Palestine, it is about Eretz Israel – from the Nile to the
Euphrates, and South into Jordan and Saudi Arabia.
I'd go one further, and state that Zionism is an agenda of global domination. Not just the Greater Levant, but N. America and Europe and everything else.
Whom, if not Zionists, are in control of the ZUSA in actual terms? Does the world's
remaining 'super-power' bomb nations all over the globe, sending myriad nations reeling into
the stone age, on behalf of Americans, or Zionists?
Ditto England and France and all the 'Five Eyes' nations.
Whom, if not Zionists, are the ones demanding that Germans (and many others) be imprisoned
for questioning any idiotic trope about WWII?
Is the West saber-rattling at Iran because Iran threatens the West? Or because Zionists
consider Iran to be inconvenient to their global hegemony and rapine?
One of the things that has amused me of late, is the hysteria over 'climate change'.
(((They)) soooo wanted their 'carbon tax', because that would have given them the
pretext to tax every last backwater on the planet. Power over everyone –
everywhere (in order to "save" the planet!)
Anyone who defied ((their)) power, would come under the global police force NATO (for the
sake of the planet!) and by force would be reminded who's in charge.
Who can doubt such is what happened to Gadhafi? He, (like Saddam) tried to defy their
power with his Gold Dinar, and was made an example of.
Such is the nefarious force (fiend) that Putin and Assad and the few remaining free
nations face daily.
They don't want to define their borders, because as they see it, the planet belongs
to them.
Very interesting. But take an example : Unz article on meritocracy showed how Jewish game the
system by having a strong over-représentation compared to merit and flooding the place
with ethnic so that at the end, they represent half of the whites.
But the reaction to that was far from " wide in the open ". They both tried to reduce
drastically the number of people counted as Jews – thanks to the polymorphic definition
of a jew – while reminding everyone they are just white.
And Harvard crimson has statistics about freshman about everything – SAT by race,
sexual orientation, being an athlete or being a legacy, but there is nothing about Jewish.
Wich is really not very " operating in the open " when you know the crowd there .
So Jews are perfectly able to operate in secret and distill theories to advance their
genetic interest while pretending it is done for other noble purposes. Take Ginsburg as a
paroxistic example : all life on minorities business. Only 1 black clerk out of 150 and two
third or more Jewish. She hasn't being bragging about that either .
I read an amusing Sorbonne master thesis from the 1910' written by a Jewish guy who
explained how The Jews – because of their universalism, kindness, and open heart
– helped the Indian during the far west against the Whites in all matters related to
trade and peace treaties. The Indian trusted them because they were amazed at their ability
to speak so many Indian languages (more than the Indian did) and understand their culture and
even make jokes and pronounce very profound and sacred sentences that would touch their
Indian heart and soul.
It didn't end well for them. I don't believe their were that stupid that the Jewish could
have tell them what was going to happen
One of the more interesting ironies is Fox News' and Conservatism Inc's use of "conspiracy
theory" to neutralize evidence revealing the deep state conspiracies that both Fox News and
Conservatism Inc claim to oppose.
They rule out unassailable evidence, regarding 911 for example, solely because it points
directly to Israeli and American deep state complicity, and in so doing they overturn Western
Civilization's thousand years' advance in reaching correct conclusions based on the evidence.
So much for their "conservatism."
They also constantly "poison the well," tarring unfavorable evidence by associating it
with with fringe insanity. And, not least, their elaborate efforts at concealing the truth of
911 provide powerful evidence of their guilt as co-conspirators of the deep state they
pretend to oppose.
The little jerk who sat in front of me saw it and immediately typed the author and title
into a search engine .and BaMB! There it was the author was a hollowcost denier, he
informed me!!..You never know how quickly you can be accused of being a Conspiracy theorist
or worse. It sneaks up on you when you least expect it.
Sorry to hear that happened to you.
Gotta wonder what the response might of been like if you'd had Orwell's 1984 openly
sitting on your desk instead.
Seriously, I wouldn't be half surprised if we don't see 1984 banned someday as hate
literature, ie 'hate lit', as it strikes too close to home.
'Thoughtcrime is a dreadful thing, old man,' he said sententiously. 'It's insidious. It
can get hold of you without your even knowing it..'
'Of course I'm guilty!' cried Parsons with a servile glance at the telescreen. 'You
don't think the Party would arrest an innocent man, do you?' His frog-like face grew
calmer, and even took on a slightly sanctimonious expression.
'Thoughtcrime is a dreadful thing, old man,' he said sententiously. 'It's insidious. It
can get hold of you without your even knowing it. Do you know how it got hold of me? In my
sleep! Yes, that's a fact. There I was, working away, trying to do my bit -- never knew I
had any bad stuff in my mind at all. And then I started talking in my sleep. Do you know
what they heard me saying?'
He sank his voice, like someone who is obliged for medical reasons to utter an
obscenity.
"Down with Big Brother!" Yes, I said that! Said it over and over again, it seems.
Between you and me, old man, I'm glad they got me before it went any further. Do you know
what I'm going to say to them when I go up before the tribunal? "Thank you," I'm going to
say, "thank you for saving me before it was too late."
@Sean McBride This may be obvious, but don't forget that the "official" narrative of 911
was itself a conspiracy theory.
In such cases it is the job of the intelligence community to provide "evidence" to support
_their_ conspiracy theory and to attack any other analysis as a "crazy conspiracy
theory".
Another example is the Oklahoma City bombing. The "official" theory was supported by the
intelligence community and their Mockingbird media. Anyone who attempted to question the
official narrative was denounced as a kook.
The intelligence community uses "events" to brainwash the public to accept their narrative
and accuse those who question it as conspiracy nuts.
I was personally involved in a close look at the Vince Foster "suicide" many years ago and
it fit the pattern. Witnesses were ridiculed and intimidated, researchers were attacked by
the major media, and the official narrative was passed into the history books.
The big picture "conspiracy" is simply intelligence community tradecraft. They have a
template and they use it over and over again:
–Create the "event" to eliminate enemies (or for other objectives like increasing
their budget and/or power)
–Use agents in the federal, state and local government, the law enforcement and
judicial agencies to control the "investigation"
–Use the mass media to disseminate the official narrative
–Use intimidation of non-official investigators (harassment to start, murder if
necessary)
–Use slander and arguments from authority to suppress dissenting views
Other examples of "events" include:
–Assassinations of JFK, RFK, MLK, attempted assassination of Reagan
–Mass shootings (including school shootings)
"I'd go one further, and state that Zionism is an agenda of global domination. Not
just the Greater Levant, but N. America and Europe and everything else."
Assuming it to be true,
Sounds like a concession to me. Well done. You're improving with your time spent here,
which lead us to this:
what are you doing to actively stop it other than commenting on a blog? Do you not have
a patriotic duty to head it off at the pass, even if it means making sacrifices? Is it not
about the cause? Are you not a true believer?
You see Corvy, I'm convinced that I've already done a great deal to heal your wounded
soul, and foster in you a newfound introspection that you've been sorely lacking.
So even tho I'm not Him, and willing to sacrifice myself to save humanity, I am
willing to do my part to be a light unto the world, so that, like a lighthouse in the storm,
lost souls like yourself can navigate their way to truth, which means beauty, which brings
meaning and love to a persons otherwise wretched and self-loathing existence.
Just seeing your progress here, is all the proof I need to know that I'm not wasting my
time here, and have done good works.
Soon you will be like a disciple, and go forth and spread the truth yourself. The
beautiful, often enigmatic, but always wondrous and miraculous.. truth.
And given Christ's end, and the prophets before – not sure many want to try this
predictable path!
In The
Poppy War R F Kuang explores power from numerous perspectives; in one insightful
conversation Rin is forced to realize that there is no power without pain.
In The Wondering Who, Atzmon focused on Esther as the model zionist. The Esther story
touches -- or introduces! -- several characteristics of Jewish power in USA / the world
today:
– alleged or pre-emptive victimhood
– working in secret to spy- controlling information in and information out : :
knowledge is power– Mordecai was able to insert Esther into the royal household based
on information gained by spying/snooping
– use of sexual activity in a perverted way, i.e. Esther used sexual attraction to gain
power but not to procreate (Rin had herself sterilized in order to become the perfect
'soldier'– gain power, which meant avoiding her fate if she did not acquire power:
marriage & sexual relations with an unpleasant man, in order to bear his children)
– decapitating the leadership of the Target and destroying their population, ability to
reproduce, and their culture
– religious or spiritual sentiments and even demands are cast aside in the pursuit of
political power
The Seth Rich story is coming back to life. A fellow named Butowski is exposing things.
He claims that Ellen Ratner of Fox News told him that Seth Rich and his brother Aaron gave
Wikileaks Hillary's emails. Julian Assange is said to have told Ellen Ratner.
The story is that the cover-up came down from now disgraced FBI agent, Andrew McCabe, to
the Mayor of DC and on down to the police. They were told to sit on the case.
The Seth Rich story tells us how corruption spreads. The Mayor of DC, Muriel Bowser, tells
Peter Newsham, the guy in charge of the Seth Rich investigation, to shut it down.
Then, a year later she promotes him to Chief of Police.
Eminent forensics Professor Cyril Wecht, a respected and courageous expert who played a
important role in debunking the lies and cover up surrounding the JFK assassination, does not
buy up Jeffrey Epstein's hanging himself just by leaning off his bed:
Re the Epstein story, the Occupied Media is focusing on the means rather than at the end. The
means: provide under-age sex to the so-called elite.
The end: blackmail the "elite" clients on behalf of a foreign intelligence service.
The Occupied Media is pretending the Caribbean island, the money, the connections, and the
organization were to provide sex for the so-called elite. It doesn't want to probe further as
to the reason for the existence of Epstein's monster.
There's nothing new here. From 1947 to 1961 the Mossad had a superspy in Lebanon who ran
half-a-dozen brothels in various parts of Beirut which specialized in servicing the elite.
The superspy, born in Argentina, was Shulamit Cohen. She had four or five fake names. For
fourteen years she extracted Lebanese and Syrian government secrets from her
government/military clients. Assisting her were a number of Jewish prostitutes (Rachel,
Marcella, Ronit, etc.) and several Arabs who received money and were provided with free
access to the prostitutes. Her primary Lebanese agent was Mahmoud Awad, a big wheel in the
government. Cohen was so well connected that in the early s she arranged a secret
meeting between a Syrian colonel and a Mossad agent. The colonel later became president of
Syria.
The Mossad provided her with secret cameras and other paraphernalia for blackmail
purposes.
Pioneering what Epstein did, Mrs. Cohen (she was married to a Jewish businessman) offered
a beautiful 14-year-old Lebanese girl to her top clients. Cohen also ran the Rambo "Pub" in
the affluent Hamra district to provide sexual services to government and military people. She
also installed sleepers in the army. Together with a French Jew she almost wrecked the
Lebanese banking system through an embezzlement scheme. In the late s, a Syrian
military officer told the Lebanese that Cohen was an Israeli spy. The nonchalant Lebanese
said Shula was above suspicion. But eventually (1961), Cohen was arrested along with some of
her associates. Awad conveniently died of a heart attack in jail a month after his arrest.
Cohen was condemned to death but the sentence was commuted to twenty years. In 1967, she was
handed to Israel in a prisoner exchange. She was hailed as a national hero there. Cohen lived
in Jerusalem for many years. There's a similar story about another Mossad madame in Egypt in
the pre-Nasser days.
Jeffrey Epstein interpretation options, from comments on the web:
Epstein's end -- 3 choices -- Suicide, murder, or in Israel?
Maybe ordered like this --
Broke -- Official story -- 'suicide' ?
Woke -- 'Murder' story -- distraction ?
Bespoke -- Real story -- extraction ? Jeffrey Epstein now lives in Israel ?
Was escape to Israel the ultimate payoff for Epstein's decades of work for Mossad,
grooming and abusing young teens, filmed in flagrante delicto with prominent people for
political blackmail?
As financed by the Mossad-supporting Mega group of a score of Jewish billionaires,
started in the 1990s by the ultra-ZIonist Bronfmans, & Jewish underwear mogul Les
Wexner, who gave Epstein tens of millions & let Epstein have the NYC mansion Wexner
bought?
With the Epstein 'death in jail' under the US Attorney General Bill Barr, whose
Jewish-born ex-OSS father Donald Barr had written a 'fantasy novel' on sex slavery with
scenes of rape of underage teens, 'Space Relations', written whilst Don Barr was headmaster
of the Dalton school, which gave Epstein his first job, teaching teens And Barr asking for an
'investigation' by also-Jewish DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz --
And Epstein's Jewish lawyers hiring 85-year-old Jewish forensic pathologist Dr Michael
Baden to review Epstein's autopsy, Baden infamous for his 1970s US Congress report supporting
the weird 'single magic bullet' argument in the JFK assassination, Baden helping to deflect
from any Israeli-Mossad involvement in President Kennedy's death --
Hence, Attorney General 'Butterball' Bill Barr, having been a CIA officer in youth
1973-77, the CIA supporting Barr thru night law school, as well as Barr having a Jewish-born
father will be hot on the trail of any Mossad links in the case, given the long-standing
CIA-Mossad connections?
QAnon had already laid it out for everyone to see.
William Barr's father hired Epstein in the early 1970's to work as a teacher at an
exclusive prep school. The father had worked in intelligence during World War II. Epstein was
groomed to work for Mossad. Interestingly enough, Barr's father wrote a science fiction novel
with a sexual slavery theme. Prominent men including Trump were pulled into Epstein's lair.
One such man is a famous Harvard lawyer, who used his White House connections to ensure
Epstein's untimely demise.
Go to NeonRevolt's site. He has further details. Sells merchandise, too.
Epstein dropped out of Cooper Union and NYU at age 20, but mysteriously got a job teaching
calculus and physics at the prestigious Dalton school in NYC. He was hired by then headmaster
Donald Barr (born Jewish converted to Catholicism), father of current AG William Barr. A year
later Donald Barr was forced out by a group of Dalton parents for not being "progressive"
enough and replaced by a guy named Dunnan, who was later accused of having an affair with a
teacher and also sexually molesting a 14 year old.
While at Dalton, Epstein taught the son of Bear Sterns CEO Ace Greenberg, and ended up
working at Bear Sterns. Five years later in 1981 he was fired from Bear Sterns for helping
Edgar Bronfman in an insider trading scandal, which Bronfman blamed on his (phantom) Italian
partner.
Bronfman' and his two daughters have been embroiled in the NXIVM sex scandal case.
Meanwhile, Epstein somehow got his start thanks to one major "investor", billionaire Les
Wexner, founder of the Limited, Abercombie & Fitch, Victoria's Secret etc. Bronfman and
Wexner co-founded mega, a Jewish organization that promotes Israel.
Epstein-Bronfman smells like a giant international Jew crime network that involves
blackmailing of wealthy people, celebrities and politicians for having sex with underage
girls. It's how Epstein gained his wealth. He had no money to start out. His "hedge fund" is
nothing but a fake front for billionaires to wire their ransom money, which is why it is
established offshore and so secretive. There has been two huge fires at his private island in
BVI btwn 2018 and Jan. 2019. Speculation is that lots of incriminating video footage was
burnt, but of course Epstein kept copies, and Mossad most likely has them as well. Got to
keep the blackmailing of our political and economic elites going. Israhell has a right to
exist.
miscalculation that the rotten West will help them instead of use them to create a
festering sore on Russian border for just a few billion dollars in loans.
A possibly a fatal miscalculation for Ukraine, but there is also an ideology involved. In
Maidan-Ukrainians case that ideology is Ukrainian nationalism combined with a servile Western
worship of almost cargo-cult level. An odd combination that has led to odd result.
West wanted Zelensky to win, the question is why. Tactically, Zelensky neutralized large
Russia-leaning block of voters: the 70% vote would have gone somewhere and they were not going
to vote for Poroshenko or Tymoshenko. So that misdirection was successful. But what was the
point? Let's look at what Zelensky is actually doing (not the throw-away comedy and rhetoric):
he is trying to allow sale of Ukrainian land to foreign investors. My guess is that he will
push it through and that will his main legacy. Buying up Ukrainian arable land has been a wet
dream for many in the West since 1991. Zelensky could deliver on it, and then move on.
In 3-5 years we could have an interesting scenario in Ukraine with land (its main wealth)
owned by foreign investors and a large % of population with Russian or Polish and other EU
passports. As always with ideology, the result is the exact opposite of what that ideology
claims: the dictatorship of proletariat impoverished and killed proletariat, Nazis dramatically
shrunk German lebensraum, liberals obsession with ' liberty and universal brotherhood '
is leading to censorship, suppression and group hostilities. But here we are and the
ideological idiocy that Maidan-Ukrainians embraced might not be reversible. This is not good
for anybody.
EU might decide to send its US overlords to Hell and pay Russia to take the hand
grenade away from the monkey.
How would EU go against its overlord? Even if EU would try, the existential
nihilism in Kiev will prevent compromise. Ideologues can't admit that their 'idea' didn't work,
they prefer destroying everything around. West is also at this point incapable of admitting an
error – they literally can't do it, the lying has to go on. That means that even
groundwork for any possible compromise can't be put in place. This is all the way down with
fireworks and it won't be pretty.
There is such a thing as a catastrophic error and the last 5 years in Ukraine comes
pretty close to it. That is not really fixable. The monkey night as well use the
grenade.
"The other significant force in the Ukraine is the West Ukrainian (Galician) Nazi
death-squads and mobs."
Where are death camps for the Jews? Where are racial laws that expel non-Ukrainians? Where
is the propaganda of eugenics and healthy lifestyle? Where are construction projects bringing
in jobs, and state-subsidized recreation tours?
Ukraine is a Jew-driven shithole that has nothing to do with National Socialism. They
don't even honour the sacrifice of the SS Galizien.
"but what they are genuinely fantasizing about is the territory, and only the territory.
As for the 2 million-plus virulently anti-Nazi people currently living on these lands, they
simply want them either dead or expelled)."
A lie. Currently, more than a half of those "expelled" have migrated inside Ukraine. A
stark contrast to Croatia where the Serbs were driven out of the country, and their land
given to Croats.
Again, Ukraine is suicidal and full of civic nationalism, nothing about it is
blood-based.
"They and their Polish supporters want Russia to break apart in numerous small state-lets
which they (or, in their delusional dreams, the Chinese) could dominate."
Why do you consider this as a negative for the Russian people? The current Russian state
is in its death throes as much as the US and France – the ethnic Russians are dying
out, fleeing and being replaced. Any alternative might prove out more hopeful.
"In contrast, the LDNR forces seem to be doing pretty well, and their morale appears to be
as strong as ever (which is unsurprising since their military ethos is based in 1000 years of
Russian military history)."
I have to remind you that the Donbass was colonized far more recently than Ukraine –
in the 18-19th centuries. What "ancient" traditions?
"but Novorussia also is a never healing wound in the side of Nazi-occupied Ukraine"
The Donbass has never been part of Novorussia which is to the west, from Dniepropetrovsk
to Odessa. Admittedly, Novorussia's colonists were mostly from Ukraine – it is clearly
seen on the language maps.
"The problem with this slogan is that there is simply no way the (relatively small)
Galician population can ever succeed in permanently defeating their much bigger (and,
frankly, much smarter) Jewish, Polish or Russian neighbors."
Khmelnitsky managed to do just that – 100k dead Jews. And he's on the Ukrainian
currency. Too bad modern "Nazi" Ukrainians have elected a Jew President. This is not the
Khmelnitsky uprising, this is Kiev under the Khazar Khaganate before Oleg came from the
North.
We all know the Hypocrisy of that War. Clinton had to distract the masses from MonicaGate
and Hillary had to prove to the MIC that she could be beneficial to them.
Result : Those Kosovo Albanians had a state handed to them, and instead of building
it(with uncle Sam's and EU help) as prosperous country, they used their weapons and
"expertise" in becoming the low level gangsters of Europe. Every Europol analysis points to
the direction of Kosovo Albanians as the criminal thugs in prostitution and drug trade and
protection rackets. The largest percentage of a single ethnic group in European jails is that
of Albanians.
The most unjust and illegal of wars in the late 20c.
There was only one reason to bomb white Christian brothers in Serbia thereby aiding the
Muslim of Kosovo and Albania, and that was Russia, which by that stage had got its act
together and dealt with the traitorous oligarchs who had sold their country out to the
west.
Hillary and her cronies no doubt lost a lot of money when the Russians shut their rat
lines down.
I hope I live long enough to see those fuckers swing, and Tony Blair, Alistair Campnell
and Peter Mandelson as well.
Again, your Muslims are to blame for everything. Muslims are all different. And it is
necessary to separate the faithful Muslims from the bandits who are only covered by Muslim
slogans.
NATO and your godless government are to blame!
An Afghan Freedom Fighter in Donbass - ENG SUBTITLE
It happened at the time of the Lewinsky affair and the possible impeachment of Clinton.
They needed a distraction.
Milosevic btw. agreed to all conditions imposed on the FR of Yugoslavia except for one
condition that nobody would accept: the full and unhindered access to the territory of FRY by
NATO troops. That effectively meant an occupation. Nobody would agree to that. NATO and
Albright deliberately came up with that condition for they knew it was unacceptable. Even
Kissinger said that condition was over the top. NATO and Albright wanted that war. Serbia
btw. saved Albright twice when she was still a little Slovakian Jewish girl whose family
found refuge twice in Serbia. Once they escaped the Nazis that way and the second time the
communists.
NATO thought they would need 48 hours but they needed 78 days and Milosevic only gave in
after NATO switched from hitting military targets to civilian targets: Hospitals, commuter
trains, civilian industry, an open market, random houses in random villages. After Milosevic
pulled out his troops out of Kosovo, the KLA started killing Serbs and moderate Albanians,
not to mention engage in organ trafficking (...). As the article said, well over 200k Serbs,
moderate Albanians, Roma and other minorities were ethnically cleansed from Kosovo.
The US also used cluster bombs and DU weapons. Of the 4000 Italian KFOR troops that went
into Kosovo after the bombing, 700 are dead from cancer and leukemia with several hundreds
more seriously ill. The American KFOR troops wore hazmat suits. The Italians did not have
them and were not warned. Today, many people in southern Serbia, Montenegro and Kosovo itself
are sick and dying.
yes just like USA tried to help Vietnam against communists... by killing 2 million
Vietnamese. and tried to help Korea by killing 20 % of the population. and by helping Iraq
get rid of "bad" Saddam Hussein by killing 2 million Iraqies.
Not disagreeing with you but lets remember that communists were killing a lot of people in
other areas not long before those wars in SE Asia. May have been a wash in the end.
Bring back the draft. On the whole Americans have no idea what the carnage of combat
produces. Combat vets do. And the ones that aren't natural psychopaths never want to
experience it again. This volunteer army we have is over loaded with a them. A military draft
will actually bring some sort civilian control.
Such ********. Do the millions we kill have any human rights? It's been going on for 4000
years. Ruthless pursuit of empire and fabricating phony justifications.
Hillary seems to enjoy killing people. If it wasn't Gaddaffi, it was all the people on her
body bag count, and now it's known she encouraged killing people in Serbia. Someone needs to
take that old cow out into the center of the town and burn her at the stake.
Partially true, otherwise as usually excellent Dr. Paul, ... The Pandora's box situation
was opened years before Clinton's bombing of Serbia, which was part of a larger scheme
started nearly a decade before.
That was when the US armed the religious extremists in Bosnia, in order to bring war,
"civil war" and chaos, and disintegration, the way they more recently tried to do with Syria,
or "succeeded" in doing in Libya, bringing chaos and open-air slave markets in a country that
was one of the most developed on the African continent under Gaddafi (a truth that was so
easily erased by propaganda).
And the whole neocon scheme started two decades before, with the Zbigniew Brzezinski
doctrine, when the US started arming the mujahedin in Afghanistan, provoking the trap for the
Soviet invasion of 1979, which was the real opening of US neocon's Pandora's box we are
regrettably so familiar with by now. We've all fallen in that old
neocon/military-industrial-congressional-complex trap by now. And there seems to be no end in
sight to those eternal wars "for civilization" (the old colonial trope dressed under new
fatigues). Unless serious societal and political changes take place in the US to put an end
to the US "imperial" death drive.
Former Ukrainian presidential candidate Yulia Tymoshenko trace to Steele dossier is a real shocker.
Notable quotes:
"... On December 5, 2016, Bruce Ohr emailed himself an Excel spreadsheet, seemingly from his wife Nellie Ohr, titled " WhosWho19Sept2016 ." The spreadsheet purports to show relationship descriptions and "linkages" between Donald Trump, his family and criminal figures, many of whom were Russians. ..."
"... If you want to have more fun, search the pdf using the term "BAYROCK." You will discover that Nellie Ohr, like a female Don Quixote, is searching desperately to link Trump and Sater to dirty Russian money. What she does not suspect is that Sater was being used, via his company Bayrock, to try to gain access to Russians who were potential targets of the FBI. ..."
"... What is not emphasized in the piece, and it is something I want to direct you to, is that the idea or impetus to launch the investigation of Butina came courtesy of Christopher Steele, who was relaying rumor and conjecture to Bruce Ohr. ..."
"... FBI Director Christopher Wray reminds me of one of the workers in the bowels of the Titanic who was furiously shoveling coal into the doomed boilers of the sinking ship. The FBI, like the Titanic, is in trouble. ..."
"... It also gave immunity to all of the people on Hillary's team that participated in obstruction of justice. On that same day, Jim Comey signed off on a separate memo that decided not to prosecute Hillary Clinton. ..."
"... Larry..Fusion GPS has always refused to Reveal who where its Financial support came from... ..."
"... So..the Timeline Indicates Fusion GPS was hired by The "Washington Free Beacon" around October 2015 to background checks and Profiles of The Republican Candidates for President.and that Fusion GPS continued to do so until May 2016..when it became clear that Donald Trump clinched the Nomination.. ..."
"... I wonder why AG Barr isn't forcing the FBI to comply sooner with Judge Boasberg's ruling to hand over unredacted Comey Memos and Archey Declarations? ..."
"... So what did Barack Obama know, and when did he know it? ..."
"... Nellie Ohr was working for a privately-owned firm that had employed her to make false accusations about Trump's alleged connections to Russians in order to sabotage his presidency and lay the groundwork for his impeachment. ..."
"... They also hired foreign agent, Chris Steele to concoct a thoroughly-debunked dossier for the same purpose. ..."
"... Can these people be charged with a crime or have we entered a new world of 'dirty tricks'??? ..."
"... Examination of the Nellie Ohr documents given to the FBI shows some of her source material also came from former Ukrainian presidential candidate Yulia Tymoshenko and a lawsuit she filed against Manafort. ..."
"... So, Bruce Ohr became a conduit of information not only for intelligence from Clinton's British opposition-researcher but also from his wife's curation of evidence from a Clinton foreign ally and Manafort enemy inside Ukraine. Talk about foreign influence in a U.S. election! ..."
"... The lines between government officials and informants, unverified political dirt and real intelligence, personal interest and law enforcement, became too blurred for the Justice Department's own good. ..."
There are many moving pieces in the drama surrounding the Deep State attempt to kill the Trump Presidency. God Bless Judicial
Watch. I think most of the key evidence that has surfaced came courtesy of Tom Fitton, Chris Farrell and their team of tireless workers.
I want to bring you back to
Mr. Felix Sater . He was part of Bayrock, which worked closely with Donald Trump's organization and, most importantly of all,
was an FBI Confidential Human Source since December of 1998.
Thanks to Judicial Watch we have a new dump of Bruce Ohr emails, which include several from his wife, Nellie. There are 330 pages
to wade thru (you can
see
them here ). There
is one item in particular I encourage you to look at:
On December 5, 2016, Bruce Ohr emailed himself an Excel spreadsheet, seemingly from his wife Nellie Ohr, titled "
WhosWho19Sept2016
." The spreadsheet purports to show relationship descriptions and "linkages" between Donald Trump, his family and criminal figures,
many of whom were Russians. This list of individuals allegedly "linked to Trump" include: a Russian involved in a "gangland
killing;" an Uzbek mafia don; a former KGB officer suspected in the murder of Paul Tatum; a Russian who reportedly "buys up banks
and pumps them dry"; a Russian money launderer for Sergei Magnitsky; a Turk accused of shipping oil for ISIS; a couple who lent their
name to the Trump Institute, promoting its "get-rich-quick schemes"; a man who poured him a drink; and others.
The spreadsheet starts on page 301. If you search the document for the name Felix Sater, he will pop up. Now here is the curious
and, I suppose, reassuring thing about this document--Nellie Ohr did not have a clue that Felix Sater was an active FBI informant.
We can at least give the FBI credit for protecting Sater's identity from Nellie Ohr and, more importantly, her husband, DOJ official
Bruce Ohr.
If you want to have more fun, search the pdf using the term "BAYROCK." You will discover that Nellie Ohr, like a female Don
Quixote, is searching desperately to link Trump and Sater to dirty Russian money. What she does not suspect is that Sater was being
used, via his company Bayrock, to try to gain access to Russians who were potential targets of the FBI.
One point is clear--she uncovered no evidence implicating Trump working with the Russians, either thru Felix Sater or one of the
other "suspects" she exhaustively listed.
Shifting gears, there are two very important pieces recently posted at The Conservative Tree House that I encourage you to read:
What is not emphasized in the piece, and it is something I want to direct you to, is that the idea or impetus to launch the
investigation of Butina came courtesy of Christopher Steele, who was relaying rumor and conjecture to Bruce Ohr.
You can find this information in the
Bruce
Ohr 302s that Judicial Watch also secured. Marina Butina was unfairly and unjustly portrayed and prosecuted as a Russian intelligence
agent. It was a damn lie.
I do not ever want to hear another American complaining about an American State Department or CIA employee who is entrapped and
unfairly prosecuted in Russia.
We have done the same damn thing that we have accused the Soviets of doing. The same thing. It is shameful.
The
second piece is the ultimate feel good piece. Kudos to its author, Sundance.
He details how a Federal Judge, infuriated by the FBIs stupidity and mendacity, tells the Bureau to go pound sand. The FBI is
frantically trying to prevent the Archey Declarations from being revealed thanks to a lawsuit brought by CNN (finally, CNN did something
right).
The Archey Declarations provide a detailed description of the memos written and illegally removed from FBI Headquarters by that
sanctimonious twit, Jim Comey. More shoes will be dropping in the coming days.
It appears that Inspector General Horowitz is going to present at least one report on Jim Comey and one report on the FISA abuse
by the FBI.
FBI Director Christopher Wray reminds me of one of the workers in the bowels of the Titanic who was furiously shoveling coal
into the doomed boilers of the sinking ship. The FBI, like the Titanic, is in trouble.
Finally, Gateway Pundit's Joe Hoft put up an important piece today (
see here ). Here is the bottomline, and keep this in mind as you read the piece, on June 20, 2016 the FBI signed off on a deal
with Hillary Clinton's attorney's that gave Hillary's team the right to destroy computers and emails.
It also gave immunity to all of the people on Hillary's team that participated in obstruction of justice. On that same day,
Jim Comey signed off on a separate memo that decided not to prosecute Hillary Clinton.
The fix was in more than a month before Jim Comey appeared on camera to try to explain why he was not recommending prosecution
of Hillary for putting Top Secret information on her unclassified server.
Jim Comey lied when he declared that could not prove "intent."
I am sure that those of you who have never held a clearance and handled Top Secret material probably believed that lie.
But anyone who knows how the TS system is set up knows that the ONLY WAY, I repeat, the ONLY WAY to put TS material on an unclassified
server is to do so intentionally. There is no way to do this mistakenly.
Jim Ticehurst said in reply to Jim Ticehurst... ,
Larry..Fusion GPS has always refused to Reveal who where its Financial support came from...
So..the Timeline Indicates
Fusion GPS was hired by The "Washington Free Beacon" around October 2015 to background checks and Profiles of The Republican Candidates
for President.and that Fusion GPS continued to do so until May 2016..when it became clear that Donald Trump clinched the Nomination..
creating Phase 2..Operations..
"The Washington Free Beacon ".Has an Editor in Chief ..who is William Kristols Son In Law..And William Kristols ..Father....Irving
Kristol..is Called..."the God Father of Neo Conservatism". William Kristol..was a John McCain supporter..
Thus Fusion GPS..retained Nellie Ohr..(strangly..NO Wiki Profile) who apparently had to Use her husbnd Bruce Ohrs Clearances,,to
continue Her Collaberation with Fusion GPS..
By June 2016 the Strategy was to bring in Christopher Steele..who was know to Bruce Ohr back to 2006.. Strange.. NO early life
BIOS for Bruce or Nellie Ohr..
I wonder why AG Barr isn't forcing the FBI to comply sooner with Judge Boasberg's ruling to hand over unredacted Comey Memos
and Archey Declarations?
The Gateway Pundit item about the ridiculously unfair and unethical deals made in Hillary Clinton's email scandal investigation
is just further proof of how the Clinton taint infected the FBI. "Crooked" is a very apt epithet, that's for sure. I'd love to
know how much Bill and Hill raked in during her Sec'y. of State racketeering.
You say: "One point is clear--she uncovered no evidence implicating Trump working with the Russians, either thru Felix Sater or
one of the other "suspects" she exhaustively listed."
This is true, but it is also true that Nellie Ohr was working for a privately-owned firm that had employed her to make
false accusations about Trump's alleged connections to Russians in order to sabotage his presidency and lay the groundwork for
his impeachment.
They also hired foreign agent, Chris Steele to concoct a thoroughly-debunked dossier for the same purpose.
Can these people be charged with a crime or have we entered a new world of 'dirty tricks'???
... Examination of the Nellie Ohr documents given to the FBI shows some of her source material also came from former Ukrainian
presidential candidate Yulia Tymoshenko and a lawsuit she filed against Manafort.
Why is that significant? Tymoshenko and Hillary Clinton had a simpatico relationship after the former secretary of State
went out of her way in January 2013 to advocate for Tymoshenko's release from prison on corruption charges.
So, Bruce Ohr became a conduit of information not only for intelligence from Clinton's British opposition-researcher
but also from his wife's curation of evidence from a Clinton foreign ally and Manafort enemy inside Ukraine. Talk about foreign
influence in a U.S. election!
...
The tales of Bruce and Nellie Ohr, Christopher Steele, Yulia Tymoshenko, and those DEA and TSA agents raise a stark warning:
The lines between government officials and informants, unverified political dirt and real intelligence, personal interest
and law enforcement,
became too blurred for the Justice Department's own good.
The person responsible for securing the release of Yulia Tymoshenko was Chancellor Merkel. Further, that USA opposed Tymoshenko.
quote
As for one of the leaders of the war party in Kiev, Merkel has privately and publicly endorsed every claim of Yulia Tymoshenko,
promoting her release from prison and protecting her campaigns for war against Russia, even though – according to the high-level
German source – “they [Chancellery, Foreign Ministry] have known for years that [Tymoshenko] was a crook.”
endquote
There is a lot more detail Tymoshenko's corruption and Merkel's rescue here:
By all measures Clinton is a war criminal... Hilary is a female sociopath or worse.
Notable quotes:
"... Hillary Clinton revealed to an interviewer in the summer of 1999, "I urged him to bomb. You cannot let this go on at the end
of a century that has seen the major holocaust of our time. What do we have NATO for if not to defend our way of life?" ..."
"... The Kosovo Liberation Army's savage nature was well known before the Clinton administration formally christened them "freedom
fighters" in 1999. ..."
"... Sen. Joe Lieberman whooped that the United States and the KLA "stand for the same values and principles. Fighting for the KLA
is fighting for human rights and American values." ..."
"... Clinton administration officials justified killing civilians because, it alleged the Serbs were committing genocide in Kosovo.
After the bombing ended, no evidence of genocide was found, but Clinton and Britain's Tony Blair continued boasting as if their war
had stopped a new Hitler in his tracks. ..."
Twenty years ago, President Bill Clinton commenced bombing Serbia in the name of human rights, justice, and ethnic tolerance.
Approximately 1,500 Serb civilians were killed by NATO bombing in one of the biggest sham morality plays of the modern era. As British
professor Philip Hammond recently noted, the 78-day bombing campaign "was not a purely military operation: NATO also destroyed what
it called 'dual-use' targets, such as factories, city bridges, and even the main television building in downtown Belgrade, in an
attempt to terrorise the country into surrender."
Clinton's unprovoked attack on Serbia, intended to help ethnic Albanians seize control of Kosovo, set a precedent for "humanitarian"
warring that was invoked by supporters of George W. Bush's unprovoked attack on Iraq, Barack Oba-ma's bombing of Libya, and Donald
Trump's bombing of Syria.
Clinton remains a hero in Kosovo, and there is an 11-foot statue of him standing in the capitol, Pristina, on Bill Clinton Boulevard.
A commentator in the United Kingdom's Guardian newspaper noted that the statue showed Clinton "with a left hand raised, a
typical gesture of a leader greeting the masses. In his right hand he is holding documents engraved with the date when NATO started
the bombardment of Serbia, 24 March 1999." It would have been a more accurate representation if Clinton was shown standing on the
corpses of the women, children, and others killed in the U.S. bombing campaign.
Bombing Serbia was a family affair in the Clinton White House. Hillary Clinton revealed to an interviewer in the summer of
1999, "I urged him to bomb. You cannot let this go on at the end of a century that has seen the major holocaust of our time. What
do we have NATO for if not to defend our way of life?" A biography of Hillary Clinton, written by Gail Sheehy and published
in late 1999, stated that Mrs. Clinton had refused to talk to the president for eight months after the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke.
She resumed talking to her husband only when she phoned him and urged him in the strongest terms to begin bombing Serbia; the president
began bombing within 24 hours. Alexander Cockburn observed in the Los Angeles Times,
It's scarcely surprising that Hillary would have urged President Clinton to drop cluster bombs on the Serbs to defend "our
way of life." The first lady is a social engineer. She believes in therapeutic policing and the duty of the state to impose
such policing. War is more social engineering, "fixitry" via high explosive, social therapy via cruise missile . As a tough therapeutic
cop, she does not shy away from the most abrupt expression of the therapy: the death penalty.
I followed the war closely from the start, but selling articles to editors bashing the bombing was as easy as pitching paeans
to Scientology. Instead of breaking into newsprint, my venting occurred instead in my journal:
April 7, 1999: Much of the media and most of the American public are evaluating Clinton's Serbian policy based on
the pictures of the bomb damage -- rather than by asking whether there is any coherent purpose or justification for bombing.
The ultimate triumph of photo opportunities . What a travesty and national disgrace for this country.
April 17: My bottom line on the Kosovo conflict: I hate holy wars. And this is a holy war for American good deeds
-- or for America's saintly self-image? Sen. John McCain said the war is necessary to "uphold American values." Make me barf!
Just another Hitler-of-the-month attack.
May 13: This damn Serbian war is a symbol of all that is wrong with the righteous approach to the world and to problems
within this nation.
The KLA
The Kosovo Liberation Army's savage nature was well known before the Clinton administration formally christened them "freedom
fighters" in 1999. The previous year, the State Department condemned "terrorist action by the so-called Kosovo Liberation Army."
The KLA was heavily involved in drug trafficking and had close to ties to Osama bin Laden. Arming the KLA helped Clinton portray
himself as a crusader against injustice and shift public attention after his impeachment trial. Clinton was aided by many congressmen
eager to portray U.S. bombing as an engine of righteousness. Sen. Joe Lieberman whooped that the United States and the KLA "stand
for the same values and principles. Fighting for the KLA is fighting for human rights and American values."
In early June 1999, the Washington Post reported that "some presidential aides and friends are describing [bombing] Kosovo
in Churchillian tones, as Clinton's 'finest hour.'" Clinton administration officials justified killing civilians because, it
alleged the Serbs were committing genocide in Kosovo. After the bombing ended, no evidence of genocide was found, but Clinton and
Britain's Tony Blair continued boasting as if their war had stopped a new Hitler in his tracks.
In a speech to American troops in a Thanksgiving 1999 visit, Clinton declared that the Kosovar children "love the United States
because we gave them their freedom back." Perhaps Clinton saw freedom as nothing more than being tyrannized by people of the same
ethnicity. As the Serbs were driven out of Kosovo, Kosovar Albanians became increasingly oppressed by the KLA, which ignored its
commitment to disarm. The Los Angeles Times reported on November 20, 1999,
As a postwar power struggle heats up in Kosovo Albanian politics, extremists are trying to silence moderate leaders with a
terror campaign of kidnappings, beatings, bombings, and at least one killing. The intensified attacks against members of the moderate
Democratic League of Kosovo, or LDK, have raised concerns that radical ethnic Albanians are turning against their own out of fear
of losing power in a democratic Kosovo.
American and NATO forces stood by as the KLA resumed its ethnic cleansing, slaughtering Serbian civilians, bombing Serbian
churches, and oppressing non-Muslims. Almost a quarter million Serbs, Gypsies, Jews, and other minorities fled Kosovo after Clinton
promised to protect them. In March 2000 renewed fighting broke out when the KLA launched attacks into Serbia, trying to seize
territory that it claimed historically belonged to ethnic Albanians. UN Human Rights Envoy Jiri Dienstbier reported that "the [NATO]
bombing hasn't solved any problems. It only multiplied the existing problems and created new ones. The Yugoslav economy was destroyed.
Kosovo is destroyed. There are hundreds of thousands of people unemployed now."
U.S. complicity in atrocities
Prior to the NATO bombing, American citizens had no responsibility for atrocities committed by either Serbs or ethnic Albanians.
However, after American planes bombed much of Serbia into rubble to drive the Serbian military out of Kosovo, Clinton effectively
made the United States responsible for the safety of the remaining Serbs in Kosovo. That was equivalent to forcibly disarming a group
of people, and then standing by, whistling and looking at the ground, while they are slaughtered. Since the United States promised
to bring peace to Kosovo, Clinton bears some responsibility for every burnt church, every murdered Serbian grandmother, every new
refugee column streaming north out of Kosovo. Despite those problems, Clinton bragged at a December 8, 1999, press conference that
he was "very, very proud" of what the United States had done in Kosovo.
I had a chapter on the Serbian bombing campaign titled "Moralizing with Cluster Bombs" in Feeling Your Pain: The Explosion
and Abuse of Government Power in the Clinton–Gore Years (St. Martin's Press, 2000), which sufficed to spur at least one or two
reviewers to attack the book. Norman Provizer, the director of the Golda Meir Center for Political Leadership, scoffed in the
Denver Rocky Mountain News, "Bovard chastises Clinton for an illegal, undeclared war in Kosovo without ever bothering to mention
that, during the entire run of American history, there have been but four official declarations of war by Congress."
As the chaotic situation in post-war Kosovo became stark, it was easier to work in jibes against the debacle. In an October 2002
USA Today article ("Moral High Ground Not Won on Battlefield") bashing the Bush administration's push for war against Iraq,
I pointed out, "A desire to spread freedom does not automatically confer a license to kill . Operation Allied Force in 1999 bombed
Belgrade, Yugoslavia, into submission purportedly to liberate Kosovo. Though Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic raised the white flag,
ethnic cleansing continued -- with the minority Serbs being slaughtered and their churches burned to the ground in the same way the
Serbs previously oppressed the ethnic Albanians."
In a 2011 review for The American Conservative, I scoffed, "After NATO planes killed hundreds if not thousands of Serb
and ethnic Albanian civilians, Bill Clinton could pirouette as a savior. Once the bombing ended, many of the Serbs remaining in Kosovo
were slaughtered and their churches burned to the ground. NATO's 'peace' produced a quarter million Serbian, Jewish, and Gypsy refugees."
In 2014, a European Union task force confirmed that the ruthless cabal that Clinton empowered by bombing Serbia committed atrocities
that included murdering persons to extract and sell their kidneys, livers, and other body parts. Clint Williamson, the chief prosecutor
of a special European Union task force, declared in 2014 that senior members of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) had engaged in "unlawful
killings, abductions, enforced disappearances, illegal detentions in camps in Kosovo and Albania, sexual violence, forced displacements
of individuals from their homes and communities, and desecration and destruction of churches and other religious sites."
The New York Times reported that the trials of Kosovo body snatchers may be stymied by cover-ups and stonewalling: "Past
investigations of reports of organ trafficking in Kosovo have been undermined by witnesses' fears of testifying in a small country
where clan ties run deep and former members of the KLA are still feted as heroes. Former leaders of the KLA occupy high posts in
the government." American politicians almost entirely ignored the scandal. Vice President Joe Biden hailed former KLA leader and
Kosovo Prime Minister Hashim Thaci in 2010 as "the George Washington of Kosovo." A few months later, a Council of Europe investigative
report tagged Thaci as an accomplice to the body-trafficking operation.
Clinton's war on Serbia opened a Pandora's box from which the world still suffers. Because politicians and pundits portrayed that
war as a moral triumph, it was easier for subsequent presidents to portray U.S. bombing as the self-evident triumph of good over
evil. Honest assessments of wrongful killings remain few and far between in media coverage.
This article was originally published in the July 2019 edition ofFuture of Freedom .
James Bovard is a policy adviser to The Future of Freedom Foundation. He is a USA Today columnist and has written
for The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, New Republic, Reader's Digest, Playboy, American Spectator,
Investors Business Daily, and many other publications. He is the author of Freedom Frauds: Hard Lessons in American Liberty
(2017, published by FFF); Public Policy Hooligan (2012); Attention Deficit Democracy (2006); The Bush Betrayal
(2004); Terrorism and Tyranny (2003); Feeling Your Pain (2000); Freedom in Chains (1999); Shakedown (1995);
Lost Rights (1994); The Fair Trade Fraud (1991); and The Farm Fiasco (1989). He was the 1995 co-recipient of
the Thomas Szasz Award for Civil Liberties work, awarded by the Center for Independent Thought, and the recipient of the 1996 Freedom
Fund Award from the Firearms Civil Rights Defense Fund of the National Rifle Association. His book Lost Rights received the
Mencken Award as Book of the Year from the Free Press Association. His Terrorism and Tyranny won Laissez Faire Book's Lysander
Spooner award for the Best Book on Liberty in 2003. Read his blog . Send
him email .
Finally, Gateway Pundit's Joe Hoft put up an important piece today (
see here ). Here is the bottomline, and keep this in mind as you read the piece, on June
20, 2016 the FBI signed off on a deal with Hillary Clinton's attorney's that gave Hillary's
team the right to destroy computers and emails. It also gave immunity to all of the people on
Hillary's team that participated in obstruction of justice. On that same day, Jim Comey signed
off on a separate memo that decided not to prosecute Hillary Clinton. The fix was in more than
a month before Jim Comey appeared on camera to try to explain why he was not recommending
prosecution of Hillary for putting Top Secret information on her unclassified server. Jim Comey
lied when he declared that could not prove "intent." I am sure that those of you who have never
held a clearance and handled Top Secret material probably believed that lie. But anyone who
knows how the TS system is set up knows that the ONLY WAY, I repeat, the ONLY WAY to put TS
material on an unclassified server is to do so intentionally. There is no way to do this
mistakenly.
Obama didn't lead on race, either. In fact, Obama was largely missing in action: "The Obama
administration's civil rights record has been remarkably thin. In the first four years, the
administration did not file a single major employment discrimination, housing, or education
case, which are three traditional areas of civil rights enforcement. Additionally, in all of
these areas, the number of cases filed appears to be either at the same level as the George
W. Bush administration
In the other area of traditional civil rights enforcement, namely voting rights, the
administration has been active, particularly on the divisive issue of voter identification.
However, this activity all arose during the 2012 presidential campaign and seems quite likely
to have been related to, or motivated by, that campaign. The Obama administration has, in
fact, largely been absent on issues relating to redistricting, a traditional activity that
often implicates the preclearance mandate of the Department of Justice."
https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1016&context=ijlse
The more you peel the onion, the more pathetic the Democratic leadership gets...
"Republican and representative democracy are interchangeable words..... What our big problem
is are the legacies of slavery like the EC, property tax based schools and the 2nd
Amendment..."
[Little "r" republican is a word with a meaning. Representative democracy is the euphemism
of choice by republicans. The US Senate and the related electoral college were concessions
from the larger more populous states to the little states (VT, NH, ME, RI, and DE. In the
1790 census VA had the largest population across the board, free white males of age, under
age free white males, free female, AND slaves. So, VA was making a concession to the
little... ]
[Also the 2nd Amendment was never intended by the Frames to mean anything like what the
NRA says it means. Even the NRA knows better themselves, but their political opposition has a
severe problem with facts and representing facts in a manner that leads to understanding and
consensus.]
At this point who cares? Tweets aside Trump has turned into the corporate/donor class
Republican he ran against in 2016 and in some cases even worse with his recent about face on
the second amendment which I've been predicting since he banned bump stocks. He's now bought
the lie that as long as the U.S. enjoys sustained economic growth the multiracial madhouse
that is contemporary murica won't ever derail.
Trump the candidate promised:
* A strong economy which he's partially delivered on
* A wall on our Southern border
* A drastic reduction in H1B and other work visas that allow American elites to displace
Americans from the work force
* Decreases in legal immigration
* Unwavering support for the 2nd amendment
* Law and order
Trump the president has given us:
* More moral, material and financial support to Israel than ever
* Moved the embassy to Jerusalem
* Forcing foreign nations to decriminalize homosexual sodomy
* Letting Antifa and other assorted left wing crazies run wild and attack people in the
streets while prosecuting his right of center supporters for fighting back
* Early prison release for violent black and other felons
* Potentially the largest influx of legal immigrants and illegal aliens in U.S. history
coupled with the lowest number of deportations
* No wall (yet)
* Formally condemned white nationalism and so called white supremacy but not black and brown
supremacy or left wing terrorism
* Potentially infringing upon the 2nd amendment even more than Bill Clinton and far more than
Barack Obama
At this rate Trump will probably give us the green new deal, black slave reparations, a
white privilege tax and deny "anti-semites" first and second amendment rights should he win a
second term. History has shown that the radical left makes some of its greatest political
gains under Republican presidents and Trump has done nothing to buck that trend.
America was and is looted by wealthy Americans looking for a quick buck. Globalization and
offshoring in the 19080's was all about greedy wealthy Westerners, especially Americans,
wanting to make more money. To blame the looting in others just demonstrates Buchanan's
stupidity.
@Hanrahan Notice the
continued exclusion of Representative Gabbard and her criticism of the destructive Empire --
despite focusing on Beltway politics, he hasn't typed her name since June 28. He wants the
"Elizabeth Warren-Bernie Sanders-AOC Democrats" to go even kookier because this website's
"Mr. Paleoconservative" has become a Beltway fixture, cheerleading for Team Red in the next
Most Important Election Ever.
"the Great Arsenal of Democracy was looted by" the military-industrial complex Arsenal &
it's unending wars & nothing short of nuclear annihilation is going to change that. There
is no Democrat who is willing to bet their chance at the presidency on pulling it down. And
the American public, by and large, is put to sleep by lengthy discussions of the intricacies
of trade policy. The election will be waged, like the primaries, around race-baiting. Biden
will be the first victim. The other white candidates are running scared & becoming more
shrill in their denunciations of whites in general by the hour. There's no telling where it
all may lead but it's becoming clearer day by day that the hostility will outlast the
primaries & the general election will be a very ugly affair. There's no turning back to
the soothing center now, it will be an us-vs.-them type election & hopefully, Pat
Buchanan, still America's shrewdest pundit, will keep us fully apprised.
@Charles Pewitt
Basically I agree with Erebus's comment.
What you don't seem to get is that the China situation is of the US's own making. US Co's in
the 90's & naughtier literally salivated at getting there production into China (or
Mexico) Then -- they were happy to accept Chinese conditions, as was the US government.
So, your ridiculous, punitive tariffs are going to HURT the thousands of US companies who
happily moved production to China. Nor will US Co's move home (unless the government acts
aggressively) -- they'll move to Vietnam or where ever.
Of course such punitive tarrifs will justify the Chinese into further devaluing their
currency.
Would be interesting to see the affects on US inflation were your program followed.
Implied in your comment is the apparent fact that you do not understand this US/China
issue.(which is OK, because Trump & CO certainly don't understand the imperatives
here)
You seem to think it's about trade. Actually it about China's sovereignty. The US position is
that China NOT become a leading economy such as the US, Japan & Germany are. The US
demands China cease it's drive to lead in high tech'. The Chinese simply can not give-in. US
demands amount to China becoming a second rate power, essentially a US vassal.
How could any country, let alone China with its humiliating history of being a victim of
western imperialism, do anything else but fight?
President Donald Trump's reelection hopes hinge on two things: the state of the economy
in 2020 and the identity of the Democratic nominee.
That's the first sentence and that's where I should have stopped reading. This is the kind
of out of touch political insider horse trading irradiated bullshittery that no one should
waste their time on anymore.
Trump's is finished if he doesn't fulfil his US immigration promises from 2016. He's also
finished if he doesn't stop channelling his Jewish handlers with embarrassingly stupid
anti-white rhetoric. That's it. That's where "reelection hopes" should focus on.
@Hanrahan Notice the
continued exclusion of Representative Gabbard and her criticism of the destructive Empire --
despite focusing on Beltway politics, he hasn't typed her name since June 28. He wants the
"Elizabeth Warren-Bernie Sanders-AOC Democrats" to go even kookier because this website's "Mr.
Paleoconservative" has become a Beltway fixture, cheerleading for Team Red in the next Most
Important Election Ever
The verbal flubs of Joe Biden reached critical mass. They are now so numerous and egregious
they have begun to call into question whether Biden, who turns 77 in November, is really up to
a year of campaigning, followed by four years of leading the nation in the world.
Nor is it only Trump saying this now.
The Biden staff appears to be agonizing over the endless reruns of Joe's gaffes on cable TV.
And a media that sees Biden as the best hope of bringing down Trump is showing signs of
alarm.
A valid question arises, not only for Democrats:
Does the Biden we have lately seen in debate and on the stump look like a focused leader who
could be confidently entrusted with the most powerful office on earth until January 2025, which
would be the end of his first term?
What are the odds that, if he won the presidency, Biden could be a two-term president, until
2029, and not a visibly lame duck from Day One?
Yet, if Biden stumbles and falls before next spring, which seems more of a possibility than
two months ago, it is almost certain the Democratic candidate and party platform will be
outside the American mainstream.
@Hanrahan It is so
clear that Biden is no longer all there mentally that I can't believe that anyone who is half
paying attention doesn't see it. It's really sad and painful to watch. His wife, Jill, who is
the same age as I (68), seems to be a very smart woman. She's been a college professor and
has a PhD in literature. Why doesn't she take Joe aside and tell him, honey, it's time to
rest now and pass the torch, (as little known congressman Eric Swallwell, in his moment of
fame, told him in the first debate)?
Maybe she has, but Joe won't listen. The problem with senile people is that they never
realize that they are.
For those awake and observant it has become cristal clear that the world is witnessing the
demise of the American Empire. All the hallmarks of this happening are clearly present.
@animalogic The US
Companies make tons of money from China. Nike, Boeing, Starbucks, Apple, the list goes on. GM
sells more cars in China than in the US; KFC is huge in China and generates more revenue than
in any other countries; China is the second largest market for Hollywood movies; Four
American accounting firms grab more than 50% of market shares; last time I walked in a
convenient store in Shanghai, I noticed that every brand of toothpaste is American brand
(with one exception which is South Korean). These companies aren't stupid. If they don't do
business in China their market shares would be filled by companies from Japan, Europe and
others.
The question is how do you distribute these wealth generated from China? The current US
political system is tilted in favor of the rich. If 2008 financial market meltdown or its
aftermath is any indication, there is no accountability for the rich and the powerful. Anyone
who pins his hopes on Trump will be sorely disappointed. Trade war or any kind of wars with
China won't solve the problem.
Overall, CEO compensation has increased by 1,007.5 percent (or more conservatively, 940.3
percent) since 1978, according to the report.
Meanwhile, the typical American worker has only seen their wages grow by about 11.9
percent, the EPI said.
Back in 1965, the CEO-to-worker pay ratio was 20-to-1 for options realized and 16-to-1 for
options granted. By 1978, the ratio was 30-to-1 for options realized and 23-to-1 for options
granted.
@d dan What people
have to understand is the the 2.1% GDP growth is "paper" growth. Every stock bought or sold
is a "service" for the purposes of GDP growth. Trumps corporate tax cuts were supposed to
allow companies to invest in R&D, and re-open manufacturing plants. What has happened is
a massive stock buyback by corporations, which artificially inflates stock value, as well as
artificially increases the GDP. This is not to say that China's 6.1% growth does not include
a sizeable chunk of "paper" GDP growth. Even if it were equal to the US's entire 2.1% GDP
growth, it would still be 3times as large.
Need to investigate the role , if any , of Dr. Michael Baden in the Epstein and JFK autopsy
cover-ups .
According to Dr.Crenshaw who treated JFK at the Parkland Hospital Kennedy was shot once or
twice from the front and , therefore, Oswald could not possibly have been the killer. See "
Trauma Room One , the JFK Medical Coverup Exposed . " By Dr. Michael Crenshaw .
@ChuckOrloski Deja vu
– the Pentagon on 9/11 where are the tapes ? New York Metropolitan Correctional Center
on 8/11 where are the tapes ? Political Vel Craft has an excellent article entitled "
Rothschild's Media ." The problem is that most people get their news from the mainstream
media and as a result when they are confronted by evidence such as on 9/11 the building 7 at
the World Trade Center was demolished by pre-planted explosives they suffer from cognitive
dissonance and are unable to process the information.
In my eyes the NWO has lost its stamina in its fight to conquer the world. They started
with the dismemberment of Yugoslavia during degenerate Clinton times and continued with the
so called Color Revolutions. That imitation of human being, General Clark, told us it will be
7 countries in 7 years. That would take care of the M.E. After two successes, Libya and Irak,
the Russians gave their ass in their hands in Syria.
Let's take a look at South America. In Brazil they deposed Rousef and installed that
nincampoop Bolsonaro. To me that victory has all the characteristics of Disney cartoon.
Venezouela now. It was January 2018 they told us they are going to invade to restore
democracy (here we laugh) and human rights (more laughter) and they are still invading. They
know if they ever dare the whole South America will be up in arms and that is too big of a
bite to chew.
Add to this a 24 trillion debt economy with 15% of the Americans homeless and their dream
just fizzled.
Mexico is humanistic and civilised and when something dear to them is threatened THEY RUN
AS ONE TO RING THE CHURCH BELLS. They will not only survive they will come out
victorious.
Some other time we will take a look at this monstrous attack against the white race in
Europe through engineered invasion of Afroasians. Planning and management of Soros. The scum
of the earth.
This book by a University of Chicago Jewish Economist who is married to a black woman
professor at the same University argues that black slaves were actually much better off than
after Emancipation when they would be employed at wage slave Levels.
Slaves in the South, because they were a large investment to the owners, were provided with
housing clothing and Medical Care. None of this was available to them after they journeyed to
the North after the Civil War ended and lived in horrible ghettos.
The rich want to turn the world into a borderless economy where all workers can be employed
at the same destitute levels &the rich can Control everyone.
Ethnic racial &class conflict is a smokescreen for the rich to distract us from their
pillaging the economy Exactly as Paul Krugman argues.
Former senior FBI official Ted Gunderson used to claim that the FBI was covering up
pedophilia ... among US government officials and others quite a while back
@Commentator Mike Ted
Gunderson was a real American hero! He investigated the daycare in California that had
tunnels, the Franklin Coverup and other crimes involving children. The FBI covered up the
Boystown drug dealing and child prostitution ring, and probably had something to do with the
airplane that blew up in midair, killing the investigator and his son. I liked Ted Gunderson,
he reminded me of what a real cop should be
There was another guy he was the LA Cop that broke the news of CIA and cocaine in Los
Angeles. I can't think of his name right now .They both died under mysterious circumstances.
Funny how those things continue to happen
But why Wexner and Maxwell were involved ? Wexner gave the power of attorney to Epstein, so
he essentially controlled Wexner fortune... Why such a level of trust ? Was later claims of abuse
on the part of Epstein of his privileges and stolen money 40 million of which was supposed return
to Wexner charity a part of cover-up
Philip Giralid's theory that Jeffrey Epstein was running his prostitution ring as a honeypot
operation that had his child prostitutes sexually seduce politicians so he could film the
politicians having sex with children so he could blackmail them into supporting Israel and
giving espionage information to the Mossad is ridiculous, to put it politely.
There is not only no evidence for this theory, there is also no reasonable or practical
motive for the alleged behavior, and the alleged behavior would not make sense because it is
very unlikely that any substantial number of politicians are pedophiles.
There is no reasonable or practical motive for the behavior because the Jewish political
establishment already owns our political leaders as its puppets, so it does not need to
blackmail them. T
he way it has establishment this amount of control is through forming a social network
where Jews recruit Non-Jews to do their bidding, Jews created Freemasonry as their political
agency to help them do this. Freemasonry is a political agency of Jewry, it allows Non-Jews
to join it in order to help increase Jewish political power in Non-Jewish societies, Non-Jews
who join it have to swear a loyalty oath to the organization and then form an in group
preference for other members of the Jewish led organization. Jews also use their control of
finance and banking to have this kind of political power. They do not need child prostitution
ring to sexually seduce politicians so they can blackmail them to achieve political power,
because they already control the political establishment.
Additionally, even if the Jewish political elites wanted or needed to blackmail our
political leaders, this would be a very stupid way to do it. Filming sex between an adult and
a child is a very serious crime, it actually in some cases is more serious than an adult
having sex with a child, the person threatening blackmail against the person with the film
would unless he had a very stupid victim have someone who would realize the person himself
would go to prison if he showed anyone the film, so it would not be a good way to blackmail
someone. There are much better ways to blackmail political leaders, such as finding out if
they committed financial or political crimes or if they murdered someone, that would not
involve such risks.
It is not plausible that any substantial number of politicians are pedophiles because
pedophiles usually have very limited intellectual ability, and are perhaps even borderline
mentally retarded, and pedophiles usually are mentally ill.
Dr. James Cantor, an expert on sexual perversion generally and pedophilia particularly,
stated in a YouTube video titled "The Pedophile's Brain" published on the YouTube channel
"TEDI BEAR Children's Advocacy Center" on July 19, 2015, that pedophiles on average, score
10-15 points below average on Intelligence Quotient tests.
That means that only between 16-25 percent of pedophiles are equally intelligent or more
intelligent than the average person in western countries like Britain and America. Cantor
also stated that pedophiles tend to have less white matter in their brains than the general
population does, white matter is responsible for a lot of the social understanding of the
brain and also for connecting brain regions to enable reasoning that requires connected
understanding of different topics together. He also said that 30% of pedophiles are left
handed while only 12% of the general population is left handed, this is what Darwin called a
"correlation of growth" when two phenotypic traits appear very frequently together in
biological organisms, another example cited by Darwin was that blue eyed cats are usually
deaf.
Cantor said that the only other population groups with this high rates of left handed are
autistics, schizophrenics and bipolars. Cantor concluded that what causes pedophilia is that
pedophiles have a mental problem that causes their brain to be cross wired, so that the
sexual responses are inappropriately connected with children whereas most people have a moral
inhibition against sexual attraction to children. There are two peer reviewed articles by
scientists I have read that discuss evidence autism is correlated in a causal way with
pedophilia.
They are "Paraphilic Disorder in a Male Patient with Autism Spectrum Disorder: Incidence
or Coincidence," by B. Kolta and G. Rossi, edited by A. Muocivic and J.R. Adler Cureus May
2018 and "Sexuality in autism: hypersexual and paraphilic behavior in women and men with
high-functioning autism spectrum disorder," by Daniel Schottle, Peer Briken, Oliver Tuscher
and Daniel Turner published in "Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience," in December 2017 In the
second article, the authors stated: ""Altogether, paraphilic sexual fantasies and behaviors
were reported more frequently in male patients with ASD than in male HCs [Health Controls;
that is people who are mentally healthy and do not have autism or another mental illness].
After correcting for multiple testing, significant differences were still present in the
number of individuals reporting masochistic fantasies, sadistic fantasies, voyeuristic
fantasies and behaviors, frotteuristic fantasies and behaviors, and pedophilic fantasies with
female children"
The authors of the first article wrote: "Fernandes et al. were able to demonstrate that
30% of the low-functioning ASD patients showed some kind of inappropriate sexual behaviors,
most frequently public masturbation, indecent exposure, and inappropriate heterosexual
behaviors .
When looking at higher functioning patients with autism spectrum disorder they reported
10% demonstrated inappropriate sexual behaviors . The study also revealed that 24% of
high-functioning individuals with ASD engaged in paraphilic sexual fantasies or behaviors
including classic presentations of paraphilic disorder such as pedophilia, voyeurism, and
sadomasochism " So pedophilia is linked to both low intellectual ability, and to mental
illness.
A person needs to be highly intelligent to be a political leader, George W Bush was on the
dumb side for a political leader and his Intelligence Quotient was 124, that is the 94th
percentile, that means George W Bush is more intelligent than 94 percent of other people.
During the Nuremberg Trials all of the Nazis leaders who did anything of real importance
scored at least 120 on the Intelligence Quotient test, which means they were smarter than 90%
of other people, and the Nazis were also known for being on the dumb side for political
leaders. The idea that any substantial number of politicians are pedophiles is ridiculous
because of this, so this makes Giraldi's claim obviously ridiculous.
@Ron Unz The suicide
of Epstein when life as he had played it was over is less surprising than that Madoff hasn't
committed suicide. And incompetence or cynical negligence in the prison service is less
surprising than your admission of familiarity with the popular culture of film and TV!
On a more constructive note let me proffer the following as a source containing some
possibly relevant information about Epstein and his mysterious wealth.
"The relationship between Jeffrey Epstein and Jewish philanthropist Leslie Wexner,
explained – Jewish Telegraphic Agency
The intelligence connection seems plausible and Mossad as the key agency but possibly
having side deals with the CIA and FBI the most plausible. But, if so, Wexner's connection to
Israeli causes is well worth examining.
"Nice guy(Bill Clinton) uhhh got a lot of problems coming up, in my opinion, with the
famous island with Jeffrey Epstein lot of problems."
-Donald Trump at 2015 CPAC conference
How does the Candidate Trump knew in 2015 that, "Nice guy(Bill Clinton) uhhh got a lot of
problems coming up, in my opinion, with the famous island with Jeffrey Epstein lot of
problems."?
What does the above tell us about Candidate Trump and his foreknowledge to things to
come?
"... on the Lolita Express; was it really beyond him to order a hit? ..."
"... New York Times ..."
"... Are the Elites the arch villains from the comic books, probably not, but then again many of them operate corporations that cause suffering to economically deprived populations all over the world. ..."
"... Why is this surprising? Aristocrats have always behaved this way. ..."
"... The sexual abuse of children and kids in their early teens is a very democratic crime. While physical abuse and neglect are linked to lower-income parents, sexual abuse occurs in all strata of society. It is not confined to the elites or to money changers. Nor to Jews, if that is what you are implying. ..."
"... Unconcerned about negative consequences, these people have become increasingly brazen. They certainly know that the laws that apply to you and me do not apply to them. ..."
"... In the words of George Carlin, "it's a big club, and you ain't in it." I stopped reading after the first two para's on this, tone is exactly the same as the sneering disdain from the empire's various MSM propaganda arms aimed at those "not in the club." ..."
"... 1) Either our intelligence agencies knew what was going on with Epstein and did nothing to stop him. Or... ..."
"... 2) They had no clue .. ..."
"... Occam's Razor says Possibility No. 1 is more likely to be the truth. But what would such a truth tell us? ..."
"... "What I am saying is that Epstein's direct testimony – AND ONLY EPSTEIN'S DIRECT TESTIMONY – had the potential to create a Common Knowledge moment that could bring down – not just specific sociopathic oligarchs like Mob Boss Donald or Mob Boss Bill or Mob Boss Andrew if they were the specific targets of that testimony – but the entire Mob system of sociopathic oligarchy. ..."
"... One strongly suspects that Ghislaine Maxwell knows just as much as Epstein did. Her participation was just as important to the operation of this "trafficking" ring. She was the lead recruiter, handled logistics, "grooming" and also was Epstein's "in" to many of his VIP associates (who were really clients). If witness accounts are accurate, she was also a participant in a good number of these depraved, criminal acts. ..."
"... The fact she has not been charged is quite the tell about our system of "justice." ..."
"... This is a dangerous slope. People once bowed to the elites because there was a principle of enforcement called nobless oblige. Society felt that elites had to be held to a higher standard because they carried greater responsibilities and burdens for society and the welfare of the national good. ..."
"... Since the 1960s nobless oblige has been downgraded to sound bites and photo ops for publicity and marketing. The elites have all but abandoned their responsibilities to support religion, to support education (except to indocrinate), to support tradition and society and the national good. The elites have become inward looking, inbred and narcissistic with little to no outward focus except in a marxist totalitarian vein of thought which serves their interest, indulges their hungers, preserves their wealth and power. ..."
"... My point was that as popolo minuti transform into popolo grossi in terms of access to power, they tend to start to transform into them in terms of moral character as well. (Inequality of) power corrupts, and absolute (inequality of) power corrupts absolutely. Thus, it seems that the over-representation of psychopaths in positions of power is because the psychopathy is acquired (and plenty of studies show drastic declines in empathy with even a little priming for power), rather than because it is easier for psychopaths to rise to the top. The worst of the popolo grossi tend to be hereditary. ..."
"... I think we're a lot closer to 1789 France than we want to believe. Read some Chris Hedges to see how the socialists see the current situation. Here's an example. https://www.commondreams.or... ..."
"... "given that all available evidence points to gross negligence on the part of the jail." How is gross negligence different from deliberate negligence? ..."
In our tense populist moment, Jeffrey Epstein's crimes land like a grenade. •
August 15, 2019
Billionaire Jeffrey Epstein in Cambridge, MA on 9/8/04. (Photo by Rick Friedman/Corbis via Getty Images) Hands up, those of you who
made a Fort Marcy Park joke last Saturday. Anyone? Surely there were a few. Fort Marcy Park was the Washington, D.C. woodland where
White House attorney Vince Foster was found dead in 1993, and while his demise was repeatedly ruled a suicide, certain conservatives
spent years afterwards hallucinating that the Clintons had him killed. Now, a quarter century later, both right and left are back
in conspiracy mode. Mere hours after pedo-to-the-stars Jeffrey Epstein was reported to have killed himself, the hash tag #ClintonBodyCount
began circulating on Twitter, followed closely by #TrumpBodyCount. Both Bill Clinton and Donald Trump had been associates of Epstein's;
both, the thinking went, might have been desperate for him not to take the stand.
It is wrong, of course, to publicly speculate that Epstein was whacked, given that all available evidence points to gross negligence
on the part of the jail. But can you really blame people? Twenty-five years ago, if you'd said that a roll call of America's elites,
everyone from a former president to the most famous lawyer in the country, would be implicated in a sex trafficking ring masterminded
by an enigmatic Wall Street financier who was also a member
of the Trilateral Commission , you would have been laughed into the darkest corner of the local subway platform (next to the
guy holding the "Vatican Hides Pedophiles" sign, presumably). Today, you'd be reading AP copy. Validate an improbable conspiracy
theory, and you grant license to all the related improbable conspiracy theories: Bill Clinton flew dozens of times on the Lolita Express; was it really beyond him to order a hit?
And if we know one thing about the Epstein story, it's that everything about it is utterly improbable. Epstein stands credibly
accused of assembling a
veritable underage harem . One of his victims, Virginia Guiffre, has already
implicated Prince Andrew
, the third-born of Queen Elizabeth II, and a picture has since emerged showing the royal with his arm around the then-teenager's
waist. Guiffre says she was also
ordered
to have sex with , among others, a "foreign president," a "well-known prime minister," and a "large hotel chain owner." Such
an open secret was all this perversion that the current president of the United States
made cheeky reference to it back in 2002. So invincible
did Epstein think himself that he discussed underage sex openly, telling a New York Times reporter that laws against pedophilia
were a
"cultural aberration."
That Epstein looked to other cultures to rationalize his behavior is nothing new -- Oscar Wilde wrapped his similar predilections
in lofty talk about the Greek ideal. What is different is that rather than being hunted and exposed by the powerful, as Wilde was,
Epstein was protected by them for decades. Even after he was convicted of soliciting an underage prostitute in 2008, he was sentenced
to only 18 months in prison, held in a
private
wing of the Palm Beach County stockade, and let out on generous "work release."
Study the Epstein case long enough and you end up at Alex Jones's favorite conclusion: they're all sons of bitches. Everyone who
was anyone seemed to be in on this, or at least acting at the behest of someone who was. The essence of the conspiratorial mindset
is that powerful shadowy forces are, first, capable of and engaged in the most dastardly skullduggery imaginable, and, second, in
cabal-like cooperation with each other across all levels of power. The Epstein case seems to affirm both planks. It makes our elites
seem like aliens, of a different culture, a different moral code, a different species -- how else could they have let slide what
none of us ever would? Mary Colum's remark to Ernest Hemingway, "The only difference between the rich and other people is that the
rich have more money," has rarely rang less true.
There's been for some time now a sense of drift between most Americans and their elites, driven by factors like income inequality,
geographic enclaving, and cultural differences. We are living in a populist moment, to be sure, an era when the usual purveyors of
class warfare sound more apt than they otherwise would. In such a fraught environment, the Epstein revelation lands like a grenade.
Not only are America's gentry hitching rides on the Acela while mumbling about deplorables -- so the feeling goes -- they're also
running cover for a Caligula who's preying on little Susie down the street. Suddenly the populist divide doesn't just run between
classes or races or regular toast versus avocado, but between ethical extremes, good and literal evil.
This is, of course, what most populists profess: the people as a group are wholesome, the elites as a group are venal, and the
former has to be vaulted over the latter in order for society to be made whole again. Yet Epstein's crimes are so wicked as to potentially
set this moral chasm ablaze like never before. That's why, though Trump may have associated with Epstein, he's unlikely to be damaged
by him: everything that's happened only confirms what he's been saying for years. In fact, you might view the Epstein fracas as a
dialectic between two of his former associates, Trump's throw-them-out populism versus Clinton's benevolent stewardship of society
by the smart set. And Trump won out.
Just as populisms aren't driven entirely by economic causes, so too are revolutions often about more than bread. Consider the
Russian Revolution, sparked at least in small part by the people's perception of Rasputin as a sexual deviant. Consider, too, the
French Revolution's rage against the profligate "Madame Déficit" Marie Antoinette. In such cases, the moral tends to get intertwined
with the economic; license is seen as enabling decadence while the people pray and starve. This can be a blind spot in traditional
conservative thinking. We rightly detest (most) revolutions and the tremors they cause, but we sometimes fail to notice that the
Jacobins have good reason to be angry and that the ruling classes they overthrow really are that loathsome.
America is nowhere near 1789 France, or armed revolution in general. But we are anxious, restive, hungry for justice. A republic
likes ours depends on the harmonious coexistence of its people and its elites, a matter that our Founders spent a good deal of time
worrying about. Now we have a hideous face f0r elite corruption, one that's enabled fever in the national mind and dehumanized those
around him. For those of us who prize stability and liberty in a polity, who think populism is always best in modest doses, the weeks
ahead may be reason for worry.
Because it seems there's only more to come. On Wednesday, another victim
came forward , alleging
that Epstein raped her when she was 14 after she turned down sex with him. That this carnal omega, this pathetic loser, this finger-sniffing
pervert from every teen comedy lurking outside the pretty girl's home longing for a piece of discarded lingerie was somehow elevated
into a Teflon-coated Wall Street sun god is beyond comprehension. My friend Michael Davis calls Epstein and company the
Hellfire Club , but
just how much will they torch on their way down?
When I started to see what was going on in this country, which was my journey, I was amazed to find out that there is sex trafficking
8 blocks from the White House and I learned of this in 2011. Lisa Ling did a great documentary on it. "Night time traffic greater
than the day time." Pimps attempting to recruit girls walking home from school. If you pay attention it is also a journey of
the food chain of Corporate America that supports this.
This is a Money Changer issue, that is about the closing of eyes from both parties. and please don't tell me this is not so.
I know better than that.
To be absolutely, clear there was speculation that Epstein was going to be assassinated weeks before it happened. For the most
part citizens aren't so much surprised, as disappointed that Justice is once again foiled.
Are the Elites the arch villains from the comic books, probably not, but then again many of them operate corporations that
cause suffering to economically deprived populations all over the world.
When the World's 26 richest people own as much as
poorest 50%, just how close do they seem to achieve a god like status when looking up from the bottom? Maybe that's one reason
that people are so angry when it seems that the most vulnerable among us, our children, are the victims of a limited number
of the Elites and their twisted and horrific appetites.
I personally doubt much will come of the Epstein affair it will most likely be just one more myth added to the tally of
injustice, and the people will have to bitterly swallow it whole. It will probably take many more cases like this being exposed
before the people actually have their fill, and decide to do something about it. In the meantime, prepare to see more of the
same by the laughing and mocking Elites
In this day and age, I doubt a reporter will touch this story, and if they did, the real story would never make it into
the Main Stream Media. And, most likely the reporter would be permanently black balled, and never work in Journalism again.
It's happened many times before, because it doesn't fit within the approved propaganda message.
Give the story a couple decades or more, and it may come out, but otherwise it will be handled as a whack-job Conspiracy
Theory.
The Fourth Estate is the only business that is protected by the Constitution, and yet it has been neutered, and those in
the Press, who were supposed to be the Watchdogs for the people, have become the Lapdogs of the Elites.
What passes as News today is formulaic programming, passed on from the Propagandist to the Media, both nationally
and locally.
Two Republican state senators and two New York City Policemen died violently within 72 hours ....
1. On June 4, former Arkansas Senator Linda Collins-Smith, 57, was found dead outside her home, her body unrecognizable
on discovery. Police are now investigating her death as a homicide. On June 5, the county prosecutor announced that the circuit
judge sealed the documents and statements obtained by police.
2. On June 5, Deputy Chief Steven Silks, 62, weeks away from retirement, was found in an unmarked police car with a gunshot
wound to the head. News reports reported indicate it seemed self-inflicted.
3. On June 5, former Oklahoma Sen. Jonathan Nichols, 53, was found shot dead in his home. Police have not announced whether
they are investigating a suicide or homicide..
4. On June 6, Detective Joseph Calabrese, 58, was found near his police car on a Brooklyn, NY beach, dead of a gunshot wound
in what one report called an apparent suicide.
RIP.
Many other Americans died violently this past week. Why link these four together?
The answer comes down to a dark suspicion and a few hard facts which suggest that one or more of these four deaths might
have had something to do with these individuals' work against pedophiles and human trafficking, or the official corruption
so often surrounding both.
The sexual abuse of children and kids in their early teens is a very democratic crime. While physical abuse and neglect are
linked to lower-income parents, sexual abuse occurs in all strata of society. It is not confined to the elites or to money
changers. Nor to Jews, if that is what you are implying.
Just about everyone in America has a family member who was sexually abused by someone who was usually not elite. Therefore,
I cannot get worked up about class issues because of Jeffrey Epstein.
What I can get worked up about are the way elites start wars for poor people to die in and the way poor people get cruel
sentences while the elite either walk or get the Epstein treatment--private wing, generous work release.
I agree. Young girls are trafficked in more circles than the elite. I don't understand the connection to any particular social
class. But better connected people do have better lawyers and can get away with more. Until like Mr. Epstein , they don't.
The true character of these people is starting to be revealed. This (lack of) character is not only displayed when these men
travel to Pedo Island, it's on display everywhere they go, in everything they do. Every organization they lead, or have anything
to do with, is likely rotten to the core.
Unconcerned about negative consequences, these people have become increasingly brazen. They certainly know that the laws
that apply to you and me do not apply to them.
If the system is so corrupt to have protected Epstein for decades, who else is being protected? Who else is getting away
with figurative rape in every department of government, or house of finance?
The sooner the public recognizes the "true face" of our elites and rulers the better. Left to their own devices,
these people - who think they have class but in reality are the worst kind of trash - can bring down a nation.
Literally no one I know thought this guy would make it to trial alive with the exception of me, as I still had some hope in
the system, and I was proven wrong. I've lost whatever remaining faith I had in the system.
In the words of George Carlin, "it's a big club, and you ain't in it." I stopped reading after the first two para's on this,
tone is exactly the same as the sneering disdain from the empire's various MSM propaganda arms aimed at those "not in the club."
1) Either our intelligence agencies knew what was going on with Epstein and did nothing to stop him. Or...
2) They had no clue ... which would mean our much vaunted intelligence community knew nothing about the travel habits of
the "ruling class" of the world, about Jeff Epstein's real activities, had received no tips, had no insiders, and were incapable
of "putting two and two together," etc. In short, Big Brother - with all its resources and intelligence and sources - with
capabilities that put the Gestapo or the KGB to shame - had no idea.
Occam's Razor says Possibility No. 1 is more likely to be the truth. But what would such a truth tell us?
The third possibility is that BigBrother was in on it and didn't object to sacrificing teenage girls to get compromising information
on people they wanted tp blackmail.
"What I am saying is that Epstein's direct testimony – AND ONLY EPSTEIN'S DIRECT TESTIMONY – had the potential to create a
Common Knowledge moment that could bring down – not just specific sociopathic oligarchs like Mob Boss Donald or Mob Boss Bill
or Mob Boss Andrew if they were the specific targets of that testimony – but the entire Mob system of sociopathic oligarchy.
Jeffrey Epstein was the Missionary to bring down the monsters behind the monster, to bring down the SYSTEM of monsters.
Jeffrey Epstein's books and records are not. The individual voices of Jeffrey Epstein's victims are not.
And that's what makes me angriest of all.
That while the individual victims of Jeffrey Epstein's crimes will maybe (maybe!) get some smattering of "justice" and recompense
from the show trial of a monster's estate, there will be no Justice served against the monsters behind the monster, that the
Mob system of sociopathic oligarchy that CREATED this Jeffrey Epstein and the next Jeffrey Epstein and the next and the next
will continue unabated. Untouched. Golden."
One strongly suspects that Ghislaine Maxwell knows just as much as Epstein did. Her participation was just as important to
the operation of this "trafficking" ring. She was the lead recruiter, handled logistics, "grooming" and also was Epstein's
"in" to many of his VIP associates (who were really clients). If witness accounts are accurate, she was also a participant
in a good number of these depraved, criminal acts.
The fact she has not been charged is quite the tell about our system of "justice."
Whether Epstein was killed or committed suicide I don't know. I would however like to know who these elites were who participated
in the rapes of these young girls. They are just as guilty as Epstein whether they knew the ages of these girls or not, it
was there responsibility to find out.
This is a dangerous slope. People once bowed to the elites because there was a principle of enforcement called nobless oblige.
Society felt that elites had to be held to a higher standard because they carried greater responsibilities and burdens for
society and the welfare of the national good.
Since the 1960s nobless oblige has been downgraded to sound bites and photo ops for publicity and marketing. The elites have
all but abandoned their responsibilities to support religion, to support education (except to indocrinate), to support tradition
and society and the national good. The elites have become inward looking, inbred and narcissistic with little to no outward
focus except in a marxist totalitarian vein of thought which serves their interest, indulges their hungers, preserves their
wealth and power.
What you are have been seeing since the 1960s is the veneer being pulled off the rich and powerful. I would say Nixon and
Princess Diana and Ted Kennedy did the most to pull down the veneer from the rich and powerful but it could be argued that
Nixon and Princess Diana and Ted Kennedy were accidental victims of circumstance. However Epstein's human trafficking of children
for sex and blackmail .... breaks the most because his crimes were no accident nor was he a victim of circumstance. Epstein
planned this and created an organization around it elevating his elitist crimes to a level no that I dont think anyone in modern
history can match.
I doubt that history's elites were ever any better. It's just that with far less transparency and access, it was much easier
for them to hide how awful they were. The 1960s was the start of mass media, and so the veneer started to crack.
I do think this COULD qualify as "the story of the century." That is, If the story was told in its entirety - all "names"
exposed.
If fully told, the swamp might, in fact, be "drained."
Now the people in said swamp have a strong incentive to protect their domain. Which is why so many of us are skeptical the
true story will ever be told.
If there was ever a time where brave and patriotic whistleblowers were needed ...
"This is, of course, what most populists profess: the people as a group are wholesome, the elites as a group are venal, and
the former has to be vaulted over the latter in order for society to be made whole again."
Sorry, but take a look at the average American. The so-called "people" are for the most part just as morally obtuse as the
"elites" but they carry the additional burden of being not only ignorant but also stupid. Just look around. Best recent example
of the utter stupidity of the American people: a recent survey shows they think 23% of the population is gay. Really.
But isn't the issue exactly that the "only difference between the rich and other people is that the rich have more money" comment
is perfectly true?
The rich and powerful are us, but corrupted by riches and power. Many of them behave the way many of us would quickly start
to behave if we found ourselves in their shoes. If the gap in power between you and most other people is so huge that you can
do anything to them and get away with it, your morals stop applying to them because you start to view them as somewhat subhuman.
In this sense, I'm sure Epstein never even thought of raping the underage daughters of other elites.
Thus, the issue is stratospheric inequality of power (by whatever fungible measure you choose - money, political, religious,
social, etc). And we see it happen ALL the time throughout history and across geographies - as soon as the power gap is in
excess of social boundaries, as soon as there is a group of people you can do pretty much anything you want to and get away
with it, you start going a little crazy. Exploitation, rape, torture, murder, slavery - everything starts looking justified.
Then it's just a matter of degree, with tin-pot dictators on one end and Epstein somewhere in the middle.
Read Machiavelli. He observed that the popolo minuti (regular folks) just wished to be left alone by authorities whereas popolo
grossi (fat cats) were of a different psychological composition: they delighted in deception, were vain, greedy and hungry
for power.
Centuries later, studies of psychopaths reveal these creatures are different from regular humans at the brain level. The elites
are psychopathic (the key ones are) and no, they ain't like regular people. They are literally a different kind.
My point was that as popolo minuti transform into popolo grossi in terms of access to power, they tend to start to transform
into them in terms of moral character as well. (Inequality of) power corrupts, and absolute (inequality of) power corrupts
absolutely. Thus, it seems that the over-representation of psychopaths in positions of power is because the psychopathy is
acquired (and plenty of studies show drastic declines in empathy with even a little priming for power), rather than because
it is easier for psychopaths to rise to the top. The worst of the popolo grossi tend to be hereditary.
In my opinion, there is nothing so dangerous as to believe that evil people are a different breed from the rest of us. Instead,
they tend to simply be us, but in different circumstances. History tends to show that revolutions aimed at replacing the evil
people with better people end up with corrupted revolutionaries, rather than a fundamentally less abusive system.
"It reminds me of a well known speech by a defense counsel, who pleaded his client's poverty as an excuse of robbing and murdering
six of his victims, on the lines that "My client's poverty drove him to murder six people, everybody else would have done the
same!"
Outstanding article. However, I think we're a lot closer to 1789 France than we want to believe. Read some Chris Hedges to
see how the socialists see the current situation. Here's an example.
https://www.commondreams.or...
Elites, that is those with more wealth and/or power than the rest of the masses have always been this way. Remember how decadent
the European aristocracy was with their sport of "wenching"? that is going around in groups raping young peasant girls. Also,
there was the Hellfire Club which you can research if you want details. This scandal will get less and less coverage in the
MSM until it fades away like all the others involving the rich and powerful.
The Global "Elite" control our Ruling Class by means of blackmail. A person does not get raised to high truly influential positions
of power(Politicians, Judges, Hollywood, etc.) unless they have enough dirt on you to know that they can control you without
question. The most powerful form of blackmail that they have is ped0filia because it is THE most abhorrent crime that someone
can commit, so much so that even criminals in prison refuse to allow ped0 scumbags to be housed near them.
Trump has an obvious penchant for beautiful WOMEN not kids. He was helping and somewhat part of the "Elite" in that he was
joining in with them to buy politicians for influence but Trump neutralized that being over his head by openly admitting to
buying politicians. They thought it was safe to allow him to run because they thought it was a joke and he would never get
elected. They were wrong. In my opinion, they don't have enough dirt on him to get him to go along with their agenda of selling
out the USA to the highest bidder hence the all-out attacks on him.
The key to understanding the "Elite"/Ruling Class dynamic is not conflating the two and realizing that blackmail is the
main tool used by the one to keep the other under their control.
*Sorry about the Trump tangent above but it's absolutely ridiculous that people are trying to tie Trump to Epstein even
though Trump has been trying to bring national attention to the Epstein case FOR YEARS.
"given that all available evidence points to gross negligence on the part of the jail."
How is gross negligence different from deliberate negligence?
You can tell? And btw the WaPo just came out with news that broken
bones in Epstein's neck are more usual in cases of homicide.
I generally see anyone who belittles
'Conspiracy theorists' as part of an Establishment that uses 'incompetence' as the perennial excuse for everything that goes
wrong.
The old accusation, that you are a 'conspiracy theorist' (a term invented by the CIA after the Kennedy assassination) is holding
less and less weight. The irrational kooks now seem to be the people who think Epstein committed suicide. Jokes were everywhere
about how 'we were shocked to hear about the suicide of Jeffrey Epstein, next Tuesday' when a day later we hear, 'Jeffrey Epstein
committed suicide'.
By the way, this equivalence between Trump and Clinton is bogus, I believe. There isn't much evidence of any involvement
of Trump (some evidence to the contrary in fact), but there is a load of evidence suggesting 'Wild Bill' was availing himself.
Remember when Maxine Waters was labelled a kook for saying the CIA was bringing cocaine into her LA district? She was mocked
and ridiculed. Now we know she was right. You can't make this stuff up.
I'm sorry, but this case stinks to high heaven, and if you're ready to accept "gross negligence" as the explanation you're
likely to believe ANYTHING the authorities tell you. Epstein was either murdered, as the autopsy and reports of shrieking from
his cell indicate, or subbed out by intelligence services and replaced by a murdered homeless person who received plastic surgery.
Study the history of modern intelligence services: appearances are deceiving, and systemic disinformation is endemic to politics.
Careful public speculation, acknowledging where we're uncertain, is very much the responsible thing to do; otherwise there
is no hope of democratic accountability. The investigation we're being promised will be conducted by the exact same institution
-- the US Department of Justice -- that was responsible for keeping Epstein safe and securing his public testimony about his
criminal network. These are the people you want us to trust? Come on, a little critical reasoning, please!
The most ridiculous part is the idea that being rich and powerful gives you a predilection to turn a blind eye. My wife's family
turned a blind eye to a perverted uncle that molested multiple family members over decades. No one stood up, it would've been
a shame to them to admit it. How is this any different?
Isn't it interesting that the Democrats are only about a third of the country now, but
because they and the other rotten party have rigged our political system so no other parties
can emerge, that they essentially will determine who will go up against Trump? The Democratic
voters are just as lost as the politicians they vote for. Turnout is often low for primaries
within that party, in a party that only a third of the country identifies with, and there is
little chance that anyone will get a majority of voters. So, it is entirely possible that the
person chosen to go against Trump will have support of, what, 4-5% of the US electorate? And
if they are stupid enough to choose Biden, and they are, the general election will be Biden
vs Trump. The USSR at least ended in interesting ways. We're just going to vote in two
corrupt, out of touch and mentally declining frauds to throw hot garbage at each other, and
what is the left supposed to do? There will never be a better argument for a third party if
those two are the options given to us by the duds in the two major parties. I can't even
contemplate who Biden would choose as his VP, and possibly lock us into a decade of hell, and
then the environmental crisis hits.
It is not an issue in regards to difficulty, generally, it is the options people are given
and how often it is that the options people are given are net negatives regardless as to who
wins, and people realizing that what the general public wants is not reflected in policy.
Bernie is an exceptuon, and look at all the nonsense thrown at him, and all the undemocratic
means those in power use to maintain their power. I am not saying that justifies inactivity,
but it does help to explain it. But, lets say Biden or someone similar is chosen by Democrats
in the primaries. What percentage of the electorate, given all I mentioned, will have chosen
him?
If the US electorate allows 4-5% to decide, then they deserve who they get. It’s not
difficult to vote in a primary.
Depends where you live. If you live in most states and you want to vote in a Democratic
Party presidential primary, you have to be registered as a Democrat. Here in AZ I can vote for
every office except president by being a No Party Preference voter registrant. If I want to
vote against Joe Biden, I have to change my voter registration to “D”. Not gonna
happen.
“Here in California, owned and operated by the Democratic Party, voting for someone
other than the approved candidate could quickly get your vote “lost” or
“disqualified” and that is not mentioning the rigging of convention
delegates.”
This ultimately why Bernie is up against it. I think he has a real shot to win and am not
very concerned about the polls, he is doing well despite all that is aligned against him.
Palast showed what that rotten party did in 2016 in the primaries (it is entirely possible that
Bernie won the state or at least came even closer to winning), and you could include tons
since. My favorite was how they used superdelegates at the state level in California to get
Bauman to lead the state party, and he had to resign in shame. He was previously a pharma
lobbyist that was paid to lobby the state against bargaining down the price of drugs. Then
there is stuff like this:
As the DNC has argued in court though, they don’t have to run a fair primary and can
pick whoever those at the top of the party want, right? It would be amazing if someone within
the DNC and the state party here (I live in Southern California) would leak what they are
doing. Not expecting it, but it would be great.
True. However, if one is voting™ for
a non-corporatist candidate, getting
that vote counted has been problematic,
and I expect it to be more so in 2020:
And even if he did really commit suicide, it just shows what a third world sh*t hole we are. The most high profile prisoner
in the country, in a federal jail, in our largest city, on "suicide watch" commits suicide? At best – at best – we are beyond
pathetic.
I have written something similar in another thread, but I have some experience of working in prisons, and from my experience
suicidal prisoners are placed on and taken suicide precautions only on the written order of a psychiatrist, who may be a contract
employee, and a lot of the assessment of the mental state of inmates is done by psychologists or "psych specialists".
So this assessment is done more on clinical signs and symptoms, mood level, and what the inmate says, and not so much on an
existential assessment of the hopelessness of the situation facing the prisoner, what losing his liberty means to him, and so
on.
Also this is a clinical (medical) decision made by medical staff rather than a decision made by the Chief of Security.
It is not unusual for suicidal observations to be discontinued before a weekend on the say-so of the inmate saying he feels
he would be OK. part of the reason being the massive costs in overtime of having an extra officer assigned to keep this inmate
in line of sight at all times 24 hours a day. This is not supposed to affect the decisions of psychiatric or psychological staff,
but there are subtle pressures.
A small point of interest is that Epstein kept asking for a lot of toilet paper (by reports). It is possible to make a rope
that you can hang yourself with if you have enough toilet paper to weave it. I have not yet seen any reports on what he hanged
himself with.
I think it is entirely possible that Epstein made the decision to kill himself and plotted his way out of suicidal observations,
made a plan, and killed himself rather than spend the rest of his life in prison. Probably he had no faith in any plan his attorneys
had to have him found innocent. The gaff was blown.
To me this is the Occam's Razor and there is no need to believe in conspiracy theories, such as that someone got into his cell
and killed him. There are usually plenty of cameras watching the hallways and lobbies in prisons, and he was apparently locked
in his cell when he was found.
If there is a weakness in the system, it is that psychiatrists are just medical practitioners with a medical education and
they do what their discipline demands of them.
Maybe a 68 year old used to a life of extreme luxury facing life in prison for child molestation killed himself.
He was in a federal jail. He was charged by the feds. If they wanted to kill him, seems easier to do so without the publicity
of first charging him.
The list of the accused is pretty unimpressive. Dersh, Prince Andrew, Bill Richardson, and George Mitchell. Two have been out
of power for 20 years, the other two never had any.
The list of people who took a free ride on the private jet is more impressive, but that doesn't mean much.
If Epstein was killed it would have been by a group of people who don't have to live in the USA. It would have been done by people
who don't give a damn about burning bridges or getting an FBI raid at 4 AM when their co-conspirators go bad. I'd say it was the
Mossad but thinking in those nation-state terms is probably laughably old fashioned.
@Clifford Brown Yeah, common sense, pedos
in jail have an extremely high rate of suicide, something the feds noted and were pretending to care about ten years ago.
Besides the additional shame, they are softer/older/less violent than the normal criminal population, and also have a larger
fall in status.
Odd stat in the link: 70% of federal child sex abuse (not porn or trafficking) defendants are American Indian. Some sort of
strange jurisdiction issue?
@Jonathan Mason Unless you worked at this
particular prison and know the policies, this is nonsense at best and active disinfo at worst.
At my old state prison, a lowly CO could make a recommendation to the watch commander that "so and so said he was going to
kill himself" or give them reasons why he needed to be placed on suicide watch.
This by no means a "massive cost". It consists of your inmate being placed in a hold cell and taking one of your on duty rovers
or junior COs and sitting him in front of the door to stare at homeboy.
The idea that a 24 hour prison needs the say so of a clinician that works 8 hours a day is laughable.
"Maybe a 68 year old used to a life of extreme luxury facing life in prison for child molestation killed himself. "
Your Devil's Advocate shtick would carry more water if there was any pattern established among enormously rich and powerful
narcissistic men committing suicide after arrest and or conviction for sex crimes.
I'm mean, at this point he was more likely to request a sex change based on Sailer's theory about rich powerful Alphas going
tranny post middle age.
But if anything he probably believed that he could beat the case just based on who he was.
Based on what we are seeing already in the immediate reactions on SM, there's a serious effort to (((circle the wagons))) from
all sides.
You'd be wise to pick a better battle to fight. There's no believable way he killed himself.
"Most of the American people have learned today that their "elites" are unaccountable. They also know, on some level, what
it will take to fix this problem, and what they believe their country to be is very, very wrong. All three of these ideas make
Americans uncomfortable."
I'm not one for conspiracy theories of any sort, and even in this case I'm leaning more towards "not a conspiracy theory," but
I find myself having doubts. That said, there are a few things that I can't really reconcile:
1. He had attempted suicide before very recently, and this is a high profile case, so he should be under constant surveillance.
He's so high-value (both financially and criminally) that no matter the cost, he would be constantly under surveillance. There
should be no way that this guy just slips through the cracks and offs himself. The level of incompetence required to make this
happen might only be seen in the most corrupt African countries.
2. He had attempted suicide before very recently, so why would someone else attempt to assist him or kill him? This is one
of those "if you're going to kill the king, don't miss" type situations. Had he died in the first attempt, it would be plausible
that it was suicide; but a second attempt in such close succession? This would make it obvious that someone was out to kill him,
and ruin the entire clandestine nature of it. Chances of the assassin (and assassination plot) being found out are much greater.
I don't quite know what to make of this. 1 makes it highly unlikely he did this himself, but 2 makes it highly unlikely someone
else did it.
Pedophiles typically have many accomplices. It's a well known fact a considerable number of powerful men participate in these
pedophile rings. When one guy gets caught, he becomes the fall guy and takes the blame. If it looks like he might turn, he gets
"suicided" before he can talk.
Given what happened to Epstein today, is it really so implausible that other molesters could've been killed in jail by assassins?
Given how low-profile most of those cases are in general, it'd be so much easier to get away with assassinations.
I find it breathtaking that even with all this public attention, Epstein couldn't have been prevented from committing "suicide."
@Flip Did the intelligence agency that was
running Epstein really believe that he'd never be arrested and pressured to squeal?
Didn't they have a back-up plan in case he was sent to jail? After all, Epstein was dodging serious charges for years, so the
possibility of getting picked up again was not that remote.
Would Epstein have been "suicided" if his handlers were sure he wouldn't talk/rat them out?
Or, was Epstein threatening to tell all, and did his handlers decide to use "extreme prejudice"?
If he did hint at anything to his lawyers, they are dead men walking . . .
This is the historical moment when the politically engaged slice of society gets a sense of just how rigged the game really is.
I might like to think of myself as clever but I bet I have no clue just how bad it really is.
Dear Deep State,
I believe Vince Foster committed suicide.
I believe Seth Rich died in a bungled street robbery.
I believe Whitey Bulger's death was just another ordinary case of prisoner-on-prisoner violence.
I believe it was the autopsy of Stephen Paddock, the body found in the hotel room.
I believe Hillary's deleted emails were all about yoga and weddings.
I believe Bill and Loretta talked about golf and grandkids on the plane on the tarmac.
I believe
in Credere, Obbedire, Combattere
@Cagey Beast One of the interesting revelations
to come out recently is that Zorro Trust, the entity that owns Epstein's New Mexico ranch won an $85,000,000 lottery in 2008.
The winning ticket was sold at a convenience store in Altus, Oklahoma, hardly a place where someone like Epstein would be hobnobbing.
If true, it either means the man was incredibly lucky (although I think his luck has run out) or the game was fixed. My guess
is that it is the latter. At any rate, I hope that Barr gets to the bottom of this.
@Lot "Yeah, common sense, pedos in jail
have an extremely high rate of suicide"
There is nothing, absolutely nothing, in Epstein's personality that would suggest suicidal behavior. Like Jack D, certain things
just bring out the Jew in you, and Epstein is one of them. You're trying to cover for him for ethnic nepotism reasons, and it's
so deeply felt you don't even understand it yourself, but it's utterly obvious to those outside you.
I am not a believer in conspiracy theories. Never attribute government action to evil when mere incompetence will suffice.
It's my feeling that Epstein killed himself even though he should have been on suicide watch and he was not on suicide watch
due to bureaucratic incompetence. As Jonathan said, some low bidder contract employee (a lot of the gov. employee psychiatrists
in NY are like Koreans who don't even speak Engrish that well) who was under instructions never to put anyone on suicide watch
because it leads to expensive overtime signed off on Epstein as if he was any other disposable piece of trash prisoner as 99%
of prisoners are. The bureaucracy is really very democratic and treats everyone like shit (except for their own, who are treated
like royalty). The bureaucracy exists for itself and not to take care of prisoners. They don't want them all to kill themselves
because then they wouldn't have jobs but a few now and then are no big deal.
Maybe, maybe maybe if the instruction had come from on high to really, really treat Epstein as extra special then they would
have done it, but it never came. Epstein had ample intelligence and reason to want to kill himself and the bureaucracy didn't
have ample reason or intelligence to stop him so he won
The most baffling ( or perhaps not) thing about Epstein's death was the curious lack of curiousity by the media. Last week when
a gunman opened fire in the El Paso Walmart the media went to wall to wall coverage despite not having any real information to
impart, not even a body count! That did not stop the networks from bringing on their retired Law Enforcement 'experts' to bloviate
for hour after hour.
Contrast that with today. With the public desperate to know how a marked man in federal custody could somehow kill himself
or be killed the media only ran an obligatory segment at the top of the each hour and then resumed their planned coverage about
gun control.
@R.G. Camara Trump using Epstein to take
down the Clintons. That was Tom Luongo's first impression and he wrote a couple of columns about it a month or so ago:
In this day and age, the only way to get an honest death penalty for a monster like Epstein is to have it be self-inflicted. I'm
very pleased he hung himself. He saved us a lot of taxpayer money
To be honest, I think Epstein could have gotten off lightly if he'd turned state's evidence and ratted on his high profile friends.
He could have gone into a witness protection program afterwards. But I suspect he held assets that could not be explained by normal
means, and he didn't want all that dug up.
He has an interesting history. He was dismissed as a teacher, and was asked to leave Bear Stearns. Finally, he decided to leave
this life. Nothing but a history of being kicked out or checking out.He knew and gave tax advice to Edgar Bronfman, father of
Clare Bronfman of the NXIVM sex cult. I wonder if Epstein had any connection to the cult? If he gave tax advice to Edgar, why
not his daughter? He was also an adviser to Adnan Khashoggi,
In the jail in which Epstein is held, there has only been 1 other suicide in the last 21 years. The jail has been described
as a facility in which suicide is "nearly impossible" due to the elaborate security procedures.
In those 21 years, nearly 40,000 inmates have passed through the jail facility. So the facility has a suicide rate of 2 per
40,000. Coincidentally, 1 of those 2 was Epstein.
What a huge coincidence.
By the way, your lifetime odds of being struck by lightning are roughly 1 per 9,000.
So Epstein's chances of being struck by lightning were more than twice his odds of "committing suicide" while imprisoned in
that jail.
My analysis: Rare coincidence. Nothing to see, folks. Move along. Don't be a "conspiracy theorist."
Never been a huge fan of the 'obvious' conspiracies (JFK etc.). I still say the odds are on a real suicide. Older man, no more
of his girls or decent food or anything he likes forever. The idea of a life in a little cell is probably far more difficult to
get used to than most of us know. And we're dealing with a spoiled rich guy here too. More than a few much tougher guys have been
broken by the whole thing.
Despite all that, I'd still only put it at 70 percent that it's a real suicide. Maybe he was 'strongly encouraged' to do it.
Perhaps much more abuse was in the offing if he didn't and that was intimated to him in clear terms.
If I were going to kill Epstein, you can bet that I would shut down 8chan first. Oh, that happened on August 5? You don't say?
Just before the release of the court records? Really?
Poor Jeff, the guilt must have really gotten to him. When he commissioned that painting of himself in a prison yard, he
thought he could make it, but with guilt and prison life, etc etc he just could not go another day without a massage. What
a shame, what a damn shame
In Epstein's bio at Wikipedia, he is described as advising Bear Stearns' wealthiest clients on "tax mitigation", i.e. pay as little
tax as possible (Bear Stearns, a giant investment bank, was a casualty of the 2008 financial crisis.) Edgar Bronfman is specifically
mentioned as one such client, a billionaire who was also an extremely influential international lobbyist regarding Jewish issues,
above all within the late Soviet Union. Among Bronfman's children are two daughters who provided financial, legal, and material
support to NXIVM, a psychological cult which served as cover for a growing circle of sex slaves. And recall that Epstein was assisted
by a daughter of Robert Maxwell, another tycoon who after his death was eulogized for his service to Israel
And the 2 guards on his corridor were told to leave because of middle of the night maintenance. Must be an easy job 11 pm to
7 am shift electricians and plumbers on duty every night in case of sudden electric fire or flood Night shift differential too.
Probably need at least 2 people at all times because most jobs need 2 pairs of hands
I bet this was the first middle of the night maintenance since the building was finished.
And why would the guards have to leave? Who did this middle of the night maintenance?
If they do exist they died in auto crashes at 7/30 Saturday morning after they left work.
The absent guards are not liable because they followed procedure and obeyed the order to leave their post.
Who gave the order? " Oh, it came over the intercom. He said it was my superior, Captain so and so." " and did you indeed give
the order?" Captain so and so?"
" no I did not"
@Cagey Beast I had to switch back temporarily
to establishment media to see how this was being presented to the masses. With wry cynicism, it seems to me, even from the hairstyled
mediabots reading the autocue.
There's not even the "plausible" deniability they had with Seth Rich, God bless his soul.
"Most of the American people have learned today that their "elites" are unaccountable. They also know, on some level, what
it will take to fix this problem, and what they believe their country to be is very, very wrong. All three of these ideas make
Americans uncomfortable.
Covington, at the end, used to say that the problem was not that people didn't know what would be required to save their freedom
and their continued existence as a people, but rather that they knew full well, and the thought was unbearable to most people.
@JohnnyWalker123 The Post article said they
looked for media reports of suicide and found only one other. How many didn't become news? Is it normally newsworthy when a criminal
offs himself in jail?
And even if there were brief reports, they may not mention the name of the jail.
The other reported suicide was a "drug kingpin." Would a mid level dealer or random child porn downloader suicide really make
the news? I have actually never once read an article in my local paper about a local jail/prison suicide, though I am sure it
happens.
It's my feeling that Epstein killed himself even though he should have been on suicide watch and he was not on suicide watch
due to bureaucratic incompetence.
You and I quite often see the world in the same way, but many of the others who post comments here have a different weltanschauung.
All I can say is that it is interesting to get different perspectives and learn how other people think and all opinions are welcome,
even if they are diametrically opposed to mine.
I agree Epstein wouldn't seemingly have much sense of shame. Likely a hit. Duh.
Do you have any idea how difficult it is to hang an unwilling participant, string him up from some ceiling fixture, leave him
hanging, and do it really quietly so that you don't wake anyone else up?
We really can't know if it was suicide or murder. But we do know:
1. If it was a murder it is quite brazen and shows how confident the killers are that they can control the narrative on the story
in the world (not just US) media. It would be a sign that we live under totalitarian rule.
2. The fact that we can't know if our governmnet is this corrupt or not, because so much of what our government does is secret,
is a sign that we don't have a democracy or republic worthy of the name. If we lived in a democracy or a republic we wouldn't
have to worry about this.
3. "Consipiracy theories" are no longer the province of kooks. Reasonable people now have to be conspiracy theorists to avoid
being fooled by offical lies (Iraq's non-existent weapons of mass destruction).
4. No good man can tolerate this condition. Something must change.
@Charles Erwin Wilson 3 Bill's body is degenerating
at a rapid pace as is Hillary's – they look like death. They are not even fuckable anymore, yet they will fight to the death of
them to defend some imaginary image they have of themselves. I hate these slimey, truly trashy low-lives, since 1991. I want them
tied to Epstein and rung under the keel of a ship, back & forth, until they can no longer speak.
At my old state prison, a lowly CO could make a recommendation to the watch commander that "so and so said he was going
to kill himself" or give them reasons why he needed to be placed on suicide watch.
This by no means a "massive cost". It consists of your inmate being placed in a hold cell and taking one of your on duty
rovers or junior COs and sitting him in front of the door to stare at homeboy.
The idea that a 24 hour prison needs the say so of a clinician that works 8 hours a day is laughable.
It could be very different where you live from the processes I have seen in Florida.
Certainly any CO could START the process of placing someone on suicide watch as you describe as an emergency procedure, but
they would still have to be assessed by psych as soon as reasonably possible, and certainly within 24 hours for that process to
continue for more than 24 hours, and they could only be released from suicidal watch on the with the approval of the psychiatrist.
If the process started at night, the inmate would still have to be taken to the medical department and seen by the nurse who
would evaluate the inmate and make a call to the on-call doctor for a verbal order to start SHOS protocols, pending a more detailed
psych eval the next day.
Since Epstein had been on suicide watch and released from it, it is unlikely that he was showing signs of suicidal intent that
a CO would recognize as an emergency on Friday evening. In fact it is most likely that he would have wanted to hide any such indications.
Your assumption is that there are plenty of hallway rovers available at the weekend, or junior COs available to sit in front
of the door flap and that overtime work would not be required, and neither you nor I can know what the staffing situation was
like in that facility last night. In the prison I worked at, staffing was extremely tight at weekends, especially if a CO got
injured or sick and had to leave, and there was constant pressure to reduce overtime which could easily be needed if someone was
to remain on SHOS over the weekend.
I hear this a lot. But is it really true? Honestly, I'm just not buying the notion that hardened criminals have such a strong
sense of justice. In any event, the crimes Epstein was accused of was having sexual relations (perhaps coercive or semi-coercive)
with young teen-aged girls. Probably a lot of guys in prison have done the same thing and bragged about it often.
If there is some truth to the trope about pedophiles getting beat-up and/or murdered in prison, I tend to think it has less
to do with some kind of noble prison honor-code, and more to do with thinking along the lines of: "That guy victimized kids? He
must be a p ** sy. Maybe I'll beat him up and take his cigarettes."
I think it is entirely possible that Epstein made the decision to kill himself and plotted his way out of suicidal observations,
made a plan, and killed himself rather than spend the rest of his life in prison. Probably he had no faith in any plan his
attorneys had to have him found innocent. The gaff was blown.
I believe he was awaiting an appeal of his bail decision. He might have had the expectation of release and house-arrest, at
least for a time. A slim possibility, but real none-the-less. He had not even been tried, let alone convicted. And he did beat
this rap before. If he wanted to kill himself, he would have any number of opportunities after he was convicted, when things truly
would be hopeless for him.
Assuming TPTB didn't kill him, i'd say Epstein realized for all his financial success, he'd wasted his life.
Epstein was obviously a talented guy. He could have lived a meaningful life–committed to his tribe, made aliyah, found a nice
girl, raised a family, been part of Israel's lineage and future or thrown in with America, found a girl and done the same here.
But to Epstein, America was nothing but a marketplace–for him to peddle whatever he could sell–and his legacy is as transient
and empty. He heeded the siren call of the dark side and so got his just deserts.
But the sad fact is that in the modern West under minoritarianism so many normal people waste their lives as well. Minoritarianism
breaks the bonds of neighborhood and nation, history and heritage. It corrodes culture and casts people adrift without connection
. It's step-sister feminism tells impressionable women deep lies and destroy lives. It's bitter fruit is spinsterhood, childlessness,
missing children, damaged families, divorce and death.
Epstein is the personification of a truth. A nation reduced to being a marketplace is nothing at all -- a suicidal path to
emptiness, despair and death.
@Cagey Beast Every 70 or so years the U.S.
goes through a major restructuring. Encrusted systems of injustice make people sufficiently angry that they are willing to forgo
short- and medium-term comfort in order to reorganize the systems
@AnotherDad I'm sorry, sorry, sorry, but
pimps are just evil. More evil than rapists in some ways. That's more than 2o years dealing with sex crimes speaking.
And the money? 85 million winning lottery ticket? 20 million house in Manhattan. Private planes so he could take minors out
of the country? His pimp partner the daughter of Maxwell the Mossad and KGB spy who stole the pension funds of dozens of companies.
That's just one of Maxwell's financial crimes.
Epstein's money came from Wexler. He owned an investment company but he never did any buying selling trades anything. NYC financial
folk gossiped about him for years about where his money cane from as his company did little investing had few clients or employees
He didn't even finish college. He was a 105 IQ White pimp and came to a bad end as most pimps do
psychopaths do not kill themselves never crosses their mind.
Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer, Ed Kemper, David Berkowitz, Richard Ramirez, Charles Manson – all of them did worse things than
Epstein is accused of doing. Pretty shameful things too – to anybody who has a sense of shame – murder, cannibalism, necrophilia.
And yet, none of them ever tried to commit suicide. They all clung to life until it was taken from them, if they are not still
alive.
I don't think Epstein had a single milliliter of shame in him. If he did, he wouldn't have lived his life the way he did.
I'm reading that the camera in Epstein's cell "malfunctioned."
Riiiiight.
K let's just cut right to the chase: everyone who doesn't believe that the Jewish Mafia (AKA international Jewry) had Epstein
murdered, plz raise ur hand.
Plz include explanation as to why someone who has half a billion dollars, has displayed no capability for shame or guilt, and
the maximum amount of chutzpah humanly possible, and who has beat the system over and over and over for most of his life, would
kill himself.
@Lawyer Guy Yep. It will be interesting
to see how much of a coverup follows. The murder scene? Court documents? Evidence gathered? (((Ghislaine Maxwell))) skates?
One complication is that the victims' lawyers are going after his estate. Speaking of, it'll be interesting to discover who
is going to get Epstein's stuff (AFAIK he has no kids).
Wouldn't be surprised if the victims' lawyers go after (((Madam Maxwell))) and try to take all her shit, too.
@Hopscotch The orange faggot could have
drained half the swamp the day after he was inaugurated, by firing anyone who smelled funny at CIA, NSA, FBI, etc., etc., etc;
they have pretty much no legal protection from firing, because Cold War Taken Seriously.
He's fired nobody.
He sure as fuck isn't going to bother with investigations if he's too lazy or cowardly to even fire people.
One of the interesting revelations to come out recently is that Zorro Trust, the entity that owns Epstein's New Mexico ranch
won an $85,000,000 lottery in 2008.
Very interesting. Thanks for posting.
Maybe Epstein was struck by lightning while in prison. He is .just .that .lucky.
No fixtures, nothing but a flat ceiling with recessed lights in those federal detention centers. Even if they managed to
make a rope out of torn up underwear what would they attach it to?
In the two jailhouse suicides I reporter on (city jails, but probably similar to a fed clink), both of them used the thin blanket
provided to them, waited for the hourly check to happen, then tied one end around their neck and the other to the top bunk.
The thing is that means you still had contact with the floor and had to consciously keep as much weight on your neck until
you passed out. A neurologist I contacted after one of them told me that since a blanket would be much thicker than a rope, it's
conceivable death occurred in 7-8 minutes, but probably more like 10-20, and could have been as much as 30 to 45 minutes.
In both cases the two prisoners (one was caught with child porn) were extremely depressed about their circumstances, which
would explain the extraordinary lengths they went through to off themselves. Epstein struck me as an arrogant asshole, and not
the suicidal type, but that's just a guess on my part.
@Lot Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell
first dated, then later operated a prostitution ring in South Florida. Ghislaine's father was a very valuable Mossad agent (as
confirmed by Israeli leaders and journalist Seymour Hersh). So valuable that various Israeli leaders and intelligence figures
attended his funeral.
Epstein was given a huge amount of money to manage by super pro-Israel Leslie Wexner (owner of L Brands and Victoria's Secret)
and then "misappropriated it." Epstein was even given a free (!!!) multimillion dollar house by Wexner.
For his crimes, Epstein got a super easy deal from Acosta in 2008. Later, Acosta claimed that someone told him that Epstein
was "intelligence" and therefore he should back down, which was Acosta's explanation for offering the easy deal. Acosta was later
fired for this.
Even before that, Epstein had a charmed existence for decades. Despite being a college dropout, he got a teaching job at super
prestigious Dalton. He later went to work on Wall Street and made partner at Bear Stearns. In what normal country does a college
dropout get all those cool jobs?
Even after his brief sentence for sex crimes in 2008, he continued to be accepted in elite circles. He seems to have surrounded
himself with a very high proportion of Jewish individuals.
I have no idea why Epstein was rearrested recently, but I suppose someone powerful must've had their hand forced. Jews may
not be all-powerful, but there's no way to understand Epstein's rise and his decades of untouchability without mentioning the
role of influential Jewish ethnic networks. If these networks can't protect their members 100% of the time, it doesn't mean they
don't exist.
The Epstein story is just too strange for real life.
@Mr. Anon Right. Epstein molested a lot
of teen girls, which is extremely common behavior for criminals. A huge fraction of them are involved in teen prostitution, either
as pimps or "johns." I really doubt any of them felt strongly about what Epstein did.
The reality is that pedophiles often operate with huge networks of co-abusers, with many of the abusers sometimes coming from
elite circles in government, entertainment, and business. So silencing these pedophiles before they talk is a priority. There
are lots of criminals who are willing to take a payment (or let their family take a payment) in return for whacking the convicted
pedophile in jail.
@Mr. Anon Yes it's true pedophiles get beat
up in prison. I think it because the prisoners want to feel morally superior in some way. Also because there's nothing to do in
prison, and it seems to me that prisoners recreate this bizzare culture of what they see in television and movies because they
have nothing better to do. So they form racial gangs and barter honey buns for cigarettes and kick newbies asses. Talking to them
I also get the sense that half of what they say isn't true, they're just embellishing the few things that did happen because mostly
nothing happened. Telling badass prison stories is cooler than admitting that you're a looser who spent two years of his life
locked up doing nothing. The one thing they all agree on is that nobody gets raped in the shower.
August 11, 2019 at 9:11 am GMT
200 Words @Mr. Anon Having spent time myself
in prison, I can state that it's categorically true that almost any kind of sex offender is a pariah whose safety is in danger
at any regular prison. As soon as you arrive at a facility someone from your race will enter your cell and demand to see your
official court papers. Just about any charge is fine as long as it doesn't have to do with sex or children. One cellmate I had
had shot his step-father in the head execution-style, which was considered perfectly acceptable. If your charges are considered
"bad" however, you will almost certainly be beaten on the spot and forced out of the unit. Many, probably most, states have separate
facilities dedicated to housing sex offenders because it is too difficult to keep them safe in any other setting. They are called
"chomos" and "Chesters".
Why do prisoners do this? I think it probably comes down mostly to two things. One, many prisoners themselves were
abused as children and genuinely hate abusers. Two, the entire world looks down on felons as beneath contempt, yet this is one
group they get to look down upon in the same way. Nobody wants to feel as if they are at the very bottom of the social hierarchy.
Otto von Bismark supposedly commented, at one point, "Never believe any rumor you may hear until it has been officially
denied." [1] It's an old idea, but it was always half joke before.
Counterinsurgency
If Epstein was killed it would have been by a group of people who don't have to live in the USA. It would have
been done by people who don't give a damn about burning bridges or getting an FBI raid at 4 AM when their co-conspirators go
bad. I'd say it was the Mossad but thinking in those nation-state terms is probably laughably old fashioned.
Whoever it was, the mission was so very risky that it would only have been approved if the damage from a live Epstein
would have had to exceed the damage from a blown mission cover. And that's saying something.
August 11, 2019 at 12:12 pm GMT
100 Words @Helo Look, you didn't have to
be Nostradamus to guess that Epstein might kill himself (or "kill himself"). The question is why something that was so obvious
to everyone else was not obvious to the Bureau of Prisons. I'd be skeptical too, but something not dissimilar happened to Whitey
Bulger. In his case, the answer was not even bureaucratic incompetence but that Bulger had threatened a BoP employee, so the system
decided to take revenge on him.
The point is that the priorities of everyone else in America, possibly up to and including the POTUS and the priorities
of the lower reaches of the bureaucracy, the actual boots on the ground who had custody of Epstein, are not the same thing and
it is the latter that really counts. And these priorities are not necessarily grand and conspiratorial – they can be mundane and
petty.
Has any reader heard of someone hanging himself with toilet paper?
Obviously there are a few Unz readers who have had such sheltered lives that they have never been in a prison.
You make several strands of paper rope as shown in the photo below, and then plait several strands together. It can
be surprisingly strong if done right. Prisoners can also use such ropes in escape attempts.
No word at this time on whether Epstein was a macrame hobbyist.
@Jonathan Mason I was a CO for about two
years. Your primary responsibility is security and you are taught to never leave inmates unsupervised. Inmates in their cells
have a certain amount of privacy, but you are supposed to make regular rounds. Modern prisons are engineered to take things like
fire into account-for instance, the prison where I worked had huge fans in the ceiling that are supposed to suck smoke out in
the event of fire. From the control booth there is a switch that can "pop" every door on a cell block and there are fire doors
that can be opened from there to allow inmates to evacuate to the yard. The prison where I worked had medical staff to respond
to medical emergencies, but some prisons may not. I can't see officers leaving an entire unit unsupervised (who was in the control
booth?) for any reason, so none of this makes any sense.
The point is that the priorities of everyone else in America, possibly up to and including the POTUS and the priorities
of the lower reaches of the bureaucracy, the actual boots on the ground who had custody of Epstein, are not the same thing
and it is the latter that really counts. And these priorities are not necessarily grand and conspiratorial – they can be mundane
and petty.
This. Most people here are acting as if this prison was some sort of elite, specially-formed project designed for the sole
purpose of keeping Jeffrey Epstein, verified MOST IMPORTANT PRISONER IN THE WORLD, alive until trial. When in actuality I'm pretty
sure it's just another prison, and Epstein was mostly just another prisoner. One who probably actually warranted less attention
than most, as he was just an old man sitting by himself in his own cell.
I'm open to possibilities. But I'm gonna need actual evidence, not mere innuendo.
@TWS They were SUPPOSED to be checking on
him every half hour. But, and I know this is shocking, sometimes prison guards don't do their jobs. Maybe you have another job
during the day so you use your night shift job to get some well deserved rest. Just because there is some high profile Jew prisoner
that the Internet is all excited about doesn't mean that you should disrupt your usual sleep routine for that POS.
Everyone is looking at this from a top-down, how glad Bill Clinton is today perspective when the right way to look at these
things is from the bottom up – not what were the motives and incentives of the Establishment but what were the motives and incentives
of the poor schmuck whose job it was to watch Epstein. Of course, I think he misjudged – everyone from DJT to AOC is calling for
investigations and he's going to come into the crosshairs. But the union will defend him and he probably has enough seniority
to retire and take a pension so he'll be OK.
@Counterinsurgency The organizing principle
of highly identified Jewish actors is fear . Fear underlies every hatred.
Peoples who are afraid can be very effective in the short term due to their ferocity. If they can't rein it in over the long
term, they anger their allies and have to face their chosen opponents, and experience a backlash just as ferocious as they are
Was he? Even the MSM has been speculating recently as to where his money came from, given that he seemed to do nothing and
have no discernible talents or skills.
Clarification–for you, Alden, anyone else: I'm not particularly up to speed on the whole Epstein story. Don't know anything
about his background. But when i wrote "talented", i'm certainly not saying the guy was going to give us a breakthrough battery
technology or help develop the thorium cycle.
My take is that the skills to be pimp to movers and shakers, and run an operation like this Lolita express to the Caribbean
are not unlike those for selling cars or real estate or medical devices, or being a drug rep, or a lobbyist, or hawking financial
investments, etc. etc. etc. I.e. a schmoozer. As a grandson of the soil, i tend to have a low opinion of the middle man types.
My default thought is "parasite." But there's no doubt the sales guys can make a decent living in America. Enough to afford a
wife, some kids, the four bedroom house (in a neighborhood with 'good schools'). He could have been organizing the local little
league and been "a pillar of the community". Most importantly a father, with a family, a legacy, a stake in the future. But he
chose the dark side and lo and behold at 60 something realizes his life is a big zero.
This thread ("Epstein Dead") was buried under six new blog posts not long after it was posted, and therefore relatively less likely
get lots of views for the many who interact with the iSteve blog via either the main Unz.com page or
http://www.unz.com/isteve/ (as opposed to
http://www.unz.com/author/steve-sailer/ , showing all posts
in 'Teaser' versions).
Even so, this post, "Epstein Dead," has become the eighth-most-commented-thread this summer (so far) here at iSteve
. Two other Epstein posts from the period right after his arrest (July 6) are in the top 10, and another one on the list is from
after Epstein's first alleged 'injury' in prison (July 24), making a total of four Epstein posts in the Top 20.
______________________
Below I list/link to the most-commented iSteve posts for June 1 to Aug. 11, 2019
There were 337 iSteve blog posts in that period, so the below 25 posts are the top 7.5% most-commented-on posts of summer
2019 thru Aug. 11. This thread, "Epstein Dead," is at the 98th percentile in comment-count (and may rise further) in summer 2019.
19- " I am Not Making This Op-Ed Up
" [a Muslim-Canadian celebrating Toronto Raptors' winning NBA Finals as a victory of diversity] (June 17, 2019): 328 comments
Since the government is hopelessly corrupt and goes around "suiciding" people, why not demand that the NSA release every phone
call, email, or text message Epstein ever sent or received. The 4th Amendment is a dead letter anyway; might as well put some
of that NSA data to good use.
@Sean Good points and the Salon article
is very interesting.
This is my last comment on the fascinating Epstein story, but it does seem to be that nearly all the allegations against Epstein
come back to Virginia Roberts, who seems like a chronologically unreliabe witness when it comes to dates, and no one seems to
be able to explain how she, as a minor, obtained a passport and traveled all over the US and internationally with Epstein if she
did not have the collusion of her parents.
For a minor to obtain a US passport BOTH parents have to sign a consent and documentation regarding guardianship, etc. has
to be presented at immigration control for a minor to enter the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in the company
of someone she is not related to , as she is alleged to have done with Epstein to visit Maxwell's London home.
@Lot'Unproved zero-evidence assumptions:
Epstein was working for Israel, and Israel has compromised many people at just the right parts of the BoP '
Perhaps unproven, but hardly 'zero evidence.'
We have a former premier of Israel photographed slipping into Epstein's mansion, and we have the fact that Epstein himself
was closely associated with Zionist figures such as Wexler, Dershowitz, and Ghislane Maxwell. We have repeated evidence of powerful
friends intervening on Epstein's behalf -- from the interference in the initial investigations back in 2008 to Acosta being told
to back off. Finally, we have the fact that every known Zionist at Unz Review is very concerned to dismiss any possibility of
a connection between Epstein and Israel.
Epstein had access to enormous financial assets -- and only the vaguest explanation of how he came by them. If it wasn't because
he was serving the Zionists, who would you suggest he was serving? Everyone involved is either Jewish, a Zionist, a major advocate
for Israel, or all three. Looking at the evidence, what's your guess
@Colin Wright That Ehud Barak the former
Prime Minister and most decorated soldier in Israel and former head of military intelligence as well is too important in Israel
and its image in American politics for Mossad to allow him to be compromised in way he has been.
Ditto Wexler and especially Dershowitz, who are are not the sort of people who would be involved in actually running a covert
operation anyway. And it was not covert, Epstein himself seems to be the origin of the stories that he was gathering compromising
material on VIPs for the purpose of blackmail . He was a smooth talking trickster, but also a narcissist who wanted the world
to know how clever he was. He was on Edge and hanging out with scientists and Harvard professors, an entre he thought worth
donating six million bucks for. Read his wisdom http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/07/the-wisdom-of-jeffrey-epsteins-edge-foundation-answers.html
He wanted to be Doc Savage
Doc was physically and mentally trained from birth by his father and a team of scientists to become the perfect human specimen
with a genius level intellect. His heightened senses are beyond comprehension. He can identify a woman's perfume from half
a mile away. He is literally the master of everything.
A year ago Epstein was had got so desperate that rather than be ignored he was dipping in the Kool Aid (a prison slang term
meaning intruding into others' interactions) and willing to be known as a blackmailer of VIPs rather that just a rich guy living
the 24 hour party life dream in his Manhattan mansion.
During our conversation, Mr. Epstein made no secret of his own scandalous past -- he'd pleaded guilty to state charges of
soliciting prostitution from underage girls and was a registered sex offender -- and acknowledged to me that he was a pariah
in polite society. At the same time, he seemed unapologetic. His very notoriety, he said, was what made so many people willing
to confide in him. Everyone, he suggested, has secrets and, he added, compared with his own, they seemed innocuous. People
confided in him without feeling awkward or embarrassed, he claimed.
Stewart said he arranged the meeting to discuss Elon Musk's troubled position at Tesla. The company was facing a scandal
over one of the founder's tweets, and Musk was supposedly consulting with Epstein about the matter; Tesla denies this claim
and Epstein reportedly offered no proof. Epstein also claimed, according to Stewart, that "he'd witnessed prominent tech figures
taking drugs and arranging for sex."
Even if Dershowitz was hanging about for the sex, a Mossad controlled Epstein would not have been allowed to have him there.
Dershowitz was too valuable to Israel as a media pundit for risking him in this. And don't tell me a the Israel Lobby could not
have chilled the story in Miami newspaper (Jewish advertisers) about the deal that got all this blowback on Dershowitz. Trump
has given Israel its most sought after diplomatic coups, and Dershowitz is solid rock solid with Trump and Israel. They would
have protected him. In fact they would have smashed the story to protect Trump because he is being mentioned in every story about
Epstein's activities.
Dershowitz says he has never even met Roberts: 'This is a zero sum game. One of us is committing perjury. I'm going to swear
under oath that I never met her.' . A woman who has sex for money is capable of lying for the same reason. Ransome, the other
woman accusing Dershwitz has now admitted lying about having a sex tape of Trump.
We have repeated evidence of powerful friends intervening on Epstein's behalf
There is no denying that Epstein had the ability to win the confidence of important men and get them to do things for him,
but Wexner and Dershowitz got took by Jeremy. The more evidence comes out, the more convinced I am that he was a confidence trickster
with a smooth line in self aggrandizing bullcrap. When it came down to it he did not have the Israel lobby behind him He got taken
down by a the other year by a reporter for a Miami newspaper , and last month he was crying on the floor of a cockroach
infested jail cell while the correctional officers laughed at him.
Epstein had access to enormous financial assets -- and only the vaguest explanation of how he came by them. If it wasn't
because he was serving the Zionists, who would you suggest he was serving?
Himself. An embezzler not using his ill gotten gains for corrupting young girls would be giving grifters a bad name!
The emails in the court file shows Churcher responded: "Don't forget Alan Dershowitz J.E.'s buddy and lawyer good name for
your pitch." Giuffre's reply [2011] contained no reference to Dershowitz, just a simple, "Thanks again Shazza, I'm bringing
down the house with this book!!"
Jeffery Epstein was not the only one with "intelligence connections" pimping underage girls to the rich and powerful.
The new book by Tom O'Neill, "CHAOS: Charles Manson, the CIA, and the Secret History of the Sixties" , details Manson's
connections to the CIA. Manson's specialty was pimping underage girls to celebrities on the Hollywood party circuit. In spite
of being on federal parole and being repeatedly arrested for egregious violations of the law (sex with underage girls, pimping
underage girls, firearms violations, car theft, drug abuse, drug trafficking), Manson was systematically protected by his CIA
controllers. He and his "family" were often back on the street within hours of being arrested.
CHAOS was an illegal CIA program targeting the American people from 1967 to 1974. (It had counterparts in the FBI COINTELPRO
and the NATO GLADIO programs.) CHAOS was intended to identify, disrupt, and neutralize possible foreign influence on domestic
race, anti-war, and other protest movements. Evidently, Charles Manson played a role in the CIA's attempts to penetrate influential
Hollywood circles opposed to the Vietnam War and/or supporting black radical movements such as the Black Panthers.
Seen in this light, the Tate and LaBianca murders were effective as a "false flag" that discredited the Hippie movement.
As some commentators have concluded:
"The Manson murders sounded the death knell for hippies and all they symbolically represented They closed an era. The 60s,
the decade of love, ended on that night, on 9 August 1969." -- Vincent Bugliosi, 2009
@Steve Sailer Hmm, I have to admit that
is pretty good explanation of Epstein's methods. He pretended to be engaged in regulatory arbitrage (offshore tax dodging) but
he was actually all about social arbitrage (mediating between spheres and apparently establishing a basis for mutual advantage).
He was enabling leadership to span the difference between retail, academicia, law, politics, and punditry, while and introducing
these top people to other big shots gave him extra credibility because they met on his ground. It was all mutually reinforcing,
but the thing was none of these people were qualified to assess him for what he was because he was a finance guy and they were
not. The Wall St people were very suspicious of Epstein because to make serious money in investing you have to be a workaholic
and he never seemed to do anything but party.
I suppose the moral of the story is that when someone has an area of expertise you should trust their gut feeling about any
relevant issue even if they cannot give a logical reason for it. Gigerenzer writes about this and also how formal due diligence
is not a substitute.
Barak: I'm here to find help in solving the Palestinian problem, but I'm cold
@HA I see you are lazy enough to rely on
the doctored Wikipedia and then ask me for links later. Do your own work. Start with Boystown, so you can understand that trafficking
children is common, then Google for Gunderson and McMartin case.
@Steve Sailer Interesting article that shows
why they call it general intelligence, Jewish businessmen not all being sharks that know only balance sheets, some succeed through
being empathetic.
"He didn't understand the numbers," Lewis said. "He's never understood numbers. This is not his strength. This man is a
genius at dressing women. This is a guy who feels what they feel. That's his strength. And I figured that out when I first
met him and I don't know how he got that set up in his brain but in his soul, he has a sense of how people feel when they wear
his clothing. And that's a gift. That's just what it is. Some guys write music, this guy knows how to dress women. He's very,
very talented."
One of the Selachii persuasion. Sandy Lewis gave Wexner a talk that sounds like Stanley Hoff's rant from The Big Knife,
The conversation had been very frank, and at the end, Wexner asked if there was anything else Lewis wanted to say. In fact,
there was, Lewis recalled. "Get your mother out of her office across the hall," Lewis told him. "Why is she there? Does she
help you run this business or is she just a pain in the ass? I'm pretty direct. And I said, Les, I don't have a good feeling
about this, and your sister too . I was being direct. And he knew what I was saying . You're a good guy, I like you. I don't
sense you as a troubled individual but if you keep your mother around here, God knows what that's doing to you. Get her out
of here. Just forget it."
Bill Clinton sent political advisers like James Carville to Israel in 1999 to assist in Ehud Barak's ultimately successful election
campaign. Perhaps the fact that Barak and Clinton were both Epstein's buddies was significant there.
@Sean If Epstein is affiliated with "intelligence",
it would be two intelligence organizations from two different countries, one of which would be the US and the other Israel. Both
work together. No jail hierarchy could compete with that. If they wanted him out and wanted his escape from jail covered up, it
would be no problem. No problem at all. Very few had to know.
They say that where Epstein got his money is a mystery. Steven Hoffenberg said that Epstein was a
"currency manipulator" for the CIA. Lynn Forester (Rothchild) wrote Clinton a letter while he was President, and praised the work
of Epstein in "currency stabilization". Epstein was in fact a math genius. His abilities in this regard would not surprise me.
It is clear that Epstein had powerful friends who were able to strong arm a state and federal prosecutor, and get him out of
an otherwise very long jail sentence, at least 20 years. The Florida case was solid, according to the police who complained bitterly
about what the state prosecutor had done and later the federal prosecutor.. There is no way those prosecutors acted within their
own discretion in doing what they did. NO WAY.
Not to see the hidden hand in all this is ridiculous. This Epstein story being played out in the media is "in your face" contemptuous
of all of us.
"Pedophiles facing federal criminal charges are at high risk for suicide. It happened in several of my Maryland cases when defendants
were released on bail. Detained pedophiles require special attention. Stopping people from harming themselves is difficult.
https://t.co/YK4buPXmR9"
-- Rod Rosenstein (@RodRosenstein) August 10, 2019
A former inmate in that prison said it was impossible for someone to kill himself considering the layout of the cell. In the
past 20 years (and 20k+ prisoners), only one other person has successfully committed suicide in that prison. The only way I could
see it happening is if the cell for suicide watch inmates was different from the one for ordinary inmates (did the latter have
a window or a bunkbed?).
Further, Epstein only possessed pornographic materials relating to other – powerful – people. He was not a pedophile himself.
There was every expectation that he could have cut a deal in exchange for handing over more information on powerful people.
"Pro-tip: if the word "Mossad" is mentioned, it's a conspiracy theory."
-- Ron Bassilian (R) (@Ron4California) August 10, 2019
Mossad has a long history of assassination, including by suffocation. That is not a conspiracy theory:
"Mahmoud al-Mabhouh was an assassination that took place on 19 January 2010, in a hotel room in Dubai. Al-Mabhouh -- a co-founder
of the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, the military wing of Hamas -- was wanted by the Israeli government for the kidnapping and
murder of two Israeli soldiers in 1989 as well as purchasing arms from Iran for use in Gaza; these have been cited as a possible
motive for the assassination His assassination attracted international attention in part due to allegations that it was ordered
by the Israeli government and carried out by Mossad agents holding fake or fraudulently obtained passports from several European
countries and Australia. In March 2010, the British foreign secretary, David Miliband, expelled an Israeli diplomat after the
UK's Serious Organised Crime Agency discovered that Israel had forged copies of British passports. On 24 May, the Australian government
expelled an Israeli diplomat after concluding that there was "no doubt Israel was behind the forgery of four Australian passports"
related to the assassination. Similar action was taken by Ireland. Israel has refused to comment on the accusations that its security
forces were behind the assassination."
"psychopaths do not kill themselves never crosses their mind."
Not always true: "Johann 'Jack' Unterweger was an Austrian serial killer who committed murder in several countries After being
convicted of an additional nine murders in 1994, he committed suicide in prison by hanging himself."
Although in Unterweger's case, he only killed himself AFTER conviction. Smooth-talking charismatic psychopaths usually think
they can beat the system until it becomes obvious they cannot. In that light, I'd say Epstein's death is suspicious.
"The Post article said they looked for media reports of suicide and found only one other. How many didn't become news?"
Probably very few if they couldn't find any evidence of them. The is a NYC newspaper in the heart of the nation's largest city
with impressive access compared to most sources in nearly any red state.
"Unproved zero-evidence assumptions: Epstein was working for Israel, and Israel has compromised many people at just the right
parts of the BoP."
The weight of the evidence certainly suggests that he was working for Israel. He had ties to the daughter of a famous Mossad
agent, he met with former Israeli PM Ehud Barak (whom he also had business dealings with in Israel – perfect front to launder
money beyond the reach of American regulators), he was pals with a prominent and deeply-connected Israel-first billionaire Les
Wexner (who is now claiming Epstein swindled him out of up to $500 million – pure BS), his source of income was mysterious and
ill-defined, he had lots of dirt on lots of powerful people in a scam eerily reminiscent of your classic honeypot operation and
former labor secretary Alexander Acosta directly stated that he was told to lay off because Epstein was "intelligence" etc etc
etc.
"But this hyper-competent group lacked the competence to stop him from being charged, or to at least get a heads up and bump
him off outside before he was arrested, or to get him to disappear to Brazil or Paraguay."
Well, they succeeded the first time. If Acosta hadn't personally intervened, the Florida attorneys would have let him off with
nothing. That's why Acosta's office got involved in the first place. Paraphrasing "they wanted no charges [Florida state] and
we thought that was unacceptable". By all accounts, Epstein's interment was unusually light, to the point where one official has
stated that he was surprised they made Epstein do any time at all; Epstein slept there at night and was allowed to leave during
the day to go to his job. Further, Acosta himself was accused of breaking the law in his effort to let Epstein skate – after he
was told to lay off because he's "intelligence" that is. That intelligence is most likely Mossad. There was an obvious cover up
here, and it very nearly succeeded.
@BB753"I see you are lazy enough to
rely on the doctored Wikipedia"
It's at least something. You're so lazy you can't even be bothered to do that -- what does that tell you?To the extent all
this was doctored, it's curious that they had to wait five years while Buckey sat in prison as convicted Satanist pedophile. That
must have been some picnic, but hey, who cares about that, right? We have to think of the children, after all.
"you can understand that trafficking children is common"
What? I don't need convincing that trafficking children happens in shocking numbers, and if you have to start putting words
in my mouth to make your case, what does that tell you about how stupid your case was to begin with? But guess what? -- murder
is common, too. That still doesn't mean that every accused person is guilty, especially if the main witness is mentally ill and
claims the defendant can fly through the air. Are you saying people flying through the air and getting flushed down magical toilets
are a common occurrence too? If so, that would explain the rest of your posts.
If you look at, say, "Operation Cathedral/Wonderland/The Orchid Club", involving over a hundred pedophiles in over a dozen
countries and 1200 victims (there's a plenty long wikipedia page on that, too) you'll find plenty of actual evidence that no one
has since bothered to deny or retract, i.e. evidence that doesn't defy the basic laws of physics. How is it that Wikipedia managed
to keep that up without the Illuminati or the lizard people or Mossad shutting (or whoever) shutting that down?
Lastly, if you actually bothered to read the wikipedia page I linked to, they do have an extensive section on the archaeologist
that the parents hired to try and find the "secret tunnels". He did claim to find something, but the subsequent excavation found
a sewer pipe with stuff dating from the 60's, on top of an undisturbed concrete slab, if I'm reading that correctly. Another source
says that Stickel and Gunderson worked together:
Parents hired former FBI agent Ted L. Gunderson, who worked as a private investigator, and archeologist Gary Stickel to
aid in the dig. Gunderson claimed he found a "subterranean opening, " under one classroom, and another underneath a bathroom.
Gunderson said that the "tunnel" may have been dug by a utility company, according to the news service UPI Investigators had
used sonar trying to detect "soft spots" under the building's foundation, which possibly could indicate hollow areas, according
to the Los Angeles Times. However, no conclusive evidence was ever found at the site. On Aug. 1, 1990, all charges against
Ray Buckey were dismissed after a second jury become deadlocked on eight counts of child molestation against him.
Yeah, real slam dunk argument you got going there. I'm sure in another week or two they would have likewise found the magic
flush-toilets and the secret underground lair where Chuck Norris keeps his pedophile dungeons right next to the records of how
he and Bigfoot killed the Kennedys.
And the classic, LatAm 'banana republics' were owned by the CIA.
Or at least the latter had 'veto power' over the former.
It feels like we are the new banana republic, in that we don't seem to have control
over our own affairs, and an outside force intervenes to keep us on the intended path.
Always.
Trump also bears all the hallmarks of the classic banana-republic demagogue, frankly, and
we all knew it going in. It turns out he was kind of an elaborate political con artist
(perhaps moreso than the usual 'demagogue,' but still). There are lots of parallels, and this
without even mentioning "banana republic demographics "
If Trump were interested in "winning", as he likes to claim, he would push the DOJ to view
this as a RICO case, not one about a single rich pedophile. There was a criminal organization
at work here, with multiple conspirators and enablers. They should be indicted. Additionally,
there are enough people on the periphery -- ex-presidents, financiers, professors, etc --
that deserve to be dragged in front of a jury, where they can publicly plead the 5th.
This should have been the approach from Day 1, and hopefully, Epstein's suspicious death
will be a catalyst for it.
If our country wasn't a joke, there would be a Mueller level probe into Epstein's
"suicide" that included extensive investigations into whether he was involved with a
foreign intelligence agency -- and which one.
The Jeffrey Epstein
saga goes on even though convicted pedophile Epstein himself has been found hanged in his
jail cell in Manhattan. One has to wonder how he managed to kill himself, if that is indeed the
case, as he was reportedly on suicide watch at the prison and it is to be presumed that he had
been stripped of any clothing or accoutrements that would have been usable to that end. So, he
is dead but did he do it himself or was he helped? There are many prominent individuals and
powerful government agencies that will be very pleased that he is gone as most of his secrets
will have gone to the grave with him.
There was certainly a warning that something might happen. Two weeks ago, he was reportedly
found unconscious in his jail cell with marks around his neck. It was suggested that he
might have tried to kill himself or, alternatively, had been beaten up by another inmate. There
was also considerable speculation that some aggrieved part of the Deep State was trying to kill
him to silence him.
The subsequent press reports revealed that Epstein had been taken to a hospital, but there
has been no follow-up about his condition or status apart from
a brief note that he had been returned to the same jail under suicide watch. In any event,
the story had pretty much died, which is precisely what a lot of the high rollers and
politicians who became involved with Epstein would have liked to see happen. Nevertheless,
investigations of the "Affair Epstein" reportedly were continuing at the federal level as well
as in New York State and Florida.
The most recent elaboration of the Epstein saga prior to his death came from his former
patron Leslie Wexner, the canny Jewish business tycoon who built an Ohio based fashion empire
called L Brands from scratch. L Brands, by the way, includes Victoria's Secret, which features
young women strutting around in their underwear. The 81 year old Wexner claimed in a 564 word
letter that the wily Epstein "misappropriated vast sums of
money" from him. In the letter Wexner admitted to having lost at least $46 million from his
family money, but some media accounts are suggesting that the fraud amounted to much more,
possibly as much as $500 million. And the alleged theft also extended to property, to include
the series of transactions that left Epstein possessing the Upper East Side mansion where he
resided and did his filming of celebrities having sex with young girls, estimated to be worth
$56 million, as well as the commercial airliner that became the Lolita Express and a
yacht.
(Leslie Wexner. Credit: American Academy of Achievement/ YouTube)
Now, either sum of purloined money is not exactly pocket change even for multi-billionaire
Wexner, even if rag trade magnate was enamored of the massages he was getting at Epstein's
house. It would take an extremely poor businessman to be unaware of losing that kind of money
and that much property unless his name were Donald Trump.
Wexler claimed that he began to sever ties with Epstein in 2007, after Florida authorities
charged Jeffrey in early 2006 with multiple counts of molestation and unlawful sexual activity
with a minor. In 2008, Epstein pleaded guilty to state charges of solicitation of prostitution
from a minor and was required to register as a sex offender, but he received an astonishingly
mild jail sentence of eighteen months with a private cell, unlimited visitors including young
women, and daily release so he could be picked up by his driver to go to work in his Palm Beach
office, a bit of incomprehensible leniency that is currently being subjected to criminal
investigation by the state of Florida. After the sentence was handed down the county sheriff
observed that "He was astonished that [Epstein] had to go to prison at all."
Indeed, the entire Florida side of the Epstein story seems to have disappeared down some
memory hole. Epstein was convicted for his involvement with prostitution, but the only
remaining issue was the consequences that he faced. That is where other players stepped in,
including Harvard Law Professor Emeritus Alan Dershowitz, Palm Beach county state attorney
Barry Krischer, and the Miami office U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta.
My belief that Jeffrey Epstein was an intelligence agent is based principally on Acosta's
comments when being cleared by the Trump transition team. He was asked "Is the Epstein case
going to cause a problem [for confirmation hearings]?" "Acosta testified that he'd had just one
meeting on the Epstein case. He'd cut the non-prosecution deal with one of Epstein's attorneys
because he had 'been told' to back off, that Epstein was above his pay grade. 'I was told
Epstein belonged to intelligence and to leave it alone.'"
The questions about Epstein remain even though he is gone, but one fears that the
authorities will be disinclined to further investigate a dead man. It appears that no one in
the various investigative agencies or the mainstream media has been interested in what Acosta
meant, even though it would be simple enough to ask him. Who told him to back off? And how did
they explain it? And then there is Epstein's Austrian passport. Was it fake or real, with a
real name and photo substitution or alternation of both picture and name? How did he get it?
Austrian passports are highly desirable in intelligence circles because the country is neutral
and its holders can travel just about everywhere without a visa.
And there's more. As a former intelligence officer myself, there is little doubt in my mind
that what Epstein did and how he did it was an intelligence operation. There is no other viable
explanation for his filming of prominent politicians and celebrities having sex with young
girls. And as for the question of whom Epstein might have been working for, the
most likely answer is Mossad . The CIA would have had no interest in compiling dossiers on
prominent Americans, but American movers and shakers like Bill Clinton, with his 26 trips on
the Lolita Express , former Governor Bill Richardson, or former Senator George Mitchell
are
precisely the types of "agents of influence" that the Mossad would seek to coerce or even
blackmail into cooperation.
Other compelling evidence for a Mossad connection came from Epstein's relationship with
Ghislaine Maxwell, who reportedly served as his key procurer of young girls. Ghislaine is the
daughter of Robert
Maxwell , who died or possibly was assassinated in mysterious circumstances in 1991.
Maxwell was an Anglo-Jewish businessman, very cosmopolitan in profile, like Epstein, a
multi-millionaire who was very controversial with what were regarded as ongoing ties to Mossad.
After his death, he was given a state funeral by Israel in which six serving and former heads
of Israeli intelligence listened while Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir eulogized : "He has
done more for Israel than can today be said."
Israel and high-profile Jewish players also have
continued to turn up like bad pennies in the Epstein case, but no one seems to be
interested in pursuing that angle. Epstein clearly had contact with former Israeli Prime
Minister Shimon Peres and Ehud Barak and Wexner also had
close ties to the Jewish state and its government. Barry Krischer, who may have been the
source of the comments to Acosta, has received the Anti-Defamation
League (ADL) award . Evidence also suggests that Krischer, cooperating with rabidly
pro-Israel Epstein lawyer Alan Dershowitz, played a key role in the failure to adequately
punish Epstein for his conviction for pedophilia. According to a recent New
Yorker story , the police investigators of the Epstein case observed that "the tone and
tenor of the discussions of this case with Krischer changed completely" after his meetings with
Dershowitz. At that point, the two detectives most involved in the case found themselves under
extreme pressure. They were surveilled constantly by private investigators and they even had
their household trash snatched and searched. And the resulting plea agreement with Krischer "
was due to the efforts of Dershowitz, who had proceeded to attack and smear the victims."
Krischer
claims that his office "subpoenaed witnesses took evidence to a Grand Jury, which returned
a single felony count indictment against Epstein of soliciting prostitution," but the reality
appears to be that he worked with the defense to get Epstein off. There was plenty of evidence
based on more than forty interviews with victims to convict Epstein, but instead of having him
arrested, Krischer instead set up the Grand Jury with no mention of underage victims to
mitigate the possible consequences. He also did not inform the victims of what he had arranged
so they could challenge the verdict and penalty, a violation of Crime Victims Rights Act.
The Palm Beach police who worked the case at the time told The Miami Herald as
part of an investigation published in November that they felt pressured by Krischer to
downgrade Epstein's case to a misdemeanor, or to drop it entirely. They said "the fix was in."
Acosta, more recently, did not refer to Krischer by name during an early July news conference,
but spoke of the Palm Beach County state's attorney. He described his own office as stepping in
to ensure Epstein faced some form of punishment. "Simply put, the Palm Beach State Attorney's
Office was willing to let Epstein walk free. No jail time. Nothing," Acosta said. "Prosecutors
in my former office found this to be completely unacceptable, and we became involved."
After thirteen months in country club jail in Palm Beach, Epstein was released. At his
mansion in New York City, he subsequent had an artist paint a mural of himself in jail,
evidently as an insider joke for those who knew about his time behind bars. End of story? Not
exactly, even though Epstein is now dead. But the key questions go unanswered including was he
a spy for Israel? And what about the Krischer-Dershowitz connection that kept him from being
punished commensurate with his crimes? Did those instructions also come from Israel or from its
friends in the U.S. Justice Department? Will the three simultaneous investigations currently
taking place even continue and ask the right questions now that the target of the investigation
is gone? Given the high stakes in the game, quite likely, there will be a cover-up both of how
Epstein lived and how he died. We the public will never know what Epstein was all about.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest,
a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a
more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is
councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its
email is[email protected]
We the public will never know what Epstein was all about.
Astute observation, which means of course that we can endlessly speculate with little fear
of contradiction.
Question: If I film a person having sex with an underage girl I have committed a major
felony. How many people would use that film as blackmail knowing that its release will land
him in prison?
For too many people, it's the ideal outcome. Bill Clinton, Alan Dershowitz, Prince Andrew
those are the ones we spotted.
Moreover, it's possible the pool was about to expand a lot. Drawn by the scent of
that supposed five hundred million dollar fortune, a law firm was searching for more of
Epstein's victims. Who knows who they would have named?
There would have been a welter of civil suits, All the beans could have been
spilled.
And gee now we'll never know. I doubt if much trace of that supposed fortune is ever going
to be found. It never was clear how Epstein made money, or even who he made it from, and yet
he had multiple fabulous estates -- including his own private island -- and a private Boeing
727. Whoever supplied the funds for all this is going to go away, leaving no trail behind
them.
I'm reminded of the considerably more obscure Zygier case.
Zygier was an Australian Jew who followed that familiar path for idealistic young Jews
from the diaspora : get smitten with Israel, make aliyah , and serve in
Israel's noble armed forces.
In Zygier's case, his service took the form of joining the Mossad. Evidently, he saw
something there that offended his refined ethical sensibilities; he was locked up and held
incommunicado pending trial. Sadly, he 'committed suicide' -- in a cell under
twenty-four hour suicide watch -- before he could appear in court.
@Colin Wright "a law
firm was searching for more of Epstein's victims. Who knows who they would have named?"
They can still sue his estate. Not like it matters much for civil suits if he is dead. His
testimony would not have been credible or helpful for either side.
I can't even understand why he came back to the states to be arrested. With all his
contacts he must have known that if he came here that would be the outcome. If the powers
that be wanted to get rid of him he would have had an accident ages ago. Maybe it was more
important to have him arrested and instill fear in all the people caught up by his honey trap
it certainly would help to exert pressure if there was a particular agenda that needed to be
accomplished. My feeling is that he has been whisked off to a new life with his awesome
retirement package.
TPTBs really, REALLY, don't care what the rest think or feel. Well, except for one thing,
maybe: "Look what we can do to one of us. Now .think a bit, what can we do to YOU?".
The "rest", at the same time, also don't care much. Most people won't simply register
this. So much for "informing/educating people to create a positive social change".
The very mechanisms of society which are supposed to prevent this, let alone investigate
and punish the perpetrators, obviously, won't do it. Independent ..hahahaha ..media.
Judiciary. Police. Famed security services.
If this had happened anywhere else in the world the USA media/public would've been shitting,
with reason, all over it. Not in the land of free. Well, that does prove that American
society is exceptional.
This is really "in your face". Scary, actually, how "they" really don't care. Not because
"they" are what they are. Because "we" are what "we" are.
It would be interesting to see what's going to happen to the plebs involved. My take: some
disciplinary action now. And, perhaps, the same guy(s) employed somewhere with much better
pay and perks.
"If I film a person having sex with an underage girl I have committed a major felony. How
many people would use that film as blackmail knowing that its release will land him in
prison?"
For the same reason people build nuclear weapons but don't ever use them: the potential
for MAD is there should anyone get out of line and attack so there is never an attack. The
money keeps flowing to Israel and no administration votes against them in the UN.* Besides,
if Epstein were contracted by Mossad, they presumably would have copies of this dirt and they
could easily release it through a third party. That's certainly a calculation the victims
would have made. We already know a former Israeli PM with high level contacts in the IDF and,
possibly, Mossad not only had personal contact with Epstein but also had a business
relationship with him through a company based in Israel. Wexner could have funneled money
through that company to conceal the operation's finances, which would have been beyond the
ability of US regulators to examine.
Personally, I find it incredulous that Wexner would have been unaware of missing $500
million. That's an extraordinary sum. We know Wenxer is an ardent Israeli nationalist who has
in the past organized fellow Jewish billionaires (Study Group / Mega Group) for the purposes
of promoting "Jewish charity" the perfect front to run an operation. Study this man's ties
and you will almost certainly find Mossad. Wexner was the perfect means to fund Epstein's
operation: wealthy, ethnocentric, and highly connected to other big time players in finance,
politics, and the entertainment industries (great for recruiting) – the perfect cover
to shield Israel from blow back in the unlikely event the operation became public. This was
Mossad. Count on it. it's what I would do.
*Sorta funny how American administrations stopped voting against Israeli interests around
the time when video cameras became widespread, isn't it? Further, has anyone ever wondered
what happens when all those freshly minted democrats join leadership in their freshmen luxury
tours of Israel? Seems like the perfect time to gather some dirt. I wonder if their hotel
rooms get special visits from young women? If I were honest CIA, I might have a problem with
this activity if I were honestly working for this country and not a certain other one, that
is.
So many questions and we are supposed to have confidence in the same FBI and DOJ that created
Russiagate to investigate another stinking pile of corruption? Why not appoint James Comey as
a special counsel to investigate the Epstein affair? That will keep everything hidden for a
few years.
Here's what bothers me. George Mitchell, Bill Richardson even Bill Clinton are has beens
and, let's face it, to a septuagenarian lecher the difference between an 16 year old and an
18 year old girl is a distinction without a difference. Epstein could have run his version of
the Playboy Mansion unhindered for the rest of his life had he just made sure his 'pleasure
units' had drivers licenses that said they were 18. Hell, Monica Lewinsky was 21 and Bill
Clinton risked his presidency to conceal that affair. If blackmail is your game you don't
need teenyboppers to ruin a political career. Ask Gary Hart or John Edwards!
There is something missing in this Epstein drama. Something so devastating that it goes
beyond any single person's survival. Something that would bring down an agency ( like the FBI
) were it to be revealed.
@peterAUS With all the
dystopian bills and laws passed in the last two years, with the current attack on the 1st and
2nd amendment, with the effective neutering of congress and its politicians reduction to
puppets for special interests and the lobby, finally with the attack on the internet, you
knew the West is moving into totalitarian mode. But the murder-suicide of Epstein outright
confirms it. Welcome to the USSA. It's a big club and YOU ain't in it!
Unless you are a billionaire, Zionist or top level agent useful to them of course.
But it does make you wonder what Americans will do. If the British crown had done a 1/10th
of what the current elite does You have to wonder if Ernst Zundel's prophecy will come true
in the end. Or if the people will really just go quietly into the night and slumber away
consuming superhero movies, junk food and second-hand memories of a time long passed and
dreams of a fake utopia that will never be and was a lie to begin with.
@Lot' They can
still sue his estate. Not like it matters much for civil suits if he is dead. His testimony
would not have been credible or helpful for either side.'
You assume they can find his estate. I imagine that -- the title to the plane, the island,
the imaginary stock portfolio -- is all going to prove remarkably evanescent.
Whoever was funding Epstein is going to roll up the carpet behind them as they go.
There'll be nothing to take.
@Muggles Both of those
deaths lead back to Mueller. Likewise the wrist slap for major kiddie porn distributor David
Asimov ( son of Isaac ). If you venture farther back you find Mueller butt deep in the BCCI
scandal.
As to how Epstein got his fake passport, it's highly likely he got it from Ronald Lauder, son
of Estée Lauder and currently President of the World Jewish Congress. At the time
Epstein received his fake Austrian passport, Lauder was US ambassador to Austria.
It's time Wexner's shady past received more scrutiny, as it would reveal everything about
the true nature and extent of Epstein's operation. Wexner has had both ties to the mob and
the CIA. He shared the same very private terminal for fueling and customs inspections at
Rickenbacker Airport with the CIA's Southern Air Transport airline (later Evergreen
Aviation), known for its "Torture Taxi" rendition flights and drug trafficking. Wexner used
Southern Air Transport to fly clothing in from Hong Kong, which back in the day was the main
heroin hub. It may be that Wexner received a cut of the CIA's drug money for serving as a
front, at a time when Epstein was doing the book keeping for Wexner.
One of Wexner's brands is called Express, which started out as Limited Express. No doubt
"Lolita Express" is a play on that, as there was a habit of using variations of the Limited
name. Wexner had a super yacht called "Limitless" that Epstein used.
Personally, I find it incredulous that Wexner would have been unaware of missing $500
million.
Wexner knew it , he just didn't do anything about it which begs the question why? There is
also the question of why Wexner gave Epstein a 'power of attorney' over his family charity
fund. A man in his position would have a dozen attorneys who would have told him not to do
that.
There were billions of dollars at risk on what Epstein could tell.
"Besides Lex Wexner of L Brands who now (15 years after the fact) says Epstein stole $45
million from him which he made no effort to get back there was Leon Black.
"Leon D. Black, head of Apollo Global Management one of the world's largest private equity
firms
Black's links to Epstein have become a source of concern to some Apollo employees and
investors, including the California Public Employees' Retirement System, which has committed
more than $5 billion to 11 Apollo funds and is its second-largest shareholder.
"Calpers takes this issue very seriously," Wayne Davis, a spokesman for the Sacramento-based
pension,"
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-31/jeffrey-epstein-had-a-door-into-apollo-his-deep-ties-with-black
Black and Apollo would have been ruined forever if Calpers had withdrawn their pension
money because of links to Epstein sexcapades.
There are likely more WS and other financial figures linked to Epstein and there may have
been crimes beyond underage girls such as actual sex trafficking and money laundering .his
travel records included countries compatible with those activities.
@Lot' Maybe his
money isn't as well hidden as we imagine. After all, he kept a big child porn stash right in
NYC, and didn't move to a no-extradition country. So he was either expecting to get away with
his crimes or just really sloppy '
Intentionally or not, you seem to be determinedly missing my point.
Maybe the money never was Epstein's. Maybe it was given to him to run the operations he
ran. Epstein wasn't an independent operator so much as an employee.
Watch and see. If I'm right, everything will turn out to be in somebody else's name. There
won't be an estate to sue.
I read that Epstein had been taken off suicide watch, that the video camera surveilling him
had developed a technical malfunction, and that the guards assigned to him had been removed
for 3 hours related to some maintenance chore. If this is so, there will be some explaining
to do, and the internet will see to it that there is a lot of justified speculation. Even
minor prisoners are under video-surveillance 24-7 in more modern facilities.
Since Epstein had hundreds or thousands of videos of prominent people having sex with
minors, the state has a duty to the victims and the public to go through this material and
prosecute the clients where possible. This will naturally open up the discussion of a
possible blackmailing operation.
In a manner of speaking, God has done his part and the ball's in our court. If we don't do
what we can to get this investigated properly we have ourselves to blame. This is a golden
opportunity to expose the deep state. Don't be content to whine or listen to Hannity whine.
Whiners are losers.
Since Epstein appears to have no wife or children it will be interesting to see if he left
a will or if, like Howard Hughes, some Melvin Dummar type emerges claiming Epstein's estate.
Worth a try I suppose if you can get a lawyer to work on a contingency basis.
@iffen The point is
that this man was on suicide watch not for his own sake so much as because the investigation
and prosecution of his crimes and related ones were so important to the country.
I've recently been doing quite a lot of reading about the Syndicate gangsters of the
1930s-1940s, and another interesting historical parallel comes to mind
In 1941, Abe "Kid Twist" Reles, a senior figure in Brooklyn's Murder Inc. agreed to
testify against America's top Syndicate bosses, providing detailed evidence about the 1,000
or so nationwide killings that his organization had performed on their behalf.
Obviously, the federal prosecutors were concerned about his safety in any ordinary jail,
and stashed him in a suite of top-floor hotel rooms, where he was guarded 24-hours per day by
rotating groups of six specially-selected police officers, who would keep him under constant
surveillance. The doors were steel-plated and the rooms selected to preclude any long-range
sniper.
Oops! Poor "Kid Twist" somehow decided to jump out the 5th story window and kill himself
when all six of the on-duty guards happened to simultaneously doze off.
The Captain in command of the unit argued that it was accident rather than suicide, and
the poor fellow had deliberately climbed out the window, intending to rappel down to the
floor below, then walk back up the stairs and knock on the front door, thereby surprising his
erstwhile guards with a amusing practical joke.
Syndicate killers planning to implicate their bosses should definitely avoid playing such
"practical jokes"
@Ron Unz What is so
striking about the Epstein murder/suicide is not that high level witnesses like him would be
targeted and taken out to protect the powerful people implied in his testimony. But that even
the most casually informed observer of the case equipped with basic common knowledge would
know and anticipate in advance with certainty that he would be targeted.
The fact that Epstein could be killed in the prison which protected El Chapo and where,
allegedly, not a single inmate had comitted suicide under watch, with the dire warnings of
many voices and red flags in advance, and a "suicide attempt" just shortly before, which
already implied assault in his cell, can only mean two things:
That the US justice system is as inept and dysfunctional as that of a banana republic
– which is unlikely.
Or that the US political system from the presidents, over state attorneys down to the
common prison guard is so thoroughly corrupted to the point of evil that it was possible to
have Epstein assassinated.
Similar cases you have reported have been going on for almost a century now. And what was
speculative has now become iron certainty: that blackmail, assassination, human trafficking,
child abuse and pedophile-rings are an integral part of the true ruling elite of the USA.
Likely that of Europe aswell. And of South America. And the destinction between the ruling
elite and the mob it used and uses, is at best grey in nature. We are talking about people
who can destroy entire nations, have hundreds of thousands of people massacred as a
consequence and laugh about it, like Hillary Clinton did.
Yet the uncomfortable, undeniable certainty of this reality does still come somewhat as a
shock to me.
What was so special about the Epstein case was that it happened under the watchful and
anticipating eye of the public. The assasination, as described earlier, was a show of force
and smug mocking of the audience by the ruling elite. It almost felt like a bait to violent
retaliation. Like the true establishment had thrown down the gauntlet.
My pessimism leads me to believe that the Epstein assassination and implication with
Mossad and Ehud Barak as well as Benjamin Netanyahu will be memory-holed and drown in the
swamp of total apathy that rules post-historic, rootless, post-modern western man. But it is
hard to believe the potentially most esxplosive case in post-WW2 US history could just end
like a forgotten footnote.
@MLK I would import
everyone half-intelligent to ignore Giraldi's distraction arm-waving about the Jews. Apply
some common sense.
Whomever was powerful enough to resuscitate the "Epstein saga," surely could have quietly
suicided him in the many years before he was back in federal custody. Ergo, that wasn't the
plan.
According to the (sketchy) official story, Epstein recklessly flew back to Teterboro
Airport right when his malefactions were again in the spotlight and the subject of
litigation. Apparently all of his powerful protectors low these many years must have all been
on summer vacation, including Mossad to hear Giraldi tell it.
What makes a whole lot more sense is that he was, in a word, renditioned. We even got
the post-arrest photo of him looking much like Saddam (purportedly) pulled from his hiding
hole by some garden-variety US soldiers.
@TKK Except she was
not 15, but two years older, and was with him until 19, which is a difficult mistake to make
honestly. And once your testimony is proven to be unreliable in one detail about judge must
tell the jury all your evidence is tainted. She also had a druggie boyfriend at the time. And
she was a lot tighter with her family and deceived them a lot more than anyone would
understand from her account. She lied to her father and was taking money for sex as a 19 year
old. Her character not her consent would be the issue. The jury would be led to understand
that they were making her a millionaire by convicting Epstein. Epstein's acquittal would not
have been unprecedented, Michael Jackson's acquittal was probabally due to just such a
defence strategy. Both had a lot of money, and the criminal justice system is not designed to
cope with super rich defendants.
@Grizaby Evidently you
can't read. It said Clinton and the rest of his clients. Trump is owned by Israel but that
doesn't mean he was part of Epstein's inner circle like the Clintons were. You have no clue
to what you are talking about. If Trump was part of it he will be had. Look at the bull they
tried to run by the American people with Mueller investigation.
Epstein was a major player in the espionage industry which consisted of Israel running the
system with likes of British Intelligence along with the CIA. This stuff is as old as warfare
itself. Epstein survived because all these agencies and the Magic Jews with their money
protected him. The US court system protected him as well as the FBI and Mueller. The Mueller
investigation was just another smoke and mirror diversion for Israel and the CIA to use ISIS
as a proxy army to expand Israel's borders while for two years the Jew Controlled Media ran
24 hours a day the Russians influenced our election. Unfortunately, some of us know that
Jews, Soros and Adelson own both the Democrats and the Republicans and control our
elections.
There is nothing partisan here. If you knew anything about Israel you would know that they
have been "importing" girls from the Balkins and other places for their sex industry for
years which has been covered up. Whenever there is human trafficking, porn, sex slavery,
organ harvesting, and espionage using such domains you will find Israel. For some reason
Giraldi seems ignorant of such things.
@Sean Oh, poor
victimized Jeff and these bad-bad girls. Sean comes to rescue!
Well, if Sean is so mindful about the age of the girls, here is a morsel of information to
provide food for Sean's thoughts: "Jeffrey Epstein searched for two EIGHT-YEAR-OLD girls to
sexually abuse after enlisting the help of fixer pal, court docs suggest" https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9622107/jeffrey-epstein-eight-year-old-girls-sexually-abuse/
Messages left for the billionaire and convicted paedophile [Jeffrey Epstein] by friend
Jean-Luc Brunel, himself the subject of abuse allegations, describe a female "2 x 8 years
old" willing to give "Russian lessons".
Both had a lot of money, and the criminal justice system is not designed to cope with
super rich defendants.
with ties to Ehud Barak (of 9/11 fame).
US Attorney Acosta was told to "back off, that Epstein was above his pay grade." "I was
told Epstein 'belonged to intelligence'.
Which begs the question.. who told him that?
We can always discover where the rot meets the road by the thunderous silence when it
comes to asking certain questions.
Who provided the script to Fox News and the BBC for the story of building seven's
collapse?
Nobody has any interest in knowing -- this is where the rot meets the road.
Who told Acosta to lay off of Epstein? -- this is where the rot meets the road.
It's always the crickets who inform us, more than a thousand "journalists" and "reporters"
who know where the rot meets the road, and when to stop asking questions.
For instance, how did Epstein hang himself?
By what means was he able to do this? How was he found?
The only thing they're telling us is that " Epstein was found unresponsive in his
cell.."
And that he had been taken off suicide watch.
And so the rest of us, by dint of the avalanche of unasked questions, are supposed to have
trust in the authorities to get to the bottom of it. If we're told he hanged himself,
it's not up to us, and certainly not the job of 'journalists or reporters' to worry about
things like – how, exactly did he hang himself?
How was he found? I guess asking such questions would be 'beyond the Pale'.
He was found 'unresponsive in his cell. Oh, Ok. Wasn't he on suicide watch? No, he had
been taken off suicide watch. Oh, what about cameras? 'The cameras malfunctioned during his
'suicide'.
Ok, we have no more questions. We're satisfied that the FBI is going to "investigate".
Reminds me of the Las Vegas shooting, and how they couldn't discover a motive. The length
and breath of our vaunted FBI and all that NSA surveillance that knows when you're going to
fart before even you do, but they can't discover a motive for Las Vegas.
Michael Hastings was simply driving too fast. Case closed.
Jorg Haider was simply driving too fast.
Seth Rich died in a 'robbery' (where his wallet and expensive watch were not taken).
Gary Webb committed suicide by shooting himself in the head – twice.
If you're a professional whornalist, you're satisfied with these conclusions.
@annamaria Typical
female ad hominem fantasy projection.
For what is worth- there is no reliable Mossad connection (not that they are "good/evil
guys" or anything similar), but simply no proof for any interference on their side. It would
be interesting to see if they were- for instance, they certainly are behind assassination of
a Palestinian rocket scientist somewhere in the east (Indonesia? Malaysia?) a few months ago.
But with Epstein- there is no serious case for their involvement.
@Bardon Kaldian
Epstein was charged and had sexual contact with under age girls who could be more easily
numbered than named. Not a single one of the allegedly existent customers of Epstein were
charged. In fact the accusation by the girls is he gave them to his friends and even random
visitors to his mansion. The prosecutors charged Epstein with trafficking because that would
get him life, NOT because he was actually guilty of that by being any kind of pimp. Don't
take everything so literally.
@Bardon Kaldian I know
all about black street pimps and the teen girls they torture and murder.
You're just trying to obfuscate the issue which is
Procuring is against the law and Epstein was a procurer.
Like many, you probably have the fantasy of pampered happy escort girls making a lot of
money and living happily ever after don't you?
A lot of the escort girls get only cash tips from the customers. Some of the agencies keep
all the fees paid for with credit cards. Almost all the escort agencies cheat the girls when
it's time to pay them. The credit card companies haven't paid the escort agency yet. The 60
40 split is suddenly 70 for the agency 30 for the girls.
Suddenly the agency closes phones canceled and the girls who are owed a months pay are out
of luck as the pimps go off with all the money.
Some agencies don't really screen clients or provide body guards and the girls get beaten
and robbed . Many of the drivers and appointment makers sell drugs to the escort girls.
Hard to figure exactly your point. It appears you're claiming Epstein treated his
prostitutes better than the blacks do. True
But his blackmail financial fraud money laundering his financial services firm that did no
trading buying selling and investing are far worse crimes than running an escort service.
Even worse are the retard idiots who keep claiming that Epstein and his customers were
pedophiles.
Sex with 13 to 17 year olds for money or lust is not pedophilia.
Sex with children 12 and under is pedophilia
Wrong. Pedophiles seek sex with underage children whether 'paid for' or 'not'.
'Underage' varies by state statutes. 15 is the usual age.
Being sexually attracted to a 13 year old prostitute as opposed to 18 year old prostitute is
pedophilia.
Pedophilia is classified as a mental disease .and its not curable. It is treated in most
cases with drugs that erase the sex drive. If a pedophile stops taking the drug he will
resume preying on children.
So says my sister in law who is a psychiatrist on staff with a major hospital who has seen
a few although she treats mainly children, among whom have been a few victims of
pedophiles..
Pedophiles, like mentally deranged serial killers do know 'right from wrong' ,that is
why they hide it .they should be treated criminally the same way other offenders are.
In fact the accusation by the girls is he gave them to his friends and even random
visitors to his mansion.
Weird. Who they were, his zombie personal property so he could "give them"? No personal
will on their side?
As I see it, they were girls, both above & below 18, who were seduced by lavish
life-style & were not bound by any personal strict morality, family ties or anything
similar. Are we to believe that 15 or 16 years old girls were so clueless about life they
would not even think they live, eat, sleep in a grown man's mansions without even a hint of
giving, eh, something "in exchange"?
Are we to believe that those 15, 16, 17..years old girls were not human females, with
female sexual desires, ideas, projections & plans? That these girls did not have sexual
feelings or were totally clueless about them, like, say, about quantum algebra? That there
was not a suspicion on their side that something of a sexual nature was bound to happen,
sooner or later?
Sources familiar with the correctional facility in question tell TMZ, there are
cameras in the Special Housing Unit -- the SHU -- but SOP is that cameras do not point into
the cells. We're told cameras capture, among other things, the doors to each cell to
determine if anyone walks in or out, but they don't point inside.
One source familiar with the facility says the drill is for guards to pass by each cell
in intervals ranging from 15 to 30 minutes depending on the circumstances.
Unless there's a one-off cell with a camera pointing inside -- and we're told there have
been rare situations where this is the case -- the time and manner of his death may
never be captured . TMZ
So rather than actually guard a suicidal prominent prisoner and make sure there is never
another attempt, NYC fed' prison just goofs off AND fails to record anything going on inside
the cell. That's just great.
But because there was no camera and because they took him off of suicide watch so quickly,
an *encouraged* suicide is a big possibility. Who had control over those things? Not holding
my breath for a thorough investigation.
@YetAnotherAnon Just
read in a review of a Maxwell bio that it is thought that Maxwell thought he was headed for a
pickup of some cash he needed to cure his financial woes (that is the speculation of the
bio's authors, Gordon Thomas and someone else). Instead some Israeli ninjas boarded his
vessel, gave him a shot of something hehind the ear that took him out, and dumped him
overboard. This story, if true -- even if not true -- lends a certain piquance to the grand
guignol of the state funeral. Ghislaine may have known or suspected the truth. She hit the
grits for NY -- that is, left Israel. If I understand the story correctly. In one sense this
all sounds kind of weirdly sad, because that girl is obviously effed up bad from the get-go,
and one can't help wondering on what terms Zion owns her.
"... That epithet has a sordid history in the annals of U.S. intelligence. Legendary CIA Director Allen Dulles used the "brand-them-conspiracy-theorists" ploy following the assassination of President John F. Kennedy when many objected -- understandably -- to letting him pretty much run the Warren Commission, even though the CIA was suspected of having played a role in the murder. The "conspiracy theorist" tactic worked like a charm then, and now. Well, up until just now. ..."
"... U.S. Courts apply far tougher standards to evidence than do the intelligence community and the pundits who loll around lazily, feeding from the intelligence PR trough. This (hardly surprising) reality was underscored when a Dallas financial adviser named Ed Butowsky sued National Public Radio and others for defaming him about the role he played in controversial stories relating to Rich. On August 7, NPR suffered a setback, when U.S. District Court Judge Amos Mazzant affirmed a lower court decision to allow Butowsky's defamation lawsuit to proceed. ..."
"... NPR gave Isikoff 37 minutes on its popular Fresh Air program to spin his yarn about how the Seth Rich story got started. You guessed it; the Russians started it . No, we are not making this up. ..."
"... It is far from clear that Isikoff can be much help to NPR in the libel case against it. Isikoff's own writings on Russiagate are notably lacking in "verifiable statements of fact" -- information that cannot be verified. ..."
"... In any case, The Washington Post , had already debunked Isikoff's claim (which later in his article he switched to being only "purported") by pointing out that Americans had already tweeted the theory of Rich's murder days before the alleged Russian intervention. ..."
"... Butowsky's libel lawsuit can now proceed to discovery, which will include demands for documents and depositions that are likely to shed light on whatever role Rich may have played in leaking to WikiLeaks . If the government obstructs or tries to slow-roll the case, we shall have to wait and see, for example, if the court will acquiesce to the familiar government objection that information regarding Rich's murder must be withheld as a state secret? Hmmm. What would that tell us? ..."
"... During discovery in a separate court case, the government was unable to produce a final forensic report on the "hacking" of the Democratic National Committee. The DNC-hired cyber firm, CrowdStrike, failed to complete such a report, and that was apparently okay with then FBI Director James Comey, who did not require one. ..."
"... The thorny question of "persuasive sourcing," came up even more starkly on July 1, when federal Judge Dabney Friedrich ordered Robert Mueller to stop pretending he had proof that the Russian government was behind the Internet Research Agency's supposed attempt to interfere via social media in the 2016 election. Middle school-level arithmetic can prove the case that the IRA's use of social media to support Trump is ludicrous on its face. ..."
"... As journalist Patrick Lawrence put it recently: "Three years after the narrative we call Russiagate was framed and incessantly promoted, it crumbles into rubble as we speak." ..."
"... In a long interview with Lauria a few months ago in New Zealand aired this month on CN Live! , Kim Dotcom provided a wealth of detail, based on what he described as first-hand knowledge, regarding how Democratic National Committee documents were leaked to WikiLeaks in 2016. ..."
"... The major takeaway: the evidence presented by Dotcom about Seth Rich can be verified or disproven if President Trump summons the courage to order the director of NSA to dig out the relevant data, including the conversations Dotcom says he had with Rich and Rich may have had with WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange. ..."
"... Dotcom said he put Rich in touch with a middleman to transfer the DNC files to WikiLeaks . ..."
"... Mark Twain is said to have warned, "How easy it is to make people believe a lie, and [how] hard it is to undo that work again!" After three years of "Russia-Russia-Russia" in the corporate -- and even in some "progressive" -- media, this conditioning will not be easy to reverse. ..."
Simply letting the name "Seth Rich" pass your lips can condemn you to the leper colony built
by the Washington Establishment for "conspiracy theorists," (the term regularly applied to
someone determined to seek tangible evidence, and who is open to alternatives to
"Russia-did-it.")
Rich was a young DNC employee who was murdered on a street in Washington, DC, on July 10,
2016. Many, including me, suspect that Rich played some role in the leaking of DNC emails to
WikiLeaks . There is considerable circumstantial evidence that this may have been the
case. Those who voice such suspicions, however, are, ipso facto , branded "conspiracy
theorists."
That epithet has a sordid history in the annals of U.S. intelligence. Legendary CIA Director
Allen Dulles used the "brand-them-conspiracy-theorists" ploy following the assassination of
President John F. Kennedy when many objected -- understandably -- to letting him pretty much
run the Warren Commission, even though the CIA was suspected of having played a role in the
murder. The "conspiracy theorist" tactic worked like a charm then, and now. Well, up until just
now.
Rich Hovers Above the Courts
U.S. Courts apply far tougher standards to evidence than do the intelligence community and
the pundits who loll around lazily, feeding from the intelligence PR trough. This (hardly
surprising) reality was underscored when a Dallas financial adviser named Ed Butowsky sued
National Public Radio and others for defaming him about the role he played in controversial
stories relating to Rich. On August 7, NPR suffered a setback, when U.S. District Court Judge
Amos Mazzant affirmed a lower court decision to allow Butowsky's defamation lawsuit to
proceed.
Judge Mazzant ruled that NPR had stated as "verifiable statements of fact" information that
could not be
verified , and that the plaintiff had been, in effect, accused of being engaged in
wrongdoing without persuasive sourcing language.
Isikoff: Russians started it. (Wikipedia)
Imagine! -- "persuasive sourcing" required to separate fact from opinion and axes to grind!
An interesting precedent to apply to the ins and outs of Russiagate. In the courts, at least,
this is now beginning to happen. And NPR and others in similarly vulnerable positions are
scurrying around for allies.??The day after Judge Mazzant's decision, NPR enlisted help from
discredited Yahoo! News pundit Michael Isikoff (author, with David Corn, of the
fiction-posing-as-fact novel Russian Roulette ). NPR gave Isikoff 37 minutes on its
popular Fresh Air program to spin his yarn about how the Seth Rich story got started.
You guessed it; the Russians started it . No, we are not making this up.
It is far from clear that Isikoff can be much help to NPR in the libel case against it.
Isikoff's own writings on Russiagate are notably lacking in "verifiable statements of fact" --
information that cannot be verified. Watch, for example, his recent interview with Consortium
News Editor Joe Lauria on CN Live!
Isikoff admitted to Lauria that he never saw the classified Russian intelligence document
reportedly indicating that three days after Rich's murder the Russian SVR foreign intelligence
service planted a story about Rich having been the leaker and was killed for it. This Russian
intelligence "bulletin," as Isikoff called it, was supposedly placed on a bizarre website that
Isikoff admitted was an unlikely place for Russia to spread disinformation. He acknowledged
that he only took the word of the former prosecutor in the Rich case about the existence of
this classified Russian document.
In any case, The Washington Post , had already
debunked Isikoff's claim (which later in his article he switched to being only "purported")
by pointing out that Americans had already tweeted the theory of Rich's murder days before the
alleged Russian intervention.
' Persuasive Sourcing' & Discovery ??
Butowsky's libel lawsuit can now proceed to discovery, which will include demands for
documents and depositions that are likely to shed light on whatever role Rich may have played
in leaking to WikiLeaks . If the government obstructs or tries to slow-roll the case, we
shall have to wait and see, for example, if the court will acquiesce to the familiar government
objection that information regarding Rich's murder must be withheld as a state secret? Hmmm.
What would that tell us?
Butowsky: Suit could reveal critical information. (Flickr)
During discovery in a separate court case, the government was unable to produce a final
forensic report on the "hacking" of the Democratic National Committee. The DNC-hired cyber
firm, CrowdStrike, failed to complete such a report, and that was apparently
okay with then FBI Director James Comey, who did not require one.
The incomplete, redacted, draft, second-hand "forensics" that Comey settled for from
CrowdStrike does not qualify as credible evidence -- much less "persuasive sourcing" to support
the claim that the Russians "hacked" into the DNC. Moreover, CrowdStrike has a dubious
reputation for professionalism and a well known anti-Russia bias.
The thorny question of "persuasive sourcing," came up even more starkly on July 1, when
federal Judge Dabney Friedrich ordered Robert Mueller to stop pretending he had proof that the
Russian government was behind the Internet Research Agency's supposed attempt to interfere via
social media in the 2016 election. Middle school-level arithmetic can
prove the case that the IRA's use of social media to support Trump is ludicrous on its
face.
Russia-gate Rubble
As journalist Patrick Lawrence put
it recently: "Three years after the narrative we call Russiagate was framed and incessantly promoted, it crumbles into
rubble as we speak." Falling syllogism! Step nimbly to one side.
The "conspiracy theorist" epithet is not likely to much longer block attention to the role,
if any, played by Rich -- the more so since some players who say they were directly involved
with Rich are coming forward.
In a long interview with Lauria a few
months ago in New Zealand aired this month on CN Live! , Kim Dotcom provided a
wealth of detail, based on what he described as first-hand knowledge, regarding how Democratic
National Committee documents were leaked to WikiLeaks in 2016.
The major takeaway: the evidence presented by Dotcom about Seth Rich can be verified or
disproven if President Trump summons the courage to order the director of NSA to dig out the
relevant data, including the conversations Dotcom says he had with Rich and Rich may have had with
WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange.
Dotcom said he put Rich in touch with a middleman to
transfer the DNC files to WikiLeaks . Sadly, Trump has flinched more than once rather
than confront the Deep State -- and this time there are a bunch of very well connected, senior
Deep State practitioners who could face
prosecution .
Another sign that Rich's story is likely to draw new focus is the virulent character
assassination indulged in by former investigative journalist James Risen.
Not Risen to the Challenge
Risen: Called Binney a "conspiracy theorist." (Flickr)
On August 5, in an interview on The Hill's "Rising,"
Risen chose to call former NSA Technical Director Bill Binney -- you guessed it -- a
"conspiracy theorist" on Russia-gate, with no demurral, much less pushback, from the hosts.
The having-done-good-work-in-the-past-and-now-not-so-much Risen can be considered a paradigm
for what has happened to so many Kool-Aid drinking journalists. Jim's transition from
investigative journalist to stenographer is, nonetheless unsettling. Contributing causes? It
appears that the traditional sources within the intelligence agencies, whom Risen was able to
cultivate discreetly in the past, are too
fearful now to even talk to him, lest they get caught by one or two of the myriad
surveillance systems in play.
Those at the top of the relevant agencies, however, are only too happy to provide grist.
Journalists have to make a living, after all. Topic A, of course, is Russian "interference" in
the 2016 election. And, of course, "There can be little doubt" the Russians did it.
"Big Jim" Risen, as he is known, jumped on the bandwagon as soon as he joined The
Intercept , with a fulsome article
on February 17, 2018 titled " Is Donald Trump a Traitor? " Here's an excerpt:
"The evidence that Russia intervened in the election to help Trump win is already
compelling, and it grows stronger by the day.
"There can be little doubt now that Russian intelligence officials were behind an effort
to hack the DNC's computers and steal emails and other information from aides to Hillary
Clinton as a means of damaging her presidential campaign. Russian intelligence also used fake
social media accounts and other tools to create a global echo chamber both for stories about
the emails and for anti-Clinton lies dressed up to look like news.
"To their disgrace, editors and reporters at American news organizations greatly enhanced
the Russian echo chamber, eagerly writing stories about Clinton and the Democratic Party
based on the emails, while showing almost no interest during the presidential campaign in
exactly how those emails came to be disclosed and distributed." (sic)
Poor Jim. He shows himself just as susceptible as virtually all of his fellow corporate
journalists to the epidemic-scale HWHW virus (Hillary Would Have Won) that set in during Nov.
2016 and for which the truth seems to be no cure. From his perch at The Intercept ,
Risen will continue to try to shape the issues. Russiagaters major ally, of course, is the
corporate media which has most Americans pretty much under their thumb.
Incidentally, neither The New York Times, The Washington Post , nor The Wall
Street Journal has printed or posted a word about Judge Mazzant's ruling on the Butowsky
suit.
Mark Twain is said to have warned, "How easy it is to make people believe a lie, and [how]
hard it is to undo that work again!" After three years of "Russia-Russia-Russia" in the
corporate -- and even in some "progressive" -- media, this conditioning will not be easy to
reverse.
Here's how one astute observer with a sense of humor described the situation last week, in a
comment under one of my recent pieces on Consortium News:
" One can write the most thought-out and well documented academic-like essays, articles
and reports and the true believers in Russiagate will dismiss it all with a mere flick of
their wrist. The mockery and scorn directed towards those of us who knew the score from day
one won't relent. They could die and go to heaven and ask god what really happened during
the 2016 election. God would reply to them in no uncertain terms that Putin and the Russians
had absolutely nothing to do with anything in '16, and they'd all throw up their hands and
say, 'aha! So, God's in on this too!' It's the great lie that won't die."
I'm not so sure. It is likely to be a while though before this is over.
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the
Saviour in inner-city Washington. Ray was a CIA analyst for 27 years; in retirement he
co-founded Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).
https://reason.com/2019/06/03/kamala-harris-is-a-cop-who-wants-to-be-president/Harris’
; attitude on these issues seems to stem from early in her career. In the '90s, she worked
closely with nonprofits and fellow city officials on several anti–domestic violence
campaigns. In 2003, when she was first running for D.A., coalitions "built up around issues
of domestic violence and juvenile prostitution" were "central to the Harris campaign
effort," the San Francisco Examiner noted at the time.
In the late '90s and early '00s, many groups concerned about domestic violence began
shifting their focus to "human trafficking." Soon, Harris started pushing for a law to make
human trafficking a crime in California. This was largely redundant: Forcing others into
labor or sex was already illegal under a host of state laws. Still, the new legislation,
enacted in 2006, was at least nominally concerned with coerced labor. When it passed,
"detectives dramatically stepped up their investigations, helped by f ederal grants
aimed at finding trafficking rings ," the Los Angeles Times noted in 2006. Police
forces received money for training officers, buying "sophisticated surveillance equipment,"
and paying informants.
These federal-local police partnerships to "fight trafficking" were mainly used in
undercover prostitution stings, with the bulk of arrests focused on sex workers themselves
or their customers. Contrary to the stated purpose of the law, prosecutions and convictions
for actual human trafficking were rare. But as the moral panic around what Harris
called "modern slavery" heated up, she would join a coalition demanding that Craigslist,
Backpage, and other classified-advertising sites and web forums that host user-generated
ads be blamed and punished.
Harris was sworn in as state attorney general in 2011, just as calls to "end demand" for
prostitution were getting a turbocharge from celebrity campaigns, federal funding, and a
few motivated ideologues. In 2013, Harris joined 46 other state attorneys general in asking
Congress to amend Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a measure the Electronic
Frontier Foundation calls "the most important law protecting free speech on the
Internet.".
Prosecutors originally tried to charge Epstein with one of these new crimes, "grooming",
but he had not used the internet. You don't know cops and prosecutors if you don't understand
that Epstein could be charged with trafficking while still being just a John. And he could
get out of it because he had money, although his money had been embezzled from a slightly
senile billionaire. Epstein was just a con man and degenerate. Nothing to see here.
What might appear to some to be a insignificant fact makes me uneasy about William Barr's
ability to investigate Epstein.
Barr's father Donald was once headmaster of probably America's toniest non residential
school: The Dalton School in New York city.
Epstein was given a teaching position there by William Barr's father despite having
dropped out of college. For those who don't know, Dalton usually insists on at least a
master's degree for employment and many of its employees have doctorates. (It follows because
Dalton pays its teachers better than many universities do their profressors) The very few
exception that have been made to this requirement have only applied to "artistic types".
(Epstein taught only mathmatics and physics).
It would have been inconceivable for Barr's father to have given the academically
unqualified Epstein his teaching position under normal situation. Someone must have contacted
Barr's father Donald and insisted that Epstein be given the position despite his notable lack
of qualifications. Epstein, the college dropout, couldn't even have qualified for a
credential to teach in the lowiest of NYC's ghetto public school without a state credential
which would have required that an applicant at a minimum have graduated from college.
Barr's father went very much out on a limb with this appointment of Epstein and it must
have been done either without the board of directors' knowledge or someone must claimed that
Epstein did in fact have a college degree (Donald Barr?). Schools like Dalton always VERY
carefully check a potential employee's educational record but this apparently wasn't done in
this case. Why did Donald Barr take this risk and cover for Epstein?
The request for Epstein to be employed as a teacher at Dalton had to have come from
someone VERY high up in the foodchain. There is no other reason why Barr's father would have
made the very risky decision to hire such an unqualified individual.
Then check out this other very odd student pedo placement at Dalton:
The wikipedia entry for Donald Barr has been scrubbed and doesn't even mention his
employment at Dalton. It does however mention that he was in the OSS during the War. (the OSS
was the predecessor to the CIA).
@schrub When I read
Donald Barr was firmer OSS I assumed that was why he hired the non credentialed college
dropout Epstein. Teaching, especially in a private school with normal children and no black
thugs is a perfect thing for an operative to get a regular paycheck apply for credit cards ,
pay rent and utility bills and wait till he's called on for more important things.
If I were Len Deighton or John Le Carre. I'd write a book about the 1955 Soviet spy
trained in perfect English, who arrived on a train from Montreal and established
respectability by teaching for a few years before establishing a financial services firm
Despite strong evidence that he too participated in Epstein sex crimes, Alan Dershowitz
was allowed to lead the best legal dream team Mossad blackmail money could buy. Despite all
the proven facts surrounding this case, the Dershowitz dream team successfully "convinced"
the US Attorney for the Southern District of Florida to neither charge Epstein nor any of his
pimp co-conspirators with sex trafficking underage girls across state lines, and of course
nor dare prosecute any of the other frequent flying VIP child molester
The pit-bullish Dershowitz gang included Kenneth Starr, chief investigator from the
Clinton-Lewinsky soap opera who never fails to evoke the religious high moral ground yet in
the next breath claims he's more than happy to have gotten a pedophile-trafficker off.
Other hotshot aces in the hole were Florida trial lawyer Roy Black and star attorney
Gerald Lefcourt among others. Dershowitz and Lefcourt's letter to Acosta's office prior to
their successful plea bargain emphasized Epstein's super close ties to Bill and Hillary
Clinton, touting how the billionaire pedophile "co-founded" the infamous Clinton Foundation,
accused by philanthropy law expert Charles Ortel of being "the largest unprosecuted fraud in
history." Speaking of which, a whistleblower at a Swiss bank has revealed that Jeffrey
Epstein used his Swiss bank account to send Bill Clinton $3.5 million shortly after his
pedophilia probe began in 2005.
I'm hoping that an element within our intelligence services did the right thing and
Offed him to send a loud and clear message to the rest of the tribal members involved in
false flags against USA and world. Obviously, JE was a very high ranking mossad agent who
had strong ties with ALL the Israelis and Americans who did 9/11.
The primary mission of intelligence agencies is self-preservation, and that means
co-operation with other nation's intelligence agencies whenever possible.
As a practical matter it is highly likely that both Israeli and US Intelligence agencies
had access to the Epstein blackmail materials to use as they wish.
( and, as a practical matter it is highly likely that both Israeli and US Intelligence
agencies were behind 911, the Kennedy assassinations, etc etc etc)
They are on one team, and those outside the intelligence "community" are on the other
team.
Ever consider a rogue upper echelon CIA faction may have ran Epstein, hoping it looked
optically like the Mossad ran him?
Epstein was probably a sex criminal from his early adulthood, but knew a few people. Hell,
his handlers could have told him they were Mossad. I think our CIA/NSA has some brass who
wouldnt mind calling America's foreign policy shots from behind the scenes via blackmail info
on influential company leaders and corporate officers/assorted congresscritters. Epstein
could privide this while appearing to be Mossad.
Its hard to believ CIA would let the Mossad get kompramat on our politicians so they could
boss them around. Turf concerns and a bruised ego would lead me to believe the CIA would at
least brief new members of congress about this anyway. I think it could have been them. "He
belongs to intelligence".
@Anon Interesting
idea, but aren't the CIA and Mossad joined at the hip at this stage? How likely is it that
rogue elements within the CIA haven't been purged by now?
Ever consider a rogue upper echelon CIA faction may have ran Epstein, hoping it looked
optically like the Mossad ran him?
No. For simple reasons: "What's there for me" and "Unless having THAT clearance I'll never
know".
Re the former: if they can pull this to him what can they pull on me (or people I care
for) if/when they want it.
Gets worse.
What if they pull that just to get a kick of out of it? Like aristocrats/nobles of Rome
would pull it on a gladiator/slave? Or Middle Age noble on a serf?
I remember when Milosevic died and I'd mention that over lunch in white-collar/corporate
environment. He WAS a head of state, European, White. I remember the jokes. And I was
thinking (stupid, I know) the same: if they can do this to him, what can they do to me?
Nobody else was, of course, at least where I was moving around (senior corporate management,
that is .or so I say).
Then, there was a S.A.S. guy. Quote from Wikipedia:
He was a lance corporal in 1980, serving in Pagoda Troop, 'B' Squadron, 22 SAS Regiment,
when he led "Blue Team" in the storming of the Iranian Embassy in London during a hostage
siege on 5 May 1980. McAleese fought in the Falklands War in 1982, and in Ulster. He was
awarded the Military Medal for gallantry in action at the Loughgall ambush in Armagh on 8
May 1987,[4] and was present at the Drumnakilly ambush in County Tyrone in August 1988.[5]
He also served as a bodyguard for three Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom.
The last sentence could be interesting.
And, then ..
Four days after his son's funeral John McAleese was arrested by officers from West
Mercia Police on charges of accessing indecent images of juveniles on the internet via a
home computer.
So, again, if they can do that to this fellow, what can they do to me?
Etc.
Hehehe ..now the funny part: how many people reading this knew about Mr. McAleese? No need
to state it here.
Oh, BTW, how many people you know are paying attention to this? Real attention, I
mean?
Funny too.
"... Joe Biden is both sadly demented and deeply compromised to the Chinese Communist Party through his use of his office as VP to fund his son's investment fund with money from China's government owned and run central bank. His condition and his compromised state will keep him from the WH. ..."
"... Gabbart is the only person that seems rational and slightly honest. Harris traded sex for political advancement I understand why she would be a favorite. No moral or ethical standards willing to do anything for what she wants. Perfect useful idiot. ..."
Tulsi Gabbard is an exception to the subject of my title, but she is not going to be
nominated. I am currently contributing to her campaign as a tribute to a gallant lady.
Joe Biden is both sadly demented and deeply compromised to the Chinese Communist Party
through his use of his office as VP to fund his son's investment fund with money from China's
government owned and run central bank. His condition and his compromised state will keep him
from the WH.
They will both be irrelevant in the 2020 election as will as the Zombie candidates like
Bullock, Delaney, etc. i.e. the "moderates."
The rest of the pastiche of 2020 "Democrat" candidates are essentially Globalist advocates
of reduced US sovereignty as a step toward their "ideal" of a world socialist state in which
they will be part of the new Nomenklatura and will enjoy exemptions from the inevitable
shortages of everything resulting from universal "sharing" with the unfortunate masses who will
be proletarians engaged in slave labor or doing the gardening at the dachas of people like
Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Beto O'Roarke and the like.
The barely hidden opposition by the leftist Democrats to border control is telling. The
leftist Democrats want to take down the SW border of the US until it is nothing but a line on
the map. They want to do that that in order to flood the country with illegals who can be voted
for Democrat majorities in states where they control the state governments. Remember, the
states run federal elections.
California is an example of dirty dealing intended to further rig election outcomes. Gavin
Newsom, the apparent present leader of the Sacramento cabal, has signed into law a statute
seeking to bar Trump from the ballot if he will not surrender his federal tax returns for
public inspection. Was the possibility of illegally voting millions of non-citizens by driver
licensing of illegals and their simultaneous voter-registration at the DMV not enough to ensure
victory? Thank god that a change in the number of presidential electors allotted to California
is not within the capability of the Sacramento cabal.
Americans and other people who will vote in 2020 will have a stark choice. Do you wish to
remain living in a sovereign state or do you wish to become a building bloc in a world
socialist empire?
Unfortunately the only choice available to the US sovereignty side will be Donald Trump, the
real estate hustler from New York City. Weld is not a serious candidate. pl
Both parties seem inclined to bring about "paradise on earth". To understand these
internationalists, I cite Dostoevsky's Grand Inquisitor conversation with Christ:
..."'So that, in truth, Thou didst Thyself lay the foundation for the destruction of Thy
kingdom, and no one is more to blame for it. Yet what was offered Thee? There are three
powers, three powers alone, able to conquer and to hold captive for ever the conscience of
these impotent rebels for their happiness those forces are miracle, mystery and authority.
Thou hast rejected all three and hast set the example for doing so. When the wise and dread
spirit set Thee on the pinnacle of the temple and said to Thee, "If Thou wouldst know whether
Thou art the Son of God then cast Thyself down, for it is written: the angels shall hold him
up lest he fall and bruise himself, and Thou shalt know then whether Thou art the Son of God
and shalt prove then how great is Thy faith in Thy Father." But Thou didst refuse and wouldst
not cast Thyself down. Oh, of course, Thou didst proudly and well, like God; but the weak,
unruly race of men, are they gods? Oh, Thou didst know then that in taking one step, in
making one movement to cast Thyself down, Thou wouldst be tempting God and have lost all Thy
faith in Him, and wouldst have been dashed to pieces against that earth which Thou didst come
to save. And the wise spirit that tempted Thee would have rejoiced. But I ask again, are
there many like Thee? And couldst Thou believe for one moment that men, too, could face such
a temptation? Is the nature of men such, that they can reject miracle, and at the great
moments of their life, the moments of their deepest, most agonising spiritual difficulties,
cling only to the free verdict of the heart? Oh, Thou didst know that Thy deed would be
recorded in books, would be handed down to remote times and the utmost ends of the earth, and
Thou didst hope that man, following Thee, would cling to God and not ask for a miracle. But
Thou didst not know that when man rejects miracle he rejects God too; for man seeks not so
much God as the miraculous. And as man cannot bear to be without the miraculous, he will
create new miracles of his own for himself, and will worship deeds of sorcery and witchcraft,
though he might be a hundred times over a rebel, heretic and infidel. Thou didst not come
down from the Cross when they shouted to Thee, mocking and reviling Thee, "Come down from the
cross and we will believe that Thou art He." Thou didst not come down, for again Thou wouldst
not enslave man by a miracle, and didst crave faith given freely, not based on miracle. Thou
didst crave for free love and not the base raptures of the slave before the might that has
overawed him for ever. But Thou didst think too highly of men therein, for they are slaves,
of course, though rebellious by nature. Look round and judge; fifteen centuries have passed,
look upon them. Whom hast Thou raised up to Thyself? I swear, man is weaker and baser by
nature than Thou hast believed him! Can he, can he do what Thou didst? By showing him so much
respect, Thou didst, as it were, cease to feel for him, for Thou didst ask far too much from
him- Thou who hast loved him more than Thyself! Respecting him less, Thou wouldst have asked
less of him. That would have been more like love, for his burden would have been lighter. He
is weak and vile. What though he is everywhere now rebelling against our power, and proud of
his rebellion? It is the pride of a child and a schoolboy. They are little children rioting
and barring out the teacher at school. But their childish delight will end; it will cost them
dear. Mankind as a whole has always striven to organise a universal state. There have been
many great nations with great histories, but the more highly they were developed the more
unhappy they were, for they felt more acutely than other people the craving for world-wide
union. The great conquerors, Timours and Ghenghis-Khans, whirled like hurricanes over the
face of the earth striving to subdue its people, and they too were but the unconscious
expression of the same craving for universal unity. Hadst Thou taken the world and Caesar's
purple, Thou wouldst have founded the universal state and have given universal peace. For who
can rule men if not he who holds their conscience and their bread in his hands? We have taken
the sword of Caesar, and in taking it, of course, have rejected Thee and followed him. Oh,
ages are yet to come of the confusion of free thought, of their science and cannibalism. For
having begun to build their tower of Babel without us, they will end, of course, with
cannibalism. But then the beast will crawl to us and lick our feet and spatter them with
tears of blood. And we shall sit upon the beast and raise the cup, and on it will be written,
"Mystery." But then, and only then, the reign of peace and happiness will come for men. Thou
art proud of Thine elect, but Thou hast only the elect, while we give rest to all. And
besides, how many of those elect, those mighty ones who could become elect, have grown weary
waiting for Thee, and have transferred and will transfer the powers of their spirit and the
warmth of their heart to the other camp, and end by raising their free banner against Thee.
Thou didst Thyself lift up that banner. But with us all will be happy and will no more rebel
nor destroy one another as under Thy freedom. Oh, we shall persuade them that they will only
become free when they renounce their freedom to us and submit to us. And shall we be right or
shall we be lying? They will be convinced that we are right, for they will remember the
horrors of slavery and confusion to which Thy freedom brought them. Freedom, free thought,
and science will lead them into such straits and will bring them face to face with such
marvels and insoluble mysteries, that some of them, the fierce and rebellious, will destroy
themselves, others, rebellious but weak, will destroy one another, while the rest, weak and
unhappy, will crawl fawning to our feet and whine to us: "Yes, you were right, you alone
possess His mystery, and we come back to you, save us from ourselves!"
"'Receiving bread from us, they will see clearly that we take the bread made by their
hands from them, to give it to them, without any miracle. They will see that we do not change
the stones to bread, but in truth they will be more thankful for taking it from our hands
than for the bread itself! For they will remember only too well that in old days, without our
help, even the bread they made turned to stones in their hands, while since they have come
back to us, the very stones have turned to bread in their hands. Too, too well will they know
the value of complete submission! And until men know that, they will be unhappy. Who is most
to blame for their not knowing it?-speak! Who scattered the flock and sent it astray on
unknown paths? But the flock will come together again and will submit once more, and then it
will be once for all. Then we shall give them the quiet humble happiness of weak creatures
such as they are by nature. Oh, we shall persuade them at last not to be proud, for Thou
didst lift them up and thereby taught them to be proud. We shall show them that they are
weak, that they are only pitiful children, but that childlike happiness is the sweetest of
all. They will become timid and will look to us and huddle close to us in fear, as chicks to
the hen. They will marvel at us and will be awe-stricken before us, and will be proud at our
being so powerful and clever that we have been able to subdue such a turbulent flock of
thousands of millions. They will tremble impotently before our wrath, their minds will grow
fearful, they will be quick to shed tears like women and children, but they will be just as
ready at a sign from us to pass to laughter and rejoicing, to happy mirth and childish song.
Yes, we shall set them to work, but in their leisure hours we shall make their life like a
child's game, with children's songs and innocent dance. Oh, we shall allow them even sin,
they are weak and helpless, and they will love us like children because we allow them to sin.
We shall tell them that every sin will be expiated, if it is done with our permission, that
we allow them to sin because we love them, and the punishment for these sins we take upon
ourselves. And we shall take it upon ourselves, and they will adore us as their saviours who
have taken on themselves their sins before God. And they will have no secrets from us. We
shall allow or forbid them to live with their wives and mistresses, to have or not to have
children according to whether they have been obedient or disobedient- and they will submit to
us gladly and cheerfully. The most painful secrets of their conscience, all, all they will
bring to us, and we shall have an answer for all. And they will be glad to believe our
answer, for it will save them from the great anxiety and terrible agony they endure at
present in making a free decision for themselves. And all will be happy, all the millions of
creatures except the hundred thousand who rule over them. For only we, we who guard the
mystery, shall be unhappy. There will be thousands of millions of happy babes, and a hundred
thousand sufferers who have taken upon themselves the curse of the knowledge of good and
evil. Peacefully they will die, peacefully they will expire in Thy name, and beyond the grave
they will find nothing but death. But we shall keep the secret, and for their happiness we
shall allure them with the reward of heaven and eternity. Though if there were anything in
the other world, it certainly would not be for such as they. It is prophesied that Thou wilt
come again in victory, Thou wilt come with Thy chosen, the proud and strong, but we will say
that they have only saved themselves, but we have saved all. We are told that the harlot who
sits upon the beast, and holds in her hands the mystery, shall be put to shame, that the weak
will rise up again, and will rend her royal purple and will strip naked her loathsome body.
But then I will stand up and point out to Thee the thousand millions of happy children who
have known no sin. And we who have taken their sins upon us for their happiness will stand up
before Thee and say: "Judge us if Thou canst and darest." Know that I fear Thee not. Know
that I too have been in the wilderness, I too have lived on roots and locusts, I too prized
the freedom with which Thou hast blessed men, and I too was striving to stand among Thy
elect, among the strong and powerful, thirsting "to make up the number." But I awakened and
would not serve madness. I turned back and joined the ranks of those who have corrected Thy
work. I left the proud and went back to the humble, for the happiness of the humble. What I
say to Thee will come to pass, and our dominion will be built up. I repeat, to-morrow Thou
shalt see that obedient flock who at a sign from me will hasten to heap up the hot cinders
about the pile on which I shall burn Thee for coming to hinder us. For if anyone has ever
deserved our fires, it is Thou. To-morrow I shall burn Thee. Dixi.'"*...
Dem candidate clown car is every bit as vile as the Gop clown car in 16.
Gabbart is the only person that seems rational and slightly honest. Harris traded sex for
political advancement I understand why she would be a favorite. No moral or ethical standards
willing to do anything for what she wants. Perfect useful idiot.
Given the overwhelming evidence of Mr. Epstein's connection to powerful US leaders as well
as, quite possibly, a foreign intelligence service, isn't it time for the American People to
demand a hard hitting, "leave no stone unturned" special prosecutor investigation ?
If this does not have all the earmarks of influence peddling in both our democracy and our
policy decisions , I cannot imagine what would.
I've recently been doing quite a lot of reading about the Syndicate gangsters of the
1930s-1940s, and another interesting historical parallel comes to mind
In 1941, Abe "Kid Twist" Reles, a senior figure in Brooklyn's Murder Inc. agreed to
testify against America's top Syndicate bosses, providing detailed evidence about the 1,000
or so nationwide killings that his organization had performed on their behalf.
Obviously, the federal prosecutors were concerned about his safety in any ordinary jail,
and stashed him in a suite of top-floor hotel rooms, where he was guarded 24-hours per day by
rotating groups of six specially-selected police officers, who would keep him under constant
surveillance. The doors were steel-plated and the rooms selected to preclude any long-range
sniper.
Oops! Poor "Kid Twist" somehow decided to jump out the 5th story window and kill himself
when all six of the on-duty guards happened to simultaneously doze off.
The Captain in command of the unit argued that it was accident rather than suicide, and
the poor fellow had deliberately climbed out the window, intending to rappel down to the
floor below, then walk back up the stairs and knock on the front door, thereby surprising his
erstwhile guards with a amusing practical joke.
Syndicate killers planning to implicate their bosses should definitely avoid playing such
"practical jokes"
This reminds me a little of a almost forgotten incident from the 1960s
Some government inspector in Texas had agreed to testify about the details of a gigantic
corruption ring that was closely connected with LBJ. I can't remember the exact details, but
not long afterward, he was found dead, shot seven times.
The local Texas court ruled it an apparent suicide and that's exactly how it was reported
in the Washington Post and the other national newspapers ;
President Donald Trump saw the same day that bombs must have been used on the WTC towers on
9/11/2001.
From his experience building steel sky scrapers, he knew they were built to be strong,
even against a jet. He stated to the reporter that bombs must also have been involved.
What I have yet to see satisfactorily explained is how a huge (or even yuuuge) skyscraper can
fall – within its footprint – when subjected to asymmetrical forces.
Put aside whether the jets had enough fuel, burned hot or long enough, etc. Taking the
footage at face value, the buildings were SLAMMED from one direction. There is no way that
could have caused symmetrical damage. Any structural component closer to impact received
orders of magnitude of force more than those on the opposite side, resulting in unequal
weakening. Yet what everyone saw was a symmetrical collapse within footprint, as though all
structural components were equally and simultaneously weakened.
Who you gonna believe, the gubmint, or your own lying eyes?
@c matt 9-11 was a wonderful boon to the demolition industry. The demolition experts no
longer use explosives, as WTC 7 proved that a building can be demolished in its own footprint
much more cheaply with simple office garbage can fires and maybe a little bit of petroleum
fuel to accelerate the process of melting steel beams as perfectly even as a Weber grill
charbroils steaks. Demolition explosives have gone the way of buggy whips, totally obsolete.
I respect the fact that Marianne Williamson is a sorta-kinda truther. But let me be honest
with you, Kevin: it would take a hell of a lot trutherism to make up for her zionism
It's mostly about the control of Mid East oil and Israel status in the region ...
And despite all those positive things mentioned bellow Iran is still a theocratic state. It
is definitely not Saudi Arabia but still..
Notable quotes:
"... Despite the embargos and terrible intimidation from the West, it still sits at the threshold of the "Very high human development", defined by UNDP; well above such darlings of the West as Ukraine, Colombia or Thailand. ..."
"... Trump is President of the US. He is responsible for the actions of the US in foreign affairs. Trump is a willing sycophant of the Deep State. ..."
"... Yet another article, pointing out that there is no reason for the US to attack Iran. Yes, there is. Iran is an enemy of Israel (although with the US behind them, there isn’t much they can actually do), and Israel wants Iran destroyed. The influence of Israel in American politics is enormous. THAT is the reason. Please stop the head-scratching over why oh why the US would want to destroy Israel. Everyone knows why. ..."
"... Iran’s real “crime” is twofold: 1) It sells oil in denomiations other than the US dollar; and 2) If allowed its rights under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, it would be producing vast amounts of low cost molybdenum and/or technetium which are used in medical testing, which would cut into the lucrative US market. ..."
"... There is some truth to claims about Iran’s belligerence…the Russians aren’t thrilled about everything they’re doing in Syria, which includes Shia colonizing in regions they’ve seized, which is a sign of attempting to entrench their agenda in that suffering country…and hence the continuing Israeli attacks, which nobody appreciates… ..."
"... In Iran, sources confirm that “…Russia offered to sell one million barrels daily for Iran, and to replace the European financial system with another if needed. ..."
"... There is also the issue of the illegality of Trump tearing up the deal…which was adopted [unanimously] by the UN Security Council Resolution 2231… ..."
"... The US signed that resolution…and let us remember that UNSC resolutions are INTERNATIONAL LAW…they are LEGALLY BINDING on all UN member states… ..."
"... So the US is breaking international law…the sanctions are illegal also, since only the UNSC had the legal authority to impose sanctions… ..."
"... The US’ disregard for the supreme international legal order…along with Israel similarly flouting UNSC resolutions for 50 years to pull out of the occupied territories…is simply unacceptable… ..."
As I pen this short essay, Iran is standing against the mightiest nation on earth. It is
facing tremendous danger; of annihilation even, if the world does not wake up fast, and rush to
its rescue.
Stunning Iranian cities are in danger, but above all, its people: proud and beautiful,
creative, formed by one of the oldest and deepest cultures on earth.
This is a reminder to the world: Iran may be bombed, devastated and injured terribly, for
absolutely no reason. I repeat: there is zero rational reason for attacking Iran.
Iran has never attacked anyone. It has done nothing bad to the United States, to the United
Kingdom, or even to those countries that want to destroy it immediately: Saudi Arabia and
Israel.
Its only 'crime' is that it helped devastated Syria. And that it seriously stands by
Palestine. And that it came to the rescue of many far away nations, like Cuba and Venezuela,
when they were in awful need.
I am trying to choose the simplest words. No need for pirouettes and intellectual
exercises.
Thousands, millions of Iranians may soon die, simply because a psychopath who is currently
occupying the White House wants to humiliate his predecessor, who signed the nuclear deal. This
information was leaked by his own staff. This is not about who is a bigger gangster. It is
about the horrible fact that antagonizing Iran has absolutely nothing to do with Iran
itself.
Which brings the question to my mind: in what world are we really living? Could this be
tolerable? Can the world just stand by, idly, and watch how one of the greatest countries on
earth gets violated by aggressive, brutal forces, without any justification?
I love Iran! I love its cinema, poetry, food. I love Teheran. And I love the Iranian people
with their polite, educated flair. I love their thinkers. I don't want anything bad to happen
to them.
You know, you were of course never told by the Western media, but Iran is a socialist
country. It professes a system that could be defined as "socialism with Iranian
characteristics". Like China, Iran is one of the most ancient nations on earth, and it is
perfectly capable of creating and developing its own economic and social system.
Iran is an extremely successful nation. Despite the embargos and terrible intimidation
from the West, it still sits at the threshold of the "Very high human development", defined by
UNDP; well above such darlings of the West as Ukraine, Colombia or Thailand.
It clearly has an internationalist spirit: it shows great solidarity with the countries that
are being battered by Western imperialism, including those in Latin America.
I have no religion. In Iran, most of the people do. They are Shi'a Muslims. So what? I do
not insist that everyone thinks like me. And my Iranian friends, comrades, brothers and sisters
have never insisted that I feel or think the same way as they do. They are not fanatics, and
they do not make people who are not like them, feel excluded. We are different and yet so
similar. We fight for a better world. We are internationalists. We respect each other. We
respect others.
Iran does not want to conquer anyone. But when its friends are attacked, it offers a helping
hand. Like to Syria.
In the past, it was colonized by the West, and its democratic government was overthrown, in
1953, simply because it wanted to use its natural resources for improving the lives of its
people. The morbid dictatorship of Shah Pahlavi was installed from abroad. And then, later,
again, a terrible war unleashed against Iran by Iraq, with the full and candid support of the
West.
I promised to make this essay short. There is no time for long litanies. And in fact, this
is not really an essay at all: it is an appeal.
As this goes to print, many people in Iran are anxious. They do not understand what they
have done to deserve this; the sanctions, the US aircraft carriers sailing near their shores,
and deadly B-52s deployed only dozens of miles away.
Iranians are brave, proud people. If confronted, if attacked, they will fight. And they will
die with dignity, if there is no other alternative.
But why? Why should they fight and why should they die?
Those of you, my readers, living in the West: Study; study quickly. Then ask this question
to your government: "What is the reason for this terrible scenario?"
Rent Iranian films; they are everywhere, winning all festivals. Read Iranian poets. Go eat
Iranian food. Search for images of both historic and modern Iranian cities. Look at the faces
of the people. Do not allow this to happen. Do not permit psychopathic reasoning to ruin
millions of lives.
There was no real reason for the wars against Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria. The West
perpetrated the most terrible imperialist interventions, ruining entire nations.
But Iran -- it all goes one step further. It's a total lack of logic and accountability on
the part of the West.
Here, I declare my full support to the people of Iran, and to the country that has been
giving countless cultural treasures to the world, for millennia.
It is because I have doubts that if Iran is destroyed, the human race could survive.
[First published by NEO -- New Eastern Outlook]
Andre Vltchek is a philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He has
covered wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. Four of his latest books are ...
Thousands, millions of Iranians may soon die, simply because a psychopath who is
currently occupying the White House wants to humiliate his predecessor, who signed the
nuclear deal.
Certainly war with Iran is not because Trump wants to humiliate Obama. There is very
serious pressure on Trump to go to war with Iran, and that pressure comes from sources
including Sheldon Adelson, Netanyahu, John Bolton, and elements within the military
industrial complex and oil industries both of which would be able to capitalize on such a
misadventure. It is very possibly Trump’s misgivings about a war with Iran (in spite of
the idiotic rhetoric) that is keeping the US from attacking Iran.
While I agree with your sentiment in this article, it is unfortunate to make
over-simplifications that cheerlead a false narrative that one person is to blame for a
complex problem that spans party lines and presidencies. It was much to Obama’s credit
to enter into the agreement with Iran, and the opposition to doing so obviously runs much
deeper than Trump’s desire to make Obama look bad.
@Andre
Vltchek Yes, you can’t say everything in every piece that you write, and for
expediency there is simplification. You can get away with it by saying “among other
things, Trump’s desire to humiliate Obama may lead us into a devastating war.”
But the way you wrote it certainly insinuates that it is in fact Trump and his personal
psychopathy driving the country towards war. In that, I think you are mistaken. The jury is
not out on this one yet, and Trump’s resistance to war with Iran is a thread of hope
keeping it from happening. I am not trying to split hairs. It is important because there is a
tendency to focus on the face in the white house and not on the forces that are behind the
mischief. It also probably gets more likes among a broader audience who want to blame Trump
or Obama when they are more like two leaves being blown by a strong wind than the leader of
the free world or any other nonsensical title given to the president. Take it for a slight
literary critique and not for any disagreement with the overall sentiment or quality of the
article.
It was at that point I knew this wasn’t an intellectually honest essay. You
don’t even need to go back six months to see what a peaceful little lamb Iran is, as
it attacked merchant ships in the Straight of Hormuz. Perhaps your intended audience is
ignorant to facts, but Iran is, by no means, a country of innocent intent.
What would USA do if Iranian or any other non-friendly nation surrounded USA, including
sending heavily armed ships into its harbors?
This map from Democratic Underground puts a star on every U.S. military base in the
region, and aside from the Caspian area to the North, American forces pretty much have
Tehran surrounded (via Informed Comment).
[Non-violent resistance is not necessarily futile, but a feint]: We cannot delude
ourselves.
People ask, What about nonviolent, peaceful forms of resistance? And you know, the answer
is, There is no such thing as nonviolence.
Nonviolence is a form of disruption and only works if you are facing those who are
constrained in their use of violence, or works best if you can use your enemy’s
violence against them.
Take for example, Dr. Martin Luther King . . . [he learned from Gandhi and others that]
nonviolence is a mechanism of goading your opponent into being violent.
Once they become violent, you can call on your friends to be even more violent against
them. And he knew he could goad the sheriff into behaving violently and stupidly, and then
the FBI would descend on them.
You know, we always want to delude ourselves that war is not the answer. It would be good
if that were true, but unfortunately it is very often the key answer, the only answer.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?323264-1/the-worth-war&start=599
USA is being deliberately provocative, goading Iran to throw the first punch, whereupon
USA will “descend on them.”
It’s not the first time USA & its allies have used the tactic.
I dunno … If the West was going to attack, it should have happened several weeks ago,
if not earlier. Do you think Trump’s stand-down of an attack allegedly in progress was
to save a couple hundred Iranian lives, or might it make more sense that it became clear a
couple hundreds or thousands of coalition lives were at serious risk? The leadership knows
this will be far messier than Iraq if it goes kinetic, and they would prefer to continue to
starve Iran into submission while making a lot of noise about the ‘evil and suicidal
death-cult’ regime in Tehran.
Andre Vltchek gives a passionate defence of Iran, and the reasons for not attacking it. I
agree there are ‘doubts that if Iran is destroyed, the human race could survive.’
If the US, and its allies, were to destabilize Iran to such an extent as to threaten regime
change China and Russia would have to intervene. The world should avoid war on Iran, even if
it is for selfish reasons. All the indications point to world war. https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/
@anonymous
Because the JIDF/Zionist has the modus operandi of falsifying consensus. Large numbers of
seemingly reasonable people all pushing the same view point has the unconscious effect of
making an unwary reader adopt that same viewpoint. Of course, they’re hoping you dont
go trawling through their comment history or else the whole thing blows up.
While I agree with your sentiment in this article, it is unfortunate to make
over-simplifications that cheerlead a false narrative that one person is to blame for a
complex problem that spans party lines and presidencies.
Trump is President of the US. He is responsible for the actions of the US in foreign
affairs. Trump is a willing sycophant of the Deep State.
People need to realize that it’s been a RedBlue puppet show of the same empire
since – for purposes of Iran – 1953. Blaming one politician as opposed to the
other plays right into the hands of those who want to run the world from Washington.
The past can not be changed. Trump is responsible for the here and now.
Yet another article, pointing out that there is no reason for the US to attack Iran. Yes,
there is. Iran is an enemy of Israel (although with the US behind them, there isn’t
much they can actually do), and Israel wants Iran destroyed. The influence of Israel in
American politics is enormous. THAT is the reason. Please stop the head-scratching over why
oh why the US would want to destroy Israel. Everyone knows why.
The Iran never attacked anyone narrative has long been a favourite. What is buried somewhere
in cyberspace, is an article written over 20 years ago about the causes of the Iraq –
Iran war. The article laid out several instances of Iranian revolutionaries attacking several
Iraqi border towns. It also pointed out that Iraq’s original invasion into Iran stopped
about 8 miles into Iran, apparently understanding that it was never going to defeat Iran
territorially. The article also stated that Iraq was egged on by the US to attack, in hopes
to dislodge the new regime. However, it was the Shah who attacked Iraq in the 70s over the
Shat al Arab waterway. The subsequent peace agreement settled the issue.
https://www.nytimes.com/1975/03/07/archives/iraq-and-iran-sign-accord-to-settle-border-conflicts-iraq-and-iran.html
One reason given by Iraq for its invasion of Iran, post revolution, was that it viewed the
border attacks by Iranian revolutionaries, as a refutation of the treaty.
Iran’s real “crime” is twofold:
1) It sells oil in denomiations other than the US dollar; and
2) If allowed its rights under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, it would be producing
vast amounts of low cost molybdenum and/or technetium which are used in medical testing,
which would cut into the lucrative US market.
The USA-Israel-Nato menaces to Iran are criminal horseshite BUT –
Iran is horrifyingly brutal toward its own citizens, one of the most savage of all
countries in per capita executions of its own people, sometimes hanging 100 people or so in a
month, typically done by slow-torture hanging, often in groups of 6 or 8 people in public
squares.
It seems that usually, Iran does not even try to break the neck of its hanging victims
with a long drop, which can induce a merciful coma before the victim dies, typically some 15
minutes to an hour later. As is often observed in Iran, smaller people such as women
typically die more slowly, their lighter weight leading to a longer period of torturous
choking.
And Iran has a bunch of other Islamic barbarisms … Iran burying women alive up to
their necks, only their veiled heads above the ground, and stoning them to death; the
floggings and amputations, sometimes the victim marked for death is flogged bloody before
being hanged from a crane etc
But André Vltchek thinks Iran is a great place …
Iran is also a bizarre social experiment in extreme social dysfunctionality, with the
‘temporary marriage’ provision in Shia religious practice that is essentially
legalised prostitution. Not only can Iranians have 4 wives as the Sunnis do, one of those can
be a ‘wife for the weekend’, legally, provided you go to the imam to be
officially ‘married’ … you can then divorce Monday morning, e.g., by
saying the word ‘talaq’ 3 times. Iranian women sometimes advertise themselves as
‘temporary wives’ (not ‘prostitutes’ of course!) for a small marital
‘gift’ of € 60 or so.
Between temporary marriage, and Iran’s practice of educating its women – often
‘bad’ for Muslim fertility – Iran’s birth rate has collapsed even
more than in much of Europe.
A great shame the US CIA overthrew the secular socialist Iranian government in 1953. May
the Iranian people be soon free of both Western-Israeli menace, and their own mad
mullahs.
…‘temporary marriage’ provision in Shia religious practice that is
essentially legalised prostitution. Not only can Iranians have 4 wives as the Sunnis do,
one of those can be a ‘wife for the weekend’, legally, provided you go to the
imam to be officially ‘married’ … you can then divorce Monday morning,
e.g., by saying the word ‘talaq’ 3 times. Iranian women sometimes advertise
themselves as ‘temporary wives’ (not ‘prostitutes’ of course!) for
a small marital ‘gift’ of € 60 or so.
May the Iranian people be soon free of both Western-Israeli menace, and their own mad
mullahs.
Well, the price for the later is the former, apparently.
Yes, you can’t say everything in every piece that you write, and for expediency
there is simplification. You can get away with it by saying “among other things,
Trump’s desire to humiliate Obama may lead us into a devastating war.” But the
way you wrote it certainly insinuates that it is in fact Trump and his personal psychopathy
driving the country towards war. In that, I think you are mistaken.
I don’t see it that way…..Vltchek has been around unz for a while…..so
it would not be wrong for him to assume most of unz knows the real forces behind Trump
and the Iran war push.
@Brabantian
You come off sounding like a Soros acolyte by parroting ‘human rights porn’ that
is largely fabricated bullshit…and disseminated by the usual NGO suspects and their
MSM partners…
That’s not to say there is no merit to your basic beef…Iran is a
theocracy…religious fanaticism has been a curse on humanity over the
ages…religion in general really…
Iran does execute a lot of people…Vltchek is overly enthusiastic about
Iran…I would say probably because he sympathizes a lot with their essentially
‘socialist’ approach [as do I]…but Iran is no angel…
But then who is…?…US cops gun down 1,000 people a year…
Also some mitigating facts to consider…a lot of the criminals Iran executes are
drug traffickers…Afghanistan next-door is heroin central…run by the CIA with
help from their ISIS private army…
This is nothing new…the deep state of empire has been running the global drug
racket for a couple of centuries now…and using it as a geopolitical weapon against
perceived ‘enemies’…going back to the opium wars that were used by the
British to ‘crack open’ China…and today aimed against Russia, Central Asia
and Iran…not to mention ‘neutralizing’ large swaths of the domestic
population by turning them into drug zombies…
Iran’s drug laws are not nearly as draconian as in other jurisdictions in the Muslim
world…capital punishment goes only for those caught with over 30 grams of hard drugs
like heroin…which is far bigger than user amounts…the death sentence is not
applied for first offenders, or even for repeat offenders of 30 to 100 grams…so really
it is the hardcore traffickers that are getting offed…I have no problem with
that…[neither do leaders like the Philippines’ Duterte who is much less tolerant
than Iran…]
There is some truth to claims about Iran’s belligerence…the Russians
aren’t thrilled about everything they’re doing in Syria, which includes Shia
colonizing in regions they’ve seized, which is a sign of attempting to entrench their
agenda in that suffering country…and hence the continuing Israeli attacks, which
nobody appreciates…
They are also spurning Russian offers of help…
In Iran, sources confirm that “…Russia offered to sell one million
barrels daily for Iran, and to replace the European financial system with another if
needed.
[Probably because they resent Russia for pressuring them to reign in their activities in
Syria…it just shows the all or nothing mentality of religious fanatics…]
All in all it is crazy to think that religious zealotry can lead to anything
good…it never has…
But there is a bigger principle here… it’s their country…
Nobody gives us the right to tell them how to live their lives…certainly compared
to Saudi Barbaria and the other gulf theocracies…not to mention serial criminal
Israel…nobody has good cause to be pointing fingers at Iran…
The US signed that resolution…and let us remember that UNSC resolutions are
INTERNATIONAL LAW…they are LEGALLY BINDING on all UN member states…
So the US is breaking international law…the sanctions are illegal also, since
only the UNSC had the legal authority to impose sanctions…
The US’ disregard for the supreme international legal order…along with
Israel similarly flouting UNSC resolutions for 50 years to pull out of the occupied
territories…is simply unacceptable…
So let’s not lose sight of the ball…this has nothing to do with Iran’s
domestic behavior…and everything to do with serial criminal USA…
@SteveK9
Yes, SteveK9, but you meant, of course, to say “why oh why the US would want to destroy
Iran”–not Israel. Israel has been trying to maneuver Uncle Sam into a shooting
war with Iran for a decade or more. Israel’s American neocons have succeeded in getting
America to destroy Iraq, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, Iran is the last country standing in the
way of Israel’s total dominance of the Middle East. No Israel, no war, it’s as
simple as that.
@Brabantian
Standard muslim stuff. It’s their country so up to them what they do. But Iran was
cooperating with Al Qaida in Bosnia in the 1990s chopping heads of Christians and atheists.
In fact they were aligned with USA and NATO there but now US is using that involvement
against them as proof of “terrorism” activity.
And here’s Andre praising them. It was well known that they were supplying weapons
disguised as humanitarian aid but US and NATO did nothing to stop them at the time.
@Commentator
Mike There was an embargo on any weapons getting through to Bosnia at the time. The
Bosnians were massively outgunned by the Serbs that had possession of almost all the serious
hardware after the break up of Yugoslavia. The Muslim world was not about to let this
discrepancy go unanswered.
AQ at that stage was still mostly the “foreign legion” global defense
initiative that was the initial vision of Shaykh Abdullah Azzam so it’s not surprising
the Iranians were cooperating with them at the time. It would later progressively warp into
the terrorism outfit over time in the 90’s especially with the African embassy
bombings.
@Commentator
Mike Maybe you could take a look at what is going on there as we speak.
As European, you could do it. Americans and the rest of colonists can’t.
Let’s just say there is a significant Iranian presence in Bosnia.
Serbs and Croats in the region won’t be displeased should the regime in Tehran get
smashed into pieces. Really small pieces.
The problem with the Balkans is that there is so much hatred and animosity between the
various white ethnicities, because of historical reasons, that they have a blind spot for the
much greater danger posed to them all by the massive demographic changes taking place in the
world. And if that kind of intra-white hatred were to spread to the rest of Europe it will be
even harder to salvage anything of the white European sovereignty.
Actually one can work even within those hatreds unless they’re given a chance to
flare up, and obviously certain forces work on doing just that, as we have seen in Ukraine.
Oh yes, and the Muslims aren’t helping much to bring peace about in that region.
Thanks but no thanks. Since Supreme Commander Al Baghdadi ordered muslims to get us by any
and every means I strictly avoid eating anywhere muslims work, cook, or serve, despite liking
their food. Didn’t you hear of the three Albanian Kosovars who were arrested in Italy
plotting a bombing campaign? They worked as waiters in Venice, Italy’s tourist hub. I
pity those tourists who went through their restaurant before the Kosovars decided to move
onto bigger actions. And he did mention poison, whatever, even spitting.
The problem with the Balkans is that there is so much hatred and animosity between the
various white ethnicities, because of historical reasons, that they have a blind spot for
the much greater danger posed to them all by the massive demographic changes taking place
in the world.
As for this:
And if that kind of intra-white hatred were to spread to the rest of Europe it will be
even harder to salvage anything of the white European sovereignty.
"... Tensions were then focused on Syria , where a mercenary army of at least 200,000 men, armed and trained by the US, UK, Israel, France, Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, almost managed to completely topple the country. ..."
"... As the Americans, British, French and Israelis conducted their bombing missions in Syria, the danger of a deliberate attack on Russian positions always remained, something that would have had devastating consequences for the region and beyond. It is no secret that US military planners have repeatedly argued for a direct conflict with Moscow in a contained regional theater. (Clinton called for the downing of Russian jets over Syria, and former US officials claimed that some Russians had to " pay a little price ".) ..."
"... Trump's dramatic U-turn following his historic meeting with Kim Jong-un (a public relations/photo opportunity) began to paint a fairly comical and unreliable picture of US power, revealing to the world the new US president's strategy. The president threatens to nuke a country, but only as a negotiating tactic to bring his opponent to the negotiating table and thereby clinch a deal. He then presents himself to his domestic audience as the "great" deal-maker. ..."
"... With Iran, the recent target of the US administration, the bargaining method is the same, though with decidedly different results. In the cases of Ukraine and North Korea, the two most powerful lobbies in Washington, the Israeli and Saudi lobbies, have had little to say. Of course the neocons and the arms lobbyists are always gunning for war, but these two powerful state-backed lobbies were notably silent with regard to these countries, less towards Syria obviously. As distinguished political scientist John J. Mearsheimer has repeatedly explained , the Israel and Saudi lobbies have unlimited funds for corrupting Democrats and Republicans in order to push their foreign-policy goals. ..."
"... These two lobbies (together with their neocon allies) have for years been pushing to have a few hundred thousand young Americans sent to Iran to sacrifice themselves for the purposes of destroying Iran and her people. Such geopolitical games are played at the cost of US taxpayers, the lives of their children sent to war, and the lives of the people of the Middle East, who have been devastated by decades of conflict. ..."
"... The reasons vary with each case, and I have previously explained extensively why the possibilities for conflict are unthinkable. With Ukraine, a conflict on European soil between Russia and NATO was unthinkable , bringing to mind the type of devastation that was seen during the Second World War. Good sense prevailed, and even NATO somewhat refused to fully arm the Ukrainian army with weapons that would have given them an overwhelming advantage over the Donbass militias. ..."
"... In Syria, any involvement with ground troops would have been collective suicide, given the overwhelming air power deployed in the country by Russia. Recall that since the Second World War, the US has never fought a war in an airspace that was seriously contested (in Vietnam, US air losses were only elevated because of Sino-Soviet help), allowing for ground troops to receive air cover and protection . A ground assault in Syria would have therefore been catastrophic without the requisite control of Syria's skies. ..."
"... Because a war with Iran would be difficult to de-escalate, we can conclude that the possibility of war being waged against the country is unlikely if not impossible. The level of damage the belligerents would inflict on each other would make any diplomatic resolution of the conflict difficult. While the powerful Israeli and Saudi lobbies in the US may be beating the war drums, an indication of what would happen if war followed can be seen in Yemen. Egypt and the UAE were forced to withdraw from the coalition fighting the Houthis after the UAE suffered considerable damage from legitimate retaliatory missile strikes from the Yemen's Army Missile Forces. ..."
"... An open war against Iran continues to be a red line that the ruling financial elites in the US, Israelis and Saudis don't want to cross, having so much at stake. ..."
"... With an election looming, Trump cannot risk triggering a new conflict and betraying one of his most important electoral promises. The Western elite does not seem to have any intention of destroying the petrodollar-based world economy with which it generates its own profits and controls global finance. ..."
"... Even if we consider the possibility of Netanyahu and Bin Salman being mentally unstable, someone within the royal palace in Riyadh or the government in Tel Aviv would have counseled them on the political and personal consequences of an attack on Iran. ..."
In 2014 we were almost at the point of no return in Ukraine following the coup d'etat supported and funded by NATO and involving
extremist right-wing Ukrainian nationalists. The conflict in the Donbass risked escalating into a conflict between NATO and the Russian
Federation, every day in the summer and autumn of 2014 threatening to be doomsday. Rather than respond to the understandable impulse
to send Russian troops into Ukraine to defend the population of Donbass, Putin had the presense of mind to pursue the less direct
and more sensible strategy of supporting the material capacity of the residents of Donbass to resist the depredations of the Ukrainian
army and their neo-Nazi Banderite thugs. Meanwhile, Europe's inept leaders initially egged on Ukraine's destabilization, only to
get cold feet after reflecting on the possibility of having a conflict between Moscow and Washington fought on European soil.
With the resistance in Donbass managing to successfully hold back Ukrainian assaults, the conflict began to freeze, almost to
the point of a complete ceasefire, even as Ukrainian provocations continue to this day.
Tensions were then focused on Syria , where a mercenary army of at least 200,000 men, armed and trained by the US, UK, Israel,
France, Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, almost managed to completely topple the country. Russian
intervention in 2015 managed to save the country with no time to spare, destroying large numbers of terrorists and reorganizing the
Syrian armed forces and training and equipping them with the necessary means to beat back the jihadi waves. The Russians also ensured
control of the skies through their network of Pantsir-S1, Pantsir-S2, S-300 and S-400 air-defence systems, together with their
impressive jamming (Krasukha-4), command and control
information management system (Strelets C4ISR System) and electronic-warfare technologies (1RL257 Krasukha-4).
As the Americans, British, French and Israelis conducted their bombing missions in Syria, the danger of a deliberate attack
on Russian positions always remained, something that would have had devastating consequences for the region and beyond. It is no
secret that US military planners have repeatedly argued for a direct conflict with Moscow in a contained regional theater. (Clinton
called
for the downing of Russian jets over Syria, and former US officials claimed that some Russians had to "
pay a little price ".)
Since Trump became president, the rhetoric of war has soared considerably, even as the awareness remains that any new conflict
would sink Trump's chances of re-election. Despite this, Trump's bombings in Syria were real and potentially very harmful to the
Syrian state. Nevertheless, they were
foiled by Russia's electronic-warfare capability, which was able to send veering away from their intended target more than 70%
of the latest-generation missiles launched by the British, French, Americans and Israelis.
One of the most terrifying moments for the future of humanity came a few months later when Trump started hurling threats and abuses
at Kim Jong-un , threatening to reduce Pyongyang to ashes. Trump, moreover, delivered his fiery threats in a speech at the United
Nations General Assembly.
Trump's dramatic U-turn following his historic meeting with Kim Jong-un (a public relations/photo opportunity) began to paint
a fairly comical and unreliable picture of US power, revealing to the world the new US president's strategy. The president threatens
to nuke a country, but only as a negotiating tactic to bring his opponent to the negotiating table and thereby clinch a deal. He
then presents himself to his domestic audience as the "great" deal-maker.
With Iran, the recent target of the US administration, the bargaining method is the same, though with decidedly different
results. In the cases of Ukraine and North Korea, the two most powerful lobbies in Washington, the Israeli and Saudi lobbies, have
had little to say. Of course the neocons and the arms lobbyists are always gunning for war, but these two powerful state-backed lobbies
were notably silent with regard to these countries, less towards Syria obviously. As distinguished political scientist John J. Mearsheimer
has repeatedly explained , the Israel and Saudi lobbies
have unlimited funds for corrupting Democrats and Republicans in order to push their foreign-policy goals.
The difference between the case of Iran and the aforementioned cases of Ukraine, Syria and North Korea is precisely the direct
involvement of these two lobbies in the decision-making process underway in the US.
These two lobbies (together with their neocon allies) have for years been pushing to have a few hundred thousand young Americans
sent to Iran to sacrifice themselves for the purposes of destroying Iran and her people. Such geopolitical games are played at the
cost of US taxpayers, the lives of their children sent to war, and the lives of the people of the Middle East, who have been devastated
by decades of conflict.
What readers can be assured of is that in the cases of Ukraine, Syria, North Korea and Iran, the US is unable to militarily impose
its geopolitical or economic will.
The reasons vary with each case, and I have previously explained
extensively
why the possibilities for conflict are unthinkable. With Ukraine, a conflict on European soil between Russia and NATO was
unthinkable
, bringing to mind the type of devastation that was seen during the Second World War. Good sense prevailed, and even NATO
somewhat refused
to fully arm the Ukrainian army with weapons that would have given them an overwhelming advantage over the Donbass militias.
In Syria, any involvement with ground troops would have been collective suicide, given the overwhelming air power deployed
in the country by Russia. Recall that since the Second World War, the US has never fought a war in an airspace that was seriously
contested (in Vietnam, US air losses were only elevated because of Sino-Soviet help), allowing for ground troops to receive air cover
and protection . A ground assault in Syria would have therefore been catastrophic without the requisite control of Syria's skies.
In North Korea, the country's tactical and strategic nuclear and conventional deterrence discourages any missile attack. Any overland
attack is out of the question, given the high number of active as well as reserve personnel in the DPRK army. If the US struggled
to control a completely defeated Iraq in 2003, how much more difficult would be to deal with a country with a resilient population
that is indisposed to bowing to the US? The 2003 Iraq campaign would really be a "cakewalk" in comparison. Another reason why a missile
attack on North Korea is impossible is because of the conventional power that Pyongyang possesses in the form of tens of thousands
of missiles and artillery pieces that could easily reduce Seoul to rubble in a matter of minutes. This would then lead to a war between
the US and the DPRK being fought on the Korean Peninsula. Moon Jae-in, like Merkel and Sarkozy in the case of Ukraine, did everything
in his power to prevent such a devastating conflict.
Concerning tensions between the US and Iran and the resulting threats of war, these should be taken as bluster and bluff. America's
European allies are heavily involved in Iran and depend on the Middle East for their oil and gas imports. A US war against Iran would
have devastating consequences for the world economy, with the Europeans seeing their imports halved or reduced. As Professor Chossudovsky
of the strategic think tank Global Research has so ably
argued , an attack on Iran is unsustainable, as the oil sectors of the UAE and Saudi Arabia would be hit and shut down. Exports
would instantly end after the pipelines going West are bombed by the Houthis and the Strait of Hormuz closed. The economies of these
two countries would implode and their ruling class wiped out by internal revolts. The state of Israel as well as US bases in the
region would see themselves overwhelmed with missiles coming from Syria, Lebanon, the Golan Heights and Iran. The Tel Aviv government
would last a few hours before capitulating under the pressure of its own citizens, who, like the Europeans, are unused to suffering
war at home.
Because a war with Iran would be difficult to de-escalate, we can conclude that the possibility of war being waged against
the country is unlikely if not impossible. The level of damage the belligerents would inflict on each other would make any diplomatic
resolution of the conflict difficult. While the powerful Israeli and Saudi lobbies in the US may be beating the war drums, an indication
of what would happen if war followed can be seen in Yemen. Egypt and the UAE were forced to
withdraw from the
coalition fighting the Houthis after the UAE suffered considerable
damage from legitimate retaliatory missile strikes from the Yemen's Army Missile Forces.
An open war against Iran continues to be a red line that the ruling financial elites in the US, Israelis and Saudis don't
want to cross, having so much at stake.
With an election looming, Trump cannot risk triggering a new conflict and betraying one of his most important electoral promises.
The Western elite does not seem to have any intention of destroying the petrodollar-based world economy with which it generates its
own profits and controls global finance. And finally, US military planners do not intend to suffer a humiliating defeat in Iran
that would reveal the extent to which US military power is based on propaganda built over the years through Hollywood movies and
wars successfully executed against relatively defenceless countries. Even if we consider the possibility of Netanyahu and Bin
Salman being mentally unstable, someone within the royal palace in Riyadh or the government in Tel Aviv would have counseled them
on the political and personal consequences of an attack on Iran.
It is telling that Washington, London, Tel Aviv and Riyadh have to resort to numerous but ultimately useless
provocations against Iran, as they
can only rely on hybrid attacks in order to economically isolate it from the rest of the world.
Paradoxically, this strategy has had devastating consequences for the role of the US dollar as a reserve currency together with
the SWIFT system. In today's multipolar environment, acting in such an imperious manner leads to the acceleration of de-dollarization
as a way of circumventing sanctions and bans imposed by the US.
A reserve currency is used to facilitate transactions. If the disadvantages come to exceed the benefits, it will progressively
be used less and less, until it is replaced by a basket of currencies that more closely reflect the multipolar geopolitical reality.
The warmongers in Washington are exasperated by their continuing inability to curb the resilience and resistance of the people
in Venezuela, Iran, Syria, North Korea and Donbass, countries and regions understood by the healthy part of the globe as representing
the axis of resistance to US Imperialism.
America must always threaten someone with war. Syria, Iran, Venezuela, China, Russia, so many to choose from.
Conflicts must never be resolved; they must always kept simmering, so a hot war can be triggered quickly. All Presidents are
turned in the first three months after sworn in.
It's what happens as empires mature. Governance becomes bloated, corrupt and inept (often leading to wars). Maturity time has
become significantly reduced due to the rate of information technology advance. America is five years away from going insolvent
according to most models and forecasts. All new debt after 2024 will be used to pay the interest on existing debts and liabilities.
There is simply no stopping it. The US already pays close to 500 billion in annual interest on debts and liabilities. Factor in
a 600 billion or 700 billion dollar annual military budget, and unrestrained deficit spending clocking in at over a trillion,
and, well, it isn't going to work for long. Considering most new well paying jobs are government jobs... The end is either full
socialism / fascism (folks still don't get how similar these are), a currency crisis and panic, depression and institutional deterioration.
The only good news to libertarians I guess - if you can call it good - is that the blotted government along with the crony corporations
will mostly and eventually collapse. Libertarian governance might not be a choice by an electorate, it might simply become fact
in the aftermath.
I guess Trump eventually will understand this lesson in politics that friendship, mutual respect and helping each other accomplishes
way way more then threatening countries to be bombed back into the stoneage.
Noone likes to do a cutthroat deal enforced upon them by thuggery. Trump's got to learn that you can't run politics like you do
your bussinesses, it's not working unles that was his plan all this time, to destroy America.
"The Israel and Saudi lobbies have unlimited funds for corrupting Democrats and Republicans in order to push their foreign-policy
goals.
These two lobbies (together with their neocon allies) have for years been pushing to have a few hundred thousand young Americans
sent to Iran to sacrifice themselves for the purposes of destroying Iran and her people. Such geopolitical games are played at
the cost of US taxpayers, the lives of their children sent to war, and the lives of the people of the Middle East, who have been
devastated by decades of conflict."
America is increasingly looking like Ancient Rome towards the end. It is overstretched, nearly insolvent, fewer allies want
to be allies, it's population is sick, physically and mentally. Obesity, diabetes, drug use/addiction make it impossible for the
Pentagon to meet recruitment goal. Mental illness causes daily mass killing. The education system is so broken/broke that there
is little real education being done. Americans are among the most ignorant, least educated and least educate-able people in the
developed world.
Militarily, the USA can bomb but that's about it... defeats upon defeats over the past two decades demonstrate the US military
is a paper tiger of astonishing incompetence.
Boeing can't make planes anymore. Lockheed is not much better. Parts of the F-35 are made by Chinese subsidiaries. The most
recently built aircraft carrier cannot launch fighter jets.
Recent estimates indicate that more than 550,000 people experience homelessness in the US on any given night, with about two-thirds
ending up in emergency shelters or transitional housing programs, and one-third finding their way to unsheltered locations like
parks, vehicles, and metro stations. According to the Urban Institute, about 25% of homeless people have jobs.
I find that it is difficult for me to wrap my head around pain and suffering on such an immense scale. Americans often think
of the homeless as drug-addicted men that don't want to work, but the truth is that about a quarter of the homeless population
is made up of children.
Seriously, why would Iran want to hijack a German ship? Iran took the UK one in retaliation for the Brits seizing the one at
Gibraltar. Had that not happened, no Brit ships in the Persian Gulf would have been touched. This is all a carefully engineered
USA provocation designed to, inter alia, increase tension in the Persian Gulf, put more nails in coffin of JCPOA...and most importantly
give UK an excuse, as remaining signatory, to call for the original UN sanctions on Iran to be snapped-back.
Federico, let me explain it simply: the U.S. is allied with Israel, and Iran hates Israel. Why, I don't know (nor do I care),
but that's why the U.S. needs to keep Iran in check.
Yet CONGRESS just passed the largest defense bill in history. The WAR industry is bankrupting us financially spiritually and
morally.
A war is coming. But upon whom this time (or STILL?), because with President Bolton and Vice President Adelson in power, China
Iran or Russia or maybe all three, are open options.
Interview with a Russian I saw 2 years ago "USA wants to create local conflicts on foreign shores, ...on our borders, we will
not allow that to happen and make the war international" I will translate: Russia will not be pulled in to some stupid small war
draining their resources while the US sits comfortable, they will throw their missiles around - no escape from nuclear winter.
If spending has reached the limit now, during peacetime....what will happen during a protracted war? Even if it stays conventional,
it would appear that a huge war effort, comparable to WWII, just won't be possible. The US seems to be in a pre-war Britain position,
but there isn't a friendly giant across the water to bail them out with both cash and resources.
Either things become insane in fairly short order, or wiser heads will prevail and the US will step back from the brink. Do
we have any wiser heads at the moment?
I keep seeing John Bolton's moustache, Andi am not filled with confidence.
"A seat or family seat was the principal manor of a medieval lord, which was normally an
elegant country mansion and usually denoted that the family held political and economic
influences in the area. In some cases, the family seat was a manor house."
She is descended from "to the manor born", thus qualified to be POTUS.
Other trivia is that Tulsi was a martial arts instructor in 2002. Similar to Justin
Trudeau's part time drama teacher and ski instructor qualifications to be PM of Canada.
Some biographic trivia: Marianne Williamson told New York Jewish Week late last year that "had she received a better Jewish education
she might have become a rabbi." Williamson majored in theater and philosophy at California's
Pomona College, but dropped out in her junior year, 1973, moving to New York
City to pursue a career as a nightclub singer. By the mid 1980s, Williamson was preaching in
Los Angeles, and attracting an audience among Hollywood's gay community, which was attempting to
cope with the burgeoning AIDS crisis
If fear of Israel is what caused Gabbard to vote the AIPAC line on the bill forbidding
criticism of Israel, she won't be able to stick to her line against Washington's aggression
in the Middle East. Israel is behind that aggression as it serves Israeli interests.
***
A strong personality .who allows his entire first term to be wasted by his opponents in an
attempt to frame him and drive him from office is all we need to know about the likely fate
of Tulsi Gabbard.
This piece, "Tulsi Gabbard: R.I.P.," is a good example of why I don't normally read PCR.
He blogs for his loyal followers, but says nothing we don't know, with little or no value
added. And then his analysis is weak. Perhaps he thinks this jab will stiffen Tulsi's spine,
(he's been a fan) and improve her platform. But she might just blow off his criticism as
irrelevant, which it may be.
PCR assumes that Tulsi voted against BDS out of fear. I believe that's wrong. She voted
out of idealism. That's what her Aloha movement is about. It may be naïve to think you
can make everybody happy, but if the Israel she supports turns out to be one state of equal
rights, that's fine.
"All we need to know" is one of my least favorite phrases. It's almost never true,
certainly not in this case. Trump's example (and he hasn't been as cowed as his detractors
make him out) doesn't foretell Tulsi's behavior. He's overflowing with bombast. She's calm,
with a core of steel.
PCR assumes that Tulsi voted against BDS out of fear. I believe that’s wrong. She
voted out of idealism. That’s what her Aloha movement is about. It may be naïve
to think you can make everybody happy, but if the Israel she supports turns out to be one
state of equal rights, that’s fine.
RobinG,
There are many good Dems who support the Palestinians. To get into the next debate, Tulsi
is looking for 4 polls who give her 2% support. To gain the support of those good people, she
must show sympathy for the Palestinians.
No empathy for the obvious plight of the Palestinians is a turn off among people of good
heart – something that Gabbard does not need.
Tulsi needs to be explicit concerning Israel/Palestine – it is unbecoming not to
be.
If you have been wondering when the twenty Democratic aspirants for the presidency will
begin a serious discussion of American foreign policy in the Middle East, where Washington has
been bogged down in both current and impending wars, you are not alone. With the honorable
exception of Tulsi Gabbard, no one seems keen to touch that particular live wire.
Part of the problem is the journalists who are asking the questions in the debates. To be
sure, the publication of "The Israel Lobby and
U.S. Foreign Policy" by professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt back in 2007
opened the door to a frank discussion of why the United States is involved in unresolvable
conflicts on behalf of a tiny client state. But unfortunately, while it is now possible to find
in the mainstream media some honest analysis of Israel's ability to corrupt policy formulation
in Washington, in general the Jewish state continues to get a pass from both the press and
politicians on all issues that matter.
And then there is the problem of Congress itself, which is precisely the institution that
has been most corrupted by Israel and Jewish money. Almost thirty years ago, American
politician Pat Buchanan described Congress as "Israeli occupied territory." As a result, he was
viciously attacked by the mainstream media and the political leadership of both parties,
demonstrating beyond all doubt that he was correct in his observation. Today the Israel Lobby
in the United States is far more powerful than it was in 1990, so much so that Israeli Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu actually boasts to his voters that he directs U.S. policy.
The hypocrisy inherent in the Israel-philia of America's political leadership is such that
it sometimes produces comic results. The whiney head of the House Intelligence Committee
Congressman Adam Schiff, Democrat of California, was beside himself prior to the Robert Mueller
testimony before Congress on July 24 th , denouncing Russia and President Donald
Trump,
saying that the president's actions amounted to "Disloyalty to country Those are strong
words But disloyalty to country violates the very obligation of citizenship, our devotion to a
core principle on which our nation was founded, that we, the people, not some foreign power
that wishes us ill, we decide, who shall govern, us."
Strong words indeed, but Adam Schiff knows perfectly well that Moscow's alleged involvement
in the 2016 election, which was relatively insignificant, had no measurable impact on the
result. And both he and Mueller have been coy about presenting any real evidence that Russia is
gearing up to do major damage in 2020, which is what they claim to be the case. By way of
contrast, everyone in Washington knows very clearly but will never admit that Israel has
seriously corrupted the United States government and its elected officials at all levels. But
Schiff did not mention Israel, nor did he express concern that Israel's clearly unsavory
involvement with Trump transition team members General Michael Flynn and Jared Kushner was
never thoroughly investigated or included in the final Mueller report. One might assume that a
deliberate decision was made by some parties in power to avoid embarrassing Israel. Those
parties almost certainly included Schiff.
Schiff, who is Jewish, frequently tells audiences about his love for Israel, sometimes
complaining that it is treated unfairly. It might be suggested that if anyone in the
government is partial to a foreign power it is Schiff, and that foreign power is Israel, not
Russia.
Unfortunately, Schiff is far from unique. Perhaps he and a number of other Congressmen
should register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, as required by law.
Congressmen are not exempt when they work to benefit a foreign nation, though they frequently
believe themselves to be not subject to the very laws that they pass. In May
a letter was sent to the White House with the signatures of 400 congressmen, purely to
express America's legislature's solidarity with Israel and to give it a green light to do
whatever it wishes vis-à-vis its neighbors. The letter cites some questionable American
interests relating to Syria, but it also mentions Israel no less than 13 times.
If that does not convince one that Congress has always been and continues to be Israeli
occupied territory, check out some bills that have been working their way through the
legislature. The House
voted overwhelmingly on July 23 rd to formally oppose the Palestinian-backed
nonviolent movement to boycott Israel. The measure,
H.Res.246 opposes "efforts to delegitimize the State of Israel and the Global Boycott,
Divestment, and Sanctions Movement [BDS] targeting Israel." The bill had 349 co-sponsors and
passed by a 398–17 vote. Sixteen Democrats and only one Republican opposed the bill. The
bill is not a law but is rather intended to express the will of congress, which is perhaps the
only good thing to say about it.
Other bills have not yet been voted on, presumably because friends of the Jewish state are
looking for more goodies to add in. The pending legislative action includes the aid to Israel
bill
H.R.1837 the "United States-Israel Cooperation Enhancement and Regional Security Act" ,
which has
279 cosponsors . When the bill is approved, which it will be, it will increase the amount
of aid given to Israel over ten years to $38 billion, though this is now regarded as a minimum
figure which will be supplemented to meet the Jewish state's expressed needs. And the
aid is now unconditional, meaning that Israel will receive the money no matter how it
behaves, while the Jewish state will also be able to use the U.S. taxpayer provided money to
buy weapons from its own arms industry, cutting American defense contractors out of the loop
and costing jobs in the United States.
Another bill to benefit Israel is also pending:
H.R. 1850 , the "Palestinian International Terrorism Support Prevention Act of 2019," a law
that would authorize and encourage financially sanctioning any foreign organization or
individual that provides "support" to any group, organization or individual considered to be
part of the Palestinian resistance. Interestingly, the bill does not even pretend to be based
on U.S. national security: it is all about and for Israel. It could mean that foreign
supporters of BDS, which is now considered a hostile entity by "the will of" Congress, could be
subject to sanctions even though they are non-violent and threaten no one.
One final bit of bipartisan legislation best described as a pander to both Israel and the
Jewish community is a bill that has appeared
recently in the Senate that will prioritize and pay for health care and nutrition services
for those who claim to be holocaust survivors. The bill is entitled the "Trauma-Informed
Modernization of Eldercare for Holocaust Survivors Act" or "TIME for Holocaust Survivors Act."
It is intended to "increase the chances that survivors could age in their own homes" and also
"to ensure that holocaust survivors have care and services tailored to their needs."
Sponsor Senator Ben Cardin of Maryland, who is of course Jewish, elaborated: "Holocaust
survivors came to the United States seeking refuge from unimaginable horrors. They have lived
their lives here and enriched our nation. With an average age of 85, we have an obligation to
provide Holocaust survivors the community support and special services they need to live out
their final days,"
WE have an obligation? How about you and your co-religionists Ben as you seem to have
a lot of money to spend on lobbying for Israel and corrupting our government? Special services?
Why do they need help? Because, the bill states, "institutionalized settings, with confined
spaces or restrictions on food, can induce panic, anxiety, and re-traumatization due to their
holocaust experiences."
What about other elderly American who have problems with "institutionalized settings" or
"confined spaces" or "restrictions on food?" How the Senate will justify special benefits for a
small group of self-described victims drawn from the wealthiest demographic in the U.S. remains
to be seen. If there is anyone who actually needs help, it is the U.S. taxpayer, who has to
bear the burden of this utter nonsense, which sets up Jews as a special privileged group within
our social services network. So-called holocaust survivors are identified in the bill's "Findings"
as "(2) More than 200,000 Jews fleeing from Nazi occupied territory found refuge in the
United States from 1933 through 1945, and approximately 137,000 additional Jewish refugees
settled in the United States from 1945 through 1952. (3) Hundreds of thousands of additional
Jewish refugees continued to immigrate to the United States from Europe and countries of the
former Soviet Union during the subsequent decades. (4) The number of Holocaust survivors living
in the United States at the end of 2018 was approximately 80,000 individuals, down from an
estimated 13 127,000 in 2010."
Thus, holocaust survivors who will benefit from the bill are inevitably and by intention
only Jews – no Christians who went through 1933-1945 in Europe need apply. That one
highly privileged group should deserve special benefits from government that other retirees
cannot have is a disgrace. So, is the United States Congress Israeli and also, by extension,
Jewish occupied territory? I think the question answers itself.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest,
a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a
more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is
councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its
email is[email protected]
' To be sure, the publication of "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" by professors
John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt back in 2007 opened the door to a frank discussion of why
the United States is involved in unresolvable conflicts on behalf of a tiny client state. But
unfortunately '
But unfortunately, the door was firmly slammed shut again.
@Dan Hayes I
remember years ago seeing annoying ads on cable TV (particularly on FoxNews) by Rabbi Yechiel
Eckstein (who died earlier this year) begging and pleading to donate money to his
"International Fellowship of Christians and Jews" so he and his daughter Yael could get
"Emergency Food Boxes" to elderly Russian Jews living in poverty that had survived living in
concentration camps.
Christian evangelist goyim suckers
Eckstein's trademark – tapping poor evangelical Christians in America's South by
showing them tear-jerking videos about poverty in Israel – is well-known. What is
less well-known is that Eckstein himself is well compensated by the fund, taking in about a
million dollars a year, including pension provisions.
That Israel gets a credit line for purchasing weapons from the US is nothing more than pork
barrel politics from Congress.
The billions in weapon aid is part of the Camp David Peace Agreement between Israel and
Egypt, but I hear no whinging about Egypt having the same deal and getting the same amount of
weapons as Israel does.
Why in the heck the US should furnish these two countries with a lot of weapons? Bringing
the pork back to the local constituencies is it. Pork barrel.
@Colin Wright'To be a Zionist, you have to either believe in the racial supremacy of Jews, be a liar,
or be very badly misinformed, since Israel is otherwise indefensible.'
Whoops. Missed one.
It's possible to be a Zionist if you're a really rabid Islamophobe. This last seems to
motivate some of our gentile Israel-lovers.
I wonder how many of our resident Zionists can actually be bothered to live in Israel
themselves?
It's one of the things that irritates me about Zionists. For most of them, Israel is
ultimately a hobby; I mean, Jews in general should go there, but not them. Too much
trouble.
But for their victims, the suffering is real. It's not a hobby.
If US leaders were being truly Machiavellian, they would double down on their support for
Netanyahu, while simultaneously arming Israel with conventional weapons.
Netanyahu gets a large portion of his support from backward, ultra orthodox Jews, who have
exceptionally high birth rates (around 7 children per woman) and are extremely politically
active. They are expected to be around 1/4th of the Israeli population in twenty years. If
this continues, it will turn Israel into a 3rd world country by mid-century, since secular
Jews only have slightly-above-replacement birth rates and the ultra orthodox do not have the
human capital to support a modern economy.
By arming Israel, it allows their leadership to procrastinate on the issue of Orthodox
Jews (who do not serve in the military), allowing the problem to metastasize demographically.
Israel has around 30 years to solve the issue before it's too late, and they are reduced to a
regional, third world nation.
Thank you, Philip. The Jewish-Israeli takeover of the US Congress is not only a flat out
disgrace, it is an organized attack on US sovereignty.
In America, pro-Zionist organizations are generally in charge of manufacturing news,
headlines, 'history', and dubious information (hasbara) for national consumption....
@Bubba I saw that
ad today on television. Him and his wife still being used for funds for
non-existent"survivors" in Russia. It's so obviously a scam. I wouldn't buy a car from that
scumbag
With a national debt approaching $23 trillion and a trillion dollar deficit for this year
alone, Congress last week decided to double down on suicidal spending, passing a two year
budget that has the United States careening toward catastrophe. While we cannot say precisely
when the economic crash will occur, we do know that it is coming. And last week Congress
pounded down on the accelerator.
We are told that the US economy is experiencing unprecedented growth, while at the same time
the Fed is behaving as it does when we are in recession by cutting rates and dodging insults
from the President because it's not cutting fast enough. This is not economic policy –
it's schizophrenia!
But that's only the beginning.
Take what they call "national defense" spending. This is the misnomer they use to try and
convince us that pumping trillions into the military-industrial complex will make us safe and
free. Nothing could be further from the truth: probably ninety percent of the "defense" budget
is aggressive militarism and welfare for the rich.
Under this budget deal the military budget would increase to nearly $1.4 trillion for two
years. Of course that's only a fraction of real military spending, which is, all told, well
over one trillion dollars per year.
What do we get for this money? Are we safer? Not at all. We are more vulnerable than ever.
We spend billions fighting "terrorism" in Africa while terrorism has actually increased since
the creation of the US Africa Command – "AFRICOM" – in 2007. Meanwhile we continue
to spend to maintain our illegal military occupation of a large section of Syria – which
benefits terrorist groups seeking to overthrow Assad.
We're sending thousands more troops to the Middle East including basing US troops in Saudi
Arabia for the first time since 2003. Back then, even neocon Paul Wolfowitz praised our
departure from Saudi Arabia because, as he rightly stated, US troops on Saudi soil was a great
recruiting tool for al-Qaeda.
Now we've pulled out of the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty so that we can
deploy once-forbidden missiles on China's front door. A new arms race with China will mean a
new boon for our new Defense Secretary's former colleagues at Raytheon!
...As for Tulsi Gabbard, her foreign policy views are a clear and present danger to Israel's
and Washington's grand strategy to secure permanent military hegemony in the Middle East. If
the PNAC grand strategy succeeds, there will never be any justice or sovereignty for the
Palestinian people. I think she was being strategic with the BDS vote (as with her defense of
Joe Biden, a head-fake which opened up the opportunity for her to take down Kamala Harris).
Gabbard's mission faces long enough odds without her publicly confirming the worst
paranoid Zionist fears about her. She's already being denounced as an "Assad apologist" and
"Putin puppet" (don't you love the sub literary assonance and alliteration?); she can dispel
the outrageous slanders, but if she were on the record in support of BDS, it would have been
the nail in the coffin of her campaign. Gabbard strikes me as radically pragmatic.
We will need her remarkable leadership skills to avoid civil war as the empire collapses.
Please don't throw in the towel yet or give up on the one hope that remains.
The entire point of the Ukraine conflict was to drive a wedge between natural allies in
Europe: Russia and Germany. Together they would form the most powerful economic block on earth.
This is USA greatest fear. Luckily for USA, they succeeded in blocking this alliance...
It all began during what I think of as the " Kristallnacht of international law," 30
August September 1995, when the Empire attacked the Bosnian-Serbs in a direct and total
violation of all the most fundamental principles of international law. Then there was 9/11,
which gave the Neocons the "right" (or so they claimed) to threaten, attack, bomb, kill, maim,
kidnap, assassinate, torture, blackmail and otherwise mistreat any person, group or nation on
the planet simply because " we are the indispensable nation " and " you either are
with the terroristsor with us ". During these same years, we saw Europe become a
third-rate US colony incapable of defending even fundamental European geopolitical interests
while the US became a third-rate colony of Israel equally incapable of defending even
fundamental US geopolitical interests. Most interestingly looking back, while the US and the EU
were collapsing under the weight of their own mistakes, Russia and China were clearly on the
ascend; Russia mostly in military terms (see here and here
) and China mostly economically. Most crucially, Russia
and China gradually agreed to become symbionts which, I would argue, is even stronger
and more meaningful than if these two countries were united by some kind of formal alliance:
alliances can be broken (especially when a western nation is involved), but symbiotic
relationships usually last forever (well, nothing lasts forever, of course, but when a lifespan
is measured in decades, it is the functional equivalent of "forever", at least in geostrategic
analytical terms). The Chinese have now developed an official, special, and unique
expression to characterize that relationship with Russia. They speak of a "Strategic,
comprehensive partnership of coordination for the new era."
... ... ...
Empires cannot only trade. Trade alone is simply not enough to remain a viable empire.
Empires also need military force, and not just any military force, but the kind of military
force which makes resistance futile. The truth is that NO modern country has anywhere near the
capabilities needed to replace the US in the role of World Hegemon: not even uniting the
Russian and Chinese militaries would achieve that result since these two countries do not
have:
1) a worldwide network of bases (which the US have, between 700-1000 depending on how you
count)
2) a major strategic air-lift and sea-lift power projection capability
3) a network of so-called "allies" (colonial puppets, really) which will assist in any
deployment of military force
...
neither China nor Russia have any interests in policing the planet or imposing some regime
change on other countries. All they really want is to be safe from the US, that's it.
This new reality is particularly visible in the Middle-East where countries like the United
States, Israel or Saudi Arabia (this is the so-called "Axis of Kindness") are currently only
capable of deploying a military capable of massacring civilians or destroy the infrastructure
of a country, but which cannot be used effectively against the two real regional powers with a
modern military: Iran and Turkey.
But the most revealing litmus test was the US attempt to bully Venezuela back into
submission. For all the fire and brimstone threats coming out of DC, the entire "Bolton
plan(s?)" for Venezuela has/have resulted in a truly embarrassing failure: if the Sole
"Hyperpower" on the planet cannot even overpower a tremendously weakened country right in its
backyard, a country undergoing a major crisis, then indeed the US military should stick to the
invasion of small countries like Monaco, Micronesia or maybe the Vatican (assuming the Swiss
guard will not want to take a shot at the armed reps of the "indispensable nation"). The fact
is that an increasing number of medium-sized "average" countries are now gradually acquiring
the means to resist a US attack.
So if the writing is on the wall for the AngloZionist Empire, and if no country can replace
the US as imperial world hegemon, what does that mean?
It means the following: 1000 years of European imperialism is coming to an end
!
This time around, neither Spain nor the UK nor Austria will take the place of the US and try
to become a world hegemon. In fact, there is not a single European nation which has a military
even remotely capable of engaging the kind of "colony pacification" operations needed to keep
your colonies in a suitable state of despair and terror. The French had their very last hurray
in Algeria, the UK in the Falklands, Spain can't even get Gibraltar back, and Holland has no
real navy worth speaking about. As for central European countries, they are too busy
brown-nosing the current empire to even think of becoming an empire (well, except Poland, of
course, which dreams of some kind of Polish Empire between the Baltic and the Black Sea; let
them, they have been dreaming about it for centuries, and they will still dream about it for
many centuries to come ).
Now compare European militaries with the kind of armed forces you can find in Latin America
or Asia? There is such a knee-jerk assumption of superiority in most Anglos that they
completely fail to realize that medium and even small-sized countries can develop militaries
sufficient enough to make an outright US invasion impossible or, at least, any occupation
prohibitively expensive in terms of human lives and money (see here
, here and
here ). This
new reality also makes the typical US missile/airstrike campaign pretty useless: they will
destroy a lot of buildings and bridges, they will turn the local TV stations ("propaganda
outlets" in imperial terminology) into giant piles of smoking rubble and dead bodies, and they
kill plenty of innocents, but that won't result in any kind of regime change. The striking fact
is that if we accept that warfare is the continuation of politics by other means, then we also
have to admit, that under that definition, the US armed forces are totally useless since they
cannot help the US achieve any meaningful political goals.
The truth is that in military and economic terms, the "West" has already lost. The fact that
those who understand don't talk, and that those who talk about this (denying it, of course)
have no understanding of what is taking place, makes no difference at all.
...Indeed, if the Neocons don't blow up the entire planet in a nuclear holocaust, the US and
Europe will survive, but only after a painful transition period which could last for a decade
or more. One of the factors which will immensely complicate the transition from Empire to
"regular" country will be the profound and deep influence 1000 years of imperialism have had on
the western cultures, especially in the completely megalomaniac United States ( Professor
John Marciano's "Empire as a way of life" lecture series addresses this topic superbly
– I highly recommend them!): One thousand years of brainwashing are not so easily
overcome, especially on the subconscious (assumptions) level.
Well, the number one factor keeping empire in a hegemonic stance is the hegemonic U.S. dollar.
The empire isn't going anywhere as long as the dollar remains as the worlds reserve currency.
Most of planetary trade goes through Brussels and Wall Street denoted in dollars. Most of the
credit cards carried and used around the world are SWIFT creations.
How and where this will change will be more telling than where the military loses its last
battle.
A usual tour de force by the Saker. But one can see things also very differently.
– Western Imperialism: the Holy Roman Empire never had any colonies. Nor did any of
the Eastern European states. Nor did the Italians states save for the farcical attempts of
Mussolini
– Whas the Turkish empire also due to the Frankish imperialistic popish impulse?
– What the Saker is talking about here are basically GB, France and Holland.
– What about the Russian Empire? What was it but a colonial enterprise? And will rump
Russia endure? I have my doubts. Putin ended the Chechen war by giving Chechnya de facto if not
de jure self governance. Right now things are okey dokey as Russia is bribing Kadyrov and
Kadyrov and Putin having a special personal relationship. But what if circumstances change?
Putin not being there any more and some new Russian government tries to enforce its writ in
Chechnya? On top there is the birthrate in the Caucasus which is two times the Russian
birthrate. Will all those different nationalities still feel bound to Russia in the future? And
will Russians be willing to subsidise the Caucasus for ever?
– The "symbiosis" between Russia and China is laughable. As soon as the Anglo-Zionist
empire really collapses the differences between Russia and China will come to the fore.
To get China´s help after the Ukraine crisis Russia had to give China a free hand in
Mongolia. Before Russia had always seen to it that Mongolia didn´t get too dependent on
China. Half of the foreign exchange of Mongolia was earned by the Russian-Mongolian copper mine
of Erdenet. Three years ago Russia sold its share in Erdenet. By now Erdenet has been pledged
by Mongolias venal politicians as collateral for Chinese loans.
Also China has certainly never forgot that the Russian far East was part of the Qing empire
until the 1850s.Tthis will be brought up again as soon as Russia is sufficiently weak.
Russia was forced into the alliance with China by the West. The only industrial sphere where
Russia does indeed have world class expertise is in armaments. After Ukraine Russia was forced
to share its technology with China. And China will definately put this new knowledge to good
use and in the not so far future overtake Russia in this particular field of expertise. Then
watch what will happen.
– China not interested in old fashioned imperial politics. That is laughable as well.
China has a base in Ceylon now that they got as collateral for a loan that Ceylon
couldn´t repay. China is laying claim to the whole South China sea and even parts of the
200 mile zones of countries like the Philipines, Indonesia and Vietnam. To back up these claims
with military muscle they build navy bases all over the Spratley islands
– China is getting more and more carbon hydrates through pipelines from Central Asia.
At the same time it is mass imprisoning its Turkic population (Uyghus, Kazakhs and Kirgiz). The
way the Chinese treat those people is exactly racist in the way the Saker has described the
European relationship to the rest of the world. If you are a businessman in any one of those
countries you will not be allowed to interact with people of the same faith, culture and almost
the same language who live just across the border in Xinjiang.
The Chinese government has seen to the fact that any member of those minorities lives in
mortal fear of any contact with foreigners. Any business must now be conducted only with ethnic
Chinese. And as as a Kirghiz or Kazakh national you are not distuingishable from a Kirgiz or
Kazakh from Xinjiang you will suffer the same indignities as them when you travel to
Xinjiang.
As venal and corrupt as the elites of the "Stans" might be: even they perceive Chinese
actions in neighbouring Xinjiang as so grossly offensive that they hardly hide their disdain
anymore. In fact I talked to a journalist last week who was present at the latest SCO gathering
in Bishkek. She was astonished at the level of Sinophobia she accountered.
So on the one hand China is in the process of acquiring more and more of the ressources of
the Stans. But on the other hand it is worsening its relationship with the peoples of these
countries.
The Stans are still ruled by the same Soviet nomenklatura. There has been no real change.
The question is how stable this arrangement is. It definately fits the requirement of the
Chinese but the longer this lasts the more the elites of the Stans are coming between China and
their own population.
China is well aware of this. To protect its investment it might have to use force in the
future. And that is what I expect to happen in case one of those pipelines is interrupted. Not
so different from what the West is doing in the Middle East. All that talk of the Saker about
"good" and "bad" civilisations and promised land once the Anglo-Zionist ascendancy is over is
just that: empty words.
In reality Nitzsche is still right: States are the coldest of cold monsters.
It is incredibly , wickedly absurd and naïve to even think that , what you call an
empire
will go down without a world shattering fight.
It is mindless ignorance not to notice the handwriting on the wall.
This entity you call empire , has been preparing for this event for centuries.
They are telling it in our face directly , " new world order", " full spectrum domination"
They have what nobody else has , a proactive plan, a global network of military bases, and
the scariest part is the fact , that they have no moral barriers to say that, it is not going
to be a fair fight. No hold barred ! No laws ! No rules of engagement! The end justifies the
means !
On the end they will not win in fact nobody will .
But the old must die for the new to be .
Our desire to become brought us to this point , it was an exiting ride , but the new humans
will have a " climate change " of consciousness .
That is not a silly hope , that is logic based clearly on design.
Both US Americans and Europeans will, for the very first time in their history, have to
behave like civilized people, which means that their traditional "model of development"
(ransacking the entire planet and robbing everybody blind) will have to be replaced by one in
which these US Americans and Europeans will have to work like everybody else to accumulate
riches.
Most Americans don't get to collect welfare. Most Americans have to get jobs and pay for
stuff. Most Americans who work do NOT accumulate riches – they go broke. Probably the
elite .01% – guys like Jeff Bezos and Jeff Epstein and Bernie Madoff – can get rich
and accumulate riches. That is not "AngloZionist." It's just Zionist.
"... Wall Street bankers funded all those 'anti colonial movements' in the first place. They wanted to deal with some corrupt brown black politician over an honest White/Japanese colonial officer. ..."
"... What many people do not know is that the after the damage done by the Great Depression (the total Wall Street take over of the US Economy and the looting of independent of American business with the help of the private 'Federal' reserve ), The British Government put restrictions on trade in between the British Empire and USA to protect the economies of Britain and all of her colonies from the Wall Street pigs. ..."
http://www.unz.com/audio/gunsbutter_the-imf-and-world-bank-partners-in-backwardness-407/
Email This Page to Someone
Remember My Information
=>
◄
►
◄
►
▲
▼
Remove from Library
B
Show
Comment
Next New Comment
Next
New Reply
Read More
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc.
More...
This Commenter
This Thread
Hide Thread
Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They
are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My
Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Email Comment
Ignore
Commenter
Follow Commenter
Bookmark
Toggle
All
ToC
▲
▼
Add
to Library
Search Text
Case
Sensitive
Exact Words
Include Comments
Search
Clear
Cancel
List of Bookmarks
Audio Player
00:00
00:00
00:00
Use Up/Down Arrow keys to increase or decrease volume.
Michael Hudson discusses his seminal work of 1972, Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire,
a critique of how the US exploits foreign economies through IMF and World bank debt; difference between the IMF
and World Bank; World Bank dysfunctional from the outset; loans made in foreign currency only; policy to
provide loans for countries to devote their land to export plantation crops; US food and monetary imperialism;
U.S. agricultural protectionism built into the postwar global system; promotion of dependency on the US as food
supplier; food blackmail; perpetration of world poverty preferred; no encouragement of land reform;
privatization of the public domain; America aided, not foreign economies; exploitation of mineral deposits;
bribery; foreign nations politically controlled at the top; veto power for US only.
This was planned decades ago. That is why Wall Street bankers funded all those 'anti colonial movements' in the
first place. They wanted to deal with some corrupt brown black politician over an honest White/Japanese
colonial officer.
"As far as is known "America's" anti-British policy was first given concrete expression in the brief that
General Marshall took with him to the Quebec Conference in 1943.
This was to the effect that the greatest single obstacle to the expansion of America's export-capitalism after
the war would be not the Soviet Union but the British Empire. What this meant, in practical terms, was that as
soon as the enemies in the field had been disposed of would come the turn of the British Empire to be
progressively destroyed and that means to this end would be shaped even while hostilities raged. The moment
they were over the campaign could begin in real earnest, the signal for which was to be Truman's abrupt
dropping of Lend-Lease to an ally whose economy had been so closely geared to war production that many markets
for her goods had been systematically referred to U.S producers.
The British Empire was not the only ally marked down for liquidation. The Dutch Empire in the East Indies and
the French Empire in Indo-China and Africa were also high on the list "
What many people do not know is that the after the damage done by the Great Depression (the total Wall
Street take over of the US Economy and the looting of independent of American business with the help of the
private 'Federal' reserve ), The British Government put restrictions on trade in between the British Empire and
USA to protect the economies of Britain and all of her colonies from the Wall Street pigs.
In Page 22 of the book we read
"However, as has happened time and again throughout history, the money-lenders had tended to overplay their
hand. The six million German unemployed who were the victims of the "Great Depression" resulted in a formidable
revolt against the Money Power -- the revolt of Adolf Hitler. There was also a rebellion, although of a much
milder kind, in Great Britain and the British nations overseas, whose representatives met in Ottawa in 1932 to
hammer out a system of Imperial Preferences calculated to insulate the British world against Wall St.
amok-runs. These Preferences, as we shall see, incurred the unrelenting hostility of the New York Money Power
and the only reason why a show-down was not forced was the far more serious threat to the international
financial system implicit in the economic doctrines of the Third Reich."
In other words, the Wall street greedy pigs after devouring American industry came to the conclusion that
they faced a major threat from Third Reich Germany (the barter system used by the regime) as well as to a
lesser extent from the British Empire (and other Empires). Hence the war to destroy Third Reich Germany,
Japanese Empire and Italy and then after the war the eventual slow destruction of the European Empires,
especially the British Empire. And hence we suddenly see 'independence movements' sprouting all over the world
and succeeding. Even before the war we had 'independence movements' and 'communist movements' all around the
world thanks to their pet 'Soviet Russia's' agents going all around and 'radicalisng the masses', all with the
blessings of Wall Street Banker pigs.
I'm curious do you live in Britain? I would bet you do because of your relentless protection of the
British Empire. The British Empire has been working on Economic World Domination since Cecil Rhodes established
the Round Table groups. I agree with a comment you made about British citizens not being responsible for their
government's tretment of countries in the colonial era. The same can be said about the American citizen if you
place all the blame on the political class and Wall Street. But then we have to take into consideration the
benefits that the English and American citizen receive from their government's crimminal dealings. As long as
they live better than anyone else in the world, they will not protest against the hand that feed them.
This artilce (audio) uncovers the reason why America and Britian along with their Anglo Saxon partners
Canada and Australia control other country's economies. Creating poverty in other countries keeps the Anglo
Saxon countries ecomomically superiour at the expense of the poor throughout the world. If American and British
citizens stopped their government's continued assault on third world countries the immigration crisis would
end.
America and England have been dominant over other countries with the help of their Jewish partners for a
long time Malla. As you commented to me, they have married into prominent British Society. I'm sorry Malla, but
there is a Mexican saying "Tanta culpa tiene el que mata la vaca que el que detiene la pata". Translation: "The
person that holds the cows feet is as guilty as the one that kills it". Meaning when you unknowingly
participate in a crime you are just as responsible as the one commiting it.
It's hard for decent Americans and British people to see themselves as perpitrators of such horrible
injustices because most of them are very warm and loving Christian people I'm sure. But so are the people of
the countries their government target. Until people stop looking at the problems we are all facing as a
Christian/Muslim – White/Black – High IQ/Low IQ problem, things will only get worse. The real problem as I see
it is a Social Class problem as we can see by this article. The Elites have no problem helping Blacks and other
races as long as they are the Rich Elites. The lower class people can starve white, black, brown, etc. it
doesn't matter just another day in the life of a parasite.
The problem as I see it, can only be solved by the "White" people that are socially below the Elites in
power and take it away from them. The reason why I say that is because history tells us that when the Social
underclass revolts against the oppressor government as so many have in Latin America, the U.S. send their
military to help the crimminal leaders and the people are murdered. The problem needs to be stopped at the
source or else nothing can change. We can talk about the Jews till we're bloe in face, but it is clear as to
who is responsible
@Malla
I am so surprised there are only 2 comments on this article! This is the most important information on this
site I like your comments Malla, you're a very smart Lady me I'm just a Rebel that hates bullies with a
passion! Some of my comments are very rough around the edges depending on the level of racism and ignorance the
commentator writes. But, always respectful to the opposite sex. Thanks for engaging Have a nice day.
Very impressive interview. Indeed, it is shocking when all piracy strategies are put together the brilliante
way Professor Hudson does. A lecture for everybody.
We can talk about the Jews till we're bloe in face, but it is clear as to who is responsible
Who do you think is behind British and American Imperialism? As per Ron Unz's findings, who was behind
Bolshevism? Regarding social and political control, there is always a Zionist element. Look at the World Bank,
the CFR, the Chabad Lubavitch presence behind Netanyahu, Putin and Trump. Look at media, music and education.
What about the Warburgs both in the United States and in Nazi Germany.
https://www.onjewishmatters.com/archives/18428
John Ruskin was the mentor of Cecil Rhodes at Oxford University. Cecil Rhodes was a member of the "Society
of the Elect" along with Rothschild. ( See pg. 311
http://www.carrollquigley.net/pdf/The_Anglo-American_Establishment.pdf
) Rothschild proud founder of the
state of israel. Below are photos of John Ruskin's grave. Why is there a Swastika placed between 1819 and 1900?
Also, why is there a Menorah on his headstone? "The seven branch menorah was used in the ancient temple of
Jerusalem The menorah is part of the coat of arms of the modern State of Israel." –
https://www.judaicawebstore.com/7-branched-menorahs-C918.aspx
Creating poverty in other countries keeps the Anglo Saxon countries ecomomically superiour at the expense
of the poor throughout the world. If American and British citizens stopped their government's continued
assault on third world countries the immigration crisis would end.
I disagree completely. In most brown black countries, the people themselves exploit each other and cause all
the screw ups. Most people here in India (poor or rich) cheat, swindle and ruthlessly exploit others. Of course
you have the IMF gang hovering around for their loot but they are not the main factor in many third world
countries.
Thank you Bonnie for asking the perfect questions and thank you Michael for your ever
incisive and brilliantly clear answers. Together this interview is the perfect Predatory Economics 101 for
ordinary people, i.e. the Bonnie & Michael course
I write this from Athens Greece in 2019, 3 days after our US educated (Harvard & Stanford) oligarchical
class has just been voted back into power with a parliamentary majority in bone-headed but fully deserved
reaction to Tsipras the fake left traitor. Very sad and very silly since Greece is a 100% captive colony of EU
/ Washington. The only upside is that with the Trotskyists out Greeks will be able to keep our icons and our
Orthodoxy, something we shall need more than ever.
"... Vote for Elizabeth Warren, because there is NO other choice to force the Jewish mafia pimp out, and send the Zionist liars, Tulsi and Sanders, back to where they came from. Sanders loves little apartheid shitty entity and does anything to protect it, so the racist zionist Hindi. ..."
[So, if you are a progressive looking at the crowded Democratic field in 2020, there is no
need to be perplexed. The answer to your dilemma lies right before your eyes in the record of
2016. The two who stood up then and fought for the kind of changes you desire were Bernie and
Tulsi.]
Don't be a fool by the zionist Jewish tribe. Both Sanders and Tulsi are Charlatan and
zionist to the core. It needs you to watch Sanders' videos to see for yourself that he is A
RABID ZIONIST Jew and part of the Jewish mafia tribe. Tulis is a zionist servant and an
zionist racist Hindi who would do anything for the criminal Jewish tribe to be selected.
No one in the selection process will be 'elected'. Only fifth columnist traitors are
selected by the baby killers.
At this grave moment that the world rules by the Criminal Jewish mafia and their pimps,
only ELIZABETH WARREN will beat shit out of that Jewish mafia pimp, Trump.
Biden a self announced ZIONIST should be thrown out or jailed. He is one of the Iraq War
architect like other jewish neocons where should be shot. Even the Zionists don't want him.
He is as criminal as Bush, Obama and Clinton.
Vote for Elizabeth Warren, because there is NO other choice to force the Jewish mafia pimp
out, and send the Zionist liars, Tulsi and Sanders, back to where they came from. Sanders
loves little apartheid shitty entity and does anything to protect it, so the racist zionist
Hindi.
Don't be fooled by their 'journalist' propagandists. Sanders is NOT a socialist or a left,
but a charlatan belongs to the criminal Tribe. Only liars paint him differently.
"... How prog-guru John Podesta isn't household name as world class underage sex slave op cover-upperer defending unspeakable dregs escapes me. -- AndrewBreitbart (@AndrewBreitbart) February 4, 2011 ..."
"... Geffen has his BF yacht sourced from CIA industrial contractor Larry Ellison. Epstein has his private planes, including the one sharing CIA-controlled tail number N474AW*. This is one way CIA maintains impunity for pedophile child trafficking and concomitant blackmail – by making its DoJ focal points disclaim jurisdiction. CIA used the same cheap trick to evade prosecution for torture. This is boilerplate CIA impunity policy. ..."
"... I'm pretty sure virtually certain that the vast majority of Americans are definitely not pedophiles, and reject entirely the idea of sex with minors, so your attempt here to blame the whole country for the crimes, depravities, and weird appetites of a tiny minority makes no sense, save to distract attention from the guilty parties. ..."
"... PYTs (Pretty Young Things) can make fools out of older men with flattery and opportunity. Executive Producers, writers, and directors also. ..."
"... Never forget how Eric Margolis was tempted at Epstein's Manhattan residence (offered a massage by a pretty young girl as soon as he walked in the door). ..."
A good introduction to the topic of pedophile blackmail rings is Nick Bryant's The Franklin Scandal , which builds on John
DeCamp's The Franklin Coverup . Like the cases of Jeffrey Epstein and Jimmy Savile, the two Franklin books offer well-documented
proof that pedophile blackmail is rampant at the top of the US and UK power hierarchies.
I can say that I have known about the paedo rings being used to blackmail and control of the world's most powerful figures since
the early 80s. Since my teenage years throughout my life I've known people who were in sometime contact with or mixed in the circles
of certain celebrities and other powerful names have popped up from time to time. Besides a few band roadies there have been many
young homeless kids among them. I travelled among street people and others on the periphery and partied with them in my youth
for a while. I've also spent another year in prison albeit on remand and I eventually beat most charges but for serious enough
things that I was accepted easily into some circles and again heard many more stories. This time about judges and police but other
names popped up, some mafia families. Oddly enough I witnessed something in the seventies at a school in Sydney involving Rolf
Harris and realise I saw the tip of the icebergl of a child trafficking situation literally as a primary school kid. All this
has long become clear to me as exactly what is now being uncovered via the Epstein and Jimmy Saville cases and the now well documented
history of paedo and homsexual blackmail rings. It is no surprise to me, any of it. There is even a lot of murder of children
and brutal torture as well. Many names have been connected including McCain and the Bushes and of course the Clintons as well.
Trump was mentored by Roy Cohn. Roy Cohn was a bigger fixer than Epstein ever was. However that makes Trump a gaylord. One of
Cohns pretty boys. Rumours are Trump's wives have been his beards. Along with some of the stories at least of women, just sometimes
paid accusations meant to make him seem more like leaders are expected to be in the USA. Basically JFK was loved for not keeping
his dick in his pants, same as Clinton. Yanks secretly expect to see big powerful men shagging like dogs. Very basic and simple
minded people yanks.
Remember that the late Andrew Breitbart was somehow able to "predict" Pizzagate in a 2011 tweet:
How prog-guru John Podesta isn't household name as world class underage sex slave op cover-upperer defending unspeakable
dregs escapes me. -- AndrewBreitbart (@AndrewBreitbart)
February 4, 2011
If you have any question whether pedophile blackmail is longstanding core US policy, just look at the reservation the US entered
to the CRC-OPSC. CRC-OPSC is the anti child-trafficking protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. US reservations
are formulated by DoS in appointive-level interagency consultation with agencies including DoJ and CIA. The US government reserves
the right to disregard its obligations in a "narrow range of situations." This "minor technical discrepancy" is one that CIA is
ideally positioned to exploit with its control over plane and ship registration for covert operations. Look at paragraph 10 below.
Geffen has his BF yacht sourced from CIA industrial contractor Larry Ellison. Epstein has his private planes, including the
one sharing CIA-controlled tail number N474AW*. This is one way CIA maintains impunity for pedophile child trafficking and concomitant
blackmail – by making its DoJ focal points disclaim jurisdiction. CIA used the same cheap trick to evade prosecution for torture.
This is boilerplate CIA impunity policy.
CIA doesn't just have impunity for child trafficking. It has municipal-law impunity for murder, torture, war crimes, and crimes
against humanity and peace. That makes the USA a failed state that has forfeited its sovereignty.
If you step back and look at the gestalt, you see your problem is the CIA regime. It is a criminal enterprise. Nothing will
change till we knock it over or decapitate it in a war.
CIA doesn't just have impunity for child trafficking. It has municipal-law impunity for murder, torture, war crimes, and
crimes against humanity and peace. That makes the USA a failed state that has forfeited its sovereignty.
N ot so fast.
That's a wild flight of logic to argue that somehow the entire USA is accountable for any and all CIA crimes, especially since
many of them, probably most, have been committed in secret, entirely compartmentalized, and even now we probably
almost certainly don't know the full extent of the CIA's criminal actions.
I'm pretty sure virtually certain that the vast majority of Americans are definitely not pedophiles,
and reject entirely the idea of sex with minors, so your attempt here to blame the whole country for the crimes, depravities,
and weird appetites of a tiny minority makes no sense, save to distract attention from the guilty parties.
I'm guessing this came from civil litigation in which case I'd be extremely skeptical of it and any cases either involving
one victim and/or a deceased perpetrator. My hunch is this would eliminate 80% of the cases. As a long-time investigator (w/ a
badge and/or creds) who's worked thousands of cases I've seen it all. Things are rarely what they seem and almost never how they're
portrayed.
Marty Baron went on from his role if decimating the Boston Catholic Church and American Catholicism to the Washington Post
where last year he and his Post reporters received a Pulitzer for their investigation and documentation of Russian collusion in
the 2016 election. The reports you hear about priest abuse in various archdioceses/diocese, view them with the same degree of
skepticism you'd have if you knew every source/informant contributing to the Mueller investigation and report became a millionaire
with no liability for his or her testimony.
Kind of makes you wonder about the inexplicable rise of the lackluster non-entity Obama, and all the ongoing "Bathhouse Barry"
rumors.
Sure enough, the big "anti-war" candidate Obama took the war machine to the next level, and he flipped like a switch on gay
marriage. He let the NSA run rampant on domestic spying operations. And, not that it needs any reminding, after "the biggest financial
scandal since the Depression!" the number of financial executives who were arrested during Obama's terms when it all came out
in the wash remains at exactly zero.
Matt Lauer asked Hillary some uncomfortable questions, and got "me too'ed".
Charlie Rose was supposedly known for loosening up a bit and talking a wee bit too much at various events. He got "me too'ed"
also.
Bill O'Rielly?
Roger Ailes .?
The non-CIA plants can be blackmailed to toe the company line via scandal. The CIA certainly has the means to make scandals
happen.
Remember Elliot Spitzer? Strauss-Khan?
PYTs (Pretty Young Things) can make fools out of older men with flattery and opportunity. Executive Producers, writers, and
directors also.
Never forget how Eric Margolis was tempted at Epstein's Manhattan residence (offered a massage by a pretty young girl as soon
as he walked in the door).
I have never looked much into Pizzagate but now that I have, I'm certainly beginning to suspect some of this could be true. The
only thing is, where are all the victims? How could they keep this so quiet if so many children were supposedly involved? Were
they all homeless/runaway kids? So were many of Epstein's victims and they have come forward. Were they all illegal minors that
Obama released into the country and couldn't speak any English? But pedophiles only love white children. Were they all killed
after they were abused? Hmm
@Bardon
Kaldian Sorry old man, but the Polish Bishop's Conference admitted that between 1990 and 2018 382 clergy committed sexual
abuse. We all wish it weren't true, but we can no longer deny what the Church itself has admitted.
@JohnnyWalker123Eyes Wide Shut is based on a novel by an Austrian Jew named Schnitzler, who knew the art and academic and super rich worlds
of Vienna and Berlin very well. He knew that the decadent rich of post-Christian Modern Europe were perverted to the core – Gentiles
as well as Jews.
The most urgent question though is why are so many high & mighty tempted by pedophilia in the first place
While there is abundant evidence that the political class is composed primarily of sociopathic megalomaniacs, it's a category
error to conclude from the recent revelations that they're 'tempted' by paedophilia.
Rather, they are people who are selected and promoted for their willingness to perform reprehensible acts, rather than
an actual desire to do so. (The two characteristics intersect, and probably significantly more than the societal average;
in the same way, on average butchers are less squeamish about blood, than are housewives).
Black male actors don't do 'drag' roles because they want to; they do those roles because it pleases the people who control
the arc of their careers.
C.S. Lewis nailed it in his talk entitled "The Inner Ring". Some people are extraordinarily keen to belong to a group they
identify as 'exclusive'; when that exclusivity involves access to unmerited wealth and power, it's easy for the unscrupulous insiders
to up the ante.
FWIW, as part of an initiation I once stood with one trouser leg rolled up, a noose around my neck, a compass point held to
my exposed left pectoral in front of a glass coffin that held a human skeleton. Looking back it just seems monumentally retarded,
but that's humans for you.
When faced with the inevitable downstream " Oh, we all do this ", I walked away well before crossing any serious moral
lines. Two colleagues who faced similar choices, are now a Deputy Commissioner of Taxation and a QC, respectively.
Make of that what you will being a senior bureaucrat is no feat of skill or talent; being made Silk likewise marks one out
as being 'safe hands', rather than a genuinely talented advocate (it's possible to be both safe hands and a talented advocate,
but the safe hands predominate among the "junior rabbis" of the modern QC/SC ranks).
I have a personal experience of abuse from someone involved in the Franklin Sex Scandal (Conspiracy of Silence). I also witnessed
abuse of another person by this same individual. The abuser's name was Peter Citron (now deceased).
My experiences with Citron happened well before the Franklin story in Omaha. Citron was arrested but set free because my parents
did not want me to testify against him. I was so young, I understood almost nothing.
This is related to Pizzagate because Citron left Scarsdale after his case was closed and soon became active in the Franklin
"Pizzagate-style" sex abuse group. For me, the ease with which Citron went from Scarsdale to become a member of that group is
very telling.
Pizzagate and Franklin both centered around powerful men with connections to the police, the FBI, and state and national politics.
I know what Citron did to me and my friend. He was convicted in Omaha on many similar counts. I am all but certain the Franklin
group was real and tend strongly to believe that Pizzagate is about another group much like Franklin.
I had the son of Chuck Hamel in my class and eventually as a graduate student.
His father had proven the major oil companies were cheating to the tune of billions on royalties due the state of Alaska. The
way he did it was hire tankers to deliver crude profitably at much lower cost/barrel than the majors were claiming.
The instant Chuck Hamel hit the pages of the newspapers, they have the firm Wackenhut taking his garbage, spying on him, and
hiring a beautiful hooker to bed him and then wreck his marriage.
Chuck said his father's advice was this: if a beautiful young girl approaches you, and I mean you pull 6's and this girl is
a 10 then something's wrong.
If you play ball, your life is paved ahead with gold until the day they whack you with an MS-13 soldier. McCain is about the
most disgusting, despicably corrupt war criminal we've ever had, while Ron Paul was treated as some kind of lunatic at the same
time.
I think Mr. Unz is a victim of media propaganda when it comes to the Catholic Church and so called "pedophilia".
Pedophilia is defined as "a psychiatric disorder in which an adult has sexual fantasies about or engages in sexual acts with
a prepubescent child" (Webster's dictionary)
There are few if any documented cases, so far as I know, of priest engaged with prepubescent children. Rather, cases with post-pubic
boys; i.e. pederasty.
And far more cases of sex between adult male priest.
The mass media use of "pedophilia" is a diversion because they won't use the word or write about homosexuality.
That some, if not many US politicians have degenerate backgrounds and bizarre tastes can't be brushed off as some coincidence.
Is the number of politicians with "degenerate backgrounds and bizarre tastes" significantly greater than the number of the
general population with same? You'd have to establish that first.
@Olorin
There is simply too much evidence pointing to the fact that 'something' is surely out of the ordinary – whether or not anyone
wants to believe it or not. How many wacko's connected to pizza symbology being outed as pedophiles will it take? The old cheese
pizza slang has been knocking around online since 2008 from my memory, but yet nobody seems to question how a) the slang even
originated in use, and b) how come people connected to it (such as Peter Bright aka @DrPizza) are exactly how they were described?
Epstein was on pol's radar for years and only now is the Government acting. How could one anonymous website know something seemingly
before the domestic spy agencies of the US Government? If 4chan had the resources of the Gov then the amount of dirt that would
be discovered would surely dwarf the limited perception of the drones tuned into CNN and the like.
I wrote about the Epstein blackmail theory on my blog:
The theory is unbelievable for a number of reasons. I have right-wing populist sympathies and I don't particularly like
the elite, but I don't share the common belief that they are sex perverts. Now if you define attraction by older men to younger
women as "perversion" then they deserve condemnation, but that isn't normally done outside of feminist circles. Do I believe
many would risk their positions by knowingly sleeping with underage girls? No. Epstein is anomalous in that respect.
Now what if he tricked his friends into sleeping with underage girls, then tried to blackmail them with the evidence? I
don't think that would work, because the super-rich are very unlikely to go to jail for accidental statutory rape. What about
"strict liability?" That's the kind of crap the peasants have to deal with. If a billionaire were ensnared in it, the legal
system might actually start seeing that as an injustice , certainly the maximum penalty wouldn't apply to that billionaire.
And to prove the case, details would have to be provided, the who, the what, the where, and the why, which would implicate
Epstein in crimes more serious than the men he was blackmailing. Furthermore, the first guy blackmailed would tell all his
friends to stay away from Epstein.
A scam like that would work better today that it would have 10 to 20 years ago, with the cultural environment surrounding #MeToo.
Ron says our culture is "remarkably libertine," it's remarkably libertine with regards to certain behaviors, but quite "puritanical"
in other respects.
Maybe PizzaGate's power does not derive from, let's say, the "conspiracy theory proper," but from popular anger at one, some,
or all of the following, which are core (and factually undisputed/undisputable) parts of the story:
(1) The radical empowerment/celebration of homosexuality and sexual deviance (symbolized by the extreme Gay predilections
of the that pizza shop's homosexual owner) -- by the 2010s in most of the West, Gays had been promoted first-class citizens with
Non-Gays demoted to second-class citizens, a disturbing trend that does not augur well for family life; perhaps not coincidentally,
fertility rates have declined;
(2) What in Germany was, once upon a time, called Entartete Kunst ( Degenerate Art ) such as that owned and celebrated
by the key figures in the PizzaGate story; degenerate art as a symbol for cultural decline/decadence -- Do not dismiss the power
of this to galvanize people, as not just Entartete Kunst but "PizzaGates" were all over Weimar Germany, as the soon-to-be NS party
voters looked on in anger;
(3) Frustration at the displacement of middle-class White-Christianity by disturbing, alien religions (symbolized by
the disturbing Spirit Cooking thing) -- probably classifiable as (3-a): religion proper, and (3-b): a proxy grievance against
mass migration of alien people with alien customs, like Muslims and other Third Worlders;
(4) The notion that wealthy, powerful elites are pushing each of the above down on us ; a cultural revolution from above.
Key elite actors are implicated directly in PizzaGate in all of the above, even if no pedophile rings as such ever existed.
PizzaGate has all four of these elements. Deviant sexuality, degenerate art, anti-Christianity (and probably, implicitly, Third
World immigrants), plus an actor group. I believe that PizzaGate's popularity is traceable thereto. The only question left to
ask may be: "Cultural decline: Is it murder, or suicide?"
"Engaging with [Corvinus] is like punching a waterfall. Nothing happens, nothing changes,
eventually you get tired and leave, and the waterfall keeps flowing as you're walking
away."
Apologies to all for my giving him something to run on about. But that overdone Snopes
article is worth a look to those who enjoy dissecting propaganda.
Trump wasn't their candidate (which suggests that he's clean), and (so far) he hasn't
enabled a war with Iran, so what happens with him is an open question.
I wonder what makes you (or anyone) so sure that "Trump wasn't their candidate". From the
time that he announced his candidacy in 2015 to the present moment, I have never found
implausible the possibility that the President may be controlled opposition. Or, more
mundanely, simply the self-promoting carnival barker that just about all evidence strongly
suggests that he always was. How closely have you looked at Mr. Trump's actual record,
starting from before he announced?
And, to what extent, since becoming President, has Mr. Trump actually opposed the
Globo-Homo agenda?
Trump wasn't their candidate (which suggests that he's clean), and (so far) he hasn't
enabled a war with Iran, so what happens with him is an open question.
I wonder what makes you (or anyone) so sure that "Trump wasn't their candidate".
The Deep State, Empire, Zio-Glob, or whatever you want to call it, was obviously 100%
behind Hillary Clinton. She and her husband were totally blackmailable, and the media fury
when she lost was something to see.
For his part, Trump looked surprised (and not too happy) that he won. It's clear that he
has links to the Deep State, but he was set up to lose (the media from the start presenting
him as the joke candidate – the irrelevant clown). The script was for serious, boring
and ineffectual Jeb Bush to lose to the heroic champion of Social Justice, and first woman
President Hillary Clinton.
When Trump actually found himself President (and could see the trouble he was in) –
for survival, he fully committed to Israel and the Zionists. The idea was that they would
defend him , against their Cultural Bolshevik cousins in the US. The Adelsons and the
Israelis love him while the US Cultural Bolshevik Jews hate him.
The US public are just extras in this show. If he cared about them he would do something
about 9/11 – which he won't. He's a high rise developer from New York and knows better
than anyone that 9/11 was all fakery. Here's his first public reaction (on the day):
Democracy was the next step, but it only works in small polities.
And for very short periods of time.
Anyway, yours is a key concept that most 'Merkins are completely ignorant of, yet some of
the anti-federalists were aware of it. Here, Brutus questions whether "democracy" is sensible
in a nation of three million !
Now, in a large extended country, it is impossible to have a representation, possessing
the sentiments, and of integrity, to declare the minds of the people, without having it so
numerous and unwieldly, as to be subject in great measure to the inconveniency of a
democratic government.
The territory of the United States is of vast extent; it now contains near three
millions of souls, and is capable of containing much more than ten times that number. Is it
practicable for a country, so large and so numerous as they will soon become, to elect a
representation, that will speak their sentiments, without their becoming so numerous as to
be incapable of transacting public business?
It certainly is not.
Brutus, (Robert Yates), To the Citizens of the State of New-York, October 18, 1787
While he was at Berkeley, David Brock contributed an op-ed to The Wall Street Journal
entitled "Combating Those Campus Marxists". It drew the attention of John Podhoretz, who at
the time was the editor of Insight, a weekly newsmagazine published by The Washington
Times.
Podhoretz flew Brock to Washington, D.C., for an interview and hired him as a writer of
the weekly conservative news magazine Insight on the News, a sister publication of The
Washington Times After working at Insight, Brock spent some time as a fellow at The
Heritage Foundation.
Brock was formerly the domestic partner of William Grey; Fox News reported that their
relationship ended in a bitter, three-year-long legal battle in which "Brock and Grey
traded angry accusations, replete with charges of blackmail, theft and financial
malfeasance"
Brock's claim that the Clintons have never committed any wrongdoing has received
criticisms from many who have cited instances of abuse
@OEMIKITLOB " . . . [A]ny individual who openly questions an official narrative or shares
a dissenting opinion of said narrative an "enemy of the state'."
OE -- , yeah, pretty much. My judgment is the meaningful exercise of the First Amendment
is probably pretty damned close to being a dead letter. President Trump's no-filters tweeting
is sort of sui generis . Unz Review is remarkable, an exception.
I've "sold" Unz Review successfully. I was grumbling about some articles and
comments to a friend of mine. College-educated guy, and I've known him for years. I was just
talking loosely when he piped up, "They ought to shut it down!" He seemed genuinely angry,
and I'm sure he'd reconsider his response later if I asked him. Still, I was startled that a
bright guy would reach for government suppression of speech as a go-to.
Our masters need stable narratives. Those narratives don't have to be just, economically
sound, or to make much sense at all. They just have to be stable.
They definitely don't want debate that would undermine the legitimacy of those narratives.
So we get that extremely narrow, inconclusive, and fragmented rhetoric, such as the stuff
uttered by the Democratic contenders.
@Sean Major national governments and state actors around the world are largely in the
business of engineering conspiracies, detecting conspiracies, disseminating false conspiracy
theories and discrediting truthful conspiracy research. This is what they do.
That would include the US, UK, France, Germany, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Israel,
Saudi Arabia, etc.
In other words, the world is awash in conspiratorial activity of endless varieties.
Russiagate gives every appearance of having been a conspiracy against Donald Trump hatched
by factions within the Deep State: ODNI, CIA, FBI, MI6, MI5, etc. No wonder Trump is highly
suspicious of the Deep State.
In this case, the conspiracy was so poorly planned and executed that it was hoist on its
own petard. It is on the verge of being fully exposed to the entire world.
@Sean McBride All these 'conspiracies' distract us and our leaders from our respective
duties. Actual government processes are simple, rather dull, and conducted in the open for
the press, citizens and other parties to monitor or address. Our government has seen fit to
skulk around and spy on Americans, compiling data on them, which they'll claim as being
measures to prevent "Terrorism" or suppress "Hate". What should truly concern Americans is
that an entire sector of our government is aligned with the media (See TASS) and they conduct
campaigns to compel voters, minorities, illegal aliens and other proponents of Big Government
to sustain these unconstitutional intrusions. Diverting our attention away from those
activities seems to be the function of our media these days.
@Jacques Sheete The current US President is a though-going conspiracy theorist. He
insisted Obama was born outside America, and then that his college transcripts were faked,
ThenVince Fisher's death was "very fishy" and after the San Bernadino shootings, that the
US government was covering up the existence of accomplices of the shooters and all
Muslims should be banned from entering the US. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's was not
found dead with his pillow over his face according to the FBI, but who repeated hearsay that
he had been? A day or so after the event (he may have priority on this one) he came close to
impling explosives must have been used on 9/11 because he explicitly said he knew all
about the steel structure of the building and made a point of emphasising how massively
strong it was around the exterior walls .
Trump also gave credence to the 'vaccination causes autism but the medical establishment
won't admit it' conspiracy theory EL Presidente, as he now is, obtained the nomination while
suggesting that his main rival for the nomination, Ted Cruz, was the son of a man who had
been one of the Cuban anti-Castro exiles involved in a conspiracy to kill JFK . And
Trump made and, more or less kept, a campaign promise to release all still classified CIA
files relating to the JFK assassination. He also tried to ban Muslims from entering the US
(Executive Order 13769 ).
@Fran Taubman "Neo-Nazi Azov National Corps march/rally in Odessa to celebrate the 5th
year anniversary of the far-right's instituting "Ukrainian order" [Kaganat of Nuland] in the
city via the massacre of 40+ people in the Trade Unions House on May 2, 2014."
@Fran Taubman Zionist project in Ukraine: "Some of the people in the group [supporters of
the Kiev regime installed by Nuland-Kagan] were wearing ultra-nationalist Right Sector
movement insignia, were armed with chains and bats and carried shields." https://www.rt.com/news/156592-odessa-activists-burnt-alive/
Consider also the remarkable case of British television personality Sir Jimmy Savile. Only shortly after his death at age
84 did the press begin revealing that he had probably molested many hundreds of children during his long career.
Actually it was only after he died and left a lot of money to charity that numerous women started to claim he has sexually
molested them at a young age so that they could jump on the compensation wagon.
If all the claims are to be believed, he was Britain's most prolific pedophile ever, and also Britain's most prolific serial
rapist.
There is no doubt that he was an odd personality, never married, and liked the company of young women (the age of consent is
16 in Britain) , but none of the allegations against him have every been conclusively proved, the accusers have nearly all remained
anonymous, and many of them are frankly bizarre, and improbable, or allegedly occurred in places where he had never been.
For example after his death there were allegations that he had sexually molested female patients at Leeds General Infirmary
(Hospital) where he worked as a celebrity volunteer porter.
I worked at another large hospital in Leeds during this period (Savile was nationally known as a celebrity disc jockey and
TV presenter at the time) and I never heard a whisper about him or any kind of inappropriate behavior at the hospital via the
hospitals gossip grapevine. He lived in a penthouse apartment on the edge of Roundhay Park, less than 10 minutes walk from where
I lived.
I am very sceptical about the allegations and think they had a lot to do with compensation culture.
Incidentally I did not even like the guy when he was alive and was certainly not a fan.
This video report is presented by Jon Snow whom I knew personally as a student radical at the University of Liverpool circa
1970 in the days when I had long hair and he was doing an undergraduate degree in law.
Further to my earlier comment about the Jimmy Savile and Carl Beech pedophile scandals in
England, I would up today to find this really excellent article written by barrister Matthew
Scott that gives an excellent summary of the whole shebang, that would be of great interest
to anyone who wants to know more.
"... No publicly released details should be naively accepted. For example, it makes no sense to me that he just happened to be flying back to the US. I assume he was effectively renditioned. ..."
"... Acosta is anything but a mystery. He was told to make this go away. You'll note that no one asked Robert Mueller about the case when he testified last week even though he was FBI Director at the time. Maybe he was suffering from dementia back then too! ..."
A few comments on Epstein. First, exercise some common sense. The timing of the resuscitation
of his case is anything but coincidental. Whomever made that happen -- like flipping a light
switch -- is sending a message and applying leverage. My guess would be in the context of the
conspiracy against the duly elected POTUS. The malefactors will take some hostages as they're
exposed and indicted.
No publicly released details should be naively accepted. For example, it makes no sense to
me that he just happened to be flying back to the US. I assume he was effectively
renditioned.
Acosta is anything but a mystery. He was told to make this go away. You'll note that no
one asked Robert Mueller about the case when he testified last week even though he was FBI
Director at the time. Maybe he was suffering from dementia back then too!
All I know is that I correctly predicted right after Epstein's arrest that Weissmann and
the other Mueller staff wouldn't testify behind closed doors as they were scheduled to.
Mueller's testimony was delayed for a week. In my view to arrange a deal so that he wasn't
asked anything about this under oath and to otherwise act like he could no longer knew how
tie his shoes.
That said, it really is a fool's errand to try to find out a high level play like this.
Usually there are many moving parts.
it is quite intriguing that so many of these cases involve the sort of criminal or
sexual misbehavior that would be ideally suited for blackmailing powerful individuals who
are less likely to be vulnerable to other influences. So perhaps many of the elected
officials situated at the top of our democratic system merely reign as political puppets,
dancing to invisible strings.
I would invite Ron Unz and readers to look up the recent case of a Mark W. Levin
(b.1944 or '45). He has a murky background, but by the 2000s was apparently involved closely
with some outer-tier DC organizations and by the 2010s at a small DC graduate school aimed at
aspiring intelligence agents.
Levin pressured young men for sex, used blackmail and threats, though the stick was mixed
in with carrots. In a word, he appeared to be part of an operation with some striking
similarities to the kinds of political blackmail operations (or the gaining of 'compromised'
people) alleged/proposed in this article.
The Mark W. Levin story was reported in mainstream media (see some excerpts, below; Google
or Bing or DuckDuckGo for much more), but there are some questions have deserved asking since
the scandal broke in spring 2017, such as: What was the source of Levin's money, with which
he paid for some students' tuition? Do we know for sure that Levin was "acting alone"? Did he
have any political objectives? The story was fairly extensively reported on, but I don't
think any of these questions were answered.
It's possible Mark W. Levin was just a lone, sick con-artist acting alone for
homosexual-gratification and power, which is what the media depicted him as. It is also
possible that he really was (at least at one time) part of a blackmail operation, and that
after years of service he finally went down or was discarded, messily (a lawsuit against him
was made public in spring 2017).
This is really a small-time case compared to Epstein, but it may be useful for comparative
purposes.
Excerpts from some press reports in the case:
[Hide MORE]
In the late 1990s, Levin began attending the institute's public lectures. Then he
started handing over checks to pay for the tuitions of certain students, though the source
of the money was a mystery
By late 2012, the alleged victim said, Levin told him that if he wanted to remain a
candidate for Levin's covert group, he needed to avoid marriage, children, sexually
transmitted diseases and relationships with Muslim women. Levin warned him, he said, that
his "guys" would constantly watch him and that if he didn't follow instructions, he would
be blacklisted from government jobs.
Levin began inviting his protege back to his Arlington apartment building to practice
drawing a weapon – shirtless. Soon, the man said, Levin began fondling him and giving
him prostate exams, telling him the inspections were key to his recruitment. Levin also
bathed him in the shower under the pretext of helping him with his hygiene, according to
the alleged victims' lawsuit [ ]
Although Levin told him that he was free to refuse, the Arlington man said he did not
want to imperil his candidacy for the clandestine organization or risk losing out on
government jobs.
When the Falls Church man applied for his internship in July 2016, Levin told him "The
Watchers" or "my guys" had been surveilling him.
"Then, Mark told me: 'I've killed 38 people. We have people killed all the time. And we
cover our tracks,' " he said. "I was intimidated."
John Doe recalls following Levin's instructions him to masturbate and ejaculate on his
own stomach.
"Levin proceeded to play with the semen on Mr. Doe's stomach, and then informed Mr. Doe
that his semen output was insufficient and could have damaging effects on Mr. Doe's
'candidacy,' and this exercise would therefore need to be repeated in the future," the
complaint states.
Though the men say they found such treatment degrading, they say they trusted Levin's
credentials and believed his threats, some veiled and some explicit, about his ability to
harm them.
Similar rumors swirl around events much farther back in history as well, sometimes with
enormous consequences. Well-placed contemporary sources have claimed that Samuel Untermyer, a
wealthy Jewish lawyer, purchased the secret correspondence between Woodrow Wilson and his
longtime mistress, and that the existence of that powerful leverage may have been an
important factor behind Wilson's astonishingly rapid rise from president of Princeton in 1910
to governor of New Jersey in 1911 to president of the United States in 1912. Once in office,
Wilson signed the controversial legislation establishing the Federal Reserve system in 1913
and also named Louis Brandeis as the first Jewish member of the U.S. Supreme Court despite
the public opposition of nearly our entire legal establishment. Wilson's swiftly changing
views on American involvement in the First World War may also have influenced by such
personal pressures rather than solely determined by his perceptions of the national
interest
When writing of the Protocols in the "International Jew" Henry Ford discussed the blackmail
issue, referring anonymously to three political figures, one of whom was clearly Wilson, that
were then under control of the hidden hand. Don't know who the other two were.
Re Wilson and Untermyer, my understanding was that Unternyer simultaneously represented Mrs.
Peck, the wife of one of Wilson's fellow professors with who Wilson had an affair, in a
(potential) alienation of affections claim against Wilson, and represented Wilson in the same
matter, and supplied the money to Wilson to settle the claim, thereby cementing control over
him. (Don't remember where I read this.)
Re the pedophilia issue, don't rule out that there is an element of Evil involved in
this.
What a prime example of presstitution this article by certain Matthew Scott. https://quillette.com/2019/07/25/the-many-lies-of-carl-beech/
Here is the presstitute's coup de force -- Russia! Antisemitism!! – what else? Not a
word about the decades-long coverup of the horrific abuse of British children by the
pedophilic "elites" instead Matthew Scott focuses on malicious smear of a messenger.
Beech's targets were mainly "establishment" figures. Only one, the former Labour MP
Greville Janner, was from the Labour Party, and his prominent position within the British
Jewish community and his support for Israel made him, like Lord Brittan, a perfect target
for the antisemitic agitators who gleefully climbed aboard Beech's bandwagon.
A Russian government energetically promoting [?] "anti-establishment" movements all over
Europe was not about to miss an opportunity like this. George Galloway, used his platform
as a presenter on the Russian state broadcaster RT.com to promote Beech's claims.
The unwelcome truth:
Greville Ewan Janner, Baron Janner of Braunstone, QC was a British politician, barrister
and writer who was alleged to have abused vulnerable children, but died before court
proceedings could formally establish the facts. He was an MP until 1997, and then elevated
to the House of Lords. He was associated with a number of Jewish organizations including
the Board of Deputies of British Jews, of which he was chairman from 1978 to 1984, and was
later prominent in the field of education about the Holocaust.
Allegations that he had sexually abused children first emerged publicly in 1991, but
Janner denied them and no action was taken. The accusations re-emerged shortly before
Janner's death, and although the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) considered that there was
enough evidence to merit prosecution, they decided that it would not be in the public
interest as Janner had been diagnosed as suffering from dementia.
Leon Brittan, the former Home Secretary, was long accused of covering up a Westminster
child-sex ring. Now that he's died, authorities say he was a suspect as well.
"England: Land of Royals, Tea and Horrific Pedophilia
Coverupshttps:"//time.com/2974381/england-land-of-royals-tea-and-horrific-pedophilia-coverups/
politicians with links to Margaret Thatcher's government sexually abused vulnerable
children in the 1980s and hid the truth for decades through their "chumocracy."
Most notoriously of all, Sir Jimmy Savile, a BBC children's television presenter feted
by the Royal Family and Downing Street, abused 450 victims, mostly boys and girls as young
as eight over 50 years.
Lord Brittan, the Home Secretary to whom Dickens handed his dossier, told reporters he
could not recall anything about it. But last week Lord Brittan issued a statement
remembering that he had received the dossier and had asked his officials to study its
contents. Over the weekend it emerged that Lord Brittan had been interviewed as a suspect
in the rape of a 19-year-old in 1967..
I wonder how Eisenhower was persuaded to permit the 1953 coup in Iran.
The British wanted to preserve BP's oil concessions in Iran, but MI6 was not powerful
enough to stage a coup without help from the CIA. So the Brits pretended that Mosaddegh
leaned towards the Soviets, and the Americans pretended to believe them.
After the coup, the Shah's government transferred the majority of BP's rights to American
oil companies. It would have been much better for the Brits if they had done a deal with
Mosaddegh.
@James N. Kennett 1952: Mosaddeq Nationalization of Iran's Oil Industry Leads to Coup
Time Magazine's Man of the Year cover for 1951. Mohammad Mosaddeq
]
Iranian President Mohammad Mosaddeq moves to nationalize the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company in
order to ensure that more oil profits remain in Iran. His efforts to democratize Iran had
already earned him being named Time Magazine's Man of the Year for 1951. After he
nationalizes it, Mosaddeq realizes that Britain may want to overthrow his government, so he
closes the British Embassy and sends all British civilians, including its intelligence
operatives, out of the country.
Britain finds itself with no way to stage the coup it desires, so it approaches the
American intelligence community for help. Their first approach results in abject failure when
Harry Truman throws the British representatives out of his office, stating that "We don't
overthrow governments; the United States has never done this before, and we're not going to
start now."
After Eisenhower is elected in November 1952, the British have a much more receptive
audience, and plans for overthrowing Mosaddeq are produced. The British intelligence
operative who presents the idea to the Eisenhower administration later will write in his
memoirs, "If I ask the Americans to overthrow Mosaddeq in order to rescue a British oil
company, they are not going to respond. This is not an argument that's going to cut much
mustard in Washington. I've got to have a different argument. I'm going to tell the Americans
that Mosaddeq is leading Iran towards Communism." This argument wins over the Eisenhower
administration, who promptly decides to organize a coup in Iran (see August 19, 1953).
[Stephen Kinzer, 7/29/2003]
Entity Tags: Dwight Eisenhower, Harry S. Truman, Muhammad Mosaddeq
Timeline Tags: US confrontation with Iran, US-Iran (1952-1953)
The
OIG conducted an investigation concerning allegations that an AUSA [Assistant United States
Attorney under Eric Holder] was using his government computer to view inappropriate material on
his government computer. The investigation determined that the AUSA routinely viewed adult
content during official duty hours, and that there was at least one image of child pornography
recovered on the AUSA's government computer. The AUSA acknowledged that he had spent a
significant amount of time each day viewing pornography. The U.S. Attorney's Office [Eric
Holder] declined prosecution.
Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa sent a letter to Eric Holder asking why the lawyer was not
punished, and why he remained on the taxpayer dime for at least two months after being caught.
I was able to find
a copy through the Internet Wayback machine.
In 2006, the DHS's Department of Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) ran an
internationally
cooperative investigation into the purchase of subscriptions of child pornography online.
Code-named Project Flicker, the investigation uncovered the identities of 30,000 child porn
subscribers in 132 different nations. Some 250 of these identities belonged to civilian and
military employees of the U.S. Defense Department, who gave their real names and purchased the
porn with government .mil email addresses -- some with the highest security clearances
available. In response, the Pentagon's Department of Criminal Investigative Services (DCIS)
cross-referenced ICE's list with current employment roles and began a series of
prosecutions.
A DCIS
report from July 2010 shows that 30 of these individuals were investigated, despite
uncovering a new total of
264 Defense employees and contractors who had purchased child pornography online. 13 had
Top Secret security clearance. 8 had NATO Secret security clearance. 42 had Secret security
clearance. 4 had Interim Secret security clearance. A total of 76 individuals had Secret
security clearance or higher.
Yet, the investigations were halted entirely after only some 50 total names were
investigated at all, and
just 10 were prosecuted .
A full 212 of the individuals on ICE's list were never even given the most cursory
investigation at all. (Note: The number 5200 keeps popping up in sources covering this -- for
instance,
see here -- and I'm not sure what that number is for: American subscribers? Pentagon email
addresses that weren't confirmed to have actually been used by Pentagon employees, but still
may have been? I'll leave it to anyone interested enough to pursue these individual leads to
see if they can figure that out and get back to us.)
In 2011, the story resurfaced when Anderson Cooper covered it with (again)
Senator Chuck Grassley on CNN. After this, the story appears to have sunk straight back down
into the memory hole yet again. Neither Anderson Cooper nor CNN appear to have given a
follow–up in the five years since the story of the failed investigation first aired --
why not? And why wasn't the first airing enough to lead to mass outrage and calls for action
anyway? See here
for another summary of the squashed investigation from 2014.
Here's a headline from The Washington Times dated June 29, 1989: "Homosexual
prostitution inquiry ensnares VIPs with Reagan, Bush." From the article:
A homosexual prostitution ring is under investigation by federal and District authorities
and includes among its clients key officials of the Reagan and Bush administrations, military
officers, congressional aides and U.S. and foreign businessmen with close social ties to
Washington's political elite, documents obtained by The Washington Times reveal. One of
the ring's high-profile clients was so well-connected, in fact, that he could arrange a
middle-of-the-night tour of the White House for his friends on Sunday, July 3, of last year.
Among the six persons on the extraordinary 1 a.m. tour were two male prostitutes.
Can anyone find a follow-up clarifying what happened as a result of that
investigation? I can't find one here either, though once again I'd appreciate if someone else
was able to.
In the infamous Jimmy Savile sex abuse scandal in Britain, we now know that Savile's
coworkers at the BBC knew that Savile was committing many of his sexual offenses right on
BBC campuses. Paul Gamboccini, who worked next door to him,
said "The expression which I came to associate with Savile's sex partners was . . . the now
politically incorrect 'under-age subnormals'. He targeted the institutionalized, the
hospitalized – and this was known . Why did Jimmy Savile go to hospitals? That's
where the patients were."
Yet, the BBC's official statement was that there
was " no evidence" of misconduct, and they even dismissed claims that
there was a cover-up. But now that Savile's offenses have been confirmed, we know that indeed
there was.
... ... ...
The one most striking line of evidence in the case I will mention is this: the head of the
investigative Franklin committee, Gary Carodori, was convinced that the victim's allegations of
rampant child abuse were true. You can see his interviews with the victims here . On
the way to Chicago to reopen evidence, Carodori met an untimely death when his plane crashed,
and his briefcase of evidence vanished without a trace. According to the Omaha
World-Herald , investigators with the National Transportation Safety Board concluded
that the "scattered wreckage pattern . . . certainly demonstrates that [the plane] did
break up in flight," which in other words means that it didn't fall apart on impact because of
a crash -- the plane crashed because it fell apart.
State Sen. Loran Schmit of Bellwood, chairman of the Franklin legislative committee, told
The Associated Press in Lincoln that he had no doubt there were people who wanted to see
Caradori dead.
"They got their wish," he said. ". . . The question to be answered is whether it was a
coincidence."
Schmit, himself a pilot with 40 years' flying experience, stopped short of saying he thought
Caradori's plane was sabotaged, but he added in an interview with AP:
"A small plane is the perfect thing to use to get at someone. . . . They tend to burn when
they crash, and things get burned, destroyed, scattered. You don't need a bomb. A fuel line
could be tampered with. Any number of possibilities are there."
. . . Scott Caradori of Ralston told the World-Herald that his brother was a careful
flier of more than 15 years who would not take chances, especially with his son on board, and
had never had a mishap.
He said he did not rule out sabotage, given the nature of his brother's work with the
Franklin committee. "Our family received numerous threats over that, telling him to back off,"
he said . . .
... ... ...
Then there's the Dutroux Affair -- a perfect example of the capacity of high–level
pedophiles to destroy investigations by placing the right people in the right positions of
power to protect themselves. In Belgium, a nation of just 10 million people, 350,000 people
took to the streets in an event known as the White March to protest the handling of the case
(in other words, that's approximately 1 out of every 30 citizens of Belgium, including the
elderly and children). Around 1995, multiple young girls began disappearing around the
municipality of Bertrix. Headway in the investigation was finally made when a white van was
reported that the police were able to trace back to Marc Dutroux. Marc Dutroux was a previously
convicted pedophile who was released after serving just a third of his sentence despite the
fact that his own mother had testified to the parole board that he would unquestionably offend again . Though
unemployed and receiving welfare, Dutroux was able to live quite lavishly thanks to selling
children -- he owned seven homes, and used four of them as bases for kidnappings .
But the most disturbing part of this case isn't even the offenses -- it's how deliberately
inept the prosecution was. Police not only investigated Dutroux repeatedly without pressing
charges, they even
reported hearing voices -- and accepted Dutroux's story that the voices came from the
street outside. They ignored a
tip from an informant claiming Dutroux offered him thousands of dollars to participate in a
kidnapping. They even sat on a video tape showing
Dutroux building a makeshift dungeon in his basement, and could have saved the lives of the two
girls who were then being tortured there had they acted on it
Once the case was transferred from police to the courts, the initiative of lead prosecutor
Jean-Marc Conorrette led to the rescue of two girls and the discovery of four bodies.
Conorrette was inexplicably dumped from
the case , and later
broke down in tears in court describing the constant death threats he received while still
on the case. Obviously there were other interested parties, some at least with influence in the
government.
When a parliamentary panel revealed the names of 30 government officials who were
complicit in hiding the misdeeds, none were punished. Nine police
officers were eventually detained, but though a full 100 people in
government, finance, and the media were accused of involvement, no one other than Dutroux
ever made it to jail. (Edit 6:40PM EST 12/24: A friend with connections to intelligence
agencies sent me a message in response to this article to tell me that that this post is a
solid summary of the amount of coverup involved in the Dutroux Affair, despite the overall
conspiratorial leanings of the site itself. He also tells me that the case of
Peter Scully is one that's too little known that has well–documented evidence of
institutional involvement and cover–up.)
In Italy, Alfredo Ormanni who led an investigation into child porn
claimed that a "paedophile lobby that acts in broad daylight and probably with the support,
which" -- he politely added -- he "could consider unwitting, of certain political parties" was
actively disrupting the efforts of his investigation.
In 1987, allegations of
abuse involving dozens of children surfaced at the Presidio military base in San Francisco.
The American Journal of Orthopsychiatry analyzed the victims, and claimed that :
The severity of the trauma for children at the Presidio was immediately manifest in clear
cut symptoms. Before the abuse was exposed, parents had already noticed the following changes
in their children: vaginal discharge, genital soreness, rashes, fear of the dark, sleep
disturbances, nightmares, sexually provocative language, and sexually inappropriate behavior.
In addition, the children were exhibiting other radical changes in behavior, including temper
outbursts, sudden mood shifts, and poor impulse control. All these behavioral symptoms are to
be expected in preschool children who have been molested.
Lt. Col. Michael Aquino, who ended up at the center of the investigation, had previously
appeared on the Oprah
Winfrey show to discuss his views on Satanism (Aquino founded a group called The Temple of
Set).
Records showed that the children were taken on unannounced trips outside the center.
One child positively identified Aquino and his wife, Lilith (known to the kids as 'Mikey'
and 'Shamby'), and was also able to identify the Aquinos' private home and to describe with
considerable accuracy the distinctively satanic interior décor of the house. The young
witness claimed to have been photographed at the Aquinos' home. On August 14, 1987, a search
warrant was served on the house. Confiscated in the raid were numerous videotapes, photographs,
photo albums, photographic negatives, cassette tapes, and name and address books. Also observed
was what appeared to be a soundproof room.
... ... ...
Nonetheless, the case was "
quietly closed " after suspected offenders, including Aquino, were simply moved to
different facilities
And yet again, the leads in these supposedly separate cases come full circle: Michael Aquino
was also linked to the kidnapping of Johnny Gosch in the case of the Franklin scandal
(according to an interview with the boy's
mother , Noreen Gosch).
I'm approaching 5000 words now, so I'm just going to dump some of the other
mainstream–media headlines I found here without further elaboration.
In the UK, MP Tom
Watson confronts PM Cameron in Parliament with evidence of an elite pedophile ring at high
levels ( Video of speech ).
British pedophile ring 'protected by Parliament and Downing Street' ( Belfast Telegraph ) Panic among UK leaders as high-level pedophile network is
covered up: BBC Newsnight program suspended for naming senior Conservative pedophile (
The
Guardian ) Wikileaks cables reveal DynCorp employees purchased child prostitutes in
Afghanistan and the US State Department helped cover it up ( Huffington
Post ) Savile 'had accomplice who would supply girls to sex ring inside BBC' (
The Sun ) Jimmy Savile is the Tip of the Iceberg (This one is a blog , but it references
several worthwhile mainstream sources) France's most notorious serial killer has claimed that
he murdered at least one victim on the orders of highly placed personalities in Toulouse
because of a blackmail threat linked to sadomasochistic orgies involving politicians, judges
and police. ( The Guardian )
Tebbit hints at sex abuse cover-up as pressure over missing files intensifies ( The Guardian ) My Name Is Anneke Lucas and I Was a Sex Slave to Europe's Elite at
Age 6 ( Global Citizen )
For more sources like these, there are collections
here and here and here
-- I share these with the caveat, as always, that I don't necessarily endorse everything there,
but I have found plenty that is useful within them.
To repeat the conclusion I reached earlier: child sex abuse is, without question, a rampant,
institutional, and high-level phenomena. It occurs on a large scale in the highest levels of
power -- in the fields of entertainment, government, and law enforcement -- and members of
these rings have been well-known to gain handles on the relevant positions of power to ensure
their actions are successfully covered up. Whether anything unique or original comes out of
Pizzagate or not, then, my take is that the basic spirit of concern and distrust towards the
elite halls of power that Pizzagaters have demonstrated is their general disposition is
still far closer to the spirit of the truth than the basic attitude of dismissiveness
that such a thing could even occur being demonstrated by those who find it too quick and
easy to dismiss all of Pizzagate in its entirety as nothing more than a hoax -- and I would
stand by this statement even if it turned out that the latter were right.
Given that we know how rampant the problem of institutionalized child sex abuse in upper
levels of power really is, with mounds of unquestioned public evidence stretching back decades
across the world, the amount of evidence it takes to justify suspicion of people in
positions of power drops.
But some question whether it is even appropriate to use words like "evidence" when speaking
of cases like these in reference to Pizzagate. The answer is yes. Logicians call cases like
this "background evidence," which means facts that raise the prior probability that a thing
being alleged could happen, by showing that it does happen, and therefore
increasing the plausibility -- to whatever extent -- that it could have happened in this
particular case. If things like Pizzagate have already happened, then Pizzagate is at least
possibly true as well. If something is actual, that proves that things like it are possible and
thus cannot be simply dismissed as impossible or implausible.
It is important to understand that "evidence" is not the same thing as "proof." For example,
if we know that a man molested every child he had prior to this one, that doesn't prove
that he molested this one. But we would absolutely be interested in knowing that in a court of
law, and specifically it would count as "background evidence" that raises the prior probability
that the claim that he molested this child could be true.
To continue the example, here's what background evidence does: if we know the man has
molested all of his previous children, then we are justified to give increased weight to
whatever direct evidence exists indicating he may have molested this one. If we know the man
has never molested a previous child, then we are justified to give less weight to
whatever direct evidence exists indicating he may have molested this one.
On the other hand, if we knew the child had a history of lying for various reasons, that
wouldn't prove they were lying for those reasons this time too, but it would count as "
background evidence ": relatively speaking, it would cause us to give less
evidentiary weight to the child's statements alone, if those were all we had as evidence.
If the father also molested every child he had previously, those two pieces of background
evidence might basically cancel out. But if we knew the father had never molested any previous
child (background evidence), and we knew the child had a strong history of lying about
similar claims (background evidence), then the two facts put together would suddenly become
enough to make a pretty compelling legal argument all by themselves, even though they have
nothing to do with the specific facts at stake in this specific case, and they do
nothing to deductively refute whatever claims against the father the child might have
made.
In the real world, we often don't have access to the kind of information we would need to
deductively prove or refute things one way or another, so background evidence is sometimes the
only evidence we have to go on, and it is in fact defined as a form of evidence (again,
in court, if you knew that the child had previously made very similar lies and that the father
had never molested a previous child, you would submit that information to the court "as
evidence").
So, whether or not we know high-level sex rings exist, and whether or now we know that they
get covered up, influences how we ought to evaluate the evidentiary relevance of things we do
or do not know when it comes to Pizzagate in particular. You might find similarities between
the way people respond, or in the particular people taking the effort to respond, to Pizzagate
and the way coverups of other cases took place.
For instance, if someone we now know was very active in denying allegations about a case
that later turned out to be true is doing the same in Pizzagate (and for instance, Mark
Thompson of the BBC was credibly accused of helping cover up the Savile scandal, and now
runs the NYT), then we have evidence in the form of recognizing that what's in front of us
fits a certain pattern . Previous cases establish the "patterns" that take place when
one thing or another happen, and therefore influence how we ought to interpret the patterns we
see in front of us in a given case. If the patterns start to match, then that qualifies as
evidence.
So, do high-level sex trafficking rings or organized forms of pedophilia exist in upper
levels of government? How prevalent does it appear to be? As best we can tell, how many of them
are there? How do things tend to go at first when they're exposed? Can we confirm with prior
evidence that they can be and are successfully covered up? All of this directly
influences the likelihood that Pizzagate could be on to something. The more prevalent
these things are, the less overwhelming the direct evidence needs to be to justify concern. The
less prevalent they are, the more overwhelming it needs to be. Just like the history of how
many previous children a man has molested influences how we evaluate the evidence at play when
someone claims he's molesting this one: if he's never done anything of the sort, you're going
to need a lot of evidence before you take the accusation seriously. If you know that he's even
had a history of glancing at child porn, the more of that kind of background evidence you get,
the less direct evidence you need to say that the accusation that he molested this child should
be taken seriously.
Thus, to close, there are two responses we could take to someone who has latched on to a
particular claim involving child sex abuse that turns out not to be accurate: First, we can
call them paranoid idiots and move on with our day, conveniently forgetting about all of the
rampant evil that does in fact exist, comforted by the fact that we could shut someone up for
making us feel uncomfortable -- because, after all, it turns out they actually were wrong about
this particular claim. This appears to be the standard mainstream approach. Second, we can
appreciate the basic human concern that motivates their interest in the subject and point them
in the direction of better evidence for the very thing they're ultimately concerned
about, because the basic thing they are concerned about -- institutionalized child sex abuse in
upper reaches of power -- absolutely is, in fact, real, whether they have the exact details
right or not.
The dry intelligence of skeptics is utterly and entirely useless if it isn't paired with a
natural human drive to care . But the passion of the concerned just might be
invaluable if only it can be paired with a more accurate picture of the facts. And
this is the basic reason why some people have misread the intentions behind this series,
even despite the clarity of my direct words stating that -- again:
@Kevin Barrett Jack Ruby did not kill Oswald "for the Jews." He was the Mafia capo of
Dallas and was following orders in Plan B when two previous attempts to kill Oswald failed.
He tried to get out of it, but had no choice but to follow orders that he could not refuse.
Philip Zelikow, effectively the sole author of that
work of fiction known as the 9/11 Commission Report (which he completed in chapter
outline before the Commission even convened) is a history professor and self-styled expert in
"the creation and maintenance of public myths." Zelikow defines public myths as "beliefs (1)
thought to be true (although not necessarily known to be true with certainty), and (2) shared
in common within the relevant political community." The public myths he is most interested in
are those that most powerfully shape political perception and behavior; the first example he
gives is the myth of the dastardly Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, which transformed
America from an isolationist republic to an interventionist empire.
Anyone who has studied the alternative literature on such events as Pearl Harbor, the
Kennedy assassinations, and 9/11 knows that any overwhelmingly powerful mythic event that
changes public perceptions and, in so doing, changes history, ought to be greeted with profound
suspicion and subjected to the most painstaking scrutiny. As Philip Zelikow wrote in
a 1998 Foreign Affairs article , a catastrophic terror attack on America, such as
the destruction of the World Trade Center, would be a "transforming event," a "watershed event
in American history" that would, "like Pearl Harbor divide our past and future into a before
and after." The "after" would feature "draconian measures, scaling back civil liberties,
allowing wider surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects, and use of deadly force."
Zelikow's 2001 false flag operation would achieve all that and more. It succeeded in demonizing
opposition to Zionism and empire, and to tyranny in general, by associating resistance with the
fearsome image of a scary looking guy sporting an easily-identifiable villain's beard.
"... Besides preventing social movements from undertaking independent political activity to their left, the Democrats have been adept at killing social movements altogether. They have done – and continue to do – this in four key ways: ..."
"... i) inducing "progressive" movement activists (e.g. Medea Benjamin of Code Pink and the leaders of Moveon.org and United for Peace and Justice today) to focus scarce resources on electing and defending capitalist politicians who are certain to betray peaceful- and populist-sounding campaign promises upon the attainment of power; ..."
"... (ii) pressuring activists to "rein in their movements, thereby undercutting the potential for struggle from below;" ..."
"... (iii) using material and social (status) incentives to buy off social movement leaders; ..."
"... iv) feeding a pervasive sense of futility regarding activity against the dominant social and political order, with its business party duopoly. ..."
"... It is not broken. It is fixed. Against us. ..."
"... The militarization of US economy and society underscores your scenario. By being part of the war coalition, the Democratic party, as now constituted, doesn't have to win any presidential elections. The purpose of the Democratic party is to diffuse public dissent in an orderly fashion. This allows the war machine to grind on and the politicians are paid handsomely for their efforts. ..."
"... By joining the war coalition, the Democrats only have leverage over Republicans if the majority of citizens get "uppity" and start demanding social concessions. Democrats put down the revolt by subterfuge, which is less costly and allows the fiction of American Democracy and freedom to persist for a while longer. Republicans, while preferring more overt methods of repressing the working class, allow the fiction to continue because their support for authoritarian principles can stay hidden in the background. ..."
"... When this political theatre in the US finally reaches its end date, what lies behind the curtain will surely shock most of the population and I have little faith that the citizenry are prepared to deal with the consequences. A society of feckless consumers is little prepared to deal with hard core imperialists who's time has reached its end. ..."
"... This wrath of frustrated Imperialists will be turned upon the citizenry ..."
Mainstream Dems are performing their role very well. Most likely I am preaching to the choir. But anyways, here is a review
of Lance Selfa's book "Democrats: a critical history" by Paul Street :
Besides preventing social movements from undertaking independent political activity to their left, the Democrats have
been adept at killing social movements altogether. They have done – and continue to do – this in four key ways:
i) inducing "progressive" movement activists (e.g. Medea Benjamin of Code Pink and the leaders of Moveon.org and United
for Peace and Justice today) to focus scarce resources on electing and defending capitalist politicians who are certain to
betray peaceful- and populist-sounding campaign promises upon the attainment of power;
(ii) pressuring activists to "rein in their movements, thereby undercutting the potential for struggle from below;"
(iii) using material and social (status) incentives to buy off social movement leaders;
iv) feeding a pervasive sense of futility regarding activity against the dominant social and political order, with its
business party duopoly.
The militarization of US economy and society underscores your scenario. By being part of the war coalition, the Democratic
party, as now constituted, doesn't have to win any presidential elections. The purpose of the Democratic party is to diffuse public
dissent in an orderly fashion. This allows the war machine to grind on and the politicians are paid handsomely for their efforts.
By joining the war coalition, the Democrats only have leverage over Republicans if the majority of citizens get "uppity"
and start demanding social concessions. Democrats put down the revolt by subterfuge, which is less costly and allows the fiction
of American Democracy and freedom to persist for a while longer. Republicans, while preferring more overt methods of repressing
the working class, allow the fiction to continue because their support for authoritarian principles can stay hidden in the background.
I have little faith in my fellow citizens as the majority are too brainwashed to see the danger of this political theatre.
Most ignore politics, while those that do show an interest exercise that effort mainly by supporting whatever faction they belong.
Larger issues and connections between current events remain a mystery to them as a result.
Military defeat seems the only means to break this cycle. Democrats, being the fake peaceniks that they are, will be more than
happy to defer to their more authoritarian Republican counterparts when dealing with issues concerning war and peace. Look no
further than Tulsi Gabbard's treatment in the party. The question is really should the country continue down this Imperialist
path.
In one sense, economic recession will be the least of our problems in the future. When this political theatre in the US
finally reaches its end date, what lies behind the curtain will surely shock most of the population and I have little faith that
the citizenry are prepared to deal with the consequences. A society of feckless consumers is little prepared to deal with hard
core imperialists who's time has reached its end.
This wrath of frustrated Imperialists will be turned upon the citizenry.
The purpose of the "Clintonized" Democratic Party is to diffuse public dissent to neoliberal rule in an orderly fashion. The
militarization of US economy and society means that by joining the war coalition, the Democratic party doesn't have to win any presidential
elections to remain in power. Because military-industrial complex rules the country.
Yes Clinton neoliberals want to stay in control and derail Sanders, much like they did in 2016. Biden and Harris are Clinton faction
Trojan horses to accomplish that. But times changed and they might have to agree on Warren inread of Biden of Harris.
Notable quotes:
"... Trump fought the swamp, and the swamp won. Trump campaigned on ending our stupid pointless wars and spending that money on ourselves – and it looked at first like he might actually deliver (how RACIST of the man!) but not to worry, he is now surrounded by uber hawks and the defense industry dollars are continuing to flow. Which the Democrats are fine with. ..."
"... Trump campaigned on a populist platform, but once elected the only thing he really pushed for was a big juicy tax cut for himself and his billionaire buddies – which the Democrats are fine with (how come they can easily block attempts to stop the flow of cheap labor across the southern border, but not block massive giveaway tax cuts to the super rich? Because they have their priorities). ..."
"... So yeah, Trump is governing a lot like Hilary Clinton would have. ..."
"... I think it's much more likely that a Sanders victory would see the Clintonistas digging even further into the underbelly of the Democratic Party. There they would covertly and overtly sabotage Sanders, brief against him in the press and weaken, corrupt and hamstring any legislation that he proposes ..."
"... electing Sanders can not be the endgame, only the beginning. I think Nax is completely right that a Sanders win would bring on the full wrath of all its opponents. Then the real battle would begin. ..."
"... The notion that real change could happen in this country by winning an election or two is naive in the extreme. But that doesn't make it impossible. ..."
"... Lots of people hired by the Clintons, Obama, Rahm Emanuel, Cuomo, etc. will have to be defenestrated. Lose their public sector jobs, if not outright charged with crimes. No one must be left in a position to hurt you after the election. Anyone on the "other side" must lose all power or ability to damage you, except those too weak. These people can be turned and used by you; they can be kept in line with fear. But all the leaders must go. ..."
"... In order for Sanders to survive the onslaught that will surely come, he must have a jobs program ready to go on day one of his administration- and competent people committed to his cause ready to cary out the plan. ..."
"... Besides preventing social movements from undertaking independent political activity to their left, the Democrats have been adept at killing social movements altogether. They have done – and continue to do – this in four key ways: ..."
"... i) inducing "progressive" movement activists (e.g. Medea Benjamin of Code Pink and the leaders of Moveon.org and United for Peace and Justice today) to focus scarce resources on electing and defending capitalist politicians who are certain to betray peaceful- and populist-sounding campaign promises upon the attainment of power; ..."
"... (ii) pressuring activists to "rein in their movements, thereby undercutting the potential for struggle from below;" ..."
"... (iii) using material and social (status) incentives to buy off social movement leaders; ..."
"... iv) feeding a pervasive sense of futility regarding activity against the dominant social and political order, with its business party duopoly. ..."
"... It is not broken. It is fixed. Against us. ..."
"... Obama spent tens of trillions of dollars saving Wall Street – at the expense of Main Street – so that nothing got resolved about the problems that caused the crash in the first place. Trump's policies are doubling down on these problems so there is going to be a major disruption coming down the track. A major recession perhaps or maybe even worse. ..."
"... The militarization of US economy and society underscores your scenario. By being part of the war coalition, the Democratic party, as now constituted, doesn't have to win any presidential elections. The purpose of the Democratic party is to diffuse public dissent in an orderly fashion. This allows the war machine to grind on and the politicians are paid handsomely for their efforts. ..."
"... By joining the war coalition, the Democrats only have leverage over Republicans if the majority of citizens get "uppity" and start demanding social concessions. Democrats put down the revolt by subterfuge, which is less costly and allows the fiction of American Democracy and freedom to persist for a while longer. Republicans, while preferring more overt methods of repressing the working class, allow the fiction to continue because their support for authoritarian principles can stay hidden in the background. ..."
"... When this political theatre in the US finally reaches its end date, what lies behind the curtain will surely shock most of the population and I have little faith that the citizenry are prepared to deal with the consequences. A society of feckless consumers is little prepared to deal with hard core imperialists who's time has reached its end. ..."
"... This wrath of frustrated Imperialists will be turned upon the citizenry ..."
"... By owning the means of production, the Oligarchs will be able to produce the machinery of oppression without the resort to 'money.' In revolutionary times, the most valuable commodity would be flying lead. ..."
"... Could that be why "our" three-letter agencies have been stocking up on that substance for awhile, now? ..."
"... " The purpose of the Democratic Party is to diffuse public dissent in an orderly fashion." ..."
"... Yes, this election is starting to remind me of 2004. High-up Dems, believing they're playing the long game, sacrifice the election to maintain standing with big biz donors. ..."
"... Sadly, when Sanders speaks of a "revolution", and when he is referred to as a revolutionary, while at the same time accepting that the Democratic Party is a Party of the top 10%, puts into context just how low the bar is for a political revolution in America. ..."
"... actual democracy is an impediment to those who wield power in today's America, and in that respect the class war continues to be waged, primarily through divisive social issues to divert our attention from the looting being done by and for the rich and the decline in opportunity and economic security for everyone else. ..."
"... the Democratic Party consultant class, I call them leeches, is fighting for its power at the expense of the party and the country. ..."
"... The DLC-type New Democrats (corporatists) have been working to destroy New Deal Democrats and policies as a force in the party. The New Deal Democrats brought in bank regulations, social security, medicare, the voting rights act, restraint on financial predation, and various economic protections for the little-guy and for Main Street businesses. ..."
"... The DLC Dems have brought deregulation of the banks and financial sector, an attempt to cut social security, expansion of prisons, tax cuts for corporations and the billionaires, the return of monopoly power, and the economic squeeze on Main Street businesses forced to compete with monopolies. ..."
That 2020 existential battle, of course, is always cast as between the Democrats and the Republicans.
But there's another existential battle going on, one that will occur before the main event -- the battle for control of the Democratic
Party. In the long run, that battle may turn out to be more important than the one that immediately follows it.
... ... ...
Before mainstream Democrats can begin the "existential battle" with the forces of Trump and Republicanism, they have to win the
existential battle against the force that wants to force change on their own party.
They're engaged in that battle today, and it seems almost all of the "liberal media," sensing the existential nature of the threat,
is helping them win it. Katie Halper, in a second perceptive piece on the media's obvious anti-Sanders bias, "
MSNBC's Anti-Sanders
Bias Is Getting Truly Ridiculous ," writes: "When MSNBC legal analyst Mimi Rocah (
7/21/19 ) said that Bernie Sanders 'made [her] skin crawl,'
though she 'can't even identify for you what exactly it is,' she was just expressing more overtly the
anti-Sanders bias that pervades the network."
... ... ...
MSNBC is clearly acting as a messaging arm of the Democratic Party mainstream in its battle with progressives in general and Sanders
in particular, and Zerlina Maxwell, who's been variously employed by that mainstream, from her work with Clinton to her work on MSNBC,
is an agent in that effort.
Let me repeat what Matt Taibbi wrote: " [Sanders'] election would mean a complete overhaul of the Democratic Party, forcing
everyone who ever worked for a Clinton to look toward the private sector. "
Agreed. Trump fought the swamp, and the swamp won. Trump campaigned on ending our stupid pointless wars and spending that
money on ourselves – and it looked at first like he might actually deliver (how RACIST of the man!) but not to worry, he is now
surrounded by uber hawks and the defense industry dollars are continuing to flow. Which the Democrats are fine with.
Trump campaigned on enforcing the laws against illegal immigration and limiting legal immigration, but he's now pretty much
given up, the southern border is open full "Camp of the Saints" style and he's pushing for more legal 'guest' workers to satisfy
the corporate demands for cheap labor – and the Democrats are for this (though Sanders started to object back in 2015 before he
was beaten down).
Trump campaigned on a populist platform, but once elected the only thing he really pushed for was a big juicy tax cut for
himself and his billionaire buddies – which the Democrats are fine with (how come they can easily block attempts to stop the flow
of cheap labor across the southern border, but not block massive giveaway tax cuts to the super rich? Because they have their
priorities).
Soon I expect that Trump will propose massive regressive tax increases on the working class – which of course the Democrats
will be fine with ('to save the planet').
So yeah, Trump is governing a lot like Hilary Clinton would have.
And elections are pretty much pointless. Even if Sanders does win, he'll get beaten down faster even than Trump was.
I think people have a hard time with real inflection points. Most of life uses more short-term linear decision making. But
at inflection points we have multiple possibilities that turn into rather surprising turns of events, such as Brexit and Trump.
We still have people saying in the UK – "but they wouldn't do that!" The hell "they" won't. Norms are thrown out of the window
and people start realising how wide the options are. This is not positive or negative. Just change or transformation.
That is my philosophical way of agreeing with you! It is easy to point at the hostility of the mainstream media and DNC as
there being no way for Sanders to win. After all in 2004, look what the media and DNC did to Howard Dean. But people weren't dying
then like they are now. The "Great Recession" wasn't on anyone's radar. People felt rich, like everything would be fine. We are
not in that situation – the facts on the ground are so wildly different that the DNC and mainstream media will find it hard to
stay in control.
I think it's much more likely that a Sanders victory would see the Clintonistas digging even further into the underbelly
of the Democratic Party. There they would covertly and overtly sabotage Sanders, brief against him in the press and weaken, corrupt
and hamstring any legislation that he proposes.
If Sanders should win against Trump expect the establishment to go into full revolt. Capital strike, mass layoffs, federal
reserve hiking interest rates to induce a recession, a rotating cast of Democrats siding with Republicans to block legislation,
press comparing him to worse than Carter before he even takes office and vilifying him all day every day.
I wouldn't be shocked to see Israel and the Saudis generate a crisis in, for example, Iran so Sanders either bends the knee
to the neocons or gets to be portrayed as a cowardly failure for abandoning our 'allies' for the rest of his term.
You've just convinced me that the American Experiment is doomed. No one else but Sanders can pull America out of its long slow
death spiral and your litany of the tactics of subversion of his presidency is persuasive that even in the event of his electoral
victory, there will be no changing of the national direction.
I'm reading a series of essays by Morris Berman in his book "Are We There Yet". A lot of critics complain that he is too much
the pessimist, but he presents some good arguments, dark though they may be, that the American Experiment was doomed from the
start due to the inherent flaw of Every Man For Himself and its "get mine and the hell with everybody else" attitude that has
been a part of the experiment from the beginning.
He is absolutely right about one thing, we are a country strongly based on hustling for money as much or more than anything
else, and both Trump and the Clintons are classic examples of this, and why the country often gets the leaders it deserves.
That's why I believe that we need people like Sanders and Gabbard in the Oval Office. It is also why I believe that should
either end up even getting close, Nax is correct. Those with power in this country will not accept the results and will do whatever
is necessary to subvert them, and the Voter will buy that subversion hook, line, and sinker.
No. The point is that electing Sanders can not be the endgame, only the beginning. I think Nax is completely right that
a Sanders win would bring on the full wrath of all its opponents. Then the real battle would begin.
The notion that real change could happen in this country by winning an election or two is naive in the extreme. But that
doesn't make it impossible.
Lots of people hired by the Clintons, Obama, Rahm Emanuel, Cuomo, etc. will have to be defenestrated. Lose their public
sector jobs, if not outright charged with crimes. No one must be left in a position to hurt you after the election. Anyone on
the "other side" must lose all power or ability to damage you, except those too weak. These people can be turned and used by you;
they can be kept in line with fear. But all the leaders must go.
In order for Sanders to survive the onslaught that will surely come, he must have a jobs program ready to go on day one
of his administration- and competent people committed to his cause ready to cary out the plan.
The high ground is being able to express a new vision for the common good, 24/7, and do something to bring it about. You win
even if you suffer losses.
Without that, life in the USA will become very disruptive to say the least.
Mainstream Dems are performing their role very well. Most likely I am preaching to the choir. But anyways, here is a review
of Lance Selfa's book "Democrats: a critical history" by Paul Street :
Besides preventing social movements from undertaking independent political activity to their left, the Democrats have
been adept at killing social movements altogether. They have done – and continue to do – this in four key ways:
i) inducing "progressive" movement activists (e.g. Medea Benjamin of Code Pink and the leaders of Moveon.org and United
for Peace and Justice today) to focus scarce resources on electing and defending capitalist politicians who are certain to
betray peaceful- and populist-sounding campaign promises upon the attainment of power;
(ii) pressuring activists to "rein in their movements, thereby undercutting the potential for struggle from below;"
(iii) using material and social (status) incentives to buy off social movement leaders;
iv) feeding a pervasive sense of futility regarding activity against the dominant social and political order, with its
business party duopoly.
Pretty bad optics on MSNBC's part being unable to do simple numbers and I can fully believe that their motto starts with the
words "This is who we are". Jimmy Dore has put out a few videos on how bad MSNBC has been towards Bernie and Progressives lately
so it is becoming pretty blatant. Just spitballing a loose theory here but perhaps the Democrats have decided on a "poisoned chalice"
strategy and do want not to win in 2020.
After 2008 the whole economy should have had a major re-set but Obama spent tens of trillions of dollars saving Wall Street
– at the expense of Main Street – so that nothing got resolved about the problems that caused the crash in the first place. Trump's
policies are doubling down on these problems so there is going to be a major disruption coming down the track. A major recession
perhaps or maybe even worse.
Point is that perhaps the Democrats have calculated that it would be best for them to leave the Republicans in power to own
this crash which will help them long term. And this explains why most of those democrat candidates look like they have fallen
out of a clown car. The ones capable of going head to head with Trump are sidelined while their weakest candidates are pushed
forward – people like Biden and Harris. Just a theory mind.
The militarization of US economy and society underscores your scenario. By being part of the war coalition, the Democratic
party, as now constituted, doesn't have to win any presidential elections. The purpose of the Democratic party is to diffuse public
dissent in an orderly fashion. This allows the war machine to grind on and the politicians are paid handsomely for their efforts.
By joining the war coalition, the Democrats only have leverage over Republicans if the majority of citizens get "uppity"
and start demanding social concessions. Democrats put down the revolt by subterfuge, which is less costly and allows the fiction
of American Democracy and freedom to persist for a while longer. Republicans, while preferring more overt methods of repressing
the working class, allow the fiction to continue because their support for authoritarian principles can stay hidden in the background.
I have little faith in my fellow citizens as the majority are too brainwashed to see the danger of this political theatre.
Most ignore politics, while those that do show an interest exercise that effort mainly by supporting whatever faction they belong.
Larger issues and connections between current events remain a mystery to them as a result.
Military defeat seems the only means to break this cycle. Democrats, being the fake peaceniks that they are, will be more than
happy to defer to their more authoritarian Republican counterparts when dealing with issues concerning war and peace. Look no
further than Tulsi Gabbard's treatment in the party. The question is really should the country continue down this Imperialist
path.
In one sense, economic recession will be the least of our problems in the future. When this political theatre in the US
finally reaches its end date, what lies behind the curtain will surely shock most of the population and I have little faith that
the citizenry are prepared to deal with the consequences. A society of feckless consumers is little prepared to deal with hard
core imperialists who's time has reached its end.
This wrath of frustrated Imperialists will be turned upon the citizenry.
By owning the means of production, the Oligarchs will be able to produce the machinery of oppression without the resort
to 'money.'
In revolutionary times, the most valuable commodity would be flying lead.
If the nation wishes true deliverance, not just from Trump and Republicans, but from the painful state that got Trump elected
in the first place, it will first have to believe in a savior.
No, no, no, no, no. No oooshy religion, which is part of what got us into this mess. Cities on a hill. The Exceptional Nation(tm).
Obligatory burbling of Amazing Grace. Assumptions that everyone is a Methodist. And after Deliverance, the U S of A will be magically
re-virginated (for the umpteenth time), pure and worthy of Manifest Destiny once again.
If you want to be saved, stick to your own church. Stop dragging it into the public sphere. This absurd and sloppy religious
language is part of the problem. At the very least it is kitsch. At its worst it leads us to bomb Muslim nations and engage in
"Crusades."
Other than that, the article makes some important points. In a year or so, there will be a lot of comments here on whether
or not to vote for the pre-failed Democratic candidate, once the Party dumps Bernie Sanders. There is no requirement of voting
for the Democrats, unless you truly do believe that they will bring the Deliverance (and untarnish your tarnished virtue). Vote
your conscience. Not who Nate Silver indicates.
Yes, this election is starting to remind me of 2004. High-up Dems, believing they're playing the long game, sacrifice the
election to maintain standing with big biz donors. The leading issue of the day (Iraq/GWOT/Patriot Act) was erased from mainstream
US politics and has been since. Don't for a minute think they won't do a similar thing now. Big donors don't particularly fear
Trump, nor a 6-3 conservative supreme court, nor a Bolton state dept, nor a racist DHS/ICE – those are not money issues for them.
Sadly, when Sanders speaks of a "revolution", and when he is referred to as a revolutionary, while at the same time accepting
that the Democratic Party is a Party of the top 10%, puts into context just how low the bar is for a political revolution in America.
The candidate who would fight and would govern for the 90% of Americans is a revolutionary.
The fact that it can be said as a given that neither major Party is being run specifically to serve the vast majority of our
country is itself an admission for that the class war begun by Reagan has been won, in more of a silent coup, and the rich have
control of our nation.
Sadly, actual democracy is an impediment to those who wield power in today's America, and in that respect the class war
continues to be waged, primarily through divisive social issues to divert our attention from the looting being done by and for
the rich and the decline in opportunity and economic security for everyone else.
Sanders is considered a revolutionary merely for stating the obvious, stating the truth. That is what makes him dangerous to
those that run the Democratic Party, and more broadly those who run this nation.
Sanders would do better to cast himself not as a revolutionary, but as a person of the people, with the belief that good government
does not favor the wants of the richest over the needs of our country. That is what makes him a threat. To the rich unseen who
hold power, to the Republican Party, and to some Democrats.
I agree with the thesis here, and confess to being puzzled by comments on LGM (for example) politics threads of the ilk "I'm
with Warren but am good with Buttigieg too," or "I'm with Sanders but am good with Harris, too," etc.
I love reading Taibbi, but in
his article , that quote, " Sanders is the revolutionary. His election would mean a complete overhaul of the Democratic
Party, forcing everyone who ever worked for a Clinton to look toward the private sector ," should be the lede, and its buried
2/3 of the way down.
This primary season is about how the Democratic Party consultant class, I call them leeches, is fighting for its power
at the expense of the party and the country.
Yves writes: it is unfortunate that this struggle is being personified, as in too often treated by the media and political
operatives as being about Sanders.
I agree. Sanders represents the continuing New Deal-type policies. The DLC-type New Democrats (corporatists) have been
working to destroy New Deal Democrats and policies as a force in the party. The New Deal Democrats brought in bank regulations,
social security, medicare, the voting rights act, restraint on financial predation, and various economic protections for the little-guy
and for Main Street businesses.
The DLC Dems have brought deregulation of the banks and financial sector, an attempt to cut social security, expansion
of prisons, tax cuts for corporations and the billionaires, the return of monopoly power, and the economic squeeze on Main Street
businesses forced to compete with monopolies.
The MSM won't talk about any of the programmatic differences between the two sides. The MSM won't recognize the New Deal style
Democratic voters even exist; the New Deal wing voters are quickly labeled 'deplorable' instead voters with competing economic
policies to the current economic policies.
So, we're left with the MSM focusing on personalities to avoid talking about the real policy differences, imo.
When Bernie talks about a revolution, he explains how it must be from the grassroots, from the bottom up. If he manages to
get elected, his supporters have to make sure they get behind the politicians who also support him and, if they don't, get rid
of them.
Without continuing mass protests, nothing is going to happen. Other countries have figured this out but Americans remain clueless.
I don't use Social Media myself, but near the end of the 2016 presidential campaign, I
gradually began seeing more and more Trump supporters referring to something called
"Pizzagate," a burgeoning sexual scandal that they claimed would bring down Hillary Clinton and
many of the top leaders of her party, with the chatter actually increasing after Trump was
elected. As near as I could tell, the whole bizarre theory had grown up on the far-right fringe
of the Internet, with the utterly fantastical plot having something to do with stolen secret
emails, DC pizza parlors, and a ring of pedophiles situated near the top of the Democratic
Party. But given all the other strange and unlikely things I'd gradually discovered about our
history, it didn't seem like something I could necessarily dismiss out of hand.
At the beginning of December, a right-wing blogger produced a lengthy exposition of the
Pizzagate charges, which finally gave me some understanding of what was actually under
discussion, and I soon made arrangements to republish his article. It quickly attracted a great
deal of interest, and some websites pointed to it as the best single introduction to the
scandal for a general audience.
Pizzagate Aedon
Cassiel • December 2, 2016 • 3,100 Words
A couple of weeks later, I republished an additional article by the same writer, describing
a long list of previous pedophilia scandals that had occurred in elite American and European
political circles. Although many of these seemed to be solidly documented, nearly all of them
had received minimal coverage by our mainstream media outlets. And if such political pedophile
rings had existed in the relatively recent past, was it so totally implausible that there might
be another one simmering beneath the surface of today's Washington DC?
Those interested in the details of the Pizzagate Hypothesis are advised to read these
articles, especially the first one, but I might as well provide a brief summary.
John Podesta had been a longtime fixture in DC political circles, becoming chief of staff
to President Bill Clinton in 1998, and afterward remaining one of the most powerful figures in
the Democratic Party establishment. While serving as as chairman of Hillary Clinton's 2016
presidential campaign, his apparent carelessness with the password security of his Gmail
account allowed it to easily be hacked, and tens of thousands of his personal emails were soon
published on WikiLeaks. A swarm of young anti-Clinton activists began scouring this
treasure-trove of semi-confidential information, seeking evidence of mundane bribery and
corruption, but instead they came across some quite odd exchanges, seemingly written in coded
language.
Now use of coded language in a supposedly secure private email account raises all sorts
of natural suspicions regarding what might have been under discussion, with the most likely
possibilities being illegal drugs or sex. But most of the references didn't seem to fit the
former category, and in our remarkably libertine era, in which political candidates compete for
the right to be Grand Marshal at an annual Gay Pride Parade, one of the few sexual activities
still discussed only in whispers would seem to be pedophilia, with some of the very strange
remarks possibly hinting at this.
The researchers also soon discovered that his brother Tony Podesta, one of the wealthiest
and most successful lobbyists in DC, had extremely odd taste in art. Major items of his very
extensive personal collection seemed to represent tortured or murdered bodies, and one of his
favorite artists was best known for paintings depicting young children being held captive,
lying dead, or suffering under severe distress. Such peculiar artwork obviously isn't
illegal, but it might naturally arouse some suspicions. And oddly enough, arch-Democrat Podesta
had long been a close personal friend of former Republican Speaker and convicted child-molester
Dennis Hastert, welcoming him back into DC society after his release from prison.
Furthermore, some of the rather suspiciously-worded Podesta emails referred to events
held at a local DC pizza parlor, greatly favored by the Democratic Party elite, whose owner was
the gay former boyfriend of David Brock, a leading Democratic activist. The public Instagram
account of that pizza-entrepreneur apparently contained numerous images of young children,
sometimes tied or bound, with those images frequently labeled by hashtags using the traditional
gay slang for underage sexual targets . Some photos showed the fellow wearing a tee-shirt
bearing the statement "I Love Children" in French, and by a very odd coincidence, his possibly
assumed name was phonetically identical to that very same French phrase, thus proclaiming to
the world that he was "a lover of children." Closely connected Instagram accounts also
included pictures of young children, sometimes shown amid piles of high-value currency, with
queries about how much those particular children might be worth. None of this seemed illegal,
but surely any reasonable person would regard the material as extremely suspicious.
DC is sometimes described as "Powertown," being the seat of the individuals who make
America's laws and govern our society, with local political journalists being closely attuned
to the relative status of such individuals. And oddly enough, GQ Magazine had ranked that
gay pizza parlor owner with a strange focus on young children as being one of the 50 most
powerful people in our national capital, placing him far ahead of many Cabinet members,
Senators, Congressional Chairmen, Supreme Court justices, and top lobbyists. Was his pizza
really that delicious?
These few paragraphs provide merely a sliver of the large quantity of highly-suspicious
material surrounding various powerful figures at the apex of the DC political world. A vast
cloud of billowing smoke is certainly no proof of any fire, but only a fool would completely
ignore it without attempting further investigation.
I usually regard videos as a poor means of imparting serious information, far less effective
and meaningful than the simple printed word. But the overwhelming bulk of the evidence
supporting the Pizzagate Hypothesis consists of visual images and screen shots, and these are
naturally suited to a video presentation.
Some of the best summaries of the Pizzagate case were produced by a young British
YouTuber named Tara McCarthy, whose work was published under the name of "Reality Calls," and
her videos were viewed hundreds of thousands of times. Although her channel was eventually
banned and her videos purged, copies were later reloaded to other accounts, both on YouTube and
BitChute. Some of the evidence she presents seemed rather innocuous or speculative to me and
other elements were probably based upon her unfamiliarity with American society and culture.
But a great deal of extremely suspicious material remains, and I would suggest that people
watch the videos and decide for themselves.
Around the same time that I first became familiar with the details of the Pizzagate
controversy, the topic also started reaching the pages of my morning newspapers, but in an
rather strange manner. Political stories began giving a sentence or two to the "Pizzagate
hoax," describing it as a ridiculous right-wing "conspiracy theory" but excluding all relevant
details. I had an eery feeling that some unseen hand had suddenly flipped a switch causing the
entire mainstream media to begin displaying identical signs declaring "Pizzagate Is False --
Nothing To See There!" in brightly flashing neon. I couldn't recall any previous example of
such a strange media reaction to some obscure Internet controversy.
Articles in the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times also suddenly
appeared denouncing the entirety of the alternative media -- Left, Right, and Libertarian --
as
"fake news" websites promoting Russian propaganda , while urging that their content be
blocked by all patriotic Internet giants such as Facebook, Twitter, and Google. Prior to that
moment, I'd never even heard the term "fake news" but suddenly it was ubiquitous across the
media, once again almost as if some unseen hand had suddenly flipped a switch.
I naturally began to wonder whether the timing of these two strange developments was
entirely coincidental. Perhaps Pizzagate was indeed true and struck so deeply at the core of
our hugely corrupted political system that the media efforts to suppress it were approaching
the point of hysteria.
Not long afterward, Tara McCarthy's detailed Pizzagate videos were purged from YouTube. This
was among the very first instances of video content being banned despite fully conforming to
all existing YouTube guidelines, another deeply suspicious development.
I also noticed that mere mention of Pizzagate had become politically lethal. Donald Trump
had selected Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, as his
National Security Advisor, and Flynn's son served as the latter's chief of staff. The younger
Flynn happened to Tweet out a couple of links to Pizzagate stories, pointing out that the
accusations hadn't yet been actually investigated let alone disproven, and very soon afterward,
he was
purged from the Trump transition team, foreshadowing his father's fall a few weeks later.
It seemed astonishing to me that a few simple Tweets about an Internet controversy could have
such huge real-life impact near the top of our government.
The media continued its uniform drumbeat of "Pizzagate Has Been Disproven!" but we were
never told how or by whom, and I was not the only individual to notice the hollowness of such
denunciations. An award-winning investigative journalist named Ben Swann at a CBS station in
Atlanta broadcast a short television segment summarizing the Pizzagate controversy and noting
that contrary to widespread media claims, Pizzagate had neither been investigated nor debunked.
Swann was almost immediately purged by CBS but a copy of his television segment remains
available for viewing on the Internet.
There is an old wartime proverb that enemy flak is always heaviest over the most important
target, and the remarkably ferocious wave of attacks and censorship against anyone broaching
the subject of Pizzagate seems to raise obvious dark suspicions. Indeed, the simultaneous waves
of attacks against all alternative media outlets as "Russian propaganda outlets" laid the basis
for the continuing regime of Social Media censorship that has become a central aspect of
today's world.
Pizzagate may or may not turn out to be true, but the ongoing Internet crackdown has
similarly engulfed topics of a somewhat similar nature but with vastly stronger documentation.
Although I don't use Twitter myself, I encountered the obvious implications of this new
censorship policy following McCain's death last August. The senator had died on a Saturday
afternoon, and readership of Sydney Schanberg's long 2008 expose quickly exploded, with
numerous individuals Tweeting out the story and a large fraction of our incoming traffic
therefore coming from Twitter. This continued until the following morning, at which point the
huge flood of Tweets continued to grow, but all incoming Twitter traffic suddenly and
permanently vanished, presumably because "shadow banning" had rendered those Tweets invisible.
My own article on McCain's very doubtful war record simultaneously suffered the same fate, as
did numerous other articles of a controversial nature that we published later that same
week.
Perhaps that censorship decision was made by some ignorant young intern at Twitter, casually
choosing to ban as "hate speech" or "fake news" a massively-documented 8,400 word expose by one
of America's most distinguished journalists, a Pulitzer-prize winning former top editor at
The New York Times .
Or perhaps certain political-puppeteers who had spent decades controlling that late Arizona
senator sought to ensure that their political puppet-strings remained invisible even after his
death.
"... " that perhaps the best career move for an ambitious young politician would be to secretly commit some monstrous crime and then make sure that the hard evidence of his guilt ended up in the hands of certain powerful people, thereby assuring his rapid political rise." ..."
"... "Indeed, under our putative system of democracy, especially since JFK, the oligarchy will not allow the election of any candidate who cannot be blackmailed." ..."
"... No wonder the shenannigans of compromised office-holding puppets (actors, really) and their shadowy string-pullers never seem to be known to their spear-carriers in MSM. ..."
Kudos, Ron Unz. Excellent article and a useful tutorial on the hidden control mechanism of
what the late Paul A. Samuelson called our "democratic oligarchy".
I applaud your parlor joke:
" that perhaps the best career move for an ambitious young politician would be to
secretly commit some monstrous crime and then make sure that the hard evidence of his guilt
ended up in the hands of certain powerful people, thereby assuring his rapid political
rise."
A great French investigative reporter crafted an unfunny version:
"Indeed, under our putative system of democracy, especially since JFK, the oligarchy
will not allow the election of any candidate who cannot be blackmailed."
-- Thierry Meyssan, Before our very eyes -- fake wars and big lies from 9/11 to Donald
Trump , p. 146.
He had just described the 911 caper as a Cheney-led deep-state coup to activate the secret
but long-standing CoG procedure to sideline the Constitution. It succeeded when clueless
Dubya was reinstated as figure-head president within 24 hours after agreeing to the clique's
CoG (continuity of government) agenda, including the planned wars.
No wonder the shenannigans of compromised office-holding puppets (actors, really) and
their shadowy string-pullers never seem to be known to their spear-carriers in MSM.
"... The Epstein conspiracy grows worse. One of the victims filed a federal lawsuit. Once filed, this is public record. The only redactions allowed are social security numbers and the like. ..."
"... When the Miami Herald went to obtain the Motion for Summary Judgment, it was completely redacted. 137 pages of blacked out paragraphs. ..."
"... This type of redaction is unheard, unprecedented- appalling. ..."
"... If the redactions stand, we should riot in the street. We knew justice was bought, but pedophilia usually will stir up some dregs of bureaucratic slugs to action. ..."
"... Once you start researching the Epstein matter - not for the lurid details - but the unprecedented, jaw dropping preferential treatment of an actual human sex trafficker ( not this fake #metoo hysteria) – all hope is lost. ..."
"... Dozens of little girls – all poor and from fatherless backgrounds marred by parental drug abuse, suicides and physical abuse- selected and sexually devastated by Epstein- not a word. ..."
The Epstein conspiracy grows worse.
One of the victims filed a federal lawsuit. Once filed, this is public record. The only
redactions allowed are social security numbers and the like.
When the Miami Herald went to obtain the Motion for Summary Judgment, it was completely
redacted. 137 pages of blacked out paragraphs.
A motion for summary judgment is basically saying there are no material issues in dispute-
nothing to litigate. This document would contain all relevant facts about the case. This type of redaction is unheard, unprecedented- appalling.
The only reason the Herald is in pursuit ( and any other MSM) is because they believed it
would destroy Trump.
It's now on appeal. If the redactions stand, we should riot in the street. We knew justice
was bought, but pedophilia usually will stir up some dregs of bureaucratic slugs to
action.
And with a parallel to McCain, if Clinton slithers out of this- with over 27 flights on
the Lolita Express- he is officially the most untouchable man in history.
Once you start researching the Epstein matter - not for the lurid details - but the
unprecedented, jaw dropping preferential treatment of an actual human sex trafficker ( not
this fake #metoo hysteria) – all hope is lost.
Note the strange silence from Hollywood and the elites regarding Epstein's victims, when
they were wearing hair shirts over Christine Fords 30 year old accusation.
A wealthy smug scold, who looks like an exploded can of rotten biscuit dough had them
weeping on camera.
Dozens of little girls – all poor and from fatherless backgrounds marred by parental
drug abuse, suicides and physical abuse- selected and sexually devastated by Epstein- not a
word.
"... top national figures merely being attractive front-men selected for their popular appeal and their political malleability, a development that may eventually have dire consequences for the nations they lead. As an extreme example, a drunken Boris Yeltsin freely allowed the looting of Russia's entire national wealth by the handful of oligarchs who pulled his strings, and the result was the total impoverishment of the Russian people and a demographic collapse almost unprecedented in modern peacetime history. ..."
"... An obvious problem with installing puppet rulers is the risk that they will attempt to cut their strings, much like Putin soon outmaneuvered and exiled his oligarch patron Boris Berezovsky. One means of minimizing such risk is to select puppets who are so deeply compromised that they can never break free, knowing that the political self-destruct charges buried deep within their pasts could easily be triggered if they sought independence. ..."
"... I have sometimes joked with my friends that perhaps the best career move for an ambitious young politician would be to secretly commit some monstrous crime and then make sure that the hard evidence of his guilt ended up in the hands of certain powerful people, thereby assuring his rapid political rise. ..."
"... In The Dark Side of Camelot , famed investigative reporter Seymour Hersh claimed that secret blackmail evidence of JFK's extra-marital affairs probably played a crucial role in having his administration overrule the unanimous verdict of all top Pentagon advisors and award the largest military procurement contract in U.S. history to General Dynamics instead of Boeing, thereby saving the former company from likely bankruptcy and its major organized-crime shareholders from devastating financial losses. Hersh also suggests that a similar factor likely explains JFK's last-minute reversal in the choice of his Vice President, a decision that landed Lyndon Johnson on the 1960 ticket and placed him in the White House after Kennedy's 1963 assassination. ..."
"... Similar rumors swirl around events much farther back in history as well, sometimes with enormous consequences. Well-placed contemporary sources have claimed that Samuel Untermyer, a wealthy Jewish lawyer, purchased the secret correspondence between Woodrow Wilson and his longtime mistress, and that the existence of that powerful leverage may have been an important factor behind Wilson's astonishingly rapid rise from president of Princeton in 1910 to governor of New Jersey in 1911 to president of the United States in 1912. ..."
"... Without naming any names, since 2001 it has been difficult to avoid noticing that one of the most zealous and committed supporters of the Neocon party-line on all Middle Eastern foreign policy matters has been a leading Republican senator from one of the most socially-conservative Southern states, a man whose rumored personal inclinations have long circulated on the Internet. The strikingly-sudden reversal of this individual on a major policy question certainly supports these suspicions. There have also been several other such examples involving prominent Republicans. ..."
"... There are lurid rumors that the Syndicate possessed secret photos of Hoover wearing a dress and high-heels, but just a few years ago Rep. Mike Honda of San Jose desperately placed his eight-year-old transgendered grand-daughter front-and-center in his unsuccessful attempt to win reelection. ..."
"... There seems to be a great deal of evidence that powerful organizations and individuals have successfully managed to suppress credible accusations of that practice for very long periods of time if no group with substantial media influence chose to target the offenders for unmasking. ..."
"... There is also the intriguing example of Dennis Hastert. As the longest serving Republican Speaker of the House in U.S. history, holding office during 1999-2007, Hastert was third in line to the Presidency and even ranked as our nation's top Republican elected official during some of that period. Based upon my newspaper readings, he had always struck me as a rather bland and ordinary individual, with journalists sometimes even strongly hinting at his mediocrity, so that I occasionally wondered just how someone so unimpressive could have risen to such extremely high national office. ..."
"... During the summer of 2007, the Internet was ablaze with claims that Sen. John Edwards, a runner-up in the 2004 Democratic presidential primaries, had just fathered a child with his mistress, and those reports were backed by seemingly-credible visual evidence, including photos showing the married senator holding his new-born baby. Yet as the days and even the weeks went by, not a whiff of this salacious scandal ever reached the pages of any of my morning newspapers or the rest of the mainstream media although it was a top conversation topic everywhere else. ..."
"... Probably one reason I paid so little attention to the topic was the exceptionally lurid nature of the claims being made. Epstein was supposedly an enormously wealthy Wall Street financier of rather mysterious personal background and source of funds, who owned a private island and an immense New York City mansion, both regularly stocked with harems of underage girls provided for sexual purposes. He allegedly hobnobbed on a regular basis with Bill Clinton, Prince Andrew, Harvard's Alan Dershowitz, and numerous other figures in the international elite, as well as a gaggle of ordinary billionaires, frequently transporting those individuals on his personal jet known as "the Lolita Express" for the role it played in facilitating illegal secret orgies with young girls. When right-wing bloggers on obscure websites claimed that former President Clinton and the British Royals were being sexually serviced by the underage girls of a James Bond super-villain brought to life, I just assumed those accusations were the wildest sort of Internet exaggeration. ..."
"... The author of a long 2003 Epstein profile that had appeared in Vanity Fair explained that she had personally spoken to some of his victims and included their highly-credible accounts in her article, but that those portions had been stricken and removed by her timorous editors. ..."
"... As presented by these media outlets, Epstein's personal rise also seemed rather inexplicable unless he had benefited from some powerful network or similar organization. Lacking any college degree or credentials, he had somehow gotten a job teaching at one of New York City's most elite prep schools, then quickly jumped to working at a top investment bank, rising to partner with astonishing speed until he was fired a few years later for illegal activity. Despite such a scanty and doubtful record, he was soon managing money for some of America's wealthiest individuals, and keeping so much of it for himself that he was regularly described as a billionaire. According to newspaper accounts, his great specialty was "making connections for people." ..."
"... Obviously, Epstein was a ruthlessly opportunistic financial hustler. But extremely wealthy individuals must surely be surrounded by great swarms of ruthlessly opportunistic financial hustlers, and why would he have been so much more successful than all those others? Perhaps a clue comes from the offhand remark of Epstein's now-disgraced prosecutor, saying that he had been told to go very easy on the sex-trafficker because he "belonged to intelligence." The vague phrasing of that statement raises questions about whether the intelligence service may not have been one controlled by the U.S. government. ..."
"... Philip Giraldi, a highly-regarded former CIA officer, put things very plainly when he suggested that Epstein had probably been working for the Israeli Mossad, operating "honey traps" to obtain blackmail information on all the wealthy and powerful individuals whom he regularly plied with underage girls. Indeed, longtime Canadian journalist Eric Margolis recounted his early 1990s visit to Epstein's enormous NYC mansion, in which he had barely crossed the threshold before he was offered an "intimate massage" by one of the many young girls there, presumably in a bedroom well-stocked with hidden cameras. ..."
"... Given my personal lack of interest in the Epstein case, then or now, perhaps a few of these details may be garbled, but it seems undeniable that he was exactly the sort of remarkable renegade often faced by Agent 007 in the movies, and the true facts will presumably come out at his trial. ..."
"... John Podesta had been a longtime fixture in DC political circles, becoming chief of staff to President Bill Clinton in 1998, and afterward remaining one of the most powerful figures in the Democratic Party establishment. While serving as as chairman of Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign, his apparent carelessness with the password security of his Gmail account allowed it to easily be hacked, and tens of thousands of his personal emails were soon published on WikiLeaks. A swarm of young anti-Clinton activists began scouring this treasure-trove of semi-confidential information, seeking evidence of mundane bribery and corruption, but instead they came across some quite odd exchanges, seemingly written in coded language. ..."
"... Now use of coded language in a supposedly secure private email account raises all sorts of natural suspicions regarding what might have been under discussion, with the most likely possibilities being illegal drugs or sex. But most of the references didn't seem to fit the former category, and in our remarkably libertine era, in which political candidates compete for the right to be Grand Marshal at an annual Gay Pride Parade, one of the few sexual activities still discussed only in whispers would seem to be pedophilia, with some of the very strange remarks possibly hinting at this. ..."
"... The researchers also soon discovered that his brother Tony Podesta, one of the wealthiest and most successful lobbyists in DC, had extremely odd taste in art. Major items of his very extensive personal collection seemed to represent tortured or murdered bodies, and one of his favorite artists was best known for paintings depicting young children being held captive, lying dead, or suffering under severe distress. ..."
"... Furthermore, some of the rather suspiciously-worded Podesta emails referred to events held at a local DC pizza parlor, greatly favored by the Democratic Party elite, whose owner was the gay former boyfriend of David Brock, a leading Democratic activist. The public Instagram account of that pizza-entrepreneur apparently contained numerous images of young children, sometimes tied or bound, with those images frequently labeled by hashtags using the traditional gay slang for underage sexual targets ..."
"... Closely connected Instagram accounts also included pictures of young children, sometimes shown amid piles of high-value currency, with queries about how much those particular children might be worth. None of this seemed illegal, but surely any reasonable person would regard the material as extremely suspicious. ..."
"... oddly enough, GQ Magazine had ranked that gay pizza parlor owner with a strange focus on young children as being one of the 50 most powerful people in our national capital, placing him far ahead of many Cabinet members, Senators, Congressional Chairmen, Supreme Court justices, and top lobbyists. Was his pizza really that delicious? ..."
"... Some of the best summaries of the Pizzagate case were produced by a young British YouTuber named Tara McCarthy, whose work was published under the name of "Reality Calls," and her videos were viewed hundreds of thousands of times. Although her channel was eventually banned and her videos purged, copies were later reloaded to other accounts, both on YouTube and BitChute. Some of the evidence she presents seemed rather innocuous or speculative to me and other elements were probably based upon her unfamiliarity with American society and culture. But a great deal of extremely suspicious material remains, and I would suggest that people watch the videos and decide for themselves. ..."
...The Arizona senator had traded on his national reputation as our best-known former POW to
bury the story of those abandoned prisoners, permitting America's political establishment to
escape serious embarrassment. As a result, Sen. McCain earned the lush rewards of our generous
ruling elites, much like his own father Admiral John S. McCain, Sr., who had led the cover-up
of the deliberate
1967 Israeli attack on the U.S.S. Liberty , which killed or wounded over 200 American
servicemen.
As publisher of The American Conservative , I ran Schanberg's remarkable piece as a cover
story, and across several websites over the years it has surely been read many hundreds of
thousands of times, including a huge spike around the time of McCain's death. I therefore find
it rather difficult to believe that the many journalists investigating McCain's background
might have remained unaware of this material. Yet no hints of these facts were provided in any
of the articles appearing in any remotely prominent media outlets as can be seen by searching
for web pages containing "McCain and Schanberg" dated around the time of the Senator's
passing.
Schanberg's journalistic stature had hardly been forgotten by his former colleagues. Upon
his death a couple of years ago, the Times ran a very long and
glowing obituary , and a few months later I attended the memorial tribute to his life and
career held at the New York Times headquarters building, which more than two hundred
prominent journalists mostly from his own generation, including those of the highest rank.
Times Publisher Arthur Sulzberger, Jr. gave a speech describing how as a young man he
had always so greatly admired Schanberg and had been mortified by the unfortunate circumstances
of his departure from the family's newspaper. Former Executive Editor Joseph Lelyveld recounted
the many years he had worked closely with the man he had long considered his closest friend and
colleague, someone whom he almost seemed to regard as his older brother. But during the two
hours of praise and remembrance scarcely a single word was uttered in public about the gigantic
story that had occupied the last two decades of Schanberg's celebrated career.
This same blanket of media silence also enveloped the very serious accusations regarding
McCain's own Vietnam War record. A few years ago, I drew upon the Times and other fully
mainstream sources to strongly
suggest that McCain's stories of his torture as a POW were probably fictional, invented to
serve as a cover and an excuse for the very real record of his wartime collaboration with his
Communist captors. Indeed, at the time our American media reported his activities as one of the
leading propagandists of our North Vietnamese foes, but these facts were later flushed down the
memory-hole. McCain's father then ranked as one of America's top military officers, and it
seems likely that his personal political intervention ensured that the official narrative of
his son's wartime record was transmuted from traitor to war-hero, thereby allowing the younger
McCain to later embark upon his celebrated political career.
The story of the abandoned Vietnam POWs and McCain's own Communist propaganda broadcasts
hardly exhaust the catalog of the major skeletons in the late Senator's closet. McCain was
regularly described by reporters as being remarkably hot-headed and having a violent temper,
but the national press left it to the alternative media to investigate the real-life
implications of those rather suggestive phrases.
In a September 1, 2008 Counterpunch expose later published online ,
Alexander Cockburn reported that interviews with two emergency room physicians in Phoenix
revealed that around the time that McCain was sucked into the political maelstrom of the
Keating Five Scandal, his wife Cindy was admitted to her local hospital suffering from a black
eye, facial bruises, and scratches consistent with physical violence, and this same situation
occurred two additional times over the next few years. Cockburn also noted several other highly
suspicious marital incidents during the years that followed, including the Senator's wife
appearing with a bandaged wrist and her arm in a sling not long after she joined her husband on
the 2008 campaign trail, an injury reported by our strangely incurious political journalists as
being due to "excessive hand-shaking." It's an odd situation when a tiny leftist newsletter can
easily uncover facts that so totally eluded the vast resources of our entire national press
corps. If there were credible reports that Melania Trump had been repeatedly admitted to local
emergency rooms suffering from black eyes and facial bruises, would our corporate media have
remained so uninterested in any further investigation?
McCain had first won his Arizona Congressional seat in 1982, not long after he moved into
the state, with his campaign bankrolled by his father-in-law's beer-distributorship fortune,
and that inheritance eventually elevated the McCain household into one of the wealthiest in the
Senate. But although the Senator spent the next quarter-century in public life, even nearly
upsetting George W. Bush for the 2000 Republican presidential nomination, only in late 2008 did
I
learn from the Times that the Phoenix beer-monopoly in question, then valued at
around $200 million, had accrued to a man whose lifelong business partner Kemper Marley had
long been deeply linked to organized crime . Indeed, close associates of that latter
individual had been
convicted by a jury of the car-bomb assassination of a Phoenix investigative crime reporter
just a few years before McCain's sudden triumphal entrance into Arizona politics. Perhaps such
guilt-by-association is improper, but would our national press-corps have remained silent if
the personal fortune of our current president were only a step or two removed from the car-bomb
assassins of a nosy journalist who died while investigating mobsters?
As I gradually became aware of these enormities casually hidden in McCain's background, my
initial reaction was disbelief that someone whose record was so deeply tarnished in so many
different ways could ever have reached such a pinnacle of American political power. But as the
media continued to avert its eyes from these newly revealed facts, even those disclosed in the
pages of the Times itself, I gradually began to consider matters in a different light.
Perhaps McCain's elevation to great American political power was not in spite of the
devastating facts littering his personal past, but because of them. As I
wrote a few years ago:
Today when we consider the major countries of the world we see that in many cases the
official leaders are also the leaders in actuality: Vladimir Putin calls the shots in Russia,
Xi Jinping and his top Politburo colleagues do the same in China, and so forth. However, in
America and in some other Western countries, this seems to be less and less the case, with
top national figures merely being attractive front-men selected for their popular appeal and
their political malleability, a development that may eventually have dire consequences for
the nations they lead. As an extreme example, a drunken Boris Yeltsin freely allowed the
looting of Russia's entire national wealth by the handful of oligarchs who pulled his
strings, and the result was the total impoverishment of the Russian people and a demographic
collapse almost unprecedented in modern peacetime history.
An obvious problem with installing puppet rulers is the risk that they will attempt to cut
their strings, much like Putin soon outmaneuvered and exiled his oligarch patron Boris
Berezovsky. One means of minimizing such risk is to select puppets who are so deeply
compromised that they can never break free, knowing that the political self-destruct charges
buried deep within their pasts could easily be triggered if they sought independence.
I have
sometimes joked with my friends that perhaps the best career move for an ambitious young
politician would be to secretly commit some monstrous crime and then make sure that the hard
evidence of his guilt ended up in the hands of certain powerful people, thereby assuring his
rapid political rise.
In physics, when an object deviates from its expected trajectory for inexplicable reasons,
we assume that some unknown force has been at work, and tracing the record of such deviations
may help to determine the characteristic properties of the latter. Over the years, I've
increasingly become aware of such strange ideological deviations in public policy, and although
some are readily explained, others suggest the existence of hidden forces far beneath the
surface of our regular political world. This same situation may have occurred throughout our
history, and sometimes the political decisions that so baffled contemporaries eventually came
to light decades later.
In The Dark Side of Camelot , famed investigative reporter Seymour Hersh claimed that
secret blackmail evidence of JFK's extra-marital affairs probably played a crucial role in
having his administration overrule the unanimous verdict of all top Pentagon advisors and award
the largest military procurement contract in U.S. history to General Dynamics instead of
Boeing, thereby saving the former company from likely bankruptcy and its major organized-crime
shareholders from devastating financial losses. Hersh also suggests that a similar factor
likely explains JFK's last-minute reversal in the choice of his Vice President, a decision that
landed Lyndon Johnson on the 1960 ticket and placed him in the White House after Kennedy's 1963
assassination.
As I recently
mentioned , in the 1950s Sen. Estes Kefauver shifted the focus of his Organized Crime
Hearings after the Chicago Syndicate confronted him with the photographs of his sexual
encounter with two mob-supplied women. A decade later, California Attorney-General Stanley Mosk
suffered much the same fate, with the facts remaining hidden for over twenty years.
Similar rumors swirl around events much farther back in history as well, sometimes with
enormous consequences. Well-placed contemporary
sources have claimed that Samuel Untermyer, a wealthy Jewish lawyer, purchased the secret
correspondence between Woodrow Wilson and his longtime mistress, and that the existence of that
powerful leverage may have been an important factor behind Wilson's astonishingly rapid rise
from president of Princeton in 1910 to governor of New Jersey in 1911 to president of the
United States in 1912. Once in office, Wilson signed the controversial legislation establishing
the Federal Reserve system in 1913 and also named Louis Brandeis as the first Jewish member of
the U.S. Supreme Court despite the public opposition of nearly our entire legal establishment.
Wilson's swiftly changing views on American involvement in the First World War may also have
influenced by such personal pressures rather than solely determined by his perceptions of the
national interest.
Without naming any names, since 2001 it has been difficult to avoid noticing that one of the
most zealous and committed supporters of the Neocon party-line on all Middle Eastern foreign
policy matters has been a leading Republican senator from one of the most socially-conservative
Southern states, a man whose rumored personal inclinations have long circulated on the
Internet. The strikingly-sudden reversal of this individual on a major policy question
certainly supports these suspicions. There have also been several other such examples involving
prominent Republicans.
But consider the far different situation of Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts, who in 1987
became the first member of the Congress to voluntarily admit that he was gay. Not long
afterward, a notorious scandal erupted when it was
revealed that his own DC townhouse had been used by a former boyfriend as headquarters for
a male-prostitution ring. Frank claimed to have had no knowledge of that sordid situation, and
his liberal Massachusetts constituents apparently accepted that, since he was resoundingly
reelected and went on to serve another 24 years in Congress. But surely if Frank had been a
Republican from a socially-conservative district, anyone possessing such evidence would have
totally controlled his political survival, and with Frank spending several years as Chairman of
the very powerful House Financial Services Committee, the value of such a hold would have been
enormous.
This demonstrates the undeniable reality that what constitutes effective blackmail material
may vary tremendously across different eras and regions. Today, it is widely accepted that
longtime FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover lived his life as a deeply-closeted homosexual and there
seem to be serious claims that he also had some black ancestry, with the secret evidence of
these facts probably helping to explain why for decades he stubbornly refused to admit the
existence of American organized crime or focus his G-men on efforts to uproot it. But in
today's America, he surely would have proudly proclaimed his sexuality and racial ancestry in
an New York Times Magazine cover-story, rightly believing that they enhanced his
political invulnerability on the national stage. There are lurid rumors that the Syndicate
possessed secret photos of Hoover wearing a dress and high-heels, but just a few years ago Rep.
Mike Honda of San Jose
desperately placed his eight-year-old transgendered grand-daughter front-and-center in his
unsuccessful attempt to win reelection.
The decades have certainly softened the effectiveness of many forms of blackmail, but
pedophilia still ranks as an extremely powerful taboo. There seems to be a great deal of
evidence that powerful organizations and individuals have successfully managed to suppress
credible accusations of that practice for very long periods of time if no group with
substantial media influence chose to target the offenders for unmasking.
The most obvious example is the Catholic Church, and the failings of its American and
international hierarchy in that regard have regularly made the front pages of our leading
newspapers. But until the early 2000s and the breakthrough reporting of the Boston Globe
as recounted in the Oscar-winning film Spotlight , the Church had routinely fended off
such scandals.
Consider also the remarkable case of British television personality Sir Jimmy Savile , one of his country's most
admired celebrities, eventually knighted for his public service. Only shortly after his death
at age 84 did the press begin revealing that he had probably molested many hundreds of children
during his long career. Accusations by his young victims had stretched back across forty years,
but his criminal activities had seemingly been protected by his wealth and celebrity, along
with his numerous supporters in the media.
There is also the intriguing example of Dennis Hastert. As the longest serving Republican
Speaker of the House in U.S. history, holding office during 1999-2007, Hastert was third in
line to the Presidency and even ranked as our nation's top Republican elected official during
some of that period. Based upon my newspaper readings, he had always struck me as a rather
bland and ordinary individual, with journalists sometimes even strongly hinting at his
mediocrity, so that I occasionally wondered just how someone so unimpressive could have risen
to such extremely high national office.
Then a few years ago, he was suddenly thrust back into the headlines, arrested by the FBI
and charged with financial crimes relating to what apparently had been his past history of
abusing young boys, at least one of whom had committed suicide, with the federal judge who sent
him to prison denouncing him as "a serial
child molester" at sentencing . Perhaps I've led an overly sheltered life, but my
impression is that only a tiny sliver of Americans have had a long record of child molestation,
and all things being equal, it seems rather unlikely that someone of such a background but who
possesses no other great talents or skills would rise to near the absolute top of our political
heap. So perhaps not all things were otherwise equal. If some powerful elements held the hard
evidence that placed a particular elected official under their total control, making great
efforts to elevate him to Speaker of the House would be a very shrewd investment.
At times the unwillingness of our national media to see major stories in front of their very
noses reaches ridiculous extremes. During the summer of 2007, the Internet was ablaze with
claims that Sen. John Edwards, a runner-up in the 2004 Democratic presidential primaries, had
just fathered a child with his mistress, and those reports were backed by seemingly-credible
visual evidence, including photos showing the married senator holding his new-born baby. Yet as
the days and even the weeks went by, not a whiff of this salacious scandal ever reached the
pages of any of my morning newspapers or the rest of the mainstream media although it was a top
conversation topic everywhere else. Eventually, the National Enquirer , a notorious
gossip tabloid, scored a journalistic first ,
by receiving a Pulitzer Prize nomination for breaking the story that no other outlet seemed
willing to cover. Would our media have similarly averted its eyes from a newborn baby Trump
coming from the wrong side of the bed?
Over the years, it became increasingly obvious to me that nearly all elements of our
national media were often quite willing to enlist in a "conspiracy of silence" to minimize or
entirely ignore stories of tremendous potential interest to their readership and major public
importance. I could easily have doubled or tripled the number of such notable examples I
provided above without much effort. Moreover, it is quite intriguing that so many of these
cases involve the sort of criminal or sexual misbehavior that would be ideally suited for
blackmailing powerful individuals who are less likely to be vulnerable to other influences. So
perhaps many of the elected officials situated at the top of our democratic system merely reign
as political puppets, dancing to invisible strings.
Given my awareness of this remarkable track-record of major media cover-ups, I'm ashamed to
admit that I had paid almost no attention to the Jeffrey Epstein case until it exploded across
our national headlines earlier this month, suddenly becoming one of the biggest news stories in
our country.
For many years, reports about Epstein and his illegal sex-ring had regularly circulated on
the fringes of the Internet, with agitated commenters citing the case as proof of the dark and
malevolent forces that secretly controlled our corrupted political system. But I almost
entirely ignored these discussions, and I'm not sure that I ever once clicked on a single
link.
Probably one reason I paid so little attention to the topic was the exceptionally lurid
nature of the claims being made. Epstein was supposedly an enormously wealthy Wall Street
financier of rather mysterious personal background and source of funds, who owned a private
island and an immense New York City mansion, both regularly stocked with harems of underage
girls provided for sexual purposes. He allegedly hobnobbed on a regular basis with Bill
Clinton, Prince Andrew, Harvard's Alan Dershowitz, and numerous other figures in the
international elite, as well as a gaggle of ordinary billionaires, frequently transporting
those individuals on his personal jet known as "the Lolita Express" for the role it played in
facilitating illegal secret orgies with young girls. When right-wing bloggers on obscure
websites claimed that former President Clinton and the British Royals were being sexually
serviced by the underage girls of a James Bond super-villain brought to life, I just assumed
those accusations were the wildest sort of Internet exaggeration.
Moreover, these angry writers did occasionally let slip that the fiendish target of their
wrath had already been charged in a Florida courtroom, eventually pleading guilty to a single
sexual offense and receiving a thirteen month jail sentence, mitigated by very generous
work-release provisions. This hardly seemed like the sort of judicial punishment that would
lend credence to the fantastical accusations against him. If Epstein had already been
investigated by law enforcement authorities and given the sentence one might expect for writing
a bad check, I found it quite unlikely that he was actually the Goldfinger or Dr. No that
deluded Internet activists made him out to be.
Then these same wild, implausible claims previously found only on anonymous comment-threads
were suddenly repeated as solid fact on the front pages of the Times and all my other
morning newspapers, and the former federal prosecutor who had signed off on Epstein's legal
slap-on-the-wrist was forced to resign from the Trump Cabinet. Epstein's safe had been found to
contain a huge cache of child-pornography and other highly suspicious material, and he was
quickly rearrested on charges that could send him to federal prison for decades. Prestigious
media outlets described Epstein as the mastermind of a huge sex-trafficking ring, and numerous
underage victims began coming forward, telling their stories of how he had molested, raped, and
pimped them. The author of a long 2003 Epstein profile that had appeared in Vanity Fair
explained that she had personally spoken to some of his victims and included their
highly-credible accounts in her article, but that those portions had been stricken and removed
by her timorous editors.
As presented by these media outlets, Epstein's personal rise also seemed rather inexplicable
unless he had benefited from some powerful network or similar organization. Lacking any college
degree or credentials, he had somehow gotten a job teaching at one of New York City's most
elite prep schools, then quickly jumped to working at a top investment bank, rising to partner
with astonishing speed until he was fired a few years later for illegal activity. Despite such
a scanty and doubtful record, he was soon managing money for some of America's wealthiest
individuals, and keeping so much of it for himself that he was regularly described as a
billionaire. According to newspaper accounts, his great specialty was "making connections for
people."
Obviously, Epstein was a ruthlessly opportunistic financial hustler. But extremely wealthy
individuals must surely be surrounded by great swarms of ruthlessly opportunistic financial
hustlers, and why would he have been so much more successful than all those others? Perhaps a
clue comes from the offhand remark of Epstein's now-disgraced prosecutor, saying that he had
been told to go very easy on the sex-trafficker because he "belonged to intelligence." The
vague phrasing of that statement raises questions about whether the intelligence service may
not have been one controlled by the U.S. government.
Philip Giraldi, a highly-regarded former CIA officer, put things very plainly when
he suggested
that Epstein had probably been working for the Israeli Mossad, operating "honey traps" to
obtain blackmail information on all the wealthy and powerful individuals whom he regularly
plied with underage girls. Indeed, longtime Canadian journalist Eric Margolis recounted his early
1990s visit to Epstein's enormous NYC mansion, in which he had barely crossed the threshold
before he was offered an "intimate massage" by one of the many young girls there, presumably in
a bedroom well-stocked with hidden cameras.
Given my personal lack of interest in the Epstein case, then or now, perhaps a few of these
details may be garbled, but it seems undeniable that he was exactly the sort of remarkable
renegade often faced by Agent 007 in the movies, and the true facts will presumably come out at
his trial. Or perhaps not. Whether he lives to see trial is not entirely clear given the
considerable number of powerful individuals who might prefer that hidden facts remain hidden,
and the Friday newspapers
reported that Epstein had been found injured and unconscious in his prison cell.
When one seemingly implausible pedophilia scandal has suddenly jumped from obscure corners
of the Internet to the front pages of our leading newspapers, we must naturally begin to wonder
whether others might not eventually do the same. And a very likely candidate comes to mind, one
that seemed to me far better documented than the vague accusations being thrown about over the
last few years against a wealthy financier once given a thirteen-month jail sentence in Florida
a decade earlier.
I don't use Social Media myself, but near the end of the 2016 presidential campaign, I
gradually began seeing more and more Trump supporters referring to something called
"Pizzagate," a burgeoning sexual scandal that they claimed would bring down Hillary Clinton and
many of the top leaders of her party, with the chatter actually increasing after Trump was
elected. As near as I could tell, the whole bizarre theory had grown up on the far-right fringe
of the Internet, with the utterly fantastical plot having something to do with stolen secret
emails, DC pizza parlors, and a ring of pedophiles situated near the top of the Democratic
Party. But given all the other strange and unlikely things I'd gradually discovered about our
history, it didn't seem like something I could necessarily dismiss out of hand.
At the beginning of December, a right-wing blogger produced a lengthy exposition of the
Pizzagate charges, which finally gave me some understanding of what was actually under
discussion, and I soon made arrangements to republish his article. It quickly attracted a great
deal of interest, and some websites pointed to it as the best single introduction to the
scandal for a general audience.
Pizzagate Aedon Cassiel • December 2, 2016
• 3,100 Words
A couple of weeks later, I republished an additional article by the same writer, describing
a long list of previous pedophilia scandals that had occurred in elite American and European
political circles. Although many of these seemed to be solidly documented, nearly all of them
had received minimal coverage by our mainstream media outlets. And if such political pedophile
rings had existed in the relatively recent past, was it so totally implausible that there might
be another one simmering beneath the surface of today's Washington DC?
Those interested in the details of the Pizzagate Hypothesis are advised to read these
articles, especially the first one, but I might as well provide a brief summary.
John Podesta had been a longtime fixture in DC political circles, becoming chief of staff to
President Bill Clinton in 1998, and afterward remaining one of the most powerful figures in the
Democratic Party establishment. While serving as as chairman of Hillary Clinton's 2016
presidential campaign, his apparent carelessness with the password security of his Gmail
account allowed it to easily be hacked, and tens of thousands of his personal emails were soon
published on WikiLeaks. A swarm of young anti-Clinton activists began scouring this
treasure-trove of semi-confidential information, seeking evidence of mundane bribery and
corruption, but instead they came across some quite odd exchanges, seemingly written in coded
language.
Now use of coded language in a supposedly secure private email account raises all sorts of
natural suspicions regarding what might have been under discussion, with the most likely
possibilities being illegal drugs or sex. But most of the references didn't seem to fit the
former category, and in our remarkably libertine era, in which political candidates compete for
the right to be Grand Marshal at an annual Gay Pride Parade, one of the few sexual activities
still discussed only in whispers would seem to be pedophilia, with some of the very strange
remarks possibly hinting at this.
The researchers also soon discovered that his brother Tony Podesta, one of the wealthiest
and most successful lobbyists in DC, had extremely odd taste in art. Major items of his very
extensive personal collection seemed to represent tortured or murdered bodies, and one of his
favorite artists was best known for paintings depicting young children being held captive,
lying dead, or suffering under severe distress. Such peculiar artwork obviously isn't illegal,
but it might naturally arouse some suspicions. And oddly enough, arch-Democrat Podesta had long
been a close personal friend of former Republican Speaker and convicted child-molester Dennis
Hastert, welcoming him back into DC society after his release from prison.
Furthermore, some of the rather suspiciously-worded Podesta emails referred to events held
at a local DC pizza parlor, greatly favored by the Democratic Party elite, whose owner was the
gay former boyfriend of David Brock, a leading Democratic activist. The public Instagram
account of that pizza-entrepreneur apparently contained numerous images of young children,
sometimes tied or bound, with those images frequently labeled by hashtags using the traditional
gay slang for underage sexual targets. Some photos showed the fellow wearing a tee-shirt
bearing the statement "I Love Children" in French, and by a very odd coincidence, his possibly
assumed name was phonetically identical to that very same French phrase, thus proclaiming to
the world that he was "a lover of children." Closely connected Instagram accounts also included
pictures of young children, sometimes shown amid piles of high-value currency, with queries
about how much those particular children might be worth. None of this seemed illegal, but
surely any reasonable person would regard the material as extremely suspicious.
DC is sometimes described as "Powertown," being the seat of the individuals who make
America's laws and govern our society, with local political journalists being closely attuned
to the relative status of such individuals. And oddly enough, GQ Magazine had ranked
that gay pizza parlor owner with a strange focus on young children as being one of the 50 most
powerful people in our national capital, placing him far ahead of many Cabinet members,
Senators, Congressional Chairmen, Supreme Court justices, and top lobbyists. Was his pizza
really that delicious?
These few paragraphs provide merely a sliver of the large quantity of highly-suspicious
material surrounding various powerful figures at the apex of the DC political world. A vast
cloud of billowing smoke is certainly no proof of any fire, but only a fool would completely
ignore it without attempting further investigation.
I usually regard videos as a poor means of imparting serious information, far less effective
and meaningful than the simple printed word. But the overwhelming bulk of the evidence
supporting the Pizzagate Hypothesis consists of visual images and screen shots, and these are
naturally suited to a video presentation.
Some of the best summaries of the Pizzagate case were produced by a young British YouTuber
named Tara McCarthy, whose work was published under the name of "Reality Calls," and her videos
were viewed hundreds of thousands of times. Although her channel was eventually banned and her
videos purged, copies were later reloaded to other accounts, both on YouTube and BitChute. Some
of the evidence she presents seemed rather innocuous or speculative to me and other elements
were probably based upon her unfamiliarity with American society and culture. But a great deal
of extremely suspicious material remains, and I would suggest that people watch the videos and
decide for themselves.
Around the same time that I first became familiar with the details of the Pizzagate
controversy, the topic also started reaching the pages of my morning newspapers, but in an
rather strange manner. Political stories began giving a sentence or two to the "Pizzagate
hoax," describing it as a ridiculous right-wing "conspiracy theory" but excluding all relevant
details. I had an eery feeling that some unseen hand had suddenly flipped a switch causing the
entire mainstream media to begin displaying identical signs declaring "Pizzagate Is False --
Nothing To See There!" in brightly flashing neon. I couldn't recall any previous example of
such a strange media reaction to some obscure Internet controversy.
Articles in the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times also suddenly
appeared denouncing the entirety of the alternative media -- Left, Right, and Libertarian --
as
"fake news" websites promoting Russian propaganda , while urging that their content be
blocked by all patriotic Internet giants such as Facebook, Twitter, and Google. Prior to that
moment, I'd never even heard the term "fake news" but suddenly it was ubiquitous across the
media, once again almost as if some unseen hand had suddenly flipped a switch.
I naturally began to wonder whether the timing of these two strange developments was
entirely coincidental. Perhaps Pizzagate was indeed true and struck so deeply at the core of
our hugely corrupted political system that the media efforts to suppress it were approaching
the point of hysteria.
Not long afterward, Tara McCarthy's detailed Pizzagate videos were purged from YouTube. This
was among the very first instances of video content being banned despite fully conforming to
all existing YouTube guidelines, another deeply suspicious development.
I also noticed that mere mention of Pizzagate had become politically lethal. Donald Trump
had selected Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, as his
National Security Advisor, and Flynn's son served as the latter's chief of staff. The younger
Flynn happened to Tweet out a couple of links to Pizzagate stories, pointing out that the
accusations hadn't yet been actually investigated let alone disproven, and very soon afterward,
he was
purged from the Trump transition team, foreshadowing his father's fall a few weeks later.
It seemed astonishing to me that a few simple Tweets about an Internet controversy could have
such huge real-life impact near the top of our government.
The media continued its uniform drumbeat of "Pizzagate Has Been Disproven!" but we were
never told how or by whom, and I was not the only individual to notice the hollowness of such
denunciations. An award-winning investigative journalist named Ben Swann at a CBS station in
Atlanta broadcast a short television segment summarizing the Pizzagate controversy and noting
that contrary to widespread media claims, Pizzagate had neither been investigated nor debunked.
Swann was almost immediately purged by CBS but a copy of his television segment remains
available for viewing on the Internet.
There is an old wartime proverb that enemy flak is always heaviest over the most important
target, and the remarkably ferocious wave of attacks and censorship against anyone broaching
the subject of Pizzagate seems to raise obvious dark suspicions. Indeed, the simultaneous waves
of attacks against all alternative media outlets as "Russian propaganda outlets" laid the basis
for the continuing regime of Social Media censorship that has become a central aspect of
today's world.
Pizzagate may or may not turn out to be true, but the ongoing Internet crackdown has
similarly engulfed topics of a somewhat similar nature but with vastly stronger documentation.
Although I don't use Twitter myself, I encountered the obvious implications of this new
censorship policy following McCain's death last August. The senator had died on a Saturday
afternoon, and readership of Sydney Schanberg's long 2008 expose quickly exploded, with
numerous individuals Tweeting out the story and a large fraction of our incoming traffic
therefore coming from Twitter. This continued until the following morning, at which point the
huge flood of Tweets continued to grow, but all incoming Twitter traffic suddenly and
permanently vanished, presumably because "shadow banning" had rendered those Tweets invisible.
My own article on McCain's very doubtful war record simultaneously suffered the same fate, as
did numerous other articles of a controversial nature that we published later that same
week.
Perhaps that censorship decision was made by some ignorant young intern at Twitter, casually
choosing to ban as "hate speech" or "fake news" a massively-documented 8,400 word expose by one
of America's most distinguished journalists, a Pulitzer-prize winning former top editor at
The New York Times .
Or perhaps certain political-puppeteers who had spent decades controlling that late Arizona
senator sought to ensure that their political puppet-strings remained invisible even after his
death.
John McCain was a leading American neocon who always advocated war and ever greater
military spending for a growing worldwide empire. This made him a successful politician and
explains why our neocon corporate media praises him and refuses to reports facts about his
life. By several accounts ("The Nightingale Song" for example) he only got into the Naval
Academy for a free college degree because dad and grandfather were admirals, and should have
been kicked out several times. He graduated near the bottom of his class and was a lousy
pilot who got into trouble often and crashed two aircraft because of neglect. He was shot
down on his first tour over Vietnam while bombing a civilian power plant, and getting
captured is not heroic.
[Hide MORE]
What happened in captivity is controversial, but upon returning from POW status he passed a
physical and regained flight status as a pilot. Yet after he finished 20 years of service
that allowed generous retirement pay, he obtained a 100% VA disability rating allowing him to
collect some $40,000 a year tax free too! The LA Times mentioned this when McCain insisted he
was fit to serve as President. For the past two decades, he hauled in over $240,000 a year
from the Feds for military retirement, 100% VA disability, social security retirement, while
working full-time in the US Senate. He was paid for being retired, disabled, and gainfully
employed! This is textbook case of why our system needs reform to protect taxpayers from rich
welfare kings like McCain.
McCain's loyal wife was disabled in a serious auto accident while he was a POW. Soon after
he returned, McCain dumped her for a wealthy woman 20 years younger. The Reagans were so
angry they never spoke to him again. He then married his new babe before he officially got
divorced, so there's that bigamy thing. McCain used his wife's family money to run for
Congress and quickly got into trouble with the Keating Five scandal. McCain got $112,000 in
"campaign contributions" and an equal amount of luxury perks from one of our nation's leading
fraudsters. In return, he helped change laws and threatened regulators to allow this
multi-billion real estate scam to grow.
I don't know why any Arizonian voted for this crazed man, especially since he was a big
advocate for open borders. At a union meeting, he told workers illegals are needed because
Americans are too lazy to work farm fields, even for $50 an hour. McCain never labored his
entire life, always on the government dole earning ten times minimum wage worker pay, whose
increase he opposed.
McCain grew up wealthy and enjoyed free government health care his entire life, yet
thought it nothing workers deserve. While running for President and attacking programs for
the poor, a reporter asked how many houses he owned. He was unsure, but thought maybe seven.
But his worst damage was to oppose any attempt at world peace, often demanding that the USA
bomb the neocon designated villain of the year, currently Iran. McCain was a key player in
the senseless deaths of thousands of American GIs and a million foreigners over the past two
decades. He will not be missed.
Sep 2, 2018 -- John McCain Will Not Be Missed
As a follow-up to my Aug 27th blog, I ask people to name McCain's most important
accomplishment during his long political career. They can think of none, but the TV tells
them McCain was great because he was a neocon. Senator Paul Laxalt saw more combat than
McCain and had an equally long and distinguished career. He was not a crazed neocon so our
media barely reported his death last month.
Here are two examples of McCain's bad character just this past year. McCain had always
opposed Obamacare and campaigned against it. The Republicans had tried to repeal it for
years. The election of President Trump also brought in more Republican congressmen. The House
easily repealed it, and the Senate finally had a majority to vote for a partial repeal. This
would be a big victory for the Republicans led by President Trump. When the vote was held,
McCain shocked everyone and voted against it, thus abandoning his principles and backstabbing
his party! This was applauded by the Democrats and the insurance companies who profit from
Obamacare. They praised McCain as a "maverick", although everyone knows this was done just to
thwart a Trump victory.
On his deathbed, McCain directed his staff not to invite his Presidential running mate
Sarah Palin to his funeral. She campaigned for him as a loyal teammate and never said a bad
word about McCain during the campaign or after their loss. McCain blamed her for his loss and
expressed this in a childish manner. Allow me to summarize his life. John McCain was a
selfish, spoiled brat who had no sense of decency.
One of the most blatant examples of news media's silence on a topic of great national
interest is the lack of coverage of closed-door "globalist" meetings like Bilderberg (which
is attended by employees of such publications as The New York Times and Washington
Post .)
The overheard conversation between Angela Merkel and Mark Zuckerberg on what Facebook can do
to further her immigration agenda also received astonishingly little coverage from the
establishment press:
If you look closely at Hoover's pictures it's hard to miss the kinky hair, broad nose and
just something about the bone structure of his face that reveals some negro ancestry. There's
a high school picture of him in some kind of band or cadet uniform that makes his bit of
black blood obvious.
That Mayor Moscone of San Francisco who was shot had a thing for 11-13 black girls, small
ones. He liked to beat them up a bit too. Probably not as badly as the bearings their mothers
face them all their lives. His driver was a district attorney investigator who had to drive
him to the projects and Protero Silver Av neighborhoods to meet his little friends. He met
them at their mothers homes. I assume the mothers consented and some pimps arranged
things.
One time Mayor Moscone drive himself to the Sunnyvale projects. While he was inside with
his little friend some black guys removed all the tires from his city car and he had to call
the police to drive him home.
He had 4 or 5 kids, Catholic Church attendance catholic schools the whole ostentatious
Italian Catholic thing but he liked sex with those really young black girls in their project
homes.
But as the media continued to avert its eyes from these newly revealed facts, even those
disclosed in the pages of the Times itself, I gradually began to consider matters in a
different light. Perhaps McCain's elevation to great American political power was not in
spite of the devastating facts littering his personal past, but because of
them.
Agree with this. The message from the McCain funeral was that the blackmailed US political
class would be well looked after -right to the end -- if they remained docile and obedient
and followed their scripts.
For "War Hero" McCain, it was his unswerving hard line calling for the destruction of
Iran.
But, the Zio-Glob still failed to get their war through McCain, and they also failed to
get it through Hillary Clinton. Both of them were rejected by voters despite massive media
support. This points to a basic problem that the Empire's has with Democracy. The public
clearly doesn't want another ME war, and is now aware that it was tricked into Iraq (WMD),
and significantly, their (the public's) resistance to war is sufficiently strong enough to
overcome massed MSM propaganda pushing the other way.
If the MSM can't swing it, then they need to get a compromised candidate elected on an
anti-war and immigration control platform, who then does a 180º turn when in office.
Trump wasn't their candidate (which suggests that he's clean), and (so far) he hasn't enabled
a war with Iran, so what happens with him is an open question.
Also agree that the media reaction to the Pizzagate (pedophilia) story was one of extreme
sensitivity -- almost panic, with a massive and coordinated overreaction. This suggests that
Pizzagate is in fact the nightmare subject at the root of American politician's worst
dreams.
The most obvious example is the Catholic Church, and the failings of its American and
international hierarchy in that regard have regularly made the front pages of our leading
newspapers. But until the early 2000s and the breakthrough reporting of the Boston Globe as
recounted in the Oscar-winning film Spotlight, the Church had routinely fended off such
scandals.
I'm an investigator in Boston. Just to put things in perspective, Globe's Spotlight
investigation really only involved 8 priests (3 of them no longer in the priesthood- one in
prison- at the time of the Spotlight piece) and went back 30 years. I don't have numbers on
minors involved in this Epstein scandal but I would guess they are much higher.
I always found it curious that Marty Baron decides to launch a major expose of the Boston
Catholic Church right after arriving from Miami. Seriously? A dozen priests out of thousands
in the Boston Archdiocese? I really would like to know who was behind this concerted
operation to take down the heart of American Catholicism. They make the folks behind the
Trump-Russia collusion plot look like amateurs.
Don't forget the arrest of Ars Technica writer Peter Bright, @DrPizza on twitter (account
still up), who was arrested last month for soliciting sex with children and admitted to
abusing an 11 year old girl. A guy named 'Dr Pizza' who had a pizza emoji next to his name,
who tweeted often that Pizzagate was completely made up and once to the effect that "why
would pedophiles put badges that could identify them up online" was arrested for being a
pedophile and then subsequently came out he had constantly argued for relaxations on things
like child porn and sexual-related issues. If this doesn't at least give doubters cause for
concern that maybe something is up I don't know what will.
This is a well-known weakness of Representative Democracy -- in all its versions.
The Balfour Declaration which led eventually to the creation of the state of Israel was
undoubtedly the result of complex blackmail and bribery. Perhaps the USA would not have
entered into WW1 unless Jews were promised Palestine in a deal.
Democracy is supposed to be a negative-feedback system -- like all control system. The
only way to make it function properly is to have Direct Democracy -- where people vote on all
issues and at the lowest level commensurate with the matter to be decided.
Journolist is probably weak sauce compared to the major editors of the largest television
networks and newspaper syndicates deciding amongst themselves "whats news". Ive thought this
for years. We know the CIA has people placed in media organizations, and probably has dirt on
highly placed people in media organizations who are not CIA.
McCain must have been susceptible to pressure from Russians or Chinese who certainly knew
everything McCain did in Vietnam? Or is KGB/FSB also run form Tel Aviv?
Alex Jones -- yes, Alex Jones -- gave a coherent argument about the pedophilia accusations
that avoided Satanism and the like but was still coherent. And its the same as the one you
talk about.
Simple Kompromat .
Basically, national intelligence agencies identify up-and-comers in media and politics,
then either get kompromat on them early or, if they can find nothing, set up a scenario where
kompromat is created. In this latter scenario, the up-and-comer is invited to dinner,
drugged, and then wakes up with either a dead body next to him or is shown pictures of him
either killing someone or else molesting children. Then the up-and-comer is trapped for
life.
Remember The Godfather, Part II ? They got the Nevada Senator to become their slave
when they drugged him in a whorehouse and Neri killed the girl he was sleeping with, and the
senator wakes up confused next to the girl and doesn't know if he did it or not -- and
Michael promises to keep it all quiet -- for a price, of course. That's how it happens to
these folks.
Then they own you for years.
Which makes you really scared -- not only is the FBI and NSA and CIA spying on us all
illegally and spying on Trump at Obama's behest and allowing Hillary to skate -- they're
running murder and child sex rings themselves. To gain leverage.
@Jimmy R Surprisingly, the Globe's in-bad-faith attack on the Church might have begun a a
greater renewal in it. Once it came out, people who had faith started noticing that almost
all the priests doing the abuse were -- gay men abusing teenage boys. 81% of the cases
weren't "pedophilia", they were homosexuals getting sexually mature but underage, vulnerable
boys behind closed doors and taking advantage of them.
Catholics like Michael Voris at Church Militant have put 2 and 2 together. The problems in
the Church isn't pedophilia, its homosexuals -- and Voris has exposed a ton more, including
many bishops, and called them out harshly. The Church is supposed to purge homosexuals from
the priesthood (by Catholic dogma), but haven't -- because higher-up homos have protected the
lot.
But now many Catholic lay groups are organized and pushing to attack the illegal gay
priests and get them out of the cloth. The homomafia is now proven to exist -- and, much like
when the original Mafia was admitted to exist by the Kefauver hearings, an organized rounding
up can occur.
I learn from the Times that the Phoenix beer-monopoly in question, then valued at around
$200 million, had accrued to a man whose lifelong business partner Kemper Marley had long
been deeply linked to organized crime.
Jim Hensley the beer baron and McCain father in law was convicted of liquor related
federal crimes (stealing from warehouses) but must have had a friendly judge lol cause he
didn't do jail time , got probation and paid a big fine. He was working for Kemper Marley at
the time.
So liar McCain married into a crime family .makes sense for a career fuck up who once his
father died would start failing downward instead of upward.
Organized crime loves beer and liquor distributorships cause its a all cash business .the
retailer pays you for the beer before it goes on their shelves or in their bar. no credit, no
billing, pay up front. I bought a beer distributorship in 1975 so I know a bit about it .and
Hensley had to have had some state officials in his pocket or his friend Marley had them
cause is no way the state is going to give you a license if you've been convicted on anything
worse than a speeding ticket.
You've got to be investigated by your state FBI for starters, account for every year of your
life, your schools, your wife's life, your parents and relatives, list people you associate
with in business or socially, then they go interview people who know you,,,in fact they do
that before they even personally interview you and you have to give them your financial
records, what your source of money is and all your tax returns. All of this is to make sure
you have no ties to any kind of organized crime and the money purchasing the distributorship
isn't coming from any shady figures.
Hensley or his backer had some very serious political pull and pay offs.
The number one career choice for aspiring crooks and fuckups is politics .McCain with his
punk complex temper couldn't have held on to job anywhere else.
Over the years, it became increasingly obvious to me that nearly all elements of our
national media were often quite willing to enlist in a "conspiracy of silence" to minimize or
entirely ignore stories of tremendous potential interest to their readership and major public
importance.
Yes, how about an update on the investigation into the killing of Seth Rich -- does that
count as a 'cold case' at this point?
Also media interest in the Las Vegas mass shooting seemed to fizzle -- as did the
investigation.
This is the concept of Kakistocracy. I always found McCain getting a pass on what he did to
the left behind POWs hard to fathom -- this explains it. Before I read this article I thought
that Pizzagate was just some kind of lunacy/nothing and had heard some guy went and shot up a
restaurant over it (probably the creeps involved in it arranged that themselves to discredit
those exposing them?) and it was since faded away discredited, I see it attacked by the same
people who are always using the CIA created term "Conspiracy Theory" seems it is in fact the
opposite of what I thought (due to the Globalist Propagandist Media) and its creepy players
are "running" things and highly protected by the Propagandist Globalist NWO Media, seems
Obama himself is in deep if the video is correct? hard to even look at the video as to these
creatures .So Question? Is the Q thing also for real? I have never really followed it and
seen it "debunked" on a site that made it sound like lunacy but this makes me wonder .
@Jimmy R Sometimes ago, the Mexican Bishops Conference, when speaking about Mexican
monopolistic oligarches, said they were like contemporary slave-owners .
About one year later, one of theses oligarches, Carlos Slim, bought a part of the NYTimes.
Then the NYT started its own crusade against Catholic priests paedophilia.
At the time, I noticed the coincidence, but it was like I was the only one noticing
it.
Is J. Gutierez around? He may confirm the story.
I appreciate your telling "the rest of the story" regarding the actual (as opposed to
purported) extent of the Boston sex abuse scandal.
The same abuse exaggerations also occurred in Pennsylvania."Grossly misleading,
irresponsible, inaccurate, and unjust" is how former New York Times religion reporter Peter
Steinfels described last August's grand jury report in its sweeping accusations that
Pennsylvania Catholic bishops refused to protect children from sexual abuse.
BTW, some time ago our patron Ron off-handedly accepted as factual the Globe narrative.
When contrary opinion and facts were brought to his attention, he appeared to have accepted
that they were at least worthy of consideration. (Or that's the way I vaguely remember what
transpired.)
I did not know anything about any physical violence that may or many not have been present in
McCain's marriage. I certainly did feel, that much of the senator's last days were being
carefully orchestrated in order to maintain the highest degree of hero status possible. His
wealthy wife certainly had the resources to leave if she wanted to. She always seemed to me
extremely loyal and attentive.
I would say it was similar concerning Bush 41. Perfectly understandable that negative
stories wouldn't be brought up during his long wake/funeral -- in Tx and DC -- but how about
never? Several books have said that Bush's -- and campaign manager W. Casey -- CIA
connections helped Reagan get elected by keeping the hostages in Iran .
The Vice-Pres was also up to his neck in the Iran/Contra affair in spite of him saying he
was "out of the loop (he wasn't)." A sexual affair is unimportant. But the family says it
never happened. Others have said otherwise. Jesse Ventura and his writer Dick Russell have
done a nice job laying out some things that you will never hear from the Bush flack John
Meacham. Or pretty much anyone else in on- air media.
The Corporate Fascist Military Industrial-Intelligence Police State will tell us who our
heroes, presidents, and icons are. It has already been decided. McCain was commonly known as
"crash" for all the incidents he had. He was a terrible pilot and would have never been one
except for his father. His beatings of his wife were widely known but covered up because of
his "War Hero Status." Our entire society is nothing more than a projection by the
"controllers."
Examples of this are of course Obama and his wife. The media asked him almost no questions
and he was guided by the Jew Axelrod to the Media's satisfaction. What Obama and his wife got
away with in Chicago would embarrass the Mafia. Michele Obama had to surrender her law
license to the Illinois State Disciplinary Committee. The files have been sealed.
Just look at the group running for President. All basically selected by the same
controllers. They will not make a mistake in letting another Trump spoil their plans. Our
entire democracy is just a mirage. The founder fathers were afraid that this would happen but
their plans in the Constitution to protect the nation have become "gang banged" by the
Marxist Mobs whose heroes are icons like Obama who bombed seven Muslim countries, murdered
thousands of innocent people, destroyed the middle class and started wars and lied to the
nation yet these people are on their knees to his royal presence.
We have no chance of getting to the truth on anything because to even ask a question is
now an act of racism, antisemitism, and hatred.
One of the more extreme accusers in Britain has revealed to be a fantasist, his claims went
well beyond other claims and included such unlikely characters as Field Marshall Lord
Brammal, and this is being used to Bury the paedophile scandal in Britain. Greville Janner's
children have been given prominent coverage to suggest this shows their father is innocent
despite the fact that the evidence against their father is very substantial and has little to
do with the fantasist.
There is an old wartime proverb that enemy flak is always heaviest over the most
important target, and the remarkably ferocious wave of attacks and censorship against
anyone broaching the subject of Pizzagate seems to raise all sorts of dark suspicions.
I guess we can look forward to another day of heavy DDoS of unz.com.
How is it we don't yet have a Grand Unifying Theory that links the seemingly unconnected
paedophelia stories that have simmered simultaneously in D.C., Westminster, and Brussels over
the past couple of decades? The Church would seem to fit right in in this NWO orgy, but has
instead been hung out to dry.
One of the elite one worlder groups is the (in)famous Skull and Bones society at Yale. Its
membership included both president Bushes as well as John Kerry and a multitude of other
politicians. Anthony Sutton carried out an expose in his book America's secret establishment.
Part of the inition occurs in a crypt surrounded by skulls , including Geronimos's skull
while lying in a coffin. If that isnt weird enough part of the initiation includes something
around sexual misadventure. According to Kay Riggs, whose husband was a colnel in the
intelligence services the sexual side of the initiation involves the person being sodomised
by an member of the society. According to her , in order to enter the higher levels of many
parts of government this is not an uncommon practice.
In the murky world of american political elites the truth is impossible to be certain
of.
The skull and bones society has been well publicised so presumably now the power has been
withdrawn from it.
I've had much enjoyment over the years by asking McCain worshipers to give me the name of one
Vietnamese with as many confirmed kills of American military as John McCain.
Another long-winded & annoyingly inchoate ramble raising several important but seemingly
disparate subjects, each of which could & probably should have been pursued
independently. Is there really any viable connection between Sydney Schanberg & Epstein,
between the Catholic Church & John McCain, between Berezovsky & Pizzagate, etc.? What
a jumbled mishmash that leaves you more confused than when you started. "Perhaps" this &
"perhaps" that, doesn't help very much. The most urgent question though is why are so many
high & mighty tempted by pedophilia in the first place, where does that psychosis come
from & why are the power games more important than the pawns, the poor kids, that are
used to play it? Hanging is much too good for an unspeakable filth like Epstein & whoever
aided him. There is no punishment or torture ever devised that would be sufficient, if found
guilty, for the crimes for which he stands accused. That should come first, the rest is
chickenfeed.
We have progressed (here we laugh) from the times of Gentlemen and Ladies to so-called
emancipated men and women with human rights fit for animals. Just to refresh your memory
The last big VA scandal where many Veterans died waiting to get medical treatment
happened in Arizona. You cannot tell me that McCain did not know that Veterans were dying
while waiting to get help at the Phoenix VA. In my opinion McCain was a worthless human
being.
The most devastating victory the North Vietnamese had over the US was the return of McCain
alive.
I'm not convinced by the evidence against Comet Ping Pong, but I am intrigued by the possible
connections that the Podesta brothers have to the disappearance of the British girl,
Madelaine McCann, in Portugal over a decade ago. John Podesta is known to have been in
Portugal around the time of Madelaine's disappearance. There is also a description eerily
similar to Anthony Wiener.
I've long been convinced, and who can deny, that most of the wars the US has been involved
in, and all of the ones Zionists and Communists have been involved in, have roots in
outrageous sadistic psychopathology like this.:
Major items of his very extensive personal collection seemed to represent tortured or
murdered bodies, and one of his favorite artists was best known for paintings depicting
young children being held captive, lying dead, or suffering under severe distress
.
As for the slime, McCain, and the rest of the political establishment, none of it
surprises me. The type was recognized long ago.
(1) Roy Cohn (1927-86) allegedly ran child sex and blackmail operations for decades,
operating out of locales such as New York's Plaza Hotel
(2) Robert Keith Gray (1921-2014), USA lobbyist, "specialist in homosexual blackmail
operations for the CIA and reported to have collaborated with Roy Cohn"
(3) Bruce Ritter (1927-99), Roman Catholic priest and founder of Covenant House for
homeless teenagers, "eventually accused of having sexual relationships with many of the
underaged boys he had taken in", Ritter supported by Cardinal Spellman closely tied to Roy
Cohn, and tied to George H W Bush's Yale room-mate
(4) Craig Spence (1941-89), another USA lobbyist; "in June 1989, it was revealed that he
had been pimping out children to the power elite in the nation's capital throughout the 1980s
in apartments that were bugged with video and audio recording equipment reports on Spence's
child sex ring also reveal his close ties to none other than the ubiquitous Roy Cohn
"Spence had been able to enter the White House late at night during the George H.W. Bush
administration with young men whom the Washington Times described as 'call boys' Spence often
boasted that he was working for the CIA Not long after the Washington Times report on his
activities was published, Spence was found dead in the Boston Ritz Carlton and his death was
quickly ruled a suicide."
(5) Lawrence E. King Jr, lobbyist and credit union banker, key figure in the "infamous
Franklin child sex abuse and ritual murder scandal run out of Omaha, Nebraska Larry King and
his Nebraska-based call boy ring, was discovered by looking through the credit card chits of
Spence's ring King and Spence were essentially business partners as their child trafficking
rings were operated under a larger group that was nicknamed 'Bodies by God' the rings run by
both King and Spence were connected to each other and both were also connected to prominent
officials in the Reagan and subsequent George H.W. Bush administrations, including officials
with ties to the CIA and Roy Cohn and his network"
(6) Jeffrey Epstein (born 1953) then comes in on the scene, convicted of the same kinds of
activities, and linked to the networks reflected in the above
By the way, the 'police break-in' to Epstein's New York City 27,000 square foot mansion,
is regarded as a staged fake event by many, because as was clear, Epstein had multiple
live-in staffers, there was always a butler or someone present 24/7, who would simply have
opened the door for the police. The crowbar damage to the door would not have opened the
high-security portal, and would have set off massive alarms. The people walking out with
cheap rubbish bags of alleged 'evidence' did not even look like police or feds on a
high-profile operation.
Epstein always had lots of aides & helpers such as Ghislaine Maxwell, daughter of
'Israeli super-spy Robert Maxwell', allegedly helping procure all the young girls etc., yet
somehow not yet so touched by these events when a 'serious' prosecution would certain quickly
dragnet all such people. What is really going on, remains yet to be seen.
That some, if not many US politicians have degenerate backgrounds and bizarre tastes can't be
brushed off as some coincidence.
If you're a tiny ME nation that is doing a good job of occupying the most powerful
military on Earth or if you're some bankster gangster that wants to keep your fraudulent fiat
money scheme afloat, our corrupt politicians are just what the doctor ordered.
A guy named 'Dr Pizza' who had a pizza emoji next to his name, who tweeted often that
Pizzagate was completely made up and once to the effect that "why would pedophiles put
badges that could identify them up online" was arrested for being a pedophile and then
subsequently came out he had constantly argued for relaxations on things like child porn
and sexual-related issues.
The bastards just love molesting our minds as well. Who can deny that they enjoy it even
more when they ply their perversions in our faces? It should also be crystal clear that the
gratuitous Isreali sniping and crippling and a thousand other outrageous crimes against
humanity stimulate the hell out of the perverts.
When will people finally get it through their heads that politics is all about
domination , most often in perverted and sadistic forms?
@Jimmy R I'm no Catholic, but it's long been obvious that the incessant harping on the
Church's pedophilia is a twofer; it's not only a huge smear campaign, but it's no doubt worth
$$ to the usual suspects. Look what the Commies did to religious folk in the former USSR and
to the largely Christian Germany, and tell me that there's no connection.
Sadistic perverts rule with the consistent support of the "great" US moneyed ruling
classes while the drooling rubes and dupes do their part as well.
@Jimmy R It is all about stopping the Catholic Church from having a voice to oppose Zion
BC wars and coups. The Jewish Zionists want to continue the mass destruction of our planet
without any back talk.
Planted Memories is a good trick to silence any organization and a big one like the
Catholic Church.
Planted memories have used since the 1990s against the Catholic Church in a big way. After
the end of the cold war, the ZUS wanted wars for Zion mania. No back talk allowed from any
one or group is "allowed". This planted memories games works like a charm and has been used
over and over again on the Catholic Church to silence it. It allows the wars and the coups
for Zion BC go on and on endlessly with no back talk. It is a common trick for many cases
these days.
"There is no credible scientific support for the idea that we can take eleven years of
brutalization and banish it into the unconscious and then undergo some therapy which is
going to make us aware of it," Dr. Loftus reported as she discussed the Holly Ramona case,
"and yet these kinds of things were being introduced into court cases throughout the 1990s
and into the 2000s and still today." While her outspoken opposition to recovered memory has
led to her being targeted by feminist and victims' rights groups over the years (including
the controversial "Jane Doe case"), Dr. Loftus continues to stand by her own research into
false memory.
Regarding the fabled photos of J Edgar Hoover in a woman's dress and with his gay lover, held
as successful blackmail by the Jewish mob & Meyer Lansky, Ms Whitney Webb says in her
Mint Press News series on Epstein connections:
Anthony Summers, former BBC journalist and author of 'Official and Confidential: The
Secret Life of J. Edgar Hoover', has argued that it was not Lansky, but William Donovan,
the director of the OSS, who obtained the original photos of Hoover and later shared them
with Lansky.
Ms Webb argues for a quite long series of connections between the USA-Canadian Jewish
& Italian mobs going back a century, the paedophile and under-age-sex-slave blackmail
groups, and the USA & Israel intel agencies. Her series is quite something, the first two
installments: https://www.mintpressnews.com/shocking-origins-jeffrey-epstein-blackmail-roy-cohn/260621/ https://www.mintpressnews.com/blackmail-jeffrey-epstein-trump-mentor-reagan-era/260760/
Many connections are indeed striking. Trump's current USA Attorney General Barr (born 1950)
& his father Donald Barr (1921-2004), were both CIA-intel officers & both linked to
Epstein. William was CIA officer 1973-77, the CIA supporting him going to law school, father
Donald with OSS & Bill Donovan the CIA predecessor during WW2.
Barr's later law firm Kirkland & Ellis represented Epstein; Donald Barr, when NYC
Dalton School headmaster, gave Jeffrey Epstein his first job, teaching teen-age girls &
boys 1973-75, whilst William Barr was at the CIA. Father Donald Barr was fascinated by sex
slavery as much as Epstein apparently, Barr authoring a 1973 fantasy novel on the subject,
'Space Relations: A Slightly Gothic Interplanetary Tale" book published when Jeffrey Epstein
was his underling & school-teacher of teens.
Ms Webb recounts multiple child molestation and political blackmail groups -- which had a
collective name, 'Bodies from God' -- all linking ultimately with Jeffrey Epstein, intel
agencies, and Jewish mobsters; Lansky etc., and such as the Bronfmans of Canada, the
Bronfmans in 1991 joining with Epstein's patron & the original buyer of his New York City
mansion, Les Wexner, to found the 'Mega Group' of 20 or so Zionist Jewish billionaires who
are now often perceived to be the Mossad-backed money source for Epstein. A short list of
these groups and persons mentioned by Webb
[MORE]
(1) Roy Cohn (1927-86) allegedly ran child sex and blackmail operations for decades,
operating out of locales such as New York's Plaza Hotel
(2) Robert Keith Gray (1921-2014), USA lobbyist, "specialist in homosexual blackmail
operations for the CIA and reported to have collaborated with Roy Cohn"
(3) Bruce Ritter (1927-99), Roman Catholic priest and founder of Covenant House for
homeless teenagers, "eventually accused of having sexual relationships with many of the
underaged boys he had taken in", Ritter supported by Cardinal Spellman closely tied to Roy
Cohn, and tied to George H W Bush's Yale room-mate
(4) Craig Spence (1941-89), another USA lobbyist; "in June 1989, it was revealed that he
had been pimping out children to the power elite in the nation's capital throughout the 1980s
in apartments that were bugged with video and audio recording equipment reports on Spence's
child sex ring also reveal his close ties to none other than the ubiquitous Roy Cohn
"Spence had been able to enter the White House late at night during the George H.W. Bush
administration with young men whom the Washington Times described as 'call boys' Spence often
boasted that he was working for the CIA Not long after the Washington Times report on his
activities was published, Spence was found dead in the Boston Ritz Carlton and his death was
quickly ruled a suicide."
(5) Lawrence E. King Jr, lobbyist and credit union banker, key figure in the "infamous
Franklin child sex abuse and ritual murder scandal run out of Omaha, Nebraska Larry King and
his Nebraska-based call boy ring, was discovered by looking through the credit card chits of
Spence's ring King and Spence were essentially business partners as their child trafficking
rings were operated under a larger group that was nicknamed 'Bodies by God' the rings run by
both King and Spence were connected to each other and both were also connected to prominent
officials in the Reagan and subsequent George H.W. Bush administrations, including officials
with ties to the CIA and Roy Cohn and his network"
(6) Jeffrey Epstein (born 1953) then comes in on the scene, convicted of the same kinds of
activities, and linked to the networks reflected in the above
By the way, the 'police break-in' to Epstein's New York City 27,000 square foot mansion,
is regarded as a staged fake event by many, because as was clear, Epstein had multiple
live-in staffers, there was always a butler or someone present 24/7, who would simply have
opened the door for the police. The crowbar damage to the door would not have opened the
high-security portal, and would have set off massive alarms. The people walking out with
cheap rubbish bags of alleged 'evidence' did not even look like police or feds on a
high-profile operation.
Epstein always had lots of aides & helpers such as Ghislaine Maxwell, daughter of
'Israeli super-spy Robert Maxwell', allegedly helping procure all the young girls etc., yet
somehow not yet so touched by these events when a 'serious' prosecution would certain quickly
dragnet all such people. What is really going on, remains yet to be seen.
Pizzagate" is a debunked conspiracy theory that went viral during the 2016 United States
presidential election cycle.[2][3][4] It has been extensively discredited by a wide range
of organizations, including the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of
Columbia.[3][4][5]
Some of Pizzagate's proponents, including David Seaman and Michael G. Flynn (Michael
Flynn's son), have evolved the conspiracy into a broader government conspiracy called
"Pedogate". According to this theory, a "satanic cabal of elites" of the New World Order
operates international child sex trafficking rings.[27]
One of the victims filed a federal lawsuit. Once filed, this is public record. The only
redactions allowed are social security numbers and the like.
When the Miami Herald went to obtain the Motion for Summary Judgment, it was completely
redacted. 137 pages of blacked out paragraphs.
A motion for summary judgment is basically saying there are no material issues in dispute-
nothing to litigate. This document would contain all relevant facts about the case.
This type of redaction is unheard, unprecedented- appalling.
The only reason the Herald is in pursuit ( and any other MSM) is because they believed it
would destroy Trump.
It's now on appeal. If the redactions stand, we should riot in the street. We knew justice
was bought, but pedophilia usually will stir up some dregs of bureaucratic slugs to
action.
And with a parallel to McCain, if Clinton slithers out of this- with over 27 flights on
the Lolita Express- he is officially the most untouchable man in history.
Once you start researching the Epstein matter- not for the lurid details- but the
unprecedented, jaw dropping preferential treatment of an actual human sex trafficker ( not
this fake #metoo hysteria)
-- all hope is lost.
Note the strange silence from Hollywood and the elites regarding Epstein's victims, when
they were wearing hair shirts over Christine Fords 30 year old accusation.
A wealthy smug scold, who looks like an exploded can of rotten biscuit dough had them
weeping on camera.
Dozens of little girls -- all poor and from fatherless backgrounds marred by parental drug
abuse, suicides and physical abuse- selected and sexually devastated by Epstein- not a
word.
Ron Unz says: " ..at the core of our hugely corrupted political system .."
So whats to be done? Isn't that the big question here?
I believe that its only with the an understanding of the true, 100% corrupt nature of the
state, that real-world solutions to the massive [ and progressively worse] problems it causes
in society can be worked out and then implemented.
Ron, the big picture here that you, like most, either genuinely don't see [ or
conveniently refuse to see] is this:
The True Nature of All Governments:
"Because they are all ultimately funded via both direct and indirect theft [taxes], and
counterfeiting [via central bank monopolies], all governments are essentially, at their very
cores, 100% corrupt criminal scams which cannot be "reformed","improved", nor "limited" in
scope, simply because of their innate criminal nature." onebornfree
"Taking the State wherever found, striking into its history at any point, one sees no way
to differentiate the activities of its founders, administrators and beneficiaries from those
of a professional-criminal class." Albert J. Nock
"Government is a disease masquerading as its own cure." Robert LeFevre
Without an generally accepted understanding of the true nature of all states and
governments, we are lost, as far as I can see.
@Jimmy R Also, there is a major distinction: child abuse in the Catholic Church is
committed by isolated individuals whose sole responsibility is involved when the crime is
committed. It is not institutionalised, pre-planned and organised by a group, as it is within
the political establishment.
It is the same difference as between a criminal and organised crime, and it is a major
difference, in magnitude and in nature.
I actually highly reccomend a film called "Eyes Wide Shut."
The film, which stars Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman, was directed by the late Stanley
Kubrick and released back in 1999. It was extremely hyped at the time, especially given that
Kubrick died several days after completing the film.
While I won't summarize the entire film, there is one very important scene in which Tom
Cruise's character sneaks into a large New York mansion and stumbles upon a Satanic sexual
ritual/orgy. At the ritual/orgy, there are various individuals in costumes&masks who
engage in debauched sexual practices with sex slaves. Later in the movie, one of the men
there (who happens to be a prominent local Jewish socialite) tells Tom Cruise's character
that the Satanic sexual gathering was full of very important and powerful local figures. Tom
Cruise's character is ominously threatened into silence. At the end of the film, Tom Cruise
and Nicole Kidman allow their young daughter to be taken by the Satanic sexual abusers.
After he was finished with the movie, Stanley Kubrick showed it to execs from Warner
Brothers for the first time. They ended up getting into a contentious argument over the film.
The next day, Kubrick (who was a very healthy man) was announced dead of a heart attack.
Around 30 minutes of the film was later edited out by Warner Brothers before it was released.
Supposedly (and this has NOT been confirmed) there were scenes of child sexual abuse in the
original that Kubrick made, but this was edited out.
The movie would go on to become very popular in "conspiracy" circles. Many of these people
said that Kubrick (who was notoriously reclusive, enigmatic, and fond of "conspiracy
theories") was exposing the secret world of the Illuminati and their debauched sexual
practices, including their sexual enslavement of children.
There are very interesting similarities between the movie's Satanic sexual gathering and
an eerie real life Rothschild ball held back in 1972 (at one of the family mansions). The
movie even used a Rothschild mansion (Mentmore Towers) as the setting for the Satanic sexual
orgy.
When you hear all the allegations being made against Epstein, it makes you wonder. The New
York mansion. The weird Occult/Satanic temple on his island. The really young women coerced
into orgies. The hordes of wealth, famous, and powerful people who "partied" with Epstein.
The threats made against journalists and accusers who've come forward. The Jewish connection.
The Rothschild connection (Dershowitz was introduced to Epstein by the Rothschilds). The
Royal family and Prince Andrew connection ("Eyes Wide Shut" had a character with the surname
"Windsor"). There are many similarities to "Eyes Wide Shut."
If we assume that the Illuminati (or a similar elite society) actually exists, maybe it
makes sense that they would invite powerful people to attend their parties and engage in
debauched sexual acts, especially with the underaged. By encouraging this, the society would
get blackmail material on the elite of society. Once those elites were under blackmail,
they'd be puppets. These compromised elites would also be willing to recruit more new members
and bring them to the sexual parties.
So perhaps Epstein started off by befriending a few of the elite (with the Mossad helping
facilitate the social interaction). He then invited them to some type of perverse sexual
party. Once Epstein got tapes and pictures of them, these elites then became Israeli pawns
and also became willing to invite their elite friends to the parties.
That may explain why Epstein became so popular and why no one was willing to take him
down. That may also explain why everyone quoted in news articles always used to mention his
supposed "brilliance."
Even Newsweek noted the similarity between "Eyes Wide Shut" and the Epstein situation.
If you're interested in seeing the ritual that I mentioned above, here's a short video
from the movie. I wouldn't be surprised if Epstein was doing something similar to this in his
Occult/Satanic temple on his island.
What this article should convince everyone of is that 'rules but no rulers' makes perfect
sense. That's what real anarchism means -- rules but no rulers. If your immediate mental
picture was of a bomb thrower, then your mind has been successfully infiltrated by the powers
that shouldn't be.
Why is it that one person with the title of 'President' can declare things that affect the
lives of millions of USians and billions world wide. No one should have that much power.
"The way to get rid of corruption in high places is to get rid of high places." -- Frank
Chodorov
If the deep state has managed to install their puppets in positions of authority shouldn't
we all be trying to get rid of the positions of authority instead of rotating through that
position replaceable candidates offered up by the deep state political parties?
If you vote, you are tacitly approving of a system that has enslaved your mind.
If you're not an anarchist, you are part of the problem.
Kudos, Ron Unz. Excellent article and a useful tutorial on the hidden control mechanism of
what the late Paul A. Samuelson called our "democratic oligarchy".
I applaud your parlor joke:
" that perhaps the best career move for an ambitious young politician would be to
secretly commit some monstrous crime and then make sure that the hard evidence of his guilt
ended up in the hands of certain powerful people, thereby assuring his rapid political
rise."
A great French investigative reporter crafted an unfunny version:
"Indeed, under our putative system of democracy, especially since JFK, the oligarchy
will not allow the election of any candidate who cannot be blackmailed."
-- Thierry Meyssan, Before our very eyes -- fake wars and big lies from 9/11 to Donald
Trump , p. 146.
He had just described the 911 caper as a Cheney-led deep-state coup to activate the secret
but long-standing CoG procedure to sideline the Constitution. It succeeded when clueless
Dubya was reinstated as figure-head president within 24 hours after agreeing to the clique's
CoG (continuity of government) agenda, including the planned wars.
No wonder the shenannigans of compromised office-holding puppets (actors, really) and
their shadowy string-pullers never seem to be known to their spear-carriers in MSM.
McCain was a psycopath and a traitor and proof of the zionists love of war and killers was
their praise for this psycopath in his death and funeral and on the other hand no mention was
ever made about the crime committed against the crew of the USS Liberty by the joint Israeli
and zio/US attack on the Liberty, this shows how f##ked up this zionist ruled country has
become!
Get and read the book Blood in the Water by Joan Mellen about the joint Israeli and zio/US
attack on the Liberty, who McCains father participated in the cover up of this war crime!
The number one career choice for aspiring crooks and fuckups is politics .McCain with
his punk complex temper couldn't have held on to job anywhere else.
Perverts and psychopaths as well.
" nobody is going to be a thief with me as his accomplice,
and that right there is why I'm going in no governor's entourage."
Juvenal, Satires, Volume 3, (3.41-48) ~100 AD
Now do not be vexed with me when I speak the truth. For there is no human being who will
preserve his life if he genuinely opposes either you or any other multitude and prevents
many unjust and unlawful things from happening in the city. Rather, if someone who
really fights for the just is going to preserve himself even for a short time, it is
necessary for him to lead a private rather than a public life.
@Jimmy R The Diocese of Rockville Centre, where I live, has released a list of 61 priests
accused of sexual misconduct. The Diocese of Newark, NJ has released a list of 82 priests.
The Diocese of Brooklyn, NY has released a list of 108 priests. The Diocese of NY has
released a list of 120. That's a lot more than eight, and I think if the Church is willing to
give us this many names, there are probably quite a few who managed to fly under the radar.
I was raised a Catholic and really wish I didn't have to accept this reality. I've read
stories that the Church was infiltrated in the 20th century, and perhaps it's true, but maybe
it's been going on for a very long time. It does seem to be a bit unnatural for a man to
become celibate, and that might be one of the reasons so many deviants were attracted to the
priesthood, I don't know. I do know I never trusted any of them alone with my kids and I'd
advise others to do the same.
It's a shame, because as a society we need some kind of moralistic code, but the Church
has failed, or is at least failing, at this time in its history.
Regarding the fabled photos of J Edgar Hoover in a woman's dress and with his gay lover, held
as successful blackmail by the Jewish mob & Meyer Lansky, Ms Whitney Webb says in her
Mint Press News series on Epstein connections:
Anthony Summers, former BBC journalist and author of 'Official and Confidential: The
Secret Life of J. Edgar Hoover', has argued that it was not Lansky, but William Donovan,
the director of the OSS, who obtained the original photos of Hoover and later shared them
with Lansky.
Ms Webb argues for a quite long series of connections between the USA-Canadian Jewish
& Italian mobs going back a century, the paedophile and under-age-sex-slave blackmail
groups, and the USA & Israel intel agencies. Her series is quite something, the first two
installments: https://www.mintpressnews.com/shocking-origins-jeffrey-epstein-blackmail-roy-cohn/260621/ https://www.mintpressnews.com/blackmail-jeffrey-epstein-trump-mentor-reagan-era/260760/
Many connections are indeed striking. Trump's current USA Attorney General Barr (born 1950)
& his father Donald Barr (1921-2004), were both CIA-intel officers & both linked to
Epstein. William was CIA officer 1973-77, the CIA supporting him going to law school, father
Donald with OSS & Bill Donovan the CIA predecessor during WW2.
Barr's later law firm Kirkland & Ellis represented Epstein; Donald Barr, when NYC
Dalton School headmaster, gave Jeffrey Epstein his first job, teaching teen-age girls &
boys 1973-75, whilst William Barr was at the CIA. Father Donald Barr was fascinated by sex
slavery as much as Epstein apparently, Barr authoring a 1973 fantasy novel on the subject,
'Space Relations: A Slightly Gothic Interplanetary Tale" book published when Jeffrey Epstein
was his underling & school-teacher of teens.
Ms Webb recounts multiple child molestation and political blackmail groups – which
had a collective name, 'Bodies from God' – all linking ultimately with Jeffrey Epstein,
intel agencies, and Jewish mobsters; Lansky etc., and such as the Bronfmans of Canada, the
Bronfmans in 1991 joining with Epstein's patron & the original buyer of his New York City
mansion, Les Wexner, to found the 'Mega Group' of 20 or so Zionist Jewish billionaires who
are now often perceived to be the Mossad-backed money source for Epstein. A short list of
these groups and persons mentioned by Webb
[Hide MORE]
(1) Roy Cohn (1927-86) allegedly ran child sex and blackmail operations for decades,
operating out of locales such as New York's Plaza Hotel
(2) Robert Keith Gray (1921-2014), USA lobbyist, "specialist in homosexual blackmail
operations for the CIA and reported to have collaborated with Roy Cohn"
(3) Bruce Ritter (1927-99), Roman Catholic priest and founder of Covenant House for
homeless teenagers, "eventually accused of having sexual relationships with many of the
underaged boys he had taken in", Ritter supported by Cardinal Spellman closely tied to Roy
Cohn, and tied to George H W Bush's Yale room-mate
(4) Craig Spence (1941-89), another USA lobbyist; "in June 1989, it was revealed that he
had been pimping out children to the power elite in the nation's capital throughout the 1980s
in apartments that were bugged with video and audio recording equipment reports on Spence's
child sex ring also reveal his close ties to none other than the ubiquitous Roy Cohn
"Spence had been able to enter the White House late at night during the George H.W. Bush
administration with young men whom the Washington Times described as 'call boys' Spence often
boasted that he was working for the CIA Not long after the Washington Times report on his
activities was published, Spence was found dead in the Boston Ritz Carlton and his death was
quickly ruled a suicide."
(5) Lawrence E. King Jr, lobbyist and credit union banker, key figure in the "infamous
Franklin child sex abuse and ritual murder scandal run out of Omaha, Nebraska Larry King and
his Nebraska-based call boy ring, was discovered by looking through the credit card chits of
Spence's ring King and Spence were essentially business partners as their child trafficking
rings were operated under a larger group that was nicknamed 'Bodies by God' the rings run by
both King and Spence were connected to each other and both were also connected to prominent
officials in the Reagan and subsequent George H.W. Bush administrations, including officials
with ties to the CIA and Roy Cohn and his network"
(6) Jeffrey Epstein (born 1953) then comes in on the scene, convicted of the same kinds of
activities, and linked to the networks reflected in the above
By the way, the 'police break-in' to Epstein's New York City 27,000 square foot mansion,
is regarded as a staged fake event by many, because as was clear, Epstein had multiple
live-in staffers, there was always a butler or someone present 24/7, who would simply have
opened the door for the police. The crowbar damage to the door would not have opened the
high-security portal, and would have set off massive alarms. The people walking out with
cheap rubbish bags of alleged 'evidence' did not even look like police or feds on a
high-profile operation.
Epstein always had lots of aides & helpers such as Ghislaine Maxwell, daughter of
'Israeli super-spy Robert Maxwell', allegedly helping procure all the young girls etc., yet
somehow not yet so touched by these events when a 'serious' prosecution would certain quickly
dragnet all such people. What is really going on, remains yet to be seen.
Pizzagate" is a debunked conspiracy theory that went viral during the 2016 United States
presidential election cycle.[2][3][4] It has been extensively discredited by a wide range
of organizations, including the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of
Columbia.[3][4][5]
Some of Pizzagate's proponents, including David Seaman and Michael G. Flynn (Michael
Flynn's son), have evolved the conspiracy into a broader government conspiracy called
"Pedogate". According to this theory, a "satanic cabal of elites" of the New World Order
operates international child sex trafficking rings.[27]
"... Perhaps evidence of direct communication between clapper, brennan, steele, Downer and the British IC in preparation for the attack on the Trump campaign? ..."
"... What if the RussiaGate campaign was planned to go ahead BEFORE the DNC was actually hacked, using faked evidence? What if Seth Rich became aware of this operation and tried to spike it? What if the DNC planned to fake the Russian penetration evidence themselves, but Seth Rich dumped the real stuff? ..."
"... Of course the FBI wasn't allowed to see the actual evidence nor did they request a subpoena to obtain it. ..."
Has it crossed anyone's mind that the reason the FBI weren't allowed to view the DNC servers
was because they would discover evidence of massive DNC illegality in the form of
unattributable clickbait operations and suchlike? Perhaps evidence as well of direct
collusion between the DOJ and IC community to destroy Trumps campaign as well?
Perhaps
evidence of direct communication between clapper, brennan, steele, Downer and the British IC
in preparation for the attack on the Trump campaign?
What if the RussiaGate campaign was planned to go ahead BEFORE the DNC was actually
hacked, using faked evidence? What if Seth Rich became aware of this operation and tried to
spike it? What if the DNC planned to fake the Russian penetration evidence themselves, but
Seth Rich dumped the real stuff?
"... The Servant of the People Party with 43.17% remains in the lead. The Opposition Platform – For Life Party ranks second with 13.01%, Yulia Tymoshenko's Batkivshchyna Party ranks third with 8.18%, Petro Poroshenko's European Solidarity Party has 8.11%, and Svyatoslav Vakarchuk's Holos (Voice) Party has 5.83%. All the other parties failed to get a representative into the Rada. ..."
"... The entire Euromaidan is nothing more than the overthrow of one oligarchic gang by a combination of other oligarchic gangs which used neo-Nazi mobs to seize power. The fact that the USA and the EU backed this typical neo-Nazi coup really means very little: the West has always sided with anybody and everybody who is in some way against Russia. ..."
"... In theory, Zelenskii could "go Putin" and crush the oligarchs. But Zelenskii is no Putin, to put it mildly. Furthermore, the true reason why the Ukrainian oligarchs hate and fear Russia is not because of some supposed Grand-Russian nationalism or imperialism, but because they want to keep the Ukraine in the same dysfunctional and very profitable condition in which this poor country has been kept since 1991 ..."
"... The truth is that Zelenskii has to choose between acting on the will of the people and face the wrath of the neo-Nazis or do the will of the neo-Nazis and face the wrath of the people : tertium non datur ! ..."
"... Ukraine is the classic case of ustashization. A nation (often invented, but doesn't need to be so) with an inferiority complex (because it didn't exist, or failed to demonstrate any reason why it should be kept around) makes it's raison d'etre to be the hatred of the nation(s) it really should belong to. ..."
"... He is not in control – yet – anymore than Trump was in early 2017. (Not sure if Trump is in control now). However, if Ukraine's parliament controls the budget, Zelensky can eventually gain control of the military. The first thing he should do, though, is shut down western NGOs. ..."
"... Judging from my African experiences, the rulers of countries who are powerless invariably start pulling down statues (USA included), renaming streets and changing the Latin spelling of their place names ..."
"... Though the February 2014 US instigated coup put Poroshenko in power much overlooked is that the EU's European Neighborhood Policy exploited this to the hilt by having this puppet regime sign the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement. This agreement is a disaster for Ukraine's economy by creating an exclusive EU-Ukraine trade relation specifically designed to exclude Russia and destroy any existing trade ties with Russia. ..."
"... EU Comissioner Stefan Fule (responsible for implementing the European Neighborhood Policy) knew up front that this agreement would cost Ukraine up to 169 billion US$. The European Neighborhood Policy aims to establish a sphere of dependent non-member states. This is exactly why Yanukovich refused to sign that agreement and was subsequently removed from office. ..."
"... Monsanto, Cargill, Dupont, John Deere/ Iowa St. Univ. { whom I met in Kyiv } , Royal Dutch Shell, Lily Pharma and even China had a deal going for a lease of hundreds of thousands of hectares of Ag land. ..."
"... Much of the Ukie-ville territory can fail fail fail but remember which Globalist Corporations now own the bread basket , the port that they use to export grain, corn, arms, bio-war research, etc. and that these are real boss's of Ukraine. ..."
"... Obviously the deal offered to the coup plotters by Obomber via Nuland and McStain was try to raise as much hell as possible and obstruct Russia to the max and you'll get a handsome reward from Uncle Sam. If this means shooting and blowing up your own citizens in the Russian oblasts by the thousands, chopping your GNP in two through loss of mining, manufacturing, and trade, losing your natural gas transit revenues by relentlessly antagonizing Russia, destroying what industrial infrastructure there was in your pathetic country by five years of artillery barrages against the Donbass so be it. ..."
"... Zelensky is very weak, one of the least powerful leaders in the world today. But it is not just him, he reflects the weakness that took over Ukraine. They have very few options left and time is not on Kiev's side. ..."
"... I've long assessed American Presidents on a spectrum from Figurehead/Pitchman to Real POTUS. During the post-Cold War period they were increasingly the former, with Trump constituting an abrupt turn to the latter. ..."
"... This relationship of the elected/Constitutional leader to the Permanent Government/Administrative State/National Security State/Deep State is universal. ..."
"... Kolomoisky brought him to the helm, which was in essence the same thing as Maidan: several oligarchic clans ganging up on the ones feeding at the trough. The thievery won't stop, just as it did not stop after Maidan. The only thing that is going to change is the personalities of the top thieves. Nazi mobs are stupid (and therefore convenient) tool of oligarchs, just as they were in 2014. ..."
First, almost all the nationalist parties failed to get even one representative elected to
the Rada (Poroshenko's and Timoshenko's parties did get some seats, but only 25 each)
Second, for the first time since the independence of the Ukraine, the country's President
will have an absolute majority in the Rada.
The Servant of the People Party with 43.17% remains in the lead. The Opposition Platform
– For Life Party ranks second with 13.01%, Yulia Tymoshenko's Batkivshchyna Party ranks
third with 8.18%, Petro Poroshenko's European Solidarity Party has 8.11%, and Svyatoslav
Vakarchuk's Holos (Voice) Party has 5.83%. All the other parties failed to get a
representative into the Rada.
Also of interest is the score of the "Opposition Platform – for Life" party
(Rabinovich, Boyko, Medvedchuk) which got a total of 44
seats .
In plain English what this means is that the war parties have suffered a crushing
electoral defeat .
One might be forgiven in thinking that this is fantastic news for Zelenskii, but in fact it
is quite the opposite: this election result creates an extremely dangerous situation for
him.
Why the outcome of elections is extremely dangerous for the Ukraine
The first thing that we need to remember is while the neo-Nazis suffered two crushing
defeats in a row (in the Presidential election and in the Parliamentary elections), they have
not somehow magically disappeared. Here is the key factoid which we must never forget:
The Nazi-occupied Ukraine is not a democracy, but a plutocracy combined with an ochlocracy .
In plain English this means that the Ukraine is ruled by oligarchs, mobs and death
squads .
The entire Euromaidan is nothing more than the overthrow of one oligarchic gang by a
combination of other oligarchic gangs which used neo-Nazi mobs to seize power. The fact that
the USA and the EU backed this typical neo-Nazi coup really means very little: the West has
always sided with anybody and everybody who is in some way against Russia. This has been true
since the Middle-Ages and it is still true today (I would even argue that Hitler's rise to
power was yet another operation by the Anglosphere to try to control the European continent and
the fact that eventually the Nazi golem turned on its intended masters, does not change
that).
The oligarchs are still there, as are the neo-Nazis mobs and death squads. And that creates
an immense problem for Zelenskii: this new Rada might well represent the views of a majority of
the Ukrainian people, but the real power in the country is not concentrated in the Rada
at all: it is in the streets .
Legally speaking, Zelenskii does have the tools to crack down on the oligarchs and the
neo-Nazis, but in practical terms he has nothing. Okay, maybe not quite "nothing", but whatever
power he has is rooted much more in the fact that he has the backing of the ultimate
Uber-oligarch Kolomoiskii (whom many consider to be the real "president" of the Ukraine,
Zelenskii being nothing more than a puppet). Not only that, but Kolomoiskii has many scores to
settle with Poroshenko's gang, and we can be pretty sure that he will want to his enemies to
pay for what they did to him under the previous regime.
So let's sum it up.
The people of the Ukraine desperately want peace . For the time being, the
Rada reflects this overwhelmingly important fact. I say "for the time being" because what will
happen next is that the various forces and individuals who currently support Zelenskii have
done so just to gain power. They do not, however, have a common ideological platform or even a
common program. As soon as things go south (which they will inevitably do) many (most?) of
these folks will turn against Zelenskii and side with whoever can muster the biggest crowds and
mete out the most violence.
In theory, Zelenskii could "go Putin" and crush the oligarchs. But Zelenskii is no Putin, to
put it mildly. Furthermore, the true reason why the Ukrainian oligarchs hate and fear Russia is
not because of some supposed Grand-Russian nationalism or imperialism, but because they want to
keep the Ukraine in the same dysfunctional and very profitable condition in which this poor
country has been kept since 1991. When Putin came to power and cracked down on the Russian
oligarchs, the Ukrainian oligarchs looked in absolute horror at what was happening in Russia,
and they decided to do whatever it takes to prevent that from ever happening in the
Ukraine.
There is a well-known slogan in the Ukraine "Путин
прыйдэ –
порядок навэдэ"
which can be translated as "Putin came and restored order". This is the Ukie oligarch's
ultimate nightmare. As it so happens, it is also the AngloZionist Empire's ultimate nightmare.
Hence the apparently bizarre alliance between Anglos, Zionists and Nazis: they all fear that
Putin will come and restore order to the Ukraine. Add to this the hallucinations of Hillary
("Putin wants to restore the USSR") and Brzezinski ("Russia needs the Ukraine to be a
superpower") and you have a simple and all-encompassing explanation for what we have seen
taking place in the Ukraine since the Euromaidan.
Interestingly, there are even indicators that Putin is very popular with a majority of the
Ukrainian people (see here , here
,
here or
here ). This might, in part at least, explain why Poroshenko's campaign was centered on
the "either me or Putin" concept which, considering the crushing defeat suffered by Poroshenko,
could suggest that Putin was the real winner of the last election or, alternatively, that folks
only voted for Zelenskii as the least pro-war and the most anti-Poroshenko candidate: a kind of
anti-anti-Putin candidate, at least while campaigning. Now that he got elected, Zelenskii
quasi-instantly switched to the exact same rhetoric as what got Poroshenko so severely
defeated. Why?
Because Zelenskiii is afraid that the neo-Nazi mobs and death squads will be unleashed
against him at the very first opportunity. In fact, the neo-Nazis have already begun promising
a new Maidan (see
here or
here ).
Conclusion: Zelenskii has two options, both very dangerous
The truth is that Zelenskii has to choose between acting on the will of the people and
face the wrath of the neo-Nazis or do the will of the neo-Nazis and face the wrath of the
people : tertium non datur !
And if that was not bad enough, there is another factor making this even worse for
Zelenskii: nobody can meaningfully help him.
Ukraine is the classic case of ustashization. A nation (often invented, but doesn't need to
be so) with an inferiority complex (because it didn't exist, or failed to demonstrate any
reason why it should be kept around) makes it's raison d'etre to be the hatred of the
nation(s) it really should belong to.
Once this mind virus sets in I think unpersoning is the only solution. Ukraine is already
larping as a concentration camp/kolhoz, maybe it should be turned into one for real.
A real
"play stupid games win stupid prizes" solution our reality loves so much
I really wish people would give up on the neo-Nazi narrative. Say what you want about the
Nazis, as long as it's factual, but they actually improved the lives of Germans and
Ukrainians. The alleged neo-Nazis aren't interested in stopping the rape of Ukraine, they are
aiding in it. Like Russia, there are many Jewish oligarchs in Ukraine. Are you telling me
neo-Nazis were supporting them?
Before you start with the "brown shirt thugs" bs, the SA was formed to protect NSDAP
members from the communist thugs, who a couple of years previously overthrown the government
and declared Bavaria and Berlin soviet republics. I don't hear of any communists in the
streets of Ukraine.
which forces every person to chose between the Empire (main sponsor of the "Crimea
belongs to the Ukraine forever" reply) and Putin's Russia (in which everybody except the
most terminally stupid liberal politicians reply "Crimea belongs to Russia forever").
Crimea belongs to Crimeans. If they voted to leave Ukraine, they can vote to leave
Russia.
Why in recent weeks do we have a spate of tanker seizures? The game is now pin the tail on
the tanker. They all have one thing in common: John Bolton. The ploy seems to be to provoke
an over-reaction by Iran or Russia. This "aggression" by the new axis of evil would "justify"
US military action against those countries, thus satisfying Bolton's apparent death wish
dreams. The Orange cucker spaniel lets himself be dragged on Bolton's leash, while
celebrating he hasn't been charged with crimes (yet). What about the crime of selling out his
country to moneyed foreign and domestic interests?
"If he did not [order the seizure of the Russian tanker] – then he is not in control."
He is not in control – yet – anymore than Trump was in early 2017. (Not sure
if Trump is in control now). However, if Ukraine's parliament controls the budget, Zelensky
can eventually gain control of the military. The first thing he should do, though, is shut
down western NGOs.
Allow me to remind you who Mr.Zelensky is–he is an entertainer (allegedly a comic,
only few sketches by Kvartal 95 were truly funny) who has, long forgotten and never
practiced, law degree.
In other words–he cannot be in control of anything except for the circus because he
has no knowledge and skills for that. He is merely a figurehead.
Unlike circus, however, where one can observe at least some creative, however low-brow,
activity, Ukraine is not a circus long ago–it is a steadily deteriorating shithole
filled with populace most of which lives in a complete delusion. It is kind of symptomatic
that two mental asylums such as combined West and Ukraine found each-other.
I spent 4 weeks in Odessa/Odesa. Now, I am in my 3rd week in Kharkov/Kharviv.
Judging from my African experiences, the rulers of countries who are powerless invariably
start pulling down statues (USA included), renaming streets and changing the Latin spelling
of their place names. Kiev is now Kyiv apparently – because English-speakers have no
say in the matter. Even if it remains Киев in both Slavic
languages.
All I can say is that it is amazing that tourists from Western Europe are not pouring into
places like Odessa. There are decent beaches nearby. Food, restaurant and transport costs are
a fraction of those in the South of France – or anywhere else in the EU for that
matter. An Uber from downtown to the airport is less than $4 at this moment in time (Friday
8:00PM). The subway in Kharkov costs a flat 32 cents!
Lean beef mince is $1.10 per lb ($3 per kg). In Australia, it is $9/kg.
The girls here are a heck of a lot prettier than in Paris. There are only a handful of
Black students in Kharkov. There are no social handouts so the detritus of the 3rd world does
not willingly come here.
I speak no Russian (Kharkov is really the Russia of Yeltsin) and people are very polite to
me. There is no crime whatsoever (unlike Odessa). You can walk around the centre for days and
hear no English, German, French, Italian, Greek, Spanish etc.
Cocktails in the ritziest of bars is around $5. There is a huge surplus of females. I am
69 and I get looks from girls in their 20's. I guess I look different from the Slavs. I have
no paunch and I still have much of my hair.
I go out in the evening with a handful of cash that is worth very little. When I come
home, my pocket is still full. I am paying $21 per night for a studio with one double and two
single beds in a nice area near the nightlife.
If this is gentle decline, I am all for it. I wish London would go back to the way it was
when I was a student there – 1968-73. I wish Sydney would go back to the way it was
when I first visited in 1978. I wish Cairo were like in the 1950's. And California like in
'69 when I spent 4 months there. and students at UCLA glorified Charles Manson.
@Curmudgeon Yes, the
neo-Nazis support the Jewish oligarchs that fund them. In their minds they're using the
oligarchs not the other way around. It's the same mental gymnastics that Antifa and other
left wing extremists use to justify receiving support and protection from corporations,
universities, and the police.
Crimea belongs to Crimeans. If they voted to leave Ukraine, they can vote to leave
Russia.
That's nice, but Crimeans aren't going to vote to leave Russia. Crimea is inhabited by
Russians and pro-Russian Ukrainians who overwhelmingly desire to be part of Russia. The
Tatars were the only ones against joining Russia and they're a small minority. Crimea is a
region of Russia that due to historical accident was briefly separated from Russia. Crimea is
as likely to vote to join Ukraine as Lvov is to join Russia, and an independent Crimean state
has no cultural or political basis.
Though the February 2014 US instigated coup put Poroshenko in power much overlooked is that
the EU's European Neighborhood Policy exploited this to the hilt by having this puppet regime
sign the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement. This agreement is a disaster for Ukraine's economy
by creating an exclusive EU-Ukraine trade relation specifically designed to exclude Russia
and destroy any existing trade ties with Russia.
EU Comissioner Stefan Fule (responsible for implementing the European Neighborhood Policy)
knew up front that this agreement would cost Ukraine up to 169 billion US$. The European
Neighborhood Policy aims to establish a sphere of dependent non-member states. This is
exactly why Yanukovich refused to sign that agreement and was subsequently removed from
office.
The IMF and EU provided loans to Ukraine and proceeded with imposing the usual "Washington
Consensus" recipe: austerity, liberalization, fire sale of assets resulting in halving GDP
exploding debt and firmly indenturing Ukraine thus losing its political and economic
sovereignty.
Great article – Since I was in Ukraine before, during and after the Maidan, there is
another huge factor involved. President Yanukovych, before running to Russia , was receiving
millions of dollars from the rich Globalist Corporations and some countries. Monsanto,
Cargill, Dupont, John Deere/ Iowa St. Univ. { whom I met in Kyiv } , Royal Dutch Shell, Lily
Pharma and even China had a deal going for a lease of hundreds of thousands of hectares of Ag
land.
China had started to put a port in Crimea and it was real close to where i lived. The
Place was for sale. After the EU deal fell thru lol, and Ukraine fell into a failed state,
and the East Ukrainians were isolated, and Crimea voted to head back to Mother Russia, those
Globalist took over and now own the best parts of Ukraine and are making their money from the
cheap labor along with owning the breadbasket and other corrupt industries. The US Navy ,
moved between Odecca and Crimea and between Cargill and them – they own the port that
exports all the grain, arms, Bio – war labs, etc.. I'm assuming that the Nazi armies
are probably supplying the security to these globalists { Saker would have to verify for this
} and as the Saker confirms , it doesn't much matter what Kyiv says or does – the
Globalists, their Nazis, their partners in Tel Aviv – run the show/circus/scam. Spacibo
UNZ
Good comment
– Much of the Ukie-ville territory can fail fail fail but remember which Globalist
Corporations now own the bread basket , the port that they use to export grain, corn, arms,
bio-war research, etc. and that these are real boss's of Ukraine. LOL
I was on the
Crimea/Ukie border this weekend and a guy was selling Amerikansky corn { cuuka roosa } and he
said some farmers are stealing Monsantos seeds and growing corn on the side. I bought a few
cobs for a buck and it definitely looked and tasted like corn I got – back in the states
– bright dark yellow – not light colored like regular sweet corn I get here. And
the circus – goes on.
The comparative point about Putin and Zelensky vis-a-vis the oligarchs is something Western
mass media has pretty much overlooked. Instead, there's the (otherwise faulty) image of
Ukraine having something positive which Russia lacks.
Obviously the deal offered to the coup plotters by Obomber via Nuland and McStain was try to
raise as much hell as possible and obstruct Russia to the max and you'll get a handsome
reward from Uncle Sam. If this means shooting and blowing up your own citizens in the Russian
oblasts by the thousands, chopping your GNP in two through loss of mining, manufacturing, and
trade, losing your natural gas transit revenues by relentlessly antagonizing Russia,
destroying what industrial infrastructure there was in your pathetic country by five years of
artillery barrages against the Donbass so be it.
I would only ask the Ukrainian "braintrust," has Uncle Sam delivered anything he promised,
other than a few surplus outdated weapons he couldn't pawn off to his Islamic headchopper
mercenaries and some nice gratuities for Porky, Yats, and the other traitors who would play
ball? No question but Uncle got his money's worth in the metastasizing damage he's been able
to do to Russian economic interests–most significantly in cancelling or delaying all
the gas pipelines to Europe–all stemming from how convincingly Ukraine managed to
machine gun itself in all recognizable body parts while blaming its madness on "malign"
actions by Russia. Washington's next big awaited success is to put the kibosh on Nordstream
II by stopping all construction in Danish waters and then instigating lawsuits from the EU
for breach of contract against Russia for failing to deliver product (or so say some
analysts). Oh, and then they'll schlock their LNG to dumb Euro trash at twice the price.
Poland thinks it will become a supplier of American LNG to the EU through a new pipeline it
is building. "Free trade" America remains as persistent as a pack of rabid wolverines in its
goal of strangling all possible trade between Europe and Russia.
Just what is Ukraine gonna get of any value, especially after its gold reserves, fertile
farm land and energy/mineral resources have been put in the hands of the American MIC and
Western corporations? The satisfaction of Russia being sanctioned for the next two centuries?
I will really LMAO if those Western carpetbaggers don't even hire native Ukies to work in the
industries they plan to set up in that country. I think Hunter Biden was meant to be the
prototype. Hell, even the Ukie government, micromanaged by Washington, wouldn't fill
important ministerial positions with native Ukies, opting instead for Russophobic Americans,
Georgians and anyone with an axe to grind against Russia. Europe won't let them join the EU,
since their economy is weaker than that of most third world African countries, and NATO had
better not admit them or face the prospect of World War III the very next day as they invoke
article five after taking pot shots at Russia buoyed by the exuberance of knowing that Uncle
Sam's got their back! American Evangelicals support Israel and wait for the rapture. Poland,
the Baltics and Ukraine drink the Neocon Koolaid and wait for Washington to nuke Russia. More
like the whole planet gets raptured that day, cuz everyone's troubles will be ovah!
@Adam Crimea in Ukraine
would simply mean more bloodshed, does Zelensky really want more fighting?
For those who argue that ' borders in Europe can't be changed ': that ship has
sailed with Kosovo. It is idiotic to support self-determination with massive bombing in
Kosovo and try to deny it in Crimea. Precedent is a precedent.
Zelensky is very weak, one of the least powerful leaders in the world today. But it is not just him, he reflects the
weakness that took over Ukraine. They have very few options left and time is not on Kiev's side. A small regional
quasi-war, emigrating and drinking with surplus left-behind women is probably the best they can do. Even splitting up the
country would now just make worse.
But Maidan sure was fun, right? That Nuland lady had nothing but the well-being of
Ukrainians on her mind.
Oh for God's sake STOP with the bullshit term "neo-nazi" when describing the Jewish led and
paid for Galician street thugs that perpetrated so called 'Euro Maidan'.
They have nothing in common with German NS, except absconding with symbols of the SS so
that the Jooz that perpetrated all this can always say "see, not us, but those wicked Nazis
did all this killing" when the truth inevitably comes out that this was an organized coup,
not a popular revolt.
Meanwhile Saker, go to hell for the stupidity and arrogance of your fevered attempts to
portray the situations in Ukraine as some sort of "oligarchy" attempting to put a
semi-natural and sorta-legit face on what really is JOO LED RAPING OF THE COUNTRY by Nudelman
and her co-Tribal mafioso stooges, Kolomoisky, et al.
the accomplices and co-conspirators in the [Kolomoisky's] scheme include officials of
the IMF, the US and Canadian Governments who knowingly directed billions of dollars into
the NBU, from which, as they knew full well at the time, the money went out to Kolomoisky's
Privat Bank, the largest single Ukrainian recipient of the international cash. At the top
of the list of accomplices, immediately subordinate to Clinton, Nuland and Lagarde, are
David Lipton, the US deputy managing director at the IMF, and the head of the IMF in
Ukraine until 2017, Jerome Vacher.
"The stated purpose for each loan involved in the Optima Schemes was typically for
financing the activities of the ostensible corporate borrower. The Optima Scheme Loans,
however, were sham arrangements and the proceeds were not in fact used for that purpose.
Instead, sometimes within minutes of being disbursed, the loan proceeds were cycled through
dozens of UBO-controlled or affiliated bank accounts at PrivatBank's Cyprus branch
("PrivatBank Cyprus") before being disbursed to one of multiple Delaware limited liability
companies or corporations (or other United States-based entities), all of which were
[controlled by the UBOs]."
"In effect, the UBOs utilized a Ponzi-type scheme: old loans issued by PrivatBank would
be 'repaid' (along with the accrued interest) with new loans issued by PrivatBank, and
those new loans issued by PrivatBank would then be repaid with a new round of loans. The
UBOs and their co-conspirators continuously carried out this process to conceal their
frauds. Thus, proceeds from new PrivatBank loans were used to give the appearance that the
initial PrivatBank loans (along with the accrued interest) were repaid by the borrower when
in fact there was no actual repayment."
A regular Jewish business approved by the ZUSA and IMF. The ordinary Ukrainians will be
forced to pay with whatever is left of the raped and robbed country. In short, looting.
Nobody wants such a treacherous and greedy country like Ukraina .
In 2018 the gross per capita income in Ukraina was down to 2624 euros , and in Bolivia was
3005 euros . Ucrania shows that the IQ of white blond people can be very very low .
Russia does not want Ukraina anylonger , it would be too expensive and risky . Crimea and
Donbass already went back to Russia . Maybe in the future the russian speaking east and south
of Ukraina will beg Russia to take them and pay again the gas and oil for them , but it would
be too expensive and dangerous for Russia .
The EU does not want Ukraina , it would be ruinous , it is already ruinous the admission
in the EU of so many eastern european countries .
As the excellent cartoon shows , the anglo-israelis are the only ones who benefit fron the
ukranian tragedy , they are using Ukraina against Europe , against Russia and against the EU
( fuck the EU said Nuland when she was organizing the coup d`Etat in Kiev ) . Poroshenko and
Zelensky are jewish as well as most of the oligarchs of Ukraina .
Agree that Hitler and the nazis were put in power by the zionist banking cabal as is pointed
out in the book Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler by Anthony Sutton and in the book The
Crime and Punishment of I. G. Farben by Joseph Borkin and in the book Trading With the Enemy
by Charles Higham, among many others, and the destruction of the Ukraine had the neo-nazis
funded by the same zionist bankers with their front puppets the Nulands , etc. and so the
problems in the Ukraine will never go away unless and until the zionists are thrown out of
the country and only Russia can help with that!
One thing that is a fact, in all countries where there is violence, destruction, and war,
to find the cause look no further than the zionist bankers and we goyim here in America have
the same problem with the zionist bankers since their creation of the FED in 1913 with the
inception of perpetual wars and debt and big brother government all thanks to the satanic
demonic zionist banking kabal.
I've long assessed American Presidents on a spectrum from Figurehead/Pitchman to Real POTUS.
During the post-Cold War period they were increasingly the former, with Trump constituting an
abrupt turn to the latter.
This relationship of the elected/Constitutional leader to the Permanent
Government/Administrative State/National Security State/Deep State is universal.
The cliche "Hindsight is easy," most definitely applies. Does a leader/administration
survive; what of its objectives is it able to achieve. Erdogan and Putin are examples of
leaders able to survive and act in the national interest.
Even more than casual observers such as The Saker have difficulty not lapsing in bias
confirmation. Thus Putin is a brilliant operator but Trump is a clown and sock puppet.
Any observer who has any respect for themselves should exercise some common sense. Trump
has not only survived everything his enemies (pretty much the whole of what I call Globalist
Filth) have thrown at him but he's moved his America First agenda (MAGA!; Global Trade Reset;
America First foreign policy).
I mention this in the current context because Ukraine is such a mess it raises the
question as to what Zelenskii can realistically accomplish. Besides the obvious (staying
alive; finishing his term),
Am I the only one to notice that in 2016 and since the Cold War 2.0 shouters were Radio
Silent about Nord Stream II. That was the gift to Putin for turning a blind eye (or better
assisting) in throwing the election to Hillary. This is likely top of the gift list delivered
by Brennan personally to Moscow in a secret trip in March, 2016.
It's too late for the POTUS to stop Nord Stream II. Instead he's leveraging it with Putin
(and Merkel).
Trump inherited a mess from Obama. Not the least because the former administration put out
the word that everything was on the table for foreign powers willing to assist with Hillary
taking power. Trump is upping the cost to Putin of his close alliance with Xi/China. Whether
it's making Russia (and China) spend money and geopolitical capital propping up the bus
driver in Venezuela or the expense of protecting against close-in NATO capabilities. As the
POTUS says frequently "I've got nothing but time."
How it goes for Ukraine/Zelenskii is wholly a function of the bargaining between the POTUS
and Putin.
@DESERT FOX Don't
understand why I may not yet use the AGREE option.
Hitler and the nazis were put in power by the zionist banking cabal as is pointed out in
the book Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler by Anthony Sutton and in the book The Crime and
Punishment of I. G. Farben by Joseph Borkin and in the book Trading With the Enemy by
Charles Higham, among many others,
Why so much talk about Zelenskii? He is a nonentity, a clown, by profession and by personal
qualities. When he does not have a script written by someone else, he becomes incoherent. Ze
was best described by Ukrainian rights lawyer Montyan: a hologram.
Kolomoisky brought him to the helm, which was in essence the same thing as Maidan: several
oligarchic clans ganging up on the ones feeding at the trough. The thievery won't stop, just
as it did not stop after Maidan. The only thing that is going to change is the personalities
of the top thieves. Nazi mobs are stupid (and therefore convenient) tool of oligarchs, just
as they were in 2014.
Russian government would be stupid to support any existing force in Ukraine, including
Medvedchuk's Pro Life party. As Russian bloggers often say, there is no reason to look for
differences in various kinds of shit.
The main weakness of Ukrainians is their hope that
someone else will solve their problems for them. That equally applies to those who pin their
hopes on the US and its vassals and to those who look to Russia. The uncomfortable truth is
that either they sort things out themselves, or their "country" will remain the shithole it
was since 1991 and still is.
Pentagon Reject Russian Doctrine Russia slapped NATO. The US Department of Defense said
that there are "challenges" in deterring a threat in Russia's doctrine.
The US Department of Defense said that there are "challenges" in deterring a nuclear
threat in Russia's military doctrine. Thus, according to Pentagon Deputy Head John Oud, the
Russian doctrine states that Russia can use nuclear weapons "without fear" against the United
States and its partners to meet an "adequate response".
Evidence accumulates that Obama was the real leader of this color revolution against Trump with Brannan as his chief lieutenant
and Comey as a willing accomplice.
Now that the dust has settled, one must ask why the Deep State wanted Trump gone. Why does the Obama-Clinton mafia hates him so
much? Is this due to Trump committed an unforgivable sin in suggesting we “get along with Russia” and thus potentially cut the
revenues of military-industrial complex ? This is not true -- Trump inflated the Pentagon budget to astronomical height. Then
why ?
Notable quotes:
"... The full details of the plot to take out Donald Trump remain to be revealed. But there should now be no doubt that his effort was not the work of a few rogue intelligence and law enforcement officials acting on their own. This was a full blown covert action undertaken with the full knowledge and blessing of Barack Obama. ..."
"... Operation Crossfire Hurricane was launched the end of July 2016. CIA Director John Brennan briefed key Democrat members of Congress in early August on allegations that Donald Trump was colluding with Vladimir Putin. And Peter Strzok traveled to London in early August 2016 to meet with the CIA and with Alexander Downer, who was claiming that George Papadopolous was talking up the Russians. Following that trip Strozk texted the following to his mistress, Lisa Page : ..."
"... We also know that Senior Obama Administration officials, such as NSC Director Susan Rice and UN Ambassdor Samantha Power, were pushing to "unmask" Trump campaign officials who were named in US intelligence documents. ..."
"... Let us look at this from another angle. If the Russians were actually trying to interfere in the 2016 election, then it was known to both US intelligence and law enforcement. Hell, we are told in the Mueller report that the FBI detected the Russians trying to hack the DNC way back in 2015. If there really was intelligence on Russian efforts to meddle why did the Obama Administration do nothing other than sanction FBI's Crossfire Hurricane? ..."
"... On what basis did Barack Obama insist it was impossible to rig the US Presidential election? This is a critical anomaly. Why was the Obama team asleep at the switch, especially on the intel front, it the Russians actually were engaged in rigging the election to install Donald Trump? ..."
"... Obama seemed to have got a taste for spying on his domestic political opponents from monitoring Israeli attempts to block the Iran nuclear deal. I think the lock her up stuff really scared the Obama people, who had much to hide. ..."
The full details of the plot to take out Donald Trump remain to be revealed. But there should now be no doubt that his effort was
not the work of a few rogue intelligence and law enforcement officials acting on their own. This was a full blown covert action undertaken
with the full knowledge and blessing of Barack Obama.
As
I have written previously , the claim that Russia tried to hijack our election is a damn lie. But you do not have to take my
word for it. Just listen to Barack Obama speaking in October 2016 in response to Donald Trump's expressed concerns about
election meddling :
"There is no serious person out there who would suggest that you could even rig America's elections, in part because they are
so decentralized. There is no evidence that that has happened in the past, or that there are instances that that could happen this
time," the president said to the future president in October 2016.
"Democracy survives because we recognize that there is something more important than any individual campaign, and that is making
sure the integrity and trust in our institutions sustains itself. Becasue Democracy works by consent, not by force," Obama said.
"I have never seen in my lifetime or in modern political history, any presidential candidate trying to discredit the elections
and the election process before votes have even taken place. It is unprecedented. It happens to be based on no fact. Every expert
regardless of political party... who has ever examined these issues in a serious way will tell you that instances of significant
voter fraud are not to be found. Keep in mind elections are run by state and local officials."
It is important to remember what had transpired in the Trump/Russia collusion case by this point. Operation Crossfire Hurricane
was launched the end of July 2016. CIA Director John Brennan briefed key Democrat members of Congress in early August on allegations
that Donald Trump was colluding with Vladimir Putin. And Peter Strzok traveled to London in early August 2016 to meet with the CIA
and with Alexander Downer, who was claiming that George Papadopolous was talking up the Russians. Following that trip
Strozk texted
the following to his mistress, Lisa Page :
Strzok: And hi. Went well, best we could have expected. Other than [REDACTED] quote: " the White House is running this. " My answer,
"well, maybe for you they are." And of course, I was planning on telling this guy, thanks for coming, we've got an hour, but with
Bill [Priestap] there, I've got no control .
Page: Yeah, whatever (re the WH comment). We've got the emails that say otherwise.
The White House clearly knew. But Strzok's text is not the only evidence. We also know that Senior Obama Administration officials,
such as NSC Director Susan Rice and UN Ambassdor Samantha Power, were pushing to "unmask" Trump campaign officials who were named
in US intelligence documents.
There are only two possibilities:
Obama was being briefed by Susan Rice and DNI James Clapper and CIA Director about the project
to take out Trump, or
Obama was kept in the dark.
Let us look at this from another angle. If the Russians were actually trying to interfere in the 2016 election, then it was known
to both US intelligence and law enforcement. Hell, we are told in the Mueller report that the FBI detected the Russians trying to
hack the DNC way back in 2015. If there really was intelligence on Russian efforts to meddle why did the Obama Administration do
nothing other than sanction FBI's Crossfire Hurricane?
On what basis did Barack Obama insist it was impossible to rig the US Presidential election? This is a critical anomaly. Why was
the Obama team asleep at the switch, especially on the intel front, it the Russians actually were engaged in rigging the election
to install Donald Trump?
My wife was for many years an election official in Virginia. IMO Obama was right in saying that a US presidential election
is impossible to "rig." The US Constitution requires that federal elections be run by the states WITHOUT federal supervision.
As a result the methods and equipment in the states and the various parts of the states vary widely and the state systems are
not tied together with a national electronic network as, for example, the system is in France where the result of a national election
is reported on TeeVee immediately when the polls close.
Asking the question, "Can you cite one specific case where a single vote was definitively changed by Russian meddling?"
causes panic in a person who is declaiming about the evils of Russian meddling in our elections.
When you ask that question, the invariable retort is that the Russians are so clever that you wouldn't know that you were being
gulled; or, when I say that I have never seen a Russian produced facebook ad, the rejoinder is that the Russians concentrated
on Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Ohio and, of course, I would have been privy to the bot-sent emails and facebook ads generated by
the Internet Research Agency.
You've maintained all along that the Russians interfered in the election, yet I believe it is your position that the Russians
did not change a single vote. Is that correct or do you believe the Russians changed the votes before tabulation?
What did the Russians do that the Trump and Hillary campaigns did not do? Did they also turnout the tens of thousands who showed
up for Trump rallies that Hillary could never muster? Are they still turning out thousands at recent Trump rallies? I'm curious
how come Brennan and Clapper could not turn out thousands to Hillary's rallies when according to our German friend "b", the omnipotent
US Intel services just turned out a quarter of the population of Hong Kong to protest CCP authoritarianism?
Did the Israeli, Saudi and Chinese governments interfere in the election? How would you compare what they did to what you believe
the Russians did?
uieter about it. All that is very different from the absolute covert nature of the Russian IO in the 2016 election. I have
no idea what China did or is doing.
You have no evidence for the so-called Russian IO. It is a fabrication. The lies on this are enormous. If the FBI really had detected
GRU hacking of the DNC in 2015, which is claimed in the fabricated meme, then you would expect the FBI and the other counter intel
elements of the USG to take action. THEY DID NOTHING.
The issue of Russian hacking only emerged when Hillary and the DNC learned that DNC emails were going to be put out by WIKILEAKS.
Again, not one shred of actual evidence that the Russians did it, but blaming the Russians became a convenient excuse in a bid
to divert attention from the real story--i.e,. Hillary and the DNC colluded to defeat Bernie Sanders.
The only real solid evidence of colluding with foreigners, in this case the Ukraine, comes courtesy of Hillary and her campaign.
Hiring a foreign intel officer (ie. Steele) who then takes info from Russians of questionable background and spread it around
as "truth". That was not a Russian IO. Pure Clinton IO.
"What the Russians did was insert misattributed information and disinformation into the election cycle...That is what separates
the Russian IO from anything Clinton, Trump or any of their supporters did."
I believe supporters of both candidates did exactly what you say the Russians did - insert misattributed information & disinformation
into the media stream. If you watch MSNBC or Fox on any given day there is much assertion & opinion masquerading as news. And
the Twitter & Facebook and blog universe are teeming with stories and innuendo that are more fiction than fact all from anonymous
accounts.
The Russia Collusion hysteria is replete with examples of "misattributed information and disinformation". It seems that yellow
journalism is as American as apple pie.
The whole opaque PAC structure with names like "Americans for Democracy" funded by chain structures hiding the real financiers
and calling up down is something that we see growing in every election cycle and is already of significant scale both in terms
of financing and dubiousness.
It is also rather common that "experts" who are called upon to opine on issues routinely never disclose their conflicts of
interest. Jeffrey Sachs and so many others on the payroll of CCP entities never disclose those payments as they extoll the virtues
of offshoring our industrial base to China and are apologists for CCP espionage.
Blue peacock, supporters of Clinton and Trump did not put out misattributed info. They both put out truth, innuendo, exaggerations,
misleading info and even outright lies, but they put it out as themselves. They didn't represent themselves as someone other than
who they were. The PAC structure comes close to skirting this requirement for truthful attribution, but a quick internet search
blows away the facades of these PACs. What the Russians did was pure black propaganda.
You mean the kindly grandmother, Loretta Lynch, Attorney General of the United States, did not inform President Obama that
the FBI had obtained a FISA warrant to surveil the Republican candidate for the presidency and members of his staff becasue he
was working with Russians? Or do you mean that James Comey failed to tell his boss, Loretta Lynch; or do you mean John Brennan
failed to tell Obama about that Steele dossier from Fusion GPS that Mueller know anything about; or do you mean that James Clapper
failed to tell Jeh Johnson about that too? The Russians made them do all those things as part of an interference campaign, right?
It couldn't have been they were corrupt and incompetant.
"Instead, Obama...." made an "If you like your doctor, you can keep you doctor" statement that he knew was completely false.
Trump didn't win, Russians influenced Americans to vote for Trump, just ask the losers of the election, their paid sources and
their colleagues in Congress. In fact Americans love Hilary so much she's just where in the polls right now?
I continue to be astounded by the outrage at "Russian meddling". So some Russians used the internet to post true or false information
on candidates in a election.... so what?...millions of American partisan trolls were doing the same thing for or against a candidate.
We had tons of fake info written by American bloggers and posters all over the net, Facebook, twitter etc..
Its not like Putin came to the US and gave a speech to congress in favor of Trump ...as Netanyahu did in appearing before the
US congress and urging them to go against President Obama's Syria policy for heaven's sake.
It is so ridiculous I have given up hope of finding enough IQs above that of a cabbage to form a sane government.
Obama seemed to have got a taste for spying on his domestic political opponents from monitoring Israeli attempts to block
the Iran nuclear deal. I think the lock her up stuff really scared the Obama people, who had much to hide.
1. The FBI cannot be trusted to uphold defend and protect our Constitution, as they sought actively
to overturn a duly elected POTUS.; and
2 - Mueller's incompetence is astounding.
Is the only entity of the Defense Department called the U.S. Army the only ones left actually upholding, defending, and protecting
our Constitution and our Constitution processes? I don't see the other entities of the DOD called Navy and Air Force doing their
jobs upholding our Constitution!
Thumbs up to the Army, thumbs down to the Navy and Air Force!
I'm a little more charitable to the FBI. The Trumps lied their asses off to the FBI about their foreign contacts. Which IMO,
wrong or right, left the FBI all but no recourse but to investigate those lies. Even if the lies were simply based in long-seated
personal habits, it takes investigation to prove that is the case.
"You have no evidence for the so-called Russian IO. It is a fabrication." In fact, Putin rejects the claim many times publicly
saying that Russia does not meddle in foreign elections as a matter of policy. Maybe I'm gullible, but I find his disclaimer pretty
convincing....
My question for Larry Johnson requires some speculation on his part: How did the claims of "Russia meddling" which began with
the DNC and Hillary campaign, take root at the FBI, CIA and NSA???
Is there an unseen connection between the Democrat leadership and the Intel agencies??? And --if there is-- does that mean
we are headed for a one-party system???
Larry, sorry to nitpick, but I have such regard for your work that it pains me to see the typographical error in your second sentence,
where you say "his error" shortly after referring to Trump. I'm guessing that you meant to say "this error", but it reads as if
it means "Trump's error".
And while I'm at it, your last sentence has "it" instead of "if".
Keep up your great work for this excellent website.
Sadly naive in that you think the conspirators were actually acting in good faith. You think they were right when they used
the Steele Dossier in applying for a FISA warrant in Colyyer's Star Chamber? Steele was a paid informant for the FBI as was Page.
uh Hillary Clinton stood with Bush and lied the world into war. Hillary and Obama brought
slavery back to Libya and ISIS and the largest refugee crisis since WW2 to Syria .
Dont forget genocide in Yemen ..
Hillary also supported disastrous free trade deals like NAFTA and CAFTA and {TPP that
brought back slavery} that harm workers on both sides of the borders
Hillary also toppled a democratically elected president in Honduras with Death Squads and
Obama killed 40,000 innocent t people with Sanctions in Venezuela
They are fleeing Hillary and Obama's Terror spree ..and cheer on worse WW3 with Russia
Reporter Quits NBC Citing Network's Support For Endless War
c.. Yes, Yes, Yes and Yes, Emma Peele, Without a Doubt – and I absolutely adore your
"Avengers" pseudonym !
Hillary's disgusting crimes, however, seem to me to be an attempt to ingratiate herself
(and the Democrats) with the Ultra Hawkish Bush Era Republicans.
Who can ever forgive & forget her ghoulish pronouncement, "We came, we saw, He
died!!"
(in reference to the ghoulishly brutal public murder of Libya's Qaddafi. {Qaddafi's "Green
Book" was a well imagined Socio-Economic plan for for the economic liberation of Africa from
the economic and cultural strictures of US, European Absolutist Brutal Dominion.} -- As it
was, Libya, under Qaddafi, was a liberal, socialist society with free education, free health
care for all citizens, and a nation with it's own currency , free from US/EURO manipulation
and control.
-- This Is Why We Killed Him. --
This is US Command and Control World-Wide POLICY ! ! ! --
-- Anglo-Saxon Command and Control of the Whole Wide World and all it's resources Owned and
Militarily Controlled by European Bankers
-- - EUROPEAN Bankers, Rothschild Criminal Banker WarMongers/ Wall Street and American
Military Power --
These are They which Evilly Rule the World and Disparage or Murder (annihilate) All Others
at their pleasure, and Trump is an evil antagonist with the personage of a King Leopold.
Please find "KING LEOPOLD'S GHOST' By Adam Hochschild
Pornography multiplies frequency, duration, angles, positions and sexual partners, an
endless and eternal sexual buffet, except that none of it is really happening. Similarly,
American democracy gives the appearance of boundless participation by all citizens, for they
can't just vote in caucuses and elections, but cheer at conventions, march in protest, write
letters to newspapers, comment on the internet and follow, blow by blow, the serial mud
wrestling between opposing politicians. Pissed, they can freely curse Bush, Obama or Trump
without fearing a midnight knock on the door. Alas, none of their "political activities"
actually matters, for Americans don't influence their government's policies, much less decide
them. It's all an elaborate spectacle to make each chump think he's somehow a player, in on the
action, when he's actually all alone, in the dark, to beat his own meat, yet again.
He has railroaded, premasticated opinions on everything, but without the means to act on any
of it. Only his impotence is real.
Occupy
was no revolution, but its initial aim of disrupting a key operation of the state was the right
idea, for you must hurt your enemy, if only for a day. Imagine Wall Street or nearby Goldman
Sachs in flames! This goal was akin to puncturing a pipeline, blowing up an important bridge or
assassinating a crucial figure. In America, however, there's no visible target who's actually
worth killing, for none is indispensable to the state's criminal function. Those out in the
open are just actors. In laying out a much ballyhooed puppet's mangled cadaver, all you'll
achieve is a symbolic goal, but perhaps it's worth it after all, for all traitors must pay, and
it may even inspire a real revolt.
Revolution sounds cool because it implies a terrible awakening of the masses, to impose
their will, exact justice and start a new paradigm, but most revolutions are fake, with many
orchestrated by another elite or triggered by a foreign power. Moreover, Americans are too
divided and atomized to rebel as a people, so the best you can hope for is to regain
independence, freedom and sanity for your state, region or maybe just town.
The first step is to stop thinking of yourself as an American, for there's no America left
to save, much less "make great again," and there are no Americans left either, for if anybody
can be a defacto American just by showing up, then the concept is meaningless. That's like me
landing in Tel Aviv tomorrow and declaring I'm a Jew.
Your average American hardly has a hometown, just a homepage, and his neighbors are the
anonymous, pseudonymous, hasbarists and trolls he compulsively chats with. If you don't even
belong to your neighborhood, how are you the citizen of any nation?
To reclaim your street, you must regain your mind, but the porn has gotten so damn good, why
would anyone want to leave PornHub, Chaturbate or Illusory Participation, USA?
I was born in 1963, a year of many coup d'états, and you may remember the one in
South Vietnam, Guatemala, Ecuador, Honduras, Dominican Republic, Benin, Togo, Iraq or Syria,
which actually witnessed two. The most significant happened right in the US of A, however, and
like most, it was certainly an inside job.
Like Ngo Dinh Diem, John F. Kennedy wasn't a good enough puppet, so he had to be expertly
brained. Even if Lyndon Johnson wasn't in on the plot, he served them faithfully afterwards, as
has every American president since. They've all gotten the message. Similarly, it only
takes one academic to be defenestrated from the ivory tower for the rest to toe the line.
Americans live in a cowed country. Home of the brave my ass!
Protesting their government, thousands of Americans became symbolically homeless
, but their society has only sunk further, with destitution, despair and anger rapidly
increasing. As the rank of those who must sleep and defecate outside constantly swells,
Washington still doesn't give a shit, but why should it? They're getting theirs.
Inside the Beltway may be a swamp, but it's a gilded one, designed for the most arrogant and
smug. Outside, the quicksand ocean keeps on devouring.
Game over, I heave these toss away lines during garbage time, but enough of this, for I must
return to my daily tons of garbage .
The future is indeed plastic. From the end of the world, I watch various endings.
The theatrically strident "radical," who's most conformist, paradoxically this specimen
is a cookie cutter puppet that's jerked by a totalitarian master, the very state he thinks
he's resisting. Obediently correct, the American radical divides and attacks the masses.
Happily domineered, he demands that everyone else becomes as shackled as he is, and since
this will never happen, he's eternally enraged.
Notice how the solidarity of the 99% is no longer evoked by anybody.
Most revolutions are fake, with many orchestrated by another elite or triggered by a
foreign power.
Your average American hardly has a hometown, just a homepage.
I've read several well done, poetic, laments for the USA tonight, always enjoy good writing.
Don't understand why you exceptionalize JFK, though, he was pretty much a white Obama, good
looking but completely without insight or competence and certainly no different than Truman,
LBJ, RonReagan and all the rest. I mean, really? Have to admit, banging MM would sure beat
Porn!
@Brabantian "Steve
Sailer had written earlier about the idea that the elite-fostered public obsessing with
racial ethnic etc identity as a war cry, date from after the crushing of the Occupy movement,
as the possibly supreme distraction from people uniting against the elites."
Been going on for a long time. The New Age movements were spookfests to sidetrack
energetic and hopeful youth from trying to initiate real change in society. Follow a guru
("got to get a guru" drummed into our minds) or a Sun Myung Moon, instead of bothering the
elite ruling families and their wealth machine.
AntiFa never goes after the true fascists, the private owners of the corporations that
work with the government at transferring wealth from Public to Private hands. The Hidden Hand
at work.
Climate Change. Taxes and more expense for individuals to combat the Public-Private
partnership geo engineering of the Weather. Great Carbo "The People must change".
How about They shut down the weather modification machines for a start.
Projects created in sub basements underneath Langley.
@IvyMikeY ou
make your entirely idiotic claim and reveal your ignorance. The worst part of UR is the large
number of ignorant and/or lying babblers peddling their wares here.
• JFK was trying to stop Israel from getting The Bomb.
• JFK had ordered US forces out of Vietnam by the end of 1965.
• JFK had spoken out against secret societies.
• JFK had issued Executive Order 11110.
• HST dropped The Bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
• HST woke up in the middle of the night to recognize Israel.
• LBJ carried on an illicit affair with Israeli agent Mathilde Krim.
• LBJ called back jet fighters racing to defend the USS Liberty from Israeli
attack.
• LBJ escalated US involvement in Vietnam.
• LBJ claimed to have been visited by the Holy Spirit in the White House.
• RWR granted amnesty to illegal aliens in the U.S.
• RWR presided over downsizing, outsourcing, and offshoring U.S. industry to China.
• RWR tripled the national debt.
• RWR conspired with GHWB to delay release of U.S. hostages in Iran.
Linh Dinh: "Moreover, Americans are too divided and atomized to rebel as a people, so the
best you can hope for is to regain independence, freedom and sanity for your state, region or
maybe just town."
Atomization, alienation, and anomie are inherent properties of mass society. The only way
to get rid of these things would be to get rid of the mass of people themselves, or to
destroy the technology that undergirds such an arrangement and makes it possible. The latter
is a solution that would also cause a mass die off.
Many people imagine that the system could arbitrarily be decentralized, without
understanding that things have centralized, and are as they are, for a great many good,
practical reasons. Nevertheless, there is always nostalgia for the past. An article I
recently read ends this way:
We must have a polis again, in all that the Greeks understood by that term: small,
self-governing communities bound by common language, ethnicity, customs, and religious
traditions. Such a thing, far from being utopian, would spring from our nature, life as it
was lived across thousands of generations. What is artificial is our divorce from the land,
our crowding into cities to live alongside strangers for the purpose of endless
consumption, and our insistence on universalism even when we ourselves – those of
European descent – lose the most by it.
But that author appears not to understand, any more than you do, that such a thing is
impossible in the modern world. The technological infrastructure necessary to support the
more than seven billion people on the planet won't permit it; not even the 330 million or so
in the USA. Keep the infrastructure, and keep the atomization, alienation, and anomie. You
can't have one without the other.
Chinaman: "As Mark Twain put it succinctly: "If voting made a difference, they wouldn't let
you do it""
This doesn't appear in any of his writings, and is dubious. Twain did write or say some
other things about voting that are in conflict with it, for example:
But in this country we have one great privilege which they don't have in other countries.
When a thing gets to be absolutely unbearable the people can rise up and throw it off. That's
the finest asset we've got -- the ballot box.
– interview in Boston Transcript, 6 November 1905
A similar quote has been attributed to anarchist Emma Goldman, who seems a more likely
source.
"If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal."
Representative democracy is just evolutionary autocracy, autocracy perfected.
In the good old days, were a leader to be a bit cruel or terrible, there would be an, if a
little bloody, directly democratic revolution, and the system would be switched to something
new. This is really just the Duke of Zhou's Mandate of Heaven, but without the pointing to
the unverifiable.
But within our autocracy, a good old boy can become leader through a popularity contest,
in which they neither have to tell the truth, nor wear speedos down a promenade for judges,
be a cruel and terrible leader, and even if the system somehow indited them whilst they were
in office, then another magical election would be called, and another good old boy would be
tapped into the hot seat. Sometimes they'd wear a blue tie, sometimes a red tie – but
they'd always listen to the brain, the permanent governments of elite money and power, and do
its bidding.
Representative democracy is a facelift, and currently, the world's representative
democracies are mostly giving facelifts to zombies. Protest is the right to shout but not the
right to be listened to. Being listened to is semi-direct democracy. At the very least a
legal and independent path to the reversing of representative decisions, so that there could
be a check and balance on the whole system of government by the people, de facto as well as
de jure.
This is spot on about the disease but not about the cure. For the cure consult LaFollette's
autobiography, Pinchot on the history of the Progressive Party, Thorstein Veblen's economics
(Michael Hudson for help), Buckminster Fuller, the Townsend Clubs, Upton Sinclair Eisenhower
told us -- an alert informed citizenry is America's ONLY hope. That's why you never heard of
these people.
Been going on for a long time. The New Age movements were spookfests to sidetrack
energetic and hopeful youth from trying to initiate real change in society.
Indeed. The incubus was generated in the social sciences labs of Tavistock and Frankfurt
even earlier, in this case to impregnate the minds instead of wombs. The offspring are the
sordid sexual freaks blinded and deranged by political syphilis.
They call this abortion Cultural Marxism to complete the oxymoronic allegory of fighting
for equality when the purpose and result is the opposite through diversion and division to
entrench elite rule.
Marx's words and works have been denigrated to give authority to a miscarriage. Marxism is
for equality, real equality; not sexual perversions, race blindness, gender fusion. His
philosophical message is that our existence is determined by our relationship with the social
and economic forces acting on our lives. The root power comes from the relations of
production, that is, our place in the economic order; whether you have to labour for your
crust or you belong to the chosen or privileged class; whether you have to sell your labour
to survive or enjoy the profits from the product of someone else's labour. In a sentence:
Marxism is for economic equality. Everything else is a distraction and smoke-screen.
@Laura McGrath It is
not race that is the problem. Brazil has a very mixed population. It had ZUS coup in 2016.
Race mixing will not help free this planet of the criminals who rule us.
For the Brazilian political scientist and historian Moniz Bandeira, the alarms rang long
ago. "These demonstrations that started last year and before the World Cup were not
spontaneous. These were prepared beforehand, with trained elements, trained agitators", he
explains. In his book "A Segunda Guerra Fria" (The Second Cold War) he describes in detail
the role of some NGOs and think-thanks in the so called color revolutions. "What is
necessary in Brazil is that the government does what Putin did: to force all NGOs to
register, register the money they receive, where they receive it from and how they use
it.
"
It is all about the Benjamins. Race mixing is not going to help us at all. It is a
delusion from our rulers. Obama is a classic example. In his administration he had a coup in
Honduras, Paraguay, Brazil, Argentina, Ukraine and who knows where else. He destroyed Libya,
Syria by supporting "rebels" and Yemen he did the same.
Moniz points out the American interest in maintaining the prevalence of the dollar as
the global currency. According to him, threatened by BRICS – and the nonexistence of
regional powers in the continent -- "That's what the U.S don't want: Brazil having nuclear
submarines, they don't want a regional power in South America – not to mention one
that is linked to China and Russia. And there's a detail unknown for the Brazilian people:
there's a struggle around the international reserve currency. The fact that the U.S has the
right to print as much dollars as they want and the fact that the dollar is the
international currency: that's where the U.S hegemony lies. And what China and Putin want
to put an end to is just that -- that's the reason behind the BRICS."
Terpil later told author and investigative journalist Jim Hougan:
Historically, one of Wilson's Agency jobs was to subvert members of both houses [of
Congress] by any means necessary . Certain people could be easily coerced by living out
their sexual fantasy in the flesh . A remembrance of these occasions [was] permanently
recorded via selected cameras . The technicians in charge of filming [were] TSD [Technical
Services Division of the CIA]. The unwitting porno stars advanced in their political
careers, some of [whom] may still be in office."
. . . .
The downfall of "Washington's Jay Gatsby"
After having left his job as an ABC News correspondent in the 1980s, Craig Spence found
success as a prominent conservative Washington lobbyist. Spence would soon find his
fortunes shift dramatically when, in June 1989 , it was revealed that he had been
pimping out children to the power elite in the nation's capital throughout the 1980s in
apartments that were bugged with video and audio recording equipment. Much like Jeffrey
Epstein, who ran a similar operation, Spence was often likened to Jay Gatsby, the
mysterious, wealthy figure from the well-known Fitzgerald novel The Great Gatsby.
"... When scanning the news most days, I see a constant amplification of wedge issues by mass media, blue-check pundits and even many in the so-called alternative media. I see people increasingly being encouraged to demonize and dehumanize their fellow citizens. Anyone who voted for Trump is automatically a Nazi, likewise, anyone who supports Sanders is an anti-American communist. The reality is neither of these things is even remotely true, so why are people so quick to say them? ..."
"... The Epstein case shines a gigantic spotlight on just how twisted and sociopathic the highest echelons of U.S. society have become. This is exactly what happens when you fail to put wealthy and powerful super predators behind bars. They get more brazen, they get more demented and, ultimately, they destroy the very fabric that holds society together. We are in fact ruled by monsters. ..."
Perhaps, at long last, a serial rapist and pedophile may be brought to justice , more than a dozen years after he was first
charged with crimes that have brutalized countless girls and women. But what won't change is this: the cesspool of elites, many
of them in New York, who allowed Jeffrey Epstein to flourish with impunity.
For decades, important, influential, "serious" people attended Epstein's dinner parties, rode his private jet, and furthered
the fiction that he was some kind of genius hedge-fund billionaire. How do we explain why they looked the other way, or flattered
Epstein, even as they must have noticed he was often in the company of a young harem? Easy: They got something in exchange from
him , whether it was a free ride on that airborne "Lolita Express," some other form of monetary largesse, entrée into the extravagant
celebrity soirées he hosted at his townhouse, or, possibly and harrowingly, a pound or two of female flesh.
An honest assessment of the current state of American politics and society in general leaves little room for optimism regarding
the public's ability to accurately diagnose, much less tackle, our fundamental issues at a root level. A primary reason for this
state of affairs boils down to the ease with which the American public is divided against itself and conquered.
Though there are certain issues pretty much everyone can agree on, we simply aren't focusing our collective energy on them or
creating the mass movements necessary to address them. Things such as systemic bipartisan corruption, the institutionalization of
a two-tier justice system in which the wealthy and powerful are above the law, a broken economy that requires both parents to work
and still barely make ends meet, and a military-industrial complex consumed with profits and imperial aggression not national defense.
These are just a few of the many issues that should easily unite us against an entrenched power structure, but it is not happening.
At least not yet.
We currently find ourselves at a unique inflection point in American history. Though I agree with Charles Hugh Smith's assessment
that " Our Ruling
Elites Have No Idea How Much We Want to See Them All in Prison Jumpsuits, " we have yet to reach the point where the general
public is prepared to do something about it. I think there are several reasons for this, but the primary obstacle relates to how
easily the citizenry is divided and conquered. The mass media, largely owned and controlled by billionaires and their corporations,
is highly incentivized to keep the public divided against itself on trivial issues, or at best, on real problems that are merely
symptoms of bipartisan elitist plunder.
The key thing, from a plutocrat's point of view, is to make sure the public never takes a step back and sees the root of society's
problems. It isn't Trump or Obama, and it isn't the Republican or Democratic parties either. These individuals and political gangs
are just useful vehicles for elitist plunder. They help herd the rabble into comfortable little tribal boxes that results in made
for tv squabbling, while the true forces of power carry on with the business of societal pillaging behind the scenes.
You're encouraged to attach your identity to team Republican or team Democrat, but never unite as one voice against a bipartisan
crew of depraved, corrupt and unaccountable power players molding society from the top. While the average person living paycheck
to paycheck fashions themselves part of some biblical fight of good vs. evil by supporting team red or blue, the manipulative and
powerful at the top remain beyond such plebeian theater (though they certainly encourage it). These folks know only one team -- team
green. And their team keeps winning, by the way.
When scanning the news most days, I see a constant amplification of wedge issues by mass media, blue-check pundits and even
many in the so-called alternative media. I see people increasingly being encouraged to demonize and dehumanize their fellow citizens.
Anyone who voted for Trump is automatically a Nazi, likewise, anyone who supports Sanders is an anti-American communist. The reality
is neither of these things is even remotely true, so why are people so quick to say them?
Why is most of the anger in this country being directed at fellow powerless Americans versus upward at the power structure which
nurtured and continues to defend the current depraved status quo? I don't see any upside to actively encouraging one side of the
political discussion to dehumanize the other side, and I suggest we consciously cease engaging in such behavior. Absolutely nothing
good can come from it.
Which is partly why I've been so consumed by the Jeffrey Epstein case. For once, it allows us to focus our energy on the depraved
nature of the so-called American "elite," rather than pick fights with each other. How many random Trump or Sanders supporters do
you know who systematically molest children and then pass them off to their wealthy and powerful friends for purposes of blackmail?
The Epstein case shines a gigantic spotlight on just how twisted and sociopathic the highest echelons of U.S. society have
become. This is exactly what happens when you fail to put wealthy and powerful super predators behind bars. They get more brazen,
they get more demented and, ultimately, they destroy the very fabric that holds society together. We are in fact ruled by monsters.
Unfortunately, by being short-sighted, by fighting amongst ourselves, and by taking the easy route of punching down versus punching
up, we allow such cretins to continue to rape and pillage what remains of our civilization.
If we can truly get to the bottom of exactly what Epstein was up to, I suspect it has the potential to focus the general public
(beyond a few seconds) on the true nature of what's really going on and what makes the world tick. Revelations of such a nature could
provide the proverbial tipping point that's so desperately needed, but this is also why the odds of us actually getting the whole
story is quite low. There's simply too much at stake for those calling the shots.
* * *
Side note: I've been consistently updating my
Epstein twitter thread as I learn new information.
I suggest checking back in from time to time.
Liberty Blitzkrieg is now 100% ad free. As such, there's no monetization for this site other than reader support. To make this
a successful, sustainable thing I ask you to consider the following options. You can become a
Patron . You can visit the
Support Page to donate via PayPal, Bitcoin
or send cash/check in the mail.
If we can truly get to the bottom of exactly what Epstein was up
1. We can't.
2. Epstein was in the business to set up people with kompromat material ...
3. ...and did it for someone else , it appears as he was protected from above for many years.
4. These " elses " won't allow that the support of the Americans to forever fight Israels wars gets shattered.
5. I expect operation diversion & coverup soon. My hunch is that they will pull a 9/11 hoax as a last resort if things get out
of hand fast.
6. They did it in the past, they will do it in the future.
7. Human lives don't matter to them.
Michael Krieger said: "It's sad and mind-boggling how easy it is to divide and conquer the American public. Manipulating the
masses in this country is trivial. The next few years will not be pretty".
Despite all the news of how the elites have manipulated the American public, it still goes on, unabated. Americans, for the
most part, are dumb and fat couch potatoes. They are not going to rise up against their elite masters, because they don't have
the wherewithal to do so. So, the show continues on, and the elites don't seem to have anything to worry about, and do as they
will.
If Americans were truly energetic about reigning in the abuses of the elites, they would have done so back in the 1870's, when
Mark Twain wrote about the Gilded Age Elites. Here it is, 149 years later, and nothing has changed in America today. The elites
still rule, and everyone else is an indentured servant. Of course, there are benefits for the elites to keep the American masses
dumbed down, and letting them lead couch potato life styles. Doing so, keeps them in power.
I suspect it was the CIA or FBI. But the goal was to keep Acosta from investigating Virginia Roberts' claims. If authorities
did this they would have had to investigate Prince Andrew.
If they found her to be truthful, they might even have to arrest Prince Andrew (can you imagine this happening?). Or at least
ask him to testify in a trial.
If the truth came out, this would humiliate the British nation, and Great Britain was (still is) one of America's most important
allies in the "war on terror" and all our other neocon initiatives.
Acosta was essentially told to "back off" Prince Andrew (not necessarily Epstein, who was best buddies with "Andy.")
This doesn't mean Israel intelligence was not involved in some way. It just means that American intelligence was involved,
or wanted to protect key people. Hell, they still do.
We can be almost certain that the exact same thing that happened with Acosta is happening right now. Some prosecutor is being
told to "back off. Don't go here. Focus only on Epstein and Epstein only."
This is why Ghislaine Maxwell has not been charged and will not be charged. This is why the FBI has not raided Pedo Island
or Pedo Ranch. This is why Epstein's four "co-accomplices" have not been charged.
Prosecutors have again been told that "intelligence" is saying that it's okay to do this (charge Epstein with sex crimes),
but NOT okay to do this (investigate and arrest any fellow predators).
It isn't just the elites and we need to stop pretending it is
"Child sex trafficking which is the buying and selling of women, young girls and boys for sex, some as young as 9 years old,
has become big business in America. It is the fastest growing business in organized crime and the second-most-lucrative commodity
traded illegally after drugs and guns.
Adults purchase children for sex at least 2.5 million times a year in the United States.
It's not just young girls who are vulnerable to these predators, either.
According to a 2016 investigative report, "boys make up about 36% of children caught up in the U.S. sex industry (about 60% are
female and less than 5% are transgender males and females)."
Who buys a child for sex?
Otherwise, ordinary men from all walks of life. "They could be your co-worker, doctor, pastor or spouse."
If Epstein was muslin would this be a crime? Of course not it would be part of Muslim Culture. Look into the Abuse done to
young girls in the Rotherham abuse case. BTW I am no sticking up for Epstein but the ruling elites and certain minorities are
treated different from Joe and Jane Public
"The Epstein Case Is A Rare Opportunity To Focus "On The Depraved Nature Of America's Elite"
This IS a "rare opportunity' for Americans to do just this (focus on how deprived our elite leaders really are).
If Americans really started to do this, for an extended period of time, and got, you know, kind of pissed off about this state
of affairs, we might even throw all the bums out. We might really "drain the swamp."
So this is a BIG story. Potentially.
Of course, the Powers that Be are going to do everything they can to make sure Americans do NOT focus on this story for too
long. Or that the "narrative" is controlled. (For example by focusing only on Epstein, not his hundreds of depraved buddies and
corrupt institutions).
I've been posting for 10 days that there are "too many" of these people. And they are too powerful.
Seems to me if authorities went after one of the "johns," they would have to go after ALL of the "Johns." And this includes
Prince Andrew, Bill Clinton, former senators, governors, CEOs, secretaries of the treasury, bankers, etc.
It's the massive numbers of possible offenders that is probably keeping all of these people "safe."
And I still think Prince Andrew is the biggest fish the authorities don't want to humiliate/charge.
Even more so than Clinton. Half the country would throw a party if Clinton was charged. But in the UK, 90 percent of British
citizens would be mortified and greatly embarrassed if one of their Princes was proven to have done all the things that have been
alleged he did.
But can the Dems be serious? They've got to be drinking the Kool-Aid. We have Kamala Harris,
a colored woman who is in favor of busing. This means sending white children forty-five minutes
each way to violent fifth-rate schools where they will be bullied without mercy and come away
hating blacks. She thinks parents will put her racial enthusiasms over the welfare of their
kids. Not gonna happen, Kamala gal.
Kamala says we need more integration. Why? What good is it? Who is going to vote for it? Do
not people avoid it like hemorrhagic tuberculosis when they have a choice?
The entire screwy list of adolescent canditatorial hamsters favors reparations for, oh god,
slavery. We will never hear the end of slavery. Like the liver of Prometheus, slavery is a
resource never depleted.
Reparations of course means forcing whites who never owned slaves to give money to blacks
who never were slaves. Granted, this will get the Democrats the votes of American Africans,
which they had anyway.
I can hear it in Detroit: "Reparations? Yowee! Hoo-ah!! More free stuff!" Just like looting
a Walgreen's but you don't have to run even a couple of blocks.
In the "debates," these political dribs and drabs and leftovers avoided topics of importance
such as the wars, the Pentagon's maximum-flab budget, the national debt, our domestic banditry
such as Black Lives Matter and Antifa, immigration, and black crime. The latter spreads like
gangrene in a suppurated wound. Almost weekly we read of businesses gang-robbed by "teens,"
which we all know what are.
(Meerriam-Webster–"Teen: a black between the ages of sixteen and twenty-eight caught
on surveillance cameras sacking a business owned by shties.")
Now, reparations will fly in Flint. Who can doubtit? The water is poisonous, people don't
have jobs, and now they have to pay American Africans who hate them for something Flint didn't
do to them.
Trump must be paying the Democratic lineup to do this. Nothing else can explain it.
And all of the same political retards favor open borders. This is what got Trump elected in
the first place, so they are going to do it again. What could make more sense? If you
pound your thumb with a hammer, and it hurts, the smart thing is to pound it again. That will
make it feel better. They seem to be in a race to see who can be least electable. They all look
to be winners.
Meanwhile Trump, who should be an easy target, revs up his fans with carney-barker harangues
appealing to the limbic third-grader so prevalent in the psyches of the mid-country. You have
to hand it to the guy: He has charisma. Make America Great Again! Never mind that he is
presiding over the greatest decline America has ever seen. Build the wall! Build the wall!
Yeeee-hah! This sort of thing appeals to those whose minds might be described as uncluttered
and, hey, a vote is a vote.
He hasn't built the Wall, is unlikely to, has deported almost nobody, and jobs are still
leaving America. With Trump, though, it's the giddy mood of the thing, the sense that the
President is one of us, against those rich New York bastards and snotty anchorwomen who have
screwed us. Which of course they have.
Curiously, the press rabble in Washington pride themselves as being on the Left. Say
what ? Howzat again? The Left used to be the party of the working man, the party
supporting unionization, often at risk of bodily harm.They were against wars. Working men got
killed in them for the benefit of the arms industry.
Today's alleged Left is the party of white coastal upper middle classes against the working
class, whom they name deplorables. The racial minorities, with whom the elites strictly avoid
associating, serve as voting fodder.
Can you imagine Saul Alinsky arguing for integrated bathrooms so as to be inclusive?
So we have Biden and Bernie, intensely exciting as wallpaper paste, suited more to Madame
Tussaud's than the White House. Elizabeth Warren, who presumably will wear feathers and say
woo-woo-woo and wave her DNA report saying that she is 1/1024 wild Indian. Maybe she will carry
a tomahawk.
What gave us these? Saturation mutagenesis? The Russians put something in the water?
Well, there was Tulsi Gabbard, who will get my vote.(This doubtless will prove
decisive.) She was the only entry in the lineup of stale-bread Democrats who mentioned the
wars. She is against. Nobody else noticed the voracious Five-Sided Black Hole on the Potomac
that devours the nation's substance.
This matters, or ought to. The military boodle is the only available pile of moolah to pay
for Free Stuff. Or infrastructure. Or decent medical care. But it also sustains the military,
the biggest scam of corporate America. The media will have to sideline Tulsi.
Meanwhile at the top, in the Great Double-Wide on Pennsylvania Avenue, we have Trump
himself, crass as a truss ad, and John Bolton, who seems to be an actual mutant. Maybe his
father sat on a radium watch. Throw in Pompeo, a vicious Christian who looks like an ad for
bacon fat. This is what the turnips of the Democratic freak show, each more boring than all the
others combined, all rushing to out-weird the others, will give us again in 2020.
Actually, I hope Trump isn't impeached. He may be all that stands between the Republic (I am
being nostalgic) and war with Iran. The only people who want war are Bolton, the Jewish
lobbies, and Israel. Everybody else wants to sell Iran stuff and buy stuff from it.
Anyway, Pence is a loon who thinks he is about to be vacuumed up by the Rapture and I guess
drink beer with God. Without Trump, who may be too confused for a war, Bolton would nuke
Tehran.
To date, the last chapter in this comic book has been the sad story of the British
ambassador. He got caught telling his government that Trump was incompetent, flaky, unreliable,
and egotistical. This of course is what all ambassadors must be telling headquarters. What do
you expect them to write of a president who has invented three hitherto unknown
countries–Nambia, Nepple, and Button–and tweets of the "Prince of Whales"? Tweeting
is what birds do. Europe must look on with equal parts horror and amusement.
But how can he lose against such a sorry gaggle of embarrassing Democrats? They appear set
to nominate some creature of the remote fringes, the political equivalent of Rupaul and then,
having elected Trump again, they will wonder at length how he got elected. Only in America.
You are 100% bang on with this article, Fred. The reason why the multiculturalism fiasco was
invented was so the US can continue with their old reactionary right wing ways – out of
nostalgia – of course. If the idea wasn't catastrophic – it would be brilliant
– and it is. Because who would suspect such a thing, the country with immigrant policy
so carefree like there is no tomorrow – and the way the things look, there might not be
one-and yet the country who invented it is exactly that – reactionary right wing.
Regardless who is in power – democrats or republicans – who are there just for
the amusement of the great unwashed, US is stuck in their old ways. The dead giveaway that
they are reactionary right wing country are their wars – which are exclusively fought
against anyone who shows even a hint of socialism.
And yet – they are "socialist" themselves, or at least they are trying to sell
themselves to the world as being "left wing". See, that's clever, the good old capitalists
know that humanity ALWAYS evolves to the left – throughout history this has been
proven. Feudalism was more left wing than slavery, capitalism is more left wing than
feudalism, and whatever comes next, will have to be more left wing still.
Having no heart to follow that direction, the US decided to fake a left and continue with
their right wing ways. What bothers me the most is that they think they are smart. And the
fake left that they took will destroy them more thoroughly than if they took a real left.
@phil In the 1950's,
the labor force participation rate of men (percent of working age men with a job) was around
86%. Today that number is about 69%. Lowest rate in history. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300001
Before any of you takes seriously the next Most Important Election Ever, consider this
prediction by another columnist here at The Unz Review:
"In 2008, Obama was touted as a political outsider who will hose away all of the rot and
bloody criminality of the Bush years. He turned out to be a deft move by our ruling class.
Though fools still refuse to see it, Obama is a perfect servant of our military banking
complex. Now, Trump is being trumpeted as another political outsider.
A Trump presidency will temporarily appease restless, lower class whites, while serving as
a magnet for liberal anger. This will buy our ruling class time as they continue to wage war
abroad while impoverishing Americans back home. Like Obama, Trump won't fulfill any of his
election promises, and this, too, will be blamed on bipartisan politics."
Linh Dinh, June 12, 2016.
National politics are the Establishment's way to channel, geld, and harmlessly blow off
dissent. If you want things to change, stop voting and encourage others to do so. If nothing
else, at least take a different crayon, something other than Red or Blue.
This is actually a pretty reasonable column from Fredrigo Reedriguez -- except perhaps for
this part:
and jobs are still leaving America.
Of course jobs will always leave America -- the question is: Has there been net job growth
under Trump (not that he should get sole credit for that), especially in manufacturing
(decimated in previous decades), and if these gains are sustainable -- I don't think anyone
can really answer the latter question -- also import is altering trade policy to stem future
job loss -- it's less clear Trump has made significant progress there.
In President Trump's first two years in office, factory job growth accelerated, Some of
the 465,000 factory jobs that the country created in 2017 and 2018 are in the most
economically beleaguered counties that voted for Mr. Trump in 2016.
"But how can he lose against such a sorry gaggle of embarrassing Democrats?"
Exactly; just like they did the first time around by running the least electable democrat
they could find, Hillary Clinton (and even then having to take obvious steps to undermine her
campaign), in accordance with the long-standing plan.
"They appear set to nominate some creature of the remote fringes, the political
equivalent of Rupaul and then, having elected Trump again, they will wonder at length how
he got elected. Only in America."
Well I don't think they'll "wonder" about their own calculated plan, i.e., to portray
orange clown's "opposition" as wanting to eat babies, open the borders, put white people in
concentration camps, pay reparations, do away with the concept of gender, teach sexual
perversion in schools, trash the 2nd amendment, etc., etc., etc thus only the apparently
somewhat less evil orange clown can save us.
"... And according to the Beast , "Clinton also failed to mention the intimate 1995 fundraising dinner at the Palm Beach home of Revlon mogul Ron Perelman, where Clinton hobnobbed with the likes of Epstein, Don Johnson, and Jimmy Buffett. (Nearby, at Epstein's own Palm Beach mansion, the money man allegedly abused hundreds of underage girls.)" ..."
"... Meanwhile, Clinton's college friend A. Paul Prosperi visited Epstein at least 20 times while he was in the Palm Beach county jail after pleading guilty to procuring an underage prostitute in 2008. Prosperi was also present at a 1995 Perelman fundraiser at which both Clinton and Epstein were present. ..."
"... Over that same time period, a source with knowledge of the situation told The Daily Beast, Middleton met with Epstein in the White House at least three times . It is unclear what they discussed, or for how long. Middleton did not respond to repeated calls and emails for comment, or to a reporter who visited his home in Arkansas. ..."
Bill Clinton's attempts to distance himself from convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein have
taken yet another blow - after a
Daily Beast investigation reveals that the financier - who came highly recommended by Lynn
Forester de Rothschild - visited the Clinton White House multiple times .
As early as 1993, records show, Epstein donated $10,000 to the White House Historical
Association and attended a donors' reception hosted by Bill and Hillary Clinton. Around the
same time, according to a source familiar with the connection, Epstein visited presidential
aide Mark Middleton several times at the White House . Two years later, businesswoman Lynn
Forester de Rothschild wrote a personal letter to Clinton thanking him for their talk about
the financier . -
Daily Beast
On July 8, the former president sought to distance himself from Epstein, claiming that the
two crossed paths just six times beginning in 2002; "four flights on the billionaire's private
jet, a single trip to his Harlem office, and one "brief visit" to his New York apartment, all
with staff and security detail in tow," per the Beast .
"President Clinton knows nothing about the terrible crimes Jeffrey Epstein pleaded guilty to
in Florida some years ago, or those with which he has been recently charged in New York,"
Clinton spokesperson, Angel Ureña, told the Beast. " Any suggestion to the contrary is
both factually inaccurate and irresponsible."
Clinton's denial flies in the face of flight logs from Epstein's now-sold 'Lolita Express'
727 jet at least
26 times .
When the president released his initial statement on Epstein, he did not explain the
multiple other trips he appears
to have taken on the financier's plane -- including one flight to Westchester with
Epstein, his alleged madam Ghislaine Maxwell, and an "unnamed female." -
Daily Beast
And according to the Beast , "Clinton also failed to mention the intimate 1995 fundraising
dinner at the Palm Beach home of Revlon mogul Ron Perelman, where Clinton
hobnobbed with the likes of Epstein, Don Johnson, and Jimmy Buffett. (Nearby, at Epstein's
own Palm Beach mansion, the money man allegedly abused hundreds of underage girls.)"
While Politico claimed in a piece last week that the Clintons and Epstein connected through
Epstein's longtime confidant and alleged
procurer of young women - Ghislaine Maxwell, after Clinton left office, documents in
the Clinton Library attest to much earlier links .
In late September of 1993, Bill and Hillary Clinton hosted a reception for supporters who
had contributed to recent White House renovations. The nearly $400,000 overhaul -- which
included new gold draperies and a 13-color woven rug for the Oval Office -- was funded
entirely by donations to the White House Historical Association, a private organization that
helps preserve and promote the White House as a historical monument.
The reception took place at the White House residence from 7:30 to 9:30 p.m., according to
a copy of the president's daily schedule. White House Social Secretary Ann Stock -- who
appears in Epstein's
little black book of phone numbers -- was listed as the point of contact . According to
multiple attendees, the evening included an intimate tour of the newly refurbished residence,
followed by a receiving line with the president and first lady. Dessert was served in the
East Room, where the couple thanked everyone for attending and announced the Committee for
the Preservation of the White House.
Guests for the event , according to the invitation list, included the journalist and
philanthropist Barbara Goldsmith, heiress Jane Engelhard, political consultant Cynthia
Friedman, and " Mr Jeffrey Epstein and Ms. Ghislaine Maxwell ." Epstein and Maxwell do not
appear on the 'regret list,' and there is a letter 'A' next to both of their names,
indicating they planned to attend . A press release from the event, put out by Hillary
Clinton's office, lists Epstein as a White House Historical Association donor. -
Daily Beast
Meanwhile, Clinton's college friend A. Paul Prosperi visited Epstein at least 20 times
while he was in the Palm Beach county jail after pleading guilty to procuring an underage
prostitute in 2008. Prosperi was also present at a 1995 Perelman fundraiser at which both
Clinton and Epstein were present.
Another Clinton connection with Epstein comes through White House aide Mark E. Middleton - a
friend of Clinton's from his beginnings in Arkansas who joined the administration in 1993 as
special assistant to Chief of Staff Mack McClarty (another Arkansas insider, per the Beast ).
Middleton would rise to the level of "Deputy to the Counselor" in 1994.
Over that same time period, a source with knowledge of the situation told The Daily
Beast, Middleton met with Epstein in the White House at least three times . It is unclear
what they discussed, or for how long. Middleton did not respond to repeated calls and emails
for comment, or to a reporter who visited his home in Arkansas.
Middleton and Epstein also appear to have shared a famous friend in common. Donald Trump
-- who once called Epstein a "terrific guy" -- sent Middleton a signed copy of his book , The
Art of the Deal , while the lawyer was working in the White House. The inscription read, " To
Mark -- Best wishes. Your mom is the best ."
Hobnobbing with businessmen like Epstein and Trump was part and parcel of Middleton's
White House job , according to a 1999 report from the House Committee on Government Reform.
("In the course of his duties, Middleton was in contact with many prominent business people
and contributors to the President," the report states.) But it also got the lawyer in trouble
with the administration once he left. -
Daily Beast
Rothschild letter
In 1995, Lynn Forester de Rothschild writes ""Dear Mr. President: It was a pleasure to see
you recently at Senator Kennedy's house. There was too much to discuss and too little time.
Using my fifteen seconds of access to discuss Jeffrey Epstein and currency stabilization, I
neglected to talk to you about a topic near and dear to my heart. Namely, affirmative action
and the future."
Of note, former Epstein attorney and pal Alan Dershowitz previously said that Forester de
Rothschild introduced him to Epstein at a party on Martha's Vineyard for Lord Rothschild in the
summer of 1996.
"He was feisty, he was utterly politically incorrect," said Dershowitz in a recent interview
with New York magazine. "He was interesting to be with."
Bill Clinton and that vicious evil **** of a wife Hillary have done more to **** this
country up and the entire world than any other human beings. No contest.
Remember when Harvey Weinstein was the "scum" of the moment? During these "15 minutes,"
director Quentin Tarantino acknowledged his regret in not exposing Weinstein. Basically, he
gave an interview where he admitted he knew what his producer friend had been doing - or must
have been doing - all these years, and yet Taratino did nothing. Taratino gets credit in my
book for acknowledging this. In other words, he COULD have done something to stop his
activities/crimes, but did not.
Compare and contrast Tarantino's "mea culpa" to the HUNDREDS of VIPs who must have known
what Epstein was doing - for decades. And remained silent and never considered going to
authorities.
Scores or hundreds of people COULD have stopped this, but did not.
This tells us much about our system and the "leaders" who rule us. Also about our
"watchdog" press corps, which had no interest in exposing this person or his operation.
Affirmative action? Ha! 1 year later Clinton signs into law permission for the Attorney
General to traffic in little kids without Judicial oversight;
SEC. 604. ASYLUM REFORM.
(a) Asylum Reform.--Section 208 (8 U.S.C. 1158) is amended to read as follows: ... (D) No
judicial review.--There shall be no judicial review of a determination of the Attorney
General under subparagraph (A)(v). ..." - excerpt from https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-104publ208/html/PLAW-104publ208.htm
Bill Richardson seems to be getting a pass so far on this story. While he has been
identified as being in Epstein's "black book" and receiving a couple of $50,000 campaign
donations from Epstein, what hasn't been mentioned is Richardson's key role as a Clinton
"fixer" and sycophant. Typically, he is identified only as a "former New Mexico
governor."
But prior to being elected governor of New Mexico, he served (if memory is correct) as the
U.S. ambassador to the U.N. under Bill Clinton. It was in this role that he "found" a job for
Monica Lewinsky, when Clinton had to move her out of the White House.
No telling what he did for Clinton before he was rewarded with this plum appointment.
I'm sure if a real investigation ever occurred we would learn that New Mexico leaders were
as "bought off" as the U.S. Virgin Island leaders had to be.
Epstein bought his 7,500 acre "ranch" from a former New Mexico governor. Richardson admits
he visited this place one time (yeah right). The "ranch" has no cattle and has its own air
strip. Hasn't anyone in this state, or this county, investigated what was going on at this
place?
But if Richardson and Clinton are both involved (and they are), we know they were both up
to no good, and we're trying to keep something secret.
" Clinton's college friend A. Paul Prosperi visited Epstein at least 20 times while
he was in the Palm Beach county jail . . ."
Just checking on Epstein's well-being and morale. A true humanitarian. There is no chance
that Mr. Prosperi was acting as a cut-out for the Clinton family. /S
Paul must have visited him at night since Epstein was hardly in his cell during the
daytime due to the allowance of liberal furloughs 6.5 days per week and "business trips" he
was allowed to take that lasted several days.
Virginia Roberts is on the record - in sworn affidavits - of saying she had sex with
Prince Andrew on three occasions. She even mention the places and time frames she was at
these places with Prince Andrew.
Can't reporters or investigators simply see if Prince Andrew was at these places at the
same time she was? Wouldn't this corroborate (or disprove/impeach) her story?
Absolutely not. "Journalists" have no time to check on the Prince Andrew story, or the
allegation that Bill Clinton flew with Epstein 26 times. They are too busy pursuing false
allegations against Trump and putting spin on Mueller's train-wreck testimony from
yesterday.
This story intimates that Bill Clinton and Jeff Epstein knew one another long before
Clinton says they knew one another. And were much closer to one another than we have been led
to believe.
And anyone who spent a lot of time with Epstein knew exactly what commodity/service
Epstein offered.
Even if Clinton never availed himself of the services offered by one of Epstein's girls,
he had to know exactly what business Epstein "trafficked" in. Of course, the notion that
Clinton never "sampled the product" is laughable.
The little voice inside my head , 7 minutes ago
link
The story also opens the door to a vast amount of connections previously unknown, you
could follow the people mentioned in the article and see what became of them and start
building a web... Many posts here are starting to do that. Hopeful
This was some real investigative journalism. All reporters had to do was check White House
records that show who attended what events. This story PROVES Clinton was lying if he indeed
said he didn't know Epstein until after he was out of office. This alone is grounds to
investigate him further. (Things he said in the past have now been proven to be lies -
Investigation 101).
Reporters then showed Clinton's long-time buddy (who ran his political campaign at
Georgetown) was also an associate of Epstein. And this person visited Epstein 20 times (!)
while Epstein was in jail (over a 13-month period).
These CAN'T be coincidences.
Anyway, most of these people will say "no comment" or will refuse to respond to requests
for comments. But this doesn't mean reporters can't find incriminating sources or stories
from other avenues.
For example, Vanity Fair reporters simply interviewed people who worked at the Virgin
Islands airport. They then asked these people: "Did you happen to see a large number of young
girls boarding or getting off Epstein's planes?"
Answer: Yes. Definitely. All the time.
I mean, what are we to make of this?
Why were so many young girls traveling to and from Epstein's island?
On the third anniversary of
the release by WikiLeaks of the DNC emails, Ray McGovern looks back at how the DNC diverted the damaging contents
into a trumped up conspiracy blaming Russia with no evidence at all.
T
hree
years ago Monday
WikiLeaks
published a trove of highly embarrassing emails that had been leaked from inside
the Democratic National Committee. As has been the case with every leak revealed by
WikiLeaks
, the emails were
authentic. These particular ones, however, could not have come at a worse time for top Democratic Party officials.
The emails made it
unmistakably clear that the DNC had tipped the scales sharply against Democratic insurgent Bernie Sanders, giving him
a snowball's chance in hell for the nomination. The posting of the DNC emails is also widely seen as having harmed
the the electoral prospects of Hillary Clinton, who could not escape responsibility completely, while a handful of
the very top DNC officials were forced to immediately resign.
Relatively few Americans
read the actual emails, their attention diverted to the incessant media-fostered question: Why Did the Russians Hack
the DNC to Hurt Hillary? For the millions of once enthusiastic Democrats who favored Sanders, however, the disclosure
that the nomination process had been fixed came as a bitter pill, leaving a sour taste in their mouths and a
passive-aggressive reluctance to promote the candidacy of one they considered a usurper. Having had a huge stake in
Bernie's candidacy, they had little trouble seeing through the diversion of attention from the content of the emails.
Clinton Prevails
A mere four days after the
WikiLeaks
release, a well orchestrated Democratic Convention nominated Clinton, while many Sanders supporters
loudly objected. Thus, she began her campaign under a cloud, and as more and more Americans learned of the fraud that
oozed through the DNC email correspondence -- including the rigging of the Democratic primaries -- the cloud grew
larger and darker.
On June 12, 2016, six weeks
before the convention,
WikiLeaks
publisher Julian Assange had
announced
in an interview on British TV, "We have upcoming leaks in relation to Hillary Clinton We have
emails pending publication."
Independent forensic
investigations
demonstrated two years ago that the DNC emails were not hacked over the Internet, but had
been copied onto an external storage device -- probably a thumb drive. Additional work over recent months has yielded
more evidence that the intrusion into the DNC computers was a copy, not a hack, and that it took place on May 23 and
25, 2016.
The DNC almost certainly
knew what had happened -- not only that someone with physical access to DNC computers had copied thousands of emails,
but also which ones they had copied, and thus how prejudicial to the Clinton campaign they would be when they saw the
light of day.
And so, candidate Clinton,
the DNC, and the mainstream media (forever quoting anonymous "current and former intelligence officials") appear to
have colluded, deciding the best defense would be a good offense. No one knew how soon
WikiLeaks
would publish
the emails, but the DNC offense/defense would surely have to be put in place before the convention scheduled to begin
on July 25. That meant there were, at most, six weeks to react. On July 24, about 48 hours after the leaks were
published, and a day before the convention, the DNC first
blamed Russia
for hacking their emails and giving them to
WikiLeaks
to sabotage Clinton.
A Magnificent Diversion
Clinton: Already blaming the Russians at DNC
2016 convention.
(Wikipedia)
Granted, it was a stretch --
and the DNC would have to hire a pliable cybersecurity firm to back up their claim. But they had good reason to
believe
that CrowdStrike would perform that service. It was the best Clinton campaign manager Robbie Mook
and associates could apparently come up with. If they hurried, there would be just enough time to prepare a PR
campaign before the convention and, best of all, there was little doubt that the media could be counted on to support
the effort full bore.
When
WikiLeaks
published
the emails on July 22, 2016, just three days before the Democratic convention, the propagandists were ready to
deflect attention from the damning content of the DNC emails by repeating incessantly that the Russians hacked the
emails and gave them to
WikiLeaks
to hurt Clinton.
It pretty much worked like
a charm. The late Senator John McCain and others were quick to call the Russian "hack" an "an act of war." Evidence?
None. For icing on the cake, then-FBI Director James Comey decided not to seize and inspect the DNC computers. Nor,
as we now know, did Comey even
require
a final report from CrowdStrike.
Eight months after the
convention, in remarks at the Clinton/Podesta Center for American Progress on April 6, 2017, Clinton's PR director,
Jennifer Palmieri, could scarcely contain her pride that, after a difficult start, she was ultimately successful in
keeping the Russian bear front and center.
Transcribed below
(verbatim) are some of Palmieri's more telling
remarks
when asked to
comment, from her insider perspective, on "what was actually going on in late summer/early fall."
" I did appreciate that
for the press to absorb the idea that behind the stage that the Trump campaign was coordinating with Russia to
defeat Hillary Clinton was too fantastic for people to, um, for the press to process, to absorb .
But then
we go back to Brooklyn and heard from the -- mostly our sources were other intelligence, with the press who work in
the intelligence sphere, and that's where we heard things and that's where we learned about the dossier and the
other story lines that were swirling about And along the way the administration started confirming various
pieces of what they were concerned about what Russia was doing.
[Emphasis added.]
"And we did finally get
to the point on October 7, when the administration came out with a very stunning [memorandum]. How stunning it was
for both the Director of National Intelligence and the Director of Homeland Security to put out a statement – a
long statement – that said with high confidence that Russia was interfering in the election and they were also
directing the timing of the leaks. And it named the institutions – WikiLeaks, DC Leaks, and Guccifer – as being
Russian-led, and how stunning that was to be that certain and that public. So I do think that the answer for the
Democrats now in both the House and the Senate is to talk about it more and make it more real ."
And so, the Magnificent
Diversion worked as intended.
Recognizing Liminal Time
But
not all journalists fell for it. Patrick Lawrence (once of
The Nation
, now of
Consortium News
)
was onto the ruse from the start. He says he had "fire in the belly" on the morning of July 25, 2016, the day the
Democratic convention began, and that he dashed off an article "in one long, furious exhale" within 12 hours of when
the media started really pushing the "the Russians-did-it" narrative. The title of his article, pointed out to me a
few months ago by VIPS member Todd Pierce, was "How the DNC fabricated a Russian hacker conspiracy to deflect blame
for its email scandal a disturbing resemblance to Cold War red-baiting."
Lawrence's off-the-cuff
ruminations
, which
Salon
published
the next day are extraordinarily prescient and worth reading in full. He instinctively
recognized the email disclosure-cum-media-obfuscation campaign as a liminal event. Here are some excerpts, reprinted
here with Lawrence's permission:
"Now wait a minute, all
you upper-case "D" Democrats. A flood light suddenly shines on your party apparatus, revealing its grossly corrupt
machinations to fix the primary process and sink the Sanders campaign, and within a day you are on about the evil
Russians having hacked into your computers to sabotage our elections Is this how lowly you rate the intelligence
of American voters?
The Sanders people have
long charged that the DNC has had its fingers on the scale in favor of Hillary Clinton's nomination. The prints
were everywhere Last Friday WikiLeaks published nearly 20,000 DNC email messages providing abundant proof that
Sanders and his staff were right all along. The worst of these, involving senior DNC officers, proposed
Nixon-esque smears having to do with everything from ineptitude within the Sanders campaign to Sanders as a Jew in
name only and an atheist by conviction.
The caker came on
Sunday, when Robby Mook appeared on ABC's "This Week" and CNN's "State of the Union" to assert that the
D.N.C.'s mail was hacked "by the Russians for the purpose of helping Donald Trump." He knows this because
"experts" -- experts he will never name -- have told him so.
the Clinton campaign
now goes for a twofer. Watch as it advances the Russians-did-it thesis on the basis of nothing, then shoots the
messenger, then associates Trump with its own mess -- and, finally, gets to ignore the nature of its transgression
(which any paying-attention person must consider grave). Preposterous, readers. Join me, please, in having
absolutely none of it. There is no "Russian actor" at the bottom of this swamp, to put my position bluntly. You
will never, ever be offered persuasive evidence otherwise.
[Emphasis added.]
Trump, to make this
work, must be blamed for his willingness to negotiate with Moscow. This is now among his sins. Got that? Anyone
who says he will talk to the Russians has transgressed the American code. I am developing nitrogen bends Which
way for a breath of air?"
Sad Sequel
A year later Lawrence was
commissioned by
The Nation
to write an investigative report on the so-called "Russian hack." On August 9,
2017, after he interviewed several Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, among others,
The Nation
published
his findings in an
article
entitled "A New Report Raises Big Questions About Last Year's DNC Hack." Lawrence wrote, "Former
NSA experts, now members of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), say it wasn't a hack at all, but a
leak -- an inside job by someone with access to the DNC's system."
Again, Lawrence got it
right -- this time relying less on his own experience and intuition than on applied science as practiced by real
technical experts with no axes to grind. But, sadly, that cut across the grain of the acceptable Russia-gate
narrative, and a furor erupted among Hillary followers still licking their wounds over her loss. It proved simply
too much for them to entertain the notion that Clinton was quite capable, with help from the likes of Mook, to
snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory -- without any help from Vladimir Putin.
Ray McGovern works with
Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. An ex-CIA analyst,
his expertise on Russia goes back a half-century. He prepared and briefed
The President's Daily Brief
for
Presidents Nixon, Ford, and Reagan, and in retirement he co-founded Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
(VIPS).
If you
value this original article, please consider
making
a donation
to Consortium News so we can bring you more stories like this one.
My comment went in where and landed in the ether. If it does get posted as a reply to Realist I
apologize for the redundancy. Please delete second attempt
Curious
,
July 23, 2019 at 23:31
Test
Carolyn Grassi
,
July 23, 2019 at 23:31
Thanks again Ray for your detailed comprehensive coverage on what may be called The DNC coverup. If
only my progressive left-leaning friends in California could see the light of day on this fiasco of
Russian hacking. Several times I've sent your excellent analysis to these folks, whose only reply is
Silence! Sad really that hatred of Trump and Hillary's loss has blinded them. So like in the McCarthy
era out to get folks and today, of all things, with the help of the intelligence community, they used
to criticize. I wonder what John le Carre would write about the state of affairs in America. Ray, you
have company with Glenn Greenwald and Stephen F. Cohen. I call you Voices in the Wilderness. Keep on
writing, speaking out. The country needs you more than ever! sincere thanks, Carolyn Grassi, Pacifica,
CA
Hawaiiguy
,
July 23, 2019 at 16:28
Still waiting for her indictments to roll in, until I see one for jaywalking I'm in firm belief the
deep state isn't as close to peril as some may think. Heck Jeffrey Epstein is long gone from the media
and he was absolutely the most powerful pedophile walking thr streets. But the Borg is all mighty as
defending silence proves once again.
Meremark
,
July 23, 2019 at 16:10
When the post is the truth, (Mr. McGovern: huzzah, huzzah!), then trolls clog the comments, usually
(as in the present case) with by VOLUME, QUANTITY, arguing against a certain Clear Quality of tone in
the sound of the ring of Truth.
When the post has little or no truth, then comments are few or
self-defeating and the trolls needn't bother fogging the pen and so they don't?
IMO this post seems to have waaaay more comments than usual. hmmmm .
All I can do is shake my head. The 2020 election is on the visible horizon and not only did the actors
who rigged the 2016 election for Donald Trump go unpunished and off the hook, we've allowed them to
grow bigger and better, and we're going to let them do it again.
LIBERAL PROF: Big Tech moved 'rock bottom minimum' of 2.6 million votes to
Hillary in 2016
A liberal professor and "very strong public supporter of Hillary Clinton" is raising the alarms
about Google manipulation of millions of unwitting voters in recent elections, as well as the
potential impact for 2020.
Dr. Robert Epstein, former editor of Psychology Today and acclaimed psychologist who founded the
Cambridge Center for Behavioral Studies, discussed his research before a subcommittee of the Senate
Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, and his testimony was mind-boggling.
"You testified before this committee that Google's manipulation of votes gave at least 2.6
million additional votes to Hillary Clinton in the year 2016. Is that correct?" Sen. Ted Cruz
questioned
SWEET! HOWEVER–>> On my local cable satellite channel Vice channel carried a story all about how the
russians did it.
You folks out there taking VICE at is word are being played, again, by the MSM.
But how sweet it is caught a clinton behaving worse that NIXON, have the repugniklans right where
they belong but alas the dims are still clueless on who to run. So much for our highly touted and
worthless 2 party system.
You cannot make this shit up. And to Bobby Kwasnik I can only say "What in the hell are you
drinking son?"
Hawaiiguy
,
July 23, 2019 at 16:31
Took you long 3nough to figure that out, I did the first time they focused on hot Israeli women in
forces. It's a total zionist rag.
Drew Hunkins
,
July 23, 2019 at 14:14
Great comment.
I especially liked "my late husband and I kept asking: where and when are they going
to actually start discussing the *content* of the emails themselves? Never."
Alas, so true.
Stay strong AnneR. Don't let them get you down.
Dan
,
July 23, 2019 at 12:39
You're putting a lot of faith on former experts who got the DNC forensic evidence , how?
and assume that the evidence was not a breadcrumb left to mislead and implicate Seth Rich.
( In some circumstances the perfect hack would have no traces, but if the data will be leaked, the
leaker would leave behind misleading evidence.)
Its within russian spycraft to leave behind misleading evidence, implicate someone and
have them killed to cover it up.
I have never seen why these experts have done more than fall for it.
don't know, just say'n
Rob Roy
,
July 23, 2019 at 14:31
Proof? Julian Assange said several times I heard him myself .so there you are. The emails were
leaked from inside the DNC, not hacked by the Russians. That's why JA is being killed off and not
allowed any access to the public. BTW, the DNC computers were never examined by the investigators.
Why? The day Hillary said, "Seventeen intelligence agencies .." I knew it was a lie that she would
build on forever. Besides, I know Putin.
David
,
July 23, 2019 at 14:46
You are putting a lot of faith in a dubious private entity in the hire of the DNC. No US legal
authority examined the DNC's server. Crowdstrike, the dubious entity in the pay of the DNC made a
claim that there was a Russian hack but provided no evidence. Not only did they not provide
evidence, we have recently learned that they didn't even generate a report. CrowdSstrike claimed
that it knew it was a Russian hack because they found Cyrillic writing and the name of a former KGB
head. Sounds damned clumsy of the Russians.
William Binney, the former chief technical officer of the NSA was able to determine from the
information that is available that it was technically infeasible for their to have been a hack
originating in Russia. The material was down loaded internally on to a thumb drive. Binney's
assessment corroborates ambassador Graig Muarry's assertion that he received the down loaded
material. Both Maurry and Assange publicly requested that they be interviewed by the FBI. The FBI
chose not to examine the DNC server. Mueller also chose to decline Maurry and Assange's request for
an interview. Mueller stated that "It would have been better to have the FBI forensic experts
examine the server but CrowdStrike is a high class outfit." It decidedly is not. Basing his
conclusions on the claims of a private entity that was far from being a disinterested party is at
best negligent and at worst corrupt. Mueller took extraordinary measures to avoid taking any steps
that could yield a result different from what was claimed in his report.
It gets worst for the believers of Russian interference. A federal judge has threatened
prosecutors with contempt of court making claims against the Russian internet company whose
advertisements were alleged to be efforts to interfered in the US presidential elections that it
has no evidence to support. The "Russian interference" hoax has been exposed.
Andrew Thomas
,
July 23, 2019 at 14:48
Dan, Ray I think if you go back and read everything that Ray was only able to summarize in this
particular post, you will discover that the scenario you outlined just does not fit the known
facts.
EricT
,
July 23, 2019 at 15:24
Misleading evidence being left behind is also within our own intelligence agencies as well. See the
vault 7 releases.
Eddie
,
July 23, 2019 at 11:46
What is overlooked in all these shenanigans is the utter depravity that Mdm. Clinton and her cabal of
fellow psychopaths reached in order obscure their crimes and to seize power. By blaming Russia and
Vladimir Putin for "hacking" into DNC's emails, the Clinton crime family and their useful idiots in
the corporate media increased tensions that could have led to a nuclear holocaust.
Clinton and the
rest of the fetid cesspool that ran her campaign were willing to risk annihilating the planet so that
Clinton could slither in the White House where the gravy train of bribes could flow like the Amazon
River. Meanwhile, the corrupt to its core FBI fixed things so that Mdm. Clinton and her cronies did
not wind up in the gulag that her husband created when he ran the gravy train.
Roland James
,
July 23, 2019 at 11:03
In the Dec 5, 2016 issue of The Nation is a column 'En la Lucha' (The fight continues) by Cesar
Vargas, co-director of the Dream Action Coalition: "I had known that Trump would become president once
it was revealed the Democratic Party had rigged the primary in favor of Hillary Clinton."
Clinton beat Sanders by 3.7 million votes. Sanders has never said that the Democratic primary was
rigged, nor has he questioned the legitimacy of the result. Yes, the DNC was biased in favor of
Clinton, who has been a Democrat her entire adult life, unlike Sanders, an Independent until he wanted
to run for president. ("Progressives who refused to vote for Hillary Clinton in the general election
made a 'bad mistake'."-Noam Chomsky. // In a 50R/50D country with a winner-take-all system, 3rd party
candidates are the marginal difference. Especially this year in Wi, Mi and Pa.) More below**
My central concern over the last couple of decades has been the Global Climate Crisis, which will
likely swamp everything else; the CO2 "bullets" from the Big American Way of Life are already causing
death and destruction around the world. In 2015, though i was a Sanders supporter, i was worried that
Sanders would 'sow the wind' but likely wouldn't win the Democratic primary. Then many of his
energized supporters wouldn't support the Democratic nominee with their votes and/or with their
poisonous and conspiratorial rhetoric adding to the Clinton pile-on led by the right wing hate
machine. Therefore, the country and the whole world would 'reap the whirlwind' with 'climate change is
a hoax' Donald Trump, accelerating the race to catastrophe.
Roland James
** "The infamous hack of DNC emails that "proved" the organization had its thumb on the scale for
Clinton? Perhaps nothing has been more frustrating for people in the politics business to address,
because the conspiracy is based on ignorance. Almost every email that set off the "rigged" accusations
was from May 2016. (One was in late April; I'll address that below.)
Even in the most ridiculous of dream worlds, Sanders could not have possibly won the nomination after
May 3 -- at that point, he needed 984 more pledged delegates, but there were only 933 available in the
remaining contests. And political pros could tell by the delegate math that the race was over on April
19, since a victory would require him to win almost every single delegate after that, something no
rational person could believe. Sanders voters proclaimed that superdelegates, elected officials and
party regulars who controlled thousands of votes, could flip their support and instead vote for the
candidate with the fewest votes.
In other words, they wanted the party to overthrow the will of the majority of voters.
That Sanders fans were wishing for an establishment overthrow of the electorate more common in banana
republics or dictatorships is obscene. (One side note: Sanders supporters also made a big deal out of
the fact that many of the superdelegates had expressed support for Clinton early in the campaign. They
did the same thing in 2008, then switched to Obama when he won the most pledged delegates. Same thing
would have happened with Sanders if he had persuaded more people to vote for him.)
This is important because it shows Sanders supporters were tricked into believing a false narrative.
Once only one candidate can win the nomination, of course the DNC gets to work on that person's
behalf. Of course emails from that time would reflect support for the person who would clearly be the
nominee. And given that their jobs are to elect Democrats, of course DNC officials were annoyed that
Sanders would not tell his followers he could not possibly be the nominee. Battling for the sake of
battling gave his supporters a false belief that they could still win -- something that added to their
increasingly embittered feelings.
According to a Western European intelligence source, Russian hackers, using a series of go-betweens,
transmitted the DNC emails to WikiLeaks with the intent of having them released on the verge of the
Democratic Convention in hopes of sowing chaos. And that's what happened -- just a couple of days before
Democrats gathered in Philadelphia, the emails came out, and suddenly the media was loaded with
stories about trauma in the party. Crews of Russian propagandists -- working through an array of Twitter
accounts and websites, started spreading the story that the DNC had stolen the election from Sanders.
(An analysis provided to Newsweek by independent internet and computer specialists using a series of
algorithms show that this kind of propaganda, using the same words, went from Russian disinformation
sources [like duran] to comment sections on more than 200 sites catering to liberals, conservatives,
white supremacists, nutritionists and an amazing assortment of other interest groups.)
The fact that the dates of the most controversial emails -- May 3, May 4, May 5, May 9, May 16, May 17,
May 18, May 21 -- were after it was impossible for Sanders to win was almost never mentioned, and was
certainly ignored by the propagandists trying to sell the "primaries were rigged" narrative. (Yes, one
of them said something inappropriate about his religious beliefs. So a guy inside the DNC was a jerk;
that didn't change the outcome.) Two other emails -- one from April 24 and May 1 -- were statements of fact.
In the first, responding to Sanders saying he would push for a contested convention (even though he
would not have the delegates to do so), a DNC official wrote, "So much for a traditional presumptive
nominee." Yeah, no kidding. The second stated that Sanders didn't know what the DNC's job actually
was -- which he didn't, apparently because he had not ever been a Democrat before his run.
Bottom line: The "scandalous" DNC emails were hacked by people working with the Kremlin, then
misrepresented online by Russian propagandists to gullible fools who never checked the dates of the
documents. And the media, which in the flurry of breathless stories about the emails would
occasionally mention that they were all dated after any rational person knew the nomination was
Clinton's, fed into the misinformation.In the real world, here is what happened: Clinton got 16.9
million votes in the primaries, compared with 13.2 million for Sanders. The rules were never changed
to stop him, even though Sanders supporters started calling for them to be changed as his losses piled
up."-Kurt Eichenwald
AnneR
,
July 23, 2019 at 14:07
Would you by chance be a Dem shill? You certainly seem to be acting as such.
Russia (by which every Dem seems to mean "the Kremlin" "Putin") did *not* interfere in that
election for or against the Strumpet, for or against HRC. Talk about "misinformation"!
So now you (and your ilk?) are blaming Sanders' supporters??
So far as I'm aware the neither the DNC (bought by the Clintons) nor HRC herself ever pointed
the finger at Bernie's supporters or Bernie himself as culpable of the story you've come up with.
Andrew Thomas
,
July 23, 2019 at 15:00
You guys never give up, do you? If there is any actual "evidence" of a Russian, or for that matter
any other "hack" that comes out tomorrow, I will be utterly amazed and happy to come back to this
page to apologize. There will not be any. Mueller may try to suggest that it exists somewhere in
the "redactions." But that will be bullshit.
Trump and Clinton were the 2 most hated candidates in US history and Hillary even picked TRUMP .
with the help of the MSNBC and CNN both in the bag for Clinton,that helped give Trump 6 BILLION in
free airtime
and MSNBC fired Ed Shultz fro wanting to cover Sanders ..but that not tampering in election
right?
Americans' Distaste For Both Trump And Clinton Is Record-Breaking
No past candidate comes close to Clinton, and especially Trump, in terms of engendering strong
dislike a little more than six months before the election.
Hillary Clinton is more unpopular than Donald Trump. Let that sink in
"Donald Trump is one of the least popular politicians in the history of the United States. Yet,
Trump is still more popular than Hillary Clinton. Let that sink in.
According to the latest Bloomberg National Poll, Trump has a net favorability of 41% whereas
Clinton has a net favorability of 39%. If Democrats are to escape the political wilderness, they
will have to leave Clinton and her brand of politics in the woods. "
There was plenty of fraud during the nomination process My parents waited in line for 6 hrs in
AZ because they closed 90% of the polling places in Maricopa country and people had their parties
changed from Democrat to republican.Even employees in the state house.
Roland, you'll never convince me that Hillary Clinton was preferable to Donald Trump. Both were the
product of scraping the bottom of the U.S political barrel, but Trump was never the war-monger that
war criminal Hillary Clinton blatantly was and is. Since even Trump was equivocal about his
willingness to use military force, neither one was qualified to be president in my book. I do not
vote for war criminals or war criminal wannabes. (I've personally experienced war.) You have to be
a Peace candidate to cross my threshold of eligibility. Maybe you are different, eager to have more
blood on your hands. But do you realize that the U.S. has killed some 20 million foreign people
since World War II ended? Do you feel no responsibility for that when you choose for whom to vote?
As for your Russia-Gate B.S., you are visiting the web site that has done more to prove that
Russia-Gate has no basis in reality than any other. To begin your encounter with Russia-Gate
reality, I recommend the following Google search query:
So, in summary, Brennan, Comey, Clinton, etc. didn't accept the lawful election results, and decided
to just lie, like it's nothing, in order to -- in fact -- try to suspend American democracy, start an
extremely lucrative -- for some -- second cold war with Russia as the chosen and needed "enemy", and give
the power back to the deep state and war profiteers. Simple as that.
So, in summary, Brennan, Comey, Clinton, etc. didn't accept the lawful election results, and decided
to just lie, like it's nothing, in order to -- in fact -- try to suspend American democracy and give the
power back to the deep state and war profiteers. Simple as that.
jmg
,
July 23, 2019 at 16:35
Sorry, duplicate post. You can delete this one, thank you.
Perry Logan
,
July 23, 2019 at 07:19
"A forensic report claiming to show that a Democratic National Committee insider, not Russia, stole
files from the DNC is full of holes, say cybersecurity experts.
"In short, the theory is flawed," said FireEye's John Hultquist, director of intelligence analysis
at FireEye, a firm that provides forensic analysis and other cybersecurity services."
Perry, why do you think the FBI chose not to use its own forensic experts? Why would Mueller base
his highly inflammatory claims exclusively the of statements made by a private company that was
hired by the DNC, a dubious entity that asserts it failed to even generate a report outlining it's
conclusions? Why did the FBI decline the requests of Ambassador Maurry and Julian Assange for an
interview? The fact is, Mueller failed to produce anything that a reasonable person would define as
evidence. For some people, the lack of evidence does not matter. They are certain in the way that
religious believers are certain.
Mueller worked assiduously to minimize the risk that he would
find evidence that contradicted the result he intended to provide when he undertook his
"investigation."
Realist
,
July 23, 2019 at 05:04
.
Marko
,
July 23, 2019 at 01:37
I smell a rat in the Hersh / Butowsky saga. Apparently there was a second phone call between Hersh and
Butowsky, after the initial one that was so revealing , and which Butowsky wisely recorded. In the
second call – not recorded as far we know – Hersh informs Butowsky that Andrew McCabe was his "Deep
Throat" in the FBI , who fed him the info and/or documents. This looks like a poison pill to me , one
that Hersh went along with either willingly ( more likely – so as to save his own skin ) , or
unwillingly as a useful idiot (unlikely – Hersh isn't that dumb ).
The idea that McCabe was a "White
Hat" feeding Hersh the info saying that Aaron and Seth Rich were the DNC leakers is laughable , and I
think it's quite likely that Isikoff and/or Hersh will use this poison pill to paint Butowsky ( and ,
by extension , Ty Clevenger , his attorney) as conspiracy cranks. All Hersh has to do is say " Look ,
I fed this guy a bunch of crap , and he scarfed it up. Only a complete nutjob could believe that
McCabe was my source. "
The first , recorded , call may have been all true , or it could have been a set-up from the
beginning. I suspect the former. My guess is someone got to Hersh between the first and second call
and suggested that he better remove himself from the battlefield , lest something unfortunate happen.
The McCabe "poison pill' was his getaway ticket , and he was happy to use it.
Hersh appears to be throwing Butowsky under the bus , and Isikoff will describe the resulting
carnage with glee.
Marko you raise several interesting issues about Hersh's role in all this, but it is hard to say
what it might actually be without having a transcript of the second phone call with Butowsky. Does
such a transcript exist? Or are you going on some other source?
Rob Roy
,
July 23, 2019 at 14:47
Marko, first of all, Sy Hersh doesn't "throw people under the bus." Never. Second, he's the purist
of all journalists. If you think otherwise, you don't know the man, a reporter of whom no other has
higher standards in his profession.
geeyp
,
July 22, 2019 at 23:57
The DNC literally did shoot the messenger in my opinion. Innocent until proven guilty, I know. Hillary
Clinton and her underlings need to ask for forgiveness from many, many people in this country. One of
the saddest historical footnotes in our history. She is such a pant load.
I also want to say how much I enjoyed the comments on this and Ray's previous articles. Evidently
Consortium readers are an intelligent, clever, and sardonic bunch!!
Another very fine article, Ray!! The simple truth of this sordid matter is finally going to get a
hearing I believe. As for me, who like you and a few others, especially Patrick Lawrence, Glen
Greenwald, Aaron Mate and Caitlin Johnstone, could smell the bullshit all the way from the chicken
coup from the git-go, I can't wait to sit back, pour myself a nice Guiness in a tall glass, and watch
Mr. Mueller fumble around nervously attempting to deal with all of the pointed questions from angry
Dems who will be accusing him of not lying enough on behalf of their Russiagate ghost! Anyway, great
work, as usual, Ray!!
Just between us, I only drink on even-numbered days.*** So -- for me, at
least -- it was GREAT news that the Mueller testimony would be tomorrow, the 24th, and not the 17th
as formerly scheduled. Tomorrow will be a two-Guinness day. My tall glass is crystal-clean and the
Guinness is already hidden away in the back of the refrigerator.
I cannot recall ever having had lower expectations from Congressional hearings, but it is, I
suppose, always possible that something instructive might inadvertently escape. If so, I am
confident the Guinness will be more help than hindrance as muse to any writing I might undertake at
that point.
Ray
*** Re the even-numbered days: It's a self-imposed discipline -- a sensible way of coping with my
problem of liking "the creature " (as one of my Irish grandmothers called it) far too much.
Slainte!
Bill
,
July 22, 2019 at 22:07
What did Obama know and when did he know it?
Realist
,
July 23, 2019 at 05:01
Obama knew he was sandbagging the Russians to set them up as all-purpose fall guys later when he
spoke to Medvedev about his "flexibility" of action in foreign policy prior to the 2012 election.
(First I'll get re-elected, then we'll have a "reset," you'll bend over backwards to accommodate
me, and you guys will never know what hit you when I deliver the sucker punch.) In fact, it started
long before that conversation.
As soon as he was elected every action he took was against Russian
interests or to besmirch their reputation in the public arena, even as Putin took several actions
to save Obama's hide, such as giving him the opportunity to duck his rash "red line" statements on
Syria when it was clear neither the American people nor the Congress wanted this country in another
middle eastern war. Putin also bent over backwards to accommodate American sanctions against Iran
in its phony crusade against Iran's non-existent nuclear weapons program.
He rolled Putin on anti-ballistic missile deployments in Romania and Poland, after Dubya had
stuck the shiv in by "withdrawing" from the ABM treaty (otherwise known as breaking your word).
He, under the influence of Hitlery, lied to Putin about his true intentions to overthrow and
assassinate Gaddaffi rather than simply protect some poor civilians caught between the gunsights of
the "evil dictator" and the "brave freedom fighters" defending Benghazi, aka the head choppers from
al Qaeda (or whatever their nom du jour). Springtime for Hitlery and al Nusra, winter for Gaddaffi
and Libya. This is what happens to suckers who believe anything Washington says.
He and Hitlery set Victoria Nuland and John McCain loose on Ukraine where their minions
overthrew the elected government in a bloody coup on the Maidan. Because he wasn't going to be
fooled again, Putin acted quickly to preserve critical Russian interests (i.e., their only
warm-water naval base and access to the Mediterranean in Crimea). Putin refrained from intervening
on the side of the Russian population in the Donbass, nor did he entertain their pleas for
annexation by Russia, though he got blamed for these things all the same by Obomber's propaganda
machine.
Obama knew definitively that it was Ukraine that shot down the Malaysian passenger plane with a
Buk missile, yet he suppressed all evidence of such in the kangaroo court that was held to smear
Russia for this terrible event. In fact, I wouldn't put it past his den of spook advisors to have
actually had a hand in Ukraine's actions, just as they had in the Maidan. Why does the president of
Malaysia believe this? And why were they, the owners of the aircraft, not allowed to participate in
the investigation? Just as Russia, which did have significant evidence to present, was not allowed
any role in the process, while Ukraine was given a free hand to withhold and manipulate data?
Bigger hoax here than the JFK, RFK, and MLK assassinations rolled into one.
Obama's propaganda machine repeatedly blamed Syria for using chemical weapons against civilians,
and as a pretext for American involvement in the armed conflict on the side of his mercenary
headchoppers, when he knew damned well Syria had no such weapons because the American navy had
incinerated them after Assad turned them over via the agreement brokered by the Russians. Always
more deception and betrayal directed against Putin and Russia. Are we seeing a pattern that started
long before Hitlery masterminded "Russiagate" in the wake of the Wikileaks revelations?
Obama often used John Kerry in the many bait and switch ruses used against Putin and Assad.
Putin lobbied hard both in Washington and at the UN for an alliance with the American backstabbers
to contain "Isis/Daesh/al Nusra/ al Qaeda" terrorists within Syria. How many times did Putin and
Assad think they had a deal, a carefully defined ceasefire, only to have the Syrian army strafed
and decimated by American air forces long before the ink dried on the worthless agreements?
Who put the Turks up to downing the Russian fighter bomber as it approached, but didn't cross,
the Turkish border? Cui bono? How did that help Turkey? Rather, whose agenda did it actually help?
What did Hitlery promise but to escalate that tactic a hundred-fold with the irresponsible "no fly"
zone she proposed as part of her foreign policy during the campaign? No doubt that reckless rush to
start World War III took a lot of votes away from the witch.
Who helped the internal opposition inside of Turkey to organize the unsuccessful coup against
Erdogan? Sure wasn't Putin who apparently saved the guy's life by warning him of more Washington
skullduggery. If the Washington Deep State wants to blame someone for Erdogan's purchase of the
Russian S-400 missiles defense system and his very fortunate escape from being saddled with that
gigantic F-35 contract, blame Obomber and Hitlery for their ill-conceived strikes against foreign
leaders. They both need to go back and re-read "the Prince" for comprehension.
I'm sure I'm forgetting most of the outrages and provocations that Obama and Madame President
Clinton directed at Putin and Russia (which actual President Trump mindlessly continues). But the
point is that this very virulent and focussed anti-Russian movement was hard core policy of the
nominally-ruling Democrats from the day they received the baton from Dubya Bush. Obama continued it
long after the catastrophic election that Hitlery lost. He continued it till the day Trump was
inaugurated, stridently blaming the Russians for stealing the election from Hitlery and punishing
them with massive diplomatic expulsions during the height of the holidays and the seizure of
millions of dollars worth of uncompensated properties.
All without one iota of proof. Ever. Just like the ever-growing snowball of anti-Russian
economic sanctions that Obama, and now Trump with the enthusiastic participation of Congress,
started immediately after the coup in Ukraine never had a justifiable foundation and will seemingly
never end. How could I nearly have forgotten the sanctions? I guess they get lost in the enormous
mass of other groundless actions taken against Russia by Obomber and his muse Hitler. I wonder,
will he be proud that he made it all possible if the nuclear-tipped missiles do start flying? Words
do not describe how I have come to loathe that deceiving traitor to every principle he ran for
office on.
Carry on, Mr. McGovern. I don't know how you can maintain the spirit to face the arduous task of
trying to uncover all these depredations every day whilst the perpetrators work overtime trying to
deceive and mislead you and other truth-seekers. It must be a stunning experience (not a joyful
one) whenever you are able to turn over a relevant rock to expose the vile creatures underneath.
Get them, Ray, get them all, before they take down the world in their pursuit of MIC profits and
every last resource offered by the planet.
Rob Roy
,
July 23, 2019 at 14:54
Marko, first of all, Sy Hersh doesn't "throw people under the bus." Never. Second, he's the
purist of all journalists. If you think otherwise, you don't know the man, a reporter of whom no
other has higher standards in his profession.
Rob Roy
,
July 23, 2019 at 14:58
Wonderful commentary, Realist, per usual. You speak for me.
One caveat..according to an investigation by a German aeronautical engineer, a BUK didn't take
down the airplane it was shot down from the air by another aircraft, not a Russian one.
He offers extensive proof.
Realist
,
July 23, 2019 at 16:50
Yes, I'm familiar with that possibility. Either could be correct. I didn't want to become too
verbose and picayune. We'd need the actual data that Washington and the EU are suppressing to
zero in on the truth. The only hypothesis that ought to be discarded upon cursory inspection
is that Russia deliberately shot that plane down. That's as crazy as the claim that Putin
invaded Ukraine to seize the Donbass. You'd have to assume he loves unnecessary and expensive
quagmires the way the conflict has unfolded, when his troops could have occupied Kiev within
48 hours if he did invade. Quagmires are the hallmark of American military actions. Inquiring
minds want to know why the Ukie pilot of the jet fighter prowling the vicinity at the time of
the shoot-down never testified and later committed suicide. Parsimony says to me: guilty
conscience.
Nearly forgot Obama's incendiary goodbye kiss to Putin when he promised
retaliatory American action against Russia, perhaps in the form of a cyber attack "at a time
and place of our choosing," for its alleged theft of the presidential election. Putin had too
much character to use that threat as a constant all-purpose foil against never-ending
American provocations. He simply moved on, always trying to improve relations, which some
observers, such as PCR, feel is a mistake.
Thanks for the input, RR.
Anonymot
,
July 23, 2019 at 16:47
Essentially I agree with you, but even you are still riding the surface details. I've been
writing for over a decade about this, but since I'm neither a journalist, politician or
celebrity, no one pay much attention. That makes me a conspiracy theorist with all of its
negative connotations. I'm not that either. Suffice it to say that I'm an American who has lived
and worked in many places in the world and politics, domestic and international are a pet
passion that I've followed for decades.
Obama and Hillary's anti-Russia drive has its roots in
pre-WW II anti-communism when many significant capitalists were friends and financiers of
Nazi-Germany. After the war the Dulles brothers took over all American foreign policy as
Secretary of State and Director of the CIA. They were joined by many Senators from Joe McCarthy
to Sen. Prescott Bush. No one else had the ear of Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson on
foreign matters other than State and the CIA with the CIA having information to whisper deeper
than State's. That's why we went in to lose Korea, , the Bay of Pigs, and Vietnam. Losses all,
they still generates massive profits for the MIC and installed that state of mind throughout the
DC bureaucracy. Then came Prescott's son, the CIA in person.
It is my personal assessment, having worked in Arkansas when Clinton was Governor and
corruption was just part of the landscape, that the powers of the day had little trouble
convincing Bill that he could become very, very wealthy if he just left foreign policy decisions
to them and role played. They were right. And when Prescott's grandson, George, was mature
enough, he stepped in with his extreme right wing crowd, ready to install regime changes
everywhere.
After Bush, when a zebra with Democrat stripes could have won given the catastrophe of baby
Bush, I am perfectly convinced that they sought two different minority figures, a woman obsessed
by the idea of wealth and fame and very pro- a certain kind of feminism, plus a man who desired
wealth, but also had the cause of the blacks to promote. "The loser at the DNC Convention will
be President after the winner serves his or her term(s), but the foreign policy is ours and you
will enunciate it." Bingo.
Hillary lost because she was unbelievably inept at lying and covering her double-tongued role
with Democrats' speeches and Wall Street speeches. She also clearly didn't know anything about
foreign affairs despite her flying all over the world for photo ops that gave the impression she
did.
When Assange exposed her professional ineptitude and implied he had more (that might include
her personal affairs,) who had the anti-Putin idea of returning to the Cold War? It certainly
wasn't the well spoken, but ill-informed Hillary. It was classic intelligence agency.
And she lost to a different kind of mad person who thinks walking a tightrope is good foreign
policy no matter what the risk. The mindset of the MIC and intelligence agencies have almost got
him under control after 2 1/2 years, but the Democrats, still ruled by the Clinton crowd are so
inept that we may end up crowded between a Trump win in 2020 or a straightforward coup d'etat.
Realist, one of your best of the best comments.
Not only did the Nobel Peace winner gladly get involved in the Ukraine coup with 'Victory'
Nuland, but they had to do it during Russia's shining moment to the world, the Winter Olympics
in Sochi. What arrogance. And, when Obama said about Russia, "well, they don't make anything" my
blood curdled.
You make another good point about the tragic downed airliner. Why send the black boxes to the
UK? All we heard was 'there was nothing of interest in them', Right. We know Putin was flying
back from Brazil that day and with the skill level shown by Ukraine these past few years, they
could have mixed up planes. It's hard to say.
And then to have the USB lead the investigation (as Robert reported) with the Netherlands
(and the Aussies. Again, why?) when it was reported the USB were the very organization that went
to all the ATC towers and confiscated the recording tapes? Russia sent the raw radar data to the
investigation team in the Netherlands and they came back with the retort "we can't read them"
Russia offered technical experts to help and this was ignored, as was the 2 tests done by the
makers of the Buks, Almez-Antey proving the blast pattern was an old model no longer in Russias'
inventory but in Ukraines. And they get away with all this crap?
One last thought: Putin heads a country that has 11 time zones, and we have 3. Why do so many
people think he is just sitting around twiddling his thumbs trying to upset a US election? And
he raised a good point when he said, at that time the House and the Senate were Republican
controlled. Did he do that too?
He sees the US invalidating international agreements left and right, causing more and more
military activity on his borders because of NATO needing an enemy to stay relevant, not to
mention the increased funding of course, which is many times more than his own military funding.
Why meddle in an election? He has enough on his plate with all his ethic issues, and now the
encroachment on his borders by the 'good guys with guns and missiles'.
The US population has become more provincial and ethnocentric than I have ever witnessed and
most of them don't know how large Russia is. It's a wonderful country.
Because of US ignorance about Russia it's almost as if they perceive it as a little country
where Putin has all the time in the world to play games, instead of his real purpose. Which is
now to protect his country from the US/NATO military propaganda machine and its hardware
surrounding his country. This must take up all of his time, but the ignorant still think he has
time to meddle in the corrupt US election system.
It's foolishness to the core. Only Mueller and his ilk have that kind of time and tax money to
screw around with wasted time.
Annie
,
July 22, 2019 at 21:58
Immediately after the leak Robbie Mook immediately said the Russians did it, and I remember thinking
how does he know, and saw it as ridiculous, laughable. I was a Sanders supporter, and I knew the
Democratic party who is known to side lines their liberals wanted him gone from the beginning. MSNBC
helped a lot, since throughout his campaign they would often refer to him as an old curmudgeon.
mbob
,
July 22, 2019 at 21:49
"Thus, she began her campaign under a cloud, and as more and more Americans learned of the fraud that
oozed through the DNC email correspondence -- including the rigging of the Democratic primaries -- the
cloud grew larger and darker."
Dear Ray,
The most detailed description of how the DNC rigged the primary process -- and the evidence in favor
of it -- is in "Democracy Lost: A Report on the Fatally Flawed 2016 Democratic Primaries." (You can
find it on the web.) It's independent of Wikileaks.
It provides at least 6 different sources of evidence supporting its allegation of DNC rigging. [1]
Direct voter suppression that disproportionately affected Sanders. [2] Registration tampering (with
photocopies of altered ballots.) [3] Inaccurate voting machine counts favoring Clinton (Clinton
received unaccountably more votes in precincts using the most "hackable" machines. In all states,
Clinton performed best on machines that don't leave a paper trail.) [4] Exit poll discrepancies of a
unprecedented amount, which did not occur in Republican primaries held on the same day! [5] Eyewitness
caucus abuses, as in Iowa and Nevada. [6] DNC collusion with media to smear Sanders.
It states that the combined effects of the rigging was more than enough to have thrown the
nomination to Clinton.
I've never seen any debunking of this report which (at least superficially, appears sound and) was
written by credible authors.
But, on the other hand, I've seen no independent validation of the report by anyone, including
Consortium News.
Do you know anything about it?
Yours
mbob
John Drake
,
July 22, 2019 at 21:46
Way to go Ray. I find the comment about " Is this how lowly you rate the intelligence of American
voters" interesting because it is so accurate-the lowly bit that is. With the assistance (collusion)
of the MSM the whole sordid scam has become the dominant paradigm, especially as liberals grasp at the
American tradition of red baiting (even though those former reds are devout capitalists) to find
sketchy ways of ousting Trumpenfuhrer. Unfortunately these efforts are by passing his more real faults
and making the Democrats looking like fools and sore losers. Now he can play the" oh poor me I am
being picked on game."
The Clinton family has done tremendous damage to our nation, from financial deregulation, the bombing
of Yugoslavia and Libya, influence peddling and fixing the election among many other sins.
Litchfield
,
July 23, 2019 at 11:51
Agree.
Only an idiot could think that trying to bring Trump down by, basically, bringing false charges
against him was a good long-term strategy. Of course, they t hought the strategy only had to be
short-term, until Hillary won the election, became president, and could then really deliver the
corpse of Trump.
But some on the "left" are still hewing to this concept that Trump is so bad
that Mueller must be right about *something.* They still do not get that this false accusation has
*helped* Trump, not hurt him. Meanwhile he has gotten away with murder in another part of the
forest.
These smart folks are so stupid.
Jeff Harrison
,
July 22, 2019 at 20:40
Thank you, Ray for a very good summary and thank you also for highlighting how shabbily The Nation
treated Patrick after he gave them some very fine work. Now all we need is for people who write the
narrative in the MSM to start telling the truth and that would be a neat trick.
Gary Steinberg
,
July 23, 2019 at 05:54
Once one sells his soul, he doesn't get it back And today, Brenner and Crapper work for MSM. RT
probably more reality-based than CNN. This news coup is more than 50 years in the making and has
taken quite a toll on the state of the American mind. So, quite a trick,
indeed.
Through all this, the media never focused on the emails themselves, at least to any real extent.
Whether the information became available through a hack or download seems a minor issue that someone
is deliberately trying to right the election of the president of the United States.
If for example,
the worst sort of person fingered an actual murderer, would you ignore the murderer and go after the
person who fingered them. It could only be accomplished if those who had the power to do that actually
conspired to do it.
M. McGovern does an excellent job in the article making clear what happened. But was it really
important, at least as important, that the evil Russians did or did not do it. An objective observer
would be grateful that someone or some agency bought the information to light.
Of on top of it all is the gross hypocrisy surrounding the issue. We make Russia look like pikers
when it comes to interference and comparing parties that interfere with our elections, do we really
want to focus only on Russia?
AboutWhich
,
July 23, 2019 at 11:30
Heman, I'm surprised no one has attempted to respond to your two comments. They are both inane.
Trolling are you?
As for Tulsi, she left the DNC way before these leaked emails, and for the same reason as what
they exposed but which DEM-Americans ignored. What does her leaving say about her? That she's not
easily duped. Honest truth-seekers usually aren't.
All this resulting in the Seth Rich murder cover up, even Donna Brazille is still disturbed by the
Seth Rich murder, but no one else in Washington DC is permitted to even remember the Seth Rich murder.
This cover up turned into an excuse for losing the election, and immediately after the election it was
the outline of the coup, fleshed out by the professionals who do this to normally protect our country.
This is a plot worthy of the professionals who wrote the script and starred in the roles.
The coup is ongoing and given legitimacy and dignity by all but a few in Washington DC.
No one dares do anything about it, Barr is waiting for the election to see if perhaps he can drop the
charade of concern over this coup.
It may be up to we the people to stop this coup, and we don't have use of the courts. We have other
options.
Uros Ruma
,
July 22, 2019 at 18:02
Brilliant article!
Eric32
,
July 22, 2019 at 17:55
How much of this bizarre behavior and story lining can be compared to the behavior of drug addicts and
alcoholics being told they're messed up – that they have a problem?
They're inside a fantasy, they
need the fantasy, they're being told that it is a fantasy. Many people have seen how bizarre the
antics, lying, avoidance, deception can get with such individuals. I think we're seeing it being
played out by a group.
Anonymous
,
July 22, 2019 at 20:17
There is a massive difference – one uses it as a crutch to cover up a wound and make it through the
day, the other uses it as a pogo stick. Politicians and bigshots don't need this fantasy – they
knowingly use it as a weapon.
Nathan Mulcahy
,
July 22, 2019 at 17:46
Russian Collusion = Saddam's WMD 2.0.
Also a test to recognize the sheetlet from the thinking.
"Is this how lowly you rate the intelligence of American voters? " Quoted above from Lawrence
article. That was 2016, it is now 2019, so now you know. Maybe something better to describe us than
intelligence. Gullible,, conditioned, intellectually lazy and just too much to think about, all come
to mind.
In all this Tulsi Gabbard comes to mind, resigning in protest. What does that say about her as a
presidential candidate?
Fran Macadam
,
July 22, 2019 at 16:55
If only the truth could make it to the bought corporate media hacks, and not be spiked.
evelync
,
July 22, 2019 at 16:33
Thank you Ray (Veteran Intelligence Professional for Sanity) McGovern.
Your recounting of what really happened is like a balm for the open wound of having to hear the
bullcrap shoveled on us ad nauseum .
And perhaps the saddest part of this very sad tale of the loss of a progressive candidate who could
have changed the course of this country for the better – (victims of that kneecapping of the Sanders
campaign include our democracy, the millions of people who lost so much as the neoliberal DNC machine
including the Clintons helped shift the country away from New Deal protections and also include the
millions of people around the world dislocated or destroyed by our corrupt foreign policy that feeds
our MICIMATT)- the saddest part is that the political candidate who had fought for working people
against the corruption of the DNC machine was then turned on for biting his lip and saying that Mrs
Clinton was a better choice than Mr Trump possibly because Sanders may have considered it important,
for example, that a Clinton Supreme Court choice would not have included a Kavanaugh .
Senator Sanders' key supporter then and now, philosopher Cornel West, did not follow that lead (nor
did I but it was easy in Texas to cast a protest vote)
Human history I'm sure is filled with this
kind of chicanery.
We're living a nasty lesson not least of which is how our courageous whistleblowers and their
publishers are punished for simply sharing the truth when that truth hurts powerful people ..
Lies, cleverly spun, seem to be more easily accepted. Even though they never quite pass the smell
test.
Yes, General Powell, that smell test included your sorry performance at the U.N.
And Secretary Clinton – if you had spun around in 2016 during that ill-fated presidential debate
and said "back off fat man" more voters might have trusted you enough to cast their ballot for you.
But true to form for you, calculated political correctness, apparently, meant more to you than the
honesty and courage to show your unhappiness with Trump's ill manners
ethan allen
,
July 22, 2019 at 20:51
Re:
evelync
Excellent comment!! And thanks to Ray McGovern for acknowledging the prescience and professional
journalism of Patrick Lawrence, not only his seeing through the duplicity and cowardly corruption
of the political operatives and their sycophantic media stenographers, but for being determined to
inform a disillusioned, confused and too often hostile electorate.
As Usual,
EA
Please don't try to disguise your insanity in a veiled love-fest with Mr. McGovern. As evidenced by
this weeks news about the inability for Sanders to even run the economics of his own 2020 campaign,
why do you think that he could run the economics of a nation? And after everything Mr. McGovern has
written, you still acquiesce to Clinton as the shining light on the hill. Delusional! All things
being equal, at the very least, if President Trump was not elected none of us would even know
about all the shams and shenanigans of Clinton and the DNC.
Talk about delusional – you are the epitome. Trump is no better than the rest – he just can't
stop his tiny fingers from twittering and his orange mouth from blithering
It's unfortunate that the Republicans, like Mueller, are going along with the Russian meddling
BS. This is the central piece of the whole sordid affair and of course has no basis in fact.
Pull it out of the narrative and it all comes tumbling down. Tomorrow's testimony is the perfect
setting to expose the sham but sadly, the Republicans will not seize the opportunity.
Mangy vermen
,
July 23, 2019 at 15:29
A man uncovers massive coordinated INTERNAL election fraud and corruption within the
democratic party and was silenced to protect and secure the biggest election fraud in U S
history, the 2016 DNC primary .the evidence on the DNC servers would not only reveal the
insider who leaked, it could have exposed a hell of a lot of worse crimes..like voting
infrastructure Fixing predicted outcomes..but also who covered it up,and the intelligence
agencies involvement, including their MSM spokesman ..
evelync
,
July 23, 2019 at 12:33
Sorry Bobby Kwasnik, I did not intend to imply that Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton is a shining
light – far from it. I am unable to come up with anything she stood for or accomplished that did
not seem calculated to achieve personal power for herself. Many of the policies she supported
both foreign and domestic obviously served the financial interests of the oligarchs who are
taking us down a dangerous path leading to unsustainability and planetary destruction.
The dangerous path I'm referring to is covered in today's Tomgram written by Andrew Bacevich.
Typing this into your search engine, if you're interested, should bring it up for you:
"Tomdispatch Andrew Bacevich future history"
Btw, as you may know, retired army colonel and Boston University history prof. Andrew Bacevich
is I think a true conservative, so rare today.
Are you sure that Donald Trump's election had anything to do with the exposure of the "shams and
shenanigans"? I think a lot of that credit goes to the work done by wikileaks and their sources.
(There are plenty of other publications that expose the Clinton machine – Clinton Cash by Peter
Schweizer is one. BTW, the sleazy way Donald Trump earned his wealth is nothing to be proud of
either.)
We're all caught up in a maelstrom of insanity, IMO. Believing that Donald Trump is anything but
a self promoter and smooth talker and genius political manipulator may eventually leave you
disappointed. He may occasionally do the right thing by the people of this country but only when
he thinks it will serve his own momentary/monetary interests.
I'm willing to openly admit to you that my mental health is no better or worse than most ..
It's a wonder that we're not all running around screaming, lol.
Cheers.
b.grand
,
July 23, 2019 at 20:38
" .the saddest part is that [Sanders] . was then turned on for biting his lip and saying that
Mrs Clinton was a better choice than Mr Trump "
No, he got what [the disdain] he deserved.
The real saddest part was that he didn't really fight for the nomination. He was the PC
"gentleman" who gave the Hildabeast an easy ride. Bobby Kwasnik got you more right than you
realize. Trump was the better choice. Without him, all the DNC shenanigans would have been
swept under the rug and almost everyone would have gone back to sleep. Instead of pussy
hatted marchers, the "women" would have been swooning, like the Blacks swooned for Obama.
Bad as it is, this beats Pres. Hilligula, and Sanders weakness lost him much support
that's not coming back, and shouldn't.
Clark M Shanahan
,
July 23, 2019 at 12:49
Sorry Bobby, Trump did win the electoral college.
and:
"As evidenced by this weeks news about the inability for Sanders to even run the economics of
his own 2020 campaign,"
I really was annoyed with all those "Hillary's got the Chops" trolls,
in 2016.
And today: Many in the "Cult of Mueller" need to acknowledge, just as Noam Chomsky stated,
that Russiagate has probably procured the 2020 election for Trump.
The snark from the Cult is simply abusive. Besides being wrong with your contention, Sanders
belongs nowhere in the subject at hand.
Stygg
,
July 23, 2019 at 13:40
So you think the President "runs the economics of a nation"?
Regarding your concluding paragraph: Hillary would never state "back off fat man" because it was
she, Bill and DNC who approved Trump as her Presidential "Pied Piper" opponent. Any doubt, view
Robert Reich's blog from early 206 to General Election 2016. Comments on his blog are littered with
HRC trolls demanding our votes while we steadfastly maintained she was not worthy of our votes.
Yes, based on her Wikileaks, based on her usurping Bernie, based on her CF, based on her support of
rapist spouse while labeling us "misogynists", based on her Pied Piper Strategy -- we informed
Reichwing HRC Camp that Trump would win the Presidency.
Hilly was lazy. Pied Piper campaign
required no effort and MSM was more than happy to water carry the Pied Piper Strategy for Hilly.
Hilly could though, campaign in Hollywood, Harvey's and Rothschild's Creme de la creme fundraisers
in Cape Cod, Martha's Vineyard and Hamptons -- but ignore Wisconsin and PA, correct?
I'll point out other points regarding her "ill-fated Presidential debate". Demanding Bernie"s
tax records while CF had their CF charity license revoked in State of Massachusetts for financial
and other irregularities; simultaneously, Eric Schneiderman was intentionally withholding
investigation of CF. I'm fact, Clinton's were forced to revile NY CF tax records.
Goldman Sachs paid speeches by Hillary was the other Huuuge point raised during that "ill-fated"
debate. She promised to release these yet failed to do so. How did we receive content of those
speeches? Through leakers, yes GS employees and excerpts from WL.
Furthermore, it wasn't "political correctness" that kept Hilly from yelling "back off fat man".
It was fear of being exposed for Pied Piper Strategy; after all, even WL had evidence of her Pied
Piper gem. You refer also to Trump's ill manners in your last paragraph while ignoring Hillary's
legendary ill manners. Eighteen years post BillyBoy's Cigar Capers, she has Vanity Fair disinvite
Monica Lewinsky from a NY Gala which Monica had already RSVP'd to. There are man ex-SS employees
who can attest to her ill manners as well.
In closing, I'll leave you with two names that speak volumes about Hilly's ill manners and
seething anger upon being exposed for her lies and corruption. Harmon Wilfred and Julian Assange.
Harmon was Hilly's first political refugee, simply because he had records of Gov. Clinton's
financial corruption. He was forced to flee to Canada, where Hilly sent Michael Horowitz and other
prosecutor goons to falsely imprison and litigate him. Later, when serving in DC, same Michael
Horowitz (now IG Horowitz), had Harmon"s children removed from him. Yes, Horowitz was serving on a
Child Abuse Advisory Board (voluntary position) and arranged for that gross miscarriage of justice.
Twenty years later, Harmon sits in NZ, stateless, without a passport, imprisoned by Hilly's and
Five Eyes Mafiaosa type agreement. Should Harmon attempt to leave NZ , he faces immediate
extradition to US. Should his Canadian wife attempt to visit him, she is banned at most ports. She
will face arrest.
Trump will win 2020. Bernie is not an option, he has been fully co-opted courtesy of Hilly and
DNC. DNC has intentionally flooded Presidential race with twenty-one candidates, one of whom is an
AWAN House Dem, Tim "AWAN" Ryan. Julian Castro is twin brother of Joacquin "AWAN" Castro. Should
Castro win Presidency, or be selected VP, Castro would have ability to pardon his twin and
thirty-one House AWAN Dems. And to be clear, we know this flooding of race is to keep Bernie from
receiving highest number of electoral votes. So keep flooding, keep jerking with SuperDelegate
rules. I DemExited 2016. The Pied Piper has won. Deal with it.
And Ray should see the short video of Ellen Ratner confirming at a symposium on Nov. 9, 2016 that
she had a 3-hour conversation with Assange a few days before (Nov. 5, 2016) and he said that it was
not the Russians (as he has been saying for a long time) but was an inside job. In the video she
doesn't state that it was Seth and Aaron Rich who gave the emails to Assange but Butowsky claims in
his lawsuit that is exactly what Assange told Ratner and asked her to tell Rich's parents to give
them some perspective regarding Seth's murder.
If you are an individual and you invent and publish conspiracy theories, you could get sent off to a
psychiatric ward and deprived of liberty (including religious liberty in many states) and property
without due process – something which is otherwise reserved for enemy combatants ("terrorists") and
now (at least seemingly) illegal immigrants.
If you work in mainstream journalism, politics, or public relations, you might get a promotion.
Drew Hunkins
,
July 22, 2019 at 15:43
The whole notion the Kremlin hacked the '16 prez election or that Moscow somehow interfered in it is
the biggest propaganda accomplishment I've ever witnessed. In some ways it's even beyond the 2002/'03
"Saddam has WMD! Saddam's in bed with al-Qaeda" business.
Despite there being absolutely no credible
evidence that any such interference existed, millions of otherwise semi-intelligent liberal minded
folks have been lapping up this canard as if it were their mother's milk. Mueller's left with egg on
his face after his report embarrassingly stated that the Russian's interfered. What a load of malarkey
that judge Friedrich has easily seen as having no substance prompting her to slap a well deserved gag
order on the prosecutor. A prosecutor who was probably aligned with the Winter Hill gang to one degree
or another!
This disconcerting group-think from the liberal intelligentsia should elicit gales of laughter if
it weren't so utterly imbecilic and dangerous.
AnneR
,
July 23, 2019 at 09:40
Yes, Drew H, the "liberal Intelligentsia" continue to indulge in this bizarro groupthink and
clearly willingly. One might say, so much for being members of the (self designated)
"intelligentsia."
As soon as this whole farrago hit the MSM fan and they began spraying out their DNC cover
bullshit, my late husband and I kept asking: where and when are they going to actually start
discussing the *content* of the emails themselves? Never.
So one can only conclude that the liberal intelligentsia (of whom many include my late husband's
friends – few of whom have continued to be in touch with me because I am far more abrasive than he)
are *true* Dem party supporters: i.e. thoroughly bourgeois, very soft left (identitarian politics
with a little generalized medicare help for the masses thrown in) and Russophobic under their thin
patina of "progressiveness" (whatever that really means).
One might be forgiven, surely, for asking: to what significant end all of that highly expensive
secondary and tertiary education if you have fallen for, and remain wedded to, the Clintonite-DNC
lies and more lies of Russiagate?
The only answer I can come up with is: that it fits in with their underlying worldview; that it
allows them to continue to support the imaginary "left" headed side of the single party. Sanders is
hardly a Leninist, but he was, it seems a little too "revolutionary" for the property-owning,
deeply corporate-capitalist leaning liberal intelligentsia (as of course, being liberal they would
be).
Skip Scott
,
July 23, 2019 at 15:05
The reason it fits with their "underlying world view" is they are passive consumers of MSM
propaganda. They are not critical thinkers. They are also mostly isolated within their little
clique, and are purposely separated from the seeing the horrible consequences of our war
machine. As long as they can sip on their lattes in Starbucks, check their portfolio on their
smart phone, and nobody does a drone strike on them, all is good with their world. The reason
they hate Trump so much is that he has ripped off the mask and revealed the hypocrisy. When our
"war criminal in chief" was a smooth talking blackish man it was easy to ignore the ugly
underbelly of unrestrained capitalism seeking global hegemony. You could put a "Coexist" bumper
sticker on your car and forget Obama was having his "Terror Tuesdays" in the company of John
Brennan.
b.grand
,
July 23, 2019 at 21:36
AnneR, there are no heroes: Bernie endorses Russiagate. He's only revolutionary in rhetoric,
most of which would never pass any Congress. The way he deferred to Hillary, what hope that he's
stand up to R2P & hawkish Dems and the MIC?
It's obvious to any American that still has a functioning brain that this nation is under
Israeli occupation, with various American Financial moguls acting as Gauleiters.
Whether it's Arnon Milchan on the West Coast, bragging about stealing some of our nuclear
triggers and shipping them to Israel, or Lex Wexner on the East Coast, helping the Israeli
spy Epstein lure, seduce and entrap American politico types in his honey-traps, the Zionist
control of our nation is right in front of our faces.
But most either refuse to see, or they're too busy cheering on the latest batch of Trump's
idiotic tweets, filled with hate and belligerence and slavish loyalty to Israel.
My guess is there's many more Epstein's out there, still running their honey-traps. After
all, Epstein is just one, and when one adds in the 535 members of Congress, the untold number
of possible targets in the WH, the Treasury Dept, the Pentagon and the rest, plus the 50
states, like the Florida guv more than willing to do whatever Israel wants, that points to
more than just Jeffrey running a honey-trap.
@Germanicus
Australia prohibits double citizenship for members of parliament. It has not significantly
diminished the strength of the Israel lobby in that country.
There is something perversely funny in the notion that the greatest nation in history, with
the best military in the world is really nothing more than just another occupied land.
Holo-deniers are bonkers. There is not much to discuss here. They're like flat-earthers, just
more amusing.
However, there are some things I see rarely mentioned
They, holo-deniers, are mostly from North America & Western Europe. They see all this
warfare at the Eastern front as something exotic, strange, alien & incomprehensible. It
seems they are incapable of comprehending reality of that part of war (which was the most
savage war after Mongol invasions). Instead, they juggle with some half-truths &
fictions, long since debunked as Soviet & American propaganda, for their own purposes.
Yet- no serious man (or historian) thinks that extermination of European Jewry was a myth, a
story invented for sinister Jewish purposes. For instance, I don't see a serious effort to
debate numbers of Ukrainians, Russians, Poles, . who perished in that war (nor Germans or
Japanese, for that matter). Simple demography refutes holo-deniers.
You won't find normal people in Central & Eastern who deny that Jews, their neighbors,
had been exterminated, one way or another. Figures of victims vary, but not that much –
perhaps 20%, not more. Then, it is extremely difficult to ascertain how many people, by
nationality, perished in those vast swaths of earth from Poland to the Urals. Further east,
when we come to Cambodia & China- it is next to impossible.
For Jews, a few things are evident: the shoah & Auschwitz are their central
anti-corrosives in the modern world. Old faith has, except in pockets, all but vanished &
most ethnic Jews in Western world don't believe in that set of tales. So, they're
assimilating & the Auschwitz – as the state of mind – presents an emotional
rallying point; a huge asset indeed. Just- it seems even that doesn't work in keeping them
together:
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/israel-s-education-minister-says-intermarriage-is-like-a-second-holocaust-1.7486330
Last year, Agriculture Minister Uri Ariel, member of the National Union – one of
the member parties to the Union of Right-Wing Parties, sent a letter to employees at his
ministry discussing the "assimilation Holocaust." According to Ariel, "During the
Holocaust, we've lost about six million Jews. Without at all comparing the two, we're
losing a part of our people to assimilation."
Fellow National Union member Eli Ben Dahan said in 2014, while he was deputy minister
for religious affairs, that intermarriage are "a silent Holocaust. We must remember that
the Jewish people, unfortunately, has gone through a Holocaust. It has been diminishing
over the past century In Europe we have as much as 80 percent intermarriages; in the United
States it's 66 percent. It's horrible."
..no one complains more often or at greater volume than American Jewish groups intent on
preserving the benefits that are derived from always being able to claim their perpetual
victimhood.
Utilizing accusations of faux guilt as both a shaming weapon towards other(s), and,
more importantly for the accusers, a negative means of social control (via fear and
terrorization) of one's own people, has happened before, as in the case of the United States
and it's Civil War, fought 1861-1865.
And, too, when a cause is morally dubious, it is sometimes necessary to augment it with
something anything.
The below excerpt was published in The Atlantic Monthly (now known simply as The
Atlantic ) in October, 1870, in an article entitled 'Our Israelitish Brethren'. In more
modern English the title would translate as 'Our Jewish Brothers'. 'Brethren', or brothers,
is an apparent reference to the unfortunate belief by some Anglo-Saxons that they were of the
'Lost Tribes of Israel'.
The reference in the emboldened portion to 'huge Andersonville outrages' is to the South's
Andersonville POW camp for captured Union soldiers. The accusations regarding planned
systematic mass murder at Andersonville, surrounded with much talk about 'cattle cars', the
manufacture of leather wallets from the human skin of 'murdered' Union prisoners, 'poisonous
injections' disguised as health measures, the wanton shooting down of prisoners by the
commanding officer, the setting upon prisoners of large and ferocious dogs for sport, all
constituting 'crimes against humanity', for which the declared intention had been to execute,
via hanging, the entirety of the upper echelons of the defeated South's political and
military leadership.
Those plans ultimately fell through, and the accusations regarding Andersonville are now
generally, albeit quietly, acknowledged not to have been true.
All too late, though, for the solitary and hapless Henry Wirz, the commanding officer at
Andersonville, who would be hanged in 1865 as a scape goat for Union pique regarding it's
huge war time losses in what was ultimately a largely morally dubious economic war, a war not
in any way, shape, or form, in the interest of the vast majority of the public 'North' or
'South', ie the North's far more profitable wage slavery (so called 'cheap
labor'/'mass immigration'), vs the South's far less profitable chattel slavery.
The hanging was 'botched', and as Wirz slowly strangled to death, the last words he would
hear on this earth uttered by the mouths of hundreds of watching Union spectators, were the
chants of 'Andersonville!', 'Andersonville!!', 'Andersonville!!!'
'Of the giant wrongs to which they [the Jewish people] have been subjected for the last
ten centuries, -- the huge Andersonville outrages, -- few readers need to be
reminded.'
The Atlantic Monthly (October, 1870) – Our Israelitish Brethren
Who can estimate the reparation which Christendom owes this interesting and unoffending
people? How abundant, how untiring, should be our charity in judging the faults of
character which our own superstition has created or developed!
Of the giant wrongs to which they [the Jewish people] have been subjected for the last
ten centuries, -- the huge Andersonville outrages, -- few readers need to be reminded. In
the slaughter of the Jews of Seville, in 1391, thirty-five hundred families were murdered.
In 1492, under Ferdinand and Isabella, three hundred thousand heroic Israelites preferred
exile to apostasy.
Many of them found a resting-place only in the grave or in the depths of the sea; for
neither Portugal nor Italy nor Mohammedan Morocco would tolerate the presence of a people
who would not comply with their superstitions, and who, by their frugality, continence,
temperance, and industry, absorbed the wealth of every country in which they lived.
A friend of mine recently commented that if the current trend to reduce the study of history
in schools to easily digestible politically correct soundbites that are being successfully
pushed by social justice warriors continues, we will soon be limited to discussing how horrible
slavery was, the Stonewall Inn riots and the so-called holocaust. Indeed, it seems that those
who complain the loudest are the only ones listened to and no one complains more often or at
greater volume than American Jewish groups intent on preserving the benefits that are derived
from always being able to claim their perpetual victimhood.
Recent media accounts from Florida
detail how low pandering to Israeli and Jewish interests can go. A high school principal
identified as Dr. Willian Latson was
removed from his position after he revealed to a parent that he considered the holocaust to
be a belief and not a demonstrated fact. According to statement made by the school district,
the action was taken "out of an abundance of concern" for students and staff after Latson had
"made a grave error in judgment." It added that "In addition to being offensive, the
principal's statement is not supported by either the School District Administration or the
School Board."
The story took place in the School District of Palm Beach County. Latson, now the
ex-principal of Spanish River High School in West Palm Beach, presided over his school in a
heavily Jewish district that includes Boca Raton. Latson is currently being considered for
reassignment by the school district though there are have also been recurring calls from county
and state legislators to fire him, which will undoubtedly occur.
The tale is somewhat convoluted and there are some disagreements about what actually took
place, but it goes basically like this: roughly one year ago a high school parent, unidentified
but presumably Jewish, emailed Latson asking him to confirm that holocaust education was a top
priority in Spanish River H.S. He responded by email that the school has a "variety of
activities" for holocaust education but "Not everyone believes the Holocaust happened. And you
have your thoughts, but we are a public school and not all of our parents have the same
beliefs." He added that an educator has "the role to be politically neutral but support all
groups in the school I can't say the Holocaust is a factual, historical event because I am not
in a position to do so as a school district employee."
After the emails were revealed to school officials, presumably by the parent, a year-long
investigation commenced in which Latson apologized for having caused offense, saying his emails
"did not accurately reflect my professional and personal commitment to educating all students
about the atrocities of the Holocaust." The school board initially ruled that he had not done
anything meriting disciplinary action or a reprimand, but the story did not end there.
Simultaneously,
an online petition which eventually included 6,000 signatures was initiated demanding
Latson's replacement and he was subsequently removed from his position. The school board
officials justified their change of course by citing his apparent unwillingness to comply with
instructions, stating that they previously had ordered him to "expand the Holocaust curriculum
at Spanish River and ordered him to spend 'several days at the United States Holocaust Museum
to increase his personal knowledge.'"
Latson responded that his emails and comments were not "accurately relayed" to the media: "I
have been reassigned to the district office due to a statement that was not accurately relayed
to the newspaper by one of our parents. It is unfortunate that someone can make a false
statement and do so anonymously and it holds credibility but that is the world we live in."
His statement implicitly blaming a school parent generated
new problems for Latson with two Palm Beach County state lawmakers and the Anti-Defamation
League (ADL) calling for his firing because he had not groveled sufficiently. ADL stated that
"ADL had hoped his apology was sincere and Latson could learn from his mistakes. Given that he
cannot take responsibility for his actions, Latson should resign, and if not we believe the
district should end his employment."
The two state officials, Senator Kevin Rader and Representative Tina Polsky issued a
statement saying "By his latest email, Dr. Latson has shown no remorse for his actions and we
call on the district to immediately terminate him."
The publication of Latson's comments also
unleashed heavy criticism from a broad range of other Florida public officials. Governor
Ron DeSantis, who calls himself the most pro-Israel governor in American,
joined in with "Look, to act like the Holocaust is a matter of debate, I mean, is just
absurd."
Senator Rick Scott called Latson's comments anti-Semitism and tweeted that the "fact
that someone charged with educating children would be unable to speak unequivocally on the
realities & horrors of the holocaust is incredibly concerning." Jewish State Representative
Randy Fine, who recently introduced legislation
officially banning "anti-Semitism" in Florida public schools, said "the law does not allow
a Holocaust-denier to serve as a public school principal." In a publish statement he expanded
on that point, writing that "anti-Semitism by public employees in our K-20 public education
system must be treated the same as racism."
The controversy inadvertently revealed the extent to which state law now requires the
holocaust to be taught in all Florida public schools. Ironically, Spanish River High has one of
the country's most rigorous holocaust education programs with the subject being taught both in
ninth- and 10th-grade English classes as well as a component of both U.S. and world history.
There is also an elective course as well regular holocaust assemblies for the entire school
featuring keynote speakers. After the Latson controversy started, the school district required
all 10th graders to read "Night" by Elie Wiesel. There are now plans to add multiple
annual assemblies for students in every grade in the school district this year.
So, if you go to school in Florida your English and history courses will be about the
holocaust and you will have to attend holocaust assemblies just in case some alleged atrocity
has not been described extensively enough in class. Well, when does it end? When does the
almost incessant pandering to Zionists and Jewish groups become too much for the deliberately
kept-in-ignorance American public to tolerate?
The so-called holocaust was an historical event that took place in Europe seventy-five years
ago. It has an established but very debatable narrative that pretty much has been contrived
over the past fifty years for political reasons, see Professor Norman Finkelstein's brilliant
deconstruction of it
in his book"The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish
Suffering." Those inconsistencies in the holocaust story and its general lack of
credibility may have been what Latson was referring to.
The imposed holocaust narrative is full of holes and contradictions in terms of who was
killed and how, but it is impossible for genuine academics to critique it if they want to stay
employed. Books like Wiesel's "Night" are largely works of fiction. The narrative exists
to perpetuate the belief in Jewish suffering, which brings with it a number of practical
advantages. First, it is regularly deployed to excuse the horrific treatment of the Palestinian
people by Israel – Jewish suffering means that the creation of a homeland is a debt that
all the world owes to the Jews without regard to what has been done to the area's other
inhabitants. Second, guilt over the alleged holocaust means that reparations from countries
involved must be continued indefinitely. Currently the Poles are
resisting new Jewish claims while the Germans have been paying for years. It is now being
asserted that the descendants of so-called holocaust survivors have been
genetically psychologically damaged , in the womb as it were, so reparations will
presumably continue forever.
Third, holocaust guilt is used in the United States to counter any criticism of what Israel
and Jewish groups are up to, as they use their wealth and access to power to corrupt America's
institutions and drive the country to needless wars. One might well ask, when confronted by the
taxpayer funded holocaust museums that appear to spring up like mushrooms, why so much interest
in a possible crime that has nothing to do with the United States? Where are the museums and
courses in Florida schools discussing the mass killing that happened on our own shores, the
genocide of the native Americans?
Lest we forget, the holocaust industry operates everywhere in America, particularly in the
education system. Eight states already have laws mandating holocaust education (California, New
York, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Florida, Illinois, Indiana and Michigan) and there is
considerable pressure to make it universal in the United States. An alarmed World Jewish
Congress (WJC) is urging required holocaust education
for everyone everywhere "citing statistics from a 2018 poll revealing half of millennials
can't name a single Nazi concentration camp."
A currently circulating WJC
petition in Congress expresses concern over the rise in anti-Semitism, with a warning that
"the horrors of the Holocaust are fading from our collective memory " A bill to brainwash
students so they will not forget, 'The Never Again Education
Act ', is currently making the rounds in the House of Representatives. It would make
holocaust study mandatory in public schools and set up a Department of Education program that
would train teachers to properly instruct students about the story of Jewish suffering.
Yes, the "Never Again Education Act" will soon be sucking up taxpayer money like an enormous
vacuum cleaner and creating lots of new jobs for holocaust instructors, who will, of course,
all be Jewish. Public schools will be teaching the next generation about what a great place
Israel is and how the holocaust justifies vigilant groups like AIPAC and ADL, though it will
not mention how they have corrupted the U.S. government and turned America's foreign policy
into an Israeli wag-the-dog. But who's complaining? It's good for the Jews, isn't it?
So Dr. William Latson will be unemployed and possibly unemployable because he spoke the
truth, a lesson to all of us that one must never cross the red lines established by the
wielders of Jewish power in America. One might reasonably currently expect that serial
pedophile Jeffrey Epstein will use the holocaust get-out-of-jail-free card in his defense,
claiming that his recollection of the event has so traumatized him that he did bad things that
he would not have otherwise considered. Poor Jeffrey. He has suffered so much.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest,
a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a
more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is
councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its
email is[email protected]
A middle school teacher in our area, while teaching about the suffering of the Jews in
America, told the class that in the south, where she was from, people use derogatory terms
like "jewing" somebody down to describe driving a hard bargain. Next thing we knew, she was
leaving the district at the end the year to return to Alabama to care for her aging parents,
even though her husband had an excellent job with a local tech firm. A few parents suspected
she had been asked to leave just from that one innocent comment and would never be able to
get a job anywhere in Western WA.
E.A. Ross said in his book The Old World in The New that the Hebrews are consumed
by over sensitivity, unscrupulousness and pleasure seeking . Couldn't have
found three more accurate terms to describe this tribe, though one might also add
narcissism and shamelessness . Ross said this way back in 1914. Things have
only gotten worse since, much, much worse now that they are the ruling class.
no one complains more often or at greater volume than American Jewish groups intent on
preserving the benefits that are derived from always being able to claim their perpetual
victimhood
lol no one but a Jew can find victimhood in absolutely everything.
(((Michael Koplow)))Verified account @mkoplow
Follow Follow @mkoplow
More
Let's dispense with the fiction that everything Trump does is good for Israel. He cares for
Israel only so far as his policies toward Israel further his political aims and benefit him,
and right now that involves using Israel as a shield for his own racism."
The so-called holocaust was an historical event that took place in Europe seventy-five
years ago. It has an established but very debatable narrative that pretty much has been
contrived over the past fifty years for political reasons, see Professor Norman
Finkelstein's brilliant deconstruction of it in his book " The Holocaust Industry:
Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering ."
I came across Finkelstein's book purely by chance in the freebie pile of a local used
bookstore about a decade ago, when in my mid 20s. It made me a skeptic of Israel, Zionism,
and the Holocaust virtually overnight, not to mention drawing my attention to the fact that
Jewish power is no tin hat conspiracy theory. In a just world, his book would be required
reading for anybody 12 and over.
While I remain a believer that there was a mass murder of Jews perpetrated by Germans, my
own belief is that the manner in which this event is commonly portrayed today to be a vast
exaggeration. The "six million" figure does not really hold up under scrutiny; my personal
guess is that the actual number is no more than one million, and likely closer to the tens of
thousands rather than millions. Most of those were probably murdered for being communists or
other such political undesirables, rather than for their ethnicity as such; another good
amount simply died in the closing months of the war because of supply and food shortages,
although I do not discount that a fair amount were targeted for their religion or race.
But even if that were the case, so what? They would not be the first to be targeted in
that manner -- nor were they even the last. There is more actual documentation and proof of
the Armenian Genocide, for example, as a deliberate race/religion-focused act than there is
for the Holocaust. Yet comparatively few peoples or nations seem to care about that event,
most tellingly Israel. Meanwhile, the US on a federal level denies or refuses to acknowledge
the Armenian Genocide. Imagine if any American political figure ever publicly vacillated on
the subject of the Holocaust?
From my Ph. D. research and seeing survivors with tattoos I am convinced that the Nazi regime
did engage in exterminations, but I know that Jewish people were not the only targets. The
actual number exterminated is open to interpretation, but a great many were obviously
exterminated. Proof that something happened can be seen in comparisons of the ethnic makeup
of territories before and after Nazi occupation. Over 3 Million Soviet POW's were also
liquidated in Nazi camps and hundreds of thousands of other non-Jewish people were also
liquidated.
I agree with Dr. Giraldi that these historical incidents, factual or exaggerated, have
been exploited to create "get out of jail free cards" for Israeli actions that too closely
resemble proven Nazi crimes. Gaza is a sort of ghetto-concentration camp reminiscent of
documented Nazi crimes in Poland and elsewhere. Whatever the extent the facts fully support
the received view, I agree with the implication that feelings of guilt for Nazi excesses were
central to the creation of Israel and think that the Finkelstein book mentioned is a valuable
corrective.
I also find it outrageous that any sort of questioning or revisionism is considered taboo
despite the traditional existence of constitutional guarantees of free speech, which have
been seriously curtailed in recent years. I also deplore identity politics and forced
political correctness, recalling George Carlin's view that political correctness was nothing
more than polite fascism As for Dr. Latson, he obviously made a serious mistake in the
present environment and in the context of events at his school, and I am sure he will be
sacked. If traditional rule of law still obtained he would probably be able to continue on as
a teacher, but, recalling my studies of the rise of fascism, a new version of it appears to
have gradually developed in the "west" during the last 30 years or so.
@Anonymous You got it
wrong. Women -- affluent white women, specifically -- crowd the top of the totem pole of
grievances along with the Jews. The casual reader of the major periodicals in English,
Spanish, French, and German are lead to believe on a daily basis that no being suffers more
on this miserable bitch of an Earth than women. Arguably, Latin American and European media
are even more zealously fourth-wave feminist than many of the major Anglo-American outlets.
And the contagion is quickly spreading to East Asia.
And here in the US, affluent white women have remarkably (and without any dissent)
positioned themselves not only as the ne plus ultra of historical victimhood, but have
effectively declared themselves honorary "POC", presenting themselves as the spokesfigures
for the world's huddled masses of the dusky and "oppressed".
55 MILLION non-jews died in that war, and you never hear about that.
There was never any order given to kill jews. The jews that died mostly died from typhus
and starvation.
The "holocaust" isn't mentioned in the jewish encyclopedia of the time. Also, none of the
world leaders of that time period mention anything about a "holocaust" in any of their
autobiographies.
Finkelstein says that "The Holocaust" was actually invented around 1967 to provide support
for Israel in fighting its' Arab neighbors.
The "holocaust" is essentially a marketing tool to shield the jews and Israel, and to
shame the dumb goyim into allowing themselves to be destroyed.
The mass persecution of European Jews by the Nazi regime during the Second World War is an
established historical fact. Its origins, its actual scope, extent, methods, parameters and
motivating factors are all questions properly explored by scholars and historians, not by
activists. Many of these issues have taken a plausibly reliable shape (e.g. historians are
reliably certain that killer whales were not used to murder Jews), but some have not. History
is a long and patient enterprise.
Proper, accurate historical scholarship on matters of this magnitude is never fully
settled, and certainly not in the space of a single human lifetime; scholars to this day are
still exploring new information regarding such distant events as the Thirty Years War and the
Old Kingdom of pharaonic Egypt. To close the book permanently on the exploration of an event
like the Jewish Persecution, and declare that "the history is settled" on a scale so recent
that there are still living participants, is an act of scholarly abuse so egregious as to
constitute a crime of omission against Truth itself.
The fact that it has become literally a crime in many countries to honestly explore these
issues in a scholarly context is evidence of "mens rea", consciousness of guilt, on the part
of those activists who seek to shut down good-faith discussion and exploit the event for
personal and group gain. What do they fear will be discovered? What do they fear to lose by
such discoveries?
Furthermore, labeling this Jewish Persecution Event with the mystical, quasi-religious
grand title of "the Holocaust" (or, the "Shoah") is in fact a racist act of cultural
appropriation, and a theft of historical place. It sacralizes and valorizes a single
particular historical catastrophe, which took place among many, many such catastrophes,
within the context of the largest war in human history, a war which involved participants on
FOUR continents.
The label "Holocaust" is racist propaganda, designed to put the Jewish Persecution at the
center of world history, to elevate a single grim historical tragedy well above many other
such tragedies, equally deserving of historical attention, and many of them far more
deserving. It strongly implies that the suffering of the Jewish people is somehow mystically
more important than the suffering of other people's; it strongly evokes the notion that
Jewish lives are somehow more valuable than the lives of other peoples.
Finally, this notion that Jewish lives are more valuable than the lives of non-Jews, is in
fact a codified Jewish religious belief, well-attested in voluminous citations of Jewish
scriptures and Jewish hermeneutical texts. It is not a uniform canonical belief, but it is so
widespread among learned doctors of Jewish dogma that it can with confidence be considered a
valid and well-known "Jewish religious belief".
Therefore, any law passed by Congress mandating special enforced education practices
regarding the Holocaust as an event of somehow uniquely elevated importance would be a law
expressing government preference in religious faith, and as such is null and void under the
First Amendment.
For those who are not Americans but who have a good grasp of history, this is an amusing
point in history, watching the Israelis drawing the Americans into another Jewish disaster
brought about by their ongoing arrogance.
When I read the title the first person that popped into my head was Norman Finklestein, who
rightly calls the holocaust an industry, not an official category of history, since the
reason it is taught in schools has more of a monetary(think power) value than a historical
one. "Industry"
At best it is a controversy, with non-verifible facts and events. It's probably closer to
a religion than a game of football with a real score. But that's life – Bullshit still
rules the field. How about some real Bullshit for your kid.
@Anonymous Yes indeed,
the victimhood totempole exists and I think you are right to point this out. However, there
is more overlap than just Jews and homos: Jews and women (vociferous Jewesses are very
numerous), homos and women, women and any of the other categories, illegals and any other
category, and so on.
In the end, the totempole serves the interests of the state, since it keeps the population
divided (divide and rule, remember) into mutually antagonistic groups. The state itself was
the first to initiate this unfortunate categorization, requiring everyone when filling out
official documents, to tick the appropriate category: White, African-American (or whatever
the current politically correct term is), Hispanic, Hispanic non-white, Native American,
Pacific islander, Aleut, Asian etc. I have always found this insulting, derogatory,
humiliating and reminiscent of nazi-Germany.
Philip Giraldi's article and all other articles like it, indicate the US has gone
full-blown nazi. By the way, this often occurs in history: in the end, the victor always
adopts the ways and ideas of the vanquished. That is why it is so important to pick one's
battles. That is also why the Chinese are so superior: they always try to avoid open conflict
and in doing so have preserved their collective identity.
It is now being asserted that the descendants of so-called holocaust survivors have been
genetically psychologically damaged, in the womb as it were, so reparations will presumably
continue forever.
Interesting. This is basically Lysenkoism, i.e. Lamarckism.
A high school principal identified as Dr. Willian Latson was removed from his position
after he revealed to a parent that he considered the holocaust to be a belief and not a
demonstrated fact. According to statement made by the school district, the action was taken
"out of an abundance of concern" for students and staff after Latson had "made a grave
error in judgment." It added that "In addition to being offensive, the principal's
statement is not supported by either the School District Administration or the School
Board."
Ka-ching!
Exhibit 1 for the plaintiff in his suit for defamation and wrongful constructive
termination.
"The ADL stated that "The ADL had hoped his apology was sincere and Latson could learn from
his mistakes. Given that he cannot take responsibility for his actions, Latson should resign,
and if not we believe the district should end his employment."
When have jews ever apologized for anything?
When have jews ever taken responsibility for their actions?
"The two state officials, Senator Kevin Rader and Representative Tina Polsky issued a
statement saying "By his latest email, Dr. Latson has shown no remorse for his actions and we
call on the district to immediately terminate him.""
When have jews ever shown remose?
"The publication of Latson's comments also unleashed heavy criticism from a broad range of
other Florida public officials. Governor Ron DeSantis, who calls himself the most pro-Israel
governor in American, joined in with "Look, to act like the Holocaust is a matter of debate,
I mean, is just absurd.""
The fact that they can not see that FORCING the study of an histoircal evidence is
self-discrediting is yet more proof of how insane and dangerou they are to everyone they come
into contact with.
Any country that bows before the alter of Jewish Supremacy Inc. is doomed.
So why do it?
The only answer is that such people have lost the will to live.
@Anonymous Great
comment. Sad story about the teacher.
And to your list we could add the word Dostoyevsky used to describe them,
"mericiless."
Around the time of Ross' book there was a study on criminal pathology conducted in the USA
in 1911 and it discusses the jewish inclination toward just that, criminal pathology. I
regret to say I don't recall the name of the study. I'm sure it was influential in the 1924
Immigration Act.
In any event, the rise of Jewish Supremacy Inc. is in direct proportion to the rise of
psychopathy in the West.
For now, their insanity is in full display in demands to be
1. placed above criticism
2. loved unconditionally
3. blindly obeyed
The fact that they have the power to effecuate these insane demands makes one shudder for
the future of our children.
I think JSI is about to find out that not everyone is keen on being their slaves or
sacrifices.
The Jews started all this stuff with the "Frankfurt School" (started 1923) crap. Every dirty
rotten lousy thing going on today is tied to that stinking, "Jew Think Tank" –
including the holocaust hoax.
Palm Beach County is directly adjacent to Broward County, which has a large Borg infestation
and never seems to run out of incidents that can be traced back to the Tribe.
Maybe Americans should do a repeat of those Middle Ages types that went around,
flagellating themselves on their backs with whips that contained rusty nails and broken
pottery, trying to get the Black Death to vanish, but the modern day ones would be moaning
about how bad the Jews have it and it's our fault that some died during WWII.
My guess is that even that wouldn't be enough, unless a check of at least 6 gorillion was
included each year to Jews.
Most of those were probably murdered for being communists or other such political
undesirables, rather than for their ethnicity as such; another good amount simply died in
the closing months of the war because of supply and food shortages, although I do not
discount that a fair amount were targeted for their religion or race.
Two out of three is not bad for a relatively young fellow, especially if you were raised
in the the Brainwashed States of America, the Bullshit Capitol of the World. I hope you have
sufficient time to follow your inquiries into the truth. Keep reading PG and RU, and you'll
keep making excellent progress.
In the case of "the Jewish persecution" in Germany I found that impartial presentation
of the facts gradually gave way to so partisan a depictment that the truth was lost. This
transformation was effected in three subtle stages. First the persecution of "political
opponents and Jews" was reported; then this was imperceptibly amended to "Jews and
political opponents"; and at the end the press in general spoke only of "the persecution of
Jews". By this means a false image was projected on to the public mind and the plight of
the overwhelming majority of the victims, by this fixing of the spotlight on one group, was
lost to sight. The result showed in 1945, when, on the one hand, the persecution of Jews
was made the subject of a formal indictment at Nuremberg, and on the other hand half of
Europe and all the people in it were abandoned to the selfsame persecution, in which the
Jews had shared in their small proportion to populations everywhere.
-Douglas Reed, The Controversy of Zion, page 214-5
I used to have a link to the book, but now all I get is a 404 message.
"When does the almost incessant pandering to Zionists and Jewish groups become too much
for the deliberately kept-in-ignorance American public to tolerate?"
It became too much decades ago.
I haven't seen a more succinct, articulate description of American life under Jewish
occupation. Giraldi hits the nail on the head every time.
Here's what the Holocaust Industry is so desperate to cover up, the sickening treatment of
the indigenous Palestinians by the Israelis–that claim to be Jews–that have
invaded Palestine and turned it into a much more deadlier version of Apartheid South Africa:
Poof! One day in occupation causes young Jews on Zionist tour to question Zionism --
'NYT' reports
We are as critical of the New York Times as anyone, but we need to salute the superb
report in the newspaper by David Halbfinger on a liberal Zionist trip for American Jews to
see the occupation. Titled, "Touring the Israeli Occupation: Young U.S. Jews Get an
Unflinching View," the July 10 article offered horrifying glimpses of Palestinian
conditions in Susiya and Hebron that left the young Jews staggered.
Since they toured part of Occupied Hebron, wonder if they visited those streets that
have wire and steel barricades over the sidewalks, necessitated by Israelis, living above
those streets, that dump chunks of concrete down on the Palestinians passing by?
But that doesn't stop the buckets of human waste the kindly Israelis also dump on the
Palestinians.
But hey, to think about that is anti-Semitic. That time should be spent worshiping the
most Holy Holocaust, Goyim!
@Richard B The Jewish
establishment and the various foreigners aren't really the problem. WW I and WW II stunned
the Europeans an European descendants, who have had a sort of PTSD for a three generations
now. _That's_ the problem.
R. Unz's article [1] shows that, had solidly Republican California simply arrested a few
people (and continued to arrest their replacements) it could have saved itself. The people
were not arrested because nobody cared. Politics had already become a game, played by
professionals, of being elected rather than a constant and precarious effort to keep
civilization (or at least Republican California) alive. The civil population at the time had
no interest in politics and was badly frightened by the prospect of yet another central war,
this time fought with nuclear weapons. [2]
The fourth generation seems to be recovering enough to defend itself, if only because the
choice is that or life on gradually diminishing welfare.
2] Although i seem to remember, from _Only yesterday_, that in the 1920s the frequent
moving from one neighborhood to another made neighborhoods hard for anybody "organize"
politically, and that the California populace could be lured to vote by presenting political
contests as a horse race (X lead's by a nose! Now Y is moving up in the final stretch! And ..
. . It's Seabiscuit!". Watching a human horesrace is not the same as protecting your
civilization, as the Californians (and now the Americans) have found out.
P. Giraldi says: "Well, when does it end? When does the almost incessant pandering to
Zionists and Jewish groups become too much for the deliberately kept-in-ignorance American
public to tolerate?"
It's not going to end as long as the current, enforced at-the-point-of-a-gun government
run "educational" system exists.
@exiled off mainstreet
The PhD has to be in something rigorous, like gender studies.
If an aeronautics engineer said "from seeing survivor tattoos I am convinced the Nazi regime
did engage in exterminations, " he/she would be disqualified from folding paper airplanes.
. . and the repeated use of "exterminations" -- why that word? Did Germans seek out 3 m.
Soviet soldiers as if they were the Terminex man fumigating a rat-infested slum? Or did
Stalin send ill-equiped, untrained & poorly fed troops who surrendered in such large
numbers that there was no way to cope with them?
Furthermore, labeling this Jewish Persecution Event with the mystical, quasi-religious
grand title of "the Holocaust" (or, the "Shoah") is in fact a racist act of cultural
appropriation, and a theft of historical place.
I'll say! Did you know that the very word 'holocaust' was first coined in 1944 to describe
the effects of the incendiary bombs that the allies dropped on the Germans during the war?
That's right: 'holocaust' originally referred to a war crime committed against the
Germans, not by them. Even well into the 60s, when the word was used, it was usually used
with reference the ever-present threat of nuclear war–the so-called nuclear holocaust.
It wasn't really until the 70s–a full generation after the war–that the word
acquired its present meaning, completely displacing the older ones.
@Bardon Kaldian Yes the
inheritance of acquired characteristics is considered to be a massive scientific heresy. If
the experiment is repeatable it would blow modern genetics wide open. If the Krauts have any
brains they'd be asking for a lot more more evidence before paying out on that one.
The state of affairs that provided cover for the "Holocaust" was a wonderful gift the Nazis
gave. It allowed the truth at last to be told about the Chmielnitsy rebellion. It was time to
admit, for Jews to admit, that the number of Jews killed was less than a tenth of the number
previously said to have been killed. And further, when a town with a 99 percent Jewish
population was overrun by the Cossacks and the peasants, the Jews were left unharmed because
they were simply merchants, had not been involved in the oppression of the peasants. Jewish
towns overrun and left unharmed. This truth could be told now because there was a more
delicious story to tell. Chmielnitsy was rendered obsolete by its successor, the "Holocaust".
But I get a sense that the Tribe may be going over the top. They appear to be desperate
to ram this Holocaust narrative down our collective throats.
I believe you're on to something here. there is a Holocaust museum in a large Southern
city near me. Recently there's been a blitz, so to speak, of billboards and teevee ads
encouraging all and sundry to attend to learn about the baleful consequences of 'hate."
Why now? Because their POC pets are turning on (((them)))? because they have internal
polling showing people are noticing epstein/weinstein/et cetera? resistance to the Iran war
noises? It's all very odd.
The holocaust is a preposterous hoax that is unsupported by any physical evidence. It is
made up of literally millions of lies, but it all rests on one 'big lie'.
The hoax has three main components –
1. The Nazis planned to exterminate the Jews.
2. The Nazis built gas chambers to exterminate the Jews and disguised them as shower
rooms.
3. The Nazis killed six million Jews.
Each component of the hoax is categorically false and completely without evidence.
1. There was no Nazi plan to exterminate the Jews or anyone else, and no evidence of one
has ever been found.
2. The gas chambers disguised as shower rooms are pure phantasmagoria, and there is not a
shred of physical evidence for them.
3. The number of Jews killed in the camps for being Jews is zero, and it is well
documented that the Nazis aggressively investigate any crime in the camps.
That is the hoax, and the reality
The big lie is the photos and film footage that are shown of Jewish prisoners who had
been gassed by the Nazis. The truth is that all the photos and film were taken after the
war by British and US soldiers, and showed prisoners of all nationalities and religions who
had died of tyhpus at the very last weeks of the war, primarily at Belsen where 35,000
died, 10,000 after the camp had been liberated by the British. Further, the Nazis had done
everything in their power to combat the epidemic.
The video documents all the above. To understand the holohoax you must study it.
From my Ph. D. research and seeing survivors with tattoos I am convinced that the Nazi
regime did engage in exterminations
So encountering an old woman with a number tattoo proves Nazis exterminated Jews? Not that
there were prisoners of war, but that Jews were systematically slaughtered?
Wow, there's a logical leap of faith
As far as Ph.D. research, I'm not sure it has the cachet you think it does.
Sir, foxnews is reporting that the fake passport recovered in Epstein's locker places him
as a resident of Saudi Arabia – and that is from the 80's. What is going on here? This
is so weird (and scary). How much of penetration we have from foreign groups in USA, for how
long, and why are our politicians not being safeguarded from their influence? Are our
intelligence agencies trying to stop that influence? I think this new revelation deserves
another article from you. Thank you.
Judaizing heresy not identified and refuted and stopped, rejected thoroughly, leads directly
to a world like this one.
Anglo-Zionist Empire.
Anglo-Saxon Puritanism was a Judaizing heresy. WASP culture is the product of a Judaizing
heresy. The British Empire took the secularist form of that Judaizing heresy and planted ir
across the globe.
With all due respect, I think Norman Finkelstein's.views are being distorted in this article.
Finkelstein never questions whether or not the Holocaust occurred. Indeed, he promotes the
work of Raul Hillberg, who Finkelstein views as a serious scholar. Also, he always states
that the suffering of his parents in the Holocaust is what motivates him to defend the rights
of Palestinians. Finkelstein does indeed go after Jewish groups and the State of Israel for
using the Holocaust as an idelogical weapon, and he does attack Ellie Weisel as a fraud and
hyoprite, but he has never questioned the standard narrative that a systematic extermination
of European Jewry occurred during World War II.
"The Never Again Education Act" is the exact same thing as a "The Santa Claus Education Act".
One only has only to believe, no inquiry allowed.
" The Again and Again Wars for Jewish Zionist Advisor Act" has been put in action
endlessly in the past hundred years. The earth is crying out in pain from from this world
wide destruction.
" Seven Nations to destroy" is the latest war plan for the most persecuted people on
planet earth.
" The Never Again promotion of Wars by Jewish/Zionist Advisors Act" is what the world
needs.
WWI was for the Balfour. Zionist Jewish Advisors were at the top of both the British and
American governments promoting WWI.
WWII was for Israel. Zionist Jewish Advisors were at the top of both the British and
American governments promoting WWII.
Jewish Zionist Oligarchs world wide promoted the Bolshevik take over Russia.
If anything like the big 6 happened, the blame should go at the Jewish/Zionist Advisors
that created the conditions for it by promoting two massive world wars.
Will "The Never Again promotion of War by Jewish/Zionist Advisors Act" ever be passed? Now
that is a bill that should be passed. Climate Change is peanuts compared to war promotion by
Jewish/Zionist Advisors.
Over 3 Million Soviet POW's were also liquidated in Nazi camps and hundreds of thousands
of other non-Jewish people were also liquidated.
Only if by "liquidated" you mean died of starvation and disease because food and medical
care were inadequate. German logistics in the winter of 1941 were famously a nightmare: if
the Wehrmacht couldn't even supply their own troops with adequate winter gear, it's no
surprise EPWs fared worse. Though the number of victims you cite is too high. It comes
ultimately from the book Keine Kameraden by one Christian Streit, who is often quoted
uncritically by mainstream historians who won't (or can't, if they don't read German) check
how he actually derived his figures. In fact, he inflates them quite a bit.
Even so, many hundreds of thousands did die. And this, of course, is still a real tragedy.
But it was not an intentional genocide, any more than the starvation of even more millions of
Germans and Japanese by the Allies after the war. And the Allies didn't have the excuse that
they were fighting history's biggest land war while their victims starved in peacetime. See
the convincing studies by Alfred De Zayas, most of which have been translated to English, and
Stalin's War of Annihilation by Joachim Hoffmann, which our host Ron Unz mentions in
his American Pravda series.
The nazis killed millions of not only Jews but Christians and political opponents and in
regards to the Jews , the elite Jews helped the nazis kill the Jews to further their goal of
a zionist homeland and a case in point is George Soros , who at the age of 14 lived with the
nazi commander of Budapest who was in charge of rounding up Jews to be shipped to the death
camps, and Soros went with the nazis and pointed out the Jews for the nazis, this is a fact.
I have always found this [demographic categorization] insulting, derogatory, humiliating
and reminiscent of nazi-Germany.
YMMV, but I personally think we should drill down even deeper, e.g. how many Jews? That'd
drive 'em nuts, since it's literally against their religion to count a Jew. And it would
finally put to bed this 2% nonsense.
Not to mention the current census controversy over how many illegals constitute
congressional redistricting.
In spite of bans on free speech, which proves that the story is a fraud, rational,
scientific Revisionist research has demolished the claims. I mean, that fact IS the reason
that free speech on the subject is banned. The absurd narrative does not hold up.
Can you say dumb? I have beliefs similar to most of the people in this forum, but I would
know better than to allow them to appear under my real name, let alone in professional
correspondence! You could also be jailed in much of Europe based on such information.
Probably also banned from the schengen zone.
There are other pieces of forbidden thought and discussion, such as race and IQ. I bet Mr
Latson would support those orthodoxies.
@Genrick Yagoda
Indeed.
It's claimed that millions upon millions of human remain exists in allegedly known
locations , yet those remain are not there.
Remember, the claim is "6,000,000 Jews & 5,000,000 others". That alleged 11,000,000 is
equal to the city of London.
The "Holocau$t Industry" in court:
'Please your honor, there really are remains of millions upon millions buried in huge
mass graves, we know where the mass graves are, but, but, well, umm, we can't show the
court the human remains. You must trust us, we're Zionists.'
recommended: The Rudolf Report / Expert Report on Chemical and Technical Aspects of the 'Gas Chambers'
of Auschwitz http://vho.org/GB/Books/trr/index.html
If an aeronautics engineer said "from seeing survivor tattoos I am convinced the Nazi
regime did engage in exterminations, " he/she would be disqualified from folding paper
airplanes.
That piece of "logic" really got my attention as well. I'll be shaking my head over that
for quite a while.
" if the current trend to reduce the study of history in schools to easily digestible
politically correct soundbites that are being successfully pushed by social justice warriors
continues, we will soon be limited to discussing how horrible slavery was, the Stonewall Inn
riots and the so-called holocaust. "
@John Regan I guess the
"PhD" never knew about the Brit starvation blockades that continued for some time after the
fighting stopped, but with the logic displayed above, I doubt even knowing the facts would
lead to valid conclusions.
And here we are, with nearly a century of hindsight available!
Tattoos are not placed on people for any other reason than to identify them, if they are
incarcerated. You don't tattoo them if you intend to kill them.
The only ones that "exterminated" Soviet POW's were the Jewish NKVD when they returned
home.
The so-called HC can't withstand scientific or logical scrutiny, so these things are
criminalized.
@Nicolás Palacios
Navarro My belief is that 2.5 million Jews were killed by the Nazis, whatever the cause.
This could still be described as a holocaust. Also, I do agree that there are some issues
with the capital "H" Holocaust. Still, there is entirely too much time and energy spent on
the subject. There are far more pressing issues these days .
Those that do not intentionally peddle lies (they may be wrong, but that is a different
issue) discuss things along this line, only dealing with the story:
What?
Where, when?
Who?
Why?
How?
The intentional deceiver attack along the line:
Who? (within the story)
Who? (with respect to their debating opposite)
Why? (with respect to their debating opposite)
.
(usually it doesn't get beyond this because the truth seekers debate 'what', don't engage the
ad hominem speculation, and one hissy fit return serve later, they are out, but..)
.
Why/how/when/where/what?
Your whole point is on 'who', there is no counterpoint to Eisenhower's, Churchill's,
De-Gaulle's silence on the issue – even though they should have had the info. No
discounting the coke shipment statistics for the crematoria, no discussion of ground water
levels and the impossibility of burials (or even discarding of bones), no explanation why
Germans neither recorded their acts in documentary fashion, or didn't just throw the helpless
6 million off a cliff (the Mongols, Chinese, Turks would have certainly found a cheaper way
to kill 6 million), etc, etc.
We, the revisionists, discuss 'what' first, and 'who' somewhere down the line.
Anyone that pokes the speaker first, fears the words of the speaker. Simple. An
intelligent person does not fear false information – it is false.
@John Regan Sorry,but
I've already wasted too much time on this irrelevant issue. 1-2 reposts.
I do get Jews' obsession with shoah, but I hardly get "denialists'"" stance: this did
happen, but is, due to Jewish media influence in Western societies, overblown out of
proportion. No one with sane mind in Poland, Hungary, Greece, Ukraine or Russia will deny
that many or most Jews were systematically murdered. This is not even the topic. What they
would, reasonably, argue with that Jewish nationalists' constant drumming on the theme &
emotional blackmail in trying to extort as much money as possible and advance their tribalist
interests at the expense of the natives' is simply unacceptable.
@Bardon Kaldian All of
Central and Eastern Europe was a wreck after WWII. There was mass movements of people of all
ethnic groups. The largest mass movement after the war was the German one. It was the largest
one in human history. Looking at who was in each nation before the war does not prove any
genocide. The Jewish H was a mass movement too.
14 million Germans were forced to leave their ancestral homes.
Orwell greatly underestimated both the determination and the ambition of the Allied
leaders' plans. What neither he nor anybody else knew was that in addition to the
displacement of the 7-8 million Germans of the East, Churchill, U.S. President Franklin D.
Roosevelt and Soviet leader Joseph Stalin had already agreed to a similar "orderly and
humane" deportation of the more than 3 million German-speakers -- the "Sudeten Germans" --
from their homelands in Czechoslovakia. They would soon add the half-million ethnic Germans
of Hungary to the list.
Although the governments of Yugoslavia and Romania were never given permission by the
Big Three to deport their German minorities, both would take advantage of the situation to
drive them out also.
By mid-1945, not merely the largest forced migration but probably the largest single
movement of population in human history was under way, an operation that continued for the
next five years. Between 12 and 14 million civilians, the overwhelming majority of them
women, children and the elderly, were driven out of their homes or, if they had already
fled the advancing Red Army in the last days of the war, forcibly prevented from returning
to them.
German refugees were put in camps.
From the beginning, this mass displacement was accomplished largely by state-sponsored
violence and terror. In Poland and Czechoslovakia, hundreds of thousands of detainees were
herded into camps -- often, like Auschwitz I or Theresienstadt, former Nazi concentration
camps kept in operation for years after the war and put to a new purpose.
The regime for prisoners in many of these facilities was brutal, as Red Cross officials
recorded, with beatings, rapes of female inmates, gruelling forced labour and starvation
diets of 500-800 calories the order of the day. In violation of rarely-applied rules
exempting the young from detention, children routinely were incarcerated, either alongside
their parents or in designated children's camps. As the British Embassy in Belgrade
reported in 1946, conditions for Germans "seem well down to Dachau standards."
Death rates were very high for these German refugees in the camps.
Though the death rates in the camps were often frighteningly high -- 2,227 inmates of
the Mysłowice facility in southern Poland alone perished in the last ten months of
1945 -- most of the mortality associated with the expulsions occurred outside them.
No trains or cars were used to get these refugees to rump Germany.
Forced marches in which inhabitants of entire villages were cleared at fifteen minutes'
notice and driven at rifle-point to the nearest border, accounted for many losses. So did
train transports that sometimes took weeks to reach their destination, with up to 80
expellees crammed into each cattle car without adequate (or, occasionally, any) food, water
or heating.
No help from Allies even in rump Germany.
The deaths continued on arrival in Germany itself. Declared ineligible by the Allied
authorities to receive any form of international relief and lacking accommodation in a
country devastated by bombing, expellees in many cases spent their first months or years
living rough in fields, goods wagons or railway platforms.
No one knows how many died in these long forced marches.
Malnutrition, hypothermia and disease took their toll, especially among the very old and
very young. Although more research is needed to establish the total number of deaths,
conservative estimates suggest that some 500,000 people lost their lives as a result of the
operation.
Ironically the Nuremberg trials was going on while this happened.
Not only was the treatment of the expellees in defiance of the principles for which the
Second World War had professedly been fought, it created numerous and persistent legal
complications. At the Nuremberg trials, for example, the Allies were trying the surviving
Nazi leaders on charges of carrying out "deportation and other inhumane acts" against
civilian populations at the same moment as, less than a hundred miles away, they were
engaging in large-scale forced removals of their own.
I remember reading that after "Perestroika" the Russian wartime records were released, which
showed that more Christians than Jews died at the wartime labour complex that was Austwich.
(Sorry! I comment so rarely that I forget what name I've commented under in the past.
There are so many excellent articals and so many very well informed readers on this site,
that I'm honestly a little bit intimidated. I don't have that problem with the Spectator,
Telegraph etc. Thank You.
teaching non existent history as factual is what made me disbelieve everything I am taught or
most things I read. How can I believe anything these days when anything I look deeper into is
found to be a fabrication. Instead of the actual victims being helped a few in the minority
uses the falsehood to enrich themselves all the while to oppress others and gain an
unwarranted leverage against others. This is inequality in the extreme. Punishing the victims
and creating new victims all so a few can live a life of luxury and do what they think is
their right to be above others.
"The Ruins of the Gas Chambers: A Forensic Investigation of Crematoriums at Auschwitz I
and Auschwitz-Birkenau" by Daniel Keren, Harry W. Mazal and Jamie McCarthy in Holocaust and
Genocide Studies, Oxford University Press, Volume 18, Number 1, Spring 2004, pages
68-103.
"A Study of the Cyanide Compounds Content In The Walls Of The Gas Chambers in the Former
Auschwitz and Birkenau Concentration Camps" by Jan Markiewicz, Wojciech Gubala, Jerzy Labedz,
Z Zagadnien Sqdowych z. XXX, 1994, 17-27.
"Kalkulierte Morde. Die deutsche Wirtschafts-und Vernichtungspolitik in Weissrussland 1941
bis 1944", Gerlach, Christian,Hamburger Edition, HIS Verlag, 1998.
"Besatzungspolitik und Massenmord. Die Einsatzgruppe D in der sudlichen Sowjetunion
1941-1943". Angrick, Andrej, Zeitschrift fur Geschichtswissenschaft, 2004, Jahr 52 Heft 6,
pages 576-577. (Occupation Policy and Mass Murder: Einsatzgruppe D in the Southern Soviet
Union 1941-1943. Journal of History, Vol. 52 No. 6.)
"Völkerverschiebung und der Mord an den europäischen Juden", Aly, Götz,
Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag, Frankfurt am Main, 1998
"Treblinka: The Operation Reinhard Death Camps", Arad, Yitzhak, Belzec, Sobibor, Indiana
University Press, Bloomington, 1999
"AUSCHWITZ: Technique and operation of the gas chambers", Jean-Claude Pressac, The Beate
Klarsfeld Foundation, 1989
TBC
Nobody did mention tuberculosis so I have to do it.
Grim reaper actually during and after war was working mostly with tuberculosis.
There were no X-ray machines in concentration camps, and cibazol did not cure the
tuberculosis.
Kafka himself did die of tuberculosis so most probably his two sisters died of it also,
Strangely enough females died of tuberculosis far quicker than males, and also were more
susceptible to catch it.
@Fran Taubman Shit also
happens when you decide you don't want to be subject to International Communism and when your
enemies are the largest empires the world had ever seen.
Also, have a look at Robjil's comment #274.:
In 1933 , when Germany refused to surrender to the world conference of
Jews in Amsterdam
Stuff also happens when you attempt to control the world too. (That's a hint.) Now, go
read the Protocols.
@Ilya G Poimandres Why,
why, why? Why did the Russians allow any Germans to live after what they had done to them?
Why do Americans send drones to kill terrorists in Yemen who may or may not have killed US
citizens but have not bothered to bring to justice those who attacked USS Liberty? Why didn't
the West back the Soviets against Muslims in Afghanistan when now they have to fight those
same Muslims there? That kind of reasoning gets you nowhere.
@SolontoCroesus The
soap fable was merely a retread of WWI British Intelligence atrocity propaganda, disseminated
through the Daily Mail , The Times and the like. Beat you to it!
"The story described how corpses arrived by rail at the factory, which was placed "deep
in forest country" and surrounded by an electrified fence, and how they were rendered for
their fats which were then further processed into stearin (a form of tallow). It went on to
claim that this was then used to make soap, or refined into an oil "of yellowish brown
colour". – 17 April 1917″
Anytime a tale like this is put about, guaranteed it's fake and gay.
If desperate, you can make soap out of a number of native European wild plants and shrubs
right out of the box, for instance the .. Soapwort. Or even bracken roots, which aren't
exactly in short supply. They could have farmed the stuff if they felt like it. Kelp is
another, less effective bodywash source.
@Bardon Kaldian
Holocaust deniers on UR are the funniest people ever. They spend half their time trying to
prove that the Jews deserved to be holocausted and the other half denying that Hitler and his
Nazis tried to holocaust them. They have no balls to say they deserved it and they got it. So
what good was their idol Hitler they praise to high heaven if he couldn't do the main job he
claimed he would do? They want a second coming of Hitler to rid us of the Jews when even the
first one couldn't do it. How can anyone take them seriously? Good for a laugh and that's
about it.
@turtle Many people do
not know that at the Irving V Lipstadt trial David Irving produced the records of the Degesh
Corporation regarding shipments of Zyklon B. The amount of Zyklon B shipped to Bullschwitz
was exactly the same as the non "death camp" of Oranienburg.
In other words, exactly as much as was required for routine fumigation. No where near
enough to snuff 4 garillion Jews with bug spray.
The principal issue that deniers have disputed is the reason the Bauleitung began to
build so many new ovens. Historians have long recognized that the extensive building
campaign was because the authorities were committing mass murder and wanted an efficient
means of disposing of the bodies as well as structures which could be used to gas
prisoners. At the time the building began there were two structures in Birkenau which were
used for gassing. They were located in the wooded area behind the camp. There was also a
gas chamber in the crematorium located in the main camp which housed the six ovens. [15]
Forensic tests done by the Institute For Forensic Research in Cracow, Poland in 1994 found
traces of the poisonous hydrocyanic acid in all five crematoria, [16] consistent with a
great deal of eyewitness testimony and other documents from Auschwitz which show that these
structures were used as gas chambers. [17] The two structures in the wooded area were
completely destroyed by the Germans and no trace remains. However, as will be seen later
on, there is photographic evidence of one of these structures.
Deniers claim that there were no gassings at Auschwitz. They attribute the principal
reason for building so many ovens to other factors. In 1977 Arthur Butz, the best known of
American deniers, hinted that typhus was a principal reason for building so many new ovens.
However, this hint became explicit, and by 1992 he was attributing the typhus epidemic
which swept the camp in the summer of 1942 as the reason for the building campaign. [18]
Carlo Mattogno attributes the building campaign to the typhus epidemic and a decision by
the camp authorities to greatly expand the population of the camp. [19]
One of the reasons deniers need to make this argument is that they must find a
justification for building so many ovens. This argument also involves the amount of bodies
these new ovens could dispose of in a 24 hour period. A report from the Bauleitung in June
1943, after all of the new ovens became operational for at least some period, placed the
cremation capacity of all 52 ovens at 4756 per day. [20] Deniers have not totally agreed
among themselves on this issue, but Butz and Mattogno place the cremation capacity at about
1000 per day, or 30,000 per month. [21] Mattogno claimed the maximum cremation capacity of
the six original ovens was 120 per day, [22] even though he was familiar with evidence from
another concentration camp that showed a Topf double muffle oven could burn 52 per day or
26 per muffle. [23]
@Nicolás Palacios
Navarro "There is more actual documentation and proof of the Armenian Genocide, for
example, as a deliberate race/religion-focused act than there is for the Holocaust. "
Philip Jenkins, in his book "The Lost History of Christianity: The Thousand-Year Golden
Age of the Church in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia–and How It Died," says:
Some months afterward, Polish Jewish lawyer Raphael Lemkin used the cases of the
Assyrians, and the Christian Armenians before them, to argue for a new legal category to be
called crimes of barbarity, primarily "acts of extermination directed against the ethnic,
religious or social collectivities whatever the motive (political, religious, etc.)." Lemkin
developed this theme over the following years, and in 1943 he coined a new word for this
atrocious behavior – namely, genocide. The modern concept of genocide as a uniquely
horrible act demanding international sanctions has its roots in the thoroughly successful
movements to eradicate Middle Eastern Christians. Lemkin recognized acutely that such acts
might provide an awful precedent for later regimes: as Hitler asked in 1939, "Who, after all,
speaks to-day of the annihilation of the Armenians?"
@Digital Samizdat
"Holocaust" is derived from the Greek word meaning an offering that is entirely consumed by
fire. It entered the English language in the 1582 Douay Bible, the first English translation
of the New Testament by and for Roman Catholics. The scholars who worked on this
groundbreaking work were noted for transliterating into English terms found in the original
Latin and Greek texts. Other words first used in our language in this Bible include gratis,
victim, and, ironically, that most Protestant of words, evangelize.
@Fran Taubman It's very
difficult to face facts that contradict sincerely held beliefs. But you can't argue the
physics of the matter. The nazis didn't have the infrastructure to cremate, or gas, that many
people. It would be an impossible project. You must also understand that many Germans, Poles,
Russians and others lost their whole families, too, don't you? Such is the terrible cost of
war. No one is saying many Jews didn't die in WW2, it's just that the holocaust narrative
doesn't stand up to vigorous investigation. That's why some countries have passed laws
forbidding research into the issue. There would be no reason to forbid research if the truth
landed everyone at the accepted narrative.
@Germanicus Indeed, the
burden of the proof is on the accuser. When investigated, the story of the gas chambers,
cremations or burnings doesn't stand up. However, millions of Jews were abducted by train and
locked up in concentration camps, and did not return . If they were not murdered, then
what happened to them? Revisionists have no answer to this legitimate question, and in this
case the burden of providing an answer is on them. 100,000 Jews from Holland were abducted,
hardly any returned. 400,000 Jews from Hungary were abducted, hardly any returned. If they
were not murdered, what became of them?
However, even more incredible was the actions taken by the Nazis between August 19 and
September 28 last. Vilkis said that in the middle of August the SS mobilized a party of 100
Russian war prisoners, who were taken to the ravines. On August 19 these men were ordered
to disinter all the bodies in the ravine. The Germans meanwhile took a party to a nearby
Jewish cemetery whence marble headstones were brought to Babii Yar [sic] to form the
foundation of a huge funeral pyre. Atop the stones were piled a layer of wood and then a
layer of bodies, and so on until the pyre was as high as a two-story house. Vilkis said
that approximately 1,500 bodies were burned in each operation of the furnace and each
funeral pyre took two nights and one day to burn completely. The cremation went on for 40
days, and then the prisoners, who by this time included 341 men, were ordered to build
another furnace. Since this was the last furnace and there were no more bodies, the
prisoners decided it was for them. They made a break but only a dozen out of more than 200
survived the bullets of the Nazi machine guns.[40]
People saw there families disappear before their eyes. Who says that Germany could not
perform mass extermination you. If you go on line you can find photos of the outdoor pits
with bodies all around. There is a done of evidence. It is not like loosing someone on a
fighting front. These people exited a train as a family unit, some walked towards a building
with a smoke stack and never came out. Piles of clothes not people. You have to look at this
like a human story. Imagine your father disappears at a restaurant. You look and he is no
wear to be found. 5 million Jews are missing that is an incontrovertible fact. There are
birth certificates and no people.
@Fran Taubman So where
is the conclusive, definitive, unquestionable truth about this missing "5 million"? Actually,
was it not "6 million"? And why is denial of the Holocaust a criminal offense in various
Western jurisdictions, but not of the Armenian Genocide, which was perpetrated against a
Christian nation and was far better documented?
@Fran Taubman I
understand that belief in the holocaust is on par with religious belief, and difficult to
question, but do you know how many Russians died in WW2? 27,000,000. That's a lot, no?
9.000.000 Germans died and 6,000,000 Poles. All the people of Central Europe suffered
horribly in an unnecessary war. Imagine the poor German child, his father killed at Dresden,
the Polish kid who lost his Dad at Katyn, the Russian lad, left fatherless after Stalingrad.
All European people suffered from the war. Your people are no different, or more special,
than these others. Sorry.
@Germanicus The
Israelis prattle on about "terrorists."
They do know about terrorists, alright, since the State of Israel was founded by terrorists
and mass murderers, and they have repeatedly elected such to lead their government over the
years.
Pot, meet kettle.
The allies took away a lot of the files and made use of the results.
Particularly the freezing experiments, as I understand it.
USAF couldn't perform those experiments themselves (not officially, anyway) but were happy to
get the data intended for the Luftwaffe.
So what if a few Russian POWs froze to death.
Hell, the evil Commies were our mortal enemies by then, anyhow ('cause We Said So, and Don't
You Question It). Strange, how a Valuable and Trusted Ally can turn into Satan Incarnate
almost overnight. Devilish, that.
The criminal zionist jews want this word be used ONLY for the chosen people. Use of this
word for others, they think, diminishes their unique case.
Well, many people use this word when they want to expose the zionists' hypocracy.
@Theodore I tried to
find that article in the Jerusalem Post. I saw the book, but could not find the article.
I have listened to a lot of testimony sounds pretty reasonable to me. The way the transports
worked the separations at the train station. The building with the somoke stack. The SS
telling the people going to the gas building to take off their clothes and that jobs would
await for them after showers, and that the people never came out.
Same story over and over almost repetitive. In many different languages.
Claude Lanzman in his movie ShoA did secret recordings where Germans talked about the trains
and transports, and knowing what was going on. Also the gassing vans at Chelmmo.
There is a vast amount of information from Jews and Germans. The Nuremberg trials.
You cannot possible deny this part of history and be normal. Most survivors did not
witness the actual gassing and crematorium they were sent to the work barracks.
The Sonderkommando the workers have testified. Filip Muller. These people are not lying.
They are not. They talk about the back up of the crematoriums
As early as June 13, 1943, all was not well with the new installation. Eventually the
ovens seemed to fall apart. Crematorium Four failed completely after a short time and
Crematoria Five had to be shut down repeatedly. (TWC, V:624) (Between 1945 and 1962 Polish
officials found five manuscripts written by Sonderkommando members before their deaths. The
published manuscripts and documents relate to the specific process of extermination at
Birkenau, and provide detailed descriptions of the crematoria and gas chambers.)
@Hippopotamusdrome Yes,
the Nazis killed commies and visa versa. I was referring however to the justice and
punishment that was meted out mercilessly after WWII (upon Germany) as well as the stigma,
reparations, and shame that is still raining down exclusively on Nazis and their descendents
today.
Ex-commies on the other hand suffer no similar opprobrium and face no financial
responsibility for their murderous past.
Holocaust denial is intellectually unserious. You might as well try to argue Hitler and the
Nazis as a positive good as they unleashed death and destruction on neighboring countries and
peoples out of a pagan self worship personified in the Fuhrer's own murderous megalomania. He
didn't love Jews, he hated them like some reincarnation of Haman who sought their
destruction. And not just the big criminals who incidentally were Jewish, but millions of
innocents who weren't the Rothchilds in any way whatsoever.
Now it is true that today some people who weren't among the six million Jewish victims of
the Nazis, or among the other gentile six million liquidated by them, either, or even alive
at the time, use this abysmal episode in human inhumanity to claim immunity for their own
current crimes and to claim profitable victimhood by proxy. Or to claim those who challenge
their political agenda are Jew haters and Nazis, a phoney but still somewhat useful
libel.
And it's true, as Nicholson Baker's Human Smoke reveals, that there were no clean hands
among any nations in the events that triggered the path to World War II, including the rise
to power of the duplicitous Nazis.
All Yids[a] of the city of Kiev and its vicinity must appear on Monday, September 29, by
8 o'clock in the morning at the corner of Mel'nikova and Dokterivskaya streets (near the
Viis'kove cemetery). Bring documents, money and valuables, and also warm clothing, linen,
etc. Any Yids[a] who do not follow this order and are found elsewhere will be shot. Any
civilians who enter the dwellings left by Yids[a] and appropriate the things in them will
be shot.
-- Order posted in Kiev in Russian, Ukrainian, and German on or around 26 September
1941.[15]
I watched what happened when the Jews -- men, women and children -- arrived. The
Ukrainians[b] led them past a number of different places where one after the other they had
to give up their luggage, then their coats, shoes and over-garments and also underwear.
They also had to leave their valuables in a designated place. There was a special pile for
each article of clothing. It all happened very quickly and anyone who hesitated was kicked
or pushed by the Ukrainians [sic][b] to keep them moving.
-- Michael Berenbaum: "Statement of Truck-Driver Hofer describing the murder of
Jews at Babi Yar"[25]
@Fiendly Neighbourhood
Terrorist Good 'ol post-modernism creeping into our discussion. There is such a thing as
truth as is there the opposite called a lie. Denigrating many fine authors on their Shoah
works is certainly not the answer to the eternal question.
Here's a brand new science paper, hot off the presses so to speak, for you and Wally to
ponder. I haven't read it yet in detail but it must have passed peer review by referees and
all that. The paper even presents time series data of the kills. RU may want to look at this
paper too as he's got this high regard for high quality academic works . The references at
the bottom of the paper may also be useful to those interested in the research, as well as
those mentioned in the right hand side bar.
Quantifying the Holocaust: Hyperintense kill rates during the Nazi genocide, Lewi Stone,
Sci Adv. 2019 Jan; 5(1)
the words of Savitri Davi, a convicted post-war Nazi sympathiser, who in her book
"Defiance" mentions that she met a convicted Nazi woman, a former lay Christian sister, in
jail who told her that she murdered a whole bunch of children born to compulsory
foreign labourers that she was charged to look after in a children's home established on
the factory premises of the motor car Volkswagen Werke company.
Thanks for that story and some of the many other very good materials you have
presented
To murder a child never mind a bunch of children, is simply pure evil these kinds of
deranged and sadistic episodes played out many thousands of times during the reign of terror
of the Nazi scum
@Robjil You find the
dates during 1942 when US and UK were bombing railway lines in Eastern Europe and report
them. Yes there was some bombing of Germany but not much further. Most of the heavy bombing
campaign came later and mainly targeted the oil facilities in Ploiesti, Romania. As you can
see the graph claims most of the Holocaust killings were done during 1942.
@Hippopotamusdrome The
Germans themselves estimated that roughly 600,000 Soviet POWs had died as of late February
1942. Here's a link to a document that was translated for the Nuremberg Trials, but
apparently wasn't entered into the evidence:
In this document, General von Gravenitz (chief of the Wehrmacht supply services) described
the causes of the high mortality like so to Reich Minister Dr. Goebbels:
Furthermore, the OKW counts 1,900,000 Soviet Prisoners of War in the zones of interior
and in other occupied areas. As of 1 February 1942, the OKW, according to their tabulation,
had available 685,000 Soviet Prisoners of war, and of those 323,000 were present in the
Reich. He gave the following reasons for the high mortality: In the great "Kessel" (kettle)
battles, the Soviets were contained up to 22 days without any supplies whatsoever. The
German armies stormed forward, covering incredibly large distances. The German supply
services could bring up to the front only the most necessary ammunitions and living
necessities of the fighting troops. Thus, it would have been necessary to feed the
Soviet Prisoners of War from supplies of the countryside . However, these supplies
had been totally destroyed by the Soviets during their flight-like retreats. The early
and abnormal winter did the rest.
In other words, the Soviet scorched earth tactics destroyed the food supplies the Germans
had planned to feed the Soviet prisoners with. So then they starved. No genocidal intent was
needed. In fact, later in the same document it says:
He [still General Gravenitz] quoted the order of the Fuehrer of September 1941 to
the effect that Soviet Prisoners of War should be kept in condition to enable them to
work .
Hitler, who according to the politically correct among our historians wanted to have a
genocide of all Russians, just because he was a horrible racist, actually ordered his army
that they should be fed adequately. Unless this top ranking German general was lying to
Goebbels in their top secret conference.
So in the end, as I already wrote, it's still true that great numbers of Soviet POWs did
die in the winter of 1941/42, and that IS and remains a great tragedy. But again, hundreds of
thousands of Axis soldiers on the Eastern Front also died in this same period, and even
modern politically correct historians don't claim that Hitler made his own soldiers a target
of genocide. They died because adequate food, fuel, housing and medical care simply wasn't
available when the German logistics system had almost collapsed under the impact of the
Russian winter.
@Truth3 I would
encourage to research the Polish Typhus epidemic of 1916-1919.
It gives more context, because typhus had occurred in eastern Europe way before WWII, the
Soviet "revolution" was the starting point of this epidemic.
In this context, the Patton diary also sheds some light on the hygiene of the eastern
European jews from the Shtetls. And yeah, its embarrassing for the Jews, but they have not
changed much in that regard. Ie jewish females are forbidden to clean themselves during
menstruation period in some of the jewish circles.
A little research on Ellis Island and its function as decontamination island before
entering NY is also highly informative. They used Zyklon B as well to disinfect clothes and
people. There is even film footage of Ellis Island on the internet, showing immigrants
getting fumigated with Zyklon.
Furthermore, the US also operated gas tunnels to disinfect trains.
The sad truth is, Zyklon B was used to save lives.
If Germany wanted to kill all the inmates of the camps, they would have just locked the camps
up and had them die of Typhus.
Btw, Auschwitz had only ~40% jewish inmates, the Auschwitz death records revealed it after
the collapse of the Soviet Union. It also revealed births in the camps.
Zyklon was used to fight the Typhus epidemic, which could otherwise spread
uncontrolled.
Typhus carrying lice do not care what belief a human has before biting and infecting the
human. These lice travel far with animals and humans.
Typhus is a danger to ground water and everything, ie you cannot bury typhus infected corpses
near settlements, it would contaminate the water supply, hence cremation.
http://www.unz.com/article/myth-and-the-russian-pogroms/
Email This Page to Someone
Remember My
Information
=>
◄
►
◄
►
▲
▼
Remove from Library
B
Show
Comment
Next New Comment
Next
New Reply
Read More
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc.
More...
This Commenter
This Thread
Hide Thread
Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They
are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My
Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Email Comment
Ignore
Commenter
Follow Commenter
Bookmark
Toggle
All
ToC
▲
▼
Add
to Library
Search Text
Case
Sensitive
Exact Words
Include Comments
Search
Clear
Cancel
The anti-Jewish riots, or "pogroms" of late 19th-century Russia represent
one of the most decisive periods in modern Jewish, if not world, history. Most obviously, the riots had
demographic implications for western countries – around 80% of today's western Diaspora Jews are descendants
of those Jews who left Russia and its environs during the period 1880–1910. But perhaps the most lasting
legacy of the period was the enhancement of Jewish "national self-awareness," and the accelerated
development of "modern, international Jewish politics."
[A1]
John
Klier,
Russians, Jews, and the Pogroms of 1881-2
, (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011)
p.xiii.
Little or no historiography has been
dedicated to peeling back the layers of "refugee" stories to uncover what really happened in the Russian
Empire in the years before and during the riots. This lack of historical enquiry can be attributed at least
in part to a great reluctance on the part of Jewish historians to investigate the pogroms in any manner
beyond the merely superficial. In addition, historical enquiry by non-Jewish historians into the subject has
been openly discouraged. For example, when Ukrainian historians discovered evidence proving that
contemporary media reports of Jewish casualties in that nation were exaggerated, the Jewish genealogy
website 'JewishGen,'
responded
by stating: "We believe that [these facts] are more than irrelevant because it redirects
public attention from the major topic: the genocidal essence of pogroms."
It should suffice to state here that
this response contravenes the very essence of historical enquiry – to uncover history as it actually
happened, irrespective of the uncomfortable truths which may lie therein. The statement could be translated
as "Let's not let the facts get in the way of a good story." Also, as this paper will show, the tendency to
portray the riots as "genocidal" is completely lacking in foundation. University of California Los Angeles
Professor of Sociology, Michael Mann, has provided substantial evidence indicating that "most perpetrators
did not conceive of removing Jews altogether."
[A4]
Michael
Mann,
The Dark Side of Democracy: Explaining Ethnic Cleansing
(Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2005) p.142.
JewishGen's allusion to genocide should
also be seen as part of a broader problem in modern Jewish historiography. Rather than seeing the pogroms as
products of specific local circumstances, in which Jews would play at least an implicit role, there has been
a tendency to use them for comparative purposes. John Klier states that when used in a comparative sense,
"examples are drawn almost exclusively from the 20th century, and these events are then read back into the
earlier period of 1881–2," making any objective historical enquiry difficult, and implying the presence of
some non-existent 'pan-European' malaise in anti-Jewish actions.
Nonetheless, this series of essays will
seek to peel back the myths, to tease a few threads of truth from the veil which covers these events.
Encouragingly, some work has already begun in this respect. I.M. Aronson's assertion that the pogroms were
"planned or encouraged to one degree or another, by elements within the government itself,"
[A5]
I.M.
Aronson, 'Geographical and Socioeconomic factors in the 1881 Anti-Jewish Pogroms in Russia,'
Russian
Review
, Vol.39, No.1 (Jan. 1980) p.18.
has been dealt a death blow in recent years through
the concerted work of a small number of non-Jewish historians, mostly notably, University College London's
Professor of Hebrew and Jewish Studies, John Doyle Klier. In his 2005 work,
Russians, Jews, and the
Pogroms of 1881–2
, Klier asserts that "contemporary research has dispelled the myth that Russian
officials were responsible for instigating, permitting, or approving the pogroms."
[A6]
Klier,
Russians, Jews, and the Pogroms of 1881-2
, p.xiv.
This series of essays will attempt to
move further, adhering to the belief that the facts of the events remain paramount to historical enquiry
rather than being a 'distracting' irrelevance. The series will begin with an explanation of the origins of
Russia's "Jewish Question." Subsequent articles will concern the pogroms themselves and how myth and
exaggeration have plagued our conception of them. Finally, I will examine why these myths were developed,
and the broader implications of the prevalence of myth in Jewish 'history.'
Investigations carried out by special
committees discovered that in the decades prior to partition, Polish Jewry had enjoyed a demographic
explosion, with Jews now representing almost 20% of the entire population. In addition, it was discovered
that Jews controlled a full 75% of Polish exports, and that many were now spilling out of over-populated
urban centres into the countryside, making a living by monopolising the sale of liquor to peasants.
[A11]
Ibid,
p.85.
(Israel Friedlander,
The Jews of Russia and Poland
, (New York: G.P. Putnam, 1915), p.84.)
By 1774, complaints were reaching Russian officials from non-Jewish merchants who argued that Jewish ethnic
networking was propping up the monopoly of exports, and that this monopoly would shortly have dire
implications for the consumer.
[A12]
Simon
Dubnow,
History of the Jews in Russia and Poland
, (Bergenfield: Avontayu, 2000), p.173
These revelations were the key motivating factors in the decision to expel Warsaw's Jews in 1775, and until
the early 19
th
century there was a kind of stand-off between Poles and Jews.
[A13]
Ibid.
(Simon Dubnow,
History of the Jews in Russia and Poland
, (Bergenfield: Avontayu, 2000), p.173)
Napoleon's establishment of the Duchy of Warsaw in 1807 did little to alter the situation, as Napoleon
acceded to local sentiment which held that Jews should not feel the benefit of the new constitution until
they had "eradicated their peculiar characteristics."
[A14]
Ibid,
p.87.
(Simon Dubnow,
History of the Jews in Russia and Poland
, (Bergenfield: Avontayu, 2000), p.173)
In 1813, the government of the Duchy moved to break the Jewish monopoly on liquor, banning all Jews from
selling alcohol in the villages, bringing an end to the activity of "tens of thousands" of Jewish liquor
merchants in the provinces. Not surprisingly, when the Duchy was dissolved in 1815 following Napoleon's
failed attempt to invade Russia, Polish Jewry shed no tears.
In late 1815, the Congress of Vienna
was held. The aim of the congress was to give its assent to the formation of a new autonomous Polish kingdom
under the sovereignty of Russia. Although the bulk of Polish Jewry remained within the newly established
kingdom, tens of thousands also poured forth into other areas of the Russian Empire, ushering in an
uncomfortable age of fraught Russian-Jewish relations. The immediate reaction of the Russian government to
the acquisition of such large, and unwanted, Jewish populations was to prevent the penetration of these
populations from intrusion into the old Russian territories, and the solution reached was one of
containment. A new kind of settlement was created in provinces along the western frontier, and it became
known as the "Pale of Settlement." Although a large amount of negative connotations have been attributed to
the Pale, it was not an impermeable fortress. Certain Jews were permitted to reside outside these provinces,
they could visit trade fairs, and Jews were even permitted to study at Russian universities provided they
did not exceed quotas. By 1860, more than half of world Jewry resided in the Pale.
Following the Congress of Vienna,
wherever Jews resided in the Russian Empire, they overwhelmingly "served in a variety of middleman roles."
In some cities, "the Jewish mercantile element was numerically superior to the Christian," and there was a
gradual move towards the reacquisition of the liquor trade.
[A15]
Simon
Dubnow,
History of the Jews in Russia and Poland
, (Bergenfield: Avontayu, 2000), p.173
According to Klier, by 1830 Belorussian Jews were found to be "totally dominating trade" in that country.
[A16]
John
Klier,
Pogroms: Anti-Jewish Violence in Modern Russian History
, (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2004) p.4.
It was largely Klier's work in the late 1980s which began to truly shed light
on the origins of Russian-Jewish relations prior to 1914. Klier, born into a Catholic family in Kansas,
"rejected what might be called the Fiddler on the Roof pieties and simplifications. In book after book, he
emphasised that what the tsars and their ministers wanted, above all else, was for the Jewish settlements to
be orderly and productive."
[A17]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2007/oct/26/guardian...uaries
Klier further stressed that the much-maligned Pale of Settlement was simply the only response that the
Russian administration could come up with, faced as they were with the "baffling question" of how to deal
with the "fanaticism of ultra-Orthodox Jewry" which was thoroughly "unassimilable to official purposes."
[A18]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2007/oct/26/guardian...uaries
In 1841, investigations were carried
out into Russia's Jewish communities, and the subsequent reports pointed to three significant problems. The
first was persistent Jewish difference in dress, language, and religious and communal organization. The idea
underpinning this aloofness from non-Jewish society, the 'Chosen' status of the Jews and an accompanying
ethnic chauvinism, was said to be particularly harmful to Jewish-Gentile relations, particularly when it was
reinforced through "a system of male education that was thought to inculcate anti-Christian interpretations
of the Talmud."
[A19]
Klier,
Russians, Jews, and the Pogroms of 1881-2
, p.3.
The second, related, problem was that
Jewish economic practices were also rooted in this aloofness. The Talmud "encouraged and justified
unreserved economic exploitation based on cheating and exploiting the non-Jews,"
[A20]
Ibid.
(Klier,
Russians, Jews, and the Pogroms of 1881-2
, p.3.)
in a validation of Max Weber's
theory of 'internal' and 'external' ethics, whereby "members of a cohesive social unit observe different
moral standards among themselves compared with those observed in relation to strangers."
[A21]
Jacob
Katz,
Exclusiveness and Tolerance: Jewish-Gentile Relations in Medieval and Modern Times
(Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1962) p.56.
The third aspect of the Russian 'Jewish Question,' was the
issue of Jewish loyalty. The Jews of the Russian Empire had evidently retained the
kahal
of
pre-partition Polish Jewry. The
kahal
was a formal system of Jewish communal leadership and
government, entirely separate from the Russian state. Although tacitly tolerated by the state for its tax
collection capabilities, Jewish loyalty to the
kahal
was absolute, going beyond the merely fiscal.
Almost all Jews continued to resort to Jewish courts.
John Klier states that following these
revelations, "state and society shared a consensus that Jews could be – and must be – reformed and
transformed into good subjects of the realm."
[A22]
Ibid.
(Jacob Katz,
Exclusiveness and Tolerance: Jewish-Gentile Relations in Medieval and Modern Times
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1962) p.56.)
Under Emperor Alexander I (1801–25) there had been
attempts to encourage Jews to pursue more productive economic activities. Generous concessions were made to
Jews in the hope that they would abandon their middleman roles, as well as the distilleries and taverns of
the provinces, and take up work in agricultural colonies. Klier states that the "embeddedness of the Jews in
the economic and social life of the imperial borderlands ensured that despite legislative initiatives,
Jewish economic life remained largely unchanged."
[A23]
Klier,
Russians, Jews, and the Pogroms of 1881-2
, p.4
In 1844, under Nicholas I, the Russian
government began a program of reforms and legislation designed to break down Jewish exclusivity and
incorporate the nation's Jews more fully into Russian society. Not surprisingly, the government first took
aim at the
kahal
, banning it as "an illegal underground structure."
[A24]
Ibid.
(Klier,
Russians, Jews, and the Pogroms of 1881-2
, p.4)
The significance of the banning
of the
kahal
went beyond tackling the issue of Jewish loyalty. The mutual assistance offered by the
kahal
was felt to have had economic implications – "it was the mutual support provided by the
kahal
that ensured that Jews were more than a match for any competitor, even the arch-exploiter of the
Russian village, the kulak."
[A25]
Ibid.
(Klier,
Russians, Jews, and the Pogroms of 1881-2
, p.4)
The civil rights of any "Jews
who were perceived to be engaged in productive undertakings" were extended, though there were few takers.
Nicholas I even conceived of, and supported, the establishment of state-financed Jewish schools, in the hope
that such establishments would lead to the development of a more progressive and integrative Russian Jewry.
Unfortunately for Nicholas, what his system produced was a cadre of Jewish intellectuals profoundly hostile
to the state.
Emperor Alexander II continued the
efforts of Mother Russia to gather in her Jews. He abolished serfdom in 1861. He relaxed efforts to change
the economic profile of Russian Jewry, extending the rights of educated Jews and large-scale merchants. His
was a program aimed at reconciliation, an abandonment of the stick in favour of the carrot. Education was
made fully open to Jews, and Jews could sit on the juries of Russian courts. Conditions on settlement and
mobility in the Pale were relaxed further. Klier states that "Jews even became the subject of sympathetic
concern for the leaders of public opinion. Proposals for the complete emancipation of the Jews were widely
mooted in the press."
[A26]
Klier,
Russians, Jews, and the Pogroms of 1881-2
, p.5
These measures, however, were also
accompanied by a growing uneasiness with the way the Jews of Russia took advantage of them. There was little
in the way of gratitude, and the measures did not bring about the great changes that had been hoped for. The
nationalist revolt of the Poles in 1863, and the fact that a large number of wealthy Jews were found to have
funded some of the rebels cast new doubts on Jewish loyalty. Having emancipated the peasantry and adopted a
paternalistic concern for the former serfs, the government also viewed with alarm the rapidity with which
the "Jews were exploiting the unsophisticated and ignorant rural inhabitants, reducing them to a Jewish
serfdom."
[A27]
Klier,
Russians, Jews, and the Pogroms of 1881-2
, p.5
It also quickly became apparent that
despite new military legislation, Jews were noticeable in their overwhelming avoidance of military service.
In retaliation, the government clamped down on rural tavern ownership, and introduced more stringent
recruitment procedures specifically for Jews. It has been claimed that Jews were also banned from land
ownership at this time, but Klier provides evidence that Jews were still able to buy any peasant properties
sold at auction for tax arrears, as well as any property within the Pale not owned by Russian gentry.
[A28]
Ibid.
(Klier,
Russians, Jews, and the Pogroms of 1881-2
, p.5)
By the end of Alexander II's reign,
disillusionment with the government's policy at handling the Jewish Question was widespread. The vast
majority of Jews had stubbornly persisted in the unproductive trades, continued in their antipathy to
Russian culture, and refused to make any meaningful contribution to Russian society. An air of resignation
swept the country. Some newspapers even advocated abolishing the Pale, if only to alleviate that region from
bearing the burden of the Jews alone. Other papers opposed this "fearing for the welfare of the peasantry at
a time when the cultural level of the peasantry made them an easy target for exploitation."
[A29]
Ibid,
p.6
(Klier,
Russians, Jews, and the Pogroms of 1881-2
, p.5)
Meanwhile Jews were beginning to
swamp higher education establishments. In Odessa, there were reports that in school after school, Jews were
"driving Christians from the school benches," and "filling up the schools."
[A30]
Ibid.
(Klier,
Russians, Jews, and the Pogroms of 1881-2
, p.5)
On the eve of the assassination of
Alexander II, Russia's Jewish Question remained unanswered. Decades of legislation had done little to change
the nature of Russian Jewry, which remained ethnically, politically, and culturally homogenous. The new
Jewish intelligentsia had turned on the hand that fed it, failing to encourage the adaptation of their
fellow Jews, moving instead to defend them and advocate for their interests. In terms of educational and
social opportunities, Jews had been given an inch and taken a mile. They had swamped the schools, and added
to a group of emergent Jewish capitalists. In 1879 Russian authorities were being lobbied by a Rabbinic
Commission for full emancipation, an ominous prospect for those concerned about the well-being of Russian
peasantry.
The breaking point, when it came, did
not emerge from the ether, but from this historical background. In part two we will examine the more
immediate origins of the anti-Jewish riots and how the riots proceeded. We will do away with petty
distractions, dispelling myths with facts; and as we venture into the Pale, we now do so with a more
complete view of the Jew we find there.
Having grounded ourselves in the
history of Russia's Jewish Question, it is now time for us to turn our attention to the anti-Jewish riots of
the 1880s. The following essay will first provide the reader with the standard narrative of these events
advanced by Jewish contemporaries and the majority of Jewish historians -- a narrative which has
overwhelmingly prevailed in the public consciousness. The latter half of the essay will be devoted to
dissecting one aspect of the Jewish narrative, and explaining how events really transpired. Other aspects of
the Jewish narrative will be examined in later entries in this series. While a work like this can come in
for heavy criticism from certain sections of the population who may denounce it as 'revisionist,' I can only
say that 'revisionism' should be at the heart of every historical work. If we blindly accept the stories
that are passed down to us, we are liable to fall victim to what amounts to little more than a glorified
game of Chinese whispers. And, if we taboo the right of the historian to reinterpret history in light of new
research and new discoveries, then we have become far removed from anything resembling true scholarship.
In 1881 the 'Russo-Jewish Committee,'
(RJC) an arm of Britain's Jewish elite, mass-produced a pamphlet entitled "The Persecution of the Jews in
Russia," and began disseminating it through the press, the churches, and numerous other channels. By 1899,
it was embellished and published as a short book, and today digitized copies are freely available online.
[B1]
http://archive.org/stream/persecutionofjew00russ
By the early 20th century, the pamphlet had even spawned a four-page journal called
Darkest Russia – A
Weekly Record of the Struggle for Freedom
, ensuring that the average British citizen did not go long
without being reminded of the 'horrors' facing Russian Jews.
[B2]
Max
Beloff,
The Intellectual in Politics: And other essays
, (London: Taylor and Francis, 1970) p.135
The fact that these publications were
mass
produced should provide an indication as to their
purpose: It is clear that these publications represented one of the most ambitious propaganda campaign in
Jewish history, and combined with similar efforts in the United States, they were aimed at gaining the
attention of, and 'educating,' the Western nations and ensuring the primacy of the 'Jewish side of the
story.' Implicit in this was not only a desire to provoke anti-Russian attitudes, but also copious amounts
of sympathy for the victimized Jews -- sympathy necessary to ensure that mass Jewish chain migration to the
West went on untroubled and unhindered by nativists. After all, wasn't the bigoted nativist just a step
removed from the rampaging Cossack?
The first element of the narrative
advanced by the RJC is essentially a manipulation of the history of Russian-Jewish relations. It holds that
the Jews of Eastern Europe have been oppressed for centuries, their whole lives "hampered, from cradle to
grave, by restrictive laws."
[B3]
The
Persecution of the Jews in Russia
, (London: Russo-Jewish Committee, 1899), p.3.
It was
claimed that the Russians had an unwritten law: "That no Russian Jew shall earn a living."
[B4]
Ibid,
p.4
(
The Persecution of the Jews in Russia
, (London: Russo-Jewish Committee, 1899), p.3.)
Russian Jews, according to the Russo-Jewish Committee, have wanted nothing more than to participate in
Russian society, but have been rebuffed time and again as "heretics and aliens." The Pale is an impenetrable
fortress, where every Jew "must live and die." Implicit in this interpretation of the history of
Russian-Jewish relations in the belief that "the fount and origin of all the ills that assail Russian Jewry"
has nothing to do with the Jews themselves, but everything to do with the Church, the State, and the Pale.
In essence, the plight of the Jews was the result of nothing more than irrational hatred. Jews adopt a meek
and passive role in this narrative, having committed no wrong-doing other than being Jews. They are also
presented as the
only
victims of Russian violence. There is no acknowledgement of failed Russian
efforts to break down the Jewish walls of exclusivity and claim the Jews as brothers. In fact, there is no
reference at all to the walls of exclusivity. The pogroms themselves, according to the Jewish narrative,
broke out following the assassination of Alexander II, when shock, anger and a desire for revenge brought
this irrational, rootless hatred to the surface.
The second element of the Jewish
narrative is that the government and petty officialdom had some role to play in organizing and directing the
pogroms. Much disdain is heaped on the government, and petty officialdom, which was said to have been
afflicted with "a chronic anti-Semitic outlook." It was claimed that when the riots began, the government
was "not altogether sorry to let the excitement of the people vent itself on the Jews."
[B5]
The
Persecution of the Jews in Russia
, (London: Russo-Jewish Committee, 1899), p.5
In reference
to the restrictive May Laws, the authors were forced to concede they had never really been enforced, but
maintained that "whether moderately or rigorously applied, the May Laws still remained on the Russian
Statute Book."
[B6]
Ibid,
p.8
(
The Persecution of the Jews in Russia
, (London: Russo-Jewish Committee, 1899), p.5)
The third element of the Jewish
narrative is that the pogroms were genocidal, and that they had been organized and perpetrated by groups
seeking the extermination of the Jews. The 1899 edition of "The Persecution of the Jews in Russia" included
a copy of a lengthy letter written to the
London Times
by Nathan Joseph, Secretary of the RJC,
dated November 5th, 1890. In the letter, Joseph claimed that in the present circumstances "hundreds of
thousands could be exterminated,"
[B7]
Ibid,
p.36
(
The Persecution of the Jews in Russia
, (London: Russo-Jewish Committee, 1899), p.5)
and
that Russian legislation in relation to Jews represented "an instrument of torture and persecution." In sum,
the Jews of Russia were claimed to be living under "a sentence of death," and it was further claimed that
"the executions are proceeding." The letter ends with an appeal to "Civilized Europe" to intervene, chastise
Russia, and aid the victimized Jews.
[B8]
Ibid,
p.38.
(
The Persecution of the Jews in Russia
, (London: Russo-Jewish Committee, 1899), p.5)
The fourth key element of the Jewish
narrative is that the pogroms were extremely violent in nature. Contemporary media reports especially were
the source of most of the atrocity stories, reportedly gleaned from newly-arrived 'refugees' who had given
statements to the Russo-Jewish Committee about the pogroms they had fled. In these reports, which were
carried very regularly by both the
New York Times
and the
London Times
, Russians were
charged with having committed the most fiendish atrocities on the most enormous scale. Every Jew in the
Russian Empire was under threat. Men had been ruthlessly murdered, tender infants had been dashed on the
stones or roasted alive in their own homes. During a British parliamentary consultation on the pogroms in
1905, a Rabbi Michelson claimed that "the atrocities had been so fiendish that they could find no parallel
even in the most barbarous annals of the most barbarous peoples."
[B9]
Anthony
Heywood,
The Russian Revolution of 1905: Centenary Perspectives
(New York: Routledge, 2005) p.266.
The
New York Times
reported that during the 1903 Kishinev pogrom "babes were literally torn to
pieces by the frenzied and bloodthirsty mob."
[B10]
"Jewish
Massacre Denounced,"
New York Times
, April 28, 1903, p.6
A common theme in most contemporary
atrocity stories was the brutal rape of Jewish women, with most reports including mention of breasts being
hacked off. There are literally thousands of carbon-copy reports in which it is claimed that mothers were
raped alongside their daughters. There is simply not enough space to cite extensively from these articles,
but they number in their thousands and are available to anyone with access to the digitized archives of any
major newspaper, or the microfilm facilities at major libraries. In addition, these articles claim that
whole streets inhabited by Jews had been razed, and the Jewish quarters of towns had been systematically
fired.
The RJC charged the government with
criminal sympathy, the local authorities generally with criminal inaction, and some of the troops with
active participation. The situation, they argued, was simply so hopeless and the possibility of
extermination was so great, that the only way out was for the civilized nations of the West to throw open
their doors and let in these poor 'Hebrews'.
And to a great extent this is exactly
what the churches, the politicians, and the media agreed to. This capitulation to manipulated conscience
ushered in the greatest migration in Jewish history, with profound consequences for us all. But there was
just one small problem -- the vast majority of this narrative was a calculated, designed, and expertly
promoted fraud, furthered by the willing participation of Russian-Jewish emigrants who wished to ease their
own access to the West and obtain "relief money from Western Europe and America."
[B18]
Albert
Lindemann,
Esau's Tears: Modern Anti-Semitism and the Rise of the Jews
(Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1997) p.291.
Let us first turn our attention to the
atrocity stories. Prior to any major reports of violence, the British public was already being primed to
hate the Russian government and accept the Jewish narrative. John Doyle Klier points out that the
Daily
Telegraph
was at that time Jewish-owned, and was particularly "severe" in its reports on Russian
treatment of Jews prior to 1881.
[B19]
John
Doyle Klier,
Russians, Jews and the Pogroms of 1881-82
, p.399
In the pages of this
publication, it was stated that "these Russian atrocities are only the beginning. [T]he Russian officials
themselves countenance these barbarities."
[B20]
Ibid.
(John Doyle Klier,
Russians, Jews and the Pogroms of 1881-82
, p.399)
Around this time in
Continental Europe, Prussian Rabbi Yizhak Rülf established himself as an "intermediary" between Eastern
Jewry and the West, and, according to Klier, one of his specialities was the spreading of "sensationalized
accounts of mass rape."
[B21]
Ibid.
(John Doyle Klier,
Russians, Jews and the Pogroms of 1881-82
, p.399)
Other major sources of pogrom atrocity
stories were the
New York Times
, the London
Times
, and the
Jewish World
. It would
be the
Jewish World
which furnished the majority of these tales, having sent a reporter "to visit
areas that had suffered pogroms."
[B22]
Ibid,
p.400
(John Doyle Klier,
Russians, Jews and the Pogroms of 1881-82
, p.399)
Most of the other
papers simply reprinted what the
Jewish World
reporter sent them. The atrocity stories carried by
these newspapers provoked global outrage. There were large-scale public protests against Russia in Paris,
Brussels, London, Vienna, and even in Melbourne, Australia. However, "it was in the United States that
public indignation reached its height." Historian Edward Judge states that the American public was spurred
on by reports of "brutal beatings, multiple rapes, dismemberment of corpses, senseless slaughter, painful
suffering and unbearable grief."
[B23]
Edward
Judge,
Easter in Kishinev: Anatomy of a Pogrom
(New York: New York University Press, 1993) p.89.
Furthermore, Klier states that the
atrocity stories compiled by the
Jewish World
correspondent, which went on to be so influential in
manipulating Western perceptions of the events, must be treated with "extreme caution."
[B27]
Ibid.
(John Doyle Klier,
Russians, Jews and the Pogroms of 1881-82
, p.400)
The reporter
"portrayed the pogroms dramatically, as great in scale and inhuman in their brutality. He reported numerous
accounts where Jews were burned alive in their homes while the authorities looked on."
[B28]
Ibid.
(John Doyle Klier,
Russians, Jews and the Pogroms of 1881-82
, p.400)
There are hundreds
of instances where he references the murder of children, the mutilation of women, and the biting off of
fingers.
Klier states that "the author's most
influential accounts, given their effect on world opinion, were his accounts of the rape and torture of
girls as young as ten or twelve."
[B29]
Ibid.
(John Doyle Klier,
Russians, Jews and the Pogroms of 1881-82
, p.400)
In 1881 he reported
25 rapes in Kiev, of which five were said to have resulted in fatalities, in Odessa he claimed 11, and in
Elizavetgrad he claimed 30.
[B30]
Ibid.
(John Doyle Klier,
Russians, Jews and the Pogroms of 1881-82
, p.400)
Rape featured
prominently in the reports, not because rapes were common, but because rape "even more than murder and
looting" was known to "generate particular outrage abroad." Klier states that "Jewish intermediaries who
were channelling pogrom reports abroad were well aware of the impact of reports of rape, and it featured
prominently in their accounts."
[B31]
Ibid,
p.12
(John Doyle Klier,
Russians, Jews and the Pogroms of 1881-82
, p.400)
The two most
dramatic and gruesome accounts came from Berezovka and Borispol. In fact, as the year neared its end, the
reports became more and more gruesome and brutal in the details they conveyed.
There is, of course, a reason for this.
As the non-Jewish public began to tire of the reports and switched their minds to the coming Christmas
festivities, Klier states that records show the RJC made a conscious and calculated decision to "keep
Russian Jewry before the eyes of the public."
[B32]
Ibid,
p.404
(John Doyle Klier,
Russians, Jews and the Pogroms of 1881-82
, p.400)
A key component of
this strategy was to take the accounts of the Special Correspondent and publish them in a more widely
circulated and respected newspaper. They settled on the London
Times
, which was already predisposed
to "critical editorial faulting of the Russian government." Klier further states that these evidently false
reports "garnished with the prestige of
The Times
and devoid of any attribution, subsequently
published as a separate pamphlet, and translated into a variety of European languages became the
definitive Western version of the pogroms."
[B33]
Ibid.
(John Doyle Klier,
Russians, Jews and the Pogroms of 1881-82
, p.400)
As increasingly lurid atrocity tales
again captured the attention of the Gentile public, the British Government found itself under pressure to
intervene. The British Government, however, adopted a more cautious approach and undertook its own
independent investigations into events in the Russian Empire. Its findings, published as a "Blue Book,"
"presented an account of events at great variance with that offered by
The Times
."
[B34]
Ibid,
p.405. (
Correspondence Respecting the Treatment of Jews in Russia, Nos. 1 and 2,
1882, 1883)
(John Doyle Klier,
Russians, Jews and the Pogroms of 1881-82
, p.400)
The most notable
aspect of the independent inquiry is the outright denial of mass rape. In January 1882, Consul-General
Stanley objected to all of the details contained within reports published by
The Times
, mentioning
in particular the unfounded "accounts of the violation of women."
[B35]
John
Doyle Klier,
Russians, Jews and the Pogroms of 1881-82
, p.405
He further stated that his
own investigations revealed that there had been no incidences of rape during the Berezovka pogrom, that
violence was rare, and that much of the disturbance was restricted to property damage. In relation to
property damage in Odessa, Stanley estimated it to be around 20,000 rubles, and rejected outright the Jewish
claim that damage amounted to over one million rubles.
Vice-Consul Law, another independent
investigator, reported that he had visited Kiev and Odessa, and could only conclude that "I should be
disinclined to believe in any stories of women having been outraged in those towns."
[B36]
Ibid.
(John Doyle Klier,
Russians, Jews and the Pogroms of 1881-82
, p.405)
Another
investigator, Colonel Francis Maude, visited Warsaw and said that he could "not attach any importance" to
atrocity reports emanating from that city.
[B37]
Ibid.
(John Doyle Klier,
Russians, Jews and the Pogroms of 1881-82
, p.405)
At Elizavetgrad,
instead of whole streets being razed to the ground, it was discovered that a small hut had lost its roof. It
was further discovered that very few Jews, if any, had been intentionally killed, though some died of
injuries received in the riots. These were mainly the result of conflicts between groups of Jews who
defended their taverns and rioters seeking alcohol. The small number of Jews who had been intentionally
killed had fallen victim to unstable individuals who had been drunk on Jewish liquor -- accusations of
murderous intent among the masses were simply unfounded and unsubstantiated by the evidence.
The revelations came at a bad time for
the RJC, which was at that time attempting to move the British Government to "act in some way on behalf of
persecuted Russian Jewry."
[B40]
Ibid.
(John Doyle Klier,
Russians, Jews and the Pogroms of 1881-82
, p.405)
It resorted to
republishing (in the
Times
) its pamphlet on persecution in Russia twice in one month, presumably in
the belief that blunt repetition would suffice to overcome tangible evidence. Klier states that the pieces
were examples of "masterful" propaganda, as they attempted to undermine the credibility of the Government
consuls, while sycophantically appealing to "the wise and noble people of England," who "will know what
weight should be attached to such denials and refutations."
[B41]
Ibid,
p.406.
(John Doyle Klier,
Russians, Jews and the Pogroms of 1881-82
, p.405)
The RJC offered its
own "corroborative evidence of the most undeniable kind," though of course the exact source of this evidence
was not specified beyond "persons occupying high official positions in the Jewish community" and "Jewish
refugees."
In essence, the people of western
nations were being asked to trust an anonymous Rabbi on the other side of the world rather than identifiable
representatives of their own government. The pieces, states Klier, "painted the familiar picture of murder
and rape," and despite the debunking statements of the consuls, "a number of mother/daughter rapes, which
had already done so much to outrage British public opinion, were again repeated."
[B42]
Ibid.
(John Doyle Klier,
Russians, Jews and the Pogroms of 1881-82
, p.405)
Although the move
for British government intervention failed, in the battle for public opinion "the RJC clearly won the day,"
and the
Times
and the RJC remained good bedfellows.
The Consuls were outraged. Stanley
reiterated the fact that his intensive investigations, which he carried out at great personal cost with a
serious leg injury, illustrated that "
The Times'
accounts of what took place at each of those
places contains the greatest exaggerations, and that the account of what took place at some of those places
is absolutely untrue."
[B43]
John
Doyle Klier,
Russians, Jews and the Pogroms of 1881-82
, p.407.
He related the fact that
a Rabbi in Odessa had "not heard of any outrages on women there," and that the object of almost every pogrom
he had investigated was simple "plunder."
[B44]
John
Doyle Klier,
Russians, Jews and the Pogroms of 1881-82
, p.408.
Enraged by the lies
circulating in Britain and America, Stanley "went right to the top," interviewing state rabbis and asking
for evidence and touring pogrom sites. In Odessa, where a wealth of atrocity stories had originated, he was
able to confirm "one death, but no looting of synagogues or victims set alight." There was no evidence that
a single rape had taken place. One state Rabbi admitted that he had not heard of any outrages of women in
Berezovka and further assured Stanley that he "could with a clear conscience positively deny that any deaths
or any violations had occurred there during the disturbances of last year."
[B45]
Ibid.
(John Doyle Klier,
Russians, Jews and the Pogroms of 1881-82
, p.408.)
He again sent this
report to his superior in London, with a note saying "This is in accordance with all the information I have
received and forwarded to your Lordship, and which I think more credible than anonymous letters in
The
Times
."
[B46]
Ibid.
(John Doyle Klier,
Russians, Jews and the Pogroms of 1881-82
, p.408.)
Despite Stanley's best efforts the
Jewish narrative advanced by the RJC, imbued with atrocity tales, has remained unalterably attached in
Western perceptions of the pogroms. The Blue Book was smothered by the more visible, and oft-repeated, tales
of the RJC and organisations like it around the globe. Only with the decade-long research of John Klier has
some revision of this narrative, grounded in scholarship and archival evidence, been possible. In light of
this evidence, one can only conclude that stories of rape, murder and mutilation were "more legendary than
factual."
[B47]
Ibid,
p. 13.
(John Doyle Klier,
Russians, Jews and the Pogroms of 1881-82
, p.408.)
However, the task
remains to further dismantle and analyse other aspects of the Jewish narrative, and to seek the true motives
behind its creation.
We continue our series of essays
examining the Russian Pogroms with this essay on the part played by Jews in provoking the disturbances. As
stated in Part Two, one of the key problems with existing historiography on the pogroms (and 'anti-Semitism'
generally) is that these narratives invariably argue that the plight of the Jews was the result of nothing
more than irrational hatred. Jews adopt a meek and passive role in this narrative, having committed no
wrong-doing other than being Jews. There is no sense of Jewish agency, and one is left with the impression
that Jews historically have lacked the capacity to
act
in the world. In almost every single
academic and popular history of the pogroms, the author blindly accepts, or willfully perpetuates, the basic
premise that Jews had been hated in the Russian Empire for centuries, that this hatred was irrational and
rootless, and that the outbreak of anti-Jewish riots late in the 19
th
century was a 'knee-jerk'
emotional response to the assassination of the Tsar and some blood libel accusations.
This is of course far from the truth,
but the prevalence of this 'victim paradigm' plays two significant roles. Firstly, Jewish historiography is
saturated with allusions to the "unique" status of Jews, who have suffered a "unique" hatred at the hands of
successive generations of Europeans. In essence, it is the notion that Jews stand alone in the world as the
quintessential "blameless victim." To allow for any sense of Jewish agency -- any argument that Jews may have
in some way contributed to anti-Jewish sentiment -- is to harm the perpetuation of this paradigm. In this
sense, the 'victim paradigm' also contributes heavily to the claim for Jewish uniqueness and, as Norman
Finkelstein has pointed out, one can clearly see in many examples of Jewish historiography the tendency to
focus not so much on the "suffering of Jews" but rather on the simple fact that "Jews suffered."
[C1]
Norman
Finkelstein, 'The Holocaust Industry,'
Index on Censorship
, 29:2, 120-130, p.124
As a
result, the paradigm offers no place to non-Jewish suffering. Simply put, the 'victim paradigm' is a form of
secular "chosenness." This aspect of the narrative is seen, quite rightly, as a useful tool in the here and
now. There is perhaps no race on earth which uses its history to justify its actions in the present quite
like the Jewish people. From seeking reparations to establishing nation states, Jewish history is one of the
foundation stones propping up Jewish international politics in the present. As such, Jewish history is
carefully constructed and fiercely defended. The interplay between Jewish history and contemporary Jewish
politics is plain to see -- I need only make reference to the terms "revisionist" and "denier" to conjure up
images of puppet trials and prison cells.
Secondly, the omission of the Jewish
contribution to the development of anti-Semitism (be it in a village setting or a national setting), leaves
the spotlight burning all the more ferociously on the 'aggressor.' Within this context, the blameless victim
is free to make the most ghastly accusations, basking in the assurance that his own role, and by extension
his own character, is unimpeachable. The word of this untainted, unique, blameless victim is taken as fact --
to doubt his account is to be in league with the 'aggressor.' In Part Two we explored the manner in which
the RJC took full advantage of this construct to purvey appalling, and unfounded, atrocity stories. More
generally, exaggerated tales of brutality by non-Jews are commonplace in Jewish literature and
historiography, and go hand in hand with images of dove-like Jews. For example, Finkelstein has pointed to
Jerzy Kosinski's
The Painted Bird
, a work now widely acknowledged as "the first major Holocaust
hoax," as an example of this "pornography of violence."
[C2]
Ibid.
(Norman Finkelstein, 'The Holocaust Industry,'
Index on Censorship
, 29:2, 120-130, p.124)
The twin concepts of Jewish blamelessness and extreme Gentile brutality are inextricably bound up together,
and supporters of one strand of the 'victim paradigm' are invariably supporters of the other. Take for
example that high priest of Jewish chosenness, Elie Wiesel, who praised Kosinki's pastiche of
sadomasochistic fantasies as "written with deep sincerity and sensitivity."
[C3]
Ibid,
p.125.
(Norman Finkelstein, 'The Holocaust Industry,'
Index on Censorship
, 29:2, 120-130, p.124)
Having clarified this theoretical
framework, we now turn our attention to deconstructing the second strand of the pogrom 'victim paradigm.' To
deal most effectively with the question of Jewish culpability in the souring of relations between Jews and
non-Jews, we will need to probe deeper, and with more focus, than we endeavored to do in Part One. This
essay will focus on specific examples of anti-Jewish disturbance in the Russian Empire prior to 1880, with a
particular focus on Jewish economic practices preceding these events.
For the reasons discussed above, the
majority of Jewish historians have long displayed an aversion to the idea that Jewish economic practices
have played a significant role historically in provoking anti-Semitism. For example, Leon Poliakov in
The History of anti-Semitism: From Voltaire to Wagner
, argues that the idea of economic anti-Semitism
is "devoid of real explanatory value."
[C4]
Leon
Poliakov
The History of anti-Semitism: From Voltaire to Wagner
(Pennsylvania: University of
Pennsylvania Press, 2003) p.viii
Similarly, Jonathan Freedman has stated that, in explaining
anti-Jewish attitudes, economic anti-Semitism should play only a very "small explanatory role."
[C5]
Jonathan
Freedman,
The Temple of Culture: Assimilation and Anti-Semitism in Literary Anglo-America
(Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2002) p.60.
Both of these historians posit that theology, and by
extension Christianity (and therefore Western culture) is the fount and origin of anti-Semitism. Robert
Weinberg, in his 1998 article on
Visualizing Pogroms in Russian History
, explains anti-Semitic
outbreaks of violence in Eastern Europe by stating that they were the product of "the frustrations of
Russian and Ukrainian peasants, workers and town dwellers who, for the most part, spontaneously took out
their frustrations on a time-honored scapegoat, the Jews."
[C6]
Robert
Weinberg, 'Visualizing Pogroms in Russian History,'
Jewish History
, Vol.12 (1998), 71-92, p.72
Weinberg refrains from stating where precisely these 'frustrations' emerge from, but note again the
extremely passive Jewish role in his analysis.
Conversely, those historians who have
accepted that economic issues have played a role in provoking anti-Semitism fail to engage in actual case
studies of economically provoked anti-Jewish actions, preferring instead to probe "images" or stereotypes
which allegedly infuse the consciousness of non-Jews. For example Professor of Israel Studies at Oxford
University, Derek J. Penslar, has stated that economic anti-Semitism is nothing more than "a double helix of
intersecting paradigms, the first associating the Jew with paupers and savages and the second conceiving of
Jews as conspirators, leaders of a financial cabal seeking global domination."
[C7]
Derek
J. Penslar,
Shylock's Children: Economics and Jewish Identity in Modern Europe,
(Los Angeles:
University of California Press, 2001) p.13.
By choosing to discuss "images" and concepts rather
than say, an actual incident such as the Limerick Anti-Jewish Riots, Penslar engages in a practice equally
duplicitous to that engaged in by Poliakov and Freedman. Penslar's thesis only superficially acknowledges
the economic role, while really lending more weight to the argument that European society has suffered some
kind of neurosis in relation to its Jews. Penslar deftly offers us an argument in which Jews and economics
play a role in the development of an anti-Semitic "image," without placing the Jew in anything but a passive
role. Penslar's "images" are also devoid of gradation -- Europeans, if they hold to economically motivated
anti-Semitism, either view Jews as pauper savages or global financiers. This despite the case that most
European peasants simply didn't
need
to have these extreme conceptions of Jews, and probably
didn't. Exploitative economic practices by local Jewish capitalists, the existence of local Jewish
monopolies on such items as alcohol, and the Jewish practice of in-group/out-group ethics would be more than
sufficient to provoke anti-Jewish resentment.
But references to
this
motivation for anti-Jewish action is entirely absent from Jewish historiography on the causes of
anti-Semitism, most likely because it comes extremely close to demolishing the 'victim paradigm.' This
essay, which focuses on actual case studies (in particular the city of Odessa), will argue that the
anti-Jewish riots of the 1880s, like many riots before them, were motivated by economic anti-Semitism, and
that this economic anti-Semitism had its origins not in the European psyche, but in the day to day economic
interactions of Jews had with the non-Jews of Odessa. It attempts to rediscover the Jewish role, and to
place it front and centre.
The first disturbance involving Jews to
occur in the Russian Empire, and which left sufficient documentation, was the 1821 Odessa pogrom. Weinberg
has painted a picture of Odessa as being some kind of multicultural heaven at this time. He states that the
city "benefited from the presence of German, Italian, French, Greek, and English residents whose cultural
and intellectual tastes influenced local life."
[C8]
Robert
Weinberg, 'Visualizing Pogroms in Russian History,'
Jewish History
, Vol.12 (1998), 71-92, p.73
By the 1820s street signs were written in Russian and Italian, the city's first newspaper appeared in
French. Odessa, according to Weinberg, had a thriving art scene, particularly in relation to theatre, music,
and opera.
Violence erupted in 1821 when, during
the Greek War of Independence, a group of Muslims and Jews murdered and then mutilated Gregory V, the Greek
Orthodox Patriarch in Istanbul. In the aftermath, many Greeks fled with Gregory's remains from Istanbul to
Odessa, where his funeral procession was held. Surviving documents suggest that violence broke out when a
large contingent of Odessa's Jewish population showed open disrespect for the procession.
[C11]
John
Klier,
Pogroms: Anti-Jewish Violence in Modern Russian History
, (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2004), p.16.
How do we describe such events? In
light of the context of these disturbances, does the term "pogrom" or "anti-Jewish riot" withstand scrutiny?
Certainly not. Note my use of the terms "inter-ethnic violence" and "disturbance involving Jews." These
terms do not feature in Jewish historiography on these events. "Anti-Jewish riot" or "pogrom" is merely part
of the lexicon of the 'victim paradigm,' bequeathing passive status even through word use. To express it
flippantly, when Tom and Bill have a fight in the street, one does not describe it as "anti-Tom violence."
This automatically imparts passive, victim status to Tom, despite the fact that he may have started the
fight, and certainly threw as many punches. Weinberg, for example, describes the 1859 disturbance as
"anti-Jewish activity," but states that both "Jewish and gentile youths engaged in bloody brawls."
[C19]
Robert
Weinberg, 'Visualizing Pogroms in Russian History,'
Jewish History
, Vol.12 (1998), 71-92, p.74
This is an obvious contradiction in terms.
It is only in 1871, during a
particularly severe bout of disturbances, that we see the first Russian involvement in Odessa's inter-ethnic
violence. The late John Doyle Klier, formerly Professor of Hebrew and Jewish Studies at Oxford University,
informs us categorically that Russian involvement in the 1871 Odessa ethnic conflict had its roots in real,
tangible economic grievances. Klier states that Russian participation was the result of "bitterness born of
the exploitation of their work by Jews and the ability of the latter to enrich themselves and manipulate all
manner of trade and commercial activity."
[C20]
John
Klier,
Pogroms: Anti-Jewish Violence in Modern Russian History
, (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2004) p.21
Similarly, Weinberg concedes that by 1871, there were "many others besides
Greeks who perceived Jews as an economic threat."
[C21]
Robert
Weinberg, 'Visualizing Pogroms in Russian History,'
Jewish History
, Vol.12 (1998), 71-92, p.75.
The roots of the 1871 disturbance are
quite tangible, and there is a tremendous amount of evidence suggesting it was the result of real
socio-economic grievances, rather than "images," "stereotypes," or any of the other usual suspects wheeled
out in Jewish historiography. Brian Horowitz, Chair of Jewish Studies at Tulane University argues that by
1870 Jewish economic and social cohesiveness had been further enhanced in Odessa by founding of a branch of
the Society for the Promotion of Enlightenment, an organization dedicated to in-group philanthropy as well
as "alternative politics" whereby members "did not contact the government as an intercessor."
[C22]
Brian
Horowitz,
How Jewish was Odessa
? : http://www.wilsoncenter.net/sites/default/files/OP3...age=17
In this respect, it was the
kahal
-lite, and it had a significant positive impact on the wealth of
Odessa Jewry. Klier states that under this organisation, the Jewish grip on the economic life of the city
grew stronger, and that Russian government reports from 1871 attribute the disturbance above all to the fact
that "the economic domination of the Jews in the area produced abnormal relations between Christians and
Jews."
[C23]
John
Klier,
Pogroms: Anti-Jewish Violence in Modern Russian History
, (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2004) p.22
By 1871, Jewish economic domination had moved beyond grain exports. A US
consular report from that year reveals the extent of Jewish control over Odessa's economic life. It reports
that Jews in the city "occupy themselves with trade and favoring their own class or sect, that is that their
combinations, in a great many instances, amount almost to monopolies. The common remark, therefore, is that
'everything is in the hands of the Jews.' To sell or buy a house, a horse, a carriage, to rent a lodging or
contract for a loan, to engage a governess, and sometimes even to marry a wife the Jew gets his percent as a
"go between." The poor laborer, the hungry soldier, the land proprietor, the money capitalist, and in fact
every producer and every consumer is obliged in one way or another to pay tribute to the Jew."
[C24]
Evridiki
Sifneos, 'The Dark Side of the Moon: Rivalry and Riots for Shelter and Occupation Between the Greek and
Jewish Populations in multi-ethnic Nineteenth Century Odessa,'
The Historical Review
, Vol.3 (2006),
p.198
[C14]
Evridiki Sifneos, 'The Dark Side of the Moon: Rivalry and Riots for Shelter and Occupation Between
the Greek and Jewish Populations in multi-ethnic Nineteenth Century Odessa,'
The Historical Review
,
Vol.3 (2006), p.191
[C23]
John Klier,
Pogroms: Anti-Jewish Violence in Modern Russian History
, (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2004) p.22
[C24]
Evridiki Sifneos, 'The Dark Side of the Moon: Rivalry and Riots for Shelter and Occupation Between
the Greek and Jewish Populations in multi-ethnic Nineteenth Century Odessa,'
The Historical Review
,
Vol.3 (2006), p.198
[C25]
Evridiki Sifneos, 'The Dark Side of the Moon: Rivalry and Riots for Shelter and Occupation Between
the Greek and Jewish Populations in multi-ethnic Nineteenth Century Odessa,'
The Historical Review
,
Vol.3 (2006), p.193
Another attack on the jewish people by a white christian right liar thinly disguised as a historical
account.if it is not the palestinian cause then it is some other propaganda fantasy.
The truth is that these articles are an attempt to discredit judaism solely for the purposes of promoting a
modern crusade on behalf of chritianity.This is not about supporting the Palestinian cause or the arab
people who have been attacked in endless wars these past decade.
This is about christian right wing fundamentalists hoping to capture jerusalem.
I hope that there are those ordinary Christian who see through this charade of evil that speaks in there
name
It's an excellent book, which you'll only find online to read, since no publisher in the West has had the
audacity to print these truths so finely elaborated by Solzhenitsyn. You'll see that Russian Jews took
advantage of their nation, refusing to pay taxes or let their sons be drafted. Their main contribution to
Russia was money lending using usury and operating bars and stills.
As money lenders, they were ruthless, demanding full payment from farmers, even during bad crop seasons.
Add in the booze factor, and sooner or later, the local Russians would rise up and toss out the bankers,
sometimes rather violently.
Three different Czars that tried to right this malady wound up being assassinated, by whom you can
already guess. Naturally, even though its accurately documented, it's been branded as being anti-Semitic, as
many truths are.
Russians have always hated Jews, and for numerous good reasons.
The fact that Jews greatly exaggerated the
conflicts with Russian peasants is obvious for a whole host of reasons.
When the Bolshevik Jews overthrew the government and killed the Czar and Royal Family, the Russian people
were left helpless against the black leather coat wearing, pistol carrying, Russian peasant and Christianity
hating Jew Chekist.
Tens of Millions of Russian Christians were killed.
Pogroms? Hardly worth noting.
The situation is very much akin to Palestine.
Jews kill on the order of 100:1, but the propaganda would make you think otherwise.
"Little or no historiography has been dedicated to peeling back the layers of "refugee" stories to uncover
what really happened in the Russian Empire in the years before and during the riots."
Alexander
Solzhenitsyn did an exhaustive, balanced and masterful analysis of these years in his book "200 Years
Together".
For example, University of British Columbia Professor, Donald G. Dutton has asserted that the mobs
were not motivated by "the sudden rapid increase of the Jewish urban population, the extraordinary
economic success of Russian Jews, or the involvement of Jews in Russian revolutionary politics" but
rather by the "blood libel."
The author makes it sound like all over the Pale Russian peasants got upset because Jews were being
falsely libeled. The reality here is that Rabbi's were getting powerful and sloppy. They were getting caught
draining the blood from Christian boys and performing other satanic rituals, just as they have everywhere
else they have been allowed to form their colonies.
Violence erupted in 1821 when, during the Greek War of Independence, a group of Muslims and Jews
murdered and then mutilated Gregory V
Jews and Muslims working hand in hand to murder and mutilate Christians. Gods Chosen People and the
people of Gods Religion of Peace expose their true genocidal nature century after century after century.
It's hard for me to dig up so much as a shred of sympathy for muh pogroms when you compare it to the gentile
body count of genocidal jews from the Cheka all the way up to the modern IDF.
Cry me a river Shlomo.
"So harrible!!! Six million tears I swea-ahh!"
The poor laborer, the hungry soldier, the land proprietor, the money capitalist, and in fact every
producer and every consumer is
obliged
in one way or another to pay tribute to the Jew."
@mcohen
But Mr. Maga (aka Sunkist) has already handed over Jerusalem–and the Golan Heights, and, effectively the
West Bank–to the Jews. Yahweh works in mysterious ways, mon ami.
There was a grand total of about a couple of thousand deaths during all the late Imperial era pogroms, which
occurred precisely when state authority disappeared, as in 1905.
For comparison, that's about a week's worth of work for the (40% Jewish) NKVD in 1937-38.
"On the eve of the assassination of Alexander II, Russia's Jewish Question remained unanswered. Decades of
legislation had done little to change the nature of Russian Jewry, which remained ethnically, politically,
and culturally homogenous."
And that culture was expressed in Yiddish, in German. Russian-ruled Jews
remained linguistically Germanic by choice.
Epstein issue and his connection to Clinton mafia was raised by press in 2016 but went nowhere.
The fact that Trump campaign targeted Clinton for his connection with Epstein means that Trump is probably was not involved as a client of
Epstein brothel with underage prostitutes for high ranking politicians .
Notable quotes:
"... Now Bill Clinton is back in the press and not for his controversial relationship with Monica Lewinsky, but rather his friendship with Epstein. In fact, flight records indicate that Bill would frequent the island paradise during the 2002 and 2005 era while Hillary, Bill's wife, was a Senator in New York. ..."
"... The woman went on to say how orgies were a regular occurrence and that she recalled two young girls from New York who were always seen around the five-house compound but their personal back-stories were never revealed. ..."
"... Moreover, Epstein was invited to Chelsea Clinton's wedding in 2010 amongst 400 other guests, demonstrating his close friendship with the Clinton family. ..."
"... To top it all off blue blood, "Prince Andrew was allegedly one of the house's visitors. On Friday, the Duke of York was named in a federal lawsuit filed against Epstein, whom the FBI once reportedly linked to 40 young women. Filed in 2008 in the Southern District of Florida, the $50 million lawsuit claimed Epstein had a "sexual preference and obsession for underage minor girls gained access to primarily economically disadvantaged minor girls in his home and sexually assaulted these girls,"reported the Washington Post. ..."
Back in 2005 police conducted an 11 month-long undercover investigation into Epstein and his estate after the mother of a 14-year-old
girl went to police after suspecting her daughter was paid $300 for at least one sexual act on the island in which she was ordered
to strip, leaving on just her panties, while giving Epstein a massage.
Although police found tons of photos of young women on the island and even interviewed eyewitnesses, Epstein was hit with a mere
slap on the wrist after "pleading to a single charge of prostitution". Epstein later served 13-months of his 18-month service in
jail.
In 2008, Epstein was hit again, this time with a $50 million civil suit after another victim filed in federal court claiming that
she was "recruited" by Epstein to give him a "massage" but was essentially forced into having sexual intercourse with him for $200
which was payable upon completion. The women were coming out of the woodwork.
Now Bill Clinton is back in the press and not for his controversial relationship with Monica Lewinsky, but rather his friendship
with Epstein. In fact, flight records indicate that Bill would frequent the island paradise during the 2002 and 2005 era while Hillary,
Bill's wife, was a Senator in New York.
'I remember asking Jeffrey what's Bill Clinton doing here kind of thing, and he laughed it off and said well he owes me a favor,'
one unidentified woman said in the lawsuit, which was filed in Palm Beach Circuit Court.
The woman went on to say how orgies were a regular occurrence and that she recalled two young girls from New York who were
always seen around the five-house compound but their personal back-stories were never revealed.
"At least one woman on the compound was there unwillingly," reported the Daily Mail in a recent article. The woman was allegedly
forced to have sex with "politicians, businessmen, royalty, academicians" at the retreat. Just one of "more than 40 women" that have
come forth with claims against Epstein, showing the vast scale of the man's dark operations, which aren't limited only to Little
St. James.
Moreover, Epstein was invited to Chelsea Clinton's wedding in 2010 amongst 400 other guests, demonstrating his close friendship
with the Clinton family.
To top it all off blue blood, "Prince Andrew was allegedly one of the house's visitors. On Friday, the Duke of York was named
in a federal lawsuit filed against Epstein, whom the FBI once reportedly linked to 40 young women. Filed in 2008 in the Southern
District of Florida, the $50 million lawsuit claimed Epstein had a "sexual preference and obsession for underage minor girls gained
access to primarily economically disadvantaged minor girls in his home and sexually assaulted these girls,"reported the Washington
Post.
"... A court filing in a civil case in Florida last week included new allegations against Jeffrey E. Epstein, a businessman who pleaded guilty to soliciting prostitution, and two other high-profile men: a member of the British Royal family and an American lawyer. ..."
"... About the royal: Some of you may argue that if there was an encounter, the Prince may have been unaware of the girl's age. He has people . People who make arrangements for him. One can see how such a fellow might hear the same knock on the door that Neil Bush once heard. Perhaps, upon opening the door, his first reaction was something other than "May I see your ID, Miss?" ..."
"... On Saturday, Mr. Dershowitz said he "categorically and unequivocally" denied all of the allegations. He said he would file disbarment proceedings against the lawyers who filed the motion, Bradley J. Edwards, a lawyer in Florida, and Paul G. Cassell, a former federal judge and a law professor at the University of Utah. ..."
"... The full court filing was published on Mondoweiss a couple of days ago. We learn that the complainant, Jane Doe #3, was 15 years of age, and that she was recruited by an Epstein associate named Ghislaine Maxwell, daughter of Robert Maxwell (the late news tycoon and known Mossad asset). The photo to the left shows the Prince with the girl who seems to have been Jane Doe #3. ..."
Underaged sex with Alan Dershowitz and Prince Andrew...and Bill Clinton...? (If the claims are true, Hillary is OVER.)
Wow.
A court filing in a civil case in Florida last week included new allegations against Jeffrey E. Epstein, a businessman
who pleaded guilty to soliciting prostitution, and two other high-profile men: a member of the British Royal family and an American
lawyer.
The motion filed in United States District Court in the Southern District of Florida alleges that Mr. Epstein forced a teenage
girl to have sexual relations with several men, including Prince Andrew, Queen Elizabeth's second son, and Alan M. Dershowitz,
a professor emeritus at Harvard Law School. Both men have denied the allegations.
Jeffrey Epstein is not just a businessman. He's a billionaire, and he has already been convicted of soliciting underaged prostitution.
About the royal: Some of you may argue that if there was an encounter, the Prince may have been unaware of the girl's age.
He has people . People who make arrangements for him. One can see how such a fellow might hear the same knock on the door
that Neil Bush once heard. Perhaps, upon opening the door, his first reaction was something other than "May I see your ID, Miss?"
That scenario seems plausible. However, as we shall see, that scenario is not what has been alleged.
We will get to the Prince in a bit. For now, let's focus on Dershowitz.
On Saturday, Mr. Dershowitz said he "categorically and unequivocally" denied all of the allegations. He said he would file
disbarment proceedings against the lawyers who filed the motion, Bradley J. Edwards, a lawyer in Florida, and Paul G. Cassell,
a former federal judge and a law professor at the University of Utah.
"They are lying deliberately, and I will not stop until they're disbarred," Mr. Dershowitz said in a phone interview.
The very predictability of that furious reaction means that no lawyer would have filed such charges against Dershowitz frivolously.
Cassell has an impressive resume. He's not a young go-getter out to make a name for himself.
I understand that there are a lot of women who have made iffy claims against famous people. But this case seems different. Epstein
has already pled guilty. Moreover, Dershowitz was part of Epstein's legal team.
The full court filing was published on
Mondoweiss a couple of days ago. We learn
that the complainant, Jane Doe #3, was 15 years of age, and that she was recruited by an Epstein associate named Ghislaine Maxwell,
daughter of Robert Maxwell (the late news tycoon and known Mossad asset). The photo to the left shows the Prince with the girl who
seems to have been Jane Doe #3. Allegedly, the shot was taken by Epstein. (Note: In what follows, the term NPA refers
to non-prosecution agreement .)
Epstein then became enamored with Jane Doe #3, and with the assistance of Maxwell converted her into what is commonly referred
to as a "sex slave." Epstein kept Jane Doe #3 as his sex slave from about 1999 through 2002, when she managed to escape to a foreign
country and hide out from Epstein and his co-conspirators for years. From 1999 and 2002, Epstein frequently sexually abused Jane
Doe #3, not only in West Palm Beach but also in New York, New Mexico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, in international airspace on Epstein's
private planes, and elsewhere.
Epstein also sexually trafficked the then-minor Jane Doe, making her available for sex to politically-connected and financially-powerful
people. Epstein's purposes in "lending" Jane Doe (along with other young girls) to such powerful people were to ingratiate himself
with them for business, personal, political and financial gain, as well as to obtain potential blackmail information.
One such powerful individual that Epstein forced then-minor Jane Doe #3 to have sexual relations with was former Harvard Law
Professor Alan Dershowitz, a close friend of Epstein's and well-known defense attorney. Epstein required Jane Doe #3 to have sexual
relations with Dershowiz on numerous occasions while she was a minor, not only in Flroida but also on private planes, in New York,
New Mexico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. In addition to being a participant in the abuse of Jane Doe #3 and other minors, Dershowitz
was an eye-witness to the sexual abuse of many other minors by Epstein and several of Epstein's co-conspirators. Dershowitz would
later play a significant role in negotiating the NPA on Esptein's behalf. Indeed, Dershowitz helped negotiate an agreement that
provided immunity from federal prosecution in the Southern District of Florida not only to Epstein, but also to "any potential
co-conspirators of Epstein." NPA at 5. Thus, Dershowitz helped negotiate an agreement with a provision that provided protection
for himself against criminal prosecution in Florida for sexually abusing Jane Doe #3. Because this broad immunity would have been
controversial if disclosed, Dershowitz (along with other memebers of Epstein's defense team) and the Government tried to keep
the immunity provision secret from all of Epstein's victims and the general public, even though such secrecy violated the Crime
Victims' Rights Act.
There's a third named participant in these doings, one Jean Luc Brunel, a close Epstein friend and a scout for various modelling
agencies.
He would bring young girls (ranging from ages as young as twelve) to the United States for sexual purposes and farm them out to
his friends, especially Epstein. Brunel would offer the girls "modeling" jobs. Many of the girls came from poor countries or impoverished
backgrounds, and he lured them in with a promise of making good money.
The Government was well aware of Jane Doe #3 when it was negotiating the NPA, as it listed her as a victim in the attachment to
the NPA. Moreover, even a rudimentary investigation of Jane Doe #3's relationship with Epstein would have revealed the fact that
she had been trafficked throughout the United States and internationally for sexual purposes. Nonetheless, the Government secretly
negotiated a non-prosecution agreement with Epstein precluding any Federal prosecution in the Southern District of Florida of
Epstein and his co-conspirators. As with Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2, the Government concealed the non-prosecution agreement from
Jane Doe #3 -- all in violation of her rights under the CVRA -- to avoid Jane Doe #3 from raising powerful objections to the NPA
that would have shed tremendous light on Epstein and other powerful individuals that would likely have prevented it from being
conlcuded in the secretive manner in which it was.
The document also mentions a Jane Doe #4, an impoverished sixteen year old who was told that she could make $300 by giving a "massage"
to an old man in Palm Beach.
This matter seems very serious. We have too many details, too many corroborating witnesses (in the form of four Jane Does). We
have a photo. We have reports of the existence of many, many more photos. The hugger-mugger involving the NPA seems downright ghastly
-- yet all too credible.
Frankly, I would not rule out the possibility that Epstein was working for an intelligence agency -- either Mossad or one of our
own. The Maxwell connection points to Mossad.
This whole business has "honeytrap" written all over it.
The Clinton connection.
The
Daily Mail discloses that one of Epstein's, er, protegees was a woman named Johanna Sjoberg. Since the story links her to Prince
Andrew, it is tempting suppose that she is the aforementioned Jane Doe #3. However, British newspapers have named another young woman,
Virginia Roberts.
Miss Sjoberg worked for Epstein for four years, often massaging him as he lay on a couch in his giant bathroom making phone calls
to friends such as Bill Clinton and Cate Blanchett.
He kept a little black book, containing the numbers of all his masseuses by a phone in the bathroom, she said. She left after
he started becoming 'more aggressive' in his demands that she 'do sexual things to him'.
She said she was aware that the girls recruited by Epstein and his acolytes were not paid just for massages but for 'sexual
favours'.
Virginia Roberts revealed that as a 17-year-old 'erotic masseuse', she was flown by Epstein to London to meet Prince Andrew,
Miss Sjoberg said: 'I'm not surprised he was sending girls abroad. I just did not think they were so young.'
The Prince strongly denies any claim of impropriety, of course.
What about Epstein and Clinton? Obviously, there is nothing wrong in taking a man's phone call, even a call from someone like
Epstein. However...
Bill Clinton was also named dozens of times in lawsuits against Epstein and was alleged to have flown on his private jet more
than 10 times.
Flight logs in lawsuits detailed that between 2002 and 2005 the former US President traveled around the world courtesy of his
friend and stopped at Epstein's Caribbean island Little St James where young girls were supposedly kept as sex slaves.
Clinton was deemed to be so close to Epstein that he was nearly deposed during the investigation into his paedophilia.
Before he was jailed Epstein's other acquaintances are said to have been former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak; former New
Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson; and former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers.
Let's make the obvious point. If there is any evidence of wrongdoing against Bill Clinton, then Hillary's chances at the nomination
are over . A candidacy can withstand many things, but a statutory rape scandal involving one's spouse? No.
Over the years, the casually-dressed, globe-trotting financier, who was said to log more than 600 flying hours a year, has been
linked with Bill Clinton, Kevin Spacey, Chris Tucker and Manhattan-London society figure Ghislaine Maxwell, daughter of the late
media titan Robert Maxwell.
Epstein reportedly flew Tucker and Spacey to Africa on his private jet as part of a charitable endeavour. Clinton, meanwhile,
flew on multiple occasions in the same plane to Epstein's private Caribbean island, Little St James, between 2002 and 2005 as
he developed his philanthropic post-presidential career. It would later be alleged in court that Epstein organised orgies on that
same private island in the US Virgin Islands.
Reports in the US media say many of the A-list names broke off any links with the former maths teacher after his arrest and conviction
in 2008 of having sex with an underage girl whom he had solicited. His arrest followed an 11-month undercover investigation at
a mansion in Florida's Palm Beach that Epstein owned.
In 2008, he pleaded guilty to a single charge of soliciting prostitution and was handed a 18-month jail sentence. He served
13 months in jail and was obliged to register as a sex offender. A 2011 report in the New York Post said that he celebrated his
release from jail and his return to a property he maintains in New York – a 45,000-sq-foot eight-storey mansion on East 71st Street
– with Prince Andrew.
The story goes on to give much useful information about Epstein's business dealings.
The financier, who was jailed for 18 months in 2008 after pleading guilty to solicitation for prostitution, kept a sickening stash
of images on a computer seized at his Palm Beach mansion in 2006.
The six-year-old papers, seen by the Sunday People, state: "Some of the photographs in the defendant's possession were taken
with hidden cameras set up in [Epstein's] home in Palm Beach.
"On the Day of his arrest, police found two hidden cameras and photographs of underage girls on a computer in the defendant's
home.
"[He] may have taken lewd photographs of Jane Doe 102 with his hidden cameras and transported [them] to his other residences
and elsewhere."
Court papers also allege that Maxwell presented nude pictures of her she had taken herself to Epstein as a birthday present.
They add that Roberts' claims that she was forced to tell Epstein all about her sexual encounters so he could use the information
to "blackmail" the royal.
She further claims she was sex-trafficked to "many other powerful men, including numerous prominent American politicians, powerful
business executives, foreign presidents, a well known Prime Minister, and other world leaders".
And now let's play our game: Who was that Prime Minister?
To- neeeeee...! If that's you, you're gonna have to say so many rosaries that even the Virgin Mary will get sick of hearing
your voice.
This scandal places our right-wing media in a bind. Obviously, the right-wingers will want to leap on anything that dirties the
Clinton name. On the other hand, anything that reeks of Mossad involvement is untouchable.
Trump attacked Hillary during 2016 elections campaign using change of Bill connection with Epstein. This was too dangerous move
if he himself was implicated.
Notable quotes:
"... Why would intelligence services want to make an intelligence op out of someone so sleasy and easily compromised? ..."
"... The wealthy class has defeated the poor class. What we are seeing now is a civil war in the wealthy class. The Epstein business is just one of the skirmishes in that civil war. ..."
"... Trump is fighting for his life and money. Lose the next election and spend the rest of both fighting imprisonment. What makes me think its time to remind people that the office of POTUS has teeth? ..."
"... "I was told Epstein 'belonged to intelligence' and to leave it alone," ..."
"... does not say he "worked for intelligence". It might just mean that "intelligence" made the deal with him in return for information and that they then estimated the fall out and cleaned up (ie took people that could be blackmailed out of sensitive positions). ..."
"... But as to the "why now" of Epstein, surely it is 2020. As for Barr being a CIA kid, that does give some pause, except he is working for Trump, and so presumably he is playing his part in the 2020 event. ..."
"... From what I have read and heard, Trump is not tainted by the Epstein story. The attempts of those on the left or whatever (I can't even call it the left anymore) to associate Trump with the Epstein story are very belabored. "Grabbing pussy" of adult women who cluster around is not the same as recruiting young girls and teenagers and running sex camps for grown-up boys such as Randy Andy, RAndy Bill, and other Randy boys. ..."
"... AFAIK Trump did not ride the Lolita Express. The rumors about raping a 13-year-old in Epstein's apartment will have to become more than rumor to harm Trump, no matter how much the left pushes an Epstein = Trump narrative. ..."
"... As they pushed the Weinstein = Trump narrative. I.e., whenever you see Weinstein's name, think "Trump." But I don't think that really worked except with the very ones who were pushing that equation in the first place. In other words, auto-suggestion. ..."
"... "...every good gamblers knows to hedge their bets. ..."
"... Defense Department computers are among the top distributors of child pornography. An untold number of Department of Defense (DOD) employees and contractors have subscriptions to child pornography websites, and the problem is apparently so pervasive it requires new technical solutions to address it. ..."
"... "Hundreds of DoD-affiliated individuals" were recently identified as suspects in child pornography cases, according to an investigation by the Defense Criminal Investigative Service. ..."
"... Last year, an investigation by the National Criminal Justice Training Program found DOD computers were among the top networks nationwide for peer-to-peer sharing of pornographic images of minors. DOD's network ranked 19th out of 2,891 computer networks studied. ..."
"... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNue92Gta3s 2014 Aerial drone video of Little St. James. The island is owned privately by Jeffrey Epstein and is located southeast of St. Thomas, United States Virgin Islands. ..."
Interesting post in that it raises many of the key issues and how they may fit together.
Generally agrees with my initial (or maybe secondary) impression that this is result of Trump triggering backmail clause by
failing to act as required by those running the show.
But, I have I think a better theory more fits the situation. Acosta (the human "sh*t-grenade) was hired because he knew stuff
and knew people who knew stuff. Trump was being blackmailed with Epstein affair - dems/cia/etc... It almost work, he almost attacked
Iran, was led to believe it could be done in a way that would not lead to war - likely by you-know-who.
He balked and called their "bluff". They were not bluffing. Problem for them is that Trump can maybe weather the sh*t-storm
they can bring - comey/brennan/clapper/et al... For now, I am inclined to side with Trump.
I don't know why but in spite of his lack of polish, he's brought some crude and interesting results.
Epstein was just a young "dirty old man". Trump is innocent - can anybody point to any incident where Trump committed a real felony,
not some breach of landlord regulations, For all the accusations of him being the capo di tutti capi, nothing has really stuck,
so he gives the impression of being a criminal but really isn't but it's good theatre. So my guess is that Trump told Barr to
go to it and bring Epstein in and bang him up for life. Reasons:
Trump was getting bored with Acosta
Epstein may drag down others - the Clintons being prime candiadates
This is a poke in the eye for Obama
Trump looks good when Epstein does the time he deserves
Meanwhile the anti-#resistance investigations role on and implicate Hillary for making false statements and Obama for trying
to fix the 2016 election.
Trump'll romp home in 2020. If Adelson, etc. tries to push another Republican candidate, Trump'll run as an independent and probably
still win. Trump now has his main "problems" by the balls.
'Appalled' does not suffice any longer. All this shit is more than a mentally healthy Human Being can bear - and in that fact
lies also a motive to bombard the population 24/7 with shit like that. Therefore it appears that this, too is part of an orchestrated
effort to rile up people against each other and destroy whatever peace still exists.
You could call it 'distraction' from insurmountable problems created by this specific sub-species of Homo Sapiens. But I am
not commenting about that.
I am as pissed as a decent person can get without losing its temper. But I am utterly disgusted that this childfucker Epstein
has soiled the name of one of my favorite Human Beings in history:
Brian Epstein - the one person that gave Humanity The Beatles.
I can not emphasize enough how effed up this is. There must be a court order to rename him into Jeffrey Childfucker, in order
to protect the name of one of the greatest music managers ever.
But I do concede to the fact, that this kind of damage might as well limited to people who know who The Beatles were.
The wealthy class has defeated the poor class. What we are seeing now is a civil war in the wealthy class. The Epstein business
is just one of the skirmishes in that civil war.
Today's CJR media feed focuses on Acosta and the 2007 plea deal without mentioning either Bush or Obama. Focus is still on Trump.
Of course Acosta is now a member of the Trump administration. But Trump was not in charge with this particular POS went down.
Trump is fighting for his life and money. Lose the next election and spend the rest of both fighting imprisonment. What makes
me think its time to remind people that the office of POTUS has teeth?
"I was told Epstein 'belonged to intelligence' and to leave it alone,"
does not say he "worked for intelligence". It might just mean that "intelligence" made the deal with him in return for
information and that they then estimated the fall out and cleaned up (ie took people that could be blackmailed out of sensitive
positions).
They don't care about the fall out any longer, so this now is allowed to blow up.
"The left is going wild thinking that this will "get Trump" but quite the opposite is happening. . .
Now this story will run into 2020 largely damaging democrats into the 2020 election. Trump's DOJ is running the operation."
That is my perception, although I am not a qualified observer.
But as to the "why now" of Epstein, surely it is 2020. As for Barr being a CIA kid, that does give some pause, except he
is working for Trump, and so presumably he is playing his part in the 2020 event.
From what I have read and heard, Trump is not tainted by the Epstein story. The attempts of those on the left or whatever
(I can't even call it the left anymore) to associate Trump with the Epstein story are very belabored. "Grabbing pussy" of adult
women who cluster around is not the same as recruiting young girls and teenagers and running sex camps for grown-up boys such
as Randy Andy, RAndy Bill, and other Randy boys.
To me the big question is why Dersh was part of the FOIA action to unseal the docs. If just appearing in a photo with Epstein
is enough for "the left" to try to hang Trump, the Dersh is in a lot more image trouble, with him name on the plane manifest.
Is Trump's name on the plane log? I don't think so. So, imagewise Dersh is going to take a big hit. And, by defending Trump
last summer as he did, he has now associated himself with both Trump and Epstein. Trump comes out clean. Dersh comes out Derty.
PS. Why is so much blacked out on the plane logs that have been published?
the Macow sounds "about right" to me, but only "about." I can very well imagine that Dersh is taking orders from the JSP, but
if he rode the Lolita Expres, he is in trouble.
AFAIK Trump did not ride the Lolita Express. The rumors about raping a 13-year-old in Epstein's apartment will have to
become more than rumor to harm Trump, no matter how much the left pushes an Epstein = Trump narrative.
As they pushed the Weinstein = Trump narrative. I.e., whenever you see Weinstein's name, think "Trump." But I don't think
that really worked except with the very ones who were pushing that equation in the first place. In other words, auto-suggestion.
O @110 sez: "...every good gamblers knows to hedge their bets.
You bet equally on both wrestlers in the ring? You don't make much profit that way. Much better to arrange who wins ahead of
time with the competitors and the referee and then just bet on the one everyone agrees to make the winner.
Sure, Trump was in on the fix, so even if he won the power elites still win, but that is true for all of the other contestants
in the primaries as well, with the possible exception of Sanders. The problem is that the power elites have very specific plans,
and those plans depended upon their tool in the White House being Clinton, not Trump. It isn't that Trump would be their enemy
or anything silly like that, but rather that a Trump victory would not resonate; would not synergize with the megatrends they
were manufacturing within the population.
On the contrary, the Trump victory introduced a societal forcing function that is 180° out of sync with the larger narrative
the power elites were trying to create. Trump was chosen to be the loser in the 2016 elections because his defeat would have had
the opposite effect, damping trends in society that the power elites wanted quashed and reinforcing the ones that they wanted
amplified. Hundreds of $billions in entertainment-base narrative generation that have been fed to the public since 2016, and had
been in the production pipeline from years prior, were supposed to be reflected in the real world by the victory of the first
woman president. Instead that media is being fed to the public while the top office in the world is occupied by an unrepentant
pussy grabber. The messaging is diametrically opposed and interferes with itself rather than reinforcing itself.
Sure, Trump is still the tool of the power elites, but he is not the tool they were planning on.
"I am trying to link Wexner with the Bronfman's (Seagrams Liquor Family) via a source other than the Mega Group (which may
not be credible, IDK)."
The existence of the Mega Group was revealed in the Wall Street Journal in 1998 under the headline 'Titans of Industry Join
Forces To Work for Jewish Philanthropy'. According to the Journal , it was founded in 1991 by Wexler and Charles Bronfman.
Membership included Edgar Bronfman, the chairman of the World Jewish Congress, Charles Bronfman, Edgar's brother and a top
executive of the family's flagship Seagrams Corp.; Leslie Wexler of Limited, Inc.; Charles Schusterman, chairman of Samson Investment
Co. of Tulsa, Oklahoma; Harvey "Bud" Meyerhoff, Baltimore real estate magnate; Laurence Tisch, chairman of Loews Corp.; Max Fisher,
the Detroit oil magnate and Republican Party powerhouse; bagel magnate Max Lender; Leonard Abramson, the founder of U.S. Healthcare;
and hedge-fund manager Michael Steinhardt.
One of its so-called 'philanthropic' projects entitled "Wexner Analysis: Israeli Communication Priorities 2003," was leaked
to Electronic Intifada.
"...when they met in the Edgar Bronfman mansion in Manhattan. The head of the World Jewish Congress hosted a meeting of
the fifty richest and most powerful Jews of the US and Canada. There was no press coverage, no limelight, just a few lines
in the newspapers. The gathered multibillionaires discussed the ways to achieve Jewish unity, and strengthen the Jewish identity
of American Jews, tersely reported Shlomo Shamir for Haaretz. They also agreed to launch a PR program under the Orwellian codename
of 'Truth' with the purpose of influencing American public opinion regarding Israeli policies.
The megabucks call themselves 'Mega group'. This name appeared in the media a couple of years ago, as a name for the secret
Israeli mole in the upper reaches of the US establishment. It came up in an overheard phone conversation, later denied by the
Israeli embassy in Washington, DC. The newshounds and spook watchers got it wrong. 'Mega' was not an agent, Mega was the boss."
Defense Department Computer Network Among Top Sharers of Child Pornography
Defense Department computers are among the top distributors of child pornography. An untold number of Department of Defense
(DOD) employees and contractors have subscriptions to child pornography websites, and the problem is apparently so pervasive it
requires new technical solutions to address it.
"Hundreds of DoD-affiliated individuals" were recently identified as suspects in child pornography cases, according to
an investigation by the Defense Criminal Investigative Service.
So far, authorities have only looked into about 20 percent of these cases. But already, they've found "several" individuals
"using their government devices to download or share said pornographic material."
Last year, an investigation by the National Criminal Justice Training Program found DOD computers were among the top networks
nationwide for peer-to-peer sharing of pornographic images of minors. DOD's network ranked 19th out of 2,891 computer networks
studied.
To prevent such widespread abuse going forward, the "End National Defense Network Abuse Act" would "crack down on this activity
by upgrading the training and technical capacity of military criminal investigative organizations to confront the misuse of DoD
computers, facilities, and equipment," according to a press release. It would also arrange for DOD authorities to work more closely
with civilian law enforcement on these cases.
"The notion that the Department of Defense's network and Pentagon-issued computers may be used to view, create, or circulate
such horrifying images is a shameful disgrace, and one we must fight head on," said Rep. Abigail Spanberger (D -- Va.), who co-sponsored
the bill with Rep. Mark Meadows (R -- N.C.).
A companion bill in the senate has been introduced by Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R -- Alaska) and Brian Schatz (D -- Hawaii).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNue92Gta3s
2014 Aerial drone video of Little St. James. The island is owned privately by Jeffrey Epstein and is located southeast of St.
Thomas, United States Virgin Islands.
"... If you haven't heard of him, Epstein's the super-sleazy Palm Beach billionaire who was busted some time back and convicted for conspiring to bring underage foreign girls to his estates in the United States and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Or as his 2008 plea deal put it, to "knowingly and willfully conspiring with others known and unknown to persuade, induce, or entice minor females to engage in prostitution." ..."
"... I've previously written about Epstein's ties to Bill Clinton and to Donald Trump . Neither Clinton nor Trump look come out of it looking good, to put it mildly, but in this case Clinton looks a lot worse. ..."
"... "Flight logs show Bill Clinton traveled at least 10 times on Epstein's private jet, dubbed the 'Lolita Express,' by tabloids, and he is widely reported to have visited Little St. James, Epstein's private island in the US Virgin Islands," I've previously written. "That's where, according to attorneys for Epstein's victims, many of the worst crimes against minors were committed by Epstein and friends who traveled there with him." ..."
"... In a 2011 interview with her attorneys, Virginia Roberts, one of the teenagers preyed upon by Epstein, said he had told her he had "compromising" information on Bill Clinton and that the former president "owes me a favor." ..."
"... Oh yeah, and by the way Epstein donated to the Clinton Foundation and multiple Democratic Party causes before and after being convicted for pedophilia. ..."
"... Federal and state investigators amassed a mountain of evidence against Epstein, but in the end Black and his other attorneys were able to draft and negotiate a bizarre plea deal. The terms of the agreement, which was secret at the time, capped damages against Epstein - reportedly worth about $2 billion - to between $50,000 and $150,000, depending on what year he had abused the girl, an attorney with direct knowledge of the case told me. ..."
"... So why write about Epstein now? First, as just noted, this creep got off easy. Second, Page Six recently spotted Epstein on the Upper East Side with young Russian "playmates." ..."
"... He said that Karin had two departments, one that was legal and sent girls to New York and elsewhere, and an illegal side that recruited underage girls for Epstein and other global clients. "They lured young girls [to Orgy Island], mostly from small towns in Brazil and Eastern Europe – with the promise of a fat modeling contract," this person said. "They told them they'd go to the island and meet the head of the modeling agency. Instead, they were coerced into pleasuring Epstein, Brunel and their guests." ..."
"... This source said Epstein's entire sex procurement operation was laid out to him by a former Karin bookkeeper, a Cuban-American woman who worked for the modeling agency's Miami office during the relevant period. ..."
Before heading out for the weekend, let's discuss Jeffrey Epstein, America's best connected political pedophile, shall we?
If you haven't heard of him, Epstein's the super-sleazy Palm Beach billionaire who was busted some time back and convicted for
conspiring to bring underage foreign girls to his estates in the United States and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Or as his 2008 plea deal
put it, to "knowingly and willfully conspiring with others known and unknown to persuade, induce, or entice minor females to engage
in prostitution."
I've previously written about Epstein's ties to
Bill Clinton and to
Donald Trump . Neither Clinton nor Trump look come out of it looking good, to put it mildly, but in this case Clinton looks a
lot worse.
"Flight logs show Bill Clinton traveled at least 10 times on Epstein's private jet, dubbed the 'Lolita Express,' by tabloids,
and he is widely reported to have visited Little St. James, Epstein's private island in the US Virgin Islands," I've previously written.
"That's where, according to attorneys for Epstein's victims, many of the worst crimes against minors were committed by Epstein and
friends who traveled there with him."
In a 2011 interview with her attorneys, Virginia Roberts, one of the teenagers preyed upon by Epstein, said he had told her he
had "compromising" information on Bill Clinton and that the former president "owes me a favor."
Oh yeah, and by the way Epstein donated to the Clinton Foundation and multiple Democratic Party causes before and after being
convicted for pedophilia.
Lately, however, the party has reportedly shunned Epstein. Indeed, he's so toxic,
recently released emails show , that Team Obama rejected the idea of having Epstein's chief attorney, Roy Black, host a fundraiser.
Black, by the way, is perhaps best known for winning an acquittal for William Kennedy Smith for allegedly raping a Palm Beach teenager.
Following that trial Black married a juror in the case.
Federal and state investigators amassed a mountain of evidence against Epstein, but in the end Black and his other attorneys were
able to draft and negotiate a bizarre plea deal. The terms of the agreement, which was secret at the time, capped damages against
Epstein - reportedly worth about $2 billion - to between $50,000 and $150,000, depending on what year he had abused the girl, an
attorney with direct knowledge of the case told me.
The agreement also barred victims from seeking any future financial redress. Roberts and a number of other "Jane Does" - Epstein's
underage victims- are currently suing to overturn the settlement. A number of attorneys with ties to the Obama administration were
involved in negotiating the deal, which was highly criticized and never publicly explained. (The astonishing story of the "sweetheart"
plea deal is laid out in
this article in the Palm Beach Daily News.)
Third, James Patterson, the best-selling writer, is
authoring a book about Epstein
that's coming out in October. It's a great time to pile on.
Fourth, I've been looking into the Epstein affair for over a year. I've interviewed dozens of sources in Florida, including several
of the Miami-area lawyers for the Jane Does, and have a lot of material in my files.
Interviews with key sources, documents and previously published accounts show that Epstein's closest friends and collaborators
included Ghislaine Maxwell, the daughter of disgraced British newspaper tycoon Robert Maxwell, and Frenchman Jean-Luc Brunel. The
latter ran a modeling agency called Karin, which is based in Paris but also has offices in New York, Miami, and Brazil.
Brunel, whose role in the Epstein case has been covered by Jezebel and others,
has a long and sordid record of abusing and pimping out young women. Back in 1988, 60 Minutes aired a segment that featured a dozen
models who said they had been sexually assaulted by Brunel.
Craig Pyes, an associate producer and chief investigator of the segment, said various witnesses told him that Brunel was "heavily
into cocaine and sex with young girls," and that he set-up parties for "his rich playboy friends" and invited girls to weekend parties
that "operated as meat markets for older men." Several models told 60 Minutes they had been drugged and raped by Brunel or his friends.
What's especially outrageous, attorneys tell me, is that neither Brunel nor Maxwell ever testified in Epstein's case. Both fled
the United States on the eve of their respective depositions with the flimsiest of excuses. (Page Six
recently reported
that Maxwell was finally going to be forced to testify in the ongoing Jane Doe trial, but I haven't been able to confirm that.)
Brunel lined up underage girls for Epstein's Virgin Islands hideaway through his modeling agency, several of the victims' attorneys
I interviewed said. A private investigator involved in the case backed those accounts.
He said that Karin had two departments, one that was legal and sent girls to New York and elsewhere, and an illegal side that
recruited underage girls for Epstein and other global clients. "They lured young girls [to Orgy Island], mostly from small towns
in Brazil and Eastern Europe – with the promise of a fat modeling contract," this person said. "They told them they'd go to the island
and meet the head of the modeling agency. Instead, they were coerced into pleasuring Epstein, Brunel and their guests."
This source said Epstein's entire sex procurement operation was laid out to him by a former Karin bookkeeper, a Cuban-American
woman who worked for the modeling agency's Miami office during the relevant period.
I've unsuccessfully tried to track this woman down. Anyone with information please email me at
[email protected].
I've reached out to Epstein, Brunel, Maxwell and Black on various occasions and never heard back from any of them.
Steve Pieczenik additional video on "Lolita express" HRottenC enabled/participated in pedophilia as well, more intel leaks to
come from US gov. insiders:
"... A blockbuster book detailing the exploits of the infamous billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein hits shelves on Monday. Sources close to the 63-year-old Brooklyn native have advised him to be "unreachable and out of the country" this weekend when the preliminary media blitz gets underway. ..."
"... Epstein is far deeper scum than a mere pedophile, while the Koch bros and Pence may have a truly fundamentalist moral streak. The period of time between now and the election could be very dangerous for Epstein. ..."
Lolita Express Monday - just another tequila sunrise:
A blockbuster book detailing the exploits of the infamous billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein hits shelves on Monday.
Sources close to the 63-year-old Brooklyn native have advised him to be "unreachable and out of the country" this weekend when
the preliminary media blitz gets underway.
"Filthy Rich," a collaborative effort between best-selling author James Patterson and investigator John Connolly, is set to
reopen old wounds for Epstein, who served 13 months in prison following a 2008 conviction for soliciting prostitution from a teenage
girl.
Epstein has reportedly settled numerous similar cases out of court. The blockbuster book is also expected to further embarrass
celebs who once partied with Epstein.
An absolutely remarkable aspect of this "news" article is that while it mentions Trump as a celebrity who partied with Epstein,
the name "Bill Clinton" is entirely missing. That's despite documentary proof that "Bill" took 21 flights on the Lolita Express.
Just another MSM advertorial for Hyena Rodent Clinton.
Hey Jim, I've got a comment in moderation that touches on this. Specific to Epstein, I'll say the Koch brothers are as close
to the White House as they will ever get, and that Epstein was adamant about getting evidence about the people he serviced.
Epstein is far deeper scum than a mere pedophile, while the Koch bros and Pence may have a truly fundamentalist moral streak.
The period of time between now and the election could be very dangerous for Epstein.
Now that the Politics of Personal Destruction are in full play, certain parties had better hope that Epstein's settlements,
compelling his victims to silence in exchange for hush money, hold up.
After all, if one of them has already spent all her settlement money, she's effectively judgment proof in case she tells her
story in violation of the settlement.
As ol' Saddam Hussein used to say, " Anything is possible now, my brothers. "
"... "I wanted to tell you that I have compiled a list of 34 confirmed minors," Villafana wrote to Lefkowitz. "There are six others, whose name [sic] we already have, who need to be interviewed by the FBI to confirm whether they were 17 or 18 at the time of their activity with Mr. Epstein." ..."
"... Epstein agreed to a 30-month sentence, including 18 months of jail time and 12 months of house arrest and the agreement to pay dozens of young girls under a federal statute providing for compensation to victims of child sexual abuse. .the U.S. Attorney's Office promised not to pursue any federal charges against Epstein or his Named and Un-Named co-conspirators. ..."
"... His legal team? Gerald Lefcourt, Roy Black, Ken Starr, and Alan Dershowitz. ..."
"... The federal non-prosecution agreement Epstein's legal team negotiated immunized all named and unnamed potential co-conspirators in Epstein's child trafficking network, which includes those who allegedly procured minors for Epstein and any powerbrokers who may have molested them." ..."
LOLITA EXPRESS...ORGY ISLAND...ELITE PEDOPHILE RING ?-2006
* George W Bush President: January 20, 2001 – Jan. 20, 2009
* Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General USA: Feb. 3, 2005–Sept. 17, 2007
* Michael Bernard Mukasey, AG. USA: Nov. 9, 2007 – Jan. 20, 2009
* Eric Holder, A G. USA: Feb. 3, 2009 – April 27, 2015
* Loretta Lynch, Attorney General USA: April 27, 2015 – Present
* Assistant U.S. Attorney Marie Villafana
* Epstein's Attorneys: Gerald Lefcourt, Roy Black, Ken Starr, Alan Dershowitz.
+ "He (Epstein) is an enthusiastic member of the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations."
+ Bill Clinton...26 trips aboard the "Lolita Express"
Jeffrey Epstein's Boeing 727 is equipped with the necessary hardware for him to wake up, roll out of bed, and start trading.
+ Clinton shared more than a dozen flights with a woman who federal prosecutors believe procured underage girls to sexually
service Epstein and his friends and acted as a "potential co-conspirator" in his crimes.
+ Socialite Ghislaine Maxwell and Epstein's former assistant Sarah Kellen -- have been repeatedly accused in court filings
of acting as pimps. Oxford-educated Maxwell, recently seen dining with Clinton at Nello's on Madison Avenue. Manhattan-London
G. Maxwell, daughter of the mysteriously deceased media titan Robert Maxwell.
+ A new lawsuit has revealed how Clinton took multiple trips to Epstein's private island where he 'kept young women as sex
slaves'
+ Clinton was also apparently friends with a woman who collected naked pictures of underage girls for Epstein to choose from
+ Clinton invited her (pimp) to Chelsea's wedding
+ According to former child sex slave Virginia Roberts and a class action lawsuit against convicted billionaire pedophile Jeffrey
Epstein, former President Bill Clinton was present during sex parties involving up to twenty underage girls at Epstein's secluded
island in the Caribbean.
+ 20 girls between the ages of 14 and 17 said were sexually abused by Epstein, Palm Beach Police and FBI
+ 35 female minors sexually abused, Epstein settled lawsuits from more than 30 "Jane Doe" victims since 2008; the youngest
alleged victim was 12 years old at the time of her abuse.
..............................Source: FBI & Federal Prosecutors
+ flights on Epstein's planes 1997 to 2005, include Dershowitz (FOX NEWS, Harvard Law), former Treasury Secretary and Harvard
president Larry Summers, Naomi Campbell, and scientist Stephen Pinker.
+ In the most recent court documents, filed on December 30, Roberts further claims she was sex-trafficked to "many other powerful
men, including numerous prominent American politicians, powerful business executives, foreign presidents, a well-known Prime Minister,
and other world leaders." Roberts said Epstein trafficked children to politicians, Wall Streeters and A- listers to curry favor,
advance his business, and for political influence.
The FIX
2015 Doc Release by Judge:
Assistant U.S. Attorney Marie Villafana wrote to Epstein lawyer Jay Lefkowitz in a Sept. 19, 2007, email. "I will include our
standard language regarding resolving all criminal liability and I will mention 'co-conspirators,' but I would prefer not to highlight
for the judge all of the other crimes and all of the other persons that we could charge ... maybe we can set a time to meet, if
you want to meet 'off campus' somewhere, that is fine. I will make sure that I have all the necessary decision makers present
or 'on call' as well."
"I wanted to tell you that I have compiled a list of 34 confirmed minors," Villafana wrote to Lefkowitz. "There are six
others, whose name [sic] we already have, who need to be interviewed by the FBI to confirm whether they were 17 or 18 at the time
of their activity with Mr. Epstein."
In a December 2007 letter, the prosecutor acknowledges some notifications of alleged victims but says they were sent after
the U.S. Attorney's Office signed the plea deal and halted for most of the women at the request of Epstein's lawyers.
"Three victims were notified shortly after the signing of the Non-Prosecution Agreement of the general terms of that Agreement,"
Villafana wrote, again to Lefkowitz. "You raised objections to any victim notification, and no further notifications were done."
On Sept. 24, 2007, in a deal shrouded in secrecy that left alleged victims shocked at its leniency,
Epstein agreed to a 30-month sentence, including 18 months of jail time and 12 months of house arrest and the agreement
to pay dozens of young girls under a federal statute providing for compensation to victims of child sexual abuse. .the U.S. Attorney's
Office promised not to pursue any federal charges against Epstein or his Named and Un-Named co-conspirators.
"In 2006 the FBI counted at least 40 underage girls who had been molested by Epstein. Authorities searched his Florida mansion
and found two computers containing child *********** and homemade video and photographs from cameras hidden in bedroom walls which
had been used to film sex acts. The case was airtight for many counts of sexual crimes but Palm Beach State Attorney Barry Krischer
and the Justice Department stepped in and offered Epstein a plea deal. In 2008 Epstein pleaded guilty in a Florida court to one
count of soliciting underage girls for sex. His punishment was 13 months of "8 hour nights only" at a halfway house. No other
charges about raping underage girls nor running an underage sex trafficking ring were mentioned in the plea. His legal team?
Gerald Lefcourt, Roy Black, Ken Starr, and Alan Dershowitz.
The federal non-prosecution agreement Epstein's legal team negotiated immunized all named and unnamed potential co-conspirators
in Epstein's child trafficking network, which includes those who allegedly procured minors for Epstein and any powerbrokers who
may have molested them."
Lately, Jeffrey Epstein's high-flying style has been drawing oohs and aahs: the bachelor financier lives in New York's largest
private residence, claims to take only billionaires as clients, and flies celebrities including Bill Clinton and Kevin Spacey
on his Boeing 727. But pierce his air of mystery and the picture changes. Vicky Ward explores Epstein's investment career, his
ties to retail magnate Leslie Wexner, and his complicated past.
Jeffrey Epstein: International Moneyman of Mystery
So how do termite grouping patterns fare as an investment strategy? Again, facts are hard to come by. A working day for Epstein
starts at 5 a.m., when he gets up and scours the world markets on his Bloomberg screen -- each of his houses, in New York, St.
Thomas, Palm Beach, and New Mexico, as well as the 727, is equipped with the necessary hardware for him to wake up, roll
"... The **** smell of all of this is simply overwhelming. He is not just a pedophile. He was and probably still is a Mossad agent whose purpose it was to entrap mainly US politicians and power bookers with the extremely compromising film evidence he was later found to be obtaining from the various elite junkets to his little island. ..."
Just posting this for posterity, as I've seen this information before:
"Bill Clinton was one of the most famous and frequent passengers on Epstein's "Lolita Express" and a guest on his private island.
When Roberts asked Epstein about Clinton's presence on the island, he simply laughed it off, and said, "Well, he owes me a favour."[37]
Epstein also donated money to the Clinton Foundation even after his conviction. In early 2015, a photo emerged showing Ghislaine
Maxwell at the wedding of Chelsea Clinton to Jewish investment banker Marc Mezvinsky in July 2010.
An annotated copy of the address book turned up in court proceedings after Epstein's former house manager Alfredo Rodriguez
tried to sell it in 2009. Rodriguez characterized it as containing the "Holy Grail" or "Golden Nugget" to unraveling Epstein's
child-sex network."[38] The book, which was eventually obtained by the FBI, listed well-known political figures such as Prince
Bandar of Saudi Arabia, Tony Blair, Senator Edward Kennedy, and Henry Kissinger, Ehud Barak, John Kerry, David Rockefeller and
even Donald Trump."
So...Kraft goes down, and there are supposedly even more "interesting" names on the list of those who were serviced by those
toothless asian whores. Could this be part of some unreal blackmail scheme against Trump?? Or is this **** TRUE, and we have a
pedophile in our highest office??
I don't know what the truth is any more. Maybe someone smarter than me can make sense of this ****. I sure can't.
The **** smell of all of this is simply overwhelming. He is not just a pedophile. He was and probably still is a Mossad
agent whose purpose it was to entrap mainly US politicians and power bookers with the extremely compromising film evidence he
was later found to be obtaining from the various elite junkets to his little island.
He and his Israeli handlers simply have too much on too many people for Epstein to really pay for any of his crimes, which
crimes many spy agencies around the world engage in frequently. However, what should really piss Americans off is that Epstein
was doing his dirt mainly against Americans for Israel, and Israel was supposed to be a trusted friend and ally of the US, working
in close concert with US spy agencies and forces in destroying nations like Iraq and Syria and pulling off false flag operations
like 9/11.
"... The children in some of these poor third-world 'orphanages' aren't really orphans as we understand the term but are just from poor families who can't take care of them. ..."
"... That a person with the stature of being a former president would hang around with a low-life like Epstein is really telling. He flew perhaps twenty-seven times on Epstein's plane which makes him more than just a passing acquaintance. Birds of a feather flock together. ..."
"... If a country next to us, so similar to ours in many ways but with a fraction of our population, has so many that can be exposed at one time then how many could the US have? ..."
"... The Burning Platform has featured a series of posts over the last few weeks that provide a volume of evidence that is impossible to discount. ..."
"... I have no doubt whatsoever that child sex abuse, trafficking and even sex-related murder may well be hung around the necks of very, very famous persons, and the horrors so bad that those persons (if still alive) will not even make it to trial before they're hung from a street lamp. ..."
"... What is clear is that the contention that there is "no evidence", a contention that is asserted or implied in seemingly every mainstream media discussion, is flatly false. There is a vast array of pertinent evidence, much of it circumstantial, but much of it also suggesting something of the mindset of some of the central figures. Anyone who denies this is utterly oblivious, or a liar, or a fool. ..."
"... As to what the evidence establishes, that is a different question. If skilled and intelligent investigators fail to take it up, then motivated and fervent - if not entirely competent - inquirers will surely rise up in their stead. ..."
"... Watch for the "fake news" sources' standard method for dealing with a large set of serious allegations like these from the internet's "real news" sources. They will take the most absurd/least likely allegations and dispose of them. They will then unobtrusively fail to address harder to dismiss allegations. Instead they will argue to the effect that, some of these allegations are false so obviously all must be. ..."
"... The "truther" site Snopes once had a perfect example, since taken down, I suspect because it made the technique so obvious ..."
The children in some of these poor third-world 'orphanages' aren't really orphans as we understand the term but are just
from poor families who can't take care of them. These international adoptions are a business where everyone along the line
gets paid with the child being the commodity being sold to the end purchaser, people in the west seeking to adopt a child to make
themselves feel good. As in the mentioned case, the agencies move around from country to country where people are poor and desperate
and legal safeguards are weak. Although the end receivers seem to be mostly naive and well-meaning people there's no telling how
many aren't.
That a person with the stature of being a former president would hang around with a low-life like Epstein is really telling.
He flew perhaps twenty-seven times on Epstein's plane which makes him more than just a passing acquaintance. Birds of a feather
flock together.
The Canadians pulled in over three hundred people. If a country next to us, so similar to ours in many ways but with a
fraction of our population, has so many that can be exposed at one time then how many could the US have? Yet we hardly ever
hear much, just of a few lone wolves here and there. Look at how Sandusky got away with it for so many years. People didn't want
to know, turned a blind eye to it, because he was too valuable.
This entire bunch who hobnob with each other have a very creepy vibe. There's all these 'coincidences' that seem to gather
together in one place.
This 'story' is complete horseshit / random confirmation bias. Scan the full social media accounts of any group of 100+
people and you could find just as much 'evidence' if you were determined to do so. This is scary -- the day that any social
media post involving children that uses the word "chicken" anywhere in it counts as evidence of pedophilia is the day anyone
could be smeared.
Ron Unz should be ashamed of himself for giving this kind of unhinged paranoid fear-mongering space.
Do some of your own research on this topic and you will come to a different conclusion if you can get beyond your massive bias.
The Burning Platform has featured a series of posts over the last few weeks that provide a volume of evidence that is impossible
to discount.
Most people cannot accept something like this would be real because they cannot fathom the depths of evil that exist in this
world ..why, I don't know. You'd think the fact that many of the people implicated have also been the ones fully on board with
unprovoked wars that have killed, maimed and displaced millions of people, including children, would be evidence enough.
Kudos to Ron Unz for exposing more people to this tragic, disgusting, horrendous story.
Socionomic Theory documents that the public's appetite for scandals is low when stocks and high and high when stocks are low.
Case in point: The "news" about Enron was favorable all the way down, until the stock had lost way over 90%. Only then did
"news" about criminality and malfeasance gain traction.
This being the case, with stocks at All Time Highs after an astonishing 7 year vertical rally, pizzagate's very existence
here tells us that when the next bear market (in social mood, as revealed by stock prices) is in full swing, the level of
sociopathic, demonic behaviors emerging into public consciousness will be unimaginable.
I have no doubt whatsoever that child sex abuse, trafficking and even sex-related murder may well be hung around the necks
of very, very famous persons, and the horrors so bad that those persons (if still alive) will not even make it to trial before
they're hung from a street lamp.
Public disgust with those who ran (and run) the Federal Government will in all likelihood be so pervasive that it will undermine
the very political cohesion of the United States.
This is by far the best survey of this topic that I've read.
What is clear is that the contention that there is "no evidence", a contention that is asserted or implied in seemingly
every mainstream media discussion, is flatly false. There is a vast array of pertinent evidence, much of it circumstantial, but
much of it also suggesting something of the mindset of some of the central figures. Anyone who denies this is utterly oblivious,
or a liar, or a fool.
As to what the evidence establishes, that is a different question. If skilled and intelligent investigators fail to take
it up, then motivated and fervent - if not entirely competent - inquirers will surely rise up in their stead.
Watch for the "fake news" sources' standard method for dealing with a large set of serious allegations like these from
the internet's "real news" sources. They will take the most absurd/least likely allegations and dispose of them. They will then
unobtrusively fail to address harder to dismiss allegations. Instead they will argue to the effect that, some of these allegations
are false so obviously all must be.
The "truther" site Snopes once had a perfect example, since taken down, I suspect because it made the technique so obvious.
One popular right-wing internet site claimed to link 100 or so suspicious deaths to the Clintons. Snopes attacked the obviously
absurd linkages and was left with about twenty cases of persons who (1) were involved or rumored to be involved with nefarious
activities involving the Clintons; (2) were scheduled to testify against the Clintons or rumored to be brokering plea deals; and
(3) died under suspicious circumstances soon after. Snopes dismissed these with a comment to the effect that all public figures
had numbers of known associates die like this; let's just move on, folks; nothing to see here.
200 Words @MQ This 'story' is complete
horseshit / random confirmation bias. Scan the full social media accounts of any group of 100+ people and you could find just
as much 'evidence' if you were determined to do so. This is scary -- the day that any social media post involving children that
uses the word "chicken" anywhere in it counts as evidence of pedophilia is the day anyone could be smeared.
Ron Unz should be ashamed of himself for giving this kind of unhinged paranoid fear-mongering space.
In one of my many different careers I worked for a couple of years as an outside consultant to the FBI's ViCAP (now VICAP)
program. About the time I was thus delving the depths of human depravity - and they are far deeper than the more fortunate readers
of this are ever likely to learn - a scandal similar to this broke in Belgium, involving the highest levels of society, politics,
and the EU bureaucracy in criminal conspiracies to kidnap children, sexually violate them, torture them, and even use them in
the production of snuff films. A full investigation dead-ended after many suicides and suspicious deaths and disappearances. IMHO,
based on some experience with criminal conspiracies of this type, the mass of material presented here is a pretty overwhelming
indication that something very bad is happening. That the MSM ("fake new") sources are not paying more attentionto this is scandalous.
I'm not going to commit myself to the idea that this is going to be as huge as Rotherham was.
Sorry, but you are deluded if you believe Rotherham was "huge" in the media - even after the story broke, the English media
did its best to downplay and underreport it - when they did report it, especially the BBC, it was always in a professional monotone,
with no hint of outrage, or how disgusting and appalling all of it was, including/especially the behavior of the authorities -
however let the BNP or EDL protest in front of the court where some of the Paki scum were being tried, and there you saw and felt
media outrage - at this point, Rotherham has practically disappeared from the news - which is pretty sad because as everyone knows,
it was just the tip of the iceberg.
And as currently being framed and investigatively fleshed out, if Rotherham was "huge", then Pizzagate will be a scandal of
positively galactic dimension.
People will not let this go the way they did with the Jeffrey Epstein sleaze.
Thank you for this article. It is well written and makes the point I have been trying to make. That the Wikileaks taken together
with the Instagram photos warrant an investigation. A person with a predilection to pedophilia (based on the Instagram photos,
choice of music, and music recordings at the Pizza Parlor premises) at the least, should not be running a "child-friendly" pizza
parlor without some kind of societal due diligence to ensure the safety of our children.
On the one hand, what is lost if an investigation occurs and it turns out there is no wrong doing? We would have wasted some
tax dollars and time of the law enforcement teams, but James Alefantis would in fact benefit from being exonerated. If
however, there is ANY truth and any harm has and is occurring to children, then the greater good resulting from the investigation
would be without price.
@Jus' Sayin'... In one of my many different
careers I worked for a couple of years as an outside consultant to the FBI's ViCAP (now VICAP) program. About the time I was thus
delving the depths of human depravity -- and they are far deeper than the more fortunate readers of this are ever likely to learn
-- a scandal similar to this broke in Belgium, involving the highest levels of society, politics, and the EU bureaucracy in criminal
conspiracies to kidnap children, sexually violate them, torture them, and even use them in the production of snuff films. A full
investigation dead-ended after many suicides and suspicious deaths and disappearances. IMHO, based on some experience with criminal
conspiracies of this type, the mass of material presented here is a pretty overwhelming indication that something very bad is
happening. That the MSM ("fake new") sources are not paying more attentionto this is scandalous.
The Belgian case, among other high-profile quashed investigations, is summarized here:
Furthermore, Tony Podesta's favorite artist is Biljana Djurdjevic, whose art heavily features images of children in BDSM
-esque positions in large showers.
Psychopathy in the Pedophile (From Psychopathy: Antisocial, Criminal, and Violent Behavior, P 304-320, 1998, Theodore Millon,
Erik Simonsen, et al, eds.--See NCJ-179236)
This paper argues that pedophilia may represent a special case or subcase of psychopathy and that the main aims of both
the psychopath and the pedophile are to dominate, to use, and to subjugate another person in service of the grandiose self.
[...] It notes that the major differences between psychopaths and pedophiles are that the object of the predation for the
pedophile is a child and that the overt behavioral manifestation of the pathology is sexual.
I just wanted to reemphasize Scott Adams' statement about the scandal:
Over on his blog, Scott Adams asks us to keep in mind cases where confirmation bias did lead to false allegations of
institutional pedophilia, to caution against excessive confidence.
These types of investigations and scandals can easily lead to 'witch hunts' and 'panics' and need to be handled with the greatest
care, prudence, and levelheadedness possible.
----
I wanted to add the following study/information, because as the study states ' These results provide further evidence
of the importance of distinguishing between these groups of offenders. '
This might just be an irrelevant distinction for most people appalled by this potential/alleged abuse of power and authority
of 'our' elites; but I believe we might mostly be looking at and dealing with psychopathy and not necessarily 'just' pedophilia
in this Pizzagate scandal.
This has several different implications for how this scandal might be handled or be covered up, etc., because psychopaths are
master liars, deflectors, charmers, etc., i.e. 'pillars of the community,' 'movers and shakers,' etc.
There is another curious connection here; Professor Robert Hare – the father of psychopathy research – said this:
Hare considers newspaper tycoon Robert Maxwell to have been a strong candidate as a corporate psychopath.[10]
Robert Maxwell is the father of Ghislaine Maxwell, who is close friends with Jeffery Epstein:
In an American court case that was made public in January 2015, a woman identified as 'Jane Doe 3′ said she was approached
by Maxwell in 1999, and claimed that Maxwell procured under-age girls to have sex with Epstein. Maxwell has always denied any
involvement in Epstein's crimes.[10] She said: "She [Ghislaine] said she'd hit hard times. Jeffrey offered her a job
and then, I guess, because of her ability to procure girls, she became a vital asset to him.
Abstract OBJECTIVE :
Among men who commit sexual offenses against children, at least 2 distinct groups can be identified on the basis of the age
of the primary targets of their sexual interest; pedophiles and nonpedophiles. METHOD :
In the present report, across 2 independent samples of both types of child molesters as well as controls, a total of 104 men
(53 pedophilic and 51 nonpedophilic) who had sexually offended against a child age 13 or younger were compared to each other
(and to 49 non-sex offender controls) on psychopathy as assessed by the Psychopathic Personality Inventory (PPI). RESULTS :
In both samples of child molesters, the nonpedophiles scored as significantly more psychopathic than the pedophiles. CONCLUSIONS :
These results provide further evidence of the importance of distinguishing between these groups of offenders.
500 Words @MQ This 'story' is complete
horseshit / random confirmation bias. Scan the full social media accounts of any group of 100+ people and you could find just
as much 'evidence' if you were determined to do so. This is scary -- the day that any social media post involving children that
uses the word "chicken" anywhere in it counts as evidence of pedophilia is the day anyone could be smeared.
Ron Unz should be ashamed of himself for giving this kind of unhinged paranoid fear-mongering space.
Your comment sounds familiar to me. Are you writing from the UK perchance?
Back in the mid-Aughts I was surprised by how often I saw commenters at MSM news sites talking about the grooming and abduction
of white girls in cities in England. At the time I was regularly reading BBC, Guardian, Telegraph, and Times. The stories where
these comments appeared were diverse in topic.
Sometimes other comments would share similar experiences. Some would say they talked to someone who claimed similar experience.
Others would say they'd heard murmurs of such things.
These voices repeatedly called on the MSM outlet to investigate, or they wondered why no response was forthcoming from
elected officials or policymakers.
This was after–I later learned–Ann Cryer (MP for Keighley) had bravely stepped forward on behalf of girls whose parents had
approached her for help. IOW, the cat was emerging from the bag, but the MSM were trying to stuff it back in.
Dismissive responses to these comments frequently were framed as yours is here: nothing to see here, move along, it's confirmation
bias, you people are nuts, mods, step in and censor them!
In the Rotherham/etc. case, racism, Islamophobia, etc., were trotted out to inflict silence.
What was most noteworthy to me, and creepy, was how these comments would be removed from the comment streams of these outlets.
Sometimes the comments would be deleted but the response calling them racists or Islamophobes allowed to stand.
By the late Aughts I was convinced some sort of coverup was underway of something terrible indeed.
We now know that the MSM were key players in that.
Similar murmurings were afoot in Pennsylvania for many years prior to the revelations of the sexual abuse of children by Penn
State coach Sandusky. I knew men who steered their sons away from football in general, guiding them instead to hockey or lacrosse,
because the word on the street was that football camp was not a safe place for boys anymore. (Nor, increasingly, Boy Scouts or
church camps.)
The gig is up for the MSM acting as panderers and pimps in the Cathedragogue of their own degenerate Narrative-religion.
They won't go down without a fight. They have more power and money to lose than any of the kids victimized by pedocidal perverts.
But what those kids have to lose is a treasure of vastly more importance than power and money.
Thing is, truth and goodness of spirit will win. This is part of why these degenerates fight back as they do. They can put
truth and goodness on the run for only so long. They fight back not because they are losing, but because, by nature, they can
never join the winning side of truth and goodness. It's just not in them.
All the more reason they need to be found out and reined in hard.
One last thing, regarding some people's assertion that these symbols, in-jokes, etc., are all "just a game." Or, worse, "art."
(Which implies getting money and power by representing degeneracy to decorate rich people's businesses, homes and bedrooms.)
If pedophilia, grooming, and child rape are now matters to take lightly as shibboleths of entrance to circles of power, then
those circles of power need to be napalmed.
"In the beginning there were the swamp, the hoe, and Jussi."
I think the crux of the problem is that most people find two different things equally plausible.
1) That the people who are talking about this (pizzagate) are lunatics.
or
2) That Podesta and the rest actually are involved in things like this.
Personally I think a nation that has reached this point, that it is totally believable that our leaders and elites are a bunch
of monsters well that's a real problem.
Another problem is that the UK article a poster above linked to is two years old. Has anyone heard anything about that since?
Expect to?
How many members of the media political class, that are dismissing this as fake news have enjoyed "pizza" at Besta or at a
similar place?
What if criminal deviancy rather than disqualifying a person, is not instead some weird prerequisite for elite status? Don't
have to worry about rock throwers if they're inside the same glass house.
Blackmail seems as good an explanation as any for things like John Roberts sudden change of heart on the constitutionality
of the Obama care mandate.
This is a very good summary; thank you for publishing it.
The speed with which the old media have declared the entire thing false, far sooner than they possibly could have explored
all the latest information and come to that conclusion, is astonishing. In other cases of conspiracy theories they think are false,
they are willing to stand back and ridicule the theorists. Obama Birthers, 9/11 Truthers, Boston Bombing hoax, Sandy Hook . all
certainly called false and ridiculed, but that's all. I don't think I've ever seen them try to squelch an entire line of discussion
from the start like this before, even threatening lawsuits and prosecution.
There may be something to pizzagate but I'm very skeptical of accusations of widespread institutional pedophilia. I initially
fell for the "Satanic panic" of the 1980s; I learned my lesson.
I see that this case relies a lot on cryptic symbols. Reminds me of the people who see swastikas and white supremacy runes wherever
they look and try to make a case for a vast neo-Nazi underground. But the author states that 470,000 children "disappear" each
year in the US alone. Really? The link goes to "reported missing" which is a whole different thing. I once reported one of my
kids missing; he turned up shortly afterwards at a friend's house. He hadn't even run away, just overstayed and not informed us
where he was. That sort of thing happens all the time, but genuine disappearances? I don't know of a single case and I know plenty
of people with kids. In some third world country in a war, tens of thousands of missing kids might be believable, but even in
most such countries (Syria for example) 470,000 disappearances per year would be a stretch.
In the U.K., all the abuse took place by people in power. Catholic clergy over choirboys. Celebs over their fans. Pakistanis
targeted girls from broken homes. The wealthy and 'noble' preyed on the lesser born.
The worst though are the politicians, who have maximum power. I'm not sure I believe the pizzagate thing – the evidence is
not conclusive (show me a victim or witness). But I certainly believe it is possible.
The reliably excellent John Helmer provides an oblique reference to Pizzagate in the following linked piece about Propornot
and its marvellous 200 Putin Stoogesites:
200 Words @utu "What 'relatively obscure
charge'?" - Making payments in a manner hiding the detection of payments. Payments were not illegal but he was doing it in amounts
below the amounts that automatically would require reporting. In my opinion he did nothing illegal. The crimes he allegedly committed
were beyond the statute of limitation and paying hush money is not illegal either.
I kinda thought that's what you were referring to, but wanted to make sure.
His real crime was something else.
He was a high school coach years ago and was raping underage boys in his charge. The cash he was withdrawing was for payments
to one of the boys to keep him quiet. If memory serves, another one of his victims had committed suicide (not sure though). But
the one Hastert was paying off wanted to burn him.
In addition, Sibel Edwards, when she was working for the FBI and translating foreign language intercepts, picked up some conversations
by Turkish officials, who were bribing Hastert, and claimed they "owned him". He reportedly got $500K, but not sure for what.
FBI had courts put a gag order on Sibel, so she could not reveal any more details. The story was buried: probably because too
many high ranking swine were involved.
Hastert pleaded guilty to a Mickey Mouse charge so that there would no public child-rape trial, where the public might learn
all the lurid details of what the filthy swine did to those underage boys.
Hastert got away with destroying the lives of many boys.
Hopefully he will be savagely beaten and crippled in prison – but not killed – so he can suffer for years.
Like a lot of people I have gone from completely ignoring this story, thinking it was Alex Jones type fantasy to starting to
wonder if there might not be some truth to it after all. So far I haven't seen any definitive evidence that kids are actually
being molested, or worse. And because the accusations are so damning I would want to be very cautious about casually tossing them
around.
That being said, a lot of the stuff that's surfaced; the artwork, the cryptic messages, Spirit cooking, the odd choices of
entertainment for a family friendly pizza restaurant and the Instagram pictures are just flat out creepy .
Even with a presumption of innocence I wouldn't allow anyone under the age of 18 anywhere near the Podesta brothers, Alefantis
and everyone else involved without adult supervision.
I'm glad Unz has decided to publish this. I'm interested to see if anything more will come of it. It certainly warrants further
investigation.
@DanC Rotate the old logo for Besta Pizza
180 degrees. It is the pedophile BLogo symbol.
That's why when it got publicised, Besta's management immediately deleted the old one and converted to a new, BLogo-free symbol
on all their website and printed materials.
What is interesting to note in mainstream media "debunkings" of PizzaGate is that they focus on the doubtful evidence, things
that could be "interpreted either way" and they leave out the glaringly obvious pedophilia links, like the Besta Pizza logo.
Just look at all the "debunking articles." Do any of them mention the old Besta logo? I haven't seen any.
It seems to me this is the way to wean the public off the mainstream media. Hammer on the fact that the MSM insists on leaving
out the clear, obvious evidence and tries to imply that everything is doubtful and open to interpretation. Then people will start
to associate them with coverup and BS. The MSM can't recover from that.
Actually the logo issue is a prominent part of this Washington Post article (and a tweet by the fairly well-known Dave
Weigel highlighted that part in particular):
100 Words @Johnny Smoggins Like a lot
of people I have gone from completely ignoring this story, thinking it was Alex Jones type fantasy to starting to wonder if there
might not be some truth to it after all. So far I haven't seen any definitive evidence that kids are actually being molested,
or worse. And because the accusations are so damning I would want to be very cautious about casually tossing them around.
That being said, a lot of the stuff that's surfaced; the artwork, the cryptic messages, Spirit cooking, the odd choices of
entertainment for a family friendly pizza restaurant and the Instagram pictures are just flat out creepy .
Even with a presumption of innocence I wouldn't allow anyone under the age of 18 anywhere near the Podesta brothers, Alefantis
and everyone else involved without adult supervision.
I'm glad Unz has decided to publish this. I'm interested to see if anything more will come of it. It certainly warrants further
investigation.
Podesta is a creepy fuck period.
How did such a dweeb get to be such a big person in our national conversation?
He is an obvious hack , but not a particular clever one. He just comes off so "are you fucking kidding me?". Where do they get
these dudes? James Carville. Paul Begala. Bill Burton. Robby Mook. Even right has George Will, Buckley. Strange unnormal people.
I confess I don't get it. I can understand pizzagate as a brutal and nasty last minute campaign tactic, but the election is
over, drop it. A mighty tissue of "coincidences" woven together in a manner that would make Glenn Beck envious. I guess I need
to fashion a tin foil hat and then re-read the article. I think it just discredits the source more than the target.
If someone is actually raping children, then where are the children? The kids related to the socialite that she is bringing
to a pool party? Come on, that is what plebes are for. How are the children procured? Where do they live? There is necessarily
logistics to this kind of activity, and zero evidence of logistics, just some weird emails and weird art. Its like saying someone
is a coke head because they had a runny nose. tweet at early hours in the morning, and behave very alpha.
500 Words @Anonymous "Every aspect of
British society seems to have ties to pedophilia, from Parliament, to the elites, the City of London, the government, public schools,
Oxbridge, the universities, all the way down to Paki immigrant communities and even British soccer."
Why do pedos gain such power? Same reason why homos do? Since many of them don't have families and since they resent the Normal
World(from which they must hide their deviance or sickness), do they have extra time/energy for gaining power? Are they fueled
by resentment toward Normal Society? It seems like homos had a kind of revenge streak, and it all came out with New Normal. Homos
really want to rub our faces in their feces. They want to force us to accept the New Normal or be totally destroyed. They want
to turn us into their bitches. They are into Bitch-Hunting.
Working in the shadows, homos and pedos seemed to gained considerable power. And since they are associated with Vice Industry,
they have the dirt on everyone else and can blackmail them. Bill Clinton prolly never had sex with a minor, but surely homos and
pedos have a lot of dirt on him about his many affairs and orgies. And since they have many connections, they serve as essential
middlemen for those who seek power.
Also, there is a code of silence among the powerful. They watch out for one another. And homos and pedos are both pushy and
gushy. They are very demanding but also accommodating and supportive of the powerful and ambitious. They go all out to serve the
powerful and those on the up-and-up, but they also demand a cut of the pie.
The ambitious care most about power and privilege than about right and wrong. If their power depends on a coterie of people
committed to them 24/7, they will look the other way even when they know something is up. Also, there is the human factor. People
who work together closely develop an emotional bond. It's team politics, us vs them. And loyalty must be favored.
Since homos and pedos have more time on their hands and more energy(fueled by resentment), they might be more available to the
powerful or those who seek power.
Hollywood made the media the hero in the movie SPOTLIGHT. But the media seem eager to bury this as fast as possible.
Why did it take so long for the Hastert and Sandusky cases to come to light?
Homos seem to be closely allied with pedos, and the trajectory of our culture is to normalize pedophilia by sexualizing young
girls and boys. If young ones are sexualized, it means they can be objects of sexual desire. And then what?
And the scientific community is arguing pedophilia should be treated as a condition than a crime. This may be legit as long
as pedos didn't act on their impulses. But if they did, how can it not be a crime?
Rape is 'natural' too given that sexual feelings are natural. But we can't treat rape itself as a condition and not a crime.
Regrettably, though one may have grown old without ever feeling the wish to have sexual contact with a pre-adolescent or of
anyone of the same sex it hasn't been possible for a long time to deny the prevalence of socially disapproved sex drives and behaviours.
So one finds that the nice young presenter on the antique show has been arrested for downloading and keeping pedophile images.
And so on But isn't the idea of a large network, and what is needed to keep it covered up, a bit much to swallow? Nasty minds?
Conspiracy theories?
Well I suppose not. Sex as a drive and the perverse varieties of expression that we know to manifest themselves are enough
to make one accept the pedophile reality. Then the network and the cover up? The cover up, however difficult to make it reliable,
is just a consequence of the danger their behaviour exposes them to. And the network? Easy enough to explain once you are in it
– like knowing that you could attend mass in a number of aristocratic Elizabethan households. But the detail of why and how it
should grow from a very small group is obviously more complex. I guess that there are organisers and facilitators who seek various
rewards, some financial, some in young flesh, some in the obtaining of blackmailing power.
It's the age difference and the power equation that matters. If a fifteen year old is sexting a thirteen year old it's quite
different than a grown man like Anthony Wiener. I couldn't blame any father who administered a sound beating to an adult creep
who was sexting a minor. What kind of a society doesn't protect children?
"IMO this is yet another Jimmy Savile case: i.e. literally Satanic pedophilia on a vast scale, with the active collusion
of our political and media elites"
Savile case wasn't that at all – more like famous DJ/charity fundraiser with great PR taking advantage of his status with teenage
girls. How many of the post-death allegations are true, who knows, but we know some definitely aren't true – we know because long-time
blogger Anna Raccoon was a resident of a small children's home where Savile was claimed to have abused girls. She has a whole
series of seven posts called "Past Lives and Present Misgivings" on the allegations.
More "active collusion" is likely in the cases of Cyril Smith and Greville Janner, two pretty high-profile and connected MPs,
who seem to have managed to go to their graves scot free.
Flynn's tweet regarding this story was perfectly reasonable.
The story has been stamped "bogus" without any kind of investigation.
No response to questions about the weird content of emails by Podesta and others.
Stonewalling.
Makes one think the shotgun blast at Comet might even have been a false flag!!
For those wondering about the authenticity of the FBI document, here is the wikileaks page where it was revealed in 2007 and
they say "Wikileaks has verified the document":
I remember watching an excellent Australian film years ago that covered this very topic. It portrayed in a very realistic way
the whole homo/ pedo underground in the upper rungs of society, from posh public schools to university, where grooming of youngsters
occurred, to Parliament and Finance, where the powerful pederasts/homosexuals ruled. In this world, the shortest way to power
and riches for a young man was to seek out the protection and guidance of an older and powerful homo/pederast lover. It was shot
in Australia and in Australian settings and institutions, but it's all so British you'd think the film makers really intended
the story to reflect British society and were using Australia as a legal cover.
Sorry, I can't remember the title of the movie or the director. It was quite disturbing to watch but very interesting.
Perhaps Pat Hannagan or some other knowledgeable Australian reader can help.
Let's say there was no pedo-ring. I'm rather skeptical of it myself.
But just look at that pizzeria. What kind of freako place is that?
And why are some of the 'most powerful' people in DC such downright perverts and degenerates?
The fish rots from the head. Degenerates run government, institutions, and culture.
Government and judges push homo agenda. College push porn and 50 genders. Hollywood pushes drugs and tattoos. Disney turns
girls into whores.
And this isn't just a 'left' vs 'right' problem. A lot of Trump voters were ass-tattoo freaks. The working class grew up on
Jerry Springer, WWE, mentally deranged metal music, or Goth freakery.
And middle class kids grew up on the nerdy black magic of Harry Potter whose teacher is a happy ass-man.
Whether it's elites and their Pervert Pizza or the underclass with their degeneracy, it's ugly all around.
I'm not sold on the pedo-ring. Too much risk, though I think those 'elites' are a bunch of pervs.
If anything, this pedo-issue takes our eyes off the ball.
The real issue should be that the governing elites of this nation in government, colleges, cultural institutions, media and
even military(look at those tranny freaks) are a bunch of decadents, even degenerates. We are seeing the normalization of freakery
and grossness.
The fact that it is considered NORMAL for Hillary to invite Lena Dunham to the DNC speaks for itself. The fact that Newsweek
celebrated Obama with a gay 'halo' speaks for itself. The fact that churches hang 'homo flags' speaks for itself.
It is a sick nation.
A tolerant nation has room for decadence and even degeneracy. It belongs in the underground. They always existed.
But now, this underground stuff is the bobo cultural fixation of the elites who consider themselves 'hip' and 'edgy'.
And they even introduce their kids to this stuff from a young age.
Indeed, even without overt pedophilia, introducing sexuality to kids at a very young age is a kind of indirect pedophilia.
When homo-ness is promoted among kids, what is being done? Kids will ask 'what is homo stuff?' And an honest answer will have
to be, "some guys wanna stick pee pee into poo poo". But then, the kids will have to be told THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT,
and if anything, WE SHOULD BLESS THE HOMOS. But why? What is so great about pee pee in poo poo?
We really need Culturegate. The whole culture is a rotten scandal, and the fact that US globo-imperialism spreads this filth
around the world speaks volumes about how sick America has become. We don't need real pedo-rings of 'pizzagate' to accuse the
elites of filth and vileness. Their cultural life is garbage.
Just look at this: 'mainstream' culture has no problem with it. If anything, it is promoted as the New Norm.
As John Helmer points out, the new digital news business model doesn't provide any funds for investigative journalism.
So who is going to pay for a serious journalist to do the legwork and paperwork and FOIA requests, etc.?
Re "And why are some of the 'most powerful' people in DC such downright perverts and degenerates? "
I thought you were going to say:
What are the most powerful people in DC doing hanging out at this creepy pizza parlor and doing fundraising events there?
We all know where Hillary goes for "real" money: The Saudis, Goldman Sachs, billionaires' glitzy summer compounds in the Hamptons,
places like that-you know, where the money is.
So WTF is she doing in one of these pizza joints? Why would there be any real money there?
With creepy, tawdry "artwork" on the walls?
Something here does not pass the smell test.
I'm intrigued by the Anna Racoon stuff, but I found it completely incoherent. Could you explain what these claims are, and
why they should be taken seriously?
Re Sir Savile and Satanic child sex abuse, at least two victims gave entirely credible and consistent accounts. Here's a mainstream
source:
Agreed. Often one wonders why such outrageous decisions are made in politics that clearly contradict the public good and one
wonders, why? This topic goes a long way to explaining the why. I'm not so sure if the investigating of it is the hard part or
the broad exposure, but it needs to happen.
I am probably more tolerant of 'deviates' than most on here. Queers don't bother me much, though I would recommend that they
be more discreet and stop the promotion of their peccadilloes as normal. When it comes to children, even teenagers, I am very
strict about them not being able to give consent and should be treated with respect, if not revered, by all adults with no exceptions.
There is enough smoke here for a thorough investigation to be demanded and carried out. I hope nothing less ensues.
The fact that it is considered NORMAL for Hillary to invite Lena Dunham to the DNC speaks for itself. The fact that Newsweek
celebrated Obama with a gay 'halo' speaks for itself. The fact that churches hang 'homo flags' speaks for itself.
It is a sick nation.
Yep. I don't have to look any further then this perv Alefantis. This is what you get when sodomy is legal. Of course this craven
bastard makes all kinds of snarky degenerate comments about children on his instagram
Society has been desensitized to homosexuality- so they have moved on to the "prize".
You have hit it out of the park as usual, I enjoy and concur with your assesments.
I believe I saw the instagram account of Alefantis before it came down. The girl pictured in several images seems to be the
child of a family friend. I thought the taped to the table image and the other pic with #chickenlover tag were at a minimum indicators
of a dark humor or innuendo. Who finds this sort of thing funny?
There were more pics of infants and a doll with creepy tags like #hoetard and suggestive comments, again, indicating a level of
casual comfort with making implied references to pedophilia. ..wink wink.
Gross, at a minimum. But evidence of a ring? I don't understand why Alefantis doesn't just acknowledge that there is an "appearance"
of sick humor.
Regarding the use of supposedly known pedo symbols- I'm skeptical. These are shapes and motifs we see everywhere. It could
be that the pedo symbol inventors purposely chose designs that would easily coincide with innocent use so as to hide in plain
sight. Or hmm ?
Podesta is definitely using code in his emails but my read was that he's talking about drugs and partying. Didn't we all use
"pizza" at one time or another as a reference to party favors back in the day?
The Podestas have bad taste in art. Not a crime, just a general indicator of regular degenerately "hip" tastes so as to impress
the cool kids?
And yet no one clears the air. And this is disturbing. I have yet to read one Wapo or nyt article denouncing the "witch hunt"
but acknowledging that, yes, it looks bad. Because it really does.
Incidentally, if they haven't been faked, one of Alefantis' instagram commenters is the maker of child sized coffin coffee
tables. Nice.
"What if criminal deviancy rather than disqualifying a person, is not instead some weird prerequisite for elite status? Don't
have to worry about rock throwers if they're inside the same glass house.Blackmail seems as good an explanation as any for things
like John Roberts sudden change of heart on the constitutionality of the Obama care mandate."
This fits Occam's Razor. I would go so far as to say that pedophilia blackmail appears to have been a method of political control
since the days of the British Empire. Much like gang membership, participation is required for entrance into the inner circles
of political power, then used as blackmail to enforce conformity and secrecy.
Interestingly, there is a recent episode of "The Black Mirror," a Netflix show, that addresses this very psychology.
There is a rather informative article in the WaPo about Pizzagate and its potential (mass-)psychological origins.
It actually indirectly and temporarily "blames" over-zealous feminists with being the originators of the this moral panic. Quite
interesting, but of course the article/author reverts back to Trump-bashing, etc. in the end.
What the Pizzagate conspiracy theory borrows from a bogus satanic sex panic of the 1980s
Second, in both cases, social movements were involved in the weaponization of suspicion, although the political center of
gravity has shifted from one episode to the next. In the late 1970s, social workers and feminist activists had focused on
combating child sexual abuse; they sometimes developed extremely broad definitions of abuse or floated exaggerated estimates
of its occurrence in this quest. Such efforts have left deep cultural residues, and these include the acceptance of exaggerated
claims about the number of child trafficking victims, and the incidence and forms of organized child sexual abuse. Pizzagate
relies on these inflated fears to seem plausible, and it similarly relies on a viewpoint marked by extreme suspicion (of the
media, Washington "elites," politicians and the Clinton camp specifically) to decode ordinary events and statements into extraordinary
claims.
A moral panic is a feeling of fear spread among a large number of people that some evil threatens the well-being of society.[1][2]
A Dictionary of Sociology defines a moral panic as "the process of arousing social concern over an issue – usually the work of
moral entrepreneurs and the mass media."[3] – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_panic
We know all about "Hysteria", but why did the artist use a decapitated male if not to possibly conflate this in the
viewers mind with the atrocities of Dalmer?
What about the other degenerate art, such as the child bondage spankees posing in the easy- to -clean tiled torture chambers?
Some of us will never accept homosexuality as an "alternative" lifestyle.
The fact that Alefantis is a homo; who by dint of his perverse sexuality- has achieved some level of notoriety prior to pizzagate-
is certainly part of the underlying rancor towards him.
Incredibly generous of you to quote WaPo as a credible source. I would have done the same at one time but that was ages ago.
BB753 asks why haven't the Posdestas sued? I would ask why haven't they at the very least stepped forward to offer a simple
explanation for what most agree is code in the emails?
I would suggest a possibility that blowing the lid off on this exposes exactly how certain "lobby" groups maintain control
of the wheelhouse of the US ship of state, and have consistently steered it into troubled waters against the national interest.
Wiz, a simple typo that my computer ran with (very observant of you).
Pizzagate is not "fake news" at all. It needs to be investigated.
The MSM says it does not disseminate "fake news". However, the MSM will often simply not cover events that ARE real news.
Thus, the MSM is disseminating the opposite of "fake news", namely NO NEWS. The MSM keeps people in the dark because there
things that it does not want people to know about. For example, the MSM will often not cover stories about how the LGBTQ movement
is brainwashing kids in even the lowest grade in public elementary schools. That's because the MSM does not want people to become
upset at the penetration (no pun intended) of the LGBTQ agenda.
In reality, there is relatively little "fake news" out there. Most alternative websites that people visit, such as Unz, simply
provide a different perspective on issues that the MSM won't cover at all, or cover in a cursory manner.
Classic disinfo technique, to seed the truth with a few lies that are provably false so that then the whole thing can be claimed
to be false and written off.
I don't know about the Podestas but as others here have rightly stated, there's enough smoke for a thorough, open investigation.
Coincidently, the anti-Russian rhetoric has escalated to an even more absurd degree alongside the Pizzagate news. I wonder
if the result will be even less people believing the blatant lies of mass media or if people will just demonstrate that there
are no limits to gullibility.
I saw a headline on CNN.com claiming Russia was attempting to smear people by 'planting' child pornography on their computers.
I didn't bother reading it, as CNN is a Gawker level news source these days, but it seems like they may attempt to blame this
stuff on Russia – along with everything else.
Here's another sex scandal (and a certifiably real one) involving a prominent Canadian who turned out to be a pedaphile. There's
a lot in this story that's revealing and fascinating.
Such a disturbing story. But instructive. In particular the information, or perhaps it is a speculation, that the pedophiliac
sexual drive develops early on. This drive must be incredibly strong-stronger than what would be considered normal sexual desire?
I don't know. But I have read that it is so strong that pedophiles make major life choices in terms of finding a way to get access
to children to use sexually. Such as marrying: so they can father their own children and have them handy for abuse. Or entering
a profession, such as the priesthood, or pediatrics, or education, etc. so that they have access to children. Or becoming sports
coaches, where they spend a lot of time in locker rooms and also have blandishments to offer young boys such as sports career
advances. Etc.
I think this point-the power of the drive-should be taken into account when people such as some commenters on this thread say:
"These people [such as Podesta} are too intelligent to risk their careers blah blah." If the pedophilia drive is as strong as,
say, a heroin addiction, then the addiction is in the driver's seat, not "intelligence." The more you feed an addiction, the stronger
it gets, and the more stimulation it takes to get the charge.
As for the sprinkling of a few lies in with a story that is targeted for debunking: In a normal police investigation the police
solicit leads from the public. (It is true that in this case there is not an obvious victim, so that must also be taken into account;
but this was also the situation with the Ben Levin [Toronto] case; nevertheless what he did was criminal and dangerous.) They
examine the leads and follow them up. This is detectives' job.
Often an obscure lead does lead to further useful information needed to build a hypothesis of the motive-means-opportunity
for the crime and widen the scope of an investigation. Every American with a TV set has seen hundred of such police procedurals
showing how crimes have been solved, often cold cases. Bona fide detectives who get leads from the public don't immediately start
to smear the source of leads as looney-tunes. In this case the public, in the face of apparent inaction by law enforcement to
follow up on this case, is responding by posting ideas and hypotheses and possible leads.
An honest law enforcement agency would be conducting an aggressive investigation and checking out any useful info and ideas
that members of the public come up with, whether online or off. Honest news outlets should either be calling for a thorough investigation,
or staying mum if they have been informed that an investigation is ongoing. The fact that the MSM, absent any sign of an investigation,
are blaring out the "nothing here; move on; blogger are rabid fools" message is in itself suspicious and suggests that someone
is being protected. The MSM have put out just enough info to warn the possible wrongdoers to get their act together, change their
signage, and run for cover.
The fact that the MSM, absent any sign of an investigation, are blaring out the "nothing here; move on; blogger are rabid
fools" message is in itself suspicious and suggests that someone is being protected. The MSM have put out just enough info
to warn the possible wrongdoers to get their act together, change their signage, and run for cover.
My feeling exactly. Too much volume, no doubts, too orchestrated and nothing being investigated, in fact just like WMD, and
9/11.
I believe that Pizzagate is a Trojan Horse being pushed into Alt-Right internet circles by Hillary/Soros' former CTR trolls
in order to help the Democrats and the MSM continue to flog the "fake news" narrative. The idea behind it is to enable them to
say, "Look, you see what kind of crazy conspiracies those Alt-Righters consume and repeat amongst themselves? This is the kind
of fake news believing nutjobs we're up against." If you think back upon the history of the meme (I hate that word, but I have
no other to use in its place), you'll find that its original and most vocal proponents were exhibiting clear trolling behavior.
Given their flaky commenting histories, their pretended expertise on this then-obscure topic, their ostentatious expressions of
optimism that this breaking news would ensure a Trump victory (itself a rather obsequious and scarcely believable attempt to paint
themselves as one of our number), and their single-minded determination to talk about (and to get us talking about) nothing else,
one can only suspect the presence of some sort of agenda behind their sudden exuberance over Pizzagate.
I believe we are up against a new and rather sophisticated sort of Concern Troll here-a veritable Stuxnet of concern trolling.
A perfect example here at the Unz Review is the poster "anonguy". Look at his commenting history. Look at the sudden acceleration
of his offerings as Election Day neared. And then look at his militant megaphoning of the Pizzagate narrative all over Sailer's
blog in the days immediately preceding the election. Furthermore, pay attention to his unusual style, i.e. how he structures
his comments as detached musings about the goings-on in the "infosphere" (his word), how he jejunely assures us the "the narrative
is forming" (yes, he actually said that, and at a time when there was no narrative to speak of), and his links to literally
fake news sites (the Denver Guardian? Give me a break). Now tell me that this is the behavior of someone who actually has
the health of the body politic as his primary objective.
Now, after having sifted all that, do try to remember that the larger general public really doesn't know or care anything at
all about Pizzagate, and that the leaked Podesta emails (all 37,000 of them, or whatever the final tally was) influenced the vote
of precisely no one who did not have the time or inclination to read through them all, which is practically every one of us. Remember
that the only people talking about this in the first place are the Alt-Right bloggers and their followers, the very venues of
"fake news" whom the Left is attempting to discredit and sully. Remember that the Clintons and Soros specialize in public deception
and that they employ all sorts of people for that very purpose. Now consider who is rendered vulnerable by all of this. It isn't
going to be the Clintons or Podesta. If Hillary Clinton was not prosecuted for trafficking in state secrets from her private server-a
crime for which she should have been executed- then Podesta is not going to be investigated for this. But you all, on the other
hand, have been tainted with it. You have been successfully associated in the public mind with a "conspiracy theory," with the
"fake news."
My conclusion: Pizzagate is a "thought worm" designed to infect, distract, and destroy the Alt-Right, and most of you have
been infected with it. This is not to say that there is no pedophilia going on in Podesta's circle. There may be or there may
not be, I really don't know. The point is that there isn't anything you can do about it. The accusations will be turned
against the accusers instead-classic Clinton behavior. It would be better not to take the bait anymore. Recent history has demonstrated
over and over again that the public is not going to rise up with one voice and clamor for the punishment even of credibly accused
child molesters unless there is something more to be gained from doing so, and in this case there clearly isn't. What this says
about the spiritual state of the modern West or the psychology of fallen mankind are subjects I will leave for another discussion.
For now it is simply a fact of life with which we have to account. The only way to beat these people is the Chicago Way: hit them
harder than they hit you. We dealt them a stunning blow by electing Donald Trump, but now we are in danger of losing our advantage
by immersing ourselves in a mire of toothless recriminations, and this is exactly what they want. Let's not fall for this again;
let us rather rekindle the spirit that got us this far, and take these vile people down once and for all.
The Washington Post found the funds to assign 27 investigative reporters for over a year to dig dirt on Trump, and bragged
about it. Judging by what they came up with, it wasn't too fruitful.
First you say the entire pizzagate meme is fake and it's fakery will undo the alt-right. Then you say that you can't do anything
about pedophilia anyway, pizzagate or otherwise.
Which is it? Is the story fake and thereby discrediting to those who support it, or is it real but pointless to cover because
you can't do anything about it?
Then you suggest we do this "the Chicago way" which is hitting harder than them whatever that means. If you are not going to
open investigations against these people, then what does "hitting harder" entail?
There is no way that Soros or anyone else is going to construct an elaborate criminal conspiracy out of whole cloth and tag
one of his own loyal operatives.
I agree.
Intelligent's comment looks to me like an elaborate misdirection.
All such blah blah gets no one any closer to an answer as to what is behind the coded language in the Wikileaks emails.
It is a classic example of throwing up a convolution of dust to obscure the smoking emails.
Stick to the evidence.
Ignore irrelevant baroque musings.
You make some good points but have missed the real issue entirely. Whilst I and many others here DO care about pedos and want
them locked away from society, what makes this matter much more important is that it involves many top level power brokers in
politics.
Pedophilia is more of a compulsion rather than addiction, why matters less than the fact that recidivism is the norm and society
deserves protection both from the crime itself and from the crimes of blackmail that can result from knowledge of it..
Blackmail is a very powerful tool in the work of pure evil and is the reason why even Marines and Embassy guards have restrictions
on who they may or may not consort with whilst on active foreign postings. I would estimate that there is no greater threat of
exposure than one of sexually exploiting children. Even hardened criminals have contempt for such perverts who are usually granted
special protection when incarcerated.
I would venture the suggestion that people with a compulsion towards sexual contact with children are identified early in their
careers and consequently put forward for rapid progress within government institutions by those working behind the scene to exercise
control over others with decision making capacity in the highest levels of government.
This is not a matter to be swept away if the swamp is to be drained, rather, this may well be where the "plughole" to the swamp
itself is to be uncovered. It will require a special investigation team but not one like the Warren Commission or 9/11 "Investigation",
a real investigation. Americans should settle for nothing less and it is incumbent of them to demand it.
This is not a matter to be swept away if the swamp is to be drained, rather, this may well be where the "plughole" to the
swamp itself is to be uncovered.
I'm willing to believe something pretty sordid is required to keep the bung hole as tightly plugged as it is and I can't imagine
anything else creating a more tightly woven, impenetrable web of mutual blackmail. Imagine what they have on each other, and imagine
what foreign intelligence services could do with same if they got hold of it. Come to think of it, maybe they have
America must get to the bung, dislodge it and deal with the stench that will cover the country for a generation. Until then,
America can't hope to be great again.
This makes a lot of sense.
That string pullers are on the lookout for rising political stars who can be compromised along the way.
Hmmmmm . . .
Seems like a lot of political families have dynastic aspirations. That would mean that such offspring might be natural targets
for monitoring for any "quirks."
Craig Spence's call boy business in Washington clearly involved high civilian and military officials. And Spence was able to
take friends on midnight tours of the White House.
Spence's house was provided by the Japanese ruling party. The house they provided him had at least one bedroom wired for audio
and video. I'm sure the Japanese didn't know that.
The Washington Times covered it for two or three weeks and it was never mentioned again.
Kids from Boys Town in Nebraska were allegedly used.
Unpack that and hope your hair doesn't turn white.
"Nobody is suggesting a rush to judgement here but clearly a prompt and thorough investigation is called for especially given
the supporting evidence, as other commenters have pointed out."
Really.
If the putative "circumstantial evidence" that Russia-no! Putin himself!!-interfered in the American election suffices to launch
the CIA on a nutty investigation whose purpose is, obviously, to "prove" that this is the case to the satisfaction of enough electors
for them to become "faithless," then I think the Pizzagate emails plus "circumstantial" Pizzagate evidence are by comparison much
more compelling and really scream for an investigation. In the Pizzagate case the investigating agency would presumably be the
FBI. Which *might* be grounds to expect a genuine investigation.
No reasonable person would think that the emails really are about Podesta's playing dominos and having cheese for dinner. quite
apart from the fact that cheese is usually mixed in with pasta!! Come on. I bet Podesta doesn't know how to play the game of dominos.
What are these people really emailing about?
For U.S. readers to gauge whether something like this COULD be happening in an advanced country, look to other countries where
such incidents ARE known to have happened.
In Belgium, the Marc DUTROUX scandal led to political consequences and appears to be ongoing.
In the UK, the claims against Ted Heath and Cyril Smith (see picture of both in article linked below) are broadly seen as having
at least some factual basis, and were reported in a number of newspapers including the Independent, the Guardian and the Daily
Mail (see link below). Other names were rumored about.
There were also years of investigations and cover-ups involving various orphanages such as KINCORA (in Northern Ireland) and
HAUTE GARENNE (on the Isle of Jersey). Both were conveniently located in somewhat remote locations outside the direct reach of
English law.
There were also extensive rumors regarding several locations in London. Investigations were accompanied by the usual fortuitous
deaths of potential witnesses, mysterious disappearance of documents, etc.
To reiterate a point that should be clear to the more astute reader, my goal in this series (part 1, part 2) has not been
to defend "Pizzagate" as such. My goal has been to defend the people who want to investigate it against specific accusations
levied against them by people who think Pizzagate has revealed no intriguing information at all-for a specific reason, which
I will be honing in and focusing on much more directly in this closing entry.
Whereas the mainstream critics of Pizzagate would have you believe that the world is divided between paranoid conspiracy
theorist followers of "fake news" and level-headed people who follow trustworthy news sources and rely on cold, hard reason
to determine the truth, my goal has been to show that-whatever is or is not happening with Pizzagate itself-this framing of
the issue is arrogant, insulting, and the product of extremely narrow tunnel vision. [...]
And if the media is telling you only about the most bizarre, reaching accusations without telling you any of the more
interesting points that have been uncovered (which it is), it is not doing its proper job."
If in fact making all the "elite" blackmailable is the object of the exercise and at the same time being blackmailable is the
requisite entry ticket to the elite, then not all the people taking part in all this sinister deviancy need be actual pedophiles!
Some of them could be "merely" psychopaths furthering their careers. (Not that that makes them any better.)
If this story is what it appears to be – the tip of a very nasty and very large iceberg, then it could be the mechanism by
which the "Deep State" keeps its control of the US government. That would make getting an investigation by official investigators
going, very difficlt indeed.
If in fact making all the "elite" blackmailable is the object of the exercise and at the same time being blackmailable is
the requisite entry ticket to the elite, then not all the people taking part in all this sinister deviancy need be actual pedophiles!
Some of them could be "merely" psychopaths furthering their careers.
Well, I don't really have anything to contribute to the "Pizzagate" discussion myself, except to say that some of the supposed
evidence plus the behavior of the media makes me very, *very* suspicious.
However, here's a somewhat related paragraph from one of the articles I published a year or two ago:
An obvious problem with installing puppet rulers is the risk that they will attempt to cut their strings, much like Putin
soon outmaneuvered and exiled his oligarch patron Boris Berezovsky. One means of minimizing such risk is to select puppets
who are so deeply compromised that they can never break free, knowing that the political self-destruct charges buried deep
within their pasts could easily be triggered if they sought independence.
I have sometimes joked with my friends that perhaps the best career move for an ambitious young politician would be to secretly
commit some monstrous crime and then make sure that the hard evidence of his guilt ended up in the hands of certain powerful
people, thereby assuring his rapid political rise.
This is ALL about the child trafficing that the Clinton-Bush Foundation was doing in Haiti. It is the weakpoint in a global
child trafficing network and it is why the Clinton-Bush Foundation has taken down their website and are attempting to cover up
any traces of it as we speak. Trump knows.
Anyone who believes that it is ludicrous to think that pizzerias could be used for such nefarious operations, I 'd like to
point out to you the case of "The French Connection" which later became known as "The Pizza Connection" in which a huge global
network of pizzerias were being used to distribute drugs in the 1980′s.
Anyone who believes that the pedophile code is purely circumstantial needs to take a look at the Katy Perry video "This Is
How We Do" which appears to be an homage to Comet Pizza. It is absolutely rife with the code words from the Podesta emails revealed
by Pizzagate. They prance around with convicted sex offender, who plea bargained out of a child porn charge, Pee-Wee Herman(
http://people.com/celebrity/pee-wee-actor-settles-kiddie-porn-case/
) singing about "this is how they do" and "it's no big deal".
Here is a video "Kids" by the group MGMT. The quote at the beginning of the video is from the quintessential Satanist Nietzsche("Free
spirits", by contrast to the philosophers of the past, are "investigators to the point of cruelty, with rash fingers for the ungraspable,
with teeth and stomach for the most indigestible"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beyond_Good_and_Evil ). The video shows them bragging about how prevalent they are through our
community. The "do as thou wilt" bastards are laughing at us about how they control positions of authority like policemen(3:36
of video) and how childrens TV programs are filled with their garbage of wolves in sheeps clothing(4:24 of video). And of course
the Pizza and Hot Dog symbology throughout the end which culminates with them eating the child. This trash has 77 million views
on Youtube.
Here is the video "Criminal" by Fiona Apple. It is all about placing the blame on the victim, by saying that the victim enticed
the pedo scum, instead of the perpetrator. This homage to Child Porn makes great pains to highlight Pizza(:21 and :38 of the video)
and tiled kill rooms with easy clean-up(:45 of the video and blood stains on carpet at :48 and :54).
The lyrics from "In Bloom":
Sell the kids for food. Weather changes moods. Spring is here again. Reproductive Glands. We can have some more. Nature is
a whore. Bruises on the fruit. Tender age in bloom . But he don't know what it means when I say "Yummmmmm"
It should be noted that there are two versions of this song. The original one has the Yummmmm heard at the end at 4:15 in this
version.
Some potential victims of James Alefantis have been identified and one gave an anonymous testimony.
What James Alefantis allegedly did here is not illegal, but speaks volumes about his character, in my opinion, if the story
indeed is true:
[...]
It turns out that Carole's son, who is +/-18 at this time, is also working at the restaurant. I think his name is Dylan/Dillon.
He grew up without a father and turned to James Alefantis often for advice.
One night Carole walked into the comet pizza kitchen, and saw James Alefantis fucking her son in the kitchen. She was furious
because she immediately knew how completely James had taken advantage of her son. She quit immediately and denounced James
viciously in private, unwilling to do so publicly for professional reasons.
The story checks out, so far: Carole Greenwood is a single mom and has a son named Dylan, who was 13 years old/young in
2003. [...] [–] daj 16 points (+16|-0) 11 hours ago (edited 10 hours ago)
Disclaimer : I have absolutely no idea if this person is authentic, but since many Pizzagate critics argue
that the scandal has not a leg to stand on, because no victims have come forward so far, I believe this testimony is important
to share.
[...]
This is how he answered one of the questions on a voat comment thread. He seems to know/be aware of Dylan Greenwood
[...]
Here is one of the email exchanges between he and James Alefantis, that he did not delete:
http://archive.is/8423t
[...]
After a little while when it was nearing the final exams, I was stressed out, exhausted and let my guard down and went out
for some drinks with James a few times after work to get stuff off my chest. James would drug me up and then take advantage
of me. When I threatened to go to the police he implied that he would harm me physically and said he would sue me. He had so
many friends around DC that I believed him, I really was afraid, and just kept it all bottled up. I ended up getting PTSD,
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, from what were effectively rapes, and later I began to realize that I likely had Stockholm
Syndrome. I eventually quit the job, but James would send me lewd photos and texts for another 2 or three years at the rate
of once about every 2 to 3 months, I think 6 months was the longest in that period. I had to kick him out of the place I worked
when he came in every other month or so for about a year. Let this be a lesson: do not trust sociopaths and pathological liars.
Note: I have personally verified this person's identity and backstory. I obviously cannot verify his accusations. He
wishes to remain anonymous.
By now, most people are at least vaguely familiar with the so-called "fake news" story known as Pizzagate. For those that
aren't, the brief version is that self described "internet investigators" caught wind of some strange wording in the John Podesta
emails released by Wikileaks, and went down the largest internet rabbit hole in recent history.
The story was quickly written off as mass hysteria, a conspiracy theory, and fake news by nearly all of mainstream media,
and censored from the internet forum site Reddit. The theory, which has a plethora of circumstantial evidence, lacked one key
factor: a victim. [...] The anonymous nature of internet forums leads to skeptics demanding proof of any seemingly outrageous
claim. The publication of these emails adds credibility to his story.
"... A judge threw out Guiffre's motion in 2015, but Guiffre stands by her claims and is suing Ghislaine Maxwell, whom she claims acted as Epstein's madam. ..."
"... Buckingham Palace has also denied the allegations against Prince Andrew, calling them "categorically untrue. ..."
"... Requests for comment to Hillary Clinton's campaign and the Clinton Foundation were not returned. The former president, who flew on the "The Lolita Express" at least 26 times from 2001 to 2003, has never addressed his ties with Epstein, a onetime major Democratic donor, according to Federal Election Commission records, who also gave millions to the Clinton Foundation even after his arrest for abusing underage girls. ..."
Trump's supporters have long wondered whether he'd use billionaire sicko Jeffrey Epstein as ammo against the Clintons-until a
lurid new lawsuit accused The Donald of raping one of Epstein's girls himself. Editor's note: This article has been updated to
reflect the withdrawal of Virginia Roberts Guiffre's allegations against Alan Dershowitz and the striking of the allegations from
the court record by a federal judge. For Jeffrey Epstein and his famous friends, the Aughts were a simpler time, when the businessmen,
academics, and celebrities who counted themselves among the playboy philanthropist's inner circle could freely enjoy the fruits of
his extreme wealth and connections. Epstein's
little black book
and flight
logs read like a virtual Who's Who: Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, Larry Summers, Kevin Spacey,
Prince Andrew , and Naomi Campbell all hitched rides on Epstein's private planes. Socialites and distinguished scientists went
to visit Epstein's island in St. Thomas, and cavorted at
epic dinner parties at his palatial townhouse-then
the largest privately owned residence in New York, as
he liked to brag .
There, they picked at elaborate meals catered by celebrity chefs like Rocco DiSpirito, marvelled at Epstein's opulent decor, and
noted the pack of very, very young model-types with whom Epstein always seemed to surround himself. But a darker story was going
on underneath the glamour. In 2008, Epstein was convicted of soliciting
sex from an underage girl and quietly paid settlements to scores of alleged victims who said he serially molested them.
But the girls kept coming out of the woodwork-in 2014, another young woman filed a lawsuit claiming that Epstein used her as a sex
slave for his powerful friends-and that she'd been at parties on his private island with former President Clinton. And just last
week, yet another "Jane Doe" filed a suit in New York accusing Epstein and Donald Trump of raping her at a series of sex parties
when she was only 13.
... ... ...
By the time Epstein was arrested in 2008, police in Palm Beach County, Florida, had already
spent months monitoring his movements, rifling through his trash, and interviewing potential victims and witnesses. Police
reported to prosecutors that they had gathered
enough evidence to charge the money manager with several felonies: lewd and lascivious molestation and four counts of unlawful sexual
activity with a minor. Epstein's freedom, his wealth, his little black book full of famous folk-including princes, presidents, and
prime ministers-all were seemingly at stake.
So Epstein did what the mega-rich do in these situations: hired star attorneys Gerald Lefcourt and Alan Dershowitz, who defended
their client vigorously, reportedly having witnesses followed and discrediting the alleged victims by offering their MySpace pages
as evidence of supposed drug use and scandalous behavior.
Prosecutors said Epstein's dream team made successful prosecution unlikely. "Our judgment in this case, based on the evidence
known at the time, was that it was better to have a billionaire serve time in jail, register as a sex offender, and pay his victims
restitution than risk a trial with a reduced likelihood of success," U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta explained in a 2011 letter.
And so, despite a decade of alleged serial sexual abuse and rape of an unknowable number of girls, some as many as 100 times according
to court filings, the notoriously secretive financier was offered a deal. For the alleged systematic victimization of young girls-most
of whom were plucked by Epstein's assistants from Palm Beach's poorer neighborhoods and groomed to adore or acquiesce to him-he was
slapped with a 2008 conviction on a single charge of soliciting a minor; and sentenced to an 18-month stay in a Palm Beach county
jail-of which he served only 13 months and was allowed to leave six days out of every week for "work release." He also agreed to
a few dozen confidential, out-of-court payoffs to his accusers, the most recent of which was finalized in 2011.
Epstein's "potential co-conspirators," as the U.S. Attorney called them-women who allegedly procured girls for Epstein-also received
immunity from prosecution as a condition of the 2007 agreement that enraged the local police force for its leniency. As of 2015,
according to The Guardian, two of these women had changed their names, and were operating businesses out of a building owned by Epstein's
brother, where it was alleged in court documents that Epstein had housed young women.
Though Epstein must register as a sex offender for life, and arguably suffer the world's most revolting Google presence, he has
seemingly retained his collection of elite academic and media friends as well as his fortune. Since his release in 2009, Epstein
has gone about his business, running a mysterious money management firm (clients unknown, income unknown, investments and activities
unknown) from his private 70-acre island in the U.S. Virgin Islands and spending time at his Uptown stone mansion. The palace was
gifted to Epstein, some say, by its previous owner-Epstein's guardian angel and the founder of The Limited Inc., Leslie Wexner.
... ... ...
In December 2014, just as the Palm Beach lawsuits were winding down, another alleged victim emerged and her claims were salacious:
Epstein, she said, had loaned her out as an underage sex slave to his famous friends -- including Britain's Prince Andrew and Epstein
defense attorney Dershowitz (both men denied the charges). Coming forward in Britain's
Daily Mail in 2011, Virginia Roberts Guiffre-called Jane Doe #3 in a related lawsuit (
PDF )-claimed that
Epstein and his "girlfriend,"
alleged
madame Ghislaine Maxwell, forced her to have sex with the pair's powerful pals and gather intel that Epstein could later
use. In court documents,
Guiffre testified, "Epstein and Maxwell also told me that they wanted me to produce things for them in addition to performing
sex on the men. They told me to pay attention to the details about what the men wanted so I could report back to them."
Guiffre noted that
Epstein appeared to be collecting information on Prince Andrew-particularly on his alleged foot fetish-and claimed, "Epstein also
trafficked me for sexual purposes to other powerful men, including politicians and powerful business executives. Epstein required
me to describe the sexual events I had with these men presumably so that he could potentially blackmail them. I am still very fearful
of these men today." A judge threw out Guiffre's motion in 2015, but Guiffre stands by her claims and is suing Ghislaine Maxwell,
whom she claims acted as Epstein's madam. Meanwhile, the men named by Guiffre seem eager for her to go away. "It's as if I've
been waterboarded for 15 months," Dershowitz told the
Boston Globe after the settlement of a defamation case related to Guiffre's claims. "This has taken a terrible
toll on my family, on my friends " Buckingham Palace has also
denied the allegations against Prince Andrew, calling them "categorically untrue."
UPDATE: This April, Giuffre's lawyers withdrew her allegations against Dershowitz and said that it was a "mistake" to have
filed the accusations in the first place. A federal judge later struck her allegations against Dershowitz from the court record.
At Dershowitz's request, Louis Freeh, the former head of the FBI, also conducted an independent investigation of her claims and published
a statement noting, "Our investigation found no evidence to support the accusations of sexual misconduct against Professor Dershowitz."
In her lawsuit, Guiffre had claimed that during trips to Epstein's private island, she'd also encountered another very famous
person: former President Bill Clinton. Guiffre
alleges the former
U.S. president visited Epstein's "Orgy Island" when there were underage girls present, but added that she never had sex with him
and never saw him have sex with any of the young women. Still, it's these sorts of allegations that have journalists and Clinton-haters
circling. Just last month, pundits on MSNBC's
Morning Joe were speculating about Bill Clinton's oft-discussed friendship with Epstein and whether it would
be the go-to play for a Trump campaign looking to combat Hillary Clinton's claims that Trump is
bad for women .
Requests for comment to Hillary Clinton's campaign and the Clinton Foundation were not returned. The former president, who
flew on the
"The Lolita Express" at least 26 times from 2001 to 2003, has never addressed his ties with Epstein, a onetime major Democratic donor, according
to Federal Election Commission records, who also
gave
millions to the Clinton Foundation even after his arrest for abusing underage girls.
"I invest in people-be it politics or science. It's what I do," Epstein has
reportedly said to friends. "There's a 100 percent
chance [Trump] is going there," said former McCain strategist Steve Schmidt on Morning Joe , referring to Clinton's friendship
with the pervy moneyman.
"... One pressure on Putin comes from the Atlanticist Integrationists who have a material stake in their connections to the West and who want Russia to be integrated into the Western world. ..."
"... We agree with President Putin that the sanctions are in fact a benefit to Russia as they have moved Russia in self-sufficient directions and toward developing relationships with China and Asia. ..."
"... It is a self-serving Western myth that Russia needs foreign loans. This myth is enshrined in neoliberal economics, which is a device for Western exploitation and control of other countries. Russia's most dangerous threat is the country's neoliberal economists. ..."
"... Neoliberals argue that Russia needs privatization in order to cover its budget deficit. Russia's government debt is only 17 percent of Russian GDP. According to official measures, US federal debt is 104 percent of GDP, 6.1 times higher than in Russia. If US federal debt is measured in real corrected terms, US federal debt is 185 percent of US GDP. http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/07/08/deteriorating-economic-outlook/ ..."
"... Russia's most dangerous threat is the country's neoliberal economists. ..."
"... Most of Russia's economic block has to be literally purged from their sinecures, some, indeed, have to be "re-educated" near Magadan or Tyumen, or Saransk. Too bad, two of these places are actually not too bad. Others deserved to be executed. Too bad this jackass Gaidar (actually no blood relation to Arkady whatsoever) died before he could be tried for crimes against humanity and genocide. Albeit, some say he died because of his consciousness couldn't take the burden. Looking at his swine face I, somehow, doubt it. ..."
"... This is not a US vs Russia issue. The real conflict is ... Globalism vs Russian nationalism and American nationalism. But since Jews control the media, they've spread the impression that it's about US vs Russia. ..."
"... Trump is an ultra-zionist for Sheldon Adelson and prolongs & creates wars for the Goldman banking crimesyndicat. ..."
"... Voltaire once said, "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize." ..."
"... You write about Russia but have not done your homework. Russia is very dependent on Western technology and its entire high-tech industry depends on the import of Western machinery. Without such machinery many Russian factories, including military ones, would stall. Very important oil industry is particularly vulnerable. ..."
An article by Robert Berke in oilprice.com, which describes itself as "The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News," illustrates how interest
groups control outcomes by how they shape policy choices.
Berke's article reveals how the US intends to maintain and extend its hegemony by breaking up the alliance between Russia, Iran,
and China, and by oil privatizations that result in countries losing control over their sovereignty to private oil companies that
work closely with the US government. As Trump has neutered his presidency by gratuitously accepting Gen. Flynn's resignation as National
Security Advisor, this scheme is likely to be Trump's approach to "better relations" with Russia.
Berke reports that Henry Kissinger has sold President Trump on a scheme to use the removal of Russian sanctions to pry President
Putin away from the Russian alliance with Iran and China. Should Putin fall for such a scheme, it would be a fatal strategic blunder
from which Russia could not recover. Yet, Putin will be pressured to make this blunder.
One pressure on Putin comes from the Atlanticist Integrationists who have a material stake in their connections to the West
and who want Russia to be integrated into the Western world. Another pressure comes from the affront that sanctions represent
to Russians. Removing this insult has become important to Russians even though the sanctions do Russia no material harm.
We agree with President Putin that the sanctions are in fact a benefit to Russia as they have moved Russia in self-sufficient
directions and toward developing relationships with China and Asia. Moreover, the West with its hegemonic impulses uses economic
relationships for control purposes. Trade with China and Asia does not pose the same threat to Russian independence.
Berke says that part of the deal being offered to Putin is "increased access to the huge European energy market, restored western
financial credit, access to Western technology, and a seat at the global decision-making table, all of which Russia badly needs and
wants." Sweetening the honey trap is official recognization of "Crimea as part of Russia."
Russia might want all of this, but it is nonsense that Russia needs any of it.
Crimea is part of Russia, as it has been for 300 years, and no one can do anything about it. What would it mean if Mexico did
not recognize that Texas and California were part of the US? Nothing.
Europe has scant alternatives to Russian energy. Russia does not need Western technology. Indeed, its military technology
is superior to that in the West. And Russia most certainly does not need Western loans. Indeed, it would be an act of insanity
to accept them.
It is a self-serving Western myth that Russia needs foreign loans. This myth is enshrined in neoliberal economics, which is
a device for Western exploitation and control of other countries. Russia's most dangerous threat is the country's neoliberal economists.
The Russian central bank has convinced the Russian government that it would be inflationary to finance Russian development
projects with the issuance of central bank credit. Foreign loans are essential, claims the central bank.
Someone needs to teach the Russian central bank basic economics before Russia is turned into another Western vassal. Here is the
lesson: When central bank credit is used to finance development projects, the supply of rubles increases but so does output from
the projects. Thus, goods and services rise with the supply of rubles. When Russia borrows foreign currencies from abroad, the money
supply also increases, but so does the foreign debt. Russia does not spend the foreign currencies on the project but puts them into
its foreign exchange reserves. The central bank issues the same amount of rubles to pay the project's bills as it would in the absence
of the foreign loan. All the foreign loan does is to present Russia with an interest payment to a foreign creditor.
Foreign capital is not important to countries such as Russia and China. Both countries are perfectly capable of financing their
own development. Indeed, China is the world's largest creditor nation. Foreign loans are only important to countries that lack the
internal resources for development and have to purchase the business know-how, techlology, and resources abroad with foreign currencies
that their exports are insufficient to bring in.
This is not the case with Russia, which has large endowments of resources and a trade surplus. China's development was given a
boost by US corporations that moved their production for the US market offshore in order to pocket the difference in labor and regulatory
costs.
Neoliberals argue that Russia needs privatization in order to cover its budget deficit. Russia's government debt is only 17 percent
of Russian GDP. According to official measures, US federal debt is 104 percent of GDP, 6.1 times higher than in Russia. If US federal
debt is measured in real corrected terms, US federal debt is 185 percent of US GDP.
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/07/08/deteriorating-economic-outlook/
Clearly, if the massive debt of the US government is not a problem, the tiny debt of Russia is not a problem.
Berke's article is part of the effort to scam Russia by convincing the Russian government that its prosperity depends on unfavorable
deals with the West. As Russia's neoliberal economists believe this, the scam has a chance of success.
Another delusion affecting the Russian government is the belief that privatization brings in capital. This delusion caused the
Russian government to turn over 20 percent of its oil company to foreign ownership. The only thing Russia achieved by this strategic
blunder was to deliver 20 percent of its oil profits into foreign hands. For a one-time payment, Russia gave away 20 percent of its
oil profits in perpetuity.
To repeat outselves, the greatest threat that Russia faces is not sanctions but the incompetence of its neoliberal economists
who have been throughly brainwashed to serve US interests.
When Russia borrows foreign currencies from abroad, the money supply also increases, but so does the foreign debt. Russia
does not spend the foreign currencies on the project but puts them into its foreign exchange reserves. The central bank issues
the same amount of rubles to pay the project's bills as it would in the absence of the foreign loan. All the foreign loan does
is to present Russia with an interest payment to a foreign creditor.
Yes, correct. But this is an IMF rule, and Russia is an IMF member. To control its monetary policy it would have to get out.
Another pressure comes from the affront that sanctions represent to Russians. Removing this insult has become important
to Russians even though the sanctions do Russia no material harm.
Oh dear, neolibs at their "finest"!
This "theory" is simply not true. If anything, Russians don't want the sanctions to be lifted, because this will also force
us to scrap our counter-sanctions against the EU. The agro-business in Russia had been expanding by leaps and bounds for the last
two years. This persistent myth that "the Russians" (who exactly, I wonder – 2-3% of the pro-Western urbanites in Moscow and St.
Pete?) are desperate to have the sanctons lifted is a self-deception of the West, who IS desparate of the fact that the sanctions
didn't work.
Russia's most dangerous threat is the country's neoliberal economists.
Yes! Ulyukayev is, probably, feeling lonely in his prison. I say – why not send Chubais, Siluanov and Nabiulina to cheer him
up?
Berke reports that Henry Kissinger has sold President Trump on a scheme to use the removal of Russian sanctions to pry President
Putin away from the Russian alliance with Iran and China.
Kissinger, like Dick Cheney or George Soros, will probably never be completely dead.
Berke reports that Henry Kissinger has sold President Trump on a scheme to use the removal of Russian sanctions to pry President
Putin away from the Russian alliance with Iran and China.
Kissinger, like Dick Cheney or George Soros, will probably never be completely dead.
Another pressure comes from the affront that sanctions represent to Russians. Removing this insult has become important to
Russians even though the sanctions do Russia no material harm.
Oh dear, neolibs at their "finest"! This "theory" is simply not true. If anything, Russians don't want the sanctions to
be lifted, because this will also force us to scrap our counter-sanctions against the EU. The agro-business in Russia had been
expanding by leaps and bounds for the last two years. This persistent myth that "the Russians" (who exactly, I wonder - 2-3% of
the pro-Western urbanites in Moscow and St. Pete?) are desperate to have the sanctons lifted is a self-deception of the West,
who IS desparate of the fact that the sanctions didn't work.
Russia's most dangerous threat is the country's neoliberal economists.
Yes! Ulyukayev is, probably, feeling lonely in his prison. I say - why not send Chubais, Siluanov and Nabiulina to cheer him
up? ;)
I say – why not send Chubais, Siluanov and Nabiulina to cheer him up?
Most of Russia's economic block has to be literally purged from their sinecures, some, indeed, have to be "re-educated"
near Magadan or Tyumen, or Saransk. Too bad, two of these places are actually not too bad. Others deserved to be executed. Too
bad this jackass Gaidar (actually no blood relation to Arkady whatsoever) died before he could be tried for crimes against humanity
and genocide. Albeit, some say he died because of his consciousness couldn't take the burden. Looking at his swine face I, somehow,
doubt it.
If the US continues to antagonize Russia, Russia will have to grow even more independent, nationalist, and sovereign. At any
rate, this issue cannot be addressed until we face that the fact that globalism is essentially Jewish Supremacism that fears gentile
nationalism as a barrier to its penetration and domination.
This is not a US vs Russia issue. The real conflict is ... Globalism vs Russian nationalism and American nationalism. But
since Jews control the media, they've spread the impression that it's about US vs Russia.
Same thing with this crap about 'white privilege'. It is a misleading concept to fool Americans into thinking that the main
conflict is between 'privileged whites' and 'people of color'. It is really to hide the fact that Jewish power and privilege really
rules the US. It is a means to hoodwink people from noticing that the real divide is between Jews and Gentiles, not between 'privileged
whites' and 'non-white victims'. After all, too many whites lack privilege, and too many non-whites do very well in America.
I say – why not send Chubais, Siluanov and Nabiulina to cheer him up?
Most of Russia's economic block has to be literally purged from their sinecures, some, indeed, have to be "re-educated"
near Magadan or Tyumen, or Saransk. Too bad, two of these places are actually not too bad. Others deserved to be executed.
Too bad this jackass Gaidar (actually no blood relation to Arkady whatsoever) died before he could be tried for crimes against
humanity and genocide. Albeit, some say he died because of his consciousness couldn't take the burden. Looking at his swine
face I, somehow, doubt it.
I'm generally a big fan and admirer of Putin, but this is definitely one criticism of him that I have a lot of sympathy for.
It is long past time for Putin to purge the neoliberals from the Kremlin and nationalize the Russian Central Bank. I cannot fathom
why he hasn't done this already.
Does PCR really think that Putin is stupid enough to fall for Kissinger's hair-brained scheme? I mean, give Putin a little
bit of credit. He has so far completely outmaneuvered Washington on virtually ever subject. I'm sure he's clever enough to see
through such a crude divide-and-rule strategy.
The Russians can't be flummoxed, they aren't children. Russia and China border each other so they have a natural mutual interest
in having their east-west areas be stable and safe, particularly when the US threatens both of them. This geography isn't going
to change. Abandoning clients such as Syria and Iran would irreversibly damage the Russian brand as being unreliable therefore
they'd find it impossible to attract any others in the future. They know this so it's unlikely they would be so rash as to snap
at any bait dangled in front of them. And, as pointed out, the bait really isn't all that irresistible. It's always best to negotiate
from a position of strength and they realize that. American policy deep thinkers are often fantasists who bank upon their chess
opponents making hoped-for predictable moves. That doesn't happen in real life.
I'm generally a big fan and admirer of Putin, but this is definitely one criticism of him that I have a lot of sympathy for.
It is long past time for Putin to purge the neoliberals from the Kremlin and nationalize the Russian Central Bank. I cannot fathom
why he hasn't done this already.
I cannot fathom why he hasn't done this already.
Partially, because Putin himself is an economic liberal and, to a degree, monetarist, albeit less rigid than his economic block.
The good choices he made often were opposite to his views. As he himself admitted that Russia's geopolitical vector changed with
NATO's aggression against Yugoslavia–a strengthening of Russia has become an imperative. This comeback was impossible within the
largely "Western" monetarist economic model. Russia's comeback happened not thanks but despite Putin's economic views, Putin adjusted
his views in the process, his economic block didn't. But many of them still remain his friends, despite the fact that many of
them are de facto fifth column and work against Russia, intentionally and other wise. Eventually Putin will be forced to get down
from his fence and take the position of industrialists and siloviki. Putin's present for Medvedev's birthday was a good hint on
where he is standing economically today and I am beginning to like that but still–I personally am not convinced yet. We'll see.
In many respects Putin was lucky and specifically because of the namely Soviet military and industry captains still being around–people
who, unlike Putin, knew exactly what constituted Russia's strength. Enough to mention late Evgeny Primakov. Let's not forget that
despite Putin's meteoric rise through the top levels of Russia's state bureaucracy, including his tenure as a Director of FSB,
Putin's background is not really military-industrial. He is a lawyer, even if uniformed (KGB) part of his career. I know for a
fact that initially (early 2000s) he was overwhelmed with the complexity of Russia's military and industry. Enough to mention
his creature Serdyukov who almost destroyed Command and Control structure of Russia's Armed Forces and main ideologue behind Russia's
military "reform", late Vitaly Shlykov who might have been a great GRU spy (and economist by trade) but who never served a day
in combat units. Thankfully, the "reforms" have been stopped and Russian Armed Forces are still dealing with the consequences.
This whole clusterfvck was of Putin's own creation–hardly a good record on his resume. Hopefully, he learned.
I'm generally a big fan and admirer of Putin, but this is definitely one criticism of him that I have a lot of sympathy
for. It is long past time for Putin to purge the neoliberals from the Kremlin and nationalize the Russian Central Bank. I cannot
fathom why he hasn't done this already.
He has not done it already because he just cannot let go of his dream to have it as he did in 2003, when Russia Germany and
France together blocked legality of US war in Iraq. Putin still hopes for a good working relationship with major West European
powers. Italy France and even Germany.
He still hopes to draw them away from the US. However the obvious gains from Import substitution campaign make it apparent
that Russia does benefit from sanctions, that Russia can get anything it wants in technology from the East rather than the West.
So the break with Western orientation is in the making. Hopefully.
You forgot to mention the "moderate" jihadis, including the operatives from NATO, Israel, and US. (It seems that the Ukrainian
"patriots" that have been bombing the civilians in East Ukraine, also include special "patriots" from the same unholy trinity:
https://www.roguemoney.net/stories/2016/12/6/there-are-troops-jack-us-army-donbass
). There has been also a certain asymmetry in means: look at the map for the number and location of the US/NATO military bases.
At least we can see that RF has been trying to avoid the hot phase of WWIII.
http://russia-insider.com/sites/insider/files/NATO-vs-Russia640.jpg
If the US continues to antagonize Russia, Russia will have to grow even more independent, nationalist, and sovereign.
At any rate, this issue cannot be addressed until we face that the fact that globalism is essentially Jewish Supremacism that
fears gentile nationalism as a barrier to its penetration and domination.
This is not a US vs Russia issue. The real conflict is Jewish Globalism vs Russian nationalism and American nationalism. But
since Jews control the media, they've spread the impression that it's about US vs Russia.
Same thing with this crap about 'white privilege'. It is a misleading concept to fool Americans into thinking that the main
conflict is between 'privileged whites' and 'people of color'. It is really to hide the fact that Jewish power and privilege really
rules the US. It is a means to hoodwink people from noticing that the real divide is between Jews and Gentiles, not between 'privileged
whites' and 'non-white victims'. After all, too many whites lack privilege, and too many non-whites do very well in America.
On the power and privilege that really rule the US:
"Sanctions – economic sanctions, as most of them are, can only stand and 'succeed', as long as countries, who oppose Washington's
dictate remain bound into the western, dollar-based, fraudulent monetary scheme. The system is entirely privatized by a small
Zionist-led elite. FED, Wall Street, Bank for International Settlement (BIS), are all private institutions, largely controlled
by the Rothschild, Rockefeller, Morgan et al clans. They are also supported by the Breton Woods Organizations, IMF and World Bank,
conveniently created under the Charter of the UN.
Few progressive economists understand how this debt-based pyramid scam is manipulating the entire western economic system. When
in a just world, it should be just the contrary, the economy that shapes, designs and decides the functioning of the monetary
system and policy.
Even Russia, with Atlantists still largely commanding the central bank and much of the financial system, isn't fully detached
from the dollar dominion – yet."
"I cannot fathom why he hasn't done this (nationalize the "central bank) already".
I read about a rumor a few years ago that Putin has been warned that nationalizing the now private Russian central bank will
bring absolutely dire consequences to both him and Russia. It is simply a step he cannot take.
How dire are the potential consequences? Consider that the refusal of the American government to reauthorize the private central
bank in the US brought about the War of 1812. The Americans learned their lesson and quickly reauthorized the private bank after
the war had ended.
Numerous attempts were made to assassinate President Andrew Jacksons specifically because of his refusal to reauthorize the
private central bank.
Here it is in audio form so you can just relax and just listen at your leisure.
*ALL WARS ARE BANKERS' WARS* By Michael Rivero https://youtu.be/WN0Y3HRiuxo
I know many people have a great deal of difficulty comprehending just how many wars are started for no other purpose than to
force private central banks onto nations, so let me share a few examples, so that you understand why the US Government is mired
in so many wars against so many foreign nations. There is ample precedent for this.
Here is proof that there is no real Leftist power anymore.
Voltaire once said, "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."
If the Left really rules America, how come it is fair game to criticize, condemn, mock, and vilify Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin,
Bakunin, Emma Goldman & anarchists, Castro, Che(even though he is revered by many, one's career isn't damaged by attacking him),
Tito, Ceucescu, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Gramsci, Eurgene Debs, Pete Seeger, Abbie Hoffman, Bill Ayers, and etc.
You can say whatever you want about such people. Some will agree, some will disagree, but you will not be fired, blacklisted,
or destroyed.
If the Left really rules, why would this be?
Now, what would happen if you name the Jewish Capitalists as the real holders of power?
What would happen if you name the Jewish oligarchic corporatists who control most of media?
What would happen if you said Jews are prominent in the vice industry of gambling?
What would happen if you named the Jewish capitalists in music industry that made so much money by spreading garbage?
What would happen if you said Jewish warhawks were largely responsible for the disasters in Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Ukraine?
And what would happen if you were question the MLK mythology and cult?
What would happen if you were to make fun of homos and trannies?
Now, keep in mind that blacks and homos are favored by Jews as their main allies.
(Some say the US is not a pro-minority nation, but it's still permissible to criticize, impugn, and vilify Chinese, Iranians,
Muslims, Mexicans, Hindus, and etc. Trump was hard on China, Iran, Muslims, and Mexicans, and he got some flak over it but not
enough to destroy him. Now, imagine what would have happened if he'd said such things about blacks, Africa, homos, Jews, and Israel?
American politics isn't necessarily pro-minority. If it is, it should favor Palestinian-Americans just as much as Jewish-Americans.
Actually, since there are fewer Palestinian-Americans than Jewish-Americans, the US, being pro-minority, should favor Palestinians
over Jews in America. In reality, it is AIPAC that draws all the politicians. America is about Pro-Power, and since Jews have
the Power and since Jews are a minority, it creates the false impression that the US is a minority-supremacist nation. But WHICH
minority? Jews would like for us think that all minorities are represented equally in the US, but do Eskimos, Hawaiians, Guatemalans,
Vietnamese, and etc. have the kind of power & protection that the Jewish minority has? Do we see politicians and powerbrokers
flock to such minorities for funds and favors?)
So, what does it about the real power in America? So many 'conservatives' say the Left controls America. But in fact, an American
can badmouth all true bonafide leftist leaders and thinkers(everyone from Lenin to Sartre). However, if an American were to badmouth
Sheldon Adelson as a sick demented Zionist capitalist oligarch who wants to nuke Iran, he would be blacklisted by the most of
the media. (If one must criticize Adelson, it has to be in generic terms of him a top donor to the likes of Romney. One mustn't
discuss his zealous and maniacal views rooted in Zionist-supremacism. You can criticize his money but not the mentality that determines
the use of that money.) Isn't it rather amusing how the so-called Liberals denounce the GOP for being 'extreme' but overlook the
main reason for such extremism? It's because the GOP relies on Zionist lunatics like Adelson who thinks Iran should be nuked to
be taught a lesson. Even Liberal Media overlook this fact. Also, it's interesting that the Liberal Media are more outraged by
Trump's peace offer to Russia than Trump's hawkish rhetoric toward Iran. I thought Liberals were the Doves.
We know why politics and media work like this. It's not about 'left' vs 'right' or 'liberal' vs 'conservative'. It is really
about Jewish Globalist Dominance. Jews, neocon 'right' or globo-'left', hate Russia because its brand of white gentile nationalism
is an obstacle to Jewish supremacist domination. Now, Current Russia is nice to Jews, and Jews can make all the money they want.
But that isn't enough for Jews. Jews want total control of media, government, narrative, everything. If Jews say Russia must have
homo parades and 'gay marriage', Russia better bend over because its saying NO means that it is defiant to the Jewish supremacist
agenda of using homomania as proxy to undermine and destroy all gentile nationalism rooted in identity and moral righteousness.
Russia doesn't allow that, and that is what pisses off Jews. For Jews, the New Antisemitism is defined as denying them the supremacist
'right' to control other nations. Classic antisemitism used to mean denying Jews equal rights under the law. The New Antisemitism
means Jews are denied the right to gain dominance over others and dictate terms.
So, that is why Jews hate any idea of good relations with Russia. But Jews don't mind Trump's irresponsible anti-Iran rhetoric
since it serves Zionist interest. So, if Trump were to say, "We shouldn't go to war with Russia; we should be friends" and "We
should get ready to bomb, destroy, and even nuke Iran", the 'liberal' media would be more alarmed by the Peace-with-Russia statement.
Which groups controls the media? 'Liberals', really? Do Muslim 'liberals' agree with Jewish 'liberals'?
Anyway, we need to do away with the fiction that Left rules anything. They don't. We have Jewish Supremacist rule hiding behind
the label of the 'Left'. But the US is a nation where it's totally permissible to attack real leftist ideas and leaders but suicidal
if anyone dares to discuss the power of super-capitalist Jewish oligarchs. Some 'leftism'!
300 Words @Quartermaster
Trump has not been neutered. Buchanan has the right on this and Flynn's actions.
Sorry, but Crimea is Ukraine. Russia is in serious economic decline and is rapidly burning through its reserves. Putin is almost
down to the welfare fund from which pensions are paid, and only about a third of pensions are being paid now.
If Sanctions are of benefit to Russia, then the sanctions against Imperial Japan were just ducky and no war was fought.
Roberts is the next best thing to insane.
This is rich from a Ukrainian nationalist ruled by Groysman/Kagans.
First, figure out who is your saint, a collaborationist Bandera (Babiy Yar and such) or a triple-sitizenship Kolomojski (auto-da-fe
of civilians in Odessa). If you still want to bring Holodomor to a discussion, then you need to be reminded that 80% of Ukrainian
Cheka at that time were Jewish. If you still think that Russians are the root of all evil, then try to ask the US for more money
for pensions, education, and healthcare – instead of weaponry. Here are the glorious results of the US-approved governance from
Kiev: http://gnnliberia.com/2017/02/17/liberia-ahead-ukraine-index-economic-freedom-2017/
"Liberia, Chad, Afghanistan, Sudan and Angola are ahead of Ukraine. All these countries are in the group of repressed economies
(49.9-40 scores). Ukraine's economy has contracted deeply and remains very fragile."
Here are your relationships with your neighbors on the other side – Poland and Romania:
"The right-winged conservative orientation of Warsaw makes it remember old Polish-Ukrainian arguments and scores, and claim its
rights on the historically Polish lands of Western Ukraine"
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2016/01/17/poland-will-begin-dividing-ukraine/
" the "Assembly of Bukovina Romanians" has recently applied to Petro Poroshenko demanding a territorial autonomy to the Chernivtsi
region densely populated by Romanians. The "Assembly" motivated its demand with the Ukrainian president's abovementioned statement
urging territorial autonomy for the Crimean Tatars."
https://eadaily.com/en/news/2016/06/30/what-is-behind-romanias-activity-in-ukraine
And please read some history books about Crimea. Or at least Wikipedia:
"In 1783, Crimea was annexed by the Russian Empire. In 1954, the Crimean Oblast was transferred to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist
Republic by Nikita Khrushchev (a Soviet dictator). In 2014, a 96.77 percent of Crimeans voted for integration of the region into
the Russian Federation with an 83.1 percent voter turnout." You see, the Crimeans do not like Nuland-Kagan and Pravyj Sector.
Do you know why?
100 Words @Seamus
Padraig Does PCR really think that Putin is stupid enough to fall for Kissinger's hair-brained scheme? I mean, give Putin
a little bit of credit. He has so far completely outmaneuvered Washington on virtually ever subject. I'm sure he's clever enough
to see through such a crude divide-and-rule strategy.
well it depends. if putin is just out for himself, I can see him getting in bed with kissinger and co. if he is about russia,
he would not. that is how I see it. it isn't about if putin is smart or stupid. just a choice and where his royalty lies.
100 Words @Quartermaster
Trump has not been neutered. Buchanan has the right on this and Flynn's actions.
Sorry, but Crimea is Ukraine. Russia is in serious economic decline and is rapidly burning through its reserves. Putin is almost
down to the welfare fund from which pensions are paid, and only about a third of pensions are being paid now.
If Sanctions are of benefit to Russia, then the sanctions against Imperial Japan were just ducky and no war was fought.
Roberts is the next best thing to insane.
Sorry, but Crimea is Ukraine.
How so? #Krymnash
Russia is in serious economic decline and is rapidly burning through its reserves.
If by "decline" you mean "expects this year a modest growth as opposed to previous years" then you might be right.
I've been reading about Russia's imminent collapse and the annihilation of the economy since forever. Some no-names like you
(or some Big Names with agenda) had been predicting it every year. Still didn't happen.
Putin is almost down to the welfare fund from which pensions are paid, and only about a third of pensions are being paid
now.
Can I see a source for that?
If Sanctions are of benefit to Russia, then the sanctions against Imperial Japan were just ducky and no war was fought.
False equivalence.
P.S. Hey, Quart – how is Bezviz? Also – are you not cold here? Or are you one of the most racally pure Ukrs, currently residing
in Ontario province (Canada), from whence you teach your less lucky raguls in Nizalezhnaya how to be more racially pure? Well,
SUGS to be you!
@Quartermaster
Trump has not been neutered. Buchanan has the right on this and Flynn's actions.
Sorry, but Crimea is Ukraine. Russia is in serious economic decline and is rapidly burning through its reserves. Putin is almost
down to the welfare fund from which pensions are paid, and only about a third of pensions are being paid now.
If Sanctions are of benefit to Russia, then the sanctions against Imperial Japan were just ducky and no war was fought.
Roberts is the next best thing to insane.
Do you have any links to verify this that Russia is down to bedrock,from everything I read and have read Russia's do pretty
damn good, or is this just some more of your endless antiRussian propaganda,,
A scandal of a EU member Poland:
http://thesaker.is/zmiana-piskorski-and-the-case-for-polish-liberation/
Two days after he [Piskorski] publicly warned that US-NATO troops now have a mandate to suppress Polish dissent on the grounds
of combatting "Russian hybrid war," he was snatched up by armed agents of Poland's Internal Security Agency while taking his children
to school on May 18th, 2016. He was promptly imprisoned in Warsaw, where he remains with no formal charges to this day."
With the Poland's entry into EU, "Poland did not "regain" sovereignty, much less justice, but forfeited such to the Atlanticist
project Poland has been de-industrialized, and thus deprived of the capacity to pursue independent and effective social and economic
policies Now, with the deployment of thousands of US-NATO troops, tanks, and missile systems on its soil and the Polish government's
relinquishment of jurisdiction over foreign armed forces on its territory, Poland is de facto under occupation. This occupation
is not a mere taxation on Poland's national budget – it is an undeniable liquidation of sovereignty and inevitably turns the country
into a direct target and battlefield in the US' provocative war on Russia."
" it's not the Russians who are going to occupy us now – they left here voluntarily 24 years ago. It's not the Russians that
have ravaged Polish industry since 1989. It's not the Russians that have stifled Poles with usurious debt. Finally, it's not the
Russians that are responsible for the fact that we have become the easternmost aircraft carrier of the United States anchored
in Europe. We ourselves, who failed by allowing such traitors into power, are to blame for this."
More from a comment section: "Donald Tusk, who is now President of the European Council, whose grandfather, Josef Tusk, served
in Hitler's Wehrmacht, has consistently demanded that the Kiev regime imposed by the US and EU deal with the Donbass people brutally,
"as with terrorists". While the Polish special services were training the future participants of the Maidan operations and the
ethnic cleansing of the Donbass, the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs made this official statement (02-02-2014): "We support
the hard line taken by the Right Sector The radical actions of the Right Sector and other militant groups of demonstrators and
the use of force by protesters are justified The Right Sector has taken full responsibility for all the acts of violence during
the recent protests. This is an honest position, and we respect it. The politicians have failed at their peacekeeping function.
This means that the only acceptable option is the radical actions of the Right Sector. There is no other alternative".
In short, the US has been the most active enabler of the neo-Nazi movement in Europe. Mrs. Clinton seemingly did not get a
memo about who is "new Hitler."
Do you happen to know anything about western financial giants' influence upon Russia's "Atlanticist Integrationists"?
It's low hanging fruit for me to take a pick, but I am thinking The Goldman Sachs Group is well ensconced among Russian "Atlanticist
Integrationists."
You guys are top seeded pros at uncovering Deep State-banker secrets. In contrast, I drive school bus and I struggle to even
balance the family Wells Fargo debit card!
However, since our US Congress has anointed a seasoned G.S.G. veteran, Steve Mnuchin, as the administration's Treasury Secretary,
he has become my favorite "Person of Interest" who I suspect spouts a Ural Mountain-level say as to how "Atlanticist Integrationists"
operate.
Speaking very respectfully, I hope my question does not get "flummoxed" into resource rich Siberia.
Berke reports that Henry Kissinger has sold President Trump on a scheme to use the removal of Russian sanctions to pry President
Putin away from the Russian alliance with Iran and China.
Kissinger, like Dick Cheney or George Soros, will probably never be completely dead.
Kissinger, like Dick Cheney or George Soros, will probably never be completely dead
.
Most likely the Spirit of Anti-Christ keeping them alive to do his bidding.
@Priss Factor
Here is proof that there is no real Leftist power anymore.
Voltaire once said, "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."
If the Left really rules America, how come it is fair game to criticize, condemn, mock, and vilify Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin,
Bakunin, Emma Goldman & anarchists, Castro, Che(even though he is revered by many, one's career isn't damaged by attacking him),
Tito, Ceucescu, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Gramsci, Eurgene Debs, Pete Seeger, Abbie Hoffman, Bill Ayers, and etc.
You can say whatever you want about such people. Some will agree, some will disagree, but you will not be fired, blacklisted,
or destroyed.
If the Left really rules, why would this be?
Now, what would happen if you name the Jewish Capitalists as the real holders of power?
What would happen if you name the Jewish oligarchic corporatists who control most of media?
What would happen if you said Jews are prominent in the vice industry of gambling?
What would happen if you named the Jewish capitalists in music industry that made so much money by spreading garbage?
What would happen if you said Jewish warhawks were largely responsible for the disasters in Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Ukraine?
And what would happen if you were question the MLK mythology and cult?
What would happen if you were to make fun of homos and trannies?
Now, keep in mind that blacks and homos are favored by Jews as their main allies.
(Some say the US is not a pro-minority nation, but it's still permissible to criticize, impugn, and vilify Chinese, Iranians,
Muslims, Mexicans, Hindus, and etc. Trump was hard on China, Iran, Muslims, and Mexicans, and he got some flak over it but not
enough to destroy him. Now, imagine what would have happened if he'd said such things about blacks, Africa, homos, Jews, and Israel?
American politics isn't necessarily pro-minority. If it is, it should favor Palestinian-Americans just as much as Jewish-Americans.
Actually, since there are fewer Palestinian-Americans than Jewish-Americans, the US, being pro-minority, should favor Palestinians
over Jews in America. In reality, it is AIPAC that draws all the politicians. America is about Pro-Power, and since Jews have
the Power and since Jews are a minority, it creates the false impression that the US is a minority-supremacist nation. But WHICH
minority? Jews would like for us think that all minorities are represented equally in the US, but do Eskimos, Hawaiians, Guatemalans,
Vietnamese, and etc. have the kind of power & protection that the Jewish minority has? Do we see politicians and powerbrokers
flock to such minorities for funds and favors?)
So, what does it about the real power in America? So many 'conservatives' say the Left controls America. But in fact, an American
can badmouth all true bonafide leftist leaders and thinkers(everyone from Lenin to Sartre). However, if an American were to badmouth
Sheldon Adelson as a sick demented Zionist capitalist oligarch who wants to nuke Iran, he would be blacklisted by the most of
the media. (If one must criticize Adelson, it has to be in generic terms of him a top donor to the likes of Romney. One mustn't
discuss his zealous and maniacal views rooted in Zionist-supremacism. You can criticize his money but not the mentality that determines
the use of that money.) Isn't it rather amusing how the so-called Liberals denounce the GOP for being 'extreme' but overlook the
main reason for such extremism? It's because the GOP relies on Zionist lunatics like Adelson who thinks Iran should be nuked to
be taught a lesson. Even Liberal Media overlook this fact. Also, it's interesting that the Liberal Media are more outraged by
Trump's peace offer to Russia than Trump's hawkish rhetoric toward Iran. I thought Liberals were the Doves.
We know why politics and media work like this. It's not about 'left' vs 'right' or 'liberal' vs 'conservative'. It is really
about Jewish Globalist Dominance. Jews, neocon 'right' or globo-'left', hate Russia because its brand of white gentile nationalism
is an obstacle to Jewish supremacist domination. Now, Current Russia is nice to Jews, and Jews can make all the money they want.
But that isn't enough for Jews. Jews want total control of media, government, narrative, everything. If Jews say Russia must have
homo parades and 'gay marriage', Russia better bend over because its saying NO means that it is defiant to the Jewish supremacist
agenda of using homomania as proxy to undermine and destroy all gentile nationalism rooted in identity and moral righteousness.
Russia doesn't allow that, and that is what pisses off Jews. For Jews, the New Antisemitism is defined as denying them the supremacist
'right' to control other nations. Classic antisemitism used to mean denying Jews equal rights under the law. The New Antisemitism
means Jews are denied the right to gain dominance over others and dictate terms.
So, that is why Jews hate any idea of good relations with Russia. But Jews don't mind Trump's irresponsible anti-Iran rhetoric
since it serves Zionist interest. So, if Trump were to say, "We shouldn't go to war with Russia; we should be friends" and "We
should get ready to bomb, destroy, and even nuke Iran", the 'liberal' media would be more alarmed by the Peace-with-Russia statement.
Which groups controls the media? 'Liberals', really? Do Muslim 'liberals' agree with Jewish 'liberals'?
Anyway, we need to do away with the fiction that Left rules anything. They don't. We have Jewish Supremacist rule hiding behind
the label of the 'Left'. But the US is a nation where it's totally permissible to attack real leftist ideas and leaders but suicidal
if anyone dares to discuss the power of super-capitalist Jewish oligarchs. Some 'leftism'!
What an amazing whoring performance for the war-manufacturers! And here is an interesting morsel of information about the belligerent
Frau der Leyen:
http://www.dw.com/en/stanford-accuses-von-der-leyen-of-misrepresentation/a-18775432
"Stanford university has said Ursula von der Leyen is misrepresenting her affiliation with the school. The German defense minister's
academic career is already under scrutiny after accusations of plagiarism." No kidding. Some "Ursula von der Leyen' values" indeed.
I doubt we'll see little change from the Trump administration toward Russia.
From SOTT:
Predictable news coming out of Yemen: Saudi-backed "Southern Resistance" forces and Hadi loyalists, alongside al-Qaeda of
the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), launched a new offensive against the Houthis in western Yemen on Wednesday.
This is not the first time Saudi-backed (and by extension, Washington-backed) forces have teamed up with al-Qaeda in Yemen
.
Yemen is quickly becoming the "spark that lights the powder keg". The conflict has already killed, maimed and displaced
countless thousands (thanks to the stellar lack of reporting from trustworthy western news sources, we can only estimate the
scale of Saudi/U.S. crimes in Yemen), but now it seems that elements of the Trump administration are keen on escalation, likely
in hopes of giving Washington an excuse to carpet bomb Tehran.
Apparently, we feel satisfied fighting with our old allies, al-Qaeda and Saudis.
I think that the authors may be underestimating Putin in his determination to keep Russia and the Russian economy independent.
For example, I find this rumoured offer of "increased access to the huge European energy market" very funny, for at least two
reasons:
1) US wants to sell hydrocarbons (LPG) to the European market at significantly higher prices than the Russian prices, and
2) the current dependence of EU countries on the Russian energy would have never happened if there were better alternatives.
In other words, any detente offer that the West would make to Russia would last, as usual, not even until the signature ink
dries on the new cooperation agreements. Putin does not look to me like someone who suffers much from wishful thinking.
The Russian relationship with China is not a bed of roses, but it is not China which is increasing military activity all
around Russia, it is the West. Also, so far China has shown no interest in regime-changing Russia and dividing it into pieces.
Would you rather believe in the reform capability of an addict in violence or someone who does not need to reform? Would the West
self-reform and sincerely renounce violence just by signing a new agreement with Russia?
The new faux detente will never happen, as long as Putin is alive.
Trump is an ultra-zionist for Sheldon Adelson and prolongs & creates wars for the Goldman banking crimesyndicat.
The only one stopping Trump is Putin or Russia's missile defenses.
Indeed, Putin's main inside enemy is Russia's central bank, or the Jewish oligarchs in Russia (Atlanticists). Also Russia needs
to foster and encourage small&medium enterprises, that need cheap credit, to create competitive markets, where no prices are fixed
and market shares change. These are most efficient resource users.
In the US, Wallstreet controls government = fascism = the IG Farben- Auschwitz concentration camps to maximize profits. This
is the direction for the US economy.
Meanwhile in the EU, the former Auschwitz owners IG Farben (Bayer(Monsanto), Hoechst, BASF) the EU chemical giants, who have
patented all natures molecules, are in controll again over EU. Deutsche bank et allies is eating Greece, Italy, Spain's working
classes, using AUSTERITY as their creed.
So what is new? Nothing, the supercorporate-fascist elites are the same families, who 's morality is unchanged in a 100 years.
I'm generally a big fan and admirer of Putin, but this is definitely one criticism of him that I have a lot of sympathy
for. It is long past time for Putin to purge the neoliberals from the Kremlin and nationalize the Russian Central Bank. I cannot
fathom why he hasn't done this already.
I would really love to like Putin and I am trying but him protecting all those criminals and not reversing the history greatest
heist of 90′s makes it impossible. While I am behind all his moves to restore Russian military and foreign policy, I am still
waiting for more on home front. Note, not only the Bank must be nationalized. Everything, all industries, factories and other
assets privatized by now must be returned to rightful owner. Public which over 70 years through great sacrifice built all of it.
Partially, because Putin himself is an economic liberal and, to a degree, monetarist, albeit less rigid than his economic block.
The good choices he made often were opposite to his views. As he himself admitted that Russia's geopolitical vector changed with
NATO's aggression against Yugoslavia--a strengthening of Russia has become an imperative. This comeback was impossible within
the largely "Western" monetarist economic model. Russia's comeback happened not thanks but despite Putin's economic views, Putin
adjusted his views in the process, his economic block didn't. But many of them still remain his friends, despite the fact that
many of them are de facto fifth column and work against Russia, intentionally and other wise. Eventually Putin will be forced
to get down from his fence and take the position of industrialists and siloviki. Putin's present for Medvedev's birthday was a
good hint on where he is standing economically today and I am beginning to like that but still--I personally am not convinced
yet. We'll see. In many respects Putin was lucky and specifically because of the namely Soviet military and industry captains
still being around--people who, unlike Putin, knew exactly what constituted Russia's strength. Enough to mention late Evgeny Primakov.
Let's not forget that despite Putin's meteoric rise through the top levels of Russia's state bureaucracy, including his tenure
as a Director of FSB, Putin's background is not really military-industrial. He is a lawyer, even if uniformed (KGB) part of his
career. I know for a fact that initially (early 2000s) he was overwhelmed with the complexity of Russia's military and industry.
Enough to mention his creature Serdyukov who almost destroyed Command and Control structure of Russia's Armed Forces and main
ideologue behind Russia's military "reform", late Vitaly Shlykov who might have been a great GRU spy (and economist by trade)
but who never served a day in combat units. Thankfully, the "reforms" have been stopped and Russian Armed Forces are still dealing
with the consequences. This whole clusterfvck was of Putin's own creation--hardly a good record on his resume. Hopefully, he learned.
Smoothie, you seem to have natural aversion towards lawyers
Albeit, the first Vladimir, I mean Lenin also was a lawyers by education still he was a rather quick study. Remember that military
communism and Lenin after one year after Bolsheviks took power telling that state capitalism would be great step forward for Russia
whcih obviously was backward and ruined by wars at the time and he proceeded with New Economic Policy and Lenin despite not being
industry captain realized pretty well what constituted state power hence GOELRO plans and electrification of all Russia plans
and so forth which was later turned by Stalin and his team into reality.
Now, Lenin was ideologically motivated and so is Putin. But he clearly has been trying to achieve different results by keeping
same people around him and doing same things. Hopefully it is changing now, but it is so much wasted time when old Vladimir was
always repeating that time is of essence and delay is like death knell. Putin imho is away too relax and even vain in some way,
hence those shirtless pictures and those on the bike. And the way he walks a la "Я Московский озорной гуляка". As you said it
looks like he is protecting those criminals who must be prosecuted and yes, many executed for what they caused.
I suspect in cases when it comes to economical development he is not picking right people for those jobs and it is his major
responsibility to assign right people and delegate power properly, not to be forgotten to reverse what constitutes the history
greatest heist and crime so called "privatization". Basically returning to more communal society minus Politburo.
There is a huge elephant in the room too. Russia demographic situation which I doubt can be addressed under current liberal
order. all states which are in liberal state of affairs fail to basically procreate hence these waves of immigrants brought into
all Western Nations. Russia cannot do it. It would be suicide which is what all Western countries are doing right now.
Russia does not need Western technology. Indeed, its military technology is superior to that in the West.
You write about Russia but have not done your homework. Russia is very dependent on Western technology and its entire high-tech
industry depends on the import of Western machinery. Without such machinery many Russian factories, including military ones, would
stall. Very important oil industry is particularly vulnerable.
Some home reading (sorry, they are in Russian, but one ought to know the language if one writes about the country).
Q: Who and what drove this cultural and political direction within the corporation?
A: There are a number of drivers behind this biased BBC culture. The most important is the fact that a small number of hardline
Zionists occupy key positions at the top and middle levels of the corporation, as well as at the shop-floor level, by which I mean
the people who select what to publish or broadcast on a daily basis and who provide editorial steer to journalists. This has been
widely publicised and has been in the public domain for some time -- see, for example, this
http://tinyurl.com/ydhjzeek , these (a)
http://tinyurl.com/y7mjtkc6 , (b)
http://tinyurl.com/y7k39vsh , and (c)
http://tinyurl.com/y3x9nktl . Also see this
http://tinyurl.com/y6ne4apn and this
http://tinyurl.com/y7l88zwl .
Q: What about political impartiality, supposedly a core BBC value?
A: Unfortunately, there are many examples of such pro- Israel hype, some blatant and others who slant the news by use of emphasis
and/or omission. For instance, there was
Sarah Montague's
interview with Israel's defence minister, Moshe Ya'alon , in March 2015, Head of Statistics' Anthony Reuben's reflection on fatalities
in Gaza ( http://tinyurl.com/ycc9p8d4 ), and the utilization of Gil Hoffman,
an Israeli army reservist and chief political correspondent for the Jerusalem Post to write for the BBC News website (
http://tinyurl.com/yanppk93 ) to mention but a few.
Q: Does the broadcaster have the means or inclination to fix itself ?
A: In my opinion, the chances of the BBC fixing itself is about zero. Apart from what I have said above, it is a cowardly, spineless
organisation. Not only does it always pursue the path of least resistance by selecting to broadcast what is least likely to upset
the Zionist lobby, but it is also deadly afraid of what the Daily Mail might say about its output. Very often, and by that
I mean almost on a daily basis, one would hear senior managers ask at the morning agenda-setting editorial meetings, "What would
the Daily Mail say about that?" Invariably, they would choose what is least likely to be picked up and criticised by the
Daily Mail. Please remember, this is a public broadcaster that is funded by taxpayers (yes, the License Fee is a tax) and
is supposed to "Educate, Inform and Entertain", not propagandise on behalf of Israel.
Q: Some of the so-called Labour 'Whistleblowers' were exposed by
Al Jazeera
as Israeli Lobby assets . Is it possible that the BBC was so bold as to interview these characters hoping that no one would notice
or was it simply a matter of a clumsy decision making? Can the BBC match the journalistic dedication of organisations such as RT
or Al Jazeera?
A: There is no chance whatsoever that the BBC would do anything approximating Al Jazeera TV's programme on Israeli infiltration
of the Labour Party ( http://tinyurl.com/yad6fslm ). The BBC is institutionally
pro-Zionist and institutionally spineless.
Q: You worked in the corporation for 35 years, did you notice a deterioration in the quality of people hired? Was there a change
in employees' attitudes and their willingness to express themselves freely and critically?
A: I worked for the BBC's English-language outlets as an editor and senior editor for 35 years. Since the early 1990s there has
been growing intolerance of criticism of editorial management decisions, even in internal forums which internal BBC propaganda claims
are meant for staff to speak freely. This applies across the board on all matters. But certainly with regard to Israel and Zionism,
any questioning of BBC impartiality would attract accusations of anti-Semitism and would certainly spell the end of one's career,
no matter how privately and confidentially such criticism is conveyed.
It wasn't always this way. See the 2002 BBC documentary Dead in the Water , documenting Israel's 1967 attack on the
USS Liberty .
It demonstrates conclusively that the attack was deliberate and even goes so far as to speculate that it was a black-flag operation
intended to justify a joint US-Israeli invasion of Egypt proper.
Personally, I'm skeptical of that -- although it's possible. I think Israel just wanted to ensure she wasn't forced to withdraw
from Sinai as she had been in 1956. After all, in the upshot, we didn't force Israel to withdraw this time -- but she may not
have been sure of that outcome. Making it appear the Egyptians had sunk the Liberty would have helped to assure we would
be in no mood to demand any such thing of Israel.
Of course, Israel muffed it. She wasn't able to sink the Liberty , and wasn't able to prevent her from sending out a
distress signal. Machine-gunning the lifeboats was of no use if the attack had to be aborted before the Liberty could be
finished off and the surviving crew members never needed to get into those lifeboats.
There's nothing special about Israel. The BBC has a policy on every contentious subject, domestic or international. A conspicuous
current example is Brexit.
@dearieme'There's nothing special about Israel. The BBC has a policy on every contentious subject, domestic or international.
A conspicuous current example is Brexit.'
Lol. This piece notwithstanding, the BBC used to give Israel a pretty hard time.
Then, at some point about fifteen years ago, it was very noticeably brought to heel and has since toed the Zionist line as
closely as it can without visible displays of submissive piddling.
The same applies to the Guardian , by the way. Many of its staff who used to report accurately on the Middle East can
now be found on Middle East Eye.
In a way, I find the Zionism of these organs a lot more nauseating than that of, say, the Wall Street Journal or Fox
News. At least with the latter, there's a kind of ideological consistency to their Zionism. With the BBC and the Guardian
, it's the rankest, most craven hypocrisy imaginable.
It demonstrates conclusively that the attack was deliberate and even goes so far as to speculate that it was a black-flag
operation intended to justify a joint US-Israeli invasion of Egypt proper.
The USS Liberty was an ELINT ship. The Israeli's attacked it to prevent the US listening in to Israeli military radio traffic,
and keep the US in the dark re Israel's operations.
This study shows us that the pro-Israel narrative has become so firmly entrenched in the American mainstream media that it
is almost impossible for news consumers to discern the truth about the situation in Israel and Palestine. This has greatly benefitted
Washington which has made it abundantly clear that it sides with Israel in this fifty year-old conflict.
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) is also under the editorial control of pro-Zionists.
Since the takeover, they have a limited number of revolving topics: holocaust, anti-semitism, slavery, South African Apartheid,
Jewish diaspora feel-good stories, Black lives matter, aboriginal suffering, colonialism, Islamophobia/ why-can't-we-accept-women-in-hijabs,
the KKK, white racism, reparations for Jewish victims of history, refugees, the need to crush white identity .
You cannot go a week of even a day without a mention of one of the above. News critical of Jews or Israel is not allowed.
The BBC claims that these neo-Nazis were supporters of the Russian-speakers who do not wish to be controlled by the ZioNazis
of Kiev.
In reality, the Italian police said the precise opposite. This weaponry was destined to help the ZioNazis of Ukraine. They
were to be used against the beleaguered defenders of the Donbass region.
The lies of the BBC are constant. This is an ongoing phenomenon – MH17, Syrian Chemicals, Skripals, Iran's nuclear weapons,
Hong Kong's peaceful protesters, concentration camps for Uighurs, Global Warming, Building 7 collapsed 20 minutes after broadcast
that it had fallen etc.
my forgotten!! point was that this period of MSM upheaval and enormously rising salaries, noticeably from the 1990s onward,
coincided with ever increasing pro-Israel coverage and ever decreasing pro-Palestinian coverage. Today it has become virtually
an 'anti-semitic' 'racist' 'hate' crime to be sympathetic to Palestinians .accompanied by tearful Zionist bleatings about fearing
for their lives, lurid word pictures of nazis walking the streets and claims of massive population flight to Israel – although
the numbers of UK jews does not seem to decrease. The perception – which could be wrong but given their total dominance
of the media – is quite the opposite!
@(((They))) Live The Hungarian Foreign Minister should have asked the interviewer "Why does the US do the foot soldier work
to protect against the same invasion of muslims into Israel?" While Israel the only country allowed to shoot and kill those even
coming close to their border has the right!
@Parfois1 You raise an interesting point. I remember the outcry over the Beeb reporting on the Falklands that the Beeb was
left wing and treasonous. The BBC was giving massive air time to Labour MPs and talking heads saying that the Falklands should
be abandoned, handed to the Argentinians.
My left wing father (ex-WW2 RN submarine officer) surprised me by pointing out that whatever the rights or wrongs of UK 'owning'
the Falklands the fact was that they did and therefore in the circumstance of armed invasion the UK was obliged to defend it on
the principle of national sovereignty. Not to mention discouraging other such invasions.
I bring this up because exactly these issues have re-appeared today.
That is, the old left-wingism of BBC reportage has morphed into the new left-wingism of today: i.e. LGBT+, racism, anti-semitism,
indoctrinating homosexuality & trans issues into infants in state schools etc. Pro-EU, pro-open borders, pro-migrant, pro-Israel,
pro-war. Anti-Brexit, anti-sovereignty, anti-patriotism, anti-nationalism, anti-religion, anti traditional family all of which
the Beeb loudly deems 'fascist' [deplorable] across all its channels.
"... Moreover, if, as the memorandum asserted, 'British officials' were also aware that the 'most reliable intelligence' exonerated the Syrian government, rather fundamental questions arose as to how the JIC had felt able to claim precisely the reverse in support of David Cameron's unsuccessful attempt on 29 August to win Commons' support for British participation in air strikes. ..."
"... At the time, the Director General, Defence and Intelligence at the FCO was one Robert Hannigan, who in April 2014 would be appointed as Director of GCHQ. The National Security Adviser was a certain Sir Kim Darroch, whose appointment as Ambassador to the U.S. would be announced in August 2015. Both have been in the news, in relation to 'Russiagate.' ..."
"... Obviously, the same question arises about both of them as about Brennan: are they 'Gleiwitz types', who were actively complicit in preparing a murderous 'false flag', or were they simply part of a rather stupid Anglo-American 'dog', whom the 'tail', in the shape of the jihadists and their Turkish, Saudi and Qatari backers, could 'wag', as they chose? ..."
"... From the articles which Seymour Hersh published in the 'London Review of Books', and other materials, it became evident that the Defense Intelligence Agency, then headed by General Flynn, had been aware of the likelihood of fresh 'false flags' -- after the small scale incidents in spring 2013. ..."
"... An argument that 'Sundance' has repeatedly made is that a lot of what was happening in mid-2016, including the dossier attributed to Steele, had to do with the need to find justifications for these questionable surveillance operations. ..."
"... While I think there is something in this, I have long thought that the discovery that a mass of material exfiltrated from the DNC, and was going to be published by 'WikiLeaks', and the subsequent murder of Seth Rich, are likely to have been critically important triggers. ..."
"... panic-stricken improvisation found alike in the dossier, and the claims about the 'digital forensics' made by Dmitri Alperovitch of 'CrowdStrike', and the former GCHQ person Matt Tait. ..."
"... A week later, Butowsky filed a new action, in which the suggestion of a very-wide ranging conspiracy to suppress the truth about both the DNC leaks and Rich's murder was turned into a catalogue of defamation claims against a long list of people, including, as well as a variety of lawyers involved, CNN, the'Nw York Times', Vox, and the DNC. ..."
"... 'That Seth Rich was wacked because he stole the DNC emails and transferred them to Wikileaks is a conspiracy theory. It is possible and even plausible, but there is no evidence to confirm it. Many people seem to believe it because it makes more sense than the competing conspiracy theory, that Russia hacked the DNC and handed the emails to Wikileaks. Isikoff's claim, that Russia planted the Rich conspiracy theory, has no sound base. That theory existed before anything "Russian" mentioned it.' ..."
"... Reading the full text of Ms. Craven's report, I can see quite how well justified was Larry's suggestion in his post that Folkenflik and NPR were on a very sticky wicket indeed (as we say in England.) ..."
"... However, 'fools rush in', as the saying goes, so Isikoff decided to conspire with Deborah Sines, apparently the former U.S. assistant attorney in charge of investigating Seth Rich's murder, to suggest that suggestions that the victim had been the source of the material from the DNC published by 'WikiLeaks' originated as just another Russian plot. ..."
"... It appears that prior to the publication of his 'report', Isikoff talked to Butowsky, who in his efforts to dissuade him explained that his involvement in the whole affair began when Ellen Ratner, a news analyst with Fox, and sister of the late Michael Ratner, who had been an attorney for Assange, contacted him in Fall 2016 about a meeting she had with her that figure. ..."
"... And then, not particularly surprisingly, Butowsky and Clevenger abandoned their inhibitions about identifying Ellen Ratner as a source, and filled in a lot of 'blanks' in their 'narrative' about how Seth Rich lived and died. ..."
"... Among the many problems for Brennan and his co-conspirators -- among whom, on the British side, Hannigan and Darroch, and also Sedwill, are very important -- one relates to the way that the capabilities of 'scientific forensics', in all kinds of areas, have increased by leaps and bounds in recent years. ..."
"... This has meant that they have had little option but to corrupt the processes of investigation. The ludicrous claims by Dmitri Alperovitch of 'Crowdstrike' and the former GCHQ person Matt Tait, which nobody but a fool -- congenital 'useful idiot' one might say -- or a knave would dare to defend in public, are only one of many cases in point. ..."
One does not like to admit to having been one of John Brennan's 'useful idiots' -- I had
thought I could see through any of the 'active measures' which he and his co-conspirators, on
both sides of the Atlantic, could dream up. But I had swallowed whole the notion that Michael
Flynn had been stupid enough knowingly to get involved in Erdoğan's feud with
Gülen.
In fairness, however, I do think that when dealing with spiders like the former head of
the CIA, a prudent fly needs to be sure he, or she, gets competent legal advice at the
outset.
It may perhaps be interesting to put your account together with a post by 'Sundance' on
the 'Conservative Treehouse' site on 14 July, headlined 'Devin Nunes Discusses Upcoming
Mueller Testimony '
This takes up the issue, on which its author has commented extensively, of illegitimate
access by contractors to the databases of NSA intercepts -- an issue which is clearly bound
up with that of the use of such material to create the 'web' in which Flynn found himself
hopelessly entangled.
The post by 'Sundance' suggests, just as you do, that the driving force behind what has
happened was actually John Brennan. The April 2017 ruling by FISA Court Presiding Judge
Rosemary Collyer does not definitely establish that the illegitimate access of contractors
started in 2012, but it definitely strongly suggests that it did.
Reading the 6 September 'Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity' memorandum to
Obama, entitled 'Is Syria a Trap?', whose signatories included both you and Colonel Lang, it
seemed overwhelmingly likely to some of us who were familiar with both your writings that
Brennan had to have been involved in a conspiracy with the Turks, Saudis, and Qataris.
One relevant question related to whether the role of the Americans involved in this
conspiracy was simply 'ex post facto' exploitation of the patent 'false flag' sarin atrocity
at Ghouta the previous 21 August to attempt to inveigle the United States into toppling
Assad, or whether there was 'ex ante' complicity.
Moreover, if, as the memorandum asserted, 'British officials' were also aware that the
'most reliable intelligence' exonerated the Syrian government, rather fundamental questions
arose as to how the JIC had felt able to claim precisely the reverse in support of David
Cameron's unsuccessful attempt on 29 August to win Commons' support for British participation
in air strikes.
At the time, the Director General, Defence and Intelligence at the FCO was one Robert
Hannigan, who in April 2014 would be appointed as Director of GCHQ. The National Security
Adviser was a certain Sir Kim Darroch, whose appointment as Ambassador to the U.S. would be
announced in August 2015. Both have been in the news, in relation to 'Russiagate.'
Obviously, the same question arises about both of them as about Brennan: are they
'Gleiwitz types', who were actively complicit in preparing a murderous 'false flag', or were
they simply part of a rather stupid Anglo-American 'dog', whom the 'tail', in the shape of
the jihadists and their Turkish, Saudi and Qatari backers, could 'wag', as they chose?
From the articles which Seymour Hersh published in the 'London Review of Books', and other
materials, it became evident that the Defense Intelligence Agency, then headed by General
Flynn, had been aware of the likelihood of fresh 'false flags' -- after the small scale
incidents in spring 2013.
And it was clear enough, if one bothered to study the 'open source' material at all
carefully, that the DIA had been a key locus of opposition to the strategies being pursued by
Brennan, together with his British co-conspirators.
Accordingly, the fact that an 'interagency memorandum of understanding', which according
to Collyer's judgement looks as though it may well date from 2012 -- the year Brennan was
appointed to head the CIA -- appears to have led, in that year, to the granting of access to
the material, through the FBI, to outside contractors, looks somewhat interesting. (This is
well covered by 'Sundance'.)
So, I find myself asking whether in fact this gross abuse of the role of the NSA was not
linked at the outset to the divisions within the American intelligence apparatus and military
about policy towards the Middle East, and also whether this may not be relevant to assessing
the role of Robert Mueller, who was FBI Director through until September 2013.
An argument that 'Sundance' has repeatedly made is that a lot of what was happening in
mid-2016, including the dossier attributed to Steele, had to do with the need to find
justifications for these questionable surveillance operations.
While I think there is something in this, I have long thought that the discovery that a
mass of material exfiltrated from the DNC, and was going to be published by 'WikiLeaks', and
the subsequent murder of Seth Rich, are likely to have been critically important
triggers.
Among other things, I do not think that the version given by 'Sundance' can explain the
air of panic-stricken improvisation found alike in the dossier, and the claims about the
'digital forensics' made by Dmitri Alperovitch of 'CrowdStrike', and the former GCHQ person
Matt Tait.
I see that there has now been a dramatic escalation in the legal battles which began when
Ed Butowsky bought his initial action against David Folkenflik and his 'NPR' colleagues in
June 2018. The discovery process in that action was followed by an 'Amended Complaint' on 5
March this year.
A week later, Butowsky filed a new action, in which the suggestion of a very-wide ranging
conspiracy to suppress the truth about both the DNC leaks and Rich's murder was turned into a
catalogue of defamation claims against a long list of people, including, as well as a variety
of lawyers involved, CNN, the'Nw York Times', Vox, and the DNC.
On 9 July, Michael Isikoff published a story alleging that the claims about Rich and his
murder were the result of a Russian 'active measures' operation -- to use a favourite phrase
of TTG's.
'That Seth Rich was wacked because he stole the DNC emails and transferred them to
Wikileaks is a conspiracy theory. It is possible and even plausible, but there is no evidence
to confirm it. Many people seem to believe it because it makes more sense than the competing
conspiracy theory, that Russia hacked the DNC and handed the emails to Wikileaks. Isikoff's
claim, that Russia planted the Rich conspiracy theory, has no sound base. That theory existed
before anything "Russian" mentioned it.'
As it happens, Butowsky and his lawyer, Ty Clevenger, obviously decided it was time to, as
it were, 'unmask their batteries', and provide some of the evidence they have been
accumulating.
There is another useful post by 'Sundance', which in turn links to a very interesting post
on the Gateway Pundit' site. From there, you can access both Clevenger's blog post, and the
text of the 'Amended Complaint.'
It seems likely that Butowsky and Clevenger were pushed into acting a bit sooner than they
had intended. The fact that the name of Ellen Ratner, clearly a pivotal participant, was
misspellled 'Rattner' in the 'Amended Complaint', is likely to be an indication of this.
However, I also think that Clevenger, who seems to me a first-class 'ferret', could do
with the services of an old-style secretary, who checked his productions before they went
out.
As I have previously mentioned, I testified several times in Collyer's Washington district
court on non-FISA matters. My impression was that she is a very ambitious woman who wishes
always to do DoJ's bidding.
Your recollections of Collyer had, unfortunately, slipped my mind when I posted my comment
above. So, unfortunately, had Larry's post on Judge Caroline M. Craven's denial in her report
dated 17 April 2019 of the Motion to Dismiss filed by David Folkenflik and his NPR colleagues
in the defamation case brought against them by Ed Butowsky.
At the time of his post, the full text of the judgement was only available on PACER, which
requires a subscription. However, looking at the 'Court Listener' site, I now see that both
it and some other key documents in the case are freely available.
Reading the full text of Ms. Craven's report, I can see quite how well justified was
Larry's suggestion in his post that Folkenflik and NPR were on a very sticky wicket indeed
(as we say in England.)
And I can also see more clearly why, following the judgement, Butowsky and Ty Clevenger
felt they were in a position to launch an action both against some of the major legal players
in the cover-up of the fact that the materials published by the DNC were leaked by Seth Rich,
not hacked by the Russians, and also key disseminators of the cover-up, CNN, the NYT, and
Vox.
What looks to have happened subsequently is a natural enough process of escalation.
Among those who rather actively promoted the hogwash attributed to Christopher Steele was
Michael Isikoff, who is, apparently, chief investigative correspondent for Yahoo News. In
April, he was reported in 'Vanity Fair' conceding that 'I think it's fair to say that all of
us should have approached this, in retrospect, with more skepticism'.
Any 'investigative reporter' worth his or her salt would have done elementary checks on
the dossier immediately, and not touched it with a bargepole -- again, as we used to say in
England. Also, even among the incompetent and corrupt, common prudence might have suggested
caution.
However, 'fools rush in', as the saying goes, so Isikoff decided to conspire with
Deborah Sines, apparently the former U.S. assistant attorney in charge of investigating Seth
Rich's murder, to suggest that suggestions that the victim had been the source of the
material from the DNC published by 'WikiLeaks' originated as just another Russian
plot.
It appears that prior to the publication of his 'report', Isikoff talked to Butowsky,
who in his efforts to dissuade him explained that his involvement in the whole affair began
when Ellen Ratner, a news analyst with Fox, and sister of the late Michael Ratner, who had
been an attorney for Assange, contacted him in Fall 2016 about a meeting she had with her
that figure.
Although Butowsky intended the conversation to be 'off the record', and the idea was
emphatically not that Isikoff would contact Ellen Ratner, he did. It seems that -- not
particularly surprisingly, in the current climate -- she lied to him, and he was stupid
enough to think that this meant he could get away with publishing his story.
And then, not particularly surprisingly, Butowsky and Clevenger abandoned their
inhibitions about identifying Ellen Ratner as a source, and filled in a lot of 'blanks' in
their 'narrative' about how Seth Rich lived and died.
I am still in the process of digesting the new information. However, a couple of
preliminary observations about the implications may be worth making.
Among the many problems for Brennan and his co-conspirators -- among whom, on the
British side, Hannigan and Darroch, and also Sedwill, are very important -- one relates to
the way that the capabilities of 'scientific forensics', in all kinds of areas, have
increased by leaps and bounds in recent years.
This has meant that they have had little option but to corrupt the processes of
investigation. The ludicrous claims by Dmitri Alperovitch of 'Crowdstrike' and the former
GCHQ person Matt Tait, which nobody but a fool -- congenital 'useful idiot' one might say --
or a knave would dare to defend in public, are only one of many cases in point.
What is really dangerous for the conspirators, however, is when the problems they have in
contesting rational arguments about the 'scientific forensics' come together with problems
relating to more 'old-fashioned' kinds of evidence: crucially, 'witness testimony'.
This, I think, may now be happening.
It also seems to me quite likely that some of those 'in the know' -- including perhaps
Rosemary Collyer -- had seen what was liable to happen a good while ago, and decided that a
prudent 'rat' keeps its options open.
@AP East
Germany was certainly not 'dragged down to Soviet level'. It had a higher GDP/capita growth
rate than the Federal Republic every decade between 1950 and 1989, was always much richer than
the soviet union and by 1989 was the 19th highest HDI country in the world. They advanced from
40% of West Germany GDP in 1950 to 55-57% of West German GDP in 1989.
That said, yes the Soviets did massively strip the country of assets between 1945-1950, and
that probably did set it back for the entire course of its existence as a state, so its correct
to say they dragged it down somewhat. The way you present the situation is exaggerated and
misleading however. Central planning actually worked reasonably well in East Germany although
probably not as well as a mixed planning/market economy would have worked.
Unfortunately Angus Maddison doesn't have data for the separate Germanys, but East Germany
was at less than 40% of West Germany around 1990 according to the Federal Interior
Ministry.
Also as you yourself point out East Germany would have been more impacted by reparations to
the USSR.
@Greg Bacon
Agreed. Here's a place where the original author was wrong. The class struggle isn't over.
Income inequality is bigger than it's ever been. Identity politics are a misdirection used by
elites like Hitlery to divide us so we don't realize who the _real_ enemy is.
@Anatoly Karlinunemployment is not an issue for any minimally competent and conscientious worker in
countries with reasonable labor regulations.
The white working class in the US did not become incompetent and un-conscientious in one
generation. Employment at less than a living wage is not "employment."
Trump is a zionist puppet and pretends to be doing something about illegal immigration but he
has all the authority under the Constitution to close the border and stop the illegal
immigration and since the zionists want open borders , Trump is not doing jackshit about
stopping illegal immigration!
The zionists in control of the zio/US want open borders so that they can merge the zio/US
with Mexico and zio/Canada into the North American Union similar to the European Union with a
new currency the Amero similar to the Euro, and so the borders are going to remain a sieve
!
Trump and Helliary and all the politicians , be they demonrats or republicons are all
under zionist AIPAC control and the borders will remain a pathway to the destruction of
America!
@follyofwar In case you did not hear it, Philip Giraldi is informing us:
25 Senators in Secret Meeting With Jewish Leaders to Plot Strategy Against Growing Anger
Over Influence of Jewish Elites
"On June 5, 16 heads of Jewish organizations joined 25 Democratic senators in a private
meeting, which, according to the Times of Israel, is an annual event.
As with last year, the meeting was chaired by Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and included Sens.
Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Ben Cardin (D-MD), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Chris Coons (D-DE), Bob Menendez
(D-NJ), Patty Murray (D-WA), Jacky Rosen (D-NV), Ed Markey (D-MA), Michael Bennet (D-CO),
Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Tom Carper (D-DE), Bob Casey (PA),
Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Maggie Hassan (D-NH), Mazie Hirono (D-HI),
Chris Murphy (D-CT), Patty Murray (D-CT), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Tom
Udall (D-NM), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) and Ron Wyden (D-OR)".
The real leader of the American Right today is not President Donald Trump. It's Tucker
Carlson.
He's the best communicator in the country, he's talking about the most important issues, and
he has a platform the Left hasn't been able to take away ( yet
). And they're getting desperate, even to the point of
doxxing his home address and
attacking his house .
Tucker is preaching unwanted truths from within Conservatism Inc. I'm sure the top
executives of the nonprofits clustered in Northern Virginia are furious he's on the air.
Certainly, any lowly staffer at any Conservatism Inc. organization who raised his arguments
would be fired.
Perhaps the most revealing exchange of the last year came a few months ago when Carlson
spoke at the Turning Point USA conference [ Betrayal:
American Conservatives and Capitalism, by Gregory Hood, American
Renaissance, January 28, 2019]. While Charlie Kirk desperately tried to convince the young
crowd to support tax cuts for Big Tech, Carlson had them
laughing at conservatism's "inflexible theories ."
Tucker Carlson is sparking the intellectual renaissance the GOP desperately needs.
Could he run for office? Some Leftists are afraid he will --
Jeet Heer suggested he might be the "competent & effective
Trump" that could come after the current president. But Carlson might be stronger where he
is.
Perhaps then Carlson should take his case to the people. [ Tucker Carlson for
president, by Damon Linker, The Week, June 7, 2019] He's certainly a
better spokesperson for Trump than Trump himself.
Tom Cotton wanted to "slash" legal immigration to 700K which is still at race replacement
levels. We need a complete moratorium or the next best thing. Cotton is also as much a
proponent of MIGA, if not more so, than Trump so an asterisk must be placed by his name.
If Trump were really a 4D chessmaster he should have asked Jeff Sessions to stay in the
Senate, where he commanded the respect of both parties, to help shepherd through
restrictionist immigration legislation. Then he should have appointed Kobach to DHS while he
had momentum right after taking office. Instead we got Kirsten Nielsen who was a supporter of
DACA.
Ted Cruz is capable of winning the Republican nomination but he doesn't have the appeal to
win working class white Democrats as Trump did. His religious fundamentalism could annoy some
independents.
incredibly citing smears from the Southern Poverty Law Center. This defamation is
arguably what dissuaded Trump from appointing him.
And we voted for Trump to fight the corrupt establishment and entrenched (((special
interests))). Not shrink from them.
I think Tucker Carlson could probably beat Trump in the Republican primaries. Tucker's
problem is that he thinks if he can keep preaching race blindness and anti-identity politics
every night and that it will eventually resonate with the Jewish led left. It won't and it
never will and identity politics is here to stay so it's time whites start engaging in it.
Tucker is also fine and dandy with the country becoming 90% non-white as long as those
non-whites adhere to race blindness and the Constitution. I'd say the early returns tell us
that they adhere to third world/non-white tribalism.
But at the end of the day none of these men will mount a racial defense of white Americans
as it's either against their religion or their ideology. Whites are being attacked as a race
so must be defended as a race and not simply as "Americans".
The demographic situation will be even worse in 2024, so unless the Republican candidate
can secure at least 65-68% of the white vote (instead of the usual 59-60%) then this is all
an exercise in futility. Then the discussion should turn to secession by any means necessary
to secure a future for white people in North America. The (((status quo))) ensures white
genocide.
Mueller looks more and more like dirty Clinton fixer.
Notable quotes:
"... The Feb. 2018 indictment referred repeatedly to the IRA simply as a "Russian organization." But in Mueller's report 14 months later, the "Russian organization" had somehow morphed into "Russia." The IRA's lawyers argued, in effect, that Mueller's ipse-dixit "Russia did it" does not suffice as proof of Russian government involvement. Federal Judge Friedrich agreed and ordered Mueller to cease promoting his evidence-less charge against the IRA; she added that "any future violations of her order will trigger a range of potential sanctions." ..."
"... In testimony to Congress in October 2017, Facebook General Counsel Colin Stretch had cautioned earlier that from 2015 to 2017, "Americans using Facebook were exposed to, or 'served,' a total of over 33 trillion stories in their News Feeds." Shamefully misleading "analysis" by Times reporters Scott Shane and Mark Mazzetti in a 10,000-word article on September 20, 2018 made the case that the IRA's 80,000 posts helped deliver the presidency to Trump. ..."
"... Shane and Mazzetti neglected to report the 33 trillion number for needed context, even though the Times ' own coverage of Stretch's 2017 testimony stated outright: "Facebook cautioned that the Russia-linked posts represented a minuscule amount of content compared with the billions of posts that flow through users' News Feeds everyday." ..."
"... CrowdStrike, the controversial cybersecurity firm that the Democratic National Committee chose over the FBI in 2016 to examine its compromised computer servers, never produced an un-redacted or final forensic report for the government because the FBI never required it to, the Justice Department admitted. ..."
"... With Erin Ratner being named as a conduit between Seth Rich and Wikileaks in a lawsuit yesterday – the second flimsy leg of Mueller's claims – gets cut off at the knees. ..."
Daniel Lazare's July 12 Consortium Newspiece
shatters one of the twin prongs in Mueller's case that "the Russian government interfered in
the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion." It was the prong dripping
with incessant drivel about the Kremlin using social media to help Trump win in 2016.
Mueller led off his Russiagate report, a redacted version of which was published on April
18, with the dubious claim that his investigation had
" established that Russia interfered in the 2016 election principally through two
operations. First, a Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored
presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.
Second, a Russian intelligence service conducted computer-intrusion operations against
entities, employees, and volunteers working in the Clinton campaign, and then released stolen
documents."
Judge to Mueller: Put Up or Shut Up
Mueller: Needs more time. (Flickr)
Regarding the social-media accusation, Judge Friederich has now told Mueller, in effect, to
put up or shut up. What happened was this: On February 16, 2018 a typically credulous grand
jury -- the usual kind that cynics say can be persuaded to indict the proverbial ham sandwich
-- was convinced by Mueller to return 16 indictments of the Internet Research Agency (IRA) and
associates in St. Petersburg, giving his all-deliberate-speed investigation some momentum and a
much-needed, if short-lived, "big win" in "proving" interference by Russia in the 2016
election. It apparently never occurred to Mueller and the super-smart lawyers around him that
the Russians would outsmart them by hiring their own lawyers to show up in U.S. court and seek
discovery. Oops.
The Feb. 2018 indictment referred repeatedly to the IRA simply as a "Russian organization."
But in Mueller's report 14 months later, the "Russian organization" had somehow morphed into
"Russia." The IRA's lawyers argued, in effect, that Mueller's ipse-dixit "Russia did it"
does not suffice as proof of Russian government involvement. Federal Judge Friedrich agreed and
ordered Mueller to
cease promoting his evidence-less charge against the IRA; she added that "any future violations
of her order will trigger a range of potential sanctions."
More specifically, at the conclusion of a hearing held under seal on May 28, Judge Friedrich
ordered the government "to refrain from making or authorizing any public statement that links
the alleged conspiracy in the indictment to the Russian government or its agencies." The judge
ordered further that "any public statement about the allegations in the indictment . . . must
make clear that, one, the government is summarizing the allegations in the indictment which
remain unproven, and, two, the government does not express an opinion on the defendant's guilt
or innocence or the strength of the evidence in this case."
Reporting Thursday on Judge Friedrich's ruling, former CIA and State Department official
Larry C. Johnson
described it as a "potential game changer," observing that Mueller "has not offered one
piece of solid evidence that the defendants were involved in any way with the government of
Russia." After including a lot of useful background material, Johnson ends by noting:
"Some readers will insist that Mueller and his team have actual intelligence but cannot
put that in an indictment. Well boys and girls, here is a simple truth–if you cannot
produce evidence that can be presented in court then you do not have a case. There is that
part of the Constitution that allows those accused of a crime to confront their
accusers."
IRA Story a 'Stretch'
Last fall, investigative journalist Gareth Porter dissected and
debunkedThe New York Times 's far-fetched claim that 80,000 Facebook posts by the
Internet Research Agency helped swing the election to Donald Trump. What the Times story
neglected to say is that the relatively paltry 80,000 posts were engulfed in literally
trillions of posts on Facebook over the two-year period in question -- before and after the
2016 election.
Stretch and executives from Facebook, Twitter and Google hauled before a Senate Judiciary
subcommittee on crime and terrorism on Oct. 31, 2017.
In testimony to Congress in October 2017, Facebook General Counsel Colin Stretch had
cautioned earlier that from 2015 to 2017, "Americans using Facebook were exposed to, or
'served,' a total of over 33 trillion stories in their News Feeds." Shamefully misleading
"analysis" by Times reporters Scott Shane and Mark Mazzetti in a 10,000-word
article on September 20, 2018 made the case that the IRA's 80,000 posts helped deliver the
presidency to Trump.
Shane and Mazzetti neglected to report the 33 trillion number for needed context, even
though the Times ' own coverage of Stretch's 2017 testimony stated
outright: "Facebook cautioned that the Russia-linked posts represented a minuscule amount of
content compared with the billions of posts that flow through users' News Feeds everyday."
The chances that Americans saw any of these IRA ads -- let alone were influenced by them --
are infinitismal. Porter and others did the math and found that over the two-year period, the
80,000 Russian-origin Facebook posts represented just 0.0000000024 of total Facebook content in
that time. Porter commented that this particular Times contribution to the Russiagate
story "should vie in the annals of journalism as one of the most spectacularly misleading uses
of statistics of all time."
And now we know, courtesy of Judge Friederich, that Mueller has never produced proof, beyond
his say-so, that the Russian government was responsible for the activities of the IRA --
feckless as they were. That they swung the election is clearly a stretch.
The Other Prong: Hacking the DNC
The second of Mueller's two major accusations of Russian interference, as noted above,
charged that "a Russian intelligence service conducted computer-intrusion operations against
entities, employees, and volunteers working in the Clinton campaign, and then released stolen
documents." Sadly for Russiagate aficionados, the evidence behind that charge doesn't hold
water either.
CrowdStrike, the controversial cybersecurity firm that the Democratic National Committee
chose over the FBI in 2016 to examine its compromised computer servers, never produced an
un-redacted or final forensic report for the government because the FBI never required it to,
the Justice Department
admitted.
The
revelation came in a
court filing by the government in the pre-trial phase of Roger Stone, a long-time
Republican operative who had an unofficial role in the campaign of candidate Donald Trump.
Stone has been charged with misleading Congress, obstructing justice and intimidating a
witness.
The filing was in response to a motion by Stone's lawyers asking for "unredacted reports"
from CrowdStrike challenging the government to prove that Russia hacked the DNC server. "The
government does not possess the information the defendant seeks," the DOJ filing says.
Small wonder that Mueller had hoped to escape further questioning. If he does testify on
July 24, the committee hearings will be well worth watching.
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the
Saviour in inner-city Washington. He was a CIA analyst for 27 years and a presidential briefer.
In retirement he co-founded Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. His colleagues and
he have been following closely the ins and outs of Russiagate.
Carlos , July 17, 2019 at 12:52
With Erin Ratner being named as a conduit between Seth Rich and Wikileaks in a lawsuit
yesterday – the second flimsy leg of Mueller's claims – gets cut off at the
knees.
cletus , July 17, 2019 at 05:29
just read your article at lewrockwell on 7/17.
you gave all the facts that irrefutably condemn the mueller hoax and reveal what a con man
he is. I salute you for this.
unfortutunately, you then come to a conclusion that cannot be supported by an reasonable
person.
you think that mueller's con will be called out by the republicans on the committee.
what a joke. They will avoid like the plague revealling that the russia claims by mueller
are a hoax.
they'll focus completely on ' you did conclude that trump didn't collude with the russians,
right?"
anyone who's been paying attention at all knows this.
Robert G. Hilton , July 17, 2019 at 01:13
There was no expert report showing hacking because the expert had found that the Russians
did not hack. Simple as that. The way it works is, that an expert puts nothing in writing
until AFTER orally consulting with the attorney who hired him. If the news is bad for said
attorney, then the expert is instructed NEVER to put the bad news in writing. I used to hire
experts when I litigated patent infringement cases, and that is the way it works. If you pay
the expert, then you make the rules. The judge may understand this too. I'm pretty sure that
the Crowd Strike expert also gave Muller (Andrew Wiseman?) the same news about no
hacking.
michael weddle , July 16, 2019 at 22:41
Why, shortly after Random Juan claimed the presidency, was a Crowdstrike employee trying
to stoke the Venezuelan coup?
I wish that this constant debunking of Russia Gate would be doing some good. Sadly it's
not. Most of the members of daily kos believe everything about Russia Gate and even after
reading some of the great essays written here that debunks it they instead say that this
website has been bought out by Russia.
I once thought that if people really looked at the evidence or lack of it that they would
wake up and smell the propaganda. It has always been so obvious to me that there was never
any there there and I couldn't understand how people bought into it. But I think it has to do
with who people voted for in the last election. Hillary's supporters just can't believe that
she could have lost without outside interference. Sad.
ex-PFC Chuck , July 16, 2019 at 18:08
A post yesterday at The Conservative Treehouse expands on a Gateway Pundit post about an
amended filing to the court in a Texas libel suit that could blow the whole Russia-gate hoax
wide open, taking with it whatever shred of credibility the Mueller Report might still have.
Not to mention the rationale for silencing Assange, General Flynn's prosecution, and the
murder of Seth Rich.
It looks like this fraudulent fable has finally been debunked by the US judicial system.
Now the Hillary bots will have to come up with another excuse for her wealthy donors as to
why she lost the election to a much maligned TV host that spent a small fraction of her
campaign funding. This also takes some of the fuel out of using the Russiagate fraud for a
march to war with Russia that was accompanied by large defense spending increases. Russiagate
was the perfect gift to the Clinton campaign apologists and the MIC that needs a causus belli
to feed the public war machine. That gift box has now been unraveled to display an empty box.
I'm surprised Ray McGovern did not bring up the issue of the alleged hacking of DNC emails to
have been contrary to the capability of the internet at that time. The rate of transfer was
consistent with downloading to a flash drive but impossible for transfer of packets across an
IP network – further debunking the Russia hacking narrative. This whole house of cards
has crashed in and it seems that it will be impossible for the Russiagate fraudsters to
reconstruct their tawdry myth.
jaycee , July 16, 2019 at 14:08
Perceptive bloggers identified the IRA as a commercial clickbait operation two years ago.
Everything about that operation was consistent with that description. Describing the IRA as a
Russian government psy-op program, in turn, was inconsistent with the evidence at hand and so
required the assumption that its purpose was to "sow chaos", or similar guesswork. It should
be remembered that the Facebook / Twitter people were initially reluctant to go along with
the latter theory, and only came on board after a great deal of pressure from members of
Congress such as Mark Warner. So this whole nonsensical story was magnified at the insistence
of powerful Democratic congressional persons, and Mueller was simply bolstering their
arguments – which was his job it appears. The result has been not only a false
consciousness deliberately seeded through the public, but also a raft of social media and
alternative news censorship which has been silencing both alt-right and progressive
voices.
Jeff Harrison , July 16, 2019 at 13:45
Thanx, Ray. I've said from the outset that Russiagate was bullshit perpetrated by Three
Names who just couldn't stand the fact that this was the latest in a long string of failures
that this incompetent, arrogant woman perpetrated on the American people. It was bullshit
from jump street because Three Names won the election by 3M votes but in the American
presidential election you not only need the votes, you need the distribution. Distribution
she didn't have. Russia (or any other actor sufficiently large and determined) can sway votes
for one candidate or another but they can't sway distribution. I personally thought the claim
that Russia via the Internet Research Agency sought to sway the election by disparaging Three
Names and pumping up Thump. Three Names won by 3M votes. Looks like Russia's IRA did a
spectacularly poor job of meddling.
There are some take aways from this that the government should be looking into/doing
something about.
1. Russiagate never had any legs. The legs that it got came from an effort by the deep state
to create them out of thin air. The deep state tried to take on the role of the Praetorian
Guard in old Rome. Their role originally was to protect the emperor but it morphed over the
years into picking who would be the emperor. The likes of Comey, Brennan, Clapper, Struck
(however you spell it) and his femme fatale (at a minimum, there may be more) should all be
marched off to jail and locked up for a considerable period of time for their attempts to
destroy our democracy (or republic – a distinction without a difference).
2. Seth Rich's murder needs to be actually investigated now that he has been outed as the
source of the leak to Wikileaks.
3. The Republican party needs to be banned as a political party. Any clear eyed view of
the 2016 election will conclude that the decades old effort by the Republicans at voter
suppression and gerrymandering are what resulted in the 2016 results. 80,000 votes in three
states that the Republicans have invested great voter suppression efforts – Wisconsin,
Michigan, and Pennsylvania would have changed the election results. This should have been a
major neon sign that winner take all for electoral votes is a bad idea. If proportional EC
votes were mandated, third parties would have a chance and our presidential elections might
become actual contests. Otherwise, we'll continue to have elections that are between two
candidates – worse and worser.
John Puma , July 16, 2019 at 12:36
The proportion of IRA "stories" among total Facebook postings
in the period in question, can be expressed in manner a bit more
readily grasped: on average, one IRA posting appeared among
every 412 million total. For perspective the US population is now
about 330 million.
The FBIs bungling with Crowdstrike information is reminiscent
of its reported 9-11 careless incompetence.
Jill , July 16, 2019 at 13:06
This may be why NPR featured that story:
"Businessman Ed Butowsky filed a lawsuit on Monday that outed FOX News reporter Ellen
Ratner was his source for the Seth Rich information.
This comes after Michael Isikoff's report last week that labeled Butowsky as a Russian
source."
Yahoo's reporter Michael Isikoff is a sock puppet for the CIA/FBI that provided the info
to NPR and was one of the first to spread the lies told to him by Steele about Russian
interference. He must have tried to head off the lawsuit filed today. Ed Butowsky filed a
lawsuit against the liberal media claiming defamation and business disparagement. He claims
that Assange told Ellen Ratner (Fox News analyst and sister of Assange's lawyer who passed
away) that Seth and Aaron Rich provided the emails to Wikileaks.
I don't think anyone with a couple of brain cells would dismiss the idea that an insider
with the DNC having access to delicate, perhaps damaging material, being what seems on the
surface, to be the victim of a motiveless murder would ask the question, was there any
connection between Seth Rich's demise and the crap storm that ensued after the Wikileaks
release. Really hello !
LarcoMarco , July 16, 2019 at 17:46
"NPR's Steve Inskeep talks to Michael Isikoff" – what a predictable farce! "We
talked to Deborah Sines, who was the federal prosecutor in charge of the investigation into
Seth Rich's death. She was an assistant U.S. attorney in the U.S. attorney's office in the
District of Columbia, which prosecutes local murders. And she would see these conspiracy
theories about her case circulating on the Web. She was – she wanted to find out where
they were coming from."
At least we now know that Seth Rich's death is/was a Federal case. No more claiming the
DCPD has jurisdiction. But no disclosures of the contents of Seth Rich's cell phone and
laptop.
Eric32 , July 16, 2019 at 10:38
The author seems consumed by this carnival of politicized legalized covert intelligence
operations, by people and entities trying to retain money and power.
What's important is that the system hasn't been working for decades, and there's going to
be increasingly serious problems, maybe fatal ones, rising if a big overhaul doesn't
occur.
Al Pinto , July 16, 2019 at 09:43
The DNC and MSM sold, and sold well, the Russiagate to the general public. Does it really
matter, if the "Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election has now come
apart at the seams"? Neither the DNC, nor the MSM will report/mention either of the court
case, pretty much a blackout for the general public.
Even, if these court cases are widely reported, do you really believe that the majority of
the people would change their mind? After almost three years, there's no way that these
people will change their mind. The only change that widely reporting these court cases would
result in is, that Trump and HRC supporters would hate each other even more.
This Russiagate will be with us pretty much forever, it'll morph in to accusing people of
being Russian agents and/or Russian Bots. We already see this taking place and just wait,
until next year. It's not going to be pretty
michael , July 16, 2019 at 12:40
Aaron Mate has done a brilliant job researching and debunking Russiagate. Unfortunately
for him, he is now ostracized and has to survive on the margins, with other people with
critical thinking skills.
You're right. The truth doesn't matter, just the BS narrative that has been shoved down
our throats for the last few years. It never made any sense to anyone who really thought
about it but the media whores just keep spewing total nonsense and they surely won't change
their ways now. The fact that the entire crock is really irrelevant to the majority of our
citizens doesn't matter to them a bit.
AnneR , July 16, 2019 at 09:42
Thank you again Mr McGovern for another article on this never ending saga. While I hope
that sanity begins to dawn among the so-called progressives, I have serious doubts.
1. Neither the BBC World Service nor NPR have mentioned (at least while I've been
listening) Judge Friedrich's ruling vis a vis provide the evidence (discovery) to the IRA
12's lawyers or tear up the indictment (essentially). Indeed, I've not heard, on the MSM,
anything about those 12 IRA folks employing a lawyer and challenging Mueller's indictment.
Silence works as well as obfuscation, lies.
2. The Demrats simply will not let their Russophobia go. I gather (from RT – tut tut
I must be an RU bottle) that Ms Harris AIPAC schmoozer, keen and eager lock 'em up and throw
away the key, corporate-capitalist crony Kamala has been accusing the Russians of stirring up
the controversy surrounding Kaepernick's bending of the knee. The Russians and their bots did
it.
3. And then this morning on NPR – a Steve Inskip interview with Michael Isikoff
focusing on the Seth Rich "conspiracy theory" and of course the whole thing (or that segment
which I could stomach hearing) presumed as a matter of established, and thus true, fact that
everything that went wrong for the DNC's HRC campaign was caused by the Russians – for
which read Putin. Isikoff was there as an "investigative" journalist for "Yahoo News" –
and his "investigation" had shown that the Russians were – who else – behind the
conspiracy theory that Seth Rich was killed by HRC thugs in order to keep him permanently
quiet about corruption in the DNC. (Corruption – a rather mealy-mouthed way of avoiding
bringing into NPR daylight what the DNC were actually doing: determining who would be the Dem
candidate willy nilly of who the voters wanted. But this mealy-mouthedness is fully in
keeping with NPR's basic silence on what Wikileaks revealed via that insider download.)
Orwellian. Propaganda at its Bernays, Goebbels best. Despair . This business is *not*
going away. The Demrats – both in DC and their bourgeois/progressive supporters have
far too much invested in the whole confabulation for them to admit that the former
deliberately lied and the latter were willing? hoodwinked.
Thanks for your comment. I would like it if somehow "despair," could be disallowed.
There are enough of us, after all. And, as Annie Dillard put it, "There never was anybody
but us."
I also take some inspiration from the dismal-sounding, yet somehow uplifting words of I.
F. Stone:
"The only kinds of fights worth fighting are those you're going to lose, because somebody
has to fight them and lose and lose and lose until someday, somebody who believes as you do
wins."
THE CHALLENGE IS TO ACCEPT THAT, AND FIND JOY IN TRYING -- AND EVEN IN LOSING.
I believe the losing does not last forever; think we all need to do our part in the
"interim."
Best regards,
Ray
DW Bartoo , July 16, 2019 at 19:44
That sums things up precisely, Ray.
None of us may live to see a complete turn-around, yet it is the honest effort to
encourage and build the foundation for that fundamental systemic change to conscious and
principled human awareness which is the measure we must make of ourselves.
Your sense of moral presence, Ray, is very much appreciated.
It serves as inspiration for all, and especially the young, who already understand, and
encourages, as example, those who are coming to understand.
DW
AnneR , July 17, 2019 at 08:33
Dear Mr McGovern – thank you for reading and replying to my comment.
And, yes, I do understand the objection to despair – though not, might I add, any
thought that its frank expression be expunged!
Were it only the whole Russiagate fabrication, delusions, time and money waste (oh well,
only taxpayers' money) and fallout that was so dreadfully wrong, being heinously enacted.
Indeed were it all that our taxes were being wasted on.
Perhaps that's it – Russiagate while distracting from the things that the DNC and
HRC did, said, *also* makes for good deflection from the war crimes we are committing, the
never ending imperialist warmongering we are engaged in, from the fact that many Demrats
voted for those nice tax breaks given to the wealthiest tiers in our society, that many of
those Demrats voted to hand over to the MIC *even more* loot even as the Pentagon can't
account for the billions, or whatever fantastikal amount, it has already received over the
years, deflection from the fact that despite such a "good" economy increasing numbers of
people are living ever more economically precarious lives, rents rise astronomically,
healthcare is a joke (or would be were its lack not so serious for so many). And that's not
to mention the realities of climate change or the continuing (and MSM ignored) 70 plus year
plight of Palestinians, among so many others.
My late husband used to tell me to write to NPR, the BBC, to let them know that they
weren't codding everyone with their disinformation, non-information, lack of objectivity
– their propaganda. And I did, often and used to ask for a response. Did I even get
those? You must be joking
AnneR , July 17, 2019 at 14:08
In case someone might think that I expected either the BBC or NPR to alter their ways
because of my "letters" (interestingly the BBC only allows/ed for around 1000 characters or
something equally useless) – no. But when (in the case of the BBC) you can tick the
"please reply" box and get total silence, not even a "thank you for your blah blah we shan't
pay any attention to your complaints ," in response it is pretty frustrating.
As for NPR – I stopped our contributions. Why would we *pay* for the privilege of
being propagandized? I just wish we had stopped them years earlier
Anyway, thank you Mr McGovern for your continuing coverage of this whole affair. I just
wish my late partner in life and love had known of this website.
ML , July 16, 2019 at 09:24
Each morning when I arise, I get my coffee and settle down to read Consortium News. I also
make a habit of a quick perusal of what the stenographers are jawing about on CNN today,
there is a real doozy smearing Assange. The spinners are working overtime to patch over all
the holes in their hoax story. I couldn't get through the whole thing because it's another
smear piece and a long one including the old saw that Assange smeared feces on the Ecuadorian
embassy's walls. I had to stop reading. Gosh, I can't abide those people. Thanks Ray, for
telling the truth. We are drowning in $h** out there in la-la land. CN offers a much-needed
dose of reality medicine. Thank you kindly, all.
Skip Scott , July 16, 2019 at 10:19
Here's a good essay by Caitlin Johnstone regarding the Assange hit-piece.
Even worse news for the Russiahoaxers is the recent revelation , documented in a lawsuit ,
that Ellen Ratner , sister of deceased Wikileaks' lawyer Michael Ratner, met with Assange in
the fall of 2016 and was told by him that Aaron and Seth Rich provided the DNC leaks to
Wikileaks. Ed Butowsky was made aware of this , with instructions by Ms. Ratner for him to
relay the information to the Rich family. When he did so , in December 2016 , he was told by
Joel Rich , Seth's father , that he was already aware of his sons' involvement.
This is no longer conspiracy talk , folks. Ed Butowsky is not dumb enough to make these
claims on court documents without knowing he can back them up. Shit is about to get real for
Mueller and the DNC.
"BREAKING: Lawsuit Outs Reporter Ellen Ratner as Source for Seth Rich Information" @
Gateway Pundit
Well, Skip Scott, either this revelation will put "paid" to the "Russia-did-it!" charade,
or else the Voracious Memory Hole will act like a giant black hole and the event horizon will
be swallowed into total nothingness as a new Middle-Eastern Adventure captures the hearts and
minds of the happy warriors and consumers of U$ Imperialism.
Whatever happens, it will be wholey interesting times ahead.
DW
jmg , July 16, 2019 at 10:01
There was a related, extensive 2018 interview about Butowsky's private investigation into
the Seth Rich case to help the family, what they found, and what happened (the DNC assigned
someone to represent the family, etc.; the mentioned lawsuits were later dropped/dismissed).
It included, without naming Ratner, the unverified mention: "his friend came back from London
with information that he said he wanted to get to the Rich family." Since this alleged
private message appears to be not only doubtful, but of course also not confirmed by
WikiLeaks, we can't really know if it happened or not.
Seth Rich, disgruntled DNC worker, blows the whistle on HillBillary Clinton rigging the
Democratic presidential primary against Bernie Sanders, so he gives data supporting his
discovery of rigging to Wikileaks. Rich got the data on a thumdrive downloaded at DNC HQ
itself.
No Russians, no hacking, just a whistleblower on the fraud ironically called US
"democracy." We've all seen the data Rich leaked. Emails detailing HillBillary Clinton's
graft and fraud and collusion against Sanders.
No wonder no other candidates besides Sanders ran against HillBillary, for they all knew
the fix was in from its inception!
I dunno who killed Seth Rich, but I do know the Democratic party stole the election from
Bernie, then projected its own crimes onto Russia, same way a kid projects his own crime of
breaking a cookie jar on his brother when he tells Momma "He dit it –> He ate the
cookies and broke the jar!" Meanwhile, there's chocolate smeared all over the DNC's face.
We have evidence for this, the leaked emails themselves tell the story
Gregory Herr , July 16, 2019 at 18:15
Seth Rich copied and leaked the DNC e-mails and was murdered for it. For this to become
irrefutable common knowledge will be quite one godsend of a reality check. Maddow might not
be able to get out of bed for weeks.
Repeat after me Rachel there was no Russian hack, there was no Russian hack, there was no
Russian hack
jmg , July 16, 2019 at 07:13
From the Brennan–Comey–Rogers assessment/opinion (January 6, 2017):
"We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump's
election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her
unfavorably to him. All three agencies agree with this judgment. CIA and FBI have high
confidence in this judgment; NSA has moderate confidence. . . .
"- High confidence generally indicates that judgments are based on high-quality
information from multiple sources. High confidence in a judgment does not imply that the
assessment is a fact or a certainty; such judgments might be wrong.
"- Moderate confidence generally means that the information is credibly sourced and
plausible but not of sufficient quality or corroborated sufficiently to warrant a higher
level of confidence."
"When they say they have 'high confidence', that means they don't have any evidence!"
-- Bill Binney, former NSA Technical Director
DW Bartoo , July 16, 2019 at 07:10
Thank you, Ray McGovern for this splendid article laying out the facts which make clear
the absurdities of these last several years. One hopes, now that the "Russia-did-it" canard
is fully exposed, by US courts, that the truth may finally get through, over or around, the
media wall of enforced ignorance and Mueller hero-worship, and reach the ears and eyes of the
people.
Should that actually happen, it might even be possible that other truth, long subject to
media manipulation and distortion, the cases of Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning come
readily to mind, could be seen in the honest light of day after an almost eight year
protracted nightmare of media driven deceit, psychological torture, and deliberately vicious
character assassination is revealed, in Assange's case, as it might well be, by Nils Melzer's
report to the UN.
The legacy U$ corporate media have much to answer for, from promulgating lies that led to
war, to missile attacks, and to brutal economic sanctions, a form of economic warfare, to
efforts to start a new Cold War, and to aggrandize intelligence agencies which have sought to
pervert justice and to illegally influence the political process by falsely accusing, on the
flimsy words of partisan political operatives, another nation of the very actions those
agencies have used, repeatedly and for many decades,to destroy the political processes of
other nations, including the very nation singled out to take the blame for Hillary Clinton's
abysmal and pathetic failure in the 2016 election.
What a waste of time, resources, trust, and energy it has bee, these last years, yet it
was all so very profitable and lucrative for the media, even if it were "not good" for the
country.
The media have damned and convicted themselves.
The U$ intelligence agencies have exposed themselves as corrupt, completely dishonest,
vindictive, petty, and thoroughly untrustworthy.
It remains to be seen if the people have learned anything, and whether they will do
anything with this costly, yet necessary, education.
DW
Allan , July 16, 2019 at 07:04
Will Adam Schiff spend the week with Bob Mueller to get their story straight
UserFriendly , July 16, 2019 at 05:18
?Unfortunately this is partially bunk. The first bit the judge didn't rule that there was
no evidence, she ruled that Mueller publicly saying that the IRA = kremlin and they did try
to help Trump win was prejudicial in the case against the IRA (quite obviously so). But him
not being able to say that during his testimony should go over well with the democrats. Of
course if he actually wanted to explain all he would have to do is drop the case against the
IRA because it's never going to trial anyways. Almost makes you wonder if he filed those
charges expressly so he wouldn't have to connect the imaginary dotts.
Aiya , July 16, 2019 at 11:03
What they called "trying to help Trump" was a miniscule amount of social media posts, 56%
of which were made AFTER the election. And Facebook had to look 3 times to come up with
ANYTHING–what they finally reported were posts coming from Russia or eastern Europe,
posts in Cyrillic language, and posts from people with Russian/European names.
"... Sy Hersh stated that he has a trusted source inside the FBI who told him that he had seen a secret FBI report regarding an analysis of Seth's laptop, on which they found evidence that Seth had offered samples of DNC emails to WIkileaks and offered a much larger batch in return for payment; and that Seth subsequently had provided the DNC emails to Wikileaks via a drop box. ..."
"... Seth Rich was murdered, for no clear reason – no valuable belongings taken - several weeks after the DNC emails were exfiltrated from the DNC. The creator of the Guccifer 2.0 hoax would have had strong motivation to eliminate (or otherwise silence) the actual leaker, to prevent his hoax from being unmasked. Unmasking the hoax could have had a devastating impact on Hillary's campaign. ..."
"... Murray states that he had a meeting in Washington DC in September 2016 with someone involved in this leak - hence he may have privileged insight on this issue. ..."
"... Mueller's tale of how he allegedly transferred the emails to Wikileaks is overtly absurd ..."
Reasons to Suspect that Seth Rich Participated in the Leaking of the DNC Emails to
Wikileaks
veganmark on Fri, 07/05/2019 - 10:38pm
The evidence that Russian intelligence hacked the DNC to provide the DNC emails which
Wikileaks published is wholly unconvincing. In particular, the Guccifer 2.0 persona identified
by the ICA and the Mueller report as the hacker, is clearly no Russian, and Mueller's tale of
how he allegedly transferred the emails to Wikileaks is overtly absurd.
Julian Assange has strongly hinted that Seth Rich could be the leaker, and offered a reward
for info leading to the apprehension of his killer. He further asserts, quite definitively,
that Russian government hackers were not the source.
Wikileaks has repeatedly retweeted essays implying that Seth was the leaker.
Craig Murray, Julian's close associate, assures us that the Wikileaks DNC and Podesta
releases were the result of leaks by individuals with legal access to the material, not
hacks.
Sy Hersh stated that he has a trusted source inside the FBI who told him that he had seen a
secret FBI report regarding an analysis of Seth's laptop, on which they found evidence that
Seth had offered samples of DNC emails to WIkileaks and offered a much larger batch in return
for payment; and that Seth subsequently had provided the DNC emails to Wikileaks via a drop
box.
Larry Johnson, former CIA agent, claims that he has two inside sources that confirm
this.
Kim Dotcom claims that Seth was the leaker, and that he assisted him in this effort.
Ed Bukowsky claims that a source close to Julian told him confidentially that Seth and Aaron
Rich were the sources of the released DNC emails, and asked him to contact Seth's parents about
this. Bukowsky claims that, when he informed Seth's father about this, he said "I already know
that". It was only after the DNC "helpfully" provided the Rich family with "crisis consultant"
Brad Bauman that the Rich family publicly denounced any suspicion that Seth had been the
leaker. Reportedly, the Riches have become persuaded that the Wikileaks releases were
responsible for the election of Trump, and they don't want to admit that Seth could have had
anything to do with that.
Seth Rich was murdered, for no clear reason – no valuable belongings taken - several
weeks after the DNC emails were exfiltrated from the DNC. The creator of the Guccifer 2.0 hoax
would have had strong motivation to eliminate (or otherwise silence) the actual leaker, to
prevent his hoax from being unmasked. Unmasking the hoax could have had a devastating impact on
Hillary's campaign.
As to the source of the Podesta emails published by Wikileaks, Craig Murray assures us that
the well known spearphishing of Podesta's computer is a red herring. Rather, he states that
Podesta was being monitored by the NSA owing to his business ties to Ukraine.
Someone in the NSA who had access to these emails - presumably someone upset with Hillary's campaign - leaked
them to Wikileaks. Murray states that he had a meeting in Washington DC in September 2016 with
someone involved in this leak - hence he may have privileged insight on this issue.
Mueller's tale of how he allegedly transferred the emails to Wikileaks is overtly
absurd
was explained in the report by saying that someone from Trump's campaign gave Julian the
information when they went to London. Did Robert get that information from the guardian
article written by Luke Harding? If so, lol! Wikileaks debunked this article the minute it
came out and no one from the Ecuadorian embassy or from London's many CCTV cameras showed any
video evidence of it happening.
There are so many holes in this whole Russia Gate saga that I'm surprised anyone is
believing it. Guess you cross posted this on ToP right?
"... I cannot verify whether Robert Maxwell was a Mossad agent or if association with the Mossad is an hereditary trait, but the possible conjecture that Epstein and Maxwell were running an intelligence operation makes sense of the questions surrounding this gruesome spectacle. ..."
"... This intelligence postulate raises a crucial question. If Epstein was a spy, who did he work for? Was it the Russians? I only ask because every time Tel Aviv comes up as a likely suspect American media tends to blame the Russians . ..."
"... Another possibly is that this affair is a classic MI6 operation and Epstein is actually the paedophile model of 007. ..."
"... it is difficult to believe that the Mossad acting by itself was powerful enough to procure for Epstein his remarkably lenient plea deal. ..."
"... If it was the Mossad, they likely enjoyed significant support from within the American intelligence community. ..."
"... Something is just not quite right about Epstein's 'career'. Hugh Hefner could live the 'Playboy' life into his nineties and never run afoul of the law or public opinion because his 'girls' driver's licenses said 18. ..."
"... As a practical matter, to a 40 or 50 year old man looking for some young flesh being 16 or 18 is a distinction without a difference but it makes a world of difference if your goal is blackmail but this begs another question. ..."
"... If you are Prince Andrew, a billionaire or an ex POTUS do your really need the services of Epstein and Maxwell to get laid- even by a teeny bopper? ..."
"... The biggest item missing from Gilad Atzmon's look at Jeffrey Epstein, is Epstein's historically biggest financial partner, Les Wexner ..."
"... In 1988 Jeffrey Epstein declared net worth of only USA $20 million where did he get the huge fortune after that? ..."
"... Wexner's trust bought the New York mansion Epstein lives in, which was raided the other day, Wexner turning it over to Epstein around 1995 ..."
"... On 30 June during the USA 2016 election, The Daily Beast ran a story about how the Jeffrey Epstein files, could destroy either the Clintons or Donald Trump https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-billionaire-pedophile-who-could-bring-down-donald-trump-and-hillary-clinton ..."
It is possible that Epstein is just an ordinary paedophile, a slave to his own sick depravity. But this now seems unlikely, it
leaves too many questions unresolved: why did Epstein build a sex trafficking network? Why did he seek the company of the world's
most influential characters? Why did he schlep all those royals, once and future presidents, Harvard professors and movie
stars around the world in his 'Lolita Express'? And then we get to the big question: how did he get away with it all? Back in 2007,
registered sex offender Epstein was supposed to spend the rest of his life behind bars. Instead he spent a mere thirteen months
in a VIP prison.
The Daily Beast reported yesterday that when Alexander Acosta, the former U.S. attorney in Miami who
infamously cut Epstein a non-prosecution plea deal back in 2007 , was being interviewed for the job of US labor secretary by
the Trump administration's transition team, Acosta's conduct in the Epstein affair came under scrutiny. In that interview Acosta
allegedly said, "I was told Epstein 'belonged to intelligence' and to leave it alone."
The more we look into this registered sex offender's saga, the more it appears to have the characteristics of a gargantuan espionage
operation. If so, then Epstein was running a multi-million intelligence apparatus set to accumulate dirt on some of the world's
most influential people. The walls of his Caribbean island palace were rigged with cameras, and likely for reasons other than his
personal libidinal gratification. Epstein didn't work alone. Press reports allege that Ghislaine Maxwell functioned as Epstein's
'madam.'
Multiple court filings reviewed and reported on by the Miami Herald reveal that lawyers
for one of Epstein's alleged victims claim that Maxwell helped traffic girls and women to powerful figures. The same documents report
that the alleged victims were lured into the sex ring by offers of modelling, fashion, and educational opportunities.
Ghislaine is the youngest child of the flamboyant Jewish media tycoon Robert Maxwell, who died under mysterious circumstances
in November 1991. Shortly before he died, a self-proclaimed former Mossad officer named
Ari Ben-Menashe
had approached a number of news organisations in Britain and the United States with the allegation that Maxwell was a long-time
agent for the Israeli intelligence service.
I cannot verify whether Robert Maxwell was a Mossad agent or if association with the Mossad is an hereditary trait, but the possible
conjecture that Epstein and Maxwell were running an intelligence operation makes sense of the questions surrounding this gruesome
spectacle.
This intelligence postulate raises a crucial question. If Epstein was a spy, who did he work for? Was it the Russians? I only
ask because every time Tel Aviv comes up as a likely suspect
American media tends to blame the Russians
.
Maybe Epstein was working for the Iranians, all indications are that the Trump's administration is desperate for a pretext
for a war with Iran. Another possibly is that this affair is a classic MI6 operation and Epstein is actually the paedophile model
of 007.
If the espionage conspiracy theory is correct, then the Mossad and the CIA would be the natural suspects. Yet it is difficult
to believe that the Mossad acting by itself was powerful enough to procure for Epstein his remarkably lenient plea deal.
It is almost
impossible to imagine that Acosta, acting as the federal prosecutor, would take instructions from Israel. If it was the Mossad,
they likely enjoyed significant support from within the American intelligence community. I assume that Alan Dershowitz, Epstein's
former attorney, may be able to answer some of these questions. He seems to know the details:
Could there be a connection to Starr's role in covering up the Vince Foster murder? See "Was Vince Foster's Murder PizzaGate-Related?
http://dcdave.com/article5/161213.htm . Maybe Starr is an
all-purpose Deep State fixer when it comes to pedophilia.
Gangbangers are known to be extremely stimulated by teens on the young side. Epstein sent invitations to socially acclaimed
gangbangers letting them know that dozens of young teens were going to be at his parties. Epstein's was a voyeur, his reward
was to enjoy watching the high and mighty descend into depravity. He masturbated while watching the orgy.
Epstein has been pegged for more than a decade in my books as a MOSSAD agent running a global, THE global pedo ring used
to blackmail and bribe powerful, connected people for his masters. It was NO secret.
I know that Gilad knows the VT crew, they
reported on this many years ago I think. besides which you'd have to be a retard not to have put 2 and 2 together years ago
from what was public knowledge.
Unless of course one is naive and doesn't understand the nature of 'intelligence agencies' and
their methods. Particularly MOSSAD/CIA. Circumstantial evidence alone would just about convict him.
What I am wondering is if Trump is dirty or clean. This will be hugely significant going forward. If Trump is dirty, then
Epstein is in the right place at the right time for his masters to make sure Trump dances to their tune without fail. Only remaining
queston besides who are his masters? Do they want war with Iran, or not? Guess we will know when the next false flag in the
Gulf goes off.
@Tono Bungay Sure, the 'international man of mystery' , Epstein, is the issue but the labeling of him as a paedophile by
the media is not an accident. Almost 30 years ago, Rep. Gerry Studds could stand on the floor of the House of
Representatives and defend his pouring vodka down the gullet of a 16 year old page boy before sodomizing him as 'consensual
sex'. Studds was not called a paedophile by the Washington Post or the NYTs.
Raúl Ilargi Meijer has an interesting article at his website ( https://www.theautomaticearth.com/2019/07/why-did-jeffrey-epstein-fly-back-to-the-us/
) that asks the important question of why did Epstein come back to the US knowing he was going to be indicted?
Something is just not quite right about Epstein's 'career'. Hugh Hefner could live the 'Playboy' life into his
nineties and never run afoul of the law or public opinion because his 'girls' driver's licenses said 18.
As a practical matter, to a 40 or 50 year old man looking
for some young flesh being 16 or 18 is a distinction without a difference but it makes a world of difference if your goal is
blackmail but this begs another question.
If you are Prince Andrew, a billionaire or an ex POTUS do your really need the services
of Epstein and Maxwell to get laid- even by a teeny bopper? None of this story makes much sense save for the fact that Epstein
has fallen out of favor and must have feared for his life had he stayed in Paris.
The biggest item missing from Gilad Atzmon's look at Jeffrey Epstein, is Epstein's historically biggest financial partner,
Les Wexner
Wexner the lead figure in a group of about 20 aggressive Zionist Jewish billionaires named as the 'Mega Group' in the 1990s
Wexner possibly the main funder & creator of the whole 'blackmail via under-age girls on an island' scheme
Did Les Wexner, with his fierce wish to destroy the enemies of Zionism, along with his fellow 'Mega Group' billionaires,
fund the expensive show of 'Jeffrey Epstein billionaire with private jet' all in order to create a Mossad honeypot blackmail
scheme abusing under-age girls, in order to entrap major politicians into being compelled to support Israel? To 'save &
protect Jewish lives'?
In 1988 Jeffrey Epstein declared net worth of only USA $20 million where did he get the huge fortune after that?
Wexner's trust bought the New York mansion Epstein lives in, which was raided the other day, Wexner turning it over to Epstein
around 1995
Les Wexner has himself been named as the paymaster of kidnappers of a menaced young woman, in a court filing involving Ghislaine
Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein, Alan Dershowitz etc
Dershowitz admits he had a massage at Epstein's place, tho by an 'older Russian woman' and Dersh 'kept his underwear on'
maybe this 'Russian' a girl who looked older with all her make-up?
In the 2008 'deal' after Epstein's 2007 indictment, ultra-Zionist Alan Dershowitz was a leading lawyer brokering that deal
Now Dershowitz seems to have sabotaged Epstein, Dershowitz arguing in court that Epstein files should be unsealed and made
public Dershowitz won that battle in a US federal appeals court 2 July, 4 days before Epstein was arrested
Dershowitz claimed he was trying to defend himself but that seems silly Epstein files cannot 'prove a negative' that Dershowitz
never raped children, there can only be a lack of evidence and files show Dershowitz deeply connected with Epstein
Daily Beast is the media leading the charge against Epstein now with 'insider scoops' from prosecutors
Daily Beast was founded in 2008 by Jewish media kingpin Barry Diller, & Tina Brown 'who has Jewish grand-father'
The 'prosecution' of Jeffrey Epstein is ... involving prosecutors connected to both Trumps & Clintons
Lead prosecutor of Epstein is Jewish Geoffrey Berman, law partner of Rudy Giuliani 'Mr 9-11' who is now Donald Trump's top
personal lawyer
Assisting Berman, is Maurene Comey, daughter of Hillary ally & former FBI Director James Comey, fired by Trump, Maurene Comey
married into the Zionist Issacharoff family, her new father-in-law having taught at Tel Aviv University
Wikipedia, run by CIA-Mossad ex-pornographer Jimmy Wales, close friend of Israeli presidents, has edited Epstein's biography
to delete the USA Democrats connected with Epstein and to delete references Epstein is Jewish
Epstein made the same claim as Jimmy Wales, of getting their mysterious money by 'foreign currency trading', which crushes
most people who try to do it it seems this is a cover story for getting political money from Jewish sources
At the age of 20, university drop-out Jeffrey Epstein, was hired to teach maths & physics to teen-age girls & boys, at the
prestigious private Dalton School in Manhattan, where he worked from 1973-75
The headmaster who hired Epstein, was Jewish convert to Christianity Donald Barr (1921-2004), who is the father of Donald
Trump's current Attorney General William Barr (born 1950) who thus has Jewish ancestral heritage
@Brabantian hind all these accusations
by the woman who has accused Wexner of having sex with her. Her unpublished manuscript for a book did not mention Dershowitz,
he was a very late addition. She also originally claimed to have been 15 when she started work with Epstein but now acknowledges
she was 17.
No one in their right mind is going to involve their lawyer or allow his to have knowledge of the very crimes that the lawyer
is defending him on. First of all, you cannot expect a lawyer to stand up police pressure. Secondly, lawyers are far more effective
if they believe their client is innocent.
@Brabantian llionaires named as the 'Mega
Group' in the 1990s Wexner possibly the main funder & creator of the whole 'blackmail via under-age girls on an island' scheme
This works better than either the 'jus' a feller who liked 'em young' or the 'Mossad agent' extremes.
Epstein, Wexner, et al would be like Sheldon Adelson; 'mighty warriors for Yahweh.' They're taking their money and talents
and using them to fight the good fight for Israel.
Certainly Israel's happy to benefit -- and no doubt she cooperates fully -- but she's not really the driving engine of this
scheme.
I'm not convinced of this myself -- but it makes a better working hypothesis than anything else I've read yet.
' If you are Prince Andrew, a billionaire or an ex POTUS do your really need the services of Epstein and Maxwell to get
laid- even by a teeny bopper? '
If you think through the practical scenarios, the answer might be 'yeah, you do.'
that is, unless you shortly want to read all the details about your weekend together with your love-toy in the National
Enquirer.
Lawyers need brains, but also to have a lot of the actor about them to be good in court. They suspend their disbelief, and
don't expect the fourth wall to be broken. Even after an acquittal, it is considered very bad form for the client to tell the
lawyer he was guilty.
Supposing they are found guilty, there is then less reason than before the trial to make even implicit admissions, because
they have one last hope of a successful appeal. So no one is going to give their their lawyer any reason to think they are guilty.
Prison is full of innocent convicts.
@Colin Wright liked older women, as with
Sarah Ferguson (he went gay for a while after that) and Koo Stark. Before that he astounded the the Queen by asking out a friend
of hers who was decades older than him.
Anyway the woman fabricating all these these allegations was at least 17 years old at the time. He could have had young looking
18 or 19 year olds as a single man if that was his thing. He could have married a 16 year old if he wanted. Andrew official
position at the time was to drum up business for UK exporters, so he hung out with moneyed Wall Street figures. The allegation
against him is bullcrap.
@Sean beaten 5-3 by Portugal in the World
Cup of 1966 after leading 3-0. This occurred on July 23rd, 1966, 5 days after my fifteenth birthday. (53 years ago.)
I would never confuse that with hearing about the first man walking on the moon on July 20th 1969, 2 days after my eighteenth.
Even if her memory is not as good as mine, she would surely know how old she was and what grade she was in high school when
she started working at Mar-A-Lago, and even if she didn't, making legal depositions is not the same as a casual conversation
after a few drinks when a slip of the tongue might give the wrong year.
You have had a real field day, more like a feast on Epstein for your diet of champions: SCAPEGOATING JEWS.
How delicious it must be for you to have someone so loathed a defense is non existent.
A billionaire pedophile with secret money. Check every box. So easy my poodles could write this feast of Scapegoat crap.
The true test of a lazy mind to figure 3 articles about this guy. Have you done Kabbalah numerology to decipher the meaning
of his name in the Torah, or did they find the protocols amongst his belongings, or secret nuclear codes with notes to take
over the world? You are a true mental midget Gilad, to weaponize this guy among the Jew hating crowd. But that is your true
calling article after article pin the tail on the Jewish scapegoat artist, feed the frenzy.
I leave you with this article by Hirshi Ali, talking about the white elephant in the room. Baked into the DNA of muslims. Interesting
how she points out the myth of the Jews buying power, vs the Islamist. https://www.wsj.com/articles/can-ilhan-omar-overcome-her-prejudice-11562970265
The allegation that Jewish or Zionist money controls Congress is nonsensical. The Center for Responsive Politics estimates
that the Israeli government has spent $34 million on lobbying in Washington since 2017. The Saudis and Qataris spent a combined
$51 million during the same period. If we include foreign nongovernmental organizations, the pro-Israel lobbying figure
rises to $63 million -- less than the $68 million spent lobbying for Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.
Hirsi Ali
Islamists have understood well how to couple Muslim anti-Semitism with the American left's vague notion of "social justice."
They have succeeded in couching their agenda in the progressive framework of the oppressed versus the oppressor. Identity
politics and victimhood culture also provide Islamists with the vocabulary to deflect their critics with accusations of
"Islamophobia," "white privilege" and "insensitivity." A perfect illustration was the way Ms. Omar and her allies were able
to turn a House resolution condemning her anti-Semitism into a garbled "intersectional" rant in which Muslims emerged as
the most vulnerable minority in the league table of victimhood.
@Sean depressing that he spent his time
securing acquittals for people who not only were guilty, but were usually very bad actors to boot. After all, first-time offenders
can usually do alright with the public defender. By the time anyone hired Spencer, they were usually repeat offenders, had done
something horrific again , and were looking at some serious time unless the family threw money into the kitty and paid
Spencer's fee.
The other lawyer was a guy who'd gone back to teaching high school after his kids were grown up -- he thought other lawyers
sucked. Thinking back over his career, he could think of one client he'd had who was convicted that he genuinely thought
was innocent.
There is no defense of him. You never comprehend what I wrote. My point being, the only reason he is being written about
is that he is Jewish. So you can imprint all your Jewphobia on to him.
IE: All Jewish men are pedophiles. Its called racism and scapegoating, you are always so slow to understand.
My fault is with Gilad posting every criminal Jew he can get his hands on. "look, look a criminal Jew."
No, Epstein is not being written about because he is Jewish. He is being written about because he variously seduced and raped
girls as young as thirteen and trafficked in them to the rich and famous, including almost certainly a former US president.
It's all incredibly corrupt and lurid, including suborned courts and government officials, hints of involvement on the part
of a member of the British Royal family, a personal 737 equipped with a bed, and a private island.
This guy would be a story no matter what he was. Face it. If the Jewish angle is having any impact at all, it's probably
making some people back off.
@Colin Wright l their mothers that he
had duped them (he paid out tens of millions in compensation as part of the deal). He could have had 18 year olds galore, paid
them properly, and even if they went to the press he could say. "So What!"
Instead he is a convicted sex offender who had to agree to register as such to get his plea deal, now any charge against
him will be a slam dunk. And the trafficking a 14 year old charge is going to get him life in prison, and because of the previous
deal the judge will specify a real prison, which is somewhere Epstein will have to be isolated and soon wish himself dead.
And the focus will stay on Epstein so that all the Elites who were sexually assaulting 11-16 year old girls and boys on that
island will remain covered up. So far, they have only mentioned the same names they have already mentioned the first time this
story broke; Clinton, Prince Andrew, and a couple others.
So, it is likely that much more powerful people who were involved will be protected from indictment.
Because Jewsus loves all the children of the world, red and yellow, black and white, they are precious in his sight.
We all bleed red, man! "He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth." (Acts 17:26)
@Sean hey'd have a hell of a time if they
started trying to make sure he never got drunk and fired off his assault rifle in the camp ground.
My point here is that like the N.R.A., Israel can command the allegiance of quite an army of supporters. It's not, however,
a very disciplined army, and Israel can't actually keep many of these troops from acting like idiots if they feel like acting
like idiots. They're allies, actually; not servants. Israel goes to them, and says 'would you,' or they come to Israel and say
'I could' -- but then they go off on their own and have that hot little shiksa who wouldn't even look at them when they
were a pimply adolescent. There's nothing Israel can do about that.
A) As part of a sophisticated secret service operation for compromising VIPs, Epstein became a self confessed child molester
who pled guilty to specimen charges. He then helpfully left thousands of photos of victims he had not faced charges about strewn
around his properties, so that investigators could easily frame new charges that would–will–put him in prison for the rest of
his life.
B) Epstein got his dick caught in his zipper. No one can understand how a financial conjurer of considerable personal charm
could have been so stupid, so it is being assumed that there was much more to it than other sex scandals like Weinstein, Luis
K . But the accounts of Epstein's victims are in fact very similar to the aforementioned cases. Epstein liked mastubating in
front of the girls as much as if not rather more rather than actually having sex with them. The assertion that Epstein 'belonged
to intelligence' and the prosecutor was told to "to leave it alone" (although Epstein was sent to prison amid huge publicity)
came from the prosecutor himself, Acosta, who was bullshitting.
"... The McCarthyite nature of this process of misrepresentation and guilt by association was underscored when Jewish Voice for Labour, a group of Jewish party members who have defended Corbyn against the anti-semitism smears, voiced their support for Williamson. Jon Lansman, a founder of the Momentum group originally close to Corbyn, turned on the JVL calling them "part of the problem and not part of the solution to antisemitism in the Labour Party". In an additional, ugly but increasingly normalised remark, he added: "Neither the vast majority of individual members of JVL nor the organisation itself can really be said to be part of the Jewish community." ..."
"... In this febrile atmosphere, Corbyn's allies have been required to confess that the party is institutionally anti-semitic, to distance themselves from Corbyn and often to submit to anti-semitism training. To do otherwise, to deny the accusation is, as in the Salem witch-hunts, treated as proof of guilt ..."
"... These attacks have transformed the whole discursive landscape on Israel, the Palestinians, Zionism and anti-semitism in ways unimaginable 20 years ago, when I first started reporting on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Then the claim that anti-Zionism -- opposition to Israel as a state privileging Jews over non-Jews -- was the same as anti-semitism sounded patently ridiculous. It was an idea promoted only by the most unhinged apologists for Israel ..."
"... To criticise Israel is to attack them as Jews, and by implication to attack all Jews. And therefore any Jew dissenting from this consensus, any Jew identifying as anti-Zionist, any Jew in Labour who supports Corbyn -- and there are many, even if they are largely ignored -- are denounced, in line with Lansman, as the "wrong kind of Jews". It may be absurd logic, but such ideas are now so commonplace as to be unremarkable. ..."
"... As long as we colluded in the manufactured consensus of western societies, the system operated without challenge or meaningful dissent. A deeply ideological system destroying the planet was treated as if it was natural, immutable, the summit of human progress, the end of history. Those times are over. Accidents like Corbyn will happen more frequently, as will extreme climate events and economic crises. ..."
"... The power structures in place to prevent such accidents will by necessity grow more ham-fisted, more belligerent, less concealed to get their way. And we might finally understand that a system designed to pacify us while a few grow rich at the expense of our children's future and our own does not have to continue. That we can raise our voices and loudly say: "No!" ..."
Corbyn was extremely unusual in many ways as the leader of a western party within sight of
power. Personally he was self-effacing and lived modestly. Ideologically he was resolutely
against the thrust of four decades of a turbo-charged neoliberal capitalism unleashed by
Thatcher and Reagan in the early 1980s; and he opposed foreign wars for empire, fashionable
"humanitarian interventions" whose real goal was to attack other sovereign states either to
control their resources, usually oil, or line the pockets of the military-industrial
complex.
It was difficult to attack Corbyn directly for these positions. There was the danger that
they might prove popular with voters. But Corbyn was seen to have an Achilles' heel. He was a
life-long anti-racism activist and well known for his support for the rights of the
long-suffering Palestinians. The political and media establishments quickly learnt that they
could recharacterise his support for the Palestinians and criticism of Israel as anti-semitism.
He was soon being presented as a leader happy to preside over an "institutionally" anti-semitic
party.
Under pressure of these attacks, Labour was forced to adopt a new and highly controversial
definition of anti-semitism -- one rejected by leading
jurists and later
repudiated by the lawyer who devised it -- that expressly conflates criticism of Israel,
and anti-Zionism, with Jew hatred. One by one Corbyn's few ideological allies in the party --
those outside the Blairite consensus -- have been picked off as anti-semites. They have either
fallen foul of this conflation or, as with Labour MP Chris Williamson, they have been tarred
and feathered for trying to defend Labour's record against the accusations of a supposed
endemic anti-semitism in its ranks.
The bad faith of the anti-semitism smears were particularly clear in relation to Williamson.
The comment that plunged him into so much trouble -- now leading twice to his suspension -- was
videoed. In it he can be heard calling anti-semitism a "scourge" that must be confronted. But
also, in line with all
evidence , Williamson denied that Labour had any particular anti-semitism problem. In part
he blamed the party for being too ready to concede unwarranted ground to critics, further
stoking the attacks and smears. He noted that Labour had been "demonised as a racist, bigoted
party", adding: "Our party's response has been partly responsible for that because in my
opinion we've backed off far too much, we have given too much ground, we've been too
apologetic."
The Guardian has been typical in mischaracterising Williamson's remarks not once but each
time it has covered developments in his case. Every Guardian
report has stated, against the audible evidence, that Williamson said Labour was "too
apologetic about anti-semitism". In short, the Guardian and the rest of the media have
insinuated that Williamson approves of anti-semitism. But what he actually said was that Labour
was "too apologetic" when dealing with unfair or unreasonable allegations of anti-semitism,
that it had too willingly accepted the unfounded premise of its critics that the party condoned
racism.
Like the Salem witch-hunts
The McCarthyite nature of this process of misrepresentation and guilt by association was
underscored when Jewish Voice for Labour, a group of Jewish party members who have defended
Corbyn against the anti-semitism smears, voiced their support for Williamson. Jon Lansman, a
founder of the Momentum group originally close to Corbyn, turned on the JVL
calling them "part of the problem and not part of the solution to antisemitism in the
Labour Party". In an additional, ugly but increasingly normalised remark, he added: "Neither
the vast majority of individual members of JVL nor the organisation itself can really be said
to be part of the Jewish community."
In this febrile atmosphere, Corbyn's allies have been required to confess that the party
is institutionally anti-semitic, to distance themselves from Corbyn and often to submit to
anti-semitism training. To do otherwise, to deny the accusation is, as in the Salem
witch-hunts, treated as proof of guilt .
The anti-semitism claims have been regurgitated almost daily across the narrow corporate
media "spectrum", even though they are unsupported by any
actual evidence of an anti-semitism problem in Labour beyond a marginal one representative
of wider British society. The allegations have reached such fever-pitch, stoked into a hysteria
by the media, that the party is now under
investigation by the Equality and Human Rights Commission -- the only party apart from the
neo-Nazi British National Party ever to face such an investigation.
These attacks have transformed the whole discursive landscape on Israel, the
Palestinians, Zionism and anti-semitism in ways unimaginable 20 years ago, when I first started
reporting on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Then the claim that anti-Zionism -- opposition
to Israel as a state privileging Jews over non-Jews -- was the same as anti-semitism sounded
patently ridiculous. It was an idea promoted only by the most unhinged apologists for
Israel .
Now, however, we have leading liberal commentators such as the Guardian's Jonathan Freedland
claiming not only that Israel is integral to their Jewish identity but that they speak for
all other Jews in making such an identification. To criticise Israel is to attack them as
Jews, and by implication to attack all Jews. And therefore any Jew dissenting from this
consensus, any Jew identifying as anti-Zionist, any Jew in Labour who supports Corbyn -- and
there are many, even if they are largely ignored -- are denounced, in line with Lansman, as the
"wrong kind of Jews". It may be absurd logic, but such ideas are now so commonplace as to be
unremarkable.
In fact, the weaponisation of Anti-semitism against Corbyn has become so normal that, even
while I was writing this post, a new nadir was reached. Jeremy Hunt, the foreign secretary who
hopes to defeat Boris Johnson in the upcoming Tory leadership race, as good as
accused Corbyn of being a new Hitler, a man who as prime minister might allow Jews to be
exterminated, just as occurred in the Nazi death camps.
Last month a private conversation concerning Corbyn between the US secretary of state, Mike
Pompeo, and the heads of a handful of rightwing American Jewish organisations was leaked.
Contrary to the refrain of the UK corporate media that Corbyn is so absurd a figure that he
could never win an election, the fear expressed on both sides of that Washington conversation
was that the Labour leader might soon become Britain's prime minister.
Framing Corbyn yet again as an anti-semite, a US Jewish leader could be heard asking Pompeo
if he would be "willing to work with us to take on actions if life becomes very difficult for
Jews in the UK". Pompeo
responded that it was possible "Mr Corbyn manages to run the gauntlet and get elected" -- a
telling phrase that attracted remarkably little attention, as did the story itself, given that
it revealed one of the most senior Trump administration officials explicitly talking about
meddling directly in the outcome of a UK election.
Here is the dictionary definition of "run the gauntlet": to take part in a form of corporal
punishment in which the party judged guilty is forced to run between two rows of soldiers, who
strike out and attack him.
So Pompeo was suggesting that there already is a gauntlet -- systematic and organised blows
and strikes against Corbyn -- that he is being made to run through. In fact, "running the
gauntlet" precisely describes the experience Corbyn has faced since he was elected Labour
leader -- from the corporate media, from the dominant Blairite faction of his own party, from
rightwing, pro-Israel Jewish organisations like the Board of Deputies, and from anonymous
generals and senior civil servants.
'We cheated, we stole'
Pompeo continued: "You should know, we won't wait for him to do those things to begin to
push back. We will do our level best. It's too risky and too important and too hard once it's
already happened."
So, Washington's view is that action must be taken before Corbyn reaches a position
of power. To avoid any danger he might become the UK's next prime minister, the US will do its
"level best" to "push back". Assuming that this hasn't suddenly become the US administration's
priority, how much time does the US think it has before Corbyn might win power? How close is a
UK election?
As everyone in Washington is only too keenly aware, a UK election has been a distinct
possiblity since the Conservatives set up a minority goverment two years ago with the help of
fickle, hardline Ulster loyalists. Elections have been looming ever since, as the UK ruling
party has torn itself apart over Brexit, its MPs regularly defeating their own leader, prime
minister Theresa May, in parliamentary votes.
So if Pompeo is saying, as he appears to be, that the US will do whatever it can to make
sure Corbyn doesn't win an election well before that election takes place, it means the US is
already deeply mired in anti-Corbyn activity. Pompeo is not only saying that the US is ready to
meddle in the UK's election, which is bad enough; he is hinting that it is already meddling in
UK politics to make sure the will of the British people does not bring to power the wrong
leader.
Remember that Pompeo, a former CIA director, once effectively America's spy chief, was
unusually frank about what his agency got up to when he was in charge. He observed : "I was the CIA director. We
lied, we cheated, we stole. It's -- it was like -- we had entire training courses."
One would have to be remarkably naive to think that Pompeo changed the CIA's culture during
his short tenure. He simply became the figurehead of the world's most powerful spying outfit,
one that had spent decades developing the principles of US exceptionalism, that had lied its
way to recent wars in Iraq and Libya, as it had done earlier in Vietnam and in justifying the
nuclear bombing of Hiroshima, and much more. Black ops and psyops were not invented by Pompeo.
They have long been a mainstay of US foreign policy.
An eroding consensus
It takes a determined refusal to join the dots not to see a clear pattern here.
Brand was right that the system is rigged, that our political and media elites are captured,
and that the power structure of our societies will defend itself by all means possible, "fair
or foul". Corbyn is far from alone in this treatment. The system is similarly rigged to stop a
democratic socialist like Bernie Sanders -- though not a rich businessman like Donald Trump --
winning the nomination for the US presidential race. It is also rigged to silence real
journalists like Julian Assange who are trying to overturn the access journalism prized by the
corporate media -- with its reliance on official sources and insiders for stories -- to divulge
the secrets of the national security states we live in.
There is a conspiracy at work here, though it is not of the kind lampooned by critics: a
small cabal of the rich secretly pullng the strings of our societies. The conspiracy operates
at an institutional level, one that has evolved over time to create structures and refine and
entrench values that keep power and wealth in the hands of the few. In that sense we are all
part of the conspiracy. It is a conspiracy that embraces us every time we unquestioningly
accept the "consensual" narratives laid out for us by our education systems, politicians and
media. Our minds have been occupied with myths, fears and narratives that turned us into the
turkeys that keep voting for Christmas.
That system is not impregnable, however. The consensus so carefully constructed over many
decades is rapidly breaking down as the power structure that underpins it is forced to grapple
with real-world problems it is entirely unsuited to resolve, such as the gradual collapse of
western economies premised on infinite growth and a climate that is fighting back against our
insatiable appetite for the planet's resources.
As long as we colluded in the manufactured consensus of western societies, the system
operated without challenge or meaningful dissent. A deeply ideological system destroying the
planet was treated as if it was natural, immutable, the summit of human progress, the end of
history. Those times are over. Accidents like Corbyn will happen more frequently, as will
extreme climate events and economic crises.
The power structures in place to prevent such accidents will by necessity grow more
ham-fisted, more belligerent, less concealed to get their way. And we might finally understand
that a system designed to pacify us while a few grow rich at the expense of our children's
future and our own does not have to continue. That we can raise our voices and loudly say:
"No!"
The initial attacks on Corbyn were for being poorly dressed, sexist, unstatesmanlike, a
national security threat, a Communist spy – relentless, unsubstantiated smears the
like of which no other party leader had ever faced. But over time the allegations became
even more outrageously propagandistic as the campaign to undermine him not only failed but
backfired – not least, because Labour membership rocketed under Corbyn to make the
party the largest in Europe.
There was a term for that — Borking. But that was a much milder thing at its
inception. So let’s just say that Corbyn is getting the Full Trumping. The latest smear
is that JC is battling senior dementia, not far away from the 25th Amendment crowd, including
a non-licenced Yale mental health “expert” who keeps pushing the case for
Trump’s insanity in the MSM.
Humble nsa has worked in the UK (nord zee oil) and spent considerable time in working
class pubs when onshore. The vast majority of decent working class people in the UK are
closeted jew haters, and for good reason. So chances are the jew smear campaign will get
Corbyn elected PM in a three way race. Of course, he will eventually prove to be a
disappointment….but it will be fun seeing the tribe and their legions of useful idiots
squirm for awhile.
antisemitism = all Arabs, Muslims and Palestinians fully excluded.
+ all european khazars in.
The word itself is devoid of meaning, rendered useless and become a full blown
‘stopper’ to end discussions about the Apartheid State and anything else to do
with criticism of the state and the squatters in Occupied Palestine.
Another accident might yet see Corbyn as Prime Minister. If it is the System – in
the shape of Theresa May and sundry Conservative MPs doing their best to nullify the result
of the 2016 referendum – that has been resisting Brexit, then that same system is
responsible for the return of Nigel Farage to the fray. His new Brexit Party could split the
right-wing vote and allow Labour in by default.
I sympathise with Corbyn on the Palestine issue, but I am old enough and unlucky enough to
have lived through the comparatively centrist Labour administrations of the 1970s and view
with trepidation the prospect of John McDonnell, an avowed Maoist, as finance minister.
Corbyn is surrounded by equally sinister and unpleasant people: he would likely be replaced
soon after his elevation, and then God help the people of Britain.
This prospect is evidently alarming a number of Labour’s core voters, who seem to be
defecting to the previously somnolent Liberal Democrat party, so maybe the left-wing vote
will be split as well. The Brexit Party is also set to mop up a lot of working-class Labour
voters, especially in the north of England, who are viscerally opposed to the EU.
Interesting times ahead, in the very best Chinese and proverbial sense of that term.
The plutocrats who are served the intelligence agencies such as the FBI, MI5. CIA and MI6
hate socialist leaders such as Maduro and the UK’s former Prime Minister Harold Wilson
, if they can’t control them they will be removed by an engineered coup , a scandal or
an early death , in the future Corbyn should avoid the hotel toothpaste .
I think very few British people have Jewish ancestry. I never met a Jewish person until I
was in my 30s and he was a secular Jew – bacon eater, etc. Among ordinary people
outside London there was no antisemitism because most people didn’t know any Jewish
people. But this Israeli embassy organised campaign against Corbyn is waking people up to the
disproportionate influence of Jews in the UK. In The Times where the columnists are mainly
Jewish there is an Israeli embassy planted story nearly every day.
"... With promises to "drain the swamp!" still ringing in our ears, we have watched Trump appoint nothing but Goldman banksters, Soros stooges, neocon war hawks and police state zealots to head his cabinet. ..."
The United States believes that it is so invincible, exceptional and so frightening that no
one would ever dare to protest, let alone defend its people against constant humiliation,
economic embargos and military threats.
It used to be like this for quite some time. In the past, the West used to bully the world
before and after each well-planned assault. Also, well-crafted propaganda used to be
applied.
It was declared that things are done 'legally' and rationally. There were certain stages to
colonialist and imperialist attacks: "define your goals", "identify your victim", "plan",
"brainwash your own citizens and people all over the world", and then, only then, "bomb some
unfortunate country back to the stone ages".
Now, things are slightly different. "The leader of the free world" wakes up in the middle of
the night, and he tweets. What comes from his computer, tablet or phone, (or whatever he uses),
is spontaneous, unpolished and incredibly dangerous. Similar in substance to what made him wake
up in the middle of the night, in a first place.
He does not seem to plan; he shoots off from the hip. Today, as I am writing this essay, he
has declared that he has "five strategies for Venezuela". Go figure. Bravo!
Earlier, as he was about to land outside London, he embarked on insulting the Mayor of the
British capital, calling him names. A bit like we used to do to each other, when we were five
years old, in the neighborhood playground.
He has been regularly offending Mexico, and of course Iran, China and Russia.
He basically tells the leader of the most populous nation on earth -- China -- to "be
there", at the G20 Summit, or else.
Whenever he and his lieutenants are in the mood, they get busy antagonizing everyone: Cuba
and Nicaragua, DPRK and Venezuela, Bolivia and Syria.
Of course, the main "culprits" are always the 'biggest bad boys', Russia and China.
Anyone, at any time, could easily land on the proverbial hit list of President Trump, and
hawks of his United States of A. It could be India (which, during 'good submissive times' is
called by the West the "biggest democracy", or perhaps Turkey (militarily the second mightiest
NATO country). The world had been converted into an entity which appears to be run by a
bloodthirsty and unpredictable dictatorship. The world is an entity where everyone is
terrified of being purged, imprisoned, starved to death, or directly attacked, even
liquidated.
It was always like this, at least in the modern history of the planet. Colonialism,
neo-colonialism, imperialism: they have many different faces but one common root. Root that has
been often hidden deep under the surface.
But this time it is all in the open, raw and brutally honest.
Both George W. Bush and Donald Trump have one thing in common: they are honest.
Bill Clinton and Barrack Obama were both 'suave' presidents. They were loved in Europe, as
they knew how to speak politely, how to dine elegantly, and how to commit mass murder in a
'rational, righteous way'; 'old-fashioned, European-style'.
The brutal, vulgar ways of W. Bush and Donald Trump, have been consistently shocking all
those individuals who are pleased when things are done 'stylishly' and 'politically correctly';
be it a coup or the starvation to death of millions through embargos. Or be it invasions or
'smart' bombing (practically, 'smart' meaning very far from the inquisitive eyes).
... ... ...
[First published by NEO -- New Eastern Outlook]
Andre Vltchek is a philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He has
covered wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. Four of his latest books are
In case Westerners have not realized it, yet -- people all over the world are
indignant.
Absolutely Mr. Vltchek. No doubt about the widespread indignation against the US (and her
puppeteer, Israel) .You forgot to mention that the same people all over the world have caved
in to US imperial threats and blackmail . They are essentially powerless. Imperialism is also
about emasculating nations -- it is about dis-empowerment.
The US State Department's key personnel and its policies are of the Nuland ilk.
Trump is their puppet.
First part is true, second part is wrong, although they sure would like to have him under
their thump. State was hostile to Trump from day one. Besides, the Nulands aren't that high
on the totem pole, they're firmly subordinate to the Clinton/Democrat axis.
The author is correct, any small incident (and there are many potential flashpoints) could
trigger world war three: from the Artic to the Balkans, Syria to the South China Sea. Of
great empires: they rise, they hold sway, they die. That's the pattern of history. It is
always important to remember what comes before a fall. https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/
I would say we ought to be making some changes to US policy that our friends and opponents
won't like. In that their public sentiments of angst, disgust, recriminations would carry
much weight -- they are certainly entitled to the their view.
1. reconsidering NATO and the size and number of US bases in Europe on the US dime
2. ensuring the security of US borders
3. reinvesting in the US
4. fewer employment of foreigners
and a host of other considerations, should our international neighbors pitch a conniption
fit -- well, fine and dandy they have that right -- but all things US must first support US
citizens.
Second,
Whether the president should be engaging these personal attacks via twitter is another
matter.
When I was in high school we had a bully, always taking kids lunch money, punching them,
throwing their books in the trash, calling their mothers sexual names and so on. He had two
cohorts who did the same using him as their muscle to intimidate and beat on the weak. This
went on for some time and finally became unbearable. One day while he was on a lower stair
someone pushed a sharpened pencil into his neck. The poor fellow fell in shock and other
students took the opportunity to savagely kick and stomp him in his head, groin and about his
body. One of his associates later got a rock in his head sending him to the hospital for 10
stitches.
This is what happens when folks get bullied and the "victims" arrive at the point where
they no longer care what happens to them. On an international scale the bully is the USA with
associates like the UK and France. We have already seen little victims give the bully a
bloody nose. Vietnam, (the last US troops fled from the embassy roof) Iraq and Afghanistan
come to mind. North Korea thumbs its nose at the goon. Venezuela and Iran are defiant and the
thug, for all its rhetoric is afraid to resort to physical violence. However bigger boys
China and Russia have been targeted and have become players.
However it is always the small guys who retaliate feeling that that they have lost all
dignity and have nothing more to lose.
This article is right on. It is only a matter of time before the US gets another
thrashing.
Brace yourselves mothers and fathers. Its your sons who will come home maimed, mentally
unstable or dead (the lucky ones) for scum draft dodging politicians who never learn and who
send youth to bleed for their illusions of grandeur.
@EliteCommInc. 'll bet a big majority of Europeans would be indifferent at worst to
withdrawal of our troops.
Some president or candidate would be smart to say, "Let's close bases abroad and
immediately use the money here at home to put Americans back to work." Take the money saved
from closing bases and ending the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq and use it to build or
repair our crumbling infrastructure: bridges, roads, sidewalks, public hospitals, and public
schools. I'd like high-speed rail and an extensive electric vehicle charging network at least
along the coasts and in dense Regions elsewhere. We could do all of it for the amounts we are
squandering abroad, without borrowing further or raising taxes.
I have no idea if said war is coming. If history is any indication, there will most likely
be another war. I am dubious however, that said war will end human existence.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -
"Its your sons who will come home maimed, mentally unstable or dead (the lucky ones) for
scum draft dodging politicians who never learn and who send youth to bleed for their
illusions of grandeur."
@Markster dy bags don't make the rulers lose any sleep. So far, they think the
continental USA is impregnable. We'll maybe see a skyscraper or two fall down, lose a few
thousand people, easily forgotten.
But what would really make the rulers think is losing a few cities via firestorms, or
millions of deaths in a few weeks due to plagues, or a breakdown of the transport or
electrical infrastructure, causing death and destruction on a huge scale.
With a little ingenuity and not too much money, some of these things can be made to
happen. And if the USA continues to be, not the policeman of the world but the abusive
drunken boyfriend, they will happen.
I agree. One US drill instructor told me the quality of recruits is so poor its enough to
make a man weep. The majority are mentally and physically deficient but quotas have to be
met. If you can count to two and can lift a fork to your mouth you could be the next great
general.
Instructors are also not allowed to holler at them or hit them and have to be respectful
and not get spittle in their faces or call them, their mothers and sisters names. Many cry
and breakdown in basic training and have to be given training on how to get through basic
training.
Many have served in Iraq, not seen any action having been in the support and supply areas
and yet come back to the States as cuckoo as ever.
I dont know how they will hold up in a conflict but your point is well taken. The parents
whether together or not never laid a solid foundation in their upbringing and you cannot make
a silk purse from a pig's arse !
@Twodees Partain s you apparently jumped to conclusions and personal insults rather than
reading it.
Do you really think that anyone who has fought rough, personal, political battles for
years or decades to become a national leader is so thin skinned they would overreact to
Twitter?
Your assertion is simply wrong. There is zero (0.0000%) tweet danger. National leaders are
not going to overreact to Tweets.
In fact, many of them have problems with their own local media. Those leaders are probably
taking notes on TRUMP's highly successful "Roll the Extremist Media" technique to see
if there is anything they can work into their own repertoire.
In case Westerners have not realized it, yet -- people all over the world are indignant.
I talk to Libyans, Afghans, Iraqis, Venezuelans, Cubans, Iranians: they hate what comes
from Washington; hate it with passion. They know that what is being done to them is
terrorism, thuggery. But for now, they do not know how to defend themselves. Not yet, but
they are thinking.
Quite a few Americans are indignant too. Unfortunately they pay more attention to his
idiot ranting then what he actually does ..which is even worse than what he says.
Perhaps more striking are the public's feelings about the things Trump says: sizable
majorities say Trump's comments often or sometimes make them feel concerned (76%), confused
(70%), embarrassed (69%) and exhausted (67%). By contrast, fewer have positive reactions to
Trump's rhetoric, though 54% say they at least sometimes feel entertained by what he
says.
@Markster > Some people believe that could never happen again, some Jews believe there
could never be a holocaust in America , some think the US would never again imprison a ethnic
group in our country like we did the Japanese during WWII, some believe we would never again
drop a atomic bomb on a city of civilians like Truman did.
They would be wrong. We like to believe America and its people are an exception but we are
not.
No matter what country there will be enough of the wrong kind of people that the wrong
kind of leaders can get them possessed with fantasies and delusions of their power and get
them to cheer on senseless destruction including, unknowingly, their own.
" Someone may say: The West is killing millions every year, anyway. Better to fight
it, in order to stop it, once and for all. Others may join. And then, then what? Will Trump
give orders to kill tens of millions, just to maintain control over the world..?"
Extreme exaggerations due to extreme paranoia. Show me the millions the West is killing
every year. Trump refrained from retalliating against Iran because 150 people could be
killed, and you say he might be prepared to kill tens of millions ?
What Trump really is engaged in is not global mass murder but Big Mouth Diplomacy. You may
regret that, but that is all there is. That is his "art of the deal".
"Some president or candidate would be smart to say, "Let's close bases abroad and
immediately use the money here at home to put Americans back to work."
I would agree that we need to reconsider our base deployments. I am not as clear about
closing all of them outright. But we do agree that we need to calculate our exposure. And
while this recalculation is often turned into an "isolation" accusation, recalculating, even
if we opted to close those installations does not equate to advocating isolationism,
Laugh, though some time in isolation, minding our own business and dealing with ourselves,
might not be a bad idea for a time.
Trump refrained from retalliating against Iran because 150 people could be killed, and
you say he might be prepared to kill tens of millions ?
Another dweller in "Alice in Wonderland" I was writing about. It's getting crowded
there!
There are many ways of skinning a cat; also many ways of killing people, such as
sanctions, embargoes, blockades, destroying their infrastructure, stealing their resources
and gold deposits in the US, and so on.
With promises to "drain the swamp!" still ringing in our ears, we have watched Trump
appoint nothing but Goldman banksters, Soros stooges, neocon war hawks and police state
zealots to head his cabinet.
https://staticxx.facebook.com/connect/xd_arbiter.php?version=44#channel=f2559af6f0c9cec&origin=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.unz.com
The Unz Review: An Alternative Media
Selection A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely
Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
First things first: let get the obvious out of the way
Homosexuality is a phenomenon which has probably always existed and which has often
polarized society into two camps: those who believe that there is something inherently
bad/wrong/pathological/abnormal with homosexuality (probably most/all major religions) and
those who emphatically disagree. This is normal. After all, the issue of homosexuality deals
not only with sex as such, but also with societal norms, reproduction, children and family
issues and, most importantly, with love. What could be more mysterious, more fascinating and
more controversial than love?
I am beginning this article with these self-evident truisms not because I find them
particularly interesting, but because we live in a weird time when only one of these two views
gets objectively and calmly discussed, while the other point of view is immediately censored,
denounced and condemned as some kind of phobia. Now, the word " phobia " can mean one of two things:
aversion/hatred or fear/anxiety.
Does this make sense to you?
Why is it that an opinion, a point of view, can only be explained away and dismissed as
being in itself pathological/irrational?
Let me ask you this: can you imagine that somebody might be critical of homosexuality as
such (or of homosexual behavior/practices) without suffering from any kind of phobias or
without hating anybody?
If not, please stop reading and turn the TV back on.
For everybody else, I submit that this phobia-canard (along with the no less stupid "closet
homosexual in denial" label) is not conducive to an intelligent discussion. It is, however,
great to shut down any critical analyses and " ad homineming " anybody who dares to ask
the wrong questions.
Next, I also submit that there are those existing out there who do indeed feel an
aversion/hatred/fear/anxiety towards homosexuals. These are the folks who feel their
masculinity tremendously boosted when they get the chance to beat up (preferably in a group
against one), humiliate or otherwise assault a homosexual. In my (admittedly entirely
subjective) experience these are a minority. True, some homosexuals do elicit a strong sense of
disgust from male heterosexuals, but these are typically those homosexuals who, far from being
sequestered in some societal "closet" do the opposite: they ostentatiously flaunt their
homosexuality with provocative make-up, dress or behavior. Again, in my (no less subjective)
experience, these are also a minority among homosexuals. I think that there is a very natural
explanation for the aversion these "in your face" homosexuals trigger in male heteros, and I
will discuss it later below.
But for the time being, I would rather stay away from these circumstance-specific minority
phenomena.
Next, let's define the issue
In its entry for "homosexuality" Wikipedia writes " The longstanding
consensus of the behavioral and social sciences and the health and mental health professions is
that homosexuality per se is a normal and positive variation of human sexual orientation, and
therefore not a mental disorder ".
This sentence deserves to be parsed very carefully, especially since it uses a lot of
frankly vague terms.
For starters, what does "longstanding consensus" refer to? In 1973 the US American
Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from the DSM-II . The US American Psychological Association
followed suit in 1975. This leads me to conclude that by "longstanding" Wikipedia means either
46 years or 44 years. In terms of human history, 44/46 years is close to instantaneous and
hardly "longstanding". There is also the issue of HOW and WHY these two associations decided to
" de-pathologize " homosexuality. I will touch upon that later, and for the time being I
will simply state that declaring a pathology that is henceforth to be considered as "normal" by
means of a vote is hardly scientific.
Next, the statement above begs the question of what "homosexuality per se " is (as
opposed to homosexuality "not per se " I suppose?). The intent here is clear: to decree
that whatever co-morbidity (depression, suicide, substance abuse, violence, etc.) can be
identified in homosexuality will always get explained away because it is not inherent to
homosexuality per se . This is just another crude word-trick to suppress any discussion
of homosexuality in the real world (as opposed to DSM-like manuals).
Then there is the notion of " normal and positive variation of human sexual
orientation" which, of course, begs the question of what would qualify as an "abnormal and
negative variation of human sexuality". And to those who would say that I am being silly here,
I would point out that while in the 1970s the issue was "just" homosexuality, we nowadays live
in the society of
LGBTQIAPK and that some even add an ominous + sign at the end of this abbreviation
(LGBTQIAPK + ) just to be truly and totally "inclusive". And here is the obvious
fallacy: since homosexuality is a " normal and positive variation of human sexual
orientation " then it must also be true for the entire LGBTQIAPK+ "constellation". I submit
that unless your IQ is way below room temperature you surely must realize that what we are
dealing with here is a free for all in which any
variation of human sexuality is declared "normal and positive". QED (technically, this
would be a syllogisic fallacy ).
By the way – do you ever wonder what that small "+" sign at the end of LGBTQIAPK
+ really stands for? The answer depends on who you ask, of course, but if you ask
Facebook in the UK, it's no less that
71 (SEVENY ONE!!) genders (not sure if FB believes that UK users need more options than
non-UK users ?). Turns out that this one small "+" is much bigger than the rest official
acronym And, just for giggles, here is what the full acronym (the original 10 plus the new 71
should look something like this:
AAAAAABBCCCCCCCCCCFFFFFFGGGGGGGHIIIIIKLMMMMMMMNNNOPPPQTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTW+
(yes, I still added the obligatory "+" at the end so as to be truly "inclusive" should this
list grow in the future (which, no doubt, it will!).
And anybody not buying into that fallacy is, again by definition, a "hater" and, as you well
know, "haters will hate," right? And if not a hater, then at the very least a repressed closet
homosexual.
So far, how do you like that intellectual environment?
I sure don't. In fact, I loathe it, primarily because it is freedom-crushing.
So I will proceed to discuss this topic with no regard whatsoever for the politically
correct doxa that seems to have take over the entire western world. If you think that
this makes me a "hater" (or a homosexual in deep denial) you can stop reading here, since
everything below could be summarized by the one word " crimethink ", which would make me a
thought-criminal.
Every since I began blogging, about a decade ago, I have really pissed off a lot of people
who accused me of an endless list of ideological "crimes" ranging from being a Communist, to
being an anti-Semite, a Jew (or Jew-lover), a Muslim, a Nazi, a CIA/MI6/Mossad agent, a Putin
agent, an FSB agent (they meant SVR, but they don't know any better) and even (my favorite!) a
"traitor to the White Race". Frankly, my most persistent detractors have been Papists and Nazis
primarily because I had the nerve to tell them that neither the Papacy nor Nazism has any
traction in Russia and that Russia will never somehow step in to boost their declining
popularity or influence. The truth is that Russia has exactly zero use for anything even
remotely resembling the Alt-Right or any other racist theories (nevermind the Papacy and its
terminal degeneracy – whether of the ultramontanist or the sedevencantist persuasion). The Zionists
also tried to "counsel" me to change my use of the expression "AngloZionist" but they pretty
rapidly gave up. As did the Papists. The Nazis complained and moaned about my anti-Nazism (I
was "unfair" to Hitler and his supposedly immensely kind and Russia-loving goons!), but they
eventually also gave up. The French philosopher Alain Soral once stated that (in France) the
Homo Lobby is even more powerful in France than the Israel Lobby. I suspect that this is even
more true in the United States and I am under no illusions about the kind of reactions my
article will elicit. That's fine. I really don't care anymore.
The truth is that as long as we continue to use terms imposed upon us by the dictatorship of
political correctness and as long as we leave the numerous assumptions of the LGBTQIAPK+ Lobby
unchallenged, we will either die of boredom or, at least, never understand why the society we
live in (or why it is collapsing).
So let's engage in some much needed crimethink!
First, let's toss out all the stupid and ambiguous terms and expressions imposed upon us by
the leaders of the Empire. For example, we could agree to ditch the value-loaded term "gay" and
replace it by a value-free term "homosexual" (well, since homosexual is value-free, homosexual activists have declared it
"offensive" and they demand that only "gay" be used, thus imposing a value-loaded term in
lieu of the correct scientific designation). And if the LGBTQIAPK+ Lobby excoriates us for
doing so, we could always declare that from now on, "gays" shall only be called "sads"
(primarily on account of all the pathology and dysfunction which typically come along with
homosexuality: most psychologists and psychiatrists are quite aware of that comorbidity, but
speaking about it would be a career-ending mistake for them). In fact, let's try a little
thought experiment.
Let's imagine that we organize a public debate, a town hall meeting if you want, on the
topic of homosexuality. And for that purpose, we establish the following rules:
1) Homosexuals are only to be referred to as "sads"
2) Those refusing to use that term will be immediately labeled "heterophobes" and "closet
heteros in deep denial".
How many people do you think would accept that?
How would you feel if you were told that you need to comply with such outrageous
demands?
Well, then why would anybody expect us to accept the very same nonsense, only in
reverse?!
And yet, in 99.9999% of cases in the western media and public discourse these
ideological shackles are present and hardly anybody dares to use a different
terminology.
The parallels between how the Israel Lobby carefully crafted the public discourse on Zionism
and Israel and how the LGBTQIAPK+ Lobby succeeded in shaping the public discourse on
homosexuality is striking and not at all coincidental: for a host of reasons these two lobbies
strongly support each other and learn from each other.
Do you think that this "just happened", and that this new politically correct terminology
reflects some growing understanding and awareness of the issue at hand by the general
public?
Think again.
Turns out, there is a conspiracy behind this, literally. See for yourself :
This video is 44 minutes long and I highly recommend that you watch it in full
for two crucial reasons:
It will give you a detailed analysis of how the LGBTQIAPK+ Lobby
conspired to use its influence to shape the public perceptions of homosexuality in the West It
will give you a good insight into the Russian objections to the ideology and methods of the
LGBTQIAPK+ Lobby
Finally, I will assume that those reading further will have seen and understood the
information contained in this video and that this information forms an integral part of our
discussion.
Next, debunking one of the silliest arguments used by the LGBTQIAPK+ Lobby
" I was born that way! "
How many times have you heard this totally meaningless argument?
And, just for comparison's sake,
How many times have you heard this meaningless argument debunked?
(My guess? Roughly 1000:0 – right?)
Like most LGBTQIAPK+ Lobby canards, this one is based on a misleading assumption that
whatever you are born with is "natural" and even "good". The problem with that is that this
same argument can be made for every mental disease and even any criminal impulse. And without
going into an endless battle of numbers, I think that we can agree that if somewhere around
1.2%-2.2% of
humans might be born homosexuals and if sociopaths are 3%-5% of the
population , then sociopathy is about as "natural" as homosexuality. In fact, we could even
declare that sociopathy is a " normal and positive variation of personality". Would you
want to live in a society which would proclaim that?
For Christians: this argument is even more ridiculous when coming from people trying to
impersonate Christians (say, like
these folks ). The truth is that Patristic dogmatic theology is very clear on the dogma
that the Fall of Man has not only corrupted the original God-given and perfect nature of Man,
but it has really corrupted all of creation: " Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the
world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned " Rom
5:12. The problem is that Augustine of Hippo diverged from the consensus patrum on this
issue and offered instead his own, misguided, interpretation of the dogma of the Original Sin.
Later Anslem of Canterbury and, even more so, Thomas Aquinas further hopelessly corrupted the
dogma of Original Sin and, as a result, in the West the original Patristic understanding of
that dogma has been lost (generally, scholasticism has been the poison which killed western
Christianity and turned it into the abomination we all see today). Due to a lack of space, I
cannot offer a full discussion of this dogma here, but I will point you to this excellent article on this topic
(or, even better, the original writings of Saint Maximos the Confessor and Saint Gregory
Palamas). The point here is that Christianity unambiguously teaches that every single human
being (including Christ Himself!) as born not with the personal guilt for the sin of Adam and
Eve, but with the consequences of their sin: a pathological, spiritual, psychological and even
physical nature, in which pathology and even death are always present and weighing down each
and every human being , not only homosexuals. From a truly Christian point of
view the notion that what we are born with is axiomatically declared as good and natural is
sheer folly. If anything, the assumption is that the opposite is true or, more accurately, that
the only way for a human being to recover his/her true, perfect, original nature is to reunite
with the Church of God and God Himself in a process known as "theosis" (for a superb discussion
of this term, please see here ), which begins with the process
of repentance and renunciation self-will. The so-called "Christians" in the West seemed to have
completely blocked out the following words of Saint Paul " Know ye not that the unrighteous
shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor
adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind " (1 Cor 6:9). Either
that, or they subscribe to the absolutely self-evidently stupid notion that Christ Himself was
some kind of well-meaning hippie while the evil homophobe and hater Saint "Paul" (
sic. these folks never call saints "Saint") perverted Christ's original message and
created some kind of "Pauline religion" instead. The facts that 1) Saint Paul was originally a
vicious a persecutor of Christians and that 2) Saint Paul was surrounded by people who
personally knew Christ (including the 12 and the 70) and His teachings does not lead these
simple-minded people to realize that these Christians who personally knew Christ. These
Christians would never let a former persecutor of Christians modify Christ's teachings. If
Saint Paul had tried to introduce any heresy, he would have been immediately condemned like all
the other heretics over the centuries. Sadly, we live not in a Christian society anymore, but a
post-and-pseudo-Christian one in which even the fundamentals of Christianity have been
forgotten, perverted or both.
The argument that "I was born that way" is both infinitely self-serving and infinitely
dishonest. But it also is a powerful illustration of how the LGBTQIAPK+ Lobby not only seeks
acceptance, but also that "regular" homosexuality is used as a kind of "gateway mental
disorder" which is used to force a much longer list of sexual deviations (" paraphilias ") upon the western societies
very much including pedophilia (by means of hebephilia and ephebophilia ). It does not have to be, but
that is how the LGBTQIAPK+ Lobby uses that argument, so it is legit to point that use out and
debunk it too (and this is what freaks like this one will use to
demand acceptance, endorsement and even special protection!).
Next, debunking the canard that homosexuality and pedophilia are totally different
phenomena
That is another deceptive core-argument of the LGBTQIAPK+ Lobby. I won't go into a long
historical discussion of how the term " pederast " and " pederasty " have been universally used
in the past. I will just point out that the first link above says that "pederast"
is " a man who desires or engages in sexual activity with a boy " whereas the
second one defines
"pederasty" as " sexual relations between two males, especially when one of them is a
minor " (emphasis added by me, VS)! See how "fuzzy" all this rapidly becomes? Not
convinced, then just add ephebophilia, hebephilia and pedophilia to the mix and see the
inextricable mess you end up with!
I am lucky to speak 6 languages and understand another 3 pretty well and I can attest that
in many other languages the politically incorrect word for the root for pedophile and
homosexual are one and the same (ex: Russian:
педераст,
пидарас, пидор; French:
pédale, pédé ), which makes sense since the Greek word paiderastes means
, literally, lover of boys.
Now, I am not, repeat, not saying that all homosexuals are also pedophiles.
What I am saying is that, contrary to LGBTQIAPK+ Lobby propaganda, the boundary between these
two categories is fuzzy and ambiguous and that it most definitely is nowhere nearly as
clear-cut as the LGBTQIAPK+ Lobby propaganda claims it to be.
Now having debunked a few (not all!) LGBTQIAPK+ Lobby canards, let's try to look at what is
really happening here.
The truth? We are being brainwashed
Shocked by my use of the term "brainwashed"? Fine. Use "conditioned", or "trained" or
whatever term you prefer as long as it reflects the following: there is an organized,
well-financed and powerful effort made to convince you of a number of (highly controversial and
dubious) things. That is not some invention of mine, and if the video I posted above was not
enough to convince you, why don't you make a quick visit to this website, a typical LGBTQIAPK+
Lobby propaganda outlet https://www.glaad.org and click on "About". There you will read
for yourself that the purpose of this organization is to be " Leading the conversation.
Shaping the media narrative. Changing the culture. That's GLAAD at work ". Of course, GLAAD
is just one star in a much bigger galaxy and we can see that galaxy at work literally
everywhere. Here are just one excellent example from Google:
If Google selling phones or pushing the agenda?
Now, if that is the new consensus in the West and if folks here like that, I personally have
no objection to this whatsoever. To each his own. But when that ideology is not only shoved on
the Russian people but also used in political campaigns to discredit Russia, then I have a
problem with that: not only do I object to this specific case of ideological brainwashing, I
object to the very notion that folks in the West have some kind of right to impose their
so-called "values" on other people. As far as I am concerned, the various advocates of
gender-fluidity are welcome to add "Z" (for zoophilia ) or "C" (for coprophagia ) to their favorite acronym, but
they are not welcome to impose it on others or demand that the rest of the planet endorse it as
a " normal and positive variation" of human sexuality or gastronomy.
Another example of corporate sponsorship of homopropaganda
And, finally, western politicians are all trying to outcompete each other as enthusiastic
supporters of homosexuality. This is just one example amongst many more:
At the very least, I find the Russian reaction to that kind of brainwashing rather
refreshing, see for yourself:
Translation: Ladies in the EU, the USA and Russia
I also get some solace that there are still folks in the West who do understand that this
propaganda campaign is part of a real "
war on men " which has been waged for many decades already. Here is the example of a lady
who makes minced meat of all the "transgender madness":
In fact, I would wager that most people in the West at least feel that something here really
stinks, but that most keep their peace lest they be accused of some kind of homophobia or, more
accurately, some kind of "LGBTQIAPK+phobia".
By the way, there is also a lot of money to be made in transgenderism. Jennifer
Bilek's research has found that:
"Exceedingly rich, white men with enormous cultural influence are funding the transgender
lobby and various transgender organizations. These include but are not limited to Jennifer Pritzker (a
male who identifies as transgender); George Soros ; Martine Rothblatt (a male who
identifies as transgender and transhumanist); Tim Gill (a gay
man); Drummond
Pike ;
Warren and Peter Buffett; Jon Stryker (a gay man); Mark Bonham (a gay man); and
Ric Weiland (a deceased gay man whose philanthropy is still LGBT-oriented). Most of these
billionaires fund the transgender lobby and organizations through their own organizations,
including corporations".
She also points out that the kind of sums involved in the homosexuality/transgenderism
propaganda are huge:
These men and others, including pharmaceutical companies and the U.S. government, are
sending millions of dollars to LGBT causes. Overall reported
global spending on LGBT is now estimated at $424 million . From 2003-2013, reported
funding for transgender issues increased more than eightfold
, growing at threefold the increase of LGBTQ funding overall, which
quadrupled from 2003 to 2012. This huge spike in funding happened at the same time
transgenderism began gaining traction in American culture.
I can't vouch for her figures, but I think that it is obvious beyond reasonable doubt that
the LGBTQIAPK+ Lobby has immense sums of money to push its agenda. I know for a fact that many
(all?) US embassies abroad are delivering funds to promote "gay rights" in many (most?)
countries of our poor planet.
This is, by the way, exactly the same case in Europe: being mentally handicapped is the new
"cool" apparently
And when the AngloZionists had the nerve to accuse Russia of doping her athletes, the
Russian blogosphere immediately reacted with this kind of demotivator (I translated the
text)
Russian men (and Russian women!!) don't want to have anything to do with that toxic
ideology, and this is why the most used informal term for "heterosexual" in Russia is
"натурал", meaning "natural" in opposition to the
concepts of "гeй" (gay) – politically correct term – or any of the less
politically correct terms used in Russia for homosexuals.
For a typical Russian reaction to the LGBTQIAPK+ Lobby propaganda, I would refer you to
Ruslan Ostashko (for
a typically Chechen one, see what Ramzan Kadyrov has to
say).
In contrast, in the Euro-compatible & Nazi-occupied Ukraine the reality is, obviously,
very different:
So what is really going on in Russia? Ain't there Gulags for gays?! Don't the Chechens
torture gays?
Actually – no.
Debunking the LGBTQIAPK+ Lobby lies about Russia
To say that homosexuals are persecuted by the state in Russia is a lie which any (honest)
person who has ever been to Russia can debunk. However, what is true is that the Russian
state and a majority of the Russian people do not accept the notion that homosexuality "is just
like" heterosexual love . You might vehemently disagree with this idea, but do you
agree that the Russian state and a majority of the Russian people are under no obligation to
agree with your values any more than you are under any obligation to agree with their values?
Next, the Russian state and a majority of the Russian people also believe that
children need to have two, gender-differentiated, parents: one mother and one father .
Again, you might vehemently disagree with this idea, but do you agree that the Russian state
and a majority of the Russian people are under not under any obligation to agree with your
values, any more than you are under any obligation to agree with their values? Finally,
the Russian state and a majority of Russians believe that Russian children should not be
exposed to any propaganda of homosexuality . Yet again, you might vehemently disagree
with this idea, but do you agree that the Russian state and a majority of the Russian people
are under no obligation to agree with your values any more than you are under any obligation to
agree with their values?
Russian parenting summarized in one picture
Whatever may be the case, the laws in Russia currently support this majority Russian point
of view. Hence, homosexual propaganda directed at minors is illegal and homosexual couples are
not free to adopt children. And, last but certainly not least, the so-called "gay pride parade"
have been banned in many Russian cities, including for the next 100 years in Moscow –
something I enthusiastically support for reasons I outlined in this
article .
But for the rest – Russia does not have US-style sodomy laws. Russia does not tell
anybody what they can/cannot or should/should not do in the privacy of their bedrooms and, in
fact, homosexuals have their own clubs, bars, websites, organizations, magazines and pretty
much everything else all Russians (whether "natural" or not) enjoy.
Here is what is really going on here: militant homosexuals are far from being content with
"inclusion" "non-discrimination" or any other laudable things they claim to stand for. No, what
they want is a two-step sequence:
Declare as axiomatic and self-evident that homosexuality
"is just like" heterosexuality and then Declare that homosexuality is now therefore an accepted
norm
It's that simple, yet that important: Russia categorically refuses to place an "equal"
sign between the concepts of homosexuality and heterosexuality . In fact, the Russian
culture (secular, Orthodox or Islamic) likes to stress and emphasize the differences between
genders and places a premium on masculinity in men and femininity in women. In other words,
Russians reject not only Neanderthal-like macho men, but also what is known as "soy boys" in
the West. Likewise, Russians reject men-hating feminists as much as they reject brainless
bimbos à la cheerleaders. If I was really cruel I would suggest that you compare
(looks and brains!) the Russian spokeswomen to their White House or Foggy Bottom counterparts:
this really says it all.
There is something else which I mentioned above which I want to rapidly touch upon: male
hostility towards homosexuals.
Setting aside the kind of degenerate thugs who feel the need to beat on somebody weaker then
them, I do believe that homosexuality as a concept and homosexual sex as an activity is
naturally repulsive to many, possibly most, men. I don't mean to say that most men are
degenerate thugs who will beat up anybody weaker they find, but I did observe all my life that
most men seem to have at least some degree of repulsion towards homosexuality. I could go on
and just claim that these men "can't help it" and that they were "born that way", but that
would be too easy. I will attempt an explanation for this instead.
I believe that repulsion towards homosexuality is a normal and positive variation of the
healthy male psyche developed to strengthen the reproductive potential of any population. Yup,
it is not popular to say so, and homosexuals go to great lengths to obfuscate that (by means of
adoption and propaganda, mostly) but homosexuality is totally sterile. Thus there must be a
powerful natural selective pressure not only for men not to engage in homosexual behavior, but
also for men to instinctively realize that "something is very not right" with homosexuality.
This instinctive feeling should not be used as a justification for violence (any more than
sexual attraction cannot justify rape, or irritation justify murder), but it does explain the
prevalence of heterosexual repulsion for all things "homo" (at least in males; many/most
females also seem to be repulsed by (male and female) homosexuality, but the feeling seems to
be less strong than in men and it does no lead to aggression).
The real question is what do we do with this kind of repulsion?
The answer depends on your culture, religion and worldview.
Even in the post-Christian West, most people know the saying "love the sinner, hate the sin"
or some variation thereof. This point of view has a very solid scriptural
basis . This approach, by the way, makes sense whether homosexuality has its roots in
nature or in nurture. In fact, from a strictly Christian point of view, homosexual behavior is
no worse than any kind of sexual immorality. This makes sense as the word "sin" originally
means "missing the target" or, more loosely, "failing to achieve your full potential." There
have been attempts in history to classify and order sins according to their severity. This,
again, is a typically scholastic attitude. The Fathers, in contrast, sought to develop a
complete dogmatic anthropology which truly understands the struggles of each human being to
achieve his/her full potential (theosis) and warns about the consequences of failing to do so.
Thus "sinning" is not pissing-off some bearded old guy sitting on a cloud surrounded by
harp-playing overweight angels, but the failure to realize your full potential. In such a
context, "hating the sinner" makes no sense at all while "hating the sin" is quite logical.
Especially since the Fathers believed that the One Church of Christ is a "hospital for sinners"
in which all sinners are welcome and where they get the spiritual medicine needed to achieve
their full potential as human beings.
declare that only one specific form of sexuality is "normal"
arbitrarily discriminate between various forms of sexuality with no logical basis for it.
declare that any form of sexuality is "normal"
Most developed countries have opted for the second option, making a completely arbitrary,
illogical and absurd list of "normal" and "not pathological" sexual behaviors. By the way, the
same dumb approach was used in dealing with sexual practices between consenting adults (the
so-called " sodomy laws
") or the codification of a legal age of sexual consent . Even a cursory
look at these laws clearly shows that they are based on nothing except political expediency:
they make absolutely no logical sense whatsoever.
Most religions and traditional societies have opted for option #1. Modern secularists
initially leaned towards #2 but they are now gradually caving to the LGBTQIAPK+lobby's pressure
to accept #3.
Conclusion: this discussion is far from being over, and it won't be suppressed
either
As I said at the very beginning, the topic of homosexuality is a controversial one. It is
also fascinating on many levels (biological, psychological, ethical, moral, religious, medical,
societal, etc.). The main religions have, over the centuries, developed their "answer" to this
phenomenon, but most of our planet nowadays lives in a secular, sometimes even atheistic,
environment in which religions have lost much of their traction, especially in societies which
were corrupted by centuries of western imperialism (made worse by the bizarre phobia –
yes phobia – the Latin Christians have for everything and anything sexual – hence
their effeminate looking and smoothly shaven priests, wearing lace (at least the
"traditionalists"!), singing with an effeminate voice and thinking that this represents some
true Christian tradition!). You want to see what the original Christians looked like? Look at
any traditional Orthodox icon and you will see for yourself. Or visit a true Orthodox
monastery. You will immediately see the difference, I promise!
For most people – religious or not – this topic ought to remain one which can be
freely discussed in an intellectual and ideological environment which does not immediately
place the label of "hater" on every person daring to dissent from the officially imposed dogma.
Real scientific research (as opposed to ideological votes by professional associations) ought
to be encouraged and regularly reviewed.
In political terms, the topic of homosexuality is just one amongst many others which have
been given a O ne A nd O nly O fficially P olitically
C orrect narrative by the AngloZionist leaders of the Empire. Other such officially
"dogmatized" narratives include the truth about 9/11, the truth about the so-called
"Holocaust", the truth about Zionism and Israel or the truth about Latin Christianity (there
are many more, of course). These are all topics in which dissent is totally taboo and
dissidents dismissed along with any or all of their arguments.
If we really want to stand for freedom in its most fundamental essence, we cannot accept to
be herded into the intellectual cages of the "authorized" political discourse. All the lobbies
which ceaselessly endeavor to silence dissent and impose their views and agenda upon us ought
to be clearly identified and denounced as a danger for all of humanity. I see no reason to make
an exception for the
WHENEVER YOU SEE EVIL, DEPRAVITY OR SICKNESS, LOOK FOR THE JUDAIST BEHIND IT.
Thanks, Sir. You make good points. I want to add/stress 3 points:
Phobia, by definition, is an IRRATIONAL fear of something that is not a fear by the
general public. Simple dislike (say, I don't like mushrooms or homos) is not a phobia. Fear
of standing on tracks with the train coming on is not a phobia -- it is a RATIONAL fear.
Secondly, in medicine including psychiatry, normalcy is defined as average +/- one
standard deviation. For example, what is the normal value of serum sodium? So if majority of
people are heterosexual (or have sodium between 130-150), then homosexuality, and trans, etc.
(or sodium 150), are all, BY DEFINITION, PATHOLOGICAL.
So, yes, these conmen are lying.
The Judaists are behind this depravity, to brainwash the public, to destroy families, to
warp their sexual mores. This is a part of their WAR ON CIVILIZATION. These people are
barbarians.
It's really simple: if a human can accept that heterosexuality is equal to homosexuality,
which goes against the very foundation of life, he/she can accept anything else.
Bye bye ability for critical thought.
A perfect serf, I mean, citizen.
' For example, we could agree to ditch the value-loaded term "gay" and replace it by a
value-free term "homosexual"
The difficulty here, as you note, is that it's all already blossomed far beyond the
compass of mere homosexualty and now incorporates whatever all those letters in 'LGBTQIAPK+'
stand for.
So we need a more inclusive term. 'Pervert' would seem to meet the case. After all, the
acts in question most certainly are perverted. Evolution didn't have any of those activities
in mind when it came up with sexual desire. If it couldn't at least apparently produce
offspring, it's not what was intended -- is, in a word, perverted.
No offense. Be perverted if you want. Just don't ask me to applaud.
Sticking your dick in shit is not normal! Most people have no problem with Homosexuals but
Fags are a different matter. Mind your own business, no flags no parades and get your
sexuality off your forehead!
Brain / genetic research has shifted gears in recent years. Millions now flow into these
areas for dementia and other mental conditions, with new revelations about us nearly every
month from multiple research points around the globe.
Could be just a few years until the science behind sexuality is revealed
Maybe even a simple "gay cure"?
What will the gay lobby do then? How many 16 year olds will want to grow up with the
stress of being "different"?
How will the gay lobby react to a so callef "gay cure"? Will it try to have it banned?
I am so BORED hearing about LBQ whatever. There are such bigger fish to fry.
I'm all for tolerance if they will just shut-up & stop playing the victim .&
humbuging us into ceding even more political power.
If a culture, such as Russia's doesn't want gay-shit rammed down their throat in never ending
gay public performances, then they should just accept it OR move.
There's a difference between tolerance & equality & a blank cheque to shove your
political points down everyone's throats in the knowledge that you have weaseled yourself
beyond any valid criticism.
When any supposed scientific/professional body bases a claim on 'consensus', then you KNOW
that this body is fraudulent and is just espousing an OPINION based on no empirical evidence.
These scientists/professionals are BS artists with PhD's.
Don't listen to a word they say.
I've already mentioned the lesbian prof who went to bat for her sick lover's "domestic
partners'" health benefits, and it turned out all of two additional coverable persons, .o67%
of the total of all group health insurance enrollees, were added. The campus gay lobby was
about the same time touting the 10% figure, which I think came from Kinsey, but has long been
debunked. The provost was too weak to cork this nonsense.
(The culprit that permitted "domestic partners'" insurance is in the very nature of
America's group health insurance. Statistically trivial sub-populations–gays, Martians,
and what-not -- may be added, but not a worker's parents or brothers and sisters. Group
health is a serious mischief-maker.)
The campus LGBTQ+ and women's centers seem to me pretty dubious. I'm not sure what they
do, and a part of me thinks they operate as recruitment depots for predatory gay and lesbian
profs. Plus, they're intellectually dubious. I doubt the operators of these organizations
think much about folks who are heterosexual but who remain virginal or celibate for long
periods.
As with other "permitted" identity groups, the gays are given a very long leash, and
lifting them up has allowed our masters a new tool to work their divide-and-conquer
boogie-woogie.
A parenthesis: Do you really think that Russian men do not practice or fantasize about
practicing anal sex or blowjobs, the 'dirty' acts that homosexual are accused of practicing?
That is naive
Yes, heterosexuality has been accepted as 'normal' simply because a heterosexual act
produces children and build a society while non-heterosexuals are sterile.
Is sexuality in human only limited to procreation? We all know that is not true, otherwise
heterosexual couples would have hundreds of children! it is obvious that all forms of
sexuality should be allowed as long as it is CONSENSUAL. Therefore pedophilia etc.. are NOT
allowed in a society that rejects violence and promote the respect of the person.
Western societies have ostracized and persecuted consensual homosexuals for so long in the
name of religion that it is blowing back in excessive forms by they trying to force new
norms, some absurds, on the society.
In my opinion the excessive ostentation of non-heterosexuals in public life do not have a
positive effect. While women are largely more accepting of homosexuality and do not feel
threatened by it, most heterosexual men are 'conservative' and live all their lives
frustrated from their sexual fantasies. Therefore the exhibition of the sexual freedom of
non-heterosexuals can be traumatic and provoke envy, hatred and violence.
The western society is now regulated by the 'controversial' politically correctness. The
non-heterosexuals are taking advantage of that to take a revenge and affirm their rights ..
but this is going too far.
Saker got called out for cucking on race (Jews are not a race!) and for being soft on the
muzzle question (my Muslim neighbors were nice, therefore Islam is good for Europe!) and he's
never been able to live it down.
Literally every single article he writes now mentions those evil Whites who dared question
Saker's ravings.
The alphabet people have the right to have sex with whomever they want so long as it is
mutually consented to by adults. However, the alphabet people have NO right whatsoever to
tell everyone else what their opinions must be about such sexual activities. That is the
dividing line between homosexuals and their rights and the rights of others. The alphabeters
refuse to understand this.
The irrefutable fact is that the human rectum is designed as a check valve i.e. a one way
valve for outflow not inflow. Therefore using it outside of its designed operation is not
normal nor natural. Calling that which is not normal "not normal" is perfectly reasonable
while claiming something obviously not normal to be normal is the sign of a demented
mind.
I raise a glass to the Saker for having the courage to present this column. He is in the
alphabets' cross hairs now.
Homosexuality and Lesbianism and all other forms of LGBTQ with or without other
alphabetical appendages (no pun intended) is ABNORMAL. It goes against nature. Without man
and woman or male and female in the animal and plant kingdom there would be no life on earth.
the human species would not exist and this planet would be a barren rock. Where men are
concerned the anus was designed for another function and not for sexual penetration. Why
would anyone want to enter a sewer ? These people are perverts. It makes me want to vomit
when I see politicians sucking up to these creatures for a vote.
I really dont care what they do in private. They can get it on all they want. I find it
irritating though that they push it down other people's throats especially the youth and
young children. What I find dangerous is that the more we tolerate this degeneracy more and
more varied degeneracy is foisted upon us. And yet, the more they force others to accept
their twisted personalities and preferences the more revolted we become and the more
repulsive they are.
In this journey through the gutter we are not creating a society of men capable of
standing up to life"s hard knocks but a race of pansies, fruitcakes and sissies who collapse
at the slightest setback. I observe this on a daily basis all around me every day of the
week. On the other hand we have the girls who want to be the dominant "male" in their girlie
relationships. They pump up but look like grotesque freaks. How many men want a she man with
28 inch biceps who can bench press 400 pounds and who looks and acts like an ape just out of
the Congo ?
The next step in this descent into filth is sex with animals and how much further we will
descend into this cesspool of perversion will be a product of the human imagination which
knows no bounds
As for the Williams girl, I have to say I do like her but then again as a boy I always
enjoyed trips to the zoo and the monkeys and gorillas were always my special cages !
@heisendude
the rectum is a highly erotogen zone on the human body as it is full of ending nerves. Why
was it "designed" like that? Why do men have tits that have obvious no usage? Was the
clitoris "designed" for any other purpose than to give pleasure. Is circumcision 'normal' if
the penis was 'designed' with skin covering it?
Man on earth essentially exploits, tames nature and most of the time works against it to fit
his needs and pleasure. The original design becomes lost on the way
In any case sodomy is not the exclusivity of homosexuals, it is practiced by many
'liberated' heterosexuals. I doubt they are concerned by the 'design'
@Markster
nd sissies who collapse at the slightest setback.
Actually, the objective is to create a society of men incapable of challenging the social
pyramid as planned for them.
Such serfs don't do "pitchfork" thing.
No need to mince words here. "They" know exactly what they are doing. EXACTLY. Emasculating a White man.
THAT is the game.
This "sex thing" is just a part of the play.
And .hahaha .a lot of White men buy it all. No "Wilson treatment" required. Just a
smartphone and social media do the trick.
So much for White supremacy, a?
I took a tour through the "Vineyard" and a few similar sites (e.g. Fort Russ) and saw nary a
word about this, even though the case is apparently a sensation in Russia:
"The case of the Khachaturyan sisters has stirred the Russian public, with over 200,000
people signing an online petition urging the prosecutors to drop the murder charges."
I wonder if their reticence to link to this story has anything to do with information like
this:
"Pressured by conservative family groups, President Vladimir Putin in 2017 signed a law
decriminalizing some forms of domestic violence, which has no fixed definition in the Russian
legislation. Police routinely turn a blind eye to cases of domestic abuse, while preventive
measures, such as restraining orders, are either lacking or not in wide use."
I wonder if The Saker et al., who are so alarmed by the antics of what they acknowledge to
be a tiny minority of the U.S. and European population, could bring themselves to comment on
this case, and what it means for Russian prospects of social development (now that suicide by
vodka is alleged to be solely an American phenomenon).
It would mean taking a short break from trashing "the west" and braying over its immanent
collapse. It also would mean real research, of the statistical variety so beloved by readers of
this site. Does a young Russian female have a greater or lesser chance of being "turned
lesbian" by media-enhanced peer pressure than she does of winding up in the ER with Daddy's
love marks?
It never gets old being lectured by your social and cultural superiors. Until, of course,
some truth leaks out, such as the above; truth that suggests that either Russia is still in the
process of social collapse or perhaps has always been the social and cultural avatar of
Mississippi.
@Virgile
es "ostracizing" and "persecuting" consensual homosexuals, whether in the name of religion or
not.
While women are largely more accepting of homosexuality and do not feel threatened by
it,
Until the barrage of the last 25 years or so, women were largely more accepting of
homosexuals than men, and men were more accepting of Lesbianism than women. However, women were
as, or more, averse to Lesbianism than men were of homosexuals.
At the end of the day, it all comes down to Anita Bryant's 1972 warning: "They want to
recruit your children and teach them the virtues of becoming a homosexual."
Good article however the analysis did not go far enough. The force behind all this
brainwashing is the Devil himself. How so? God is "the way, the truth and the life" his
principal enemy is the exact opposite: "no right or wrong way, lies and death".
So now think about everything lgbtetc – every single thing that can be associated with
them can be reduced to "there is no right and wrong" generating, propagating and celebrating
lies and everything they do leads to death and illness (individual death or death of the human
race) Everyone who does not see that is willfully blind All of us will be forced to join one of
those two armies and I would rather have God on my side
Now, the word "phobia" can mean one of two things: aversion/hatred or fear/anxiety.
I hate to quibble, but phobia is more than aversion or fear. It is an irrational fear that
causes anxiety. It is never hate. People who are afraid of height suffer from acrophobia.
People that feint or vomit at the sight of blood suffer from hemophobia.
I don't like eating tripe or brains, it doesn't mean I hate them or have an irrational fear of
them. Disapproval of homosexuality does not equate to hate or a phobia.
Phobia, just as gay was, is a word that has been hi-jacked and weaponized. Unfortunately.
there are many others.
'A parenthesis: Do you really think that Russian men do not practice or fantasize about
practicing anal sex or blowjobs, the 'dirty' acts that homosexual are accused of practicing?
That is naive '
Homosexuality Cultural Conquest comes in 5 stages:
1. TOLERANCE: it means the right to be left alone.
2. ACCEPTANCE: it means equal status.
3. CELEBRATION: it means that everyone must accept homosexuality and promote it as a good
valuable thing.
4. FORCED PARTECIPATION: it means that everyone must participate in homosexuality culture.
5. PUNISHMENT: it means that everyone who disagrees must be punished.
And Satan emboldened can then tell God: "You wanted me to submit to man and now look at what
he's doing, offering me the sacrificial gift that I cherish above everything else: his
children's body and soul".
Does anybody like having his children being taught in primary school that being a sodomite
is all right and normal?
@Carlos675
kay for an adult to choose to enter a program which they believe will be beneficial to their
mental health.
Clown World.
But remember: God said he would spare Sodom and Gomorrah if even 10 good people could be
found in the city. We still have some good people around, so cheer up. Not total destruction,
yet. Never give up.
I even believe that the public opinion is now shifting against the queers, especially as the
country gets browner LOL. These homos are going to get the brown, diverse country they want,
but it ain't gonna be a brown, diverse, homo country where everyone is transgender and they
have unlimited access to negro cocks.
@Virgile
most heterosexual men are 'conservative' and live all their lives frustrated from their sexual
fantasies.
Yes, men are horny. Guess what the best way to have alot of sex is?
Get married.
Being le Alpha Chad Slayer only works if you're in the top 1% of guys. Men are having less sex
than ever (on average) despite the feminist "liberation".
It's in the Bible. Sex is for one man and one woman in a marriage, and they should do it
often. The Bible has been right for millenia and will always be right as long as humans are
around, regardless of how "advanced" some lunatics think we are at this random point in time.
Hippopotamusdrome
, says: July 12,
2019 at 11:25 pm GMT
What's it like to be a KID #DRAGQUEEN? @CBCKidsNews spoke with the four stars of CBC's new
#DragKids documentary to find out what #drag is, and why they do it. #lgbtq #queer
#kiddragqueen @cbcdocs
WATCH: Kid drag queens sashay their way into the spotlight
New documentary follows four kid drag queens as they prepare to slay on Montreal stage
The Saker goes with a roughly 1%-2% figure for born homosexuals, which sounds a bit high.
I'll guess some genetic disturbance, intrauterine chemistry gone bad, and, I think one guy has
speculated on a virus of some sort as the origin. I've read some sketch statistics that
homosexual marriages amount to .34% of all marriages. The gay lobby in my opinion is among the
most high-maintenance of political lobbies with respect to the numbers of people actually
involved. The gays deserve a fair shake, but their scandalizing tactics have given them more
than that in my opinion, plus a dubious victim card to boot.
What are conservative-traditional types to do? Incentivize heterosexual expression and
marriage through outright bonuses upon marriage, and monthly payments thereafter, with
additional bonuses for each child. That might be one way of countering the ill effects of
capitalism, which retards earning capacity until after college, and feminism.
"Homosexuals are sexually troubled people engaging in dangerous activities. Because we care
about them and those tempted to join them, it is important that we neither encourage nor
legitimize such a destructive lifestyle."
What you say is utter claptrap. So we can assume that whether you are a homo or liberated
hetero YOU like big meat in the back door ?? What a sleazy scum pervert you are hiding behind a
load of bubble head babble !
@Virgile
d by calling you names. Such as faggot, poofter or gaylord. NO boy your perversion is not
natural, how can it be since no baby can be born out of a man's arse? Are you a SEAHORSE to
disagree?
PS: The fact that some natural people might enjoy some sort of anal stimulation, does NOT
justify you being a fag. What we natural BREEDING couples do has frankly NOTHING to do with
faggots. Simply NONE of ypour pervert business!
PPS: Take your assumed accusations of anti-faggotry (by any stupid name) and shove them
where your gay partner's knob is expected to be! I do not owe any fags anything.
1. TOLERANCE: it means the right to be left alone.
2. ACCEPTANCE: it means equal status.
3. CELEBRATION: it means that everyone must accept homosexuality and promote it as a good
valuable thing.
4. FORCED PARTICIPATION: it means that everyone must participate in homosexuality
culture.
5. PUNISHMENT: it means that everyone who disagrees must be punished.
I think step 5 should be restated as step 1.a., 2.a, 3.a.,4.a.
Punishment of those who disobey is part of the toolkit of every cult.
@Colin
Wright that prove beyond cavil that nature did not intend the anus to be thus used. Even if
we didn't think there was a God, science and medicine show us what it is naturally conducive to
human life, health, and flourishing, both for the individual human organism and for human
groups, and what is not.
Lastly, the Saker is right that we should stop using the perverts' propaganda terms like
"gay." Simply say homosexual, which is objective, accurate, and not emotional or manipulative.
It makes even some of the people at our church uncomfortable, it seems. People don't realize
how much we concede the whole issue when we use the pervert activists' terms.
You say that homosexuals are not "born that way", and you also state that the great majority
of men find disgusting what homosexuals do. It's obvious that no born-straight male can be
persuaded or forced to engage in sex with another man. So males who do are "born that way",
there is no other explanation.
Lavender mafias are a threat to workplace norms of decency, and politically emboldened
homosexuals are likely to cause a mess of trouble now and in the future. Sexualized behavior,
straight-bashing, sexual propositioning, etc. They can use the victim card when their flaming
gets out of hand, and use threats of sexual harassment complaints against straight guys to
cock-block. Fucking awful way to undermine and demoralize traditional values and workplace
values.
That's why I think it's important to at least think about "re-normalizing" heterosexual
behavior by, for example, subsidies for marriage and child-bearing.
He didn't say homosexuals are not "born that way". He said that if homosexuals are "born
that way" doesn't imply that homosexuality and heterosexuality need enjoy equivalent societal
acceptance.
Thanks for correcting me. You're right, but he did say that the argument that "I was born
that way" is "infinitely dishonest", because it claims to be "natural", and therefore "good",
and I'm guilty of reading too quickly and jumping to my conclusion. Although it is contra
naturam, not what Nature intended, those born exceptions are "natural" in that they can't help
it, but it is not "good". There have always been "queers" as we called them when I was growing
up, but they kept quiet, kept to themselves, and were not in our faces every day as they are
now, with "gay pride" parades, etc.
@JackOH
ents thereafter, with additional bonuses for each child.
Get serious. What next? Subsidize every heterosexual affair ("heterosexual expression")? Every
post-bar-closing one-off, as long as it's a man and a woman?
Yes, I'm for society encouraging heterosexual (and for that matter, same-race) norms. But
paying people to observe them is not the way it would just create a sexual welfare state. Not to
mention that governments at every level can't balance a budget. How would your scheme be
financed? Through Hetero Bonds? Raising your taxes to cover marriage and baby bonuses?
Serena Williams is big, 5 feet eleven inches tall. that photo emphasizes her muscles but she
is all female and heterosexual. I see no reason to compare Sharapova and Williams .I never did.
I perved on both.
Sharapova and Williams are two different examples of the human females from different
environments and biological backgrounds. what the hell is there to compare particularly with
negatives in mind..one is better than the other..more beautiful etc. who the hell says
so..god?
I like Sharapova and I am sure she functions well in her social environment, and lives a
good life. so does Williams in hers..both capable people who have carved out exceptional places
in the global life. what the hell is there to compare particularly with negative principles in
mind
Go-rillas and racists belong in the same cages at the zoo
The Williams sisters are actually the Williams brothers. Their bone structure matches a man.
Likely had hormone therapy. There have been many trans in Women's tennis.
There is no united LGBT lobby. That's a myth the left liberal media is trying to push. In
reality it's a messy and unstable alliance of gay and trans white male libertarians,
progressive lesbians and gender queer activists, and black and brown faux progressives whose
ultimate loyalty is to their race. The rise of nationalist/populist politics and
intersectionality activism will tear it apart.
Does anybody else find it really odd Jordan Peterson is world famous and as near as I can
tell his sole claim to the fame is he refused to participate in the hassle of memorizing his
students custom preferred pronouns? His fifteen minutes of fame has got to pass by any minute
now. If he was a rational thinker he could have trained himself in less than a day to simply
use all proper names and delete all pronouns from his everyday speech.
Saker, thanks for the gaiety of your article. I might mention the Binary site.
The power of the alphabetic lobby is staggering. Staggering!
What happened to common sense? Not permitted?
There is obviously something pathological/abnormal about homosexuality. But that does not
mean bad/wrong unless they attempt to infect others with their pathology and focus on the very
young, years pre-pubescent, because they are so easily indoctrinated, always believe what the
big people say. That is bad/wrong, very bad/wrong. And, if they encourage surgery to make it
irreversible: death penalty, nothing else.
As for the Papacy, its final degeneracy was complete when they dug up Wycliffe's bones and
burnt them to ashes and threw the ashes into the river to render God powerless the resurrect
Wycliffe's body: no body, no resurrection of the body. You abdicated to me, God. Only I and my
subordinates can forgive sins, and for a fee. Get fucked, God.
Compliments for a piece of impeccable, clear reasoning. Good to know you are also making fun
of the letter soup madness currently being enforced on us by the lobby. Still haven't figured
out if those lobbyists are evil or just incredibly stupid. Sorry, perhaps I should say:
ethically challenged or mentally challenged.
– Homosexuality isn't even the worst of it anymore. It's the trans lobby. And the
attempt to indoctrinate children in that ideology.
– Why more people don't speak out against all this insanity is quite confusing. You
can't tell me 50 and 70 year old have suddenly had a generational change of heart.
– "Normal" and "abnormal" have moral connotation. And many times, it is
appropriate.
But from a more neutral point, LGBTQ can be judged based on "useful" and "not useful" in
regards to society and social progress.
Is homosexuality useful? In certain limited situations and times it might be.
Today, maybe it's a useful instrument to accelerate collapse.
Serena is sure a great Tennis player. Not sure if the article was implying she was a trans
person, but she is not. Some women are just more masculine looking just like some men are more
feminine looking.
When did the repression of homosexuality by the state start in the first place? Could it be,
the same forces where behind it, with drive the agenda today? This is what has to be
considered. Everything is spoiled in this world, love of course too. Without the repression,
there would be no leverage today, to drive things into extreme. Imagine a society, with natural
families, raising their children, at home, in small communities! Instantly, the problem of
child molestation fades, because there is less room for it, children are protected by the
social fabric, they are not in institutions like school. In everyday life things are and where
always pretty normal. Some 0X% of people being homosexual has not caused extinction of the
human race, and no propaganda will rise the quote. When considering homosexuality, please don't
look at debauchery. This can be done with heterosexuality too, but nobody judges it by looking
at a brothel.
The transgender topic seems insane, as long as the occult roots are not known, it is about
merging the opposites, for empowerment. These people know, but do not tell the background in
public.
What I found particularly interesting in the article is how a program of a few can indeed
change the society and the way of thinking and acting in general. It also has all the earmarks
of zionist propaganda.
Personally I don't mind whether homosexuality is born, natural, normal or whatever. Actually
I find the religious arguments pretty boring.
What really matters is to understand how people can be influenced and brainwashed merely by
watching tv or reading newspapers and magazines. I don't see any improvement in going back to
the religions. Instead, we should go ahead and learn critical thinking and make sure that no
one can play games with us.
First mix races, then mix genders then mix humans and animals then mix biological beings and
machines.
Everything is reversed in Joo world, reversal of Logos as E Micheal Jones has put it. Ugly is
beautiful, beautiful is Ugly; Gender is a choice; Blacks are smarter than Whites; Race is a
Social construct; barbaric thuggish behaviour is more noble than Civilised behaviour .. Only in
Joo world.
Sexual welfare state? You've probably noticed some of the griping on this site is about the
sexual welfare state that already exists that subsidizes the poor and presumptively "dysgenic".
We're already subsidizing the progeny, many of them, of those "post-bar-closing one-offs".
I agree that subsidies for anything are usually bad, but I'm willing to listen to other
ideas that stand a chance in the political marketplace.
There are these theories floating around that the William Sisters are trannies. How true
this is? I do not know, I have doubts. But it is worth a look, very interesting.
The poster named 'Truth' has been writing about this phenomenon on Unz.
The Saker is full of shit regarding the LGBT issue. This entire article is full of shit. He
is especially full of shit regarding gay pride parades: if a gay pride parade is banned, that
is discrimination and that is what they've done in Moscow and countless other Russian cities:
banned gay pride parades. That is insecure, stupid, and most discriminatory and smacks of
ignorant sexual insecurities. I am totally against the American 'war on Russia cold war pt 2'
we've endured since 2014. But there is no question that Russia is culturally backwards
especially regarding gay rights. There is no excuse for banning a gay pride parade.
Yes, this entire article is a steaming pile of homophobic bullshit. Russia sucks ass bigtime
because they can't handle a gay pride parade once a year going through their mainstreet.
If you don't agree with me, you can go fuck yourself.
Resources that could have been used to promote large, healthy and happy families among
native Swedes, just like Israel does with supporting Haredim, are used to cut penises and carve
out vaginas of Swedish children. The most horrific part, Swedish authorities aren't worried
about the rise of 'transgenderism' or fall of fertility rates since 2009. No, they're worried
that they can't mutilate reproductive organs of confused children fast enough. How
progressive!
You truly don't need to conquer the nation. Just plant the seeds of 'progressivism' and it will
destroy the country from inside.
You suck because you can't live and let live. If someone is transsexual, transgendered etc
so what? They simply want to be left alone, they are not bothering anybody. It is sexually
intolerant, insecure assholes like you who are the problem, not TS/TGs.
You are quite right in principle -- it is entirely distorting to suggest that living
organisms are "designed". All life is an evolutionary adaption to environment. If a "Designer"
should exist, even a designer with a "plan", it still operates through evolutionary adaption
(but not necessarily through random mutation)
Interesting perspective. To what degree are homosexuals likely to resist/attack our corrupt
States, & the filthy elites that animate these States?
Or in short -- have they a Class
consciousness ?
The Saker, from his Moscow bans gay pride parade article-
Right. Brilliant. So "same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings and behavior are
normal and positive variations of human sexuality". And yet pedophilia is still considered a
psychiatric disorder (source). What about incest? Well, guess what? Psychiatry puts incest
next to paraphilia, i.e. pathologic sexual activities which is a group name for every sexual
activity that is considered unnatural in psychology and sexology. Apart from incest,
paraphilia also includes paedophilia, sadism, masochism, sexual fetishism, exhibitionism,
voyeurism, necrophilia, nymphomania (source).
And how does one distinguish between "normal and positive variations of human sexuality" and
paraphilia? Since up until 1974 homosexuality was considered a paraphilia, why were no
arguments presented to remove it from this category?
This is all utter nonsense, of course. There are only three possible solutions to this
conundrum:
a) declare that only one specific form of sexuality is "normal"
b) declare that any form of sexuality is "normal"
c) arbitrarily discriminate between various forms of sexuality with no logical basis for
it.
So for the Saker his main argument is this: because over 40 years ago, the APA categorized
homosexuality as a type of paraphilia, and ONLY because of pressure from the "gay lobby" was it
overturned. Problem is, if you bother to look up the history of the decision, you find the
opposite to be the case, that in fact the so-called 'science' which classified being gay as a
mental disorder back in the 30s/40s/50s was fraught with religious and cultural bias, to
wit-
The best day of the 20th century for every lesbian and gay man in America was December 15,
1973: the day the board of the American Psychiatric Association voted 13-0 to remove
homosexuality from its official list of psychiatric disorders.
It was the front page story in The New York Times (and almost every other major newspaper)
at the time, and it remains the most important victory of the modern gay rights movement,
which was then slightly more than four years old.
The triumph was a tribute to the diligence, intelligence, and furious determination of
Frank Kameny, a cofounder with Jack Nichols of the Washington, D.C., branch of the Mattachine
Society and one of the most important gay leaders of all time. More than a decade before the
APA acted, Kameny identified homosexuality's classification as a mental illness as the major
stumbling block for gay rights because "an attribution of mental illness in our culture is
devastating."
When Kameny studied the psychiatric literature, he was "appalled." He told me that
everything he found there was "sloppy, slovenly, slipshod, sleazy science–social and
cultural and the theological value judgments, cloaked and camouflaged in the language of
science, without the substance of science. There was just nothing there . It was garbage in,
garbage out."
In short, after centuries of religious persecution, gay people had suffered throughout the
20th century from outrageous medical malpractice: the psychiatric notion that the only
healthy gay person was the one who wanted to be straight.
In 1970, Kameny convinced the Gay Activists Alliance to join him in his campaign to
overturn the APA's policy, and only three years later they were successful.
For gay people who came of age after the 1970s, it is almost impossible to imagine what it
had been like to live in an era when every official body (as well as most liberal lobbying
groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union) classified your orientation as an
illness or a crime.
So the Saker's arguments don't stand up to scrutiny. His quotes in the Moscow article are
cherry-picked from a blog by another gay hating bigot Phil Hickey, imagine my shock. The Saker
is a bigot who hates gay people, plain and simple. He wants to go back in time to the 1950s or
1940s (or earlier?) when gays were seen as no different than pedophiles or people who had sex
with animals, as revealed in his Moscow quote above. What a ridiculous, backward mentality, not
to mention a ridiculous backwards argument full of deliberate lies and misinformation. It is
not surprising he has found his audience here on Unz.com, where the comments section if full of
extreme reactionary right wing assholes, bigots and idiots. Nothing like preaching to the
choir, especially if your arguments are shit
If a man wearing a dress and makeup upsets you, you are not just a homophobe, but an example
of human depravity. The fact that such a demented attitude might be widespread doesn't make it
any less depraved or pathological. Human beings seem to be real effed- up sickos, as our
endless wars indicate. It's up to us to change that, but unfortunately there are many like
Snaker who dedicate themselves to perpetuating insanity.
All that being said, we have to recognize that the powers that be in our world have an
uncanny ability to take any idea – however good that idea may be in itself – and
weaponize it, that is, turn it into a tool for them to use to pursue their power-obsessed
transhumanist agenda. Multi-culturalism is a very good idea. Tolerance is a very good idea.
Globalism is a very good idea. Human rights is a very good idea. In fact, these ideas and many
more are essential to a better human future, to any human future. They are being used in
today's world to help bring about a global police state.
We need to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The fundamental ideas
are very good in many cases. They ways they are used can be paradoxical and manipulative. For
example, respect for diversity and tolerance turns into censorship and intolerance. Wishes for
a global humanity turn into a growing global inhumanity. Championing for human rights turns
into warmongering.
Let's attack the way good ideas are manipulated, not the good ideas themselves. Queer people
are good people. Embracing diversity isn't just a good idea. It's the right thing to do and an
essential part of the path towards a better world.
@Curmudgeon
and grab their crotches and scream at us like looks, "LOOK AT ME! PAY ATTENTION TO ME!".
Only seriously sick, infantile and demented intellects behave that way. Again, normal for
THEM. Against the mean of humanity, they are sick fucks top to bottom, the lot of them. It
ain't their queer shit they engage in, it's the advocacy and refusal to leave us the fuck alone
over it. The instant they aren't getting attention, they throw another parade, riot or invent a
new degeneracy for us to 'accept'. What they're doing is building backlash at this point. It's
high time the entire community experienced such. They aren't worth the attention and
expense.
Doesn't the gay lobby's claim if "born that way" contradict the trans argument that they
aren't limited to their biological setup? Why are they allied?
Serena Williams was as doped as Barry Bonds. And it was covered up the same way Lance
Armstrong's doping was covered up, including the blackmail and various other threats. Add in
race, with the Numinous Negro seen as untouchable, and you get doped Serena whose cheating must
be ignored even if it were to lead to murders.
One of the other things the movement does, and the Left does generally is, always claim when
anyone raises any concern about the slippery slope, "Oh that will never happen" (like burly
guys claiming to be women in order to go into women's bathrooms where your daughter is, etc).
Then if you point out some major news item (most suppressed now I bet) where this actually did
happen, then they say, "that's very rare the exception etc" (like illegals killing you or your
kids). Then later, the third step is, "these things are going to happen on occasion it's part
of living in the modern world" (like, living with Terrorism in London). You see the same steps
used with an in everything. Over time, and generations and with public education you see that
the coming generations never need to be sold the prior steps, eventually it just becomes
policy.
They've been gaslighting Americans for decades with the whole "gays will never ask for
marriages, geez-us, dummy, they just want to be left alone" regardless of the controversial
topic. They open the Overton window, and throw you out of it within a short time frame. Nothing
in my long life has moved so rapidly as the LGBT movement. Not even "race relations"
(normalizing of black crime, interracial relationships, etc etc).
Doesn't the gay lobby's claim if "born that way" contradict the trans argument that they
aren't limited to their biological setup? Why are they allied?
Don't forget that the radical feminist lesbians (the so-called TERF) and the trannies hate
each other's guts.
@freedom-cat
t into something else until they leave. That's not a compliment.
You meant to say that some women have normal female hormonal output and some women are
variously Black and /or on steroids.
No natural White woman is as masculine looking as the Williams sisters. They aren't trans,
they're Black with the higher testosterone count that goes with it.
Whether roided up or merely enjoying the increased hormonal output that makes younger women
of their race pound for pound almost as strong as natural White men (especially at non-obese
weights), they look and play like men (to be generous) in skirts and will ruin women's tennis
(like a tranny would) for as long as they are in the sport.
Most in the West, particularly in the U.S., still haven't gotten their minds around the last
quarter century. CCP China won the post-Cold War period hands down.
What became evident years ago is that elite Westerners were of mixed opinion (to say the
least) on the collapse of the Soviet/Totalitarian model. It isn't as if these sentiments
weren't visible even at the height of The Cold War in the form of pessimism of a free (naive)
society defeating such an enemy. But, after Soviet Communism collapsed, and State Capitalist
China began to rise, the Administrative State in particular had lots of reasons to find
technocratic control appealing.
Ideologically, there is no longer a dime's bit of difference between Western multinational
corporations and CCP-led China.
I bring this broad view up in this context because the Sexual Rights Revolution long ago
turned coercive. My working assumption has long been that if a movement's agenda is Live and
Let Live (freedom) it has an opening. But when it turns coercive it will eventually come a
cropper.
You have to be blind not to see the stark difference between gay men/lesbians and trans. The
latter are sick puppies at war with everyone else, including garden variety gays and
lesbians.
Vaclav Havel has written about the Communists true objective being to humiliate by forcing
everyone to mouth the lies. That's the stage we're at regarding trans propaganda and, in my
view, it is no more sustainable than any previous attempts.
I know you and much of your readership wants to analogize to Jews and Israel. I understand
why given similar coercive tactics. But this is the very definition of self-defeating behavior.
Everyone is not alike, including peoples. Just as blacks are unique in American life (as
Hillary discovered) so are Jews with a different metaphor of suffering.
One really must feel sorry for homos in Russian and Eastern European countries–not
because of persecution or anything, but because Slavic men are so goddamned fucking ugly.
Seriously, how is it that Slavic women are naturally pretty (at least until the hit 30, and
then they turn into babushkas overnight), but Slavic men are uniformly ogres?
The "muzzle question" was created by the supremacist-pagan-whitrash. That question (or
problem, as you would more rightly perceive it) can be resolved only when a solution can be
found for the supremacist-pagan-whitrash abomination.
Self-genocide of the supremacist-pagan-whitrash (may I suggest monk-hood, for y'all papist
mfrs) a clear manifestation of nature's built-in equilibrium.
@Golobki
-process from them? They're retarded and infantile in every way imaginable. Proof that
feminists are weak, those feminists allow the trannies to steal scholarships after the
NOW-crowd pestered us for Title IX. This is a whole other reason for greater intake of the
M&Ms of the Depressed. With trannies, the feminists are a group who, if the feminists
(TERFs) protest, now find themselves in a street fight with trannies who have no sense of
chivalry. Women aren't strong, they're weak. And most hetero White men aren't coming to their
defense, anymore, never again. Take care of your own and hell with everyone else. Defending
them is a fool's errand.
Abrahmic religions: Judaism / Christianity / Islam
Then they are much more hostile to mens homosexuality, than to female's: who cares what
Solomon/Suleiman's wives did in harem?
However i am not sure mitraism or zoroastrism or european paganic religions were so
passionately hostile to it.
Buddhism, sintoism – are them?
Now, one may say that those are Abrahmic religions who "own" the world today, and by this
metric are "major". And that their stance on homosexuality made them successful im that
conquest. Which, maybe is. However then the causality would be opposite: not the major
religions are against gays, but religions starkly against gays have better chances to became
major ones
Precisely because Williams literally looks like a gorilla in a tennis skirt when playing
natural White females.
Which coincides with her races gorilla behavior that literally everyone, including
themselves, tries their best to escape (chasing everyone else ever further away).
Do you want more Black gorilla comparisons or are you regretting your metaphor?
Racism is the rejection of widespread gorilla behavior.
In tennis, its obvious that one race can develop lean muscle mass above most other races and
therefore come to dominate the sports in which they participate. Muscle mass that other humans
can not so readily develop.
But imagine if they were related. One human "tribe" with their average "phenotype", the
outlook set somewhere between masculinity and femininity.
Then men and women deviate from that average into different directions.
Not A and B but rather (A-B) and (A+B)
Towards one pole you would have then beautiful(handsome) men with clearly defined manly
features. Square jaws and all that. However the consequence would be manly ugly women.
Towards another pole you would have beautiful(gorgeous) women with soft and soothing
features. And in consequence – men lacking those "monumental" qualities in their
exhibits.
The Bible has been right for millenia and will always be right as long as humans are
around, regardless of how "advanced" some lunatics think we are at this random point in
time.
Lol!
I understand that the point of my post is not even mentioned in this "Bible" of yours, but
before confidently (more like delusionally) claiming its inerrancy, you may first wish to
square-the-circle of your foundational creed that oxymoron called Monotheistic
Trinitarianism . You would then have a much firmer base to stand on, and spew your
nonsense.
I second the vote as I have always favored "sodomite" over any other term.
The political sodomite groups I have always simply referred to as "the acronym people" as I
have long lost track of what the ever-changing line of letters stand for.
"Now, the word "phobia" can mean one of two things: aversion/hatred or
fear/anxiety.
Does this make sense to you?"
No. It means, as the link provided states. Exaggerated/unreasonable fear. This is why it's
use to imply hatred sounds so stupid. No one is afraid of Homosexuals or Islam. Use of the word
in this manner has rendered it impotent and put it in the same category as 'racist' or
'fascist' that have just come to mean 'stuff I don't like' .
@Virgile
r men -- and that is true of normal, heterosexual men around the world.
Normal heterosexual men have and fantasize about having anal sex as a "top" with
women -- since sex is about pleasure as well as reproduction, and some fraction of both
sexes find this act pleasurable (partly for psychological reasons, ie as an act of
submission by the female).
Also normal heterosexual men enjoy receiving and fantasize about receiving oral sex
(fellatio) from a woman .
What abnormal heterosexual men (?) may practice or fantasize about is anyone's guess.
As much as homosexuals vehemently deny it, homosexuality and pedophilia are inextricably
linked. Almost all homosexuals have had their first homosexual "experience" introduced to them
by an ADULT homosexual as pre-teen males. This, in itself constitutes homosexual pedophilia,
which is criminal behavior in itself and is a way to destroy a pre-teen child for life.
The so-called Roman Catholic priest "child abuse scandal" was actually homosexual pedophilia in
action. Of course the "mainstream media" could not afford to offend the "homosexual community"
by calling what it really was–thereby, the "play on words", calling it "child sex abuse"
rather than homosexual pedophilia–the true definition of their sordid behavior.
I must play "devil's advocate" when it comes to the Catholic church homosexual pedophilic
priest "problem" The Catholic church was "caught between a rock and a hard place" and had every
right to be concerned about how many false claims would be made by those parishioners who
belonged to the parish at the same time as this behavior was going on. Follow the money Of
course, there is (and was) absolutely NO EXCUSE for this homosexual pedophilic behavior
It is interesting to note that the number of incidents of homosexual pedophilia among clergy is
higher for Protestant ministers and jewish rabbis than for that of Catholic priests. These
figures are carefully "covered up" so as not to offend Protestant and jewish interests.
Sad to say, the homosexual lobby is at it again, encouraging the "psychiatric community" to
change the definition of pedophilia from a psychiatric "disorder" to a mere "lifestyle", not
unlike what was done for homosexuality. Sick, huh??
Woman Raised By Lesbians Has Some Shocking Things To Say About Needing A Dad
Experience is supposed to be top card over any and all facts. But what happens when
experience blows holes in the activist narrative?
It doesn't matter who you click with. That was what the airline put in their ads.
Homosexuals should be able to raise children. We've been told this for as long as same-sex
relationships have been socially acceptable.
But did anybody ask what the CHILDREN thought about it?
One has finally spoken up. The keepers of the narrative will not like it.
We can probably expect her to be given the same rough treatment that other heretics against
the cause, like Milo, are given.
So, while she still has a voice, let's let hers be heard:
It's her own personal story, after all. By the rules of the game as the Left has been
playing it, who can judge her for her own story?
[Heather]Barwick, who is 31 now, married, and has four children, said that same-sex marriage
and parenting withholds either a mother or father from a child while telling him or her that it
doesn't matter. That it's all the same. But it's not.
"A lot of us, a lot of your kids, are hurting," wrote Barwick in her essay for The
Federalist website. "My father's absence created a huge hole in me, and I ached every day for a
dad. I loved my mom's partner, but another mom could never have replaced the father I
lost."
"I grew up surrounded by women who said they didn't need or want a man," said Barwick. "Yet,
as a little girl, I so desperately wanted a daddy. It is a strange and confusing thing to walk
around with this deep-down unquenchable ache for a father, for a man, in a community that says
that men are unnecessary."
She used to be an advocate of same-sex marriage. So she isn't motivated by disdain for
same-sex relationships. She's backing a different cause now.
"Gay marriage doesn't just redefine marriage, but also parenting," she says. "It promotes
and normalizes a family structure that necessarily denies us something precious and
foundational. It denies us something we need and long for, while at the same time tells us that
we don't need what we naturally crave. That we will be okay. But we're not. We're hurting."
"It's not just me," said Barwick. "There are so many of us. Many of us are too scared to
speak up and tell you about our hurt and pain, because for whatever reason it feels like you're
not listening. That you don't want to hear."
"If we say we are hurting because we were raised by same-sex parents, we are either ignored
or labeled a hater," she wrote.
Source: Daily Mail
Now she's an advocate of Children's rights. She's also married and a mother of four.
Buckle up, Heather. It looks like you'll be in for a rough ride.
The parallels between how the Israel Lobby carefully crafted the public discourse on
Zionism and Israel and how the LGBTQIAPK+ Lobby succeeded in shaping the public discourse on
homosexuality is striking and not at all coincidental: for a host of reasons these two
lobbies strongly support each other and learn from each other.
That explains the rapid political rise of Pete Buttigieg, he is being used as a proxy
warrior for the Zionists
@Deschutes
until 12 th grade .
3 sex education is not for KG or 4 th grader
( congratulations to those brave Muslim and Christian parents who stopped teaching of sex and
homosexuality in primary school in Britain )
5 don't demand religious marriage
6 you can choose as your health beneficiary who ever you want .
7 you can go to work and you can demand to be hired despite having effeminate or masculine
attitudes but keep the dress and the overt behavior free of sexual vibes .
8 society doesn't like serial philanderer , who serially dupes , charlatan , polygamy ,
multiple girl friend dame time or multiple marriages . Because society gets hurt . Society
might feel same way to LG .
Yes, but the subsidy should be given by their local church or other social club, not by a
governmental body. The societal goal should be freedom of association for adults. This would
include freedom for private organizations to promote preferred behaviors and to publicly
denounce abhorrent behaviors.
I share Saker's loathing of the LGBTQ blippety blip + alphabetism. I also agree with some of
his points and strongly disagree with others. The central issue is the condemnation of sex
between males (not "homosexuality"), which is a theological taboo originating in the Holiness
Code of Leviticus -- a taboo carried forward by all three Abrahamic religions. I chronicle this
taboo in my 1998 book, A Freethinker's Primer of Male Love. In historical and anthropological
perspective, male-to-male sex is an ordinary, healthy part of the human sexual repertoire.
Historically, and also today, gay men can and do marry women and raise families. There is no
contradiction. If anything, a male's ability to have sex with another male enhances his ability
to have sex with a female. My Stonewall50 manifesto is in the link.
BTW, Ron, I'm a Harvard grad, and voted for you in the election back when.
The argument I use, to instantly destroy the stupid argument that if one doesn't agree with
homosexuality and instantly labelled a homophobe and a closet homosexual, I reply "So you're
obviously a paedophobe and a closet paedophile then?"
Homosexuality is a mental disorder. The only reason that it's no longer classed as such is
because the psychologists, in the west have been bullied into submission, firstly by being told
by the Jews, involved, in the changing of their findings, that if they didn't their
establishments would lose funding and they'd be blacklisted from working in their industry
again and secondly by the psychology departments being flooded with homosexuals.
Homosexuality is immoral, unnatural and abnormal behaviour. It cannot be disputed and is simple
fact.
I worked, as a heterosexual doorman in the past, in homosexual venues. I will always refuse
to use the word 'gay' to define these perverts. What I saw was lost young men and women. The
men were incredibly effeminate while the female opposite. It was like some sci-fi movie where
the male soul had been transplanted into the female body and vice versa. One wondered where
their vagina was while the other their penis.
I also noticed that the women were incredibly anti male, while the men not so. Of course, you
would very rarely see a lesbian hanging out with a heterosexual male, but quite the contrary
with the homosexual men. The term 'fag hag' is used to imply a heterosexual woman who hangs
about with homosexual men.
The drive towards the utter destabilising of society is most certainly, overwhelming lesbian
driven. Feminism, second wave feminism was promoted, predominantly by Jewish, lesbian
misandrists. So not only did you have the normal, indoctrinated hatred of the goyim by the Jew,
you now had double plus hatred of male goyim by these evil harpies.
If anything, what I've seen with lesbian women is penis envy at its highest. Lesbians are
overwhelmingly men haters.
It's not so much that the tail is wagging the dog, when it comes to the minority controlling
the majority, but more like the hair, on the tail of the dog. Homosexuals make up a tiny
minority of the western population. And of course, they're using the Jewish created, victim
mentality, persecution complex to force their perversion upon society.
I vehemently disagree with homosexuality, although it doesn't stop me speaking to them, as I
treat them like any other human being. I just simply disagree their sexual choice. And it
is.
Very incisive article. Saker, keep on writing as you write, no matter what they call you. As
far as homosexuals are concerned, I have known many over the years. As individuals, I have
found some to be beautiful human beings and others to be totally abominable creatures –
not any different than the larger society. Rather than concentrate on the individual
homosexual, it is the political agenda that our current society has been trying to foist on the
larger society for the past 40+ (this plus doesn't have anything to do with an previous unknown
gender). The speech Nazis and the thought Nazis utterly disgust me. It is these creatures
against who I am phobic. To keep things simple, I treat homosexuals in the same manner as I do
people who prefer chocolate ice cream rather than vanilla or vice-versa. I do not see the need
to have a special flag or a parade. Do homosexuals really add something to society at large?
True, many of them are gifted in the arts, but is this gift contingent on their sexual
proclivities? I don't think so. More abominable is the trans issue which is currently being put
in society's face. This is a far larger psychological abomination than plain old homosexuality.
I refuse to call a he a she, a zhir or a hir. I guess there might be a nice comfy place in the
upcoming Gulag or re-education camp that the uber politically-correct would love to send people
like me.
R.M. Nixon, presidential sage, had much to say on the issue . He was sometimes wrong (last 6
Roman emperors -not fags), but I like videos of his private recordings
@Brooklyn
Dave Then towards puberty boys come through some reversal of their instincts. Girls do not.
Then with boys there should be the device that *pushes* them VERY hard to reverse the very
foundation of their psychology, turn them away from mothers and to fathers and so forth.
IOW for boys aversion to male homosexuality should be natural aversion to past they need to
overcome to move onward.
We all loved to suck our mothers breasts. But if at 20yo you still feel urge to undress your
mother and suck on her breasts, them perhaps something did not click when it had to, by normal
biology path.
The Judaists are behind this depravity, to brainwash the public, to destroy families, to
warp their sexual mores. This is a part of their WAR ON CIVILIZATION. These people are
barbarians.
Hahhah .. in Proust's mind, there was also a link between Jews & homos. Here again the
opening part of "Sodom & Gomorrah".
Loaded word has loads of meaning accrued over the years . Gradually the word becomes the
victims of abuse by public to convey their narrowness . Calling someone retard might send
certain message of disappointment anger frustration and impatience but it also sends the
message that someone is not intellectually good when there is no evidence he is not .
. So retard becomes passionate and becomes re-loaded with extreme negative attitude and
conjectures .
Very soon you can't use the word mentally retarded in diagnosis .
Jun 6, 2019 If You have A Problem With The #STRAIGHTPRIDE Parade, You're Not Seeing The
BIGGER PICTURE!
This summer the city of Boston may become the first city ever to host a straight pride
parade if a group known as "Super Happy Fun America" gets their way.
Apr 6, 2019 Groundbreaking Lawsuit Could Strike Down LGBT LAWS Across The Nation
There is a similar movement for trans rights taking place in the United States however some
towns are pushing back and this week Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) filed a powerful
groundbreaking lawsuit against a local Ohio sexual orientation gender identity (SOGI)
non-discrimination law that some say may become the most significant religious freedom case
since Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018).
@ben
sampson k their paying customers to remain after they have examined the other species and
degenerates slithering around among us. As for "neanderthal racists" what can be more
Neanderthal than Williams and the "racist" label is a poor debate tool. I see your name is
Sampson ? You probably had your hair cut by one of the trannies and gender confused hoes you
seem to like. This must have made you weak in body matching your weak mind. Think little girl !
Even idiots like you should have some semblance of reason. LGBTQ is a sleazebag of vomit and
excrement all blended together, suitable for people like you and your ilk to wallow in !
I know for a fact that many (all?) US embassies abroad are delivering funds to promote
"gay rights" in many (most?) countries of our poor planet.
Yeah, this aspect of it may be worth an entire article of its own. The US.gov had previously
staffed many of its secret service ranks with Christian sectists like the Mormons, because it
could elicit a type of loyalty which could just not otherwise be bought. But Christians also
had a certain amount of risks for these services because some of these members brought with
them an immutable conscience which had been already formed.
It seems to me that this is where gays may have been filling the ranks of these services.
The reasons they are such perfect tools for the state is that they are not particularly
hindered undue consciences, they form a clandestine web, rejected by their own societies, loyal
to themselves, and would certainly be fiercely loyal to those who, like the US.gov, exert undue
pressure on all to support and promote 'their' LBG73 agenda. This is the danger that Justin
Raimondo warned his fellow gays about, not to shake the hand of the devil and take the bargain
by which they would be aligned with it against the entire societies in which they are let loose
on. Like all tools of Uncle Sam, it is exactly they who will become its victims once the work
of smashing these societies will fail as it it bound to do.
@Wally
e the abnormal is normal and if you disagree ? Well then you are a racist, homophobe etc.
That is the extent of his ability to reason. The poor fellow is probably an ivy league
graduate.
I would bet money his favorite holiday spots are San Francisco and Israel. And his favorite
song ? "I left my arse in San Francisco"
Girls like him (did I say him?) serve as good examples, that is negative ones. They keep us
straight and righteous men who acknowledge that while freaks of nature are a small percentage
of the overall population there is a right and wrong eternally dictated by nature.
I think it's probably never a good idea to ask your enemies to be "fair" to you, or ask them
for anything else either. At this time, although so many of the allied lies (and the Russians,
with Jewish influence, were liars as big as anyone) were exposed decades ago already, the
"NAZI" epithet continues to benefit some people, mostly the Jews. But eventually, your debunked
soap and lampshade stories, the 4 million and 40 years later 1 million (still without evidence)
dead at Auschwitz (Russian Jew?) lies and the fact that even Ukrainians and others in the USSR
welcomed the German army, while no Germans welcomed the raping Reds or their allies, has to
eventually make a light go off in even the dumbest that something is still wrong with your
story.
Homosexual behaviour etc is not about sex. Sex is the intentional act of trying to create
offspring. IVF is closer to sex than all this erotic play, which is all these behaviours
are.
Is erotic play without an underlying desire to create kids bad? Not particularly. It is
materialistic, and reduces your other side to lumps of flesh, but without the intention to do
harm or deceive, it is just erotic play.
@Rabbitnexus
seek to prove that this is unacceptable behaviour scientists have proven that the lower
intestine of the average "man" holds 5 to 10 pounds of uneliminated you know what.
In the Nam, the Viet Cong used to smear sharpened bamboo sticks with human feces. Step on it
and you are guaranteed a bad infection, human feces being extremely poisonous. Imagine sticking
your stick into 5 to 10 pounds of that.
It shows you how far we have progressed in logic and civilization when you have these queers
justifying their perversions .and expecting everyone else to understand and accept their
twisted degeneracy !
if somewhere around 1.2%-2.2% of humans might be born homosexuals and if sociopaths are
3%-5% of the population, then sociopathy is about as "natural" as homosexuality. In fact, we
could even declare that sociopathy is a " normal and positive variation of personality".
If you believe what you see on telly in the Decadent West, half the population in the
Decadent West are persons of colour, half the white population are gay, and any remaining white
folk are the socio- and psychopaths, indeed making it a normal condition, but one found almost
exclusively among white-straight folks.
I'm a live and let live guy, but what we have now is children being recruited as early as
eight years of age, sometime younger, often in the schools, and a dedicated set of activists
rushing them off to clinics and hormones to get them on track with hormones, etc., before
puberty sets in to take them in the direction nature might take them.
We are well beyond brainwashing in the Decadent West our children are being Gender-formed,
and parents are almost powerless to stop it.
As there is no PC BS in Russia, Russian bloggers call them "brothers Williams". I don't now
about anatomy, but to anyone familiar with mammalian biology high testosterone shows.
Testosterone and its analogs come in pills. Of course, WADA would never find doping in brothers
Williams – it is paid not to.
Everyone enjoys a little fag bashing fun as a welcome relief from the usual jew baiting but
only Wally could accomplish a proper Hegelian dialectical synthesis: the jew has a fag
gene.
If people want to be homos or 'gay,' fine with me, but please keep your sexual proclivities
to yourself and your community.
The rest of us don't want or need to see gay people prancing down the street, in a costume
festooned with dildos, swapping spit with your boyfriend(s) and wearing only skimpy Speedo
outfits.
And stay away from our kids. We know you can't reproduce, so you have to recruit. And the
younger the easier to get the gullible little ones to your side.
It's easy to see where all this gay propaganda is leading; The LGBTQ crowd want to add MAP
to their roster, which is Minor Attracted Person, or what we would call a pedophile.
"I'm a live and let live guy, but what we have now is children being recruited as early as
eight years of age, sometime younger, often in the schools, and a dedicated set of activists
rushing them off to clinics and hormones to get them on track with hormones, etc., before
puberty sets in to take them in the direction nature might take them."
I think this is accurate. The diminished capacity of parents to protect their children from
this type of education (indoctrination?) is a very serious issue. And very few in the
Psychiatric and counseling community are standing up against the practice.
I wish the article had been more directed on the issue as opposed to the side barring. And
good place to have started is with The Kinsey Report and its impact on the general population
and counseling. The other aspect to have tackled head on is how that along with the APA
Conferences in the 1970(?) and especially 1973 at which the DSM classification was changed.
That change was not predicated on science. But a very bizarre violent protest in which
conference passes were manufactured to homosexual advocates that enabled them to attend
sessions and the general meetings during which via of violence protest and threats they
hijacked the process intimidated the classification reviewers so intensely that the change was
made.
To this date there is not evidence that same sex conduct is determined by ant steady state
bio-mechanism or process – none.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- –
The photos opening the article are misleading, and damage the credibility of the author's
intent. A photo of a tennis player breaking from play and another of a tennis player wading
leisurely at the beach has not connection to the article in my view. At least I don't get it.
Whatever their physique neither of these women profess to prefer same sex relations -- at least
not to my knowledge.
Phew! Excuse me if I didn't read every word. Am I unenlightened if I just settle for
supporting a rule that no penis should be exhibited in a Ladies loo?
'Perverts – and to a lesser degree deviants – is loaded word too '
Well, perhaps but only because of the necessary implications of the words. After all, to
pervert means to turn aside from a natural and intended purpose, to misuse.
How else would you describe all these possible ways of obtaining sexual gratification
without even simulating the act of reproduction?
To deviate merely means to fail to follow the prescribed course. That one's positively
polite. I frequently deviate from hopping on I-5, preferring to drive through town on my way to
Costco.
I see no need to seek still more obscure euphemisms.
@Jon
Baptist . Propaganda is a weapon to be used against a culture, society, nation, and even
the entire population of the world.
It could be argued speech is not protected under the constitution when such speech or
articles in the press has or have been designed, engineered, and programmed to establish an
"experience space" that reprograms the human mind.
I do not believe propaganda is protected speech or even speech, under the Constitution?
Instead I argue it is fraud. and that it should be prosecuted a fraud.. under the criminal
statutes passed by the Article I congress. and endorsed or not vetoed by the Article II
President.
Without exception, every homosexual I know is miserable. A walking stew of drama, hatred and
mental instability. Even ones that have careers, money, and good families engage in hysterical
promiscuity.
It is ironic, however, to call a weak man a fag. How tough are you to have your rectum torn
to shreds every day?
Male sodomy is repellent. I can't get past it when I look at that Buttleig. It worries me
that they- the people who run America- are going to put him in office as a final kick in the
teeth after the Obama experiment.
When I was young there was a question about homosexuality. Is it nature or nurture?
According to an article I recently read (not in a scientific publication) it was stated that
researchers have been able to induce homosexuality in rats by giving hormone injections to a
pregnant rat at a particular time of the gestation period. They appear to have 95% success
inducing homosexual behavior in rats. This suggests male homosexuality might be caused by
hormone fluctuations in the pregnant mother. Diet might have something to do with it. Sorry, I
forgot which publication I read.
Parents are not powerless to stop it. Instead they are either intellectually corrupt,
cynical, delusional or outright lazy to counter progressive dribble.
Wow! I have to agree again. I believe that the choice of restrooms should be determines by
the equipment you have, regardless of how you feel. Say, if I say that I feel like a dog, the
police won't take it as an excuse for peeing in the street.
We can't stop the sociopaths from lying but there are things that can be done:
–Vigorous antitrust action against any large "communications" companies (today that
would include any large Silicon Valley company). They need to be broken up into tiny pieces,
and the television "networks" need to be abolished.
–Banning censorship or attempts to punish speech by any large organization (as well as
government entities all the way down to school districts).
Bad speech is not the biggest problem–censorship and punishment for speaking the truth
is the problem that needs to be addressed.
@Colin
Wright ms, we should call a spade a spade. But if we discard both PC BS and religious zeal
and stick to a purely scientific view, homosexuality and bestiality are mental disorders, like
schizophrenia. If everything is by consent, that's their business, although mental disorder is
nothing to be proud of. To see what I mean, just imagine a schizophrenia pride parade. But the
society has a perfect right and an obligation to protect normal people from mentally deranged
and otherwise afflicted. Every condition requires certain limitations. It is not
discrimination, it's pure protection of the rest of society. Say, we don't let blind people
drive cars or fly planes.
Some of these comments are very sad to read as they depict a blind rejection of a phenomenon
found in our society for thousands of years to which there has never been a convincing
explanation.
Resorting to demeaning insults toward human beings affected by one of nature's oddities only
shows immaturity and inhumanity.
I wish none of the author of these comments has a gay child. They would probably reject
him/her or kill him/her as they do in some backward countries.
Homosexuality is just a mental disease, like schizophrenia. We should follow a simple rule
"if you don't approve of abortions, don't have one". If it's disgusting to you, don't do it.
Like one of my male colleagues said, "if I were a trans-sex, I'd be a lesbian: the thought of
another male is disgusting". The push for globohomo is a different thing: politically motivated
abomination, like propaganda of "exceptional" and "indispensable" nation.
Embracing diversity isn't just a good idea. It's the right thing to do
"Allowing yourself to be geopolitically dispossessed and your race and culture eradicated
isn't just a good idea, its the right thing to do".
Your false moralizing has no credibility nor impact. Once again, observable reality shines a
light on the bankrupt morality of those trying to now dictate it.
Given that your contingent's mission is to invert traditional human morality, you have no
legitimate moral platform from which to dictate morality. You and yours are quintessentially
immoral and depraved, to use the word that you tried to laughably co-opt in your sad attempt to
invert reality. Anon [178] Disclaimer , says: July 14,
2019 at 5:39 pm GMT
No one likes faggots, as almost universally they have personality disorders. Not even other
faggots.
Traditional society wasn't idiotic. It knew. People were much less insulated from high
stakes losses in the social sphere. All manner of people that were once kept to the periphery
were kept there for good reasons that today still exist.
What is idiotic is thinking that society has discovered uncovered wisdom instead of
regressed, or that your little hissy fit using meaningless labels reads like anything but a
queen in a typically histrionic fit.
@Deschutes
e happy with them. Thus maintaining them and never giving society an excuse to revert.
Instead, like every other identity group whose agenda is not just parallel rights but to
conquer broader society and its institutions: they are going to ramp everything up to 11 and
keep pushing until there is an inevitable and decisive pushback by society. At that point,
homosexual rights will be absolutely crushed back to the stone age. Mark my words.
There is no majority future for homosexuals, however unfortunate for them. Many of us are
born with obstacles. To act like reality will ever be different for them is to assure their own
eventual oppression in a manner that modern people are not accustomed.
@John
Lauritsen there's more of it going on than most people notice. Male homosexuals and lesbi-
ans, respectively, exemplify these two opposite maneuvers. Am- bitious male homosexuals, at
least in fantasy, aspire to rise, and from humble origins to ascend to the ownership of antique
busi- nesses, art galleries, and hair salons. The object is to end by frequenting the Great.
They learn to affect elegant telephone voices and gravitate instinctively toward "style" and
the grand.
The ultimate male-homosexual social dream is to sit at an elegant dinner table, complete
with flowers and doilies and finger bowls, surrounded by rich, successful, superbly suited and
gowned, witty, and cleverly immoral people.
In the 1920s Andre Gide stated that the only true avant garde position for 20th
century men was homosexuality. He was the first self proclaimed homosexual to receive the Nobel
prize for literature, awarded in recognition of his avant garde-isme , for his body of
work was built around the rejection of religious, familial, social, sexual and political norms.
Sound familiar?
This suggests that the LGBTQIAPK+ is a logical end point of so-called Enlightenment
"rationalism" , in which vice and anomie magically convert into virtue. As should be clear from
its suffix (i.e. -ism)
rationalism has little relation to logic and absolutely no relation to logos. Rationalism is
anti-logos.
"Homosexuality is a phenomenon which has probably always existed and which has often
polarized society into two camps: those who believe that there is something inherently
bad/wrong/pathological/abnormal with homosexuality (probably most/all major religions) and
those who emphatically disagree"
((They)Live) will soon be working on us to accept Beastiality as normal. The movie "Shape of
Water"
being the vehicle whereby Beastiality will be shown to impressionable young and old people.
Sodom and Gomorrah is more than just a warning from the past.
I wasn't talking about homosexuals.
The "target audience" for this insanity is the predominantly White middle, working, and
underclass in Western society.
This .thing .is really just contemporary version of O'Brien's game on Winston about 'how many
fingers you see".
You know what was O'Brien achieving there?
Hahaha .a the end "we" will LOVE Black Transgender as the President of USA, have our daily
meal of cabbage and cheap liquor and be happy.
At least something like that is the plan.
Where would the world be without Michelangelo, Oscar Wilde, Cole Porter, and Yves
Saint-Laurent? Without question – a whole lot poorer. Well beyond their numbers,
homosexuals have contributed greatly to human culture.
Beating up homosexuals for sport and forcing them to hide themselves is clearly wrong. With
that said, the pendulum has swung to far with the LGBTQIAPK+ phenomena. The idea that a
LGBTQIAPK+ life is a normal way of living on par with heterosexual living is false. It should
not have to be said, that the heterosexual life is the ideal normal life – it is the life
prescribed by nature to advance humanity into the future. The LGBTQIAPK+ life is something
less.
Only a man and a woman can achieve all that is human – their combined different
emotions are needed to prosper into the future. Facing the world, a man and a woman make a
whole human. The LGBTQIAPK+ human pair are always going to be missing half of the human
emotions needed to advance.
Clearly LGB is a natural happening (2%). But it is not an ideal happening. Most mature
homosexuals would choose to be heterosexual.
TQIAPK+ is an abomination – it is contrived – to alter one's body is unnatural
and unneeded. It is Ok to be an effeminate man or a butch woman – there is zero need to
alter one's body and degrade one's heath.
Adults messing around with children's sexuality is a crime – period. That goes for
heterosexuals and homosexuals.
p.s. Once again we must thank Ron Unz for another ground breaking article – kudos!
@PeterMX
rs with the composer Reynaldo Hahn and with Alfred Agostinelli, the prototype for Albertine,
were very authentic relationships. The refugees from Sodom and Gomorrah are compared by Proust
to the Jews of the Diaspora, and more explicitly to Adam and Eve exiled from Eden. J. E. Rivers
emphasizes that this parallel of Sodom, Jerusalem, and Eden is at the heart of Proust's novel
and fuses the Jewish power of survival with homosexual endurance throughout the ages, so that
both Jews and homosexuals achieve representative status as instances of the human condition
since, as Proust says, "the true paradises are the paradises we have lost."
"Parents are not powerless to stop it. Instead they are either intellectually corrupt,
cynical, delusional or outright lazy to counter progressive dribble."
Apparently unfamiliar with the current positioning regarding children. The advent of
children's rights has been hijacked by counselors in the educational system. The power of state
agencies such as education are empowered to protect a child's welfare. With the
reclassification of homosexual conduct and the volumes of descriptions by the psychiatric
professionals (medical) community a child wrestling with their identity and is experiencing
psychological trauma can now call upon such professionals to protect their rights regarding how
they define their gender. Parental rights is not what it used to be.
When Gov. Reagan was in office in Ca. voters readily and astutely understood the
implications and voted legislation that would prevent those advocates for homosexual conduct
and gender reassignment from engaging proselytizing and or advocating for the behavior in
academic settings that involved children. They understood the implications and in an attempt to
protect their rights as parents and protect their children from undue influence moved to
prevent it.
Governor Reagan thought the measure too extreme and vetoed the law --
Anyone who thinks that parents are merely weak, stupid, or what have you has little
understanding of the sea change that has taken place regarding the protection of children
--
That was in CA more than thirty years ago -- it's no leap of logic to consider what the
reality is today across the country in today.s environment. One might also want to consider
what is being advocated among educators by the National Academy of sciences. This was one of
the areas of concern in supporting the current president's election – he is on board with
the ho,mosexual agenda.
@paulll
sbians and feminists won't be too happy when forced to wear Burkhas and be married to a Mullah
to pump out babies for him. And there will be no one to defend them will there? You've been
attacking them from day one, calling them every name under the sun in order to enforce your
warped beliefs upon the rest of society.
Queer people are deeply, deeply disturbed people, living a life of delusion and denial,
complete slaves to their depraved, sexual desires. Queers, transgenders and every other gender
definition grouping out there are forcing their insanity upon the sane and calling them out as
haters and 'x'phobes for disagreeing.
"The "target audience" for this insanity is the predominantly White middle, working, and
underclass in Western society."
Well, that may be but that argument is being made largely whites. And every major
legislation that has upended the traditional view has been by the advocacy of white
professionals: educators, doctors, lawyers and legislators. The constant hyper-focus on blacks
leaves white advocates to continue to be successful in dismantling objective reality.
Dante placed sodomites and usurers as a pair together in the lowest circle of the
inferno.
Why a pair?
Because sodomy makes what is fertile (sex) sterile while usury (charging any interest at all
on a loan) makes what is sterile (gold) fertile. Sodomy and usury are thus the mirror image of
each other.
It is no coincidence that the western world is simutaneously drowning in debt and dying out
from a low birth rate.
The curse of sodomy will be lifted when we return to the teachings of Moses and Jesus who
opposed charging interest on loans.
Since it is now more than 500 years since Christians abandoned the ancient teachings it
would be wise for us to restore them with dispatch.
There are also plenty of straight men who are into anal intercourse with women. I've never
quite understood this myself. Even Heartiste seemed to talk it up a lot, as if this act asserts
some form of dominance over women that vaginal intercourse doesn't. Maybe there is something to
this, in that it would be less pleasurable for women (especially with them not having a
prostate gland that can be stimulated). Regardless, the act is unhygienic and unnatural no
matter who is doing it.
@Deschutes
tory time at the local library, they are not simply wanting to be left alone.
When they are demanding the rest of us give into their mental illness and refer to them as the
opposite sex, they are not simply being left alone.
I don't care what two people voluntarily do sexually, as long as it does not involve kids or
household pets. If you want to be painted blue and slapped with a yardstick, go for it. If you
want to have congress with a horse, that is your business and maybe it will kick you and break
your neck. But I don't want to see it or have it shoved down my throat. Parading down the
street is not simply wanting to be left alone.
Of course, providing we constantly pass the checks that we are on the proper line of feeling
and thought. Social ahm services will take care of it.
Occasional beatings by the "other" we'll accept as normal for the life we lead. You know as
raining. I could go on but you get the picture.
Now I am sure most people feel I am exaggerating a lot. That's O.K. They probably felt the
same when 20 years ago some rare people were saying this was coming to pass. Hetero equal to
homo enforced by state and accepted by social elites and, apparently, even majority of Western
societies. Frog and boiling water thing.
"... Sir Kim Darroch's secret cable to London was leaked to the Daily Mail, wherein he called the Trump administration "dysfunctional unpredictable faction-riven diplomatically clumsy and inept," the odds on his survival as U.K. ambassador plummeted. ..."
"... his departure in any case, is hilarious. The British aristocracy today are a den of pedophiles and corrupt, war mongering scum. ..."
"... Britain an ally? Not since the end of WW2, I think. In Orwell's "1984" the island of Great Britain is called Airstrip One. Orwell understood, I think, that Britain had become a mere vassal of the "cousins" across The Pond. At best Britain is a remora to the American shark, gobbling tidbits that escape the American maw ..."
"... I would say, that since the 1970's, the US and the UK have been fast going down together. They have both lost their identity. ..."
"... They are the ideological centers Neoliberalism, de-industrialization, outsourcing, multiculturalism, political correctness and SJWism, and both have disconnected extractive elites. It's an Anglo-Jewish thing that's also pulling down Canada, Australia and New Zealand. ..."
"... "there are no permanent allies, only permanent interests" or something to that effect ..."
"... The alliance in question is good for bankers in New York and London. But as for the rest of us .. not so much. ..."
"... 'Special relationship' is shorthand for the British ruling class trying to manipulate U.S. foreign policy, much like Zionists today. ..."
"... Given examples are fake. It was American forces who covertly destroyed the USS Maine in order to start a war with Spain for territorial control. The Zimmermann letter was created by British Intelligence as a means of helping America into a war it's people didn't want to be a part of. Britain didn't tilt towards the confederacy it hedged it's bets with both sides in order to exploit the civil war for it's own gain ..."
"... Outside the EU, the UK will be on its own and fairly isolated. That makes it the best ally and prey for the USA. The UK will offer to act an USA agent in the region, a sort of christian Israel. ..."
"... Now that Trump has his state visit out of the way and has had afternoon tea with the Queen, there is nothing to stop him turning on the UK like a rabid dog. The leaked diplomatic cables said nothing that anybody who reads a newspaper didn't already know, and clearly the 'outrage' is fake ..."
"... To be honest Britain and the U.S. never did have any interests in common. The U.S. saw Britain as an economic and imperial rival to be destroyed or neutered. They chose neutering. ..."
"... Our elites and yours get on great together. ..."
"... The divide is between the elites on one hand and the peoples on the other ..."
When Sir Kim Darroch's secret cable to London was leaked to the Daily Mail, wherein he
called the Trump administration "dysfunctional unpredictable faction-riven diplomatically
clumsy and inept," the odds on his survival as U.K. ambassador plummeted.
When President Donald Trump's tweeted retort called Darroch "wacky," a "stupid guy" and
"pompous fool" who had been "foisted on the US," the countdown to the end began.
Kim's departure do not cancel out that American interest.
(I made sure I left out the laughable and ludicrous title)
But his departure in any case, is hilarious. The British aristocracy today are a den of pedophiles and corrupt, war
mongering scum.
If there was a shed of decency in England, Tony Blair would be in a cage, every member of
the BBC who facilitated Jimmy Savil's serial predations would be in a cage. And the person
who handed the scrip for the controlled demolition of building seven to the BBC journalist,
would be interrogated to the n'th, to find out who knew and how.
But instead that rotting nation is busy jailing a young man for calling attention to
serial gang rape of England's school girls, while the pedophile elites are busy trying to
figure out how to tell the British people that the ruse of "democracy' has been a charade all
along, and that they're not going to get their precious Brexit, because their feudal lords at
the ((ECB)) would consider that inconvenient.
not cancel out that American interest
"American interest", eh? What pray might that possibly be? What even, is an American?
If you arrive here illegally, and step foot on the soil, many Americans, (obviously most
of the Democrats) consider you an American in better standing than the citizens whose
ancestors have lived in these lands and fought in her wars, for untold generations.
So if there's really no such thing as an American, and the courts have decided that the
Constitution applies to every person on the planet, then cyphering who exactly is an
American, when all 7+ billion people in the world are, is a tricky thing.
And as for that elusive "American interest", it seems that too is a conundrum. Are the Eternal Wars, an American interest? Were the bank bailouts, an American interest? Or a Wall Street, international finance
– interest.
Those are the things the American tax-slave is forced to shovel trillions of dollars out
for, but I hardly see how doing so serves the American people whatsoever. Indeed, quite the
contrary.
For decades now, the snakes holed up in DC and London- are the greatest enemies the
American people have ever known.
Ironically, if I were to scan the horizon for a nation who's principles actually are
aligned with that of the American people, vs. our enemies in DC and London, I'd have to say
that it's Putin's Russia that fills that ticket.
The only nation on the planet were our most heroic and iconic American patriot had to flee
for his life to, to escape torture and death by our enemies in DC. When he tried to point out
that our government is a den of traitorous scoundrels.
Russia is the only nation that has reined in the most recent catastrophic follies in our
Eternal Wars for Israel.
Were it not for Russia, many more thousands of our young men and women would have perished
by now in myriad wars in the Middle East to bolster Israel.
And many more trillions of dollars would have been borrowed to that end, all on the leger
for the children and grandchildren of the American people.
Russia is the actual American people's most unlikely ally, in spite of "our" elites.
Britain is a rotting carcass of a once great empire. But like the ZUS, it allowed itself
to be 'Jewed', and so now it's dying a humiliating and ignoble death.
If there's any lesson to all of this, it is don't go the way of England, and allow
the perfidy of your elites, to abase your nation's future to it's most intractable enemy.
Britain an ally? Not since the end of WW2, I think. In Orwell's "1984" the island of Great
Britain is called Airstrip One. Orwell understood, I think, that Britain had become a mere
vassal of the "cousins" across The Pond. At best Britain is a remora to the American shark,
gobbling tidbits that escape the American maw.
I don't think that Britain ever was an ally. It, like the parasite known as Israel, has
long squeezed Uncle Sucker for everything it could snatch.
Common language, culture, banking mafiosi, pedophiles etc., etc., blah, blah blah,
notwithstanding, to hell with the SoBs. And they can stuff their Rhodes "scholars," too.
Yet, in terms of language, culture, ethnicity, history, geography, America has no more
natural ally across the sea. And the unfortunate circumstances of Sir Kim's departure do
not cancel out that American interest.
I would say, that since the 1970's, the US and the UK have been fast going down together.
They have both lost their identity.
They are the ideological centers Neoliberalism, de-industrialization, outsourcing,
multiculturalism, political correctness and SJWism, and both have disconnected extractive
elites. It's an Anglo-Jewish thing that's also pulling down Canada, Australia and New
Zealand.
And the world capitals of the Zio-Glob are New York, Washington, London, Paris and Tel
Aviv. For example, they orchestrated the destruction of the Middle East, and are currently
maneuvering for the destruction of Iran, and they're the ones facing off against Russia and
China
Russia and China are outside their orbit, and are pushing back in places like Syria and
Venezuela , and R&C are looking at economic alternatives to the dollar reserve currency
and international payments through SWIFT.
I would expect currently neutral border zones to pull away from the West. Eastern Europe
towards Russia and Japan and SE Asia towards China.
I guess Churchill was corrrect when he said "there are no permanent allies, only permanent
interests" or something to that effect
I think, at this point, we might be better off looking to a newly re-constructed Russia as
an ally than an ailing Great Britian which seems to be falling apart at the seams.
Anglo-American 'natural alliance'? The alliance of these two countries has seriously
weakened the traditional constitution of both countries. I take the view that W.S. Churchill
has much to answer for. It was he, more than anyone, who undermined the traditional policy of
both countries.
Prior to Pearl Harbour, and in spite of America's entry into the First War,
the vast majority of Americans still held to the advise of outgoing president Washington when
he said: 'let us trade, with all nations, and by all means. But let it stop at that'. No
European wars is what Washington meant.
Churchill did everything he could to undermine this
policy but as he did, he also subverted Great Britain's old policy. Palmerston said that
British policy was predicated upon permanent interests not permanent allies – or
enemies for that matter.
Since the Second War Britain has become a dog on a leash, nothing
more. Churchill did what he did to save the empire, not England; he really lost both. But the
worst loss of all was the American republic that in the post war period grasped after
universal empire and destroyed itself in the process. The alliance in question is good for
bankers in New York and London. But as for the rest of us .. not so much.
There are strong ethnic and cultural links between Britain and the United States. But, as
Patrick Buchanan points out, these factors did not prevent conflict between the two. What
forms relationships are interests. They cut across all apparently unifying principles:
family, kin, nation, religion, ideology, politics – everything. The 'Zimmerman
Telegram' was a decisive factor in the US joining the First World War, its implications so
vital to core American interests. https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/
The email was leaked on orders of the Foreign Office (SIS.)
It's purpose is irrelevant to U.S interests. It's about UK politics and the establishment
controlling intra party shenanigans. Very entertaining!!
We have had no moral reason to continue our special relationship with the UK since
arch-villain, Sir Tony Blair, turned it into The Caliphate of Albion.
The countries of Churchill and Thatcher and of Reagan and Kennedy(JFK) are dead. Time to
stop fashioning international policies and programs according to historical realities that
ended at least a generation ago.
America has no more natural ally across the sea. And the unfortunate circumstances of
Sir Kim's departure do not cancel out that American interest.
'Special relationship' is shorthand for the British ruling class trying to manipulate U.S.
foreign policy, much like Zionists today.
The Monroe Doctrine was essentially British Foreign Minister George Canning's idea while
Scottish-born Canadian spy William Stephenson undermined American isolationists during
WWII.
Selling War: The British Propaganda Campaign Against American "Neutrality" in World War
II by Nicholas J. Cull is a good read. Equally insightful is this 1975 interview of
Sir Oswald Mosley
who was against the Polish guarantee.
Given examples are fake. It was American forces who covertly destroyed the USS Maine in
order to start a war with Spain for territorial control. The Zimmermann letter was created by
British Intelligence as a means of helping America into a war it's people didn't want to be a
part of. Britain didn't tilt towards the confederacy it hedged it's bets with both sides in
order to exploit the civil war for it's own gain. It's easy to alter history to suit an
argument. There is no special relationship, just many touch points for mutual exploitation at
the expense of their respective populations.
@Rurik acy. Dimwits like Darroch receive their "Sir" by being put on the "Honours list"
by politicians. The titles are not hereditary. There may well be pedophiles and war mongering
scum among the aristocracy, just as there are in every "elite". However, note that "Sir"
Jimmie Savile and "Lord" Janner who were at the centre of the pedophile scandal did not have
hereditary titles, they were "life peers". Titled elites – yes, aristocrats – no.
One reason the treasonous POS Blair passed legislation to do away with the hereditary
seats in the House of Lords, is that they, as the real aristocracy, opposed most of the "New
Labour" agenda, and often asked embarrassing questions.
Outside the EU, the UK will be on its own and fairly isolated. That makes it the best ally
and prey for the USA. The UK will offer to act an USA agent in the region, a sort of
christian Israel.
Happy to free themselves from the EU diktat, the British will soon discover that they are
getting the diktat now from the USA and Israel. Good luck!
Now that Trump has his state visit out of the way and has had afternoon tea with the
Queen, there is nothing to stop him turning on the UK like a rabid dog. The leaked diplomatic
cables said nothing that anybody who reads a newspaper didn't already know, and clearly the
'outrage' is fake.
Darroch was a bright young man who grew up in public housing and made a success of his
career. He will retire a little earlier than expected, but will no doubt benefit from
speaking fees, publishing his memoirs, etc. with much more name recognition that he would
otherwise have had. He will probably be glad to get out of steamy Washington early.
We have literally nothing in common with UK/AU/CA/NZ, and we should stop the idea that
there is a special relationship with any of them. There isn't.
I agree.
To be honest Britain and the U.S. never did have any interests in common. The U.S. saw
Britain as an economic and imperial rival to be destroyed or neutered. They chose
neutering.
Not that the destruction of Britain as a great power bothers me. The British were
responsible for doing an immense amount of harm.
The same applies to the Australia-U.S. "alliance" – two nations with zero interests
in common. To the extent that Australia has a natural ally it's China.
All in all, a bad week for the British Foreign Office when one of its principle
diplomats is virtually declared persona non grata
principal. Oh and our Foreign Secretary, Boris, was a US citizen until 2016, no-one cared, if your
IRS hadn't started asking him questions about his tax returns he would still be a US citizen.
Our elites and yours get on great together.
The divide is between the elites on one hand and the peoples on the other.
There is a Lie.
Then there is BIG LIE.
Then there is 911.
Santa Claus is a LIE.
Jesus DIED for your EVILS is Beyond a LIE.
Mossad's execution of 9-11 should have been a wake up call.
You guys subscribed to the phony WMD and coyote planes dissapearing into the babylonian twin
towers whilst your intuition should have kicked in and told you something is not right.
9-11 should have been the litmus test for truth but you conveniently ignored it. You looked
the other way due to cognitive dissonance.
You followed Bush's order to go on a spending spree with more credit card debt jacked up
with high interest to feed the satanic cabal instead.
With all these bogus wars on terror and non-ending hoaxes you have unwittingly supported the
Zionist Satanic push for one world disorder.
At this point, all you can do is repent for your sins and start fighting back the criminal
enterprize who are in charge of orchestrating all these bogus war on terror, creating these
monstrous, diabolical, sinister ISISraHELL with the help of al-CIA-da and MOSSAD.
Alternate would be to sit back and enjoy bigger fireworks than 9-11 coming near you whilst
they prepare greater IzraHELL for the coming of their Yahweh, The Anti-Christ dajjal who will
globalize his reign of terror from Jerusalem.
Either way buckle up for a roller coaster ride with some of these demonic, totally
psychopathic, diabolical, sinister, pathological liars and corrupters of mother earth. You reap
what you sow.
The infuriating thing about 9/11 and the multitude of lesser false flags which both preceded
and followed it is that, although most Americans know it was as phoney as a three and a half
dollar fed reserve note, everyone seems content to put up with the extremely phoney "war on
terror" it was designed to create and which has already destroyed a hand full of countries in
the world, caused the murder of upwards of two million people, mostly using U.S. military, and
turned the U.S. into a ruthlessly insane police state wherein everyone is made to obey patently
unlawful statutes in the name of "emergency" while the ruling elite has quit obeying any laws
at all while gathering a massive military presence to cow the now restless and resentful
public
See more at: Christopher Bollyn: The Man Who Solved 9/11
Also Look up Sheik Imran Hosein for Islamic End time Eschatology .
"Cy Vance - Democrat, gave Epstein a pass on sex offender status.
Acosta - Republican, approved plea deal.
Muller - Republican, signed off on FBI closing file on Epstein.
Schumer - Took money from Epstein.
Bill Clinton - Travel.
This isn't partisan. Corruption at all levels."
What's good is that most people commenting on the threads I've read, including
Cernovich's, understand just how deep the rot goes, and that it's not confined to North
America.
It would be a most salutary outcomoe if Obama were dethroned and exposed for the lying
lounge lizard he is. Scales reallyl need to fall from eyes. I am surprised that Trump doesn't
embark on this enterprise with gusto.
Puncture the Obama-Clinton BS balloon once and for all.
Some
may remember that in 2005 a major media controversy engulfed Harvard President Larry Summers over his remarks at an
academic conference. Casually speaking off-the-record at the private gathering, Summers had
gingerly
raised the hypothetical possibility
that on average men might be a bit better at mathematics than women, perhaps
partially explaining the far larger number of males holding faculty positions in the math, science, and engineering
departments.
These controversial speculations were soon leaked to the press, and an enormous firestorm of protest erupted, with
MIT professor Nancy Hopkins claiming that merely hearing Summers' words at the event had left her physically ill,
forcing her to quickly exit the room
lest
she suffer a blackout and collapse
.
Harvard students and faculty members soon launched an organized campaign to have Summers removed from the summit of
our academic world, with noted evolutionary-psychologist Steven Pinker being
one
of the very few professors
willing to publicly defend him. Eventually, an unprecedented "no confidence" vote by
the entire faculty and growing loss of confidence by the Board of Trustees
forced
Summers to resign
, becoming the first Harvard President to suffer that fate in the university's 350 year
history, thus apparently demonstrating the astonishing power of feminist "political correctness" on college
campuses.
The
true story for those who followed it was actually quite a bit more complex. Summers, a former Clinton Administration
Treasury Secretary, had a long record of very doubtful behavior, which had outraged many faculty members for
entirely different reasons. As I
wrote
a
few years ago:
Now I am hardly someone willing to defend Summers from a whole host of very serious and legitimate charges. He
seems to have played a major role in
transmuting
Harvard from a renowned university to an aggressive hedge fund
, policies that subsequently brought my
beloved alma mater to the very brink of bankruptcy during the 2008 financial crisis. Under his presidency,
Harvard
paid out $26 million dollars to help settle international insider-trading charges
against Andrei Shleifer,
one of his closest personal friends, who avoided prison as a consequence. And after such stellar financial and
ethical achievements, he was naturally appointed as one of President Obama's top economic advisors, a position
from which he strongly supported the massive bailout of Wall Street and the rest of our elite financial services
sector, while ignoring Main Street suffering. Perhaps coincidentally, wealthy hedge funds had
paid
him many millions of dollars
for providing a few hours a week of part-time consulting advice during the
twelve months prior to his appointment.
Moreover, Summers had previously
denounced
anti-Israel
activism by Harvard students and faculty members as "anti-Semitic," an accusation that
provoked
fierce opposition
. A few years later, it also came out that Summers may have played a crucial role in favoring
Mark Zuckerberg over the Winkelvoss brothers in their early battle for ownership of Facebook, while Summers' former
assistant Sheryl Sandberg later became Facebook president, making her a multi-billionaire.
Although Summers' impolitic remarks regarding female math ability had certainly sparked his ouster, the underlying
cause was probably his many years of extremely unbecoming behavior. Indeed, I think a reasonable case can be made
that Summers was the worst and most disreputable president in all of Harvard's long history.
Still, even a broken or crooked clock is right twice a day, and I doubt that Larry Summers is the only person in the
world who suspects that men might be a bit better at math than women. But some strongly disagree with this
assessment, and in the wake of the Summers controversy one of his fiercest academic opponents was a certain Janet
Mertz, who specializes in cancer research at the University of Wisconsin.
In
order to effectively refute Summers' odious speculations, she and her co-authors decided to carefully examine the
total roster of participants in the International Math Olympiads for the years 1988-2007. These 3200-odd individuals
represent the world's highest-performing math students drawn from the secondary schools of dozens of countries, and
the gender distribution across so many different cultures and years would surely constitute powerful quantitative
evidence of whether males and females significantly differed in their average aptitudes. Since most of these
thousands of Math Olympians are drawn from non-Western countries, determining the genders of each and every one is
hardly a trivial undertaking, and we should greatly commend the diligent research that Mertz and her colleagues
undertook to accomplish this task.
They
published their important results in a 10,000 word academic journal article, whose "first and foremost" conclusion,
provided in bold-italics, was that
"the
myth that females cannot excel in mathematics must be put to rest."
And in her subsequent
press
interviews
, she proclaimed that her research had demonstrated that men and women had equal innate ability in
mathematics, and that any current differences in performance were due to culture or bias, a result which our media
gleefully promoted far and wide.
But
strangely enough, when I actually bothered to read the text and tables of her eye-glazingly long and dull academic
study, I noticed something quite intriguing, especially in the quantitative results conveniently summarized in
Tables 6 and 7 (pp. 1252-53), and
mentioned
it
in a column of my own:
The first of these shows the gender-distribution of the 3200-odd Math Olympians of the leading 34 countries for
the years 1988-2007, and a few minutes with a spreadsheet reveals that the skew is 95% male and 5% female.
Furthermore, almost every single country, whether in Europe, Asia, or elsewhere, seems to follow this same
pattern, with the female share ranging between 0% and 12% but mostly close to 5%; Serbia/Montenegro is the only
major outlier at 20% female. Similarly, Table 7 provides a gender distribution of results for just the United
States, and we find that just 5 of our 126 Math Olympians -- or 4% -- have been female. Various other prestigious math
competitions seem to follow a roughly similar gender skew.
These remarkable findings are even more easily grasped when
we
summarize the male percentages
of top math students aggregated across 1988-2008 for each individual country:
ASIA:
China, 96% male
India, 97% male
Iran, 98% male
Israel, 98% male
Japan, 98% male
Kazakhstan, 99% male
South Korea, 93% male
Taiwan, 95% male
Turkey, 96% male
Vietnam, 97% male
EUROPE:
Belarus, 94% male
Bulgaria, 91% male
Czech Republic, 96% male
Slovakia, 88% male
France 97% male
Germany, 94% male
Hungary, 94% male
Poland, 99% male
Romania, 94% male
Russia/USSR, 88% male
Serbia and Montenegro, 80% male
Ukraine, 93% male
United Kingdom, 93% male
OTHER:
Australia, 94% male
Brazil, 96% male
Canada, 90% male
USA, 96% male
INTERNATIONAL AVERAGE
, 94.4% male
These are the empirical results that Mertz and her co-authors touted as conclusively demonstrating that males and
females have equal mathematical ability. As near as I can tell, no previous journalist or researcher had noticed the
considerable difference between Mertz's empirical data and her stated conclusions, or perhaps any such individuals
were just too intimidated to focus public attention on the discrepancy.
This
striking disconnect between a study's purported findings and its actual results should alert us to similar
possibilities elsewhere. Perhaps it is not so totally rare that diligent researchers whose ideological zeal
sufficiently exceeds their mental ability may spend enormous time and effort gathering information but then
interpreting it in a manner exactly contrary to its obvious meaning.
These thoughts recently came to my mind when I decided to read a remarkable analysis of the American military by
Joseph W. Bendersky of Virginia Commonwealth University, a Jewish historian specializing in Holocaust Studies and
the history of Nazi Germany. Last year, I had glanced at a few pages of his text for my long article on
Holocaust
Denial
, but I now decided to carefully read the entire work, published in 2000.
Bendersky devoted ten full years of research to his book, exhaustively mining the archives of American Military
Intelligence as well as the personal papers and correspondence of more than 100 senior military figures and
intelligence officers.
The
"Jewish Threat"
runs over 500 pages, including some 1350 footnotes, with the listed archival sources alone
occupying seven full pages. His subtitle is "Anti-Semitic Politics of the U.S. Army" and he makes an extremely
compelling case that during the first half of the twentieth century and even afterward, the top ranks of the U.S.
military and especially Military Intelligence heavily subscribed to notions that today would be universally
dismissed as "anti-Semitic conspiracy theories."
Put
simply, U.S. military leaders in those decades widely believed that the world faced a direct threat from organized
Jewry, which had seized control of Russia and similarly sought to subvert and gain mastery over America and the rest
of Western civilization.
In
these military circles, there was an overwhelming belief that powerful Jewish elements had financed and led Russia's
Bolshevik Revolution, and were organizing similar Communist movements elsewhere aimed at destroying all existing
Gentile elites and imposing Jewish supremacy throughout America and the rest of the Western world. While some of
these Communist leaders were "idealists," many of the Jewish participants were cynical opportunists, seeking to use
their gullible followers to destroy their ethnic rivals and thereby gain wealth and supreme power. Although
intelligence officers gradually came to doubt that the
Protocols
of the Elders of Zion
was an authentic document, most believed that the notorious work provided a reasonably
accurate description of the strategic plans of the Jewish leadership for subverting America and the rest of the
world and establishing Jewish rule.
Although Bendersky's claims are certainly extraordinary ones, he provides an enormous wealth of compelling evidence
to support them, quoting or summarizing thousands of declassified Intelligence files, and further supporting his
case by drawing from the personal correspondence of many of the officers involved. He conclusively demonstrates that
during the very same years that Henry Ford was publishing his controversial series
The
International Jew
, similar ideas, but with a much sharper edge, were ubiquitous within our own Intelligence
community. Indeed, whereas Ford mostly focused upon Jewish dishonesty, malfeasance, and corruption, our Military
Intelligence professionals viewed organized Jewry as a deadly threat to American society and Western civilization in
general. Hence the title of Bendersky's book.
These widespread beliefs had important political consequences. In recent decades, our leading immigration
restrictionists have regularly argued that anti-Semitism played absolutely no role in the 1924 Immigration Act
drastically curtailing European immigration; and the debates and speeches found in the Congressional Record have
tended to support their claims. However, last year, I
speculated
that
the widespread awareness of the Jewish leadership of the Bolshevik Revolution may have been a large factor behind
the legislation, but one that was kept away from the public record. Bendersky's research fully confirms my
suspicions, and he reveals that one of the former military officers most fearful of Jewish immigrant subversion
actually played a crucial role in orchestrating the legislation, whose central unstated goal was eliminating any
further influx of Eastern European Jews.
The
bulk of the fascinating material that Bendersky cites comes from intelligence reports and official letters contained
in permanent military archives. Therefore, we must keep in mind that the officers producing such documents would
surely have chosen their words carefully and avoided putting all their controversial thoughts down on paper, raising
the possibility that their actual beliefs may have been far more extreme. A particular late 1930s case involving one
top general provides insight into the likely opinions and private conversations of at least some of those
individuals.
Although his name would mean nothing today, Deputy Chief of Staff George Van Horn Moseley spent most of the 1930s as
one of America's most highly-regarded generals, having been considered for the top command of our armed forces and
also serving as a personal mentor to Dwight D. Eisenhower, future Secretary of State George C. Marshall, and
numerous other leading military figures. He seems to have been well-liked within our military establishment, and had
an excellent personal reputation.
Moseley also had very strong opinions on the major public issues of the day, and after his retirement in 1938 freed
him from military discipline, he began to aggressively promote these, going on a nationwide speaking tour. He
repeatedly denounced Roosevelt's military buildup and in an early 1939 speech, he declared that "The war now being
proposed is for the purpose of establishing Jewish hegemony throughout the world." He stated that only Jews would
profit from the war, claimed that leading Wall Street Jews had financed the Russian Revolution, and warned Americans
not to let history repeat itself. Although Moseley's outspokenness soon earned him a reprimand from the Roosevelt
Administration, he also received private letters of support from other top generals and former president Herbert
Hoover.
In
his Congressional testimony just before the outbreak of World War II, Moseley became even more outspoken. He
declared that the "murder squads" of Jewish Communists had killed "millions of Christians," but that "fortunately,
the character of the German people was aroused" against these traitors within their midst and that therefore "We
should not blame the Germans for settling the problem of the Jew within their borders for all time." He even urged
our national leaders to "benefit" from the German example in addressing America's own festering domestic Jewish
problem.
As
might be expected, Moseley's 1939 praise of Germany's Jewish policy in front of Congress provoked a powerful media
backlash, with a lead story in
The
New Republic
denouncing him as a Nazi "fifth columnist" and
The
Nation
attacking him in similar fashion; and after war broke out, most public figures gradually distanced
themselves. But both Eisenhower and Marshall continued to privately regard him with great admiration and remained in
friendly correspondence for many years, strongly suggesting that his harsh appraisal of Jews had hardly been a deep
secret within his personal circle.
Bendersky claims that Moseley's fifty boxes of memoirs, private papers, and correspondence "embody every kind of
anti-Semitic argument ever manifested in the history of Western civilization," and based on the various extreme
examples he provides, few would dispute that verdict. But he also notes that Moseley's statements differed little
from the depictions of Jews expressed by General George S. Patton immediately after World War II, and even from some
retired generals well into the 1970s.
Although I would not question the accuracy of Bendersky's exhaustive archival research, he seems considerably less
sure-footed regarding American intellectual history and sometimes allows his personal sentiments to lead him into
severe error. For example, his first chapter devotes a couple of pages to E.A. Ross, citing some of his unflattering
descriptions of Jews and Jewish behavior, and suggesting he was a fanatic anti-Semite, who dreaded "the coming
catastrophe of an America overrun by racially inferior people."
But
Ross was actually one of our greatest early sociologists, and his 26 page discussion of Jewish immigrants published
in 1913 was scrupulously fair-minded and even-handed, describing both positive and negative characteristics,
following similar chapters on Irish, German, Scandinavian, Italian, and Slavic newcomers. And although Bendersky
routinely denounces his own ideological villains as "Social Darwinists," the source he actually cites regarding Ross
correctly identified the scholar as one of America's leading
critics
of
Social Darwinism. Indeed, Ross's stature in left-wing circles was so great that he was selected as a member of the
Dewey Commission, organized to independently adjudicate the angry conflicting accusations of Stalinists and
Trotskyites. And in 1936, a Jewish leftist
fulsomely
praised
Ross's long and distinguished scholarly career in the pages of
The
New Masses
, the weekly periodical of the American Communist Party, only regretting that Ross had never been
willing to embrace Marxism.
Similarly, Bendersky is completely out of his depth in discussing scientific issues, especially those involving
anthropology and human behavior. He ridicules the "scientific racism" that he noted was widely found among the
military officers he studied, claiming that such theories had already been conclusively debunked by Franz Boas and
his fellow cultural anthropologists. But modern science has firmly established that the notions he so cavalierly
dismisses were substantially if not entirely correct while those of Boas and his disciples were largely fallacious,
and the Boasian conquest of the academic world actually imposed a half-century Dark Age upon the anthropological
sciences, much like Lysenko had done in Soviet biology. Indeed, the views of Boas, an immigrant Jew, may have been
primarily motivated by ideological considerations, and his most famous early work seemed to involve outright fraud:
he claimed to have proven that the shape of human heads was determined by diet, and rapidly changed among immigrant
groups in America.
But
far more serious than Bendersky's lapses in areas outside of his professional expertise are the massive, glaring
omissions found at the very heart of his thesis. His hundreds of pages of text certainly demonstrate that for
decades our top military professionals were extremely concerned about the subversive activities of Jewish
Communists, but he seems to casually dismiss those fears as nonsensical, almost delusional. Yet the actual facts are
quite different. As I
briefly
noted
last year after my cursory examination of his book:
The book runs well over 500 pages, but when I consulted the index I found no mention of the Rosenbergs nor Harry
Dexter White nor any of the other very numerous Jewish spies revealed by the Venona Decrypts, and the term
"Venona" itself is also missing from the index. Reports of the overwhelmingly Jewish leadership of the Russian
Bolsheviks are mostly treated as bigotry and paranoia, as are descriptions of the similar ethnic skew of
America's own Communist Party, let alone the heavy financial support of the Bolsheviks by Jewish international
bankers. At one point, he dismisses the link between Jews and Communism in Germany by noting that "less than
half" of the Communist Party leadership was Jewish; but since fewer than one in a hundred Germans came from that
ethnic background, Jews were obviously over-represented among Communist leaders by as much as 5,000%. This seems
to typify the sort of dishonesty and innumeracy I have regularly encountered among Jewish Holocaust experts.
Admittedly, Bendersky's book was published just 18 months after the seminal first
Venona
volume
of John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr appeared in early 1999. But the Venona Decrypts themselves had been
declassified in 1995 and soon begun circulating within the academic community. For Bendersky to stubbornly ignore
the undeniable reality that a large and overwhelmingly Jewish network of Stalinist agents was situated near the top
of the Roosevelt Administration, while ridiculing the military officers who made such claims at the time, raises
severe doubts about his credibility as an objective historian.
From 1941 to 1944 FDR's Vice President was Henry Wallace, who would have succeeded to the presidency if
Roosevelt had renominated him in that latter year or had died prior to early 1945. And although Wallace himself
was not disloyal, his top advisors were mostly Communist agents. Indeed, he later stated that
a
Wallace Administration
would have included Laurence Duggan as Secretary of State and Harry Dexter White as
Secretary of the Treasury, thereby installing Stalinist henchmen at the top of the Cabinet, presumably supported
by numerous lower-level officials of a similar political ilk. One might jokingly speculate whether the
Rosenbergs -- later executed for treason -- would have been placed in charge of our nuclear weapons development
program.
That America's national government of the early 1940s actually came within a hair's breadth -- or rather a
heart-beat -- of falling under Communist control is a very uncomfortable truth. And our history books and popular
media have maintained such total silence about this remarkable episode that even among today's well-educated
Americans I suspect that fewer than five in one hundred are aware of this grim reality.
The
Venona Project constituted the definitive proof of the massive extent of Soviet espionage activities in America,
which for many decades had been routinely denied by many mainstream journalists and historians, and it also played a
crucial secret role in dismantling that hostile spy network during the late 1940s and 1950s. But Venona was nearly
snuffed out just a year after its birth. In 1944 Soviet agents became aware of the crucial code-breaking effort, and
soon afterwards arranged for the Roosevelt White House to issue a directive ordering the project shut down and all
efforts to uncover Soviet spying abandoned. The only reason that Venona survived, allowing us to later reconstruct
the fateful politics of that era, was that the determined Military Intelligence officer in charge of the project
risked a court-martial by directly disobeying the explicit Presidential order and continuing his work.
That
officer was Col. Carter W. Clarke, but his place in Bendersky's book is a much less favorable one, being described
as a prominent member of the anti-Semitic "clique" who constitute the villains of the narrative. Indeed, Bendersky
particularly condemns Clarke for still seeming to believe in the essential reality of the
Protocols
as
late as the 1970s, quoting from a letter he wrote to a brother officer in 1977:
If, and a big -- damned big IF, as the Jews claim the Protocols of the Elders of Zion were f -- - cooked up by Russian
Secret Police, why is it that so much they contain has already come to pass, and the rest so strongly advocated
by the
Washington
Post
and the
New
York Times
.
Our
historians must surely have a difficult time digesting the remarkable fact that the officer in charge of the vital
Venona Project, whose selfless determination saved it from destruction by the Roosevelt Administration, actually
remained a lifelong believer in the importance of the
Protocols
of the Elders of Zion
.
Let
us take a step back and place Bendersky's findings in their proper context. We must recognize that during much of
the era covered by his research, U.S. Military Intelligence constituted nearly the entirety of America's national
security apparatus -- being the equivalent of a combined CIA, NSA, and FBI -- and was responsible for both international
and domestic security, although the latter portfolio had gradually been assumed by J. Edgar Hoover's own expanding
organization by the end of the 1920s.
Bendersky's years of diligent research demonstrate that for decades these experienced professionals -- and many of
their top commanding generals -- were firmly convinced that major elements of the organized Jewish community were
ruthlessly plotting to seize power in America, destroy all our traditional Constitutional liberties, and ultimately
gain mastery over the entire world.
I
have never believed in the existence of UFOs as alien spacecraft, always dismissing such notions as ridiculous
nonsense. But suppose declassified government documents revealed that for decades nearly all of our top Air Force
officers had been absolutely convinced of the reality of UFOs. Could I continue my insouciant refusal to even
consider such possibilities? At the very least, those revelations would force me to sharply reassess the likely
credibility of other individuals who had made similar claims during that same period.
Some years ago, I came across a totally obscure 1951 book entitled
The
Iron Curtain Over America
by John Beaty, a well-regarded university professor. Beaty had spent his wartime
years in Military Intelligence, being tasked with preparing the daily briefing reports distributed to all top
American officials summarizing available intelligence information acquired during the previous 24 hours, which
was obviously a position of considerable responsibility.
As a zealous anti-Communist, he regarded much of America's Jewish population as deeply implicated in subversive
activity, therefore constituting a serious threat to traditional American freedoms. In particular, the growing
Jewish stranglehold over publishing and the media was making it increasingly difficult for discordant views to
reach the American people, with this regime of censorship constituting the "Iron Curtain" described in his
title. He blamed Jewish interests for the totally unnecessary war with Hitler's Germany, which had long sought
good relations with America, but instead had suffered total destruction for its strong opposition to Europe's
Jewish-backed Communist menace.
Beaty also sharply denounced American support for the new state of Israel, which was potentially costing us the
goodwill of so many millions of Muslims and Arabs. And as a very minor aside, he also criticized the Israelis
for continuing to claim that Hitler had killed six million Jews, a highly implausible accusation that had no
apparent basis in reality and seemed to be just a fraud concocted by Jews and Communists, aimed at poisoning our
relations with postwar Germany and extracting money for the Jewish State from the long-suffering German people.
He was scathing toward the Nuremberg Trials, which he described as a "major indelible blot" upon America and "a
travesty of justice." According to him, the proceedings were dominated by vengeful German Jews, many of whom
engaged in falsification of testimony or even had criminal backgrounds. As a result, this "foul fiasco" merely
taught Germans that "our government had no sense of justice." Sen. Robert Taft, the Republican leader of the
immediate postwar era took a very similar position, which later won him the praise of John F. Kennedy in
Profiles
in Courage
. The fact that the chief Soviet prosecutor at Nuremberg had played the same role during the
notorious Stalinist show trials of the late 1930s, during which numerous Old Bolsheviks confessed to all sorts
of absurd and ridiculous things, hardly enhanced the credibility of the proceedings to many outside observers.
Then as now, a book taking such controversial positions stood little chance of finding a mainstream New York
publisher, but it was soon released by a small Dallas firm, and then became enormously successful, going through
some seventeen printings over the next few years. According to Scott McConnell, founding editor of
The
American Conservative
, Beaty's book became the second most popular conservative text of the 1950s, ranking
only behind Russell Kirk's iconic classic,
The
Conservative Mind
.
Bendersky devotes several pages to a discussion of Beaty's book, which he claims "ranks among the most vicious
anti-Semitic diatribes of the postwar era." He also describes the story of its tremendous national success, which
followed an unusual trajectory.
Books by unknown authors that are released by tiny publishers rarely sell many copies, but the work came to the
attention of George E. Stratemeyer, a retired general who had been one of Douglas MacArthur's commanders, and he
wrote Beaty a letter of endorsement. Beaty began including that letter in his promotional materials, drawing the ire
of the ADL, whose national chairman contacted Stratemeyer, demanding that he repudiate the book, which was described
as a "primer for lunatic fringe groups" all across America. Instead, Stratemeyer delivered a blistering reply to the
ADL, denouncing it for making "veiled threats" against "free expression and thoughts" and trying to establish
Soviet-style repression in the United States. He declared that every "loyal citizen" should read
The
Iron Curtain Over America
, whose pages finally revealed the truth about our national predicament, and he began
actively promoting the book around the country while attacking the Jewish attempt to silence him. Numerous other top
American generals and admirals soon joined Statemeyer in publicly endorsing the work, as did a couple of influential
members of the U.S. Senate, leading to its enormous national sales.
Having now discovered that Beaty's views were so totally consistent with those of nearly all our Military
Intelligence professionals, I decided to reread his short book, and found myself deeply impressed. His erudition and
level-headedness were exactly what one would expect from an accomplished academic with a Columbia Ph.D. who had
risen to the rank of colonel during his five years of service in Military Intelligence and on the General Staff.
Although strongly anti-Communist, by all indications Beaty was very much a moderate conservative, quite judicious in
his claims and proposals. Bendersky's hysterical denunciation reflects rather badly upon the issuer of that
fatwa
.
Beaty's book was written nearly 70 years ago, at the very beginning of our long Cold War, and is hardly free from
various widely-held errors of that time, nor from deep concerns about various calamities that did not come to pass,
such as a Third World War. Moreover, since it was published just a couple of years after Mao's victory in China and
in the midst of our own involvement in the Korean War, its discussion of those large contemporary events is far more
lengthy and detailed than would probably be of interest to present-day readers. But leaving aside those minor
blemishes, I think the account he provides of the true circumstances behind America's involvement in both the First
and Second World Wars and their immediate aftermath is greatly superior to the heavily slanted and expurgated
versions we find in our standard history books. And Beaty's daily wartime responsibility for collating and
summarizing all incoming intelligence information and then producing a digest for distribution to the White House
and our other top officials surely provided him a far more accurate picture of the reality than that of the typical
third-hand scribe.
At
the very least, we should acknowledge that Beaty's volume provides an excellent summary of the beliefs of American
Military Intelligence officers and many of our top generals during the first half of the twentieth century. With
copyright having long lapsed, I'm pleased to make it available in convenient HTML format, allowing those so
interested to read it and judge for themselves:
Despite Bendersky's fulminations, Beaty seems to have been someone of quite moderate sentiments, who viewed
extremism of any type with great disfavor. After describing the ongoing seizure of power in American society by
Jewish immigrants, mostly aligned with international Zionism or international Communism, his suggested responses
were strikingly inoffensive. He urged American citizens to demonstrate their disapproval by writing letters to their
newspapers and elected officials, signing petitions, and providing their political support to the patriotic elements
of both the Democratic and Republican parties. He also argued that the most dangerous aspect of the current
situation was the enfolding "Iron Curtain" of Jewish censorship that was preventing ordinary Americans from
recognizing the great looming threat to their freedoms, and claimed that combating such media censorship was a task
of the highest importance.
Others of similar background and views sometimes moved in far more extreme directions. About a dozen years ago I
began noticing scattered references on fringe websites to a certain Revilo P. Oliver, an oddly-named political
activist of the mid-twentieth century, apparently of enormous stature in Far Right circles. According to these
accounts, after important World War II service at the War Department, he began a long and distinguished career as a
Classics professor at the University of Illinois. Then, beginning in the mid-1950s, he became active in politics,
establishing himself as a leading figure in the early days of both
National
Review
and the John Birch Society, though he eventually broke with both those organizations when he came to
regard them as too politically-compromised and ineffective. Thereafter, he gradually became more angry and extreme
in his views, and by 1974 had become friendly with William Pierce of the National Alliance, suggesting the theme for
his novel
The
Turner Diaries
which sold hundreds of thousands of copies as a huge underground bestseller and according to
federal prosecutors later served as the inspiration for the 1995 Oklahoma City bombings.
Although I had never heard of Oliver nor his unusual career, most of the facts I could verify seemed correct. The
early years of
National
Review
had carried
more
than 100 of his articles and reviews
and
a
major feature
in
The
Saturday Evening Post
discussed his rancorous break with The John Birch Society. A few years later, I became
sufficiently curious that I ordered his 1981 book
America's
Decline: The Education of a Conservative
, containing his personal memoir and many of his writings. So few were
available, that by chance the one I received was the author's own personal copy, with his address label glued to the
cover and including a few pages of his personal correspondence and errata notes sent to his publisher. These days,
the numerous copies available for sale on Amazon start at an outrageous price of almost $150, but fortunately the
book is
also
freely available for reading or downloading at Archive.org
.
When
I first read Oliver's book seven or eight years ago, it constituted one of my earliest exposures to the literature
of the Far Right, and I was not at all sure what to make of it. His enormous classical erudition was quite apparent,
but his political rhetoric seemed totally outrageous, with the word "conspiracy" used with wild abandon, seemingly
on almost every other page. Given his bitter political feuds with so many other right-wingers and the total lack of
any mainstream endorsements, I viewed his claims with a great deal of skepticism, though a number of them stuck in
my mind. However, after having very recently absorbed the remarkable material presented by Bendersky and reread
Beaty, I decided to revisit Oliver's volume, and see what I thought of it the second time round.
Revilo P. Oliver, 1963. Credit: Wikimedia Commons
Bendersky makes no mention of Oliver, which is unfortunate since all the spurious accusations he had leveled against
Ross and Beaty would have been entirely correct if made against Oliver. Unlike most right-wingers, then or now,
Oliver was a militant atheist, holding scathing views towards Christianity, and he instead placed racial conflict at
the absolute center of his world-view, making him exactly the sort of outspoken Social Darwinist not uncommon in the
early years of the twentieth century, but long since driven into hiding. A good indication of the explicit harshness
of Oliver's sentiments appears on the very first page of his preface, when he ridicules the total ineffectiveness of
conservatives in combating "the existing situation, which has resulted from the invasion of their country by hordes
of aliens who are, by a biological necessity, their racial enemies." This sort of statement would have been
unimaginable in Beaty, who emphasized Christian charity and goodwill.
More
than half of the fairly long text consists of pieces that appeared during 1955-1966 in
National
Review
,
American
Opinion
(the Birch magazine), and
Modern
Age
, generally book reviews. Most of the topics are hardly of great current interest, and discuss the internal
conflicts of Ancient Rome, or perhaps provide Oliver's views on Spengler, Toynbee, John Dewey, or Haitian history;
but the material certainly establishes the impressive intellectual breadth of the author. According to the book's
introduction, Oliver was conversant in eleven languages, including Sanskrit, and I can well credit that claim.
As
mentioned, Oliver particularly despised Christianity and Christian preachers, and he devoted a substantial portion
of the remainder of the book to ridiculing them and their doctrines, often deploying his great scholarship laced
with crude invective, and generally writing in an arch, rather droll style. Although not of much interest to me, I'd
think that those who share Oliver's religious disinclinations might find his remarks rather amusing.
However, the remaining one-third or so of the volume is focused on factual and political matters, much of the
material being quite significant. According to the back cover, Oliver had spent World War II as director of a secret
research group at the War Department, leading a staff that eventually grew to 175, and afterward being cited for his
outstanding government service. His statements certainly present himself as extremely knowledgeable about the
"hidden history" of that war, and he minced absolutely no words about his views. The combination of his strong
academic background, his personal vantage point, and his extreme outspokenness would make him a uniquely valuable
source on all those matters.
But
that value is tempered by his credibility, cast into serious doubt by his often wild rhetoric. Whereas I would
consider Beaty's book quite reliable, at least relative to the best information available at the time, and might
place Henry Ford's
The
International Jew
in much the same category, I would tend to be far more cautious in accepting Oliver's claims,
especially given the strong emotions he expressed. Aside from his many reprinted articles, the rest of the book was
written when he was in his seventies, and he repeatedly expressed his political despair concerning his many years of
total failure in various right-wing projects. He declared that he had lost any hope of ever restoring the
Aryan-controlled America of 1939, and instead foresaw our country's inevitable decline, alongside that of the rest
of Western civilization. Moreover, many of the events he recounts had occurred three or four decades earlier, and
even under the best of circumstances his recollections might have become a little garbled.
That
being said, in rereading Oliver I was struck by how much of his description of America's involvement in the two
world wars seemed so entirely consistent with Beaty's account, or that of numerous other highly-regarded journalists
and historians of that era, such as the contributors to
Perpetual
War for Perpetual Peace
. I had encountered this material some years after reading Oliver's book, and it
greatly buttressed his credibility.
But
unlike those other writers, Oliver often framed the same basic facts in extremely dramatic fashion. For example, he
denounced Churchill's 1940 aerial bombing strategy as the most monstrous sort of war crime:
Great Britain, in violation of all the ethics of civilized warfare that had theretofore been respected by our
race, and in treacherous violation of solemnly assumed diplomatic covenants about "open cities", had secretly
carried out intensive bombing of such open cities in Germany for the express purpose of killing enough unarmed
and defenceless men and women to force the German government reluctantly to retaliate and bomb British cities
and thus kill enough helpless British men, women, and children to generate among Englishmen enthusiasm for the
insane war to which their government had committed them.
It is impossible to imagine a governmental act more vile and more depraved than contriving death and suffering
for its own people -- for the very citizens whom it was exhorting to "loyalty" -- and I suspect that an act of
such infamous and savage treason would have nauseated even Genghis Khan or Hulagu or Tamerlane, Oriental
barbarians universally reprobated for their insane blood-lust. History, so far as I recall, does not record that
they ever butchered their own women and children to facilitate lying propaganda .In 1944 members of British
Military Intelligence took it for granted that after the war Marshal Sir Arthur Harris would be hanged or shot
for high treason against the British people
At
the time I originally read those words, my knowledge of World War II was mostly limited to half-remembered portions
of my old History 101 textbooks, and I was naturally quite skeptical at Oliver's astonishing charges. But during
subsequent years, I discovered that the circumstances were exactly as Oliver claimed, with so notable a historian as
David Irving having fully documented the evidence. So although we may question Oliver's exceptionally harsh
characterization or his heated rhetoric, the factual case he makes seems not to be under serious dispute.
His
discussion of America's own entrance in the war is equally strident. He emphasizes that his colleagues in the War
Department had completely broken the most secure Japanese codes, giving our government complete knowledge of all
Japanese plans:
Perhaps the most exhilarating message ever read by American Military Intelligence was one sent by the Japanese
government to their Ambassador in Berlin (as I recall), urging him not to hesitate to communicate certain
information by telegrams and assuring him that "no human mind" could decipher messages that had been enciphered
on the Purple Machine. That assurance justified the merriment it provoked
However, just as many others have alleged, Oliver claims that Roosevelt then deliberately allowed the attack on
Pearl Harbor to proceed and failed to warn the local military commanders, whom he then ordered court-martialed for
their negligence:
Everyone
now
knows,
of course, that the message to the Japanese Ambassador in Washington, warning him that Japan was about to attack
the United States, was read by Military Intelligence not long after the Ambassador himself received it, and that
the frantic cover-up, involving some successful lying about details, was intended, not to preserve that secret,
but to protect the traitors in Washington who made certain that the Japanese attack, which they had labored so
long to provoke, would be successful and produce the maximum loss of American lives and destruction of American
ships.
Numerous historians seem to have thoroughly established that Roosevelt did everything he could to provoke a war with
Japan. But Oliver adds a fascinating detail that I have never seen mentioned elsewhere:
In January 1941, almost eleven months before Pearl Harbor, preparation for it began in Washington when Franklin
D Roosevelt summoned the Portuguese Ambassador to the United States and, enjoining him to the utmost secrecy,
asked him to inform Premier Salazar that Portugal need have no concern for the safety of Timor and her other
possessions in Southeast Asia; the United States, he said, had decided to crush Japan forever by waiting until
her military forces and lines of communication were stretched to the utmost and then suddenly launching an
all-out war with massive attacks that Japan was not, and could not be, prepared to resist. As expected, the
Portuguese Ambassador communicated the glad tidings to the head of his government, using his most secure method
of communication, an enciphered code which the Portuguese doubtless imagined to be "unbreakable," but which
Roosevelt well knew had been compromised by the Japanese, who were currently reading all messages sent in it by
wireless. The statement, ostensibly entrusted in "strict secrecy" to the Portuguese Ambassador, was, of course,
intended for the Japanese government, and, as a matter of fact, it became certain that the trick had succeeded
when the contents of the Portuguese Ambassador's message to Salazar promptly appeared in a Japanese message
enciphered by the Purple Machine. Roosevelt had only to wait for Japan to act on the "secret" information about
American plans thus given her, and to order naval movements and diplomatic negotiations that would appear to the
Japanese to confirm American intentions.
The fact that I have just mentioned is really the ultimate secret of Pearl Harbor, and seems to have been
unknown to Admiral Theobald when he wrote his well-known book on the subject.
Oliver notes that Roosevelt had long sought to have America participate in the great European war
whose
outbreak he had previously orchestrated
, but had been blocked by overwhelming domestic anti-war sentiment. His
decision to provoke a Japanese attack as a "back door" to war only came after all his military provocations against
Germany had failed to accomplish a similar result:
His first plan was defeated by the prudence of the German government. While he yammered about the evils of
aggression to the white Americans whom he despised and hated, Roosevelt used the United States Navy to commit
innumerable acts of stealthy and treacherous aggression against Germany in a secret and undeclared war, hidden
from the American people, hoping that such massive piracy would eventually so exasperate the Germans that they
would declare war on the United States, whose men and resources could then be squandered to punish the Germans
for trying to have a country of their own. These foul acts of the War Criminal were known, of course, to the
officers and men of the Navy that carried out the orders of their Commander-in-Chief, and were commonly
discussed in informed circles, but, so far as I know, were first and much belatedly chronicled by Patrick
Abbazia in
Mr.
Roosevelt's Navy: the Private War of the U.S. Atlantic Fleet, 1939-1942
, published by the Naval Institute
Press in Annapolis in 1975.
Although the U.S. Navy's acts of outrageous piracy on the high seas were successfully concealed from the
majority of the American people before Pearl Harbor, they were, of course, well known to the Japanese, and
partly account for Roosevelt's success in deceiving them with his "confidences" to the Portuguese
Ambassador they assumed that when Roosevelt was ready to attack them, his power over the American press and
communications would enable him to simulate an attack they had not in fact made. That the deception was
successful was, of course, shown in December 1941, when they made a desperate effort to avert the treacherous
blow they feared.
Once
America thus entered the war, Oliver then focuses on the horrific way the Allies waged it, using aerial bombardment
to deliberately slaughter the civilian population of Germany:
Both British and Americans have always claimed to be humane and have loudly condemned unnecessary bloodshed,
mass massacres, and sadistic delight in the infliction of pain in 1945 their professions could still be credited
without doubt, and that meant they would be stricken with remorse for a ferocious act of unmitigated savagery
unparalleled in the history of our race and unsurpassed in the record of any race. The bombing of the
unfortified city of Dresden, nicely timed to insure an agonizing death to the maximum number of white women and
children, has been accurately described by David Irving in
The
Destruction of Dresden
(London, 1963), but the essentials of that sickening atrocity were known soon after
it was perpetrated. To be sure, it is true that such an act might have been ordered by Hulagu, the celebrated
Mongol who found pleasure in ordering the extermination of the population of all cities that did not open their
gates to him -- and of some that did -- so that the severed heads of the inhabitants could be piled up into
pyramids as perishable but impressive monuments to his glory. The Americans and British, however, deem
themselves more civilized than Hulagu and less sadistic.
He
also harshly condemns the very brutal nature of the American occupation of Germany that followed the end of the war:
with the American invasion of German territory began the innumerable atrocities against her civilian population
-- the atrocities against prisoners began even earlier -- that have brought on our people the reputation of
Attila's hordes. The outrages were innumerable and no one, so far as I know, has even tried to compile a list of
typical incidents of rape and torture and mayhem and murder. Most of the unspeakable atrocities, it is true,
were committed by savages and Jews in American uniforms, but many, it must be confessed, were perpetrated by
Americans, louts from the dregs of our own society or normal men crazed with hatred. All victorious armies, it
is true, contain elements that want to outrage the vanquished, and few commanders in "democratic" wars can
maintain the tight discipline that made Wellington's armies the marvels of Europe or the discipline that
generally characterized the German armies in both World Wars; what so brands us with shame is that the
atrocities were encouraged by our supreme commander in Europe, whose orders, presumably issued when he was not
drunk or occupied with his doxies, made it difficult or hazardous for responsible American generals to observe
what had been the rules of civilized warfare. Almost every American soldier in Germany had witnessed the
barbarous treatment of the vanquished, the citizens of one of the greatest nations of Western civilization and
our own kinsmen, and -- despite the efforts to incite them to inhuman hate with Jewish propaganda -- many of our
soldiers witnessed such outrages with pity and shame. The cumulative effect of their reports when they returned
to their own country should have been great. It is needless to multiply examples, some of which may be found in
F.J.P. Veale's
Advance
to Barbarism
(London, 1953).
And
he suggests that the Nuremberg Tribunals brought everlasting shame upon his own country:
I was, of course, profoundly shocked by the foul murders at Nuremberg that brought on the American people an
indelible shame. Savages and Oriental barbarians normally kill, with or without torture, the enemies whom they
have overcome, but even they do not sink so low in the scale of humanity as to perform the obscene farce of
holding quasi-judicial trials before they kill, and had the Americans -- for, given their absolute power, the
responsibility must fall on them, and their guilt cannot be shifted to their supposed allies -- had the
Americans, I say, merely slaughtered the German generals, they could claim to be morally no worse than Apaches,
Balubas, and other primitives. Civilized peoples spare the lives of the vanquished, showing to their leaders a
respectful consideration, and the deepest instincts of our race demand a chivalrous courtesy to brave opponents
whom the fortunes of war have put in our power.
To punish warriors who, against overwhelming odds, fought for their country with a courage and determination
that excited the wonder of the world, and deliberately to kill them because they were not cowards and traitors,
because they did not betray their nation -- that was an act of vileness of which we long believed our race
incapable. And to augment the infamy of our act, we stigmatized them as "War Criminals" which they most
certainly were not, for if that phrase has meaning, it applies to traitors who knowingly involve their nations
in a war contrived to inflict loss, suffering, and death on their own people, who are thus made to fight for
their own effective defeat -- traitors such as Churchill, Roosevelt, and their white accomplices. And to add an
ultimate obscenity to the sadistic crime, "trials" were held to convict the vanquished according to "laws"
invented for the purpose, and on the basis of perjured testimony extorted from prisoners of war by torture
The moral responsibility for those fiendish crimes, therefore, falls on our own War Criminals, and, as a
practical matter, nations always bear the responsibility for the acts of the individuals whom they, however
mistakenly, placed in power. We cannot reasonably blame Dzhugashvili, alias Stalin: he was not a War Criminal,
for he acted, logically and ruthlessly, to augment the power and the territory of the Soviet Empire, and he
(whatever his personal motives may have been) was the architect of the regime that transformed a degraded and
barbarous rabble into what is now the greatest military power on earth.
Oliver's memoirs were published by a tiny London press in a cheap paper binding, lacked even an index, and were
hardly likely to ever reach a substantial audience. That, together with the internal evidence of his text, leads me
to believe that he was quite sincere in his statements, at least with regard to all these sorts of historical and
political matters. And given those beliefs, we should hardly be surprised at the heated rhetoric he directs against
the targets of his wrath, especially Roosevelt, whom he repeatedly references as "the great War Criminal."
Sincerity is obviously no guarantee of accuracy. But Bendersky's extensive review of private letters and personal
memoirs reveals that a large portion of our Military Intelligence officers and top generals seemed to closely share
Oliver's appraisal of Roosevelt, whose eventual death provoked widespread "exultation" and "fierce delight" in their
social circle. Finally, one of them wrote, "The evil man was dead!"
Moreover, although Oliver's words are as heated as those of Beaty are measured, the factual claims of the two
authors are quite similar with regard to World War II, so that all the high-ranking generals who enthusiastically
endorsed Beaty's bestselling 1951 book may be regarded as providing some implicit backing for Oliver.
Consider also the personal diaries and reported conversations of Gen. George S. Patton, one of our most renowned
field commanders. These reveal that shortly after the end of fighting he became outraged over how he had been
totally deceived regarding the circumstances of the conflict, and he planned to return to the U.S., resign his
military commission, and begin a national speaking-tour to provide the American people with the true facts about the
war. Instead, he died in a highly-suspicious car accident the day before his scheduled departure, and there is
very
considerable evidence
that he was actually assassinated by the American OSS.
Oliver's discussion of the Second World War provides remarkably vivid rhetorical flourishes and some intriguing
details, but his basic analysis is not so different from that of Beaty or numerous other writers. Moreover, Beaty
had a far superior vantage point during the conflict, while his book was published just a few years after the end of
fighting and was also far more widely endorsed and distributed. So although Oliver's extreme candor may add much
color to our historical picture, I think his memoirs are probably more useful for their other elements, such as his
unique insights into the origins of both
National
Review
and the John Birch Society, two of the leading right-wing organizations established during the 1950s.
Oliver opens his book by describing his departure from DC and wartime government service in the fall of 1945, fully
confident that the horrific national treachery he had witnessed at the top of the American government would soon
inspire "a reaction of national indignation that would become sheer fury." As he puts it:
That reaction, I thought, would occur automatically, and my only concern was for the welfare of a few friends
who had innocently and ignorantly agitated for war before the unspeakable monster in the White House
successfully tricked the Japanese into destroying the American fleet at Pearl Harbor. I wondered whether a plea
of ignorance would save them from the reprisals I foresaw!
He
spent the next decade entirely engaged in his Classical scholarship and establishing an academic career, while
noting some of the hopeful early signs of the political uprising that he fully expected to see:
In 1949 Congressman Rankin introduced a bill that would recognize as subversive and outlaw the "Anti-"Defamation
League of B'nai B'rith, the formidable organization of Jewish cowboys who ride herd on their American cattle In
both the Houses of Representatives and the Senate committees were beginning investigations of covert treason and
alien subversion Then Senator McCarthy undertook a somewhat more thorough investigation, which seemed to open a
visible leak in the vast dike of deceit erected by our enemies, and it was easy to assume that the little jet of
water that spurted through that leak would grow hydraulically until the dam broke and released an irresistible
flood.
However, by 1954 he recognized that McCarthy's political destruction was at hand, and the opposing forces he so
despised had gained the upper hand. He faced the crucial decision of whether to involve himself in politics, and if
so, what form that might take.
One
of his friends, a right-wing Yale professor named Wilmoore Kendall, argued that a crucial factor in the Jewish
domination of American public life was their control over influential opinion journals such as
The
Nation
and
The
New Republic
, and that launching a competing publication might be the most effective remedy. For this purpose,
he had recruited a prize student of his named William F. Buckley, Jr., who could draw upon the financial resources
of his wealthy father, long known in certain circles for his discreet sponsorship of various anti-Jewish
publications and "his drastic private opinion about the aliens' perversion of our national life."
A
few years earlier, H.L. Mencken's famous literary monthly
The
American Mercury
had fallen on hard times and been purchased by one of America's wealthiest men, Russell
Maguire, who hoped to use it partly as a vehicle for his extremely strong anti-Jewish sentiments. Indeed, one of
Maguire's senior staffers for a couple of years was George Lincoln Rockwell, best known for later founding the
American Nazi Party. But according to Oliver, enormous concerted pressure by Jewish interests upon both newstands
and printers had caused great difficulties for that magazine, which were to eventually force Maguire to abandon the
effort and sell the magazine.
Kendall and Oliver hoped that Buckley's new effort might succeed where Maguire's was failing, perhaps by avoiding
any direct mention of Jewish issues and instead focusing upon threats from Communists, socialists, and liberals, who
were far less risky targets to attack. Buckley had previously gained some journalistic experience by working at the
Mercury
for
a couple of years, so he was probably well aware of the challenging political environment he might face.
Although L. Brent Bozell, another one of his young Yale proteges, would also be working with Buckley on the new
venture, Kendall told Oliver that he had failed to locate a single university professor willing to risk his name as
a contributor. This prompted Oliver to take up the challenge with such determination that more of his pieces
appeared in
National
Review
during the 1950s than almost any other writer, even ahead of Kendall himself. Apparently Oliver had
already been friendly with Buckley,
having
been a member of the latter's 1950 wedding party
.
But
from Oliver's perspective, the project proved a dismal failure. Against all advice, Buckley founded his magazine as
a profit-making enterprise, circulating a prospectus, selling stock and debentures, and promising his financial
backers an excellent financial return. Instead, like every other political magazine, it always lost money and was
soon forced to plead for donations, greatly irritating his initial investors.
Another concern was that just before launch, a couple of Jewish former Communists then running an existing
conservative magazine caught wind of the new publication and offered to betray their employer and bring over all
their existing subscribers if they were given senior roles. Although they were duly brought on board, their planned
coup at
The
Freeman
failed, and no promised bounty of subscribers appeared. In later hindsight, Oliver became deeply
suspicious of these developments and how the publication had been so quickly diverted from its intended mission,
writing:
it was only long after Professor Kendall had been shouldered out of the organization and I had severed my
connections with it that I perceived that whenever a potentially influential journal is founded, it receives the
assistance of talented "conservative" Jews, who are charged with the duty of supervising the Aryan children and
making certain that they play only approved games.
Oliver also emphasized the severe dilemma faced by the magazine and all other organizations intended to combat the
influence of Jews and Communists. For obvious reasons, these almost invariably centered themselves around strong
support for Christianity. But Oliver was a militant atheist who detested religious faith and therefore believed that
such an approach inevitably alienated "the very large number of educated men who were repelled by the hypocrisy,
obscurantism, and rabid ambitions of the clergy." Thus, Christian anti-Communist movements often tended to produce a
large backlash of sympathy for Communism in elite circles.
Small ideological publications are notorious for their bitter intrigues and angry disputes, and I have made no
effort to compare Oliver's brief sketch of the creation of
National
Review
with other accounts, which would surely provide very different perspectives. But I think his basic facts
ring true to me.
By
1958 Oliver had established himself as one of
National
Review
's leading contributors, and he was contacted by a wealthy Massachusetts businessman named Robert Welch,
who had been an early investor in the magazine but was greatly disappointed by its political ineffectiveness, so the
two men corresponded and gradually became quite friendly. Welch said he was concerned that the publication focused
largely on frivolity and pseudo-literary endeavors, while it increasingly minimized or ignored the conspiratorial
role of the Jewish aliens who had gained such a degree of control over the country. The two men eventually met, and
according to Oliver seemed to be entirely in agreement about America's plight, which they discussed in complete
candor.
Late
that same year, Welch described his plans for regaining control of the country by the creation of a semi-secret
national organization of patriotic individuals, primarily drawn from the upper middle classes and prosperous
businessmen, which eventually became known as the John Birch Society. With its structure and strategy inspired by
the Communist Party, it was to be tightly organized into individual local cells, whose members would then establish
a network of front organizations for particular political projects, all seemingly unconnected but actually under
their dominant influence. Secret directives would be passed along to each local chapter by the word of mouth via
coordinators dispatched from Welch's central headquarters, a system also modeled after the strict hierarchical
discipline of Communist movements.
Welch privately unveiled his proposal to a small group of prospective co-founders, all of whom with the exception of
Oliver were wealthy businessmen. He candidly admitted his own atheism and explained that Christianity would have no
role in the project, which cost him a couple of potential supporters; but about a dozen committed themselves,
notably including Fred Koch, founding father of Koch Industries. Minimal emphasis was to be placed upon Jewish
matters, partly to avoid drawing media fire and partly in hopes that a growing schism between Zionist and
non-Zionist Jews might weaken their powerful adversary, or if the former gained the upper hand, perhaps help ensure
the removal of all Jews to the Middle East.
As
the project moved forward, a monthly magazine called
American
Opinion
was launched and Oliver took responsibility for a large portion of each issue. Given his academic and
political prominence, he also became one of the leading speakers for the organization in public venues and also an
influential visitor to many of its local chapters.
Although Oliver remained a top figure in the organization until 1966, in later years he concluded that Welch's
serious mistakes had doomed the project to failure within just a couple of years after its establishment. Very early
on, a Jewish journalist had obtained a copy of some of Welch's secret, controversial writings and their public
disclosure had panicked one of the most prominent Birch leaders, soon producing a major media scandal. Welch
repeatedly vacillated between defending and denying his secret manuscript, forcing his associates to take
contradictory positions, and making the entire leadership seem both dishonest and ridiculous, a pattern that was to
be repeated in future years.
According to Oliver, nearly eighty thousand men and women enlisted in the organization during the first decade, but
he feared that their energetic efforts and commitment were entirely wasted, producing nothing of any value. As the
years went by, the organization's ineffectiveness became more apparent, while Welch's autocratic control blocked any
necessary changes from within since his executive council functioned merely as a powerless fig-leaf. Although Oliver
remained convinced that Welch had been sincere when he began the effort, the accumulation of so many unnecessary
missteps eventually led him to suspect deliberate sabotage. He claimed that his careful investigation revealed that
the organization's financial problems had forced Welch to turn in desperation to outside Jewish donors, who then
became his secret overlords, leading Oliver to rancorously break with the organization in 1966 and denounce it as a
fraud. Although I have no easy means of verifying most of Oliver's claims, his story hardly seems implausible.
Oliver also makes an important point about the severe dilemma produced by Welch's strategy. One of the central goals
of the organization had been to combat organized Jewish influence in America, but any mention of Jews was forbidden,
so the officially designed term for their subversive foes was the "International Communist Conspiracy." Oliver
admitted that the usage of that ubiquitous phrase became "forced" and "monotonous," and indeed it or its variants
appear with remarkable regularity in his articles reprinted from the Birch magazine.
According to Oliver, the intent was to allow members to draw their own logical conclusions about who was really
behind the "conspiracy" they opposed while allowing the organization itself to maintain plausible deniability. But
the result was total failure, with Jewish organizations fully understanding the game being played, while intelligent
individuals quickly concluded that the Birch organization was either dishonest or delusional, hardly an unreasonable
inference. As an example of this situation, the late investigative journalist Michael Collins Piper in 2005 told the
story of how at the age of sixteen he had embraced a
'One-Minute'
Membership in the John Birch Society
. Indeed, by the late 1960s, any public expressions of anti-Semitism by
Birch members became grounds for immediate expulsion, a rather ironic situation for an organization originally
founded just a decade earlier with avowedly anti-Semitic goals.
Following his 1966 rupture with Welch, Oliver greatly reduced his political writing, which henceforth only appeared
in much smaller and more extreme venues than the Birch magazine. His book contains just a couple of such later
pieces, but the second of these, published in a right-wing British magazine during 1980, is of some interest.
Just
as we might expect, Oliver had always been particularly scathing towards the supposed Jewish Holocaust, and near the
very beginning of his book, he states his own views in typically forceful fashion:
The Americans were howling with indignation over the supposed extermination by the Germans of some millions of
Jews, many of whom had taken the opportunity to crawl into the United States, and one could have supposed in
1945 that when the hoax, devised to pep up the cattle that were being stampeded into Europe, was exposed, even
Americans would feel some indignation at having been so completely bamboozled.
The prompt exposure of the bloody swindle seemed inevitable, particularly since the agents of the O.S.S.,
commonly known in military circles as the Office of Soviet Stooges, who had been dispatched to conquered Germany
to set up gas chambers to lend some verisimilitude to the hoax, had been so lazy and feckless that they merely
sent back pictures of shower baths, which were so absurd that they had to be suppressed to avoid ridicule. No
one could have believed in 1945 that the lie would be used to extort thirty billion dollars from the helpless
Germans and would be rammed into the minds of German children by uncouth American "educators" -- or that
civilized men would have to wait until 1950 for Paul Rassinier, who had been himself a prisoner in a German
concentration camp, to challenge the infamous lie, or until 1976 for Professor Arthur Butz's detailed and
exhaustive refutation of the venomous imposture on Aryan credulity.
In
his republished article, Oliver discussed this same topic at far greater length and in the context of its broader
theoretical implications. After recounting various examples of historical frauds and cover-ups, starting with the
possibly forged letter of the younger Pliny, he expressed his amazement at the continuing widespread acceptance of
the Holocaust story, despite the existence of hundreds of thousands of direct eyewitnesses to the contrary. He
suggested that such an astonishing scholarly situation must force us to reassess our assumptions about the nature of
evidentiary methods in historiography.
Oliver's peremptory dismissal of the standard Holocaust narrative led me to take a closer look at the treatment of
the same topic in Bendersky's book, and I noticed something quite odd. As discussed above, his exhaustive research
in official files and personal archives conclusively established that during World War II a very considerable
fraction of all our Military Intelligence officers and top generals were vehemently hostile to Jewish organizations
and also held beliefs that today would be regarded as utterly delusional. The author's academic specialty is
Holocaust studies, so it is hardly surprising that his longest chapter focused on that particular subject, bearing
the title "Officers and the Holocaust, 1940-1945." But a close examination of the contents raises some troubling
questions.
Across more than sixty pages, Bendersky provides hundreds of direct quotes, mostly from the same officers who are
the subject of the rest of his book. But after carefully reading the chapter twice, I was unable to find a single
one of those statements referring to the massive slaughter of Jews that constitutes what we commonly call the
Holocaust, nor to any of its central elements, such as the existence of death camps or gas chambers.
The
forty page chapter that follows focuses on the plight of the Jewish "survivors" in post-war Europe, and the same
utter silence applies. Bendersky is disgusted by the cruel sentiments expressed by these American military men
towards the Jewish former camp inmates, and he frequently quotes them characterizing the latter as thieves, liars,
and criminals; but the officers seem strangely unaware that those unfortunate souls had only just barely escaped an
organized mass extermination campaign that had so recently claimed the lives of the vast majority of their fellows.
Numerous statements and quotes regarding Jewish extermination are provided, but all of these come from various
Jewish activists and organizations, while there is nothing but silence from all of the military officers themselves.
Bendersky's ten years of archival research brought to light personal letters and memoirs of military officers
written decades after the end of the war, and in both those chapters he freely quotes from these invaluable
materials, sometimes including private remarks from the late 1970s, long after the Holocaust had become a major
topic in American public life. Yet not a single statement of sadness, regret, or horror is provided. Thus, a
prominent Holocaust historian spends a decade researching a book about the private views of our military officers
towards Jews and Jewish topics, but the one hundred pages he devotes to the Holocaust and its immediate aftermath
contains not a single directly-relevant quote from those individuals, which is simply astonishing. A yawning chasm
seems to exist at the center of his lengthy historical volume, or put another way, a particular barking dog is quite
deafening in its silence.
I am
not an archival researcher and have no interest in reviewing the many tens of thousands of pages of source material
located at dozens of repositories across the country that Bendersky so diligently examined while producing his
important book. Perhaps during their entire wartime activity and also the decades of their later lives, not a single
one of the hundred-odd important military officers who were the focus of his investigation ever once broached the
subject of the Holocaust or the slaughter of Jews during World War II. But I think there is another distinct
possibly.
As
mentioned earlier, Beaty spent his war years carefully reviewing the sum-total of all incoming intelligence
information each day and then producing an official digest for distribution to the White House and our other top
leaders. And in his 1951 book, published just a few years after the end of fighting, he dismissed the supposed
Holocaust as a ridiculous wartime concoction by dishonest Jewish and Communist propagandists that had no basis in
reality. Soon afterward, Beaty's book was fully endorsed and promoted by many of our leading World War II generals,
including those who were subjects of Bendersky's archival research. And although the ADL and various other Jewish
organizations fiercely denounced Beaty, there is no sign that they ever challenged his absolutely explicit
"Holocaust denial."
I
suspect that Bendersky gradually discovered that such "Holocaust denial" was remarkably common in the private papers
of many of his Military Intelligence officers and top generals, which presented him with a serious dilemma. If only
one or two of those individuals had expressed such sentiments, their shocking statements could be cited as further
evidence of their delusional anti-Semitism. But what if a substantial majority of those officers -- who certainly had
possessed the best knowledge of the reality of World War II -- held private beliefs that were very similar to those
publicly expressed by their former colleagues Beaty and Oliver? In such a situation, Bendersky may have decided that
certain closed doors should remain in that state, and entirely skirted the topic.
At
the age of 89, Richard Lynn surely ranks as the "grand old man" of IQ research, and in 2002 he and his co-author
Tatu Vanhanen published their seminal work
IQ
and the Wealth of Nations
. Their volume strongly argued that mental ability as measured by standardized tests
was overwhelmingly determined by hereditary, genetic factors, and for nearly two decades their research findings
have constituted a central pillar of the IQ movement that they have long inspired. But as I argued in
a
major article
several years ago, the massive quantity of evidence they presented actually demonstrates the exact
opposite conclusion:
We are now faced with a mystery arguably greater than that of IQ itself. Given the powerful ammunition that Lynn
and Vanhanen have provided to those opposing their own "Strong IQ Hypothesis," we must wonder why this has never
attracted the attention of either of the warring camps in the endless, bitter IQ dispute, despite their alleged
familiarity with the work of these two prominent scholars. In effect, I would suggest that the heralded 300-page
work by Lynn and Vanhanen constituted a game-ending own-goal against their IQ-determinist side, but that neither
of the competing ideological teams ever noticed.
For
ideologically-blinkered scholars to sometimes produce research that constitutes "a game-ending own-goal" may be much
more common than most of us would expect. Janet Mertz and her zealously feminist co-authors expended enormous time
and effort to conclusively establish that across nearly all nations of the world, regardless of culture, region,
language, the group of highest-performing math students has almost always been roughly 95% male and just 5% female,
a result that would seem to deeply undercut their hypothesis that men and women have equal mathematical ability.
Similarly, ten years of exhaustive archival research by Joseph Bendersky produced a volume that seems to utterly
demolish our conventional narrative of Jewish political activism in both Europe and America between the two world
wars. Moreover, when carefully considered I think his text constitutes a dagger aimed with deadly accuracy straight
at the heart of our conventional Holocaust narrative, his own lifelong area of study and a central pillar of the
West's current ideological framework.
Over
the last year or two, pressure from the ADL and other Jewish activist organizations has induced
Amazon
to ban all books
that challenge the Holocaust or other beliefs deeply held by organized Jewry. Most of these
purged works are quite obscure, and many are of indifferent quality. In general, their public impact has been
severely diminished by the real or perceived ideological associations of their authors.
Meanwhile, for nearly twenty years a book of absolutely devastating historical importance has sat on the Amazon
shelves, freely available for sale and bearing glowing cover-blurbs by mainstream, reputable scholars, but by its
Amazon sales-rank, selling almost no copies, a massive, unexploded shell whom nearly no one seems to have properly
recognized. I suggest that interested readers purchase their copies of Bendersky's outstanding opus before steps are
taken to permanently flush it down the memory hole.
One wonders how it serves them that they allow unz.com to continue. Giant Honey Pot? Social safety valve? In any
case, I look forward to more as Weimerica continues it's trajectory. Thank you Ron.
A very insightful article only not in the way Mr Unz intended
Ostensibly an article about the Bendersky book, which treats the longstanding issue of anti-Semitism in the US
military the article actually devotes 90 percent of its 12,000 words to an obscure crackpot a creature of the long
past days of open race hate one Revilo P Oliver
Now I understand the 'intellectual' nourishment that the troglodytes writing and commenting on this site have been
nourished on I'm sure there are many more Olivers and his ilk in the dark past of the United States which is
actually still ongoing but only among the truly developmentally challenged that flock to this site fortunately for
all good and decent people a mere numerical irrelevance of harmless outliers
As for Mr Unz's conclusion that the Bendersky book is somehow devoid of its center the Holocaust well it's because
'none' of the anti Semites in the US military mentioned in the book, actually talk about the Holocaust gee go
figure anti-Semites not talking about gas chambers ?
Mr Unz's conclusion about the 'fatal flaw' of Bendersky rests on that one single sentence none of these Jew haters
mentioned the slaughter of Jews ergo it didn't happen LOL
And of course one might ask Mr Unz if these people mentioned in the Bendersky book are representative of the entire
cadre of military men familiar with the genocide or if not, what percentage this important question remains a
mystery so the reader has zero clue as to whether these downplayers of the Holocaust constitute near unanimity or a
tiny minority ?
Nice article. But I comment your article of the IQ. There you state about twin studies:
"These individual results, usually based on relatively small statistical samples of adopted twins or siblings,
seemingly demonstrate the extreme rigidity of IQ -- the "Strong IQ Hypothesis" -- while we have also seen the numerous
examples above of large populations whose IQs have drastically shifted over relatively short periods of time. How
can these contradictory findings be squared? I do not have the solution, but it would seem a very worthwhile subject
for further research, on both theoretical and practical grounds."
Btw, i was even more I nterested by the example than buy the main point, the olympiad in math is the best example of
IQ power but it seems to be hard to grasp (selecting with math predicts math scores. So what ?).
Field medal is harder to get than Nobel prize in physics or Bank of Sweden prize in economy : you have 10 000 PhD
every year and a bit less than 1 fields medal (4, sometimes 3 or 2 every 4 year)
The test is very low on math knowledge (high school level) but very high on complexity. It's not noble math. It's
only about being astute and quick. That's why many good mathematician despize it like they despize scholastic MCQ.
But it's prediction of research stellar power is incredible.
Consider this : Field Medals are given in a 1:2:3:6 model so that there is 40/50 gold medalists for around 500/600
participants (1 in 12). 5 to 6 participants are selected by each country.
There are 6 problems scored 7 points each. Bronze score starts at 16/42 wich is the median score. Silver is 19.
Golden is 24. USA math University tenured professor average 15.
"One wonders how it serves them that they allow unz.com to continue."
"in hopes that a growing schism between Zionist and non-Zionist Jews might weaken their powerful adversary, or if
the former gained the upper hand, perhaps help ensure the removal of all Jews to the Middle East."
The reason for fomenting anti-Semitism (e.g. with the Protocols) in the end of the 19th century up to 1948 was to
get people to Israel. A bit later the reason for fomenting anti-Semitism in Iraq was to have Iraqi Jews to move to
Israel to get more people there.
Mrs Mertz visibly doesn't excel at math herself. "Men being on average better at math" doesn't logically imply that
"females cannot excel at mathematics".
But then, ideology and science just don't go and never will go together. If reality contradicts the theory,
ideologues adapt reality to suit the theory, while scientists adapt the theory to suit reality. Somehow, the
ideologues' approach always has either failed miserably, in the better cases, or created catastrophes, in the worse
cases.
The problem with scientific research today is that it has to be ideology and / or plutocracy compatible to attract
funds, so little room is left for true science.
So International math Olympiad competition test is the best and clearest available example I know – Genome wide
association stat maybe a thing in the future – that measurable individual ability differences is a real world fact.
When I was doing a course at MIT the teaching assistant had been at Harvard with the twins and Zuckerberg. Despite
being a very nerdy guy he said the Winklevoss twins were great people and Zuckerberg was a weasel.
Revilo P. Oliver is mostly known for his suicide (he and his wife) and his hectoring and totally unreadable prose,
with his anti-Christian book so badly executed it's been seen as an advertisement for the faith.
Oliver's error was thinking WWII is over. An error shared by many. Wm F. Buckley, Jr, started American Conservative,
Inc, as a witches coven of anti-Midwest isolationism which Buckley pretty well acknowledged in the first few issues.
Buckley was inducted into Skull & Bones (AKA brotherhood of death) in 1950, at midcentury, which is a Red Flag. As
WFB was an ostentatious Roman Catholic, it was forbidden in that era for a Catholic to join
any
secret
society much less a masonic subdivision at Yale. This ban was not lifted by the Church till the mid-1980s. Buckley
either lied about his faith or is real masters, your bet is as good as any. Either way he lied to
somebody
for
a whole generation.
The real conspiracy isn't the Birch, or Revilo Oliver, or even commies or the Jewish whatever. It's the ball-less
American Right and the misfits and tossers who guide it, use it, rise to the top of it and all the while accomplish
nothing whatsoever.
And it's a string of total failure stretching now back nearly a century. Time to call bullshit on the right and note
the commies were right from the start: It was and is phony, and not an especially edifying one at that.
"This striking disconnect between a study's purported findings and its actual results should alert us to similar
possibilities elsewhere" but not in the same article. There is much food for thought here but it would probably have
been easier to digest if it were split into two separate essays: one on the follies of feminism(s) & the other on
the Jewish-Bolshevik nudge (shove!) of America into WW2 & beyond. There's too great a "disconnect" between the two;
although, they're both enticing subjects in their own right. (ha! three different there-eir-y're's & two too's in
one sentence).
But just so as not to disconnect from the oblique opening of this regaling romp , back to the slimy Summers, who
"Moreover had previously denounced anti-Israel activism by Harvard students and faculty members as 'anti-semitic'":
i.e."Profoundly anti-Israel views are increasingly finding support in progressive intellectual communities. Serious
and thoughtful people are advocating and taking actions that are anti-semitic in their effect if not their
intent."(Lawrence Summers, 17 September 2002)
And just a couple of months ago on Twitter, Summers again:
"The US Department of State's definition of anti-Semitism explicitly identifies singling out Israel policy for
criticism in a way different from other countries and drawing comparisons between it and the Nazis as anti-Semitic.
https://www.state.gov/s/rga/resources/267538.htm#.XKYyGfZfyyE.twitter
(from @StateDept)
Lawrence H. Summers
Verified account
@LHSummers
By this standard, BDS and Israel Apartheid week @Harvard are anti-Semitic in both effect and intent.
9:36 AM – 4 Apr 2019"
The guy's a lost cause!
It all goes back to those stolen FBI files that ended up in HRCs possession in the first
week of BCs presidency.
SergeA.Storms , 2 hours ago
900+ if I recall correctly. Then Travelgate and the list over 50 years is extraordinary
for any criminal...wish we could talk to Barry Seal...
deFLorable hillbilly , 2 hours ago
I'm thinking it's a "Foundation Sponsor".
Lord Raglan , 2 hours ago
absolutely true. Great memory. Good for you! 450 FBI files of Congresspeople that were
lost for 3 years and then wound up found in HilldeKunt's White HOuse Office...........
"... With the uranium in hand, the stealing of the advanced technology needed to make a nuclear weapon is where Milchan comes into the story . Arnon Milchan was born in Israel but moved to the United States as a young man and eventually wound up as the founder-owner of a major movie production company, New Regency Films. In a November 25, 2013 interview on Israeli television Milchan admitted that he had spent his many years in Hollywood as an agent for Israeli intelligence, helping obtain embargoed technologies and materials that enabled Israel to develop a nuclear weapon. ..."
"... Milchan, who clearly still has significant business interests in this country as evidenced by Bohemian Rhapsody , explained in his interview that "I did it for my country and I'm proud of it." He also said that "other big Hollywood names were connected to [his] covert affairs." It is, to be sure, astonishing that Milchan should admit to his crimes at a time when he was still traveling regularly to the U.S. and residing in California, but his belief in his own invulnerability stems from the fact that the federal government failed to act against him during the fifty years when he was mostly resident in the United States even though it knew about his spying activity. ..."
"... Among other successes, Milchan obtained through his company Heli Trading 800 krytons, the sophisticated triggers for nuclear weapons. The devices were acquired from the California top secret defense contractor MILCO International. Milchan personally recruited MILCO's president Richard Kelly Smyth as an agent before turning him over to another Heli Trading employee Benjamin Netanyahu for handling. Smyth was eventually arrested in 1985 and cooperated in his interrogation by the FBI before being sentenced to prison, which means that the Federal government knew all about both Milchan and Netanyahu at that time but did not even seek to interview them and ultimately did nothing. ..."
"... So Milchan was an Israeli spy who got away with it and is still making money off of the country that he victimized. ..."
"... Peres claims that he personally recruited Milchan as a spy and, from the age of 21, Milchan used a family chemical business as cover to engage in arms and technology sales. He was from the beginning involved in clandestine purchases in support of Israel's nuclear program. ..."
Back in the spring I wrote about coming
across the name Arnon Milchan by chance on a movie credit while flying from Venice to
Washington. Milchan, some might recall, is a Hollywood billionaire movie producer born in
Israel, well known for such films as Pretty Woman and Bohemian Rhapsody . He is
less well known for his role in arranging for the procurement and illegal transfer of U.S.
technology that enabled the Jewish state to develop its own nuclear arsenal. Far from being
ashamed of his betrayal of the adopted country that helped make him rich and famous, in 2011 he
authorized and contributed to a ghost-written biography, which he boastfully entitled
"Confidential: The Life of Secret Agent Turned Hollywood Tycoon." Parts of the book were in the
first person with Milchan telling his story in his own words.
I had been aware of Milchan's crimes for a number of years, just as I had also speculated on
how a leading Israeli spy working actively and successfully against vital U.S. anti-nuclear
proliferation interests had managed to continue to maintain a home and business in Los Angeles
while also appearing regularly at the Oscar presentation ceremonies. I asked "Why is this
scumbag still making movies in Hollywood? Why isn't he in jail?" before concluding that the
federal government clearly regards spying for Israel as a victimless crime, rarely arresting
anyone and almost never prosecuting any of the numerous easily identifiable Israeli
intelligence agents roaming the country.
Milchan was an active Israeli spy in the U.S., working for the Mossad technology theft
division referred to as LEKEM. The Mossad frequently uses so-called sayanim in its
espionage, which means diaspora Jews that it recruits on the basis of a shared religion or
concern for the security of Israel. The threat coming from Israeli Embassy operatives inside
the United States is such that the Department of Defense once warned
that Jewish Americans in government would likely be the targets of their intelligence
approaches.
President John F. Kennedy had tried to stop the Israeli nuclear weapons program but was
assassinated before he could end it. By 1965, the Jewish state had nevertheless obtained the raw
material for a bomb consisting of U.S. government owned highly enriched weapons grade uranium
obtained from a company in Pennsylvania called NUMEC, which was founded in 1956 and owned by
Zalman Mordecai Shapiro, head of the Pittsburgh chapter of the Zionist Organization of America.
NUMEC was a supplier of enriched uranium for government projects but it was also from the start
a front for the Israeli nuclear program, with its chief funder David Lowenthal, a leading
Zionist, traveling to Israel at least once a month where he would meet with an old friend Meir
Amit, who headed Israeli intelligence.
With the uranium in hand, the stealing of the advanced technology needed to make a
nuclear weapon is where Milchan comes into the
story . Arnon Milchan was born in Israel but moved to the United States as a young man and
eventually wound up as the founder-owner of a major movie production company, New Regency
Films. In a November 25, 2013 interview on Israeli television Milchan admitted that he had
spent his many years in Hollywood as an agent for Israeli intelligence, helping obtain
embargoed technologies and materials that enabled Israel to develop a nuclear weapon.
Milchan, who clearly still has significant business interests in this country as
evidenced by Bohemian Rhapsody , explained in his interview that "I did it for my country and
I'm proud of it." He also said that "other big Hollywood names were connected to [his] covert
affairs." It is, to be sure, astonishing that Milchan should admit to his crimes at a time when
he was still traveling regularly to the U.S. and residing in California, but his belief in his
own invulnerability stems from the fact that the federal government failed to act against him
during the fifty years when he was mostly resident in the United States even though it knew
about his spying activity.
Among other successes, Milchan obtained through his company Heli Trading 800 krytons,
the sophisticated triggers for nuclear weapons. The devices were acquired from the California
top secret defense contractor MILCO International. Milchan personally recruited MILCO's
president Richard Kelly Smyth as an agent before turning him over to another Heli Trading
employee Benjamin Netanyahu for handling. Smyth was eventually arrested in 1985 and cooperated
in his interrogation by the FBI before being sentenced to prison, which means that the Federal
government knew all about both Milchan and Netanyahu at that time but did not even seek to
interview them and ultimately did nothing.
So Milchan was an Israeli spy who got away with it and is still making money off of the
country that he victimized. End of story, or is it? The Israeli liberal leaning newspaper
Haaretz has recently
featured an expose of his involvement in high level political corruption as well as in
nuclear proliferation involving South Africa when that country was under sanctions.
Haaretz observes how " the [Israel]-born [Hollywood] mogul made his real money
elsewhere: in deals for arms including planes, missiles and gear for making nuclear bombs in
which Israel, and later other countries, were parties. To make films there's no need for crony
capitalism, but to succeed in the arms business, government connections are obligatory."
Milchan has been involved in a
bit of controversy in Israel itself, where the police have recommended that he be charged
with bribery connected with the ongoing investigation of corruption by Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu. Milchan, it seems, spent one million shekels ($250,000) on luxury items that he gave
to Bibi as a reported quid pro quo to exempt his substantial U.S. derived income from
taxes when he returned to Israel to live in 2013-4.
Demonstrating that Milchan's corruption was international, the police investigation
determined that in 2014 Netanyahu approached then U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry to
intervene and arrange for a long-term American visa for Milchan, who was at the time dealing
with problems relating to his U.S. residency status. Milchan reportedly made the arrangement by
going directly to Netanyahu's home with the customary boxes of expensive cigars and cases of
champagne and waited for the prime minister to come home. When Netanyahu arrived, Milchan
demanded that Bibi immediately contact Kerry to arrange a new visa. And Netanyahu did just
that, picking up the phone and dialing. In the event, the visa was granted and Milchan
continued to make more movies, and money, in Los Angeles.
... ... ...
Peres claims that he personally recruited Milchan as a spy and, from the age of 21,
Milchan used a family chemical business as cover to engage in arms and technology sales. He was
from the beginning involved in clandestine purchases in support of Israel's nuclear
program.
Milchan also became a buyer for weapons in cases where the Israeli government did not want
to have the purchases attributed to it. In all cases, Milchan took a commission on the sales,
hence the claim that his Hollywood fortune constituted only a small part of his wealth. He
sometimes found himself buying U.S. made weapons using Israeli government money that had come
from U.S. taxpayer provided military assistance, taking his 10% along the way.
Starting in the 1970s, Israel, operating covertly through Milchan, sold South Africa
embargoed weapons systems, receiving both money and uranium in return. South Africa knew how to
return a favor, allowing Israel in September 1979 to conduct a nuclear test on an island
administered by Pretoria in the Indian Ocean.
... ... ...
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National
Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that
seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is
councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its
email is [email protected]
It wasn’t just FBI that got called off. Customs also stumbled on this in-your-face
proliferation ring. The judiciary was utterly gelded. Smyth, ‘Mossad’s’
asset, got bail of a measly $100K for frickin WMD proliferation. Who can exfiltrate a
clandestine dealer in CCL items after the foreign end user refuses cooperation? So after
Smyth skips his derisory $100K bail for 15 years of fun & sun in Spain, he finally gets
parole and NO jail time cause the poor old guy was ever so ollld and frail! Who set all that
up? Peres. And with whom does Perez arrange compacts that suspend the functions of multiple
federal organizations and the courts?
Mossad is CIA’s wholesale source for cutouts because there’s nothing,
absolutely nothing they won’t do to goy cattle. If you want to get beyond mealy-mouthed
euphemisms like “Israel-first thinking within America’s establishment,”
what you need is a Schlesinger to re-inventory the family jewels and find out who in CIA ran
Milchan – because Milchan only did what CIA was scared to do itself. In this case, a
country with no NPT commitments and a clandestine development program is a dandy way to
develop and test the kind of munitions that got used at Baghdad Airport and the WTC. CIA has
a long history of using Israeli assets for its dirtiest work: domestic surveillance,
pedophile blackmail, illegal NBC weapons development and use, systematic and widespread
universal-jurisdiction murder and disappearance.
Bill Barr’s dad hired Epstein to teach nubile ephebes at Dalton with no degree but
oh yeah, Mossad ran him, right. Who at OFAC was the cognizant authority for the accounts at
BOA Huntington Beach and Union Bank? That’s your CIA focal point.
@That
Darn Jew CAV badge the weapon that has corrupted nearly every nation state in the western
world? Politicians make promises, and then within hours for unexplained reasons, reverse
them..Hmmm? Is the CAV Badge the weapon that has corrupted the intelligence services and
stable of politicians in nearly every nation in the world? Did Colin Powell flash a CAV badge
as he spoke to UN focus about the most likely presence of non existent WMDs that led to w__
in Iraq?
How can CAV badge victims be identified and isolated from politics?
Its more than spying its black male maybe?
The CAV badge could explain so many USA positive, American negative events?
Know what? Lot of people are asking how Jeff Epstein got all of his lucre. His Bear
Stearns past doesnt seem to completely “addy up”.
Wonder if he may have been supported financially by a foreign intel service to gather dirt
on billionaire clients, Corporate officers, and politicians for leverage purposes later by
said intel service?
Anyone think that could have been a role for this guy? Like I said……..he had
more properties than he should have been able to afford. The seven story 71st street mansion,
the 72 acre Island and mansions, the Palm beach mansions, the yachts, 727 airliner,
helicopters , other properties and holdings. Where did all his pesos come from?
By prokoking the the Soviets through his reviving Eisenhower’s proposal to give West
Germany nuclear weapons, JFK ‘s reckless desire to nuke up any anti Soviet country took
the world to the brink of nuclear war.
Behind all the “shocked, shocked I tell you!” diplomatic maneuvering, Cold war
America wanted to stop Israel from getting a nuclear weapons as much as it wanted to stop
South Africa from getting them: not at all.
Eisenhower gave Israel a nuclear reactor for goodness sake.
@That
Darn Jew that you had been tried for the Inner Ring and rejected. And then, if you are
drawn in, next week it will be something a little further from the rules, and next year
something further still, but all in the jolliest, friendliest spirit. It may end in a crash,
a scandal, and penal servitude; it may end in millions, a peerage and giving the prizes at
your old school. But you will be a scoundrel .
The more important points: the sine qua non : you must have wanted to be in
the inner ring, and you must have been identified as corruptible by the people who
decide who to suborn.
@niteranger
ordinating information collected abroad for the president. After the United States became
involved in World War II, the COI became the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) in June 1942,
with Donovan still in charge.”
OSS was disbanded at war’s end, but, consistent with Donovan’s urgings, in 1946
Harry Truman created its successor organization, the CIA. Allen W. Dulles was the first
civilian and longest serving head of CIA. Thus, men who had the greatest influence on the creation and evolution of the American Central
Intelligence Agency were, first, deeply influenced by Jewish interests and ideologues.
I think as long as Neoconservatism is the official The USA foreign policy, the policy toward
Israel and its current status will not change. In a way Israel is a one large (and very costly)
military base of the USA in the Middle East and its important has grown due to the peak oil
immensely.
At the same time it is important to understand that Israel completely depends on the
USA for its security and as such is a vassal state. Not the other way around.
Notable quotes:
"... see the book Blood In The Water by Joan Mellen about the joint Israeli ... attack on the USS Liberty. ..."
"... the most heinous acts simply because they are connected in a web of corruption and venality. Maybe this is the moment of Peak Swamp? ..."
"... Have long time interest on how Israeli intelligence service became linked with the CIA. Of course, an easy determination was how CIA Jesus James Angleton became a central facilitator of the anti-American intelligence marriage with Israel.* ..."
"... For your consideration, I link below a video that features Andrew & Leslie Cockburn discussing their book, "Dangerous Liasons," which delved into Mossad & CIA love. ..."
"... Angleton is noted to have searched for Mary Pinchot Myers private diary after she was murdered on scene of a Georgetown canal's walking path. Killer never found. ..."
"... Fyi, Mary was JFK's lover & she suspected CIA involvement with his murder. Her ex-husband was Cord Myer Jr ..."
"... Partisan causes inevitably come under critical examination. And of course, for Israel, to be examined critically by America at large would be the end. So I'm optimistic. How much longer was the Soviet Union figured to last in 1985? ..."
Here is proof that Giraldi is correct regarding treasonous crimes having no consequences.
A commentator from Mondoweiss called in to ask a question on C-Span regarding Israel's nukes.
( Israeli government minister takes credit for 27 U.S. states passing anti-BDS laws –
https://mondoweiss.net/2019/07/israeli-government-minister/
)
Go to the 9:10 mark of the video.
It cannot be more obvious that the media and U.S. politicians are agents for Israel.
What you claim about JFK and Dimona may very well be true it seems like it probably is
true from what I have read about Yuval Neeman ..However, it wouldn't follow that JFK was
assassinated by the Israelies or anyone but Oswald. If the Conspiracy Theorists get the
physics of the JFK assassination wrong .there goes the GRAND CONSPIRACY .
Larger point: JFK CAME WITHIN 60 SECONDS OF NUKING US ALL ..We were saved from a
thermonuclear death by a lone Russian Commie Submarine Commander ..I really do find the JFK
worship disgusting
War-JFK's attempt to shut down the Israeli nuclear program is well documented, but I have
never claimed that they killed the president. It is just one possibility as the investigation
into the killing was bungled deliberately as to lay it all on a dead Oswald.
Have long time interest on how Israeli intelligence service became linked with the CIA. Of course, an easy
determination was how CIA Jesus James Angleton became a central facilitator of the anti-American intelligence marriage with
Israel.*
For your consideration, I link below a video that features Andrew & Leslie Cockburn
discussing their book, "Dangerous Liasons," which delved into Mossad & CIA love. Thank you, my Brothers!
* Angleton is noted to have searched for Mary Pinchot Myers private diary after she was
murdered on scene of a Georgetown canal's walking path. Killer never found.
Fyi, Mary was
JFK's lover & she suspected CIA involvement with his murder. Her ex-husband was Cord Myer
Jr
As soon as Kennedy was assassinated in 1963, the NUMEC operations were approved by the
Johnson Administration. In late 1970s, Congress [Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce] held hearings on the unaccounted uranium supposedly lost during the enrichment
process. A U.S. Government report had been issued concerning the loss. Nevertheless, there
were no further investigations concerning the missing uranium in the NUMEC plant operated by
Zionist Shapiro. President Kennedy was vehemently against Israel developing nuclear weapons
and expressed his dissatisfaction with Israel's efforts to develop a nuclear bomb to Golda
Meier. Moreover, The United States supported the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty which
Israel has refused to sign as of today! Congress did nothing to discourage Israel. Indeed,
Congress rewarded Israel by increasing the amount of U.S. tax dollars given to aid
Israel!
It is disheartening that the US government has become a totally owned subsidiary of
Israel. The US government places Israeli interests far above the interests of its own
citizens. The benefits do not flow in both directions, though.
'How have you ass clowns changed anything about Israel???'
Progress is being made. If you go back forty years, Israel's legitimacy was all but
universally taken for granted; it wasn't even controversial.
Then up until Trump's election, support for Israel in American politics was a non-partisan
good; it was like being anti-Communist in 1955. Everyone loved Israel; see the seventeen
standing ovations.
Now, not one of the Democratic candidates agreed to address this year's AIPAC convention.
Kamala Harris has made sure she's the best choice for the Zionists, but even she didn't
appear. Israel has become a partisan cause -- it belongs to Trump and the Evangelical Right
now.
And that's good. Partisan causes inevitably come under critical examination. And of course, for Israel, to be examined critically by America at large would be the
end. So I'm optimistic. How much longer was the Soviet Union figured to last in 1985?
"... Great post. Inequality has been visibly widening in the US (and the UK) for years, principally as a result of globalisation. ..."
"... some people see that you put in the same republican representatives that are just the opposite side of the same coin. Actually the repubs are worse . No to unions, higher min wage, tax cuts to the very wealthy etc. Dems talk about these issue but can never get it together to actually implement them. ..."
"... I think Naomi has given the answer by mistake. The liberal elite is totally disconnected from the rest of the country. It wasn't just trump it was a red wave of republican victory ..."
This is an excellent response. However already you can hear the liberal elite dismiss the
Trump voters as idiots - it's always funny when you hear people complain that Trump
threatening to put his opponent in jail, or Brexiters threatening the partiality of the
judiciary are threats to the democratic system... these same people then start making the
argument the electorate is too stupid to make a decision. The liberal elite need to
acknowledge the tangible suffering and injustice being faced by working-class people across
Europe and the United States, and act to address it.
There was a telling point early on in the election coverage when the democrat
representative on the BBC panel was arrogantly smiling once the exit polls showed Clinton on
for a comfortable victory. Andrew Neil put him straight back in his place when he asked 'is
it not concerning for the Democrat Party that they are no longer the party of the blue-collar
American?' The representative highlighted the arrogance and complacency of the liberal elite,
that seconds after the election result looked to be in, he seemed to go back to not caring
about working-class people and re-enter the elite bubble.
Great post. Inequality has been visibly widening in the US (and the UK) for years,
principally as a result of globalisation. A large proportion of the people are "mad as hell"
and have decided to try to do something about it. Trump is unlikely to be the answer, but
there will be more support for anti-politicians (such as Grillo & the 5 Star movement in
Italy) while the conventional politicians continue to bleat nonsense.
some people see that you put in the same republican representatives that are just the
opposite side of the same coin. Actually the repubs are worse . No to unions, higher min
wage, tax cuts to the very wealthy etc. Dems talk about these issue but can never get it
together to actually implement them.
I think Naomi has given the answer by mistake. The liberal elite is totally disconnected
from the rest of the country. It wasn't just trump it was a red wave of republican victory --
her article demonstrates how little she understands.
The liberal elite includes the media, who can't wait to run stories of "thousands" of
people protesting about Trump in the US. Yes, thousands, in a country with a population of
318 million.
"... The key point, is that this happened in the 1980's – 90's. Vast profit possibilities were opening up through digitalization, corporate outsourcing, globalization and the internet. The globalists urgently wanted that money, and had to have political compliance. They found it in Neoliberalism and hijacked both the Conservative Party and the Labour Party, creating "New Labour" (leader Tony Blair) through classless "modernization" following Margaret Thatcher's lead. ..."
"... Great blast by Jonathan Cook – I feel as if he has read my thoughts about the political system keeping the proles in an Orwellian state of serfdom for plunder and abuse under the guise of “democracy” and “freedom”. ..."
"... But the ideas of the Chicago School in cohorts with the Frankfurters and Tavistockers were already undermining our hopeful vision of the world while the think tanks at the foundations, councils and institutes were flooding the academies with the doctrines of hardhead uncompromising Capitalism to suck the blood off the proles into anaemic immiseration and apathetic insouciance. ..."
"... With the working class defeated and gone, where is the spirit of resistance to spring from? Not from the selfishness of the new generation of smartphone addicts whose world has shrunk to the atomic MEism and who refuse to open their eyes to what is staring in their face: debt slavery, for life. Maybe the French can do it again. Allez Gilets Jaunes! ..."
This is a very good article on UK politics, but I would have put more emphasis on the
background. Where we are today has everything to do with how we got here.
The UK has this basic left/right split (Labour/Conservative) reaching far back into its
class based history. Sad to say, but within 5 seconds a British person can determine the
class of the person they are dealing with (working/ middle/ upper) and act accordingly
– referencing their own social background.
Margaret Thatcher was a lower middle class grocer's daughter who gained a rare place at
Oxford University (on her own high intellectual merits), and took on the industrial wreckers
of the radical left (Arthur Scargill etc.). She consolidated her power with the failure of
the 1984-85 Miner's Strike. She introduced a new kind of Conservatism that was more classless
and open to the talents, adopting free market Neoliberalism along with Ronald Reagan. A large
section of the aspirational working class went for this (many already had middle class
salaries) and wanted that at least their children could join the middle class through the
university system.
The key point, is that this happened in the 1980's – 90's. Vast profit possibilities
were opening up through digitalization, corporate outsourcing, globalization and the
internet. The globalists urgently wanted that money, and had to have political compliance.
They found it in Neoliberalism and hijacked both the Conservative Party and the Labour Party,
creating "New Labour" (leader Tony Blair) through classless "modernization" following
Margaret Thatcher's lead.
The story now, is that the UK public realize that the Globalist/Zionist/SJW/Open
Frontiers/ Neoliberal crowd are not their friends . So they (the public) are backtracking
fast to find solid ground. In practice this means 1) Leave the Neoliberal/Globalist EU (which
has also been hijacked) using Brexit 2) Recover the traditional Socialist Labour Party of
working people through Jeremy Corbyn 3) Recover the traditional Conservative Party ( Britain
First) through Nigel Farage and his Brexit movement.
Hence the current and growing gulf that is separating the British public from its
Zio-Globalist elite + their media propagandists (BBC, Guardian etc.).
She introduced a new kind of Conservatism that was more classless …
Or just plain anti-working class.
It was actually Thatcher who started the neo-liberal revolution in Britain. To the extent
that she refused to finish it, the elites had Tony Blair in the wings waiting to go.
Great blast by Jonathan Cook – I feel as if he has read my thoughts about the
political system keeping the proles in an Orwellian state of serfdom for plunder and abuse
under the guise of “democracy” and “freedom”. Under this system if
anyone steps out of line is indeed sidelined for the “anti-semitic” treatment,
demonized, vilified and, virtually hanged and quartered on the public square of the
mendacious media.
In the good old days, when there was a militant working class and revolting (!) unionism,
we would get together at meetings, organize protests and strikes and confront bosses and
officialdom. There was camaraderie, solidarity, loyalty and confident defiance that we were
fighting for a better world for ourselves and our children – and also for people less
fortunate than us in other countries.
But the ideas of the Chicago School in cohorts with the Frankfurters and Tavistockers were
already undermining our hopeful vision of the world while the think tanks at the foundations,
councils and institutes were flooding the academies with the doctrines of hardhead
uncompromising Capitalism to suck the blood off the proles into anaemic immiseration and
apathetic insouciance.
... ... ... .
With the working class defeated and gone, where is the spirit of resistance to spring
from? Not from the selfishness of the new generation of smartphone addicts whose world has
shrunk to the atomic MEism and who refuse to open their eyes to what is staring in their
face: debt slavery, for life. Maybe the French can do it again. Allez Gilets Jaunes!
@Miro23
ic get pissed off and vote in the conservatives who then privatise everything. And this game
continues on and on. The British public are literally headless chickens running around not
knowing what on earth is going on. They’re not interested in getting to the bottom of
why society is the way it is. They’re all too comfortable with their mortgages, cars,
holidays twice a year, mobile phones, TV shows and football.
When all of this disappears,
then certainly, they will start asking questions, but when that time comes they will be
utterly powerless to do anything, as a minority in their own land. Greater Israel will be
built when that time comes.
No one at the time had much idea about Neoliberalism and none at all about Globalization.
This was all in the future.
And it was the British working class who were really cutting their own throats, by
wrecking British industry (their future employment), with constant political radicalism and
strikes.
"... Brand's fast-talking, plain-speaking criticism of the existing political order, calling it discredited, unaccountable and unrepresentative, was greeted with smirking condescension by the political and media establishment. Nonetheless, in an era before Donald Trump had become president of the United States, the British media were happy to indulge Brand for a while, seemingly believing he or his ideas might prove a ratings winner with younger audiences. ..."
"... Then he overstepped the mark. ..."
"... Instead of simply criticising the political system, Brand argued that it was in fact so rigged by the powerful, by corporate interests, that western democracy had become a charade. Elections were pointless . Our votes were simply a fig-leaf, concealing the fact that our political leaders were there to represent not us but the interests of globe-spanning corporations. Political and media elites had been captured by unshored corporate money. Our voices had become irrelevant. ..."
"... But just as Brand's rejection of the old politics began to articulate a wider mood, it was stopped in its tracks. ..."
"... These "New Labour" MPs were there, just as Brand had noted, to represent the interests of a corporate class, not ordinary people. ..."
"... It wasn't that Corbyn's election had shown Britain's political system was representative and accountable. It was simply evidence that corporate power had made itself vulnerable to a potential accident by preferring to work out of sight, in the shadows, to maintain the illusion of democracy. Corbyn was that accident. ..."
"... The system was still in place and it still had a chokehold on the political and media establishments that exist to uphold its interests. Which is why it has been mobilising these forces endlessly to damage Corbyn and avert the risk of a further, even more disastrous "accident", such as his becoming prime minister. ..."
"... Listing the ways the state-corporate media have sought to undermine Corbyn would sound preposterous to anyone not deeply immersed in these media-constructed narratives. But almost all of us have been exposed to this kind of " brainwashing under freedom " since birth. ..."
"... The initial attacks on Corbyn were for being poorly dressed, sexist, unstatesmanlike, a national security threat, a Communist spy – relentless, unsubstantiated smears the like of which no other party leader had ever faced. But over time the allegations became even more outrageously propagandistic as the campaign to undermine him not only failed but backfired – not least, because Labour membership rocketed under Corbyn to make the party the largest in Europe. ..."
"... As the establishment's need to keep him away from power has grown more urgent and desperate so has the nature of the attacks. ..."
In the preceding two years, it was hard to avoid on TV the figure of Russell Brand, a
comedian and minor film star who had reinvented himself, after years of battling addiction, as
a spiritual guru-cum-political revolutionary.
Brand's fast-talking, plain-speaking criticism of the existing political order, calling it
discredited, unaccountable and unrepresentative, was greeted with smirking condescension by the
political and media establishment. Nonetheless, in an era before Donald Trump had become
president of the United States, the British media were happy to indulge Brand for a while,
seemingly believing he or his ideas might prove a ratings winner with younger audiences.
But Brand started to look rather more impressive than anyone could have imagined. He took on
supposed media heavyweights like the BBC's Jeremy
Paxman and Channel 4's Jon
Snow and charmed and shamed them into submission – both with his compassion and his
thoughtful radicalism. Even in the gladiatorial-style battle of wits so beloved of modern TV,
he made these titans of the political interview look mediocre, shallow and out of touch. Videos
of these head-to-heads went viral, and Brand won hundreds of thousands of new followers.
Then he overstepped the mark.
Democracy as charade
Instead of simply criticising the political system, Brand argued that it was in fact so
rigged by the powerful, by corporate interests, that western democracy had become a charade.
Elections were pointless
. Our votes were simply a fig-leaf, concealing the fact that our political leaders were there
to represent not us but the interests of globe-spanning corporations. Political and media
elites had been captured by unshored corporate money. Our voices had become irrelevant.
Brand didn't just talk the talk. He started committing to direct action. He shamed our do-nothing
politicians and corporate media – the devastating Grenfell Tower fire had yet to happen
– by helping to gain attention for a group of poor tenants in London who were taking on
the might of a corporation that had become their landlord and wanted to evict them to develop
their homes for a much richer clientele. Brand's revolutionary words had turned into
revolutionary action.
But just as Brand's rejection of the old politics began to articulate a wider mood, it was
stopped in its tracks. After Corbyn was unexpectedly elected Labour leader, offering for the
first time in living memory a politics that listened to people before money, Brand's style of
rejectionism looked a little too cynical, or at least premature.
While Corbyn's victory marked a sea-change, it is worth recalling, however, that it occurred
only because of a mistake. Or perhaps two.
The Corbyn accident
First, a handful of Labour MPs agreed to nominate Corbyn for the leadership contest,
scraping him past the threshold needed to get on the ballot paper. Most backed him only because
they wanted to give the impression of an election that was fair and open. After his victory,
some loudly regretted having assisted him. None had
thought a representative of the tiny and besieged left wing of the parliamentary party stood a
chance of winning – not after Tony Blair and his acolytes had spent more than two decades
remaking Labour, using their own version of entryism to eradicate any vestiges of socialism in
the party. These "New Labour" MPs were there, just as Brand had noted, to represent the
interests of a corporate class, not ordinary people.
Corbyn had very different ideas from most of his colleagues. Over the years he had broken
with the consensus of the dominant Blairite faction time and again in parliamentary votes,
consistently taking a minority view that later proved to be on the
right side of history . He alone among the leadership contenders spoke unequivocally
against austerity, regarding it as a way to leech away more public money to enrich the
corporations and banks that had already pocketed vast sums from the public coffers – so
much so that by 2008 they had nearly bankrupted the entire western economic system.
And second, Corbyn won because of a recent change in the party's rulebook – one now
much regretted by party managers. A new internal balloting system gave more weight to the votes
of ordinary members than the parliamentary party. The members, unlike the party machine, wanted
Corbyn.
Corbyn's success didn't really prove Brand wrong. Even the best designed systems have flaws,
especially when the maintenance of the system's image as benevolent is considered vitally
important. It wasn't that Corbyn's election had shown Britain's political system was
representative and accountable. It was simply evidence that corporate power had made itself
vulnerable to a potential accident by preferring to work out of sight, in the shadows, to
maintain the illusion of democracy. Corbyn was that accident.
'Brainwashing under freedom'
Corbyn's success also wasn't evidence that the power structure he challenged had weakened.
The system was still in place and it still had a chokehold on the political and media
establishments that exist to uphold its interests. Which is why it has been mobilising these
forces endlessly to damage Corbyn and avert the risk of a further, even more disastrous
"accident", such as his becoming prime minister.
Listing the ways the state-corporate media have sought to undermine Corbyn would sound
preposterous to anyone not deeply immersed in these media-constructed narratives. But almost
all of us have been exposed to this kind of " brainwashing under freedom
" since birth.
The initial attacks on Corbyn were for being poorly dressed, sexist, unstatesmanlike, a
national security threat, a Communist spy – relentless, unsubstantiated smears the like
of which no other party leader had ever faced. But over time the allegations became even more
outrageously propagandistic as the campaign to undermine him not only failed but backfired
– not least, because Labour membership rocketed under Corbyn to make the party the
largest in Europe.
As the establishment's need to keep him away from power has grown more urgent and desperate
so has the nature of the attacks.
There were no Jews anywhere around most native Britons. And yet the Empire was banked most
importantly by Jews back to at least the post-Glorious Revolution closing the 17th century,
and that pattern of Jewish bankers being indispensable to the UK and the Brit WASP Empire
goes back to Oliver Cromwell.
You guys don't need a peace candidate you need a War Consigliere like the Godfather had! You
people are being attacked from all angles and you are evaluating which Dem or Rep is going to
fix the problems you face. Remember Bush Senior, (Iraq, Granada, Panama and CIA drug
trafficking), Clinton, (Oklahoma City, Waco, Yugoslavia, Mena, AR Drug Money Laundering), Bush
Junior, (9-11, Iraq, Afghanistan), Obama (Syria, Libya and Fast & Furious), Trump (Yet to
be seen).
What does that tell you people? They are all the same! ...
They tell you what they are going to do, (conspiracy theories, movies and fake news). They
bet on you do nothing and dependent on the fake elections.
Tulsi was the only participant who said something sensible. Which means that she won't be
a presidential candidate from any of the two main parties. Deep State won't let it
happen.
Was LBJ the same as JFK? Was Nixon the same as Carter? Was Bush II the same as Reagan? Was
Bush I the same as Gerald Ford?
No.
Why did Obama go through all the trouble of the JCPOA with Iran only to have orange clown
trash it?
Why didn't Obama deliver Javelin anti-tank missiles to Ukraine? Why didn't the Jerusalem Boys
Choir sing praises to Obama?
I'll tell you why: Because they're NOT all the same. And as we get closer and closer to
planetary extinction, those differences become very significant.
"... But to me, she looks like – among other things – a clever manipulator in her, relatively short radius. Yet, although the US is no.1. as world power, she is no match for any real world politician, anywhere. Not just now; anytime in the future. ..."
"... Her "visibility" is a confluence of a few fleeting influences. Basically, fate has favored her for the time being (I'm not talking about morals etc.). But, to think that she's capable of much more is to entertain the idea that Trump is, all the time, playing 6-dimensional chess. ..."
"... Ivanka took her conversion to Judaism to an almost insane level. This comes from the Rabbi's involved in her conversion. She is an even more hard core Zionist than "daddy dearest", if that is even humanly possible ..."
"... Two days ago I commented on Breitbart that good or bad G20, Trump looked foolish toting Ivanka along. Response: Oh yeah, he should have brought AOC, that would have been much better, you idiot. Me: So Trump's only choice was Ivanka or AOC? None of the hundreds of attorneys or diplomats who have devoted careers to international trade negotiations? ..."
Because however loud the calls for Ivanka's ouster have gotten . Ivanka just digs those stilettoes in. She won't be budged.
She refuses to take a hint.
Amazing how deaf fathers can be when it comes to their daughters. Surprising he didn't dispose of Jared by making him Secy of
Education or some shizzle like that.
Ilana seems to think, referencing Wolff (and arguing with his position), that IKT is a sort of Machiavellian (although inexperienced)
woman greedy for power who, well, should not be underestimated.
Of course no one should be underestimated.
But to me, she looks like – among other things – a clever manipulator in her, relatively short radius. Yet, although the
US is no.1. as world power, she is no match for any real world politician, anywhere. Not just now; anytime in the future.
She seems to be one of those people who are lucky for a period of time, but soon disappear from the scene. Her "visibility"
is a confluence of a few fleeting influences. Basically, fate has favored her for the time being (I'm not talking about morals
etc.). But, to think that she's capable of much more is to entertain the idea that Trump is, all the time, playing 6-dimensional
chess.
Trump's(Ivanka)Hebrew name is "Yael." In the Book of Judges, a woman named Yael came upon the enemy king Sisera, who had
fled from battle with the Isralites. She fed and sheltered him until he fell asleep. Then she killed him by using a mallet to
drive a tent peg into his skull.
Ivanka took her conversion to Judaism to an almost insane level. This comes from the Rabbi's involved in her conversion.
She is an even more hard core Zionist than "daddy dearest", if that is even humanly possible. Ivanka believes she is now a
chosenite of the highest order and is therefore destined to rule over all us insignificant little Goys. Yael's greatest
concern is rising antisemitism here in the US of Israel.
Many of our MAGApedes still think Ivanka's great because Trump is God Emperor.
Two days ago I commented on Breitbart that good or bad G20, Trump looked foolish toting Ivanka along. Response: Oh yeah, he should have brought AOC, that would have been much better, you idiot. Me: So Trump's only choice was Ivanka or AOC? None of the hundreds of attorneys or diplomats who have devoted careers to
international trade negotiations?
Response: I would take Ivanka over any single "professional" negotiator of the past 30 years – hands down.
I think the sage commenters at Unz underestimate just how entrenched God Emperor's fanatic support remains. And apparently
this support extends to Jarvanka.
Let us not forget the words of General George Cornwallis in 1781.
"Your churches will be used to teach the Jew's religion and in less than two hundred years, the whole nation will be working
for divine world government. That government that they believe to be divine will be the British Empire. All religions will be
permeated with Judaism without even being noticed by the masses, and they will all be under the invisible all-seeing eye of
the Grand Architect of Freemasonry."
In the words of a speaker at a secret B'nai Brith meeting in Paris in 1936:
"Yet it remains our secret that those Gentiles who betray their own and most precious interests, by joining us in our
plot should never know that these associations are of our creation and that they serve our purpose
"One of the many triumphs of our Freemasonry is that those Gentiles who become members of our Lodges, should never suspect
that we are using them to build their own jails, upon whose terraces we shall erect the throne of our Universal King of
Israel; and should never know that we are commanding them to forge the chains of their own servility to our future King
of the World."
Cornwallis, apparently not wanting to face Washington, claimed to be ill on the day of the surrender, and sent Brigadier
General Charles O'Hara in his place to surrender his sword formally.
Washington had his second-in-command, Benjamin Lincoln,
accept Cornwallis' sword
Lets be a realistic a little bit here. In politics the overwhelming power is in power of presentation. The content with all the other details is of little consequence...
Dying Augustus did say: curtain is closing, I hope I did act well.
Even Margaret Thatcher, a master of the manly art of the parliamentary joust, would have
been left speechless at this American girl's audacious idiocy. Having no empathy
for woman-centric whining, The Iron Lady would have hand-bagged Ivanka with that famous little
bag of hers.
Ivanka at her serious best is Barbie doll hair, an overbite, Botox and
mind-numbing banalities. The two brilliant women she's preening before are not in the habit of
disgorging American-style jargon like "male-dominated," "intersectionality," "transsexuality."
Neither do May and Lagarde rabbit on about "women in politics," "women in business," women in
sport," "women in this or that."
It is also rigged to silence real journalists like Julian Assange who are trying to
overturn the access journalism prized by the corporate media – with its reliance on
official sources and insiders for stories – to divulge the secrets of the national
security states we live in.
His case is really Kafaesque. Sweden wanted his extradition to Sweden and issued an European
arrest warrant for him to be arrested and taken to Sweden. He sought asyl in the embassy of
Ecuador. People kept saying for years that he was a criminal evading justice because of that.
The British police kept the embassy under surveillance for seven years without interruptions in
order to arrest him and send him to Sweden.
Finally after seven years he was forced to leave the embassy. He should have been sent
immediately to Sweden. After all, this was the reason why the British had initially arrested
him, had limited his movements, had sought to arrest him after he went to the embassy.
Everything happened because of an allegued crime in Sweden. But when he was arrested Sweden
didn't care to demand that he be taken to Sweden. They had issued an European arrest warrant
and this means that they should have a case against him that would justify him being arrested
in England. The material against him should be ready and they should send it again to England.
But they haven't done that until now.
I'm not sure of the details but I think that the first time that they issued an arrest
warrant, this was done by the Swedish prosecuting attorney and not by a judge. Many people
complained that this was not legal, but it was said that the French version of European
agreements would allow this to happen. Now, the Swedish prosecuting attorney would like to
reopen the case against Assange, but this time apparently the case has to be assessed by a
judge and some months after Assange was arrested the Swedes haven't yet demanded that he be
taken to Sweden. Sweden sought Assange for 8 or 9 years to arrest him. This is the reason he
spent 7 years in the embassy. Now he was arrested but Sweden doesn't want him (at least until
now).
"... Her courage and convictions were hardened in the burning cauldron of an unjust war. Call it burning resentment if you prefer. It's real and it's what makes her tick. ..."
"... by Al Qaeda. For that unrecanted heresy she was vilified by Republicans and Democrats alike. ..."
"... In the Democratic Party debates, she cut that posturing hypocrite Tim Ryan off at the knees in a matter of seconds. A few home truths about U.S. soldiers dying for no good reason was all it took to dispatch him and his mealy-mouthed platitudes. ..."
"... Watch her do the same to DJT if she gets the nomination and he continues to pander to the neocons. ..."
Yes, to some critics, Tulsi Gabbard is not a perfect candidate.
Tulsi is a candidate for political office, not sainthood. Much like Trump in 2016, being
patently less cynical than her rivals makes her the obvious choice.
the only genuine antiwar candidate that might truly be electable
Operative word in the above sentence: "genuine."
Her courage and convictions were hardened in the burning cauldron of an unjust war. Call it
burning resentment if you prefer. It's real and it's what makes her tick.
She went to Syria and proclaimed that rule by Assad was better for Syrians than rule by Al
Qaeda. For that unrecanted heresy she was vilified by Republicans and Democrats alike.
In the Democratic Party debates, she cut that posturing hypocrite Tim Ryan off at the knees
in a matter of seconds. A few home truths about U.S. soldiers dying for no good reason was all
it took to dispatch him and his mealy-mouthed platitudes.
What was Ryan going to do? Tell Tulsi she didn't know what she was talking about?
Watch her do the same to DJT if she gets the nomination and he continues to pander to the
neocons.
Gabbard did well but if I had to vote tomorrow it would be for Elizabeth Warren ..she's
got the real intelligence firepower combined with some old fashioned common sense. None of
them are going to directly attack the jew lobby during the campaign .why bring on
smear jobs and fake stories when it doesnt matter what they say, only what they do when
elected.
Would never vote for Joe "I am Zionist" Biden, he's just a paler shade of Trump .or to be
even clearer Biden is the DC establishment whereas Trump is the NJ Mafia,
The moderator-filtered t "debate" showed viewers the level of selective-issue political
control. The fact that Tulsi was able to overcome this control and discuss the issue of
neoliberal wars for the
How many Americans aren't so thoroughly disgusted with our entire D.N.C. by now , they have
to pin their nose (to avoid the stink) while sitting through one more . Establishment Elite,
corporate " con job " debate ?
How many , Phil ?
Like just about EVERYBODY .
How many Americans aren't so thoroughly disgusted with NBC . and all its LIES . that even if
the broadcasters PAID them, tomorrow , they would STILL refuse to watch their network ?.
Like just about EVERYBODY .
Tulsi is not simply the ONLY candidate who MATTERS .she is the only candidate, alive, who
has a shot in rescuing our country from its descent into corporatist "warmongering" hell .
@Brabantian lectorate
has been fooled so many times before, no big harm in getting fooled again, although not very
smart (as Einstein once remarked about repeating same same while expecting a different
result).
Hopefully by a "peace" or pseudo-peace candidate to at least keep that narrative going in
the general population even if once elected the new president turns around and betrays the
pre-election promises. Now if there were some way to make those politicians pay for
dishonouring their word.
But as I may have asked in another comment, could the electorate be as cynical and
hypocritical as these politicians they cast votes for?
Bingo! For a smart dude, PG should know (and I am sure he does) that the problem is
systemic. No candidate, if s/he expects to get anywhere, is going to call out Aipac or bring
up the issue of Jewish influence and power.
On Tucker Carlson, Tulsi named Netanyahu and Saudi Arabia as the main pushers for war with
Iran. No, she isn't perfect. No American politician dare say more. But she's the best we have
and deserves our support. If she does gain a large following, as Bernie Sanders did, and is
cheated out of the nomination, as Bernie was, I hope she has the guts, as Bernie didn't, to
form a third, Peace Party, and run on it. So she splits the Democrats and they lose? So what!
What difference does it make what Democrat or Republican Zio-whore becomes President?
Trump was a roaring lion for America First, right up until his inauguration. President
Tulsi will also "see the light" about how Israel is our most important ally. Ever see the
photo of the 10 rabbis flanking Trump's desk in the Oval office? It could just as easily been
a scene out of The Sopranos, with the family forcing some schmuck to "legally" sign over his
business.
As Giraldi wrote, there is no such thing as a perfect candidate. But who can compare with
her in this moribund democrat field? Politics is the art of the possible. When Trump first
announced in 2015, no pundit outside of Ann Coulter said he had a chance. And look how he
demolished that republican field consisting of 16 brain dead neocons. If given half a chance,
Tulsi could do the same. And the fact that she is a veteran works in her favor. Just because
she was in Iraq, does not mean that she supported the US aggression. Like thousands of other
vets, she obviously did not.
@Commentator Mike ou're
right but consider the obstacles she has to overcome – her desperate need to bypass the
hostile media in order to make her point to the American masses who will care little or
nothing about a few hundreds of thousands of dead foreigners but, when it comes to American
dead, they are rather more receptive.
Same thing is true on Israel – if she is to have any chance she has to grit her
teeth and stay pretty mum on that topic. They already know where she stands after her remarks
about Netanyahu; her meeting with Assad and her wish for better relations with Russia –
they will do everything in their power to destroy her.
My Congressman, Tim Ryan, was up there. He's a likeable guy, and he plays ball, probably
because he has to after succeeding Jim Traficant, who was expelled from Congress. He's
criticized locally for not bringing back more pork, and his local cliche-ridden talks sound
as though they were scripted by the Democrat Central Committee. I'll give him credit for
avoiding misconduct that could lead to indictment, no small achievement in this
preternaturally corrupt area. I think he's reasonably honest, but just not a firebrand.
There's unsubstantiated speculation here he's been positioning himself for hire as a
lobbyist.
If she does gain a large following, as Bernie Sanders did, and is cheated out of the
nomination, as Bernie was, I hope she has the guts, as Bernie didn't, to form a third,
Peace Party, and run on it.
Yes. My question, when to start preparing for an outside run? If she's making steady
progress, she won't move until after the convention. Would threatening an independent run
help or hurt her before then?
to TKK:
I've never had a female boss so I can't comment on your question. No, Tulsi can't win the
Presidency, it'd be a miracle if she did, but I'm saying that if she does get a huge
following, gets cheated out of the nomination, and has the guts to form a Third Party, she'd
shake up the rotten rigged system and give us some hope.
"... why can't Tulsi Gabbard pretend to be "one of them" (e.g., by taking money from Raytheon, being a member of the CFR, claiming that al-Qaeda did 9/11, etc.) but then actually oppose the self-destructive wars and risky provocations? ..."
"... If orange clown can be honest about his feelings of animosity toward Iran during his campaign, why can't Tulsi Gabbard be honest about her feelings about pointless and self-destructive wars? ..."
"... If Ed Snowden and Chelsea Manning can betray the "deep state" why can't Tulsi Gabbard? ..."
"... somebody is going to be president anyway, whether we like it or not, and the wars – especially the looming WW3 – is the biggest threat ..."
If orange clown can pretend to be one of "us" and then immediately turn around and
enthusiastically stab "us" in the back, why can't Tulsi Gabbard pretend to be "one of them"
(e.g., by taking money from Raytheon, being a member of the CFR, claiming that al-Qaeda did
9/11, etc.) but then actually oppose the self-destructive wars and risky provocations?
If orange clown can be honest about his feelings of animosity toward Iran during his
campaign, why can't Tulsi Gabbard be honest about her feelings about pointless and
self-destructive wars?
If Ed Snowden and Chelsea Manning can betray the "deep state" why can't Tulsi Gabbard?
The cynicism I see in some of the comments here disparaging Gabbard is "over the top" IMO; somebody is going to be
president anyway, whether we like it or not, and the wars – especially the looming WW3 – is the biggest threat. So why not support someone who
appears to be genuinely opposed to the wars?
To mis-paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, you go to war with the candidate you don't
have.
Unless Ms. Gabbard can figure out some way to raise and cycle a billion dollars through
media ads in the MSM, they're going to largely ignore her or even demonise her, because it is
the Praetorian Media who now decide who will be the the American President.
Presidential elections are a joke. It's best to vote for 3rd candidate to express your
opposition to the Status quo: I won't be voting Trump again and fall for that sting. Will
vote Tulsi whether she's on ballot or not.
She will never make it as she is too honest about foreign policy and the USA lies.
"... He supported the attacks on Serbia, Libya and Afghanistan. He signed Rubio's letter denouncing the BDS movement. He called for regime change in Syria. ..."
Bernie Sanders a "peace candidate?" Hardly. His opposition to the Iraq invasion was just a
hiccup, and he voted several times to continue funding the Iraq occupation.
He supported the
attacks on Serbia, Libya and Afghanistan. He signed Rubio's letter denouncing the BDS movement.
He called for regime change in Syria.
I heard this on the Anti-Zionist Christian station TruNews, which may not be the most
reliable source. But their correspondent, who just returned from the G-20, is reporting that
there is some scuttlebutt afoot that Tucker Carlson may replace John Bolton as Trump's NSA.
This may have arisen as Bolton was dispatched to Mongolia while Trump was meeting Kim Jong-un
at the DPRK border, with Tucker on hand to view it all up close. Then Tucker had a cordial
interview with Trump which is appearing in installments on his show. It's no secret that Trump
has about had it with Bolton's constant war mongering.
It was further reported that Carlson has ambitions to run for the presidency in 2024. Tucker
knows that he is on a short leash at Fox, and must pull his punches somewhat if he wants to
keep his job. Only his high ratings may be saving him. I would not rule out that he may be
looking for new worlds to conquer. It's nice to see Mr. Trump apparently throwing war hawk
Hannity under the bus in favor of Tucker. If nothing else, Trump is a master at keeping
everyone guessing.
Your connection is not secure says: "Wake up people. The military works for the evil
masters. They don't really want war of course, they want peace – particularly between
your ears."
It's all about welfare- welfare specifically for the military industrial complex , that
is.
The armed forces are just a bunch of heavily entrenched welfare recipients who get uniforms,
guns, bombs etc. , and are always angling for more money so that they to get more uniforms,
guns, bombs etc., to be happily provided by the "private" inc. sycophants, otherwise
collectively known as "weapons manufacturers".
Council on Foreign Relations Tulsi Gabbard U.S. President? You have to be very gullible,
to say the least, to believe that she is going to end America's endless wars.
Yes, indeed. The Deep State will only be beaten by force.
I vote for rotting from within. Not as dramatic as force, but more effective and long
lasting. I'll enjoy the show when they start, Cronus-like, knocking one another
off though.
"Intelligence firepower"? You mean like so smart that she just knew that there was no way
a nine year old kid with an internet connection could debunk her Cherokee ancestry
claims?
With all due respect Mr. Smith things have really gone down hill after Bush Sr. I'm talking
about direct attacks on the rights of American citizens. Bush Sr. (R) with his CIA drug dealing
with the help of Noriega. He purchased weapons with the proceeds to arm terrorist guerrilla
groups in Nicaragua. Bill Clinton (D) helped Bush Sr. as governor of Arkansas by covering up
any investigation targeting the operation and laundering their money through a state owned
bank. Bush Jr. (R) secured lands in Afghanistan in order to restart athe heroine trade by
growing poppy fields to process and ship back to the US. Obama (R) made sure the Mexican drug
cartels were well armed in order to launch a drug war that supported the Merida Initiative,
which allowed armed DEA, CIA and Mercenaries into Mexican territory. Trump (R) will be the
clean up hitter that will usher in the dollar collapse.
Mr. Smith do you really believe it is a coincidence that Rep 8 yrs, Dem 8yrs, Rep 8yrs, Dem
8yrs, Rep 3 yrs are voted in? Please sir, don't fool yourself because in the next election I
will bet money the orange fool will be president for another 4 years unless the owners don't
want him there. But we can safely say that history tells us he will. All I'm saying that people
like you, waiting for someone to throw you a rope because you've fallen into deep water are
waiting on a rescue boat that doesn't care if you drown.
Your best bet for change was thrown away when Dr. Ron Paul failed to be nominated. Us dumb
asses in Mexico didn't need another election fraud this time around! The people started YouTube
channels that reported the "real" news (Chapucero – Quesadillas de Verdades –
Charro Politico – Sin Censura, etc.). Those channels made a big difference, countering
the negative reporting by Mexican and US MSM that the Presidential Candidate for MORENA as
"Leftist", "Communist", "Socialist", "Like Hugo Chavez", "Dangerous", etc.
With all of the US propaganda, Mexican propaganda, the negative MSM and Elite financing,
Mexicans knew they had to get out and vote in record numbers and they did! Otherwise a close
election was seen as another loss and the end of Mexico as a country. People were ready to
fight and die if necessary. They had seen the Energy Reforms forced down our throat by the
corrupt PRI/PAN parties (Mex version o DEM/REP), with the help of Hillary Clinton and the US
State Department. They drafting the changes needed to the Mexican Constitution to allow a vote.
Totally against the Law in Mexico and I'm sure the laws of the US.
There is a saying that goes something like, "If you're not ready to die for Freedom, take it
out of your Vocabulary"!
If Ron Unz is reading I might suggest he could do a little something to cover the passing of
probably one of the best Antiwar writers(Justin Raimondo) of this generation. Nobody has gotten
things more right, even before the wars developed – he predicted a war with Iraq even
before Sept 11, 2001, and it's aftermath into sectarian violence. His archives are second to
none in naming the names of who steered the war machine into the Middle East and across the
globe. I could gone on, but the link does a better job. RIP Justin.
Amazing how for these Americans, even this Tulsi, the lives of US soldiers are more
important than countless civilians they murder during the course of their wars. But even that
is a lie. They don't even care about their own soldiers once they're of no use to them any
more, if you consider the rate of alcoholism, drug addiction, unemployment, homelessness,
mental health issues, and suicide among the veterans.
And also, when it serves their purpose,
then suddenly the life of some innocent somewhere half way round the world getting abused by a
government they dislike becomes important, and the human rights card is played so they can go
and kill more than they save. I thought that to these leftist American politicians everyone is
equal so why don't they express concern about how many Afghans they have killed over there?
Oh
yes, but if they left them alone there wouldn't be those columns of young Afghans making their
way to the West for these liberals to practice their empathy and hospitality on. And who would
be guarding those poppy fields and ensuring maximum production for pharmaceutical companies and
the black market? And when an Afghan immigrant like Omar Mateen sets off on a murder spree on
US soil who is to blame?
Do they even question their wars, or their immigration policy, or
Islamic culture of intolerance, or anything at all? Some may then question gun laws, but even
that is another lie, because guns are as as available as ever. No they just shrug their
shoulders as its just part and parcel, and it's only good for the media to keep people in fear
and sell their sensational news.
And if you question any of this then you're most likely to be
called a racist or supremacist or whatever vile word they can conjure up with which to browbeat
you.
Wars are necessary for the maintaining and expanding the US controlled neoliberal empire. Wars is the health of military
industrial complex.
The Deep State will bury any candidate who will try to change the USA forign policy. Looks
what happened to Trump. He got Russiagate just for vey modest proposal of detente with Russia
(of course not only for that, but still...)
Notable quotes:
"... The first is "The War Fraud Accountability Act of 2020″ Retroactive to 2002, it states that any and all individuals who conspired to defraud the United States into illegal war of aggression should be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law. Moreover, any and all assets owned by these individuals shall be made forfeit . to pay down the cost of the wars they lied us into. ..."
Those are interesting proposals but wishful thinking: wars are necessary for Electing Tulsi Gabbard as our next Commander in Chief will not solve our biggest problems
alone.
Her candidacy, I believe , must be augmented by two new laws which should be demanded by the
taxpayer and enforced by her administration on "day one".
The first is "The War Fraud Accountability Act of 2020″ Retroactive to 2002, it states
that any and all individuals who conspired to defraud the United States into illegal war of
aggression should be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law. Moreover, any and all
assets owned by these individuals shall be made forfeit . to pay down the cost of the wars they
lied us into.
If they lied us into war .they pay for it NOT the US taxpayer.
The second is " The Terror Fraud Accountability Act of 2020″ also retroactive to 2001,
it states that any and all individuals found to have engaged in plotting, planning, or staging
"false terror events" will be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law. Moreover, any
and all of the assets owned by these individuals shall be made forfeit to pay down the cost of
our War on Terror.
Americans should not have to sacrifice one cent of their tax dollars to pay for their own
defrauding by "staged" or "phony" terror events.
I believe that were Tulsi to be elected, she should set up two new task forces designed
especially for these reasons, Try to think of them as the " Office of Special Plans" IN
REVERSO.!.
Moreover she should hold weekly press briefings to notify the taxpayer of her progress, and
also how much of our 23 trillion in losses , FROM THEIR LIES, she has been able to recoup.
Getting these two initiatives up and running is the most potent force the taxpayers have in
cleaning out the fraud and larceny in DC, .ending our illegal wars overseas .. and
(finally)holding our "establishment elite " accountable for "LYING US INTO THEM"
It is way overdue for the American Taxpayer to take back control of our government from
those who ALMOST BANKRUPTED OUR ENTIRE NATION BY LYING US INTO ILLEGAL WARS.
It is not enough any more just to complain or "kvetch" about our problems .put on your
thinking caps .and start coming up with solutions and initiatives .start fighting for your
freedom, your finances and your future.
Elect the leaders YOU WANT and tell them exactly what you want them to do!
Tulsi has promised us all "SERVICE OVER SELF"
There you go !
I say that means not only ENDING our ILLEGAL, CRIMINAL WARS .but GETTING AS MUCH OF OUR
MONEY BACK from those who lied us into them !
ACCOUNTABILITY FOR WAR FRAUD it is $23,000,000,000,000.00. in "heinous debt" .overdue!
"... Given these facts you would think it would be easy for Robert Mueller to explain how the Russians got their hands on the DNC emails and then passed them on to Wikileaks. But it is not easy because the foundation of the case against the Russians rests on assumptions and beliefs. No solid facts. ..."
"... To reiterate a point I have raised in previous posts, the only entity to have forensic access to the DNC computers, i.e. CrowdStrike, is on the record in the person of the CrowdStrike CEO, Dimitri Alperovitch admitting they don't know how the Russians got access. ..."
"... CrowdStrike is not sure how the hackers got in. The firm suspects they may have targeted DNC employees with "spearphishing" emails. These are communications that appear legitimate -- often made to look like they came from a colleague or someone trusted -- but that contain links or attachments that when clicked on deploy malicious software that enables a hacker to gain access to a computer. " But we don't have hard evidence ," Alperovitch said. ..."
"... If CrowdStrike actually had conducted a legitimate forensic examination of the DNC server/servers then they absolutely would have had "hard evidence." ..."
"... The government produced the CrowdStrike reports because the Indictment in this case referenced, as background, CrowdStrike's statements about the DNC hack. Stone's statement that the government has no other evidence is not only irrelevant to this proceeding but is also mistaken. ..."
"... It is a horrible irony that Stone is being persecuted with prosecution based on an even bigger lie -- i.e., the Russians hacked the DNC. Russia did not hack the DNC. Let's hope that Stone's lawyers get a chance to demand the US Government put up the evidence or shut up. ..."
There is zero forensic evidence in the public arena that supports the US Government's
assertion that the Russian Government hacked the DNC. In fact, the forensic computer evidence
that is available indicates that the emails from the DNC were downloaded onto something like a
thumb drive.
There also is zero forensic evidence in the public arena that the Russians passed/delivered
the DNC emails to Julian Assange/Wikileaks. There are only two ways to get DNC emails into the
hands of Wiki people--an electronic transfer or a physical/human transfer. That's it.
And here is what we know for certain. First, since Edward Snowden absconded with the NSA's
family jewels with the help of Wikileaks, U.S. and British intelligence assets have been
monitoring every single electronic communication to and from Wikileaks/Julian Assange. They
also have been conducting surveillance on all personal contacts with Assange and other key
members of the Wikileaks staff.
Given these facts you would think it would be easy for Robert Mueller to explain how the
Russians got their hands on the DNC emails and then passed them on to Wikileaks. But it is not
easy because the foundation of the case against the Russians rests on assumptions and beliefs.
No solid facts.
To reiterate a point I have raised in previous posts, the only entity to have forensic
access to the DNC computers, i.e. CrowdStrike, is on the record in the person of the
CrowdStrike CEO, Dimitri Alperovitch admitting they don't know how the Russians got access. Alperovitch told Washington Post Reporter Ellen Nakashima on
June 14, 2016 the following :
CrowdStrike is not sure how the hackers got in. The firm suspects they may have targeted DNC
employees with "spearphishing" emails. These are communications that appear legitimate -- often
made to look like they came from a colleague or someone trusted -- but that contain links or
attachments that when clicked on deploy malicious software that enables a hacker to gain access
to a computer. " But we don't have hard evidence ," Alperovitch said.
If CrowdStrike actually had conducted a legitimate forensic examination of the DNC
server/servers then they absolutely would have had "hard evidence."
Then, 13 months later, we have FBI Director Jim Comey admitting that the FBI relied on
CrowdStrike for its "evidence." Jim Comey testified to the House Intelligence Committee in
March 2017 and
stated the following :
"we never got direct access to the machines themselves. The DNC in the spring of 2016 hired
a firm that ultimately shared with us their forensics from their review of the system."
Now take a look at a very significant reversal of the US Government's position in the case
against Roger Stone. On 20 June 2019, US Attorney Jessie Liu filed a motion attempting to rebut
the argument presented by Stone's attorneys that there was no supporting evidence for the claim
that Russia hacked the DNC. Here are the key snippets from her filing:
As the government has argued (Doc. 122, at 6, 9, 14), Russia's role in the DNC hack is not
material to the eighteen findings of probable cause that Stone appears to be challenging. . . .
The government produced the CrowdStrike reports because the Indictment in this case referenced,
as background, CrowdStrike's statements about the DNC hack. Stone's statement that the
government has no other evidence is not only irrelevant to this proceeding but is also
mistaken.
Yet, when you read the original indictment, Roger Stone was put in the cross hairs because
he was allegedly communicating with Wikileaks/Julian Assange about the DNC emails. And those
emails are identified in the indictment as "stolen." The Government is hoping to nail Stone on
the charge of "lying" to Congress. Good luck with that.
It is a horrible irony that Stone is being persecuted with prosecution based on an even
bigger lie -- i.e., the Russians hacked the DNC. Russia did not hack the DNC. Let's hope that
Stone's lawyers get a chance to demand the US Government put up the evidence or shut up.
You have probably seen the bumper sticker that says: "Shit Happens." Some people are just
lucky, I suppose, and odd coincidences mark their lives.
When he was just out of Columbia College and working for a reputed CIA front company,
Business International Corporation, Barack Obama had a chance encounter with a young woman,
Genevieve Cook, with whom he had a 1-2 year relationship.
Like Obama and at about the same
time, Cook just happened to have lived in Indonesia with her father, Michael Cook, who just
happened to become Australia's top spook, the director-general of the Office of National
Assessments, and also the Ambassador to Washington.
Of course, Obama's mother, as is well-known, just happened to be living in Indonesia with
Barack and Obama's step-father, Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian military officer, who had been
called back to Indonesia by the CIA supported General Suharto three months before the CIA coup
against President Sukarno. Suharto subsequently slaughtered over a million Indonesian
Communists and Indonesian-Chinese.
As is also well-known, it just so happened that Obama's
mother, Ann Dunham, trained in the Russian language, after teaching English in the US Embassy
in Jakarta that housed one of the largest CIA stations in Asia, did her "anthropological" work
in Indonesia and Southeast Asia financed by the well-known CIA conduits, USAID and the Ford
Foundation.
Then there is Cook's stepfather, Philip C. Jessup, who just happened to be in
Indonesia at the same time, doing nickel-mining deals with the genocidal Suharto
government.
Anyway, "shit happens." You never know whom you might meet along the way of life.
This is true to a centran limita at which trust is lost and after that even truthful coverage of events by the MSM is viewed
with high suspection...
Notable quotes:
"... So, if people become emotional and angry during an academic debate then it is obvious -- following Festinger's research -- that they don't really think that what they're saying is true; they simply want it to be true so that everything makes sense and so that their "sense of self" remains positive. ..."
One of the more useful concepts to come out of psychology has been "cognitive dissonance,"
an idea developed by the Jewish-American scholar Leon Festinger (1919-1989). According to
Festinger, we all require, to varying degrees, "cognitive consonance" -- a clear, structured
worldview in which reality makes sense. This makes us feel secure; we feel less stressed if
everything's clear cut.
But, of course, there's much we don't know; a lot of which we cannot be certain. And this
makes us feel anxious. Many people deal with this via comforting illusion: by creating a
clearly structured world-view, and related sense of self, and successfully suppressing the
doubts they unconsciously harbour about its accuracy.
When people are confronted with the inconsistencies in their thought system and model of who
they are, they will experience "cognitive dissonance," and all the feelings of insecurity and
helplessness that come with it. This will "trigger" profound negative emotions and, depending
on individual personality, they may run away and hide or lash out, perceiving the messenger of
their "cognitive dissonance" as an existential threat.
So, if people become emotional and angry during an academic debate then it is obvious --
following Festinger's research -- that they don't really think that what they're saying is
true; they simply want it to be true so that everything makes sense and so that their "sense of
self" remains positive.
The New York Times is outraged, just outraged! -- that US anti-tank missiles have been found
in "unknown" Libyan rebel hands .
Of course, when tons of American military hardware was covertly sent to al-Qaeda linked
"rebels" fighting to topple Muammar Gaddafi in 2011, and when those same weapons were later
transferred to the anti-Assad insurgency in Syria , many of them no doubt used by ISIS and
al-Nusra Front, the mainstream media didn't find much to complain about. But now the "scandal"
is being uncovered in 2019?
Currently, it's the UN-backed government in Tripoli which finds itself on the receiving end
of deadly accurate high-tech US-made weapons systems, according to
the Times :
Libyan government fighters discovered a cache of powerful American missiles , usually sold
only to close American allies, at a captured rebel base in the mountains south of Tripoli
this week.
The four Javelin anti-tank missiles, which cost more than $170,000 each, had ended up
bolstering the arsenal of Gen. Khalifa Hifter , whose forces are waging a military campaign
to take over Libya and overthrow a government the United States supports.
Markings on the missiles' shipping containers indicate that they were originally sold to
the United Arab Emirates, an important American partner, in 2008.
... ... ...
The Times report noted further, "If the Emirates transferred the weapons to
General Hifter, it would likely violate the sales agreement with the United States as well as a
United Nations arms embargo ."
Gen. Haftar -- who
solidified control of Eastern Libya over the past two years and swept through the south
early this year, has sought to capture Tripoli and seize military control of the entire
country, with the support of countries like the UAE and France, but is strongly opposed by
Turkey and most European countries.
Haftar has long been described by many analysts as "the CIA's man in Libya" -- given he
spent a couple decades living in exile a mere few minutes from CIA headquarters in Langley,
Virginia during Gaddafi's rule.
He was inserted back onto the Libyan battlefield before Gaddafi's eventual capture and field
execution at the hands of NATO supported Islamist fighters in 2011. The NYT offered further
details of the US weapons recovered this week
as follows :
Markings on the missile crates identify their joint manufacturer, the arms giants Raytheon
and Lockheed Martin , and a contract number that corresponds with a $115 million order for
Javelin missiles that was placed by the United Arab Emirates and Oman in 2008.
Again, isn't it a little late for the mainstream media to somehow only now discover and care
about the "scandal" of major US weapons systems in "unknown rebel hands" ?
For a trip down memory lane, and to review just what Obama and Hillary's original Libya war
has wrought, see Dan Sanchez's 2015 essay,
"Where Does ISIS Get Those Wonderful Toys?"
The CIA knows where these weapons are. All POTUS' know where these weapons are. The
Israelis know where these weapons are. The Saudis and UK know where these weapons are. What
is the problem?
" "We take all allegations of misuse of U.S. origin defense articles very seriously," a
State Department official
said in a statement following the Javelin anti-tank missile recovery.
"We are aware of these reports and are seeking additional information. We expect all
recipients of U.S. origin defense equipment to abide by their end-use obligations," the
statement continued. "
Hilarious. Do they expect the "unknown" rebels to just return them? If they're unknown,
how do tehy know they're rebels?
But i guess they're not worried under Obama thousands of these missiles were supplied to
Islamic Terrorists in Syria. And now Trump gave the green light to supply more missiles to
Turkish Islamic Terrorists in Syria. That are slaughtering Thousands of Syrian soldiers with
these missiles.
"... Mao only understood power. He sensed Khrushchev as 'weak' and acted as if he wanted to be the new Stalin. He also made international statements that made the US-USSR relations much worse. He berated Khrushchev for seeking co-existence with the West and pressed on for more World Revolution. ..."
"... It was all so stupid. China and Russia could have gotten along well if not for Mao's impetuosity. Of course, Khrushchev could be reckless, contradictory, and erratic, and his mixed signals to the West also heightened tensions. Also, he was caught between a rock and a hard place where the Eastern Bloc was concerned. He wanted to de-Stalinize, but this could lead to events like the Hungarian Uprising. ..."
Abrams is giving the West too much credit for the Sino-Soviet rift of the late 5os and 60s.
That was NOT the doing of the CIA or Western Europe. It was 90% the fault of Mao who tried
to shove Khrushchev aside as the head of world communism. Because Stalin had treated Mao
badly, Khrushchev wanted to make amends and treated Mao with respect. But Mao turned out to
be a total a-hole. There are two kinds of people: Those who appreciate friendly gestures and
those who seek kindness as 'weakness'.
It's like Hitler saw Chamberlain's offer as weakness and pushed ahead. Being kind is nice,
but one should never be kind to psychopaths, and Khrushchev was nice to the wrong person.
Mao only understood power. He sensed Khrushchev as 'weak' and acted as if he wanted to be
the new Stalin. He also made international statements that made the US-USSR relations much
worse. He berated Khrushchev for seeking co-existence with the West and pressed on for more
World Revolution.
He also ignored Soviet advice not to attempt radical economic policies (that were soon to
bring China to economic ruin -- at least Stalin's collectivization led to rise of industry;
in contrast, Mao managed to destroy both agriculture and heavy industry).
When Stalin was alive, he didn't treat Mao with any respect, and Mao disliked Stalin but
still respected him because Mao understood Power. With Stalin gone, Khrushchev showed Mao
some respect, but Mao felt no respect for Khrushchev who was regarded as a weakling and
sucker.
It was all so stupid. China and Russia could have gotten along well if not for Mao's
impetuosity. Of course, Khrushchev could be reckless, contradictory, and erratic, and his
mixed signals to the West also heightened tensions. Also, he was caught between a rock and a
hard place where the Eastern Bloc was concerned. He wanted to de-Stalinize, but this could
lead to events like the Hungarian Uprising.
Anyway, Putin and Xi, perhaps having grown up in less turbulent times, are more stable and
mature in character and temperament than Mao and Khrushchev. They don't see the Russo-China
relations as a zero sum game of ego but a way for which both sides can come to the table
halfway, which is all one can hope for.
"... " China by contrast has historically conducted statecraft based on the concept of a civilization state – under which its strength is not measured by the weakness and subjugation of others but by its internal achievements. " ..."
"... In my view the Usa had an excellent opportunity to enact in a positive way after WW2 but blew it. The main reason was the failure to live up to the above quoted characterisation of the Chinese. To encourage potential achievers in the best sense of the word. ..."
"... Instead the Us oligarchy held back independent and creative thinking and brainwashed the population, in a way that weakened them. Jfk tried to encourage his countrymen but other forces prevailed. ..."
A.B. Abrams: In the introduction to this work I highlight that a fundamental shift in world
order was facilitated by the modernization and industrialization of two Eastern nations –
Japan under the Meiji Restoration and the USSR under the Stalinist industrialization program.
Before these two events the West had retained an effective monopoly on the modern industrial
economy and on modern military force. Russia's image is still affected by the legacy of the
Soviet Union – in particular the way Soviet proliferation of both modern industries and
modern weapons across much of the region was key to containing Western ambitions in the Cold
War. Post-Soviet Russia has a somewhat unique position – with a cultural heritage
influenced by Mongolia and Central Asia as well as by Europe. Politically Russia remains
distinct from the Western Bloc, and perceptions of the country in East Asia have been heavily
influenced by this. Perhaps today one the greatest distinctions is Russia's eschewing of the
principle of sovereignty under international law and its adherence to a non-interventionist
foreign policy. Where for example the U.S., Europe and Canada will attempt to intervene in the
internal affairs of other parties – whether by cutting off parts for
armaments ,
imposing economic sanctions or even launching military interventions under humanitarian
pretexts – Russia lacks a history of such behavior which has made it a welcome presence
even for traditionally Western aligned nations such as the Philippines, Indonesia and South
Korea.
While the Western Bloc attempted to isolate the USSR from East and Southeast Asia by
supporting the spread of anticommunist thought, this pretext for shunning Russia collapsed in
1991. Today the West has had to resort to other means to attempt to contain and demonize the
country – whether labelling it a human rights abuser or threatening its economic and
defense partners with sanctions and other repercussions. The success of these measures in the
Asia-Pacific has varied – but as regional economies have come to rely less on the West
for trade and grown increasingly interdependent Western leverage over them and their foreign
policies has diminished.
Even when considered as a Western nation, the type of conservative Western civilization
which Russia may be seen to represent today differs starkly from that of Western Europe and
North America. Regarding a Russia Pivot to Asia, support for such a plan appears to have
increased from 2014 when relations with the Western Bloc effectively broke down. Indeed, the
Russia's future as a pacific power could be a very bright one – and as part of the up and
coming northeast Asian region it borders many of the economies which appear set to dominate in
the 21 st century – namely China, Japan and the Koreas. Peter the Great is
known to have issued in a new era of Russian prosperity by recognizing the importance of
Europe's rise and redefining Russia as a European power – moving the capital to St
Petersburg. Today a similar though perhaps less extreme pivot Eastwards towards friendlier and
more prosperous nations may be key to Russia's future.
The Saker: We hear many observers speak of an informal but very profound and even
game-changing partnership between Putin's Russia and Xi's China. The Chinese even speak of a "
strategic comprehensive partnership of coordination for the new era ". How would you
characterize the current relationship between these two countries and what prospects do you see
for a future Russian-Chinese partnership?
A.B. Abrams: A Sino-Russian alliance has long been seen in both the U.S. and in Europe as
one of the greatest threats to the West's global primacy and to Western-led world order. As
early as 1951 U.S. negotiators meeting with Chinese delegations to end the Korean War were
instructed to focus on the differences in the positions of Moscow and Beijing in an attempt to
form a rift between the two. Close Sino-Soviet cooperation seriously stifled Western designs
for the Korean Peninsula and the wider region during that period, and it was repeatedly
emphasized that the key to a Western victory was to bring about a Sino-Soviet split. Achieving
this goal by the early 1960s and bringing the two powers very near to a total conflict
significantly increased prospects for a Western victory in the Cold War, with the end of the
previously united front seriously undermining nationalist and leftist movements opposing
Western designs from Africa and the Middle East to Vietnam and Korea. Both states learned the
true consequences of this in the late 1980s and early 1990s when there was a real risk of total
collapse under Western pressure. Attempts to bring an end to China's national revolution
through destabilization failed in 1989, although the USSR was less fortunate and the results
for the Russian population in the following decade were grave indeed.
Today the Sino-Russian partnership has become truly comprehensive, and while Western experts
from Henry Kissinger to the late Zbigniew Brzezinski among others have emphasized the
importance of bringing about a new split in this partnership this strategy remains unlikely to
work a second time. Both Beijing and Moscow learned from the dark period of the post-Cold War
years that the closer they are together the safer they will be, and that any rift between them
will only provide their adversaries with the key to bringing about their downfall. It is
difficult to comprehend the importance of the Sino-Russian partnership for the security of both
states without understanding the enormity of the Western threat – with maximum pressure
being exerted on multiple fronts from finance and information to military and cyberspace. Where
in the early 1950s it was only the Soviet nuclear deterrent which kept both states safe from
very real Western plans for massive nuclear attacks, so too today is the synergy in the
respective strengths of China and Russia key to protecting the sovereignty and security of the
two nations from a very real and imminent threat. A few examples of the nature of this threat
include growing investments in social engineering through social media – the results of
have been seen in Hong Kong, Taiwan and Ukraine, a lowering threshold for nuclear weapons use
by the United States – which it currently trains Western allies outside the NPT to
deploy, and even reports from Russian and Korean sources of investments in biological warfare
– reportedly being tested in
Georgia, Eastern Europe and South Korea .
The partnership between Russia and China has become truly comprehensive, and is perhaps best
exemplified by their military relations. From 2016 joint military exercises have involved the
sharing of extremely
sensitive information on missile and early warning systems – one of the most well
kept defense secrets of any nuclear power which even NATO powers do not share with one another.
Russia's defense sector has played a key role in the modernization of the Chinese People's
Liberation Army, while Chinese investment has been essential to allowing Russia to continue
research and development on next generation systems needed to retain parity with the United
States. There is reportedly cooperation between the two in developing next generation weapons
technologies for systems such as hypersonic cruise and anti aircraft missiles and new strategic
bombers and fighter jets which both states plan to field by the mid-2020s. With the combined
defense spending of both states a small fraction of that of the Western powers, which
themselves cooperate closely in next generation defense projects, it is logical that the two
should pool their resources and research and development efforts to most efficiently advance
their own security.
Cooperation in political affairs has also been considerable, and the two parties have
effectively presented a united front against the designs of the Western Bloc. In 2017 both
issued strong warnings to the United States and its allies that they would not tolerate an
invasion of North Korea – which was followed by the
deployment of advanced air defense systems by both states near the Korean border with
coverage of much of the peninsula's airspace. Following Pyongyang's testing of its
first nuclear delivery system capable of reaching the United States , and renewed American
threats against the East Asian country, China and Russia staged near simultaneous
exercises near the peninsula using naval and marine units in a clear warning to the U.S.
against military intervention. China's Navy has on several occasions deployed to the
Mediterranean for joint drills with Russian forces – each time following a period of high
tension with the Western Bloc over Syria.
In April 2018, a period of particularly high tensions between Russia and the Western Bloc
over Western threats both to take military action against the Syrian government and to
retaliate for an alleged but unproven Russian chemical weapons attack on British soil, the
Chinese Defense Minister Wei Fenghe traveled to Russia and more explicitly stated that the
Sino-Russian partnership was aimed at countering Western designs. Referring to the Sino-Russian
defense partnership as "as stable as Mount Tai" he
stated : "the Chinese side has come to show Americans the close ties between the Armed
Forces of China and Russia, especially in this situation. We have come to support you." A week
later China announced
large-scale live fire naval drills in the Taiwan Strait – which according to several
analysts were scheduled to coincide with a buildup of Western forces near Syria. Presenting a
potential second front was key to deterring the Western powers from taking further action
against Russia or its ally Syria. These are but a few examples Sino-Russian cooperation, which
is set to grow only closer with time.
The Saker: The US remains the most formidable military power in Asia, but this military
power is being eroded as a result of severe miscalculations of the US political leadership. How
serious a crisis do you think the US is now facing in Asia and how do you assess the risks of a
military confrontation between the US and the various Asian powers (China, the Philippines, the
DPRK, etc,).
A.B. Abrams: Firstly I would dispute that the United States is the most formidable military
power in the region, as while it does retain a massive arsenal there are several indicators
that it lost this position to China during the 2010s. Looking at combat readiness levels, the
average age of weapons in their inventories, morale both publicly and in the armed forces, and
most importantly the correlation of their forces, China appears to have an advantage should war
break out in the Asia-Pacific. It is important to remember that the for the Untied States and
its European allies in particular wars aren't fought on a chessboard. Only a small fraction of
their military might can be deployed to the Asia-Pacific within a month of a conflict breaking
out, while over 95% of Chinese forces are already on the region and are trained and armed
almost exclusively for war in the conditions of the Asia-Pacific. In real terms the balance of
military power regionally is in China's favor, and although the U.S. has tried to counter this
with a military 'Pivot to Asia' initiative from 2011 this has ultimately failed due to both the
drag from defense commitments elsewhere and the unexpected and pace at which China has
expanded and
modernized its armed forces.
For the time being the risk of direct military confrontation remains low, and while there
was a risk in 2017 of American and allied action against the DPRK Pyongyang has effectively
taken this option off the table with the development of a viable and growing arsenal of
thermonuclear weapons and associated delivery systems alongside the modernization of its
conventional capabilities. While the U.S. may have attempted to call a Chinese and Russian
bluff by launching a limited strike – which seriously risked spiraling into something
much larger – it is for the benefit of all regional parties including South Korea that
the DPRK now has the ability to deter the United States without relying on external support.
This was a historically unprecedented event, and as military technology has evolved it has
allowed a small power for the first time to deter a superpower without relying on allied
intervention. Changes in military technology such as the proliferation of the nuclear tipped
ICBM make a shooting war less likely, but also alters the nature of warfare to place greater
emphasis on information war, economic war and other new fields which will increasingly decide
the global balance of power. Where America's answer to the resistance of China and North Korea
in the 1950s to douse them with napalm, today winning over their populations through soft
power, promoting internal dissent, placing pressure on their living standards and ensuring
continued Western dominance of key technologies has become the new means of fighting.
That being said, there is a major threat of conflict in the Asia-Pacific of a different
nature. Several organizations including the United Nations and the defense ministries of
Russia, Singapore and Indonesia among others have warned of the dangers posed by Islamic
terrorism to stability in the region. Radical Islamism, as most recently attested to by Saudi Arabia's crown prince , played a key
role in allowing the Western Bloc to cement its dominance over the Middle East and North Africa
– undermining Russian and Soviet aligned governments including Algeria, Libya, Egypt and
Syria – in most cases with direct Western support. CIA Deputy Director Graham Fuller in
this respect referred to the agency's "policy of guiding the evolution of Islam and of helping
them against our adversaries." Several officials, from the higher brass of the Russian, Syrian
and Iranian militaries to the former President of
Afghanistan and the President
of Turkey , have all alleged Western support for radical terror groups including the
Islamic State for the sake of destabilizing their adversaries. As the Asia-Pacific has
increasingly slipped out of the Western sphere of influence, it is likely that this asset will
increasingly be put into play. The consequences of the spread of jihadism from the Middle East
have been relatively limited until now, but growing signs of danger can be seen in Xinjiang,
Myanmar, the Philippines and Indonesia. It is this less direct means of waging war which
arguably poses the greatest threat.
The Saker: Do you think that we will see the day when US forces will have to leave South
Korean, Japan or Taiwan?
A.B. Abrams: Other than a limited contingent of Marines recently deployed to guard
the American Institute , U.S. forces are not currently stationed in Taiwan. The massive
force deployed there in the 1950s was scaled down and American nuclear weapons removed in 1974
in response to China's acceptance of an alliance with the United States against the Soviet
Union. Taiwan's military situation is highly precarious and the disparity in its strength
relative to the Chinese mainland grows considerably by the year. Even a large American military
presence is unlikely to change this – and just 130km from the Chinese mainland they would
be extremely vulnerable and could be quickly isolated from external support in the event of a
cross straits war. We could, however, see a small American contingent deployed as a 'trigger
wire' – which will effectively send a signal to Beijing that the territory is under
American protection and that an attempt to recapture Taiwan will involve the United States.
Given trends in public opinion in Taiwan, and the very considerable pro-Western sentiments
among the younger generations in particular, it is likely that Taipei will look to a greater
rather than a lesser Western military presence on its soil in future.
Japan and particularly South Korea see more nuanced public opinion towards the U.S., and
negative perceptions of an American military presence may well grow in future – though
for different reasons in each country. Elected officials alone, however, are insufficient to
move the American presence – as best demonstrated by the short tenure of Prime Minister
Hatoyama in Japan and the frustration of President Moon's efforts to restrict American
deployments of THAAD missile
systems in his first year. It would take a massive mobilization of public opinion –
backed by business interests and perhaps the military – to force such a change. This
remains possible however, particularly as both economies grow increasingly reliant on China for
trade and as the U.S. is seen to have acted increasingly erratically in response to challenges
from Beijing and Pyongyang which has undermined its credibility. As to a voluntary withdrawal
by the United States, this remains extremely unlikely. President Donald Trump ran as one of the
most non-interventionist candidates in recent history, but even under him and with considerable
public support prospects for a significant reduction in the American presence, much less a
complete withdrawal, have remained slim.
The Saker: Some circles in Russia are trying very hard to frighten the Russian public
opinion against China alleging things like "China want to loot (or even conquer!) Siberia",
"China will built up its military and attack Russia" or "China with its huge economy will
simply absorb small Russia". In your opinion are any of these fears founded and, if yes, which
ones and why?
A.B. Abrams: A growth in Sinophobic sentiment in Russia only serves to weaken the nation and
empower its adversaries by potentially threatening its relations with its most critical
strategic partner. The same is applicable vice-versa regarding Russophobia in China. Given the
somewhat Europhilic nature of the Russian state in a number of periods, including in the 1990s,
and the considerable European soft influences in modern Russia, there are grounds for building
up of such sentiment. Indeed Radio Free Europe, a U.S. government funded nonprofit broadcasting
corporation with the stated purpose of "advancing the goals of U.S. foreign policy," notably
published sinophobic content aimed at depicting the Russian people as
victims of Chinese business interests to coincide with the Putin-XI summit in June 2019.
However, an understanding of the modern Chinese state and its interests indicates that it does
not pose a threat to Russia – and to the contrary is vital to Russia's national security
interests. While Russia historically has cultural ties to the Western nations, the West has
shown Russian considerable hostility throughout its recent history – as perhaps is most
evident in the 1990s when Russia briefly submitted itself and sought to become part of the
Western led order with terrible consequences. China by contrast has historically conducted
statecraft based on the concept of a civilization state – under which its strength is not
measured by the weakness and subjugation of others but by its internal achievements. A powerful
and independent Russia capable of protecting a genuine rules based world order and holding
lawless actors in check is strongly in the Chinese interest. It is clear that in Russia such an
understanding exists on a state level, although there is no doubt that there will be efforts by
external parties to turn public opinion against China to the detriment of the interests of both
states.
The idea that China would seek to economically subjugate Russia, much less invade it, is
ludicrous. It was from Europe were the major invasions of Russian territory came – vast
European coalitions led by France and Germany respectively with a third American led attack
planned and prepared for but stalled by the Soviet acquisition of a nuclear deterrent. More
recently from the West came sanctions, the austerity program of the 1990s, the militarization
of Eastern Europe, and the demonization of the Russian nation – all intended to subjugate
and if possible shatter it. Even at the height of its power, China did not colonize the
Koreans, Vietnamese or Japanese nor did it seek to conquer Central Asia. Assuming China will
have the same goals and interests as a Western state would if they were in a similar position
of strength is to ignore the lessons of history, and the nature of the Chinese national
character and national interest.
The Saker: The Russian military is currently vastly more capable (even if numerically much
smaller) than the Chinese. Does anybody in China see a military threat from Russia?
A.B. Abrams: There may be marginalized extreme nationalists in China who see a national
security from almost everybody, but in mainstream discourse there are no such perceptions. To
the contrary, Russia's immense contribution to Chinese security is widely recognized –
not only in terms of technological transfers but also in terms of the value of the joint front
the two powers have formed. Russia not only lacks a history of annexing East Asian countries or
projecting force against them, but it is also heavily reliant on China in particular both to
keep its defense sector active and to undermine Western attempts to isolate it. Russian
aggression against China is unthinkable for Moscow – even if China did not possess its
current military strength and nuclear deterrence capabilities. This is something widely
understood in China and elsewhere.
I would dispute that Russia's military is vastly more capable than China's own, as other
than nuclear weapons there is a similar level of capabilities in most sectors in both
countries. While Russia has a lead in many key technologies such as hypersonic missiles, air
defenses and submarines to name a few prominent examples, China has been able to purchase and
integrate many of these into its own armed forces alongside the products of its own defense
sector. Russia's most prominent fighter jet for example, the Flanker (in all derivatives from
Su-27 to J-11D), is in fact fielded in larger numbers by China than by Russia itself –
and those in Chinese service have access to both indigenous as well as Russian munitions and
subsystems. Furthermore, there are some less critical but still significant sectors where China
does appear to retain a lead – for example it deployed combat jets equipped with a new
generation of active electronically scanned array radars and air to air missiles from 2017
(J-20 and in
2018 J-10C ) – while Russia has only done so this in July 2019 with the
induction of the MiG-35. Whether this is due to a Chinese technological advantage, or to a
greater availability of funds to deploy its new technologies faster, remains uncertain.
Russia's ability to provide China with its most vital technologies, and China's willingness to
rely so heavily on Russian technology to comprise so much of its inventory, demonstrates the
level of trust between the two countries
The Saker: Do you think that China could become a military threat to other countries in the
region (especially Taiwan, India, Vietnam, the Philippines, etc.)?
A.B. Abrams: I would direct you to a quote by Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Bin Mohamed
from March this year. He stated: "we always say, we have had China as a neighbor for 2,000
years, we were never conquered by them. But the Europeans came in 1509, in two years, they
conquered Malaysia." This coming from a nationalist leader considered one of the most
sinophobic in Southeast Asia, whose country has an ongoing territorial dispute with China in
the South China Sea, bears testament to the nature of claims of a Chinese threat. It is
critical not to make the mistake of imposing Western norms when trying to understand Chinese
statecraft. Unlike the European states, China is not and has never been dependent on conquering
others to enrich itself – but rather was a civilization state which measured its wealth
by what it could its own people could produce. A harmonious relationship with India, Vietnam,
the Philippines and others in which all states' sovereign and territorial integrity is
respected is in the Chinese interest.
A second aspect which must be considered, and which bears testament to China's intentions,
is the orientation of the country's armed forces. While the militaries of the United States and
European powers such as Britain, the Netherlands, Belgium and France among others are heavily
skewed to prioritize power projection overseas, China's military has made disproportionately
small investments in power projection and is overwhelmingly tailored to territorial defense.
While the United States has over 300 tanker aircraft deigned to refuel its combat jets midair
and attack faraway lands, China has just three purpose-built tankers – less than
Malaysia, Chile or Pakistan. The ratio of
logistical to combat units further indicates that China's armed forces, in stark contrast
to the Western powers, are heavily oriented towards defense and fighting near their
borders.
This all being said, China does pose an imminent threat to the government in Taipei –
although I would disagree with your categorization of Taiwan as a country. Officially the
Republic of China (ROC- as opposed to the Beijing based People's Republic of China), Taipei has
not declared itself a separate country but rather the rightful government of the entire Chinese
nation. Taipei remains technically at war with the mainland, a conflict would have ended in
1950 if the U.S. had not placed the ROC under its protection. The fast growing strength of the
mainland has shifted the balance of power dramatically should the conflict again break out into
open hostilities. China has only to gain from playing the long game with Taiwan however –
providing scholarships and jobs for its people to live on the mainland and thus undermining the
demonization of the country and hostility towards a peaceful reunification. Taiwan's economic
reliance on the mainland has also grown considerably, and these softer methods of bridging the
gaps between the ROC and the mainland are key to facilitating unification. Meanwhile the
military balance in the Taiwan Strait only grows more favorable for Beijing by the year –
meaning there is no urgency to take military action. While China will insist on unification, it
will seek to avoid doing so violently unless provoked.
The Saker: In conclusion: where in Asia do you see the next major conflict take place and
why?
A.B. Abrams: The conflict in the Asia-Pacific is ongoing, but the nature of conflict has
changed. We see an ongoing and so far highly successful de-radicalization effort in Xinjiang
– which was taken in direct response to Western attempts to turn the province into 'China's Syria or
China's Libya,' in the words of Chinese state media, using similar means. We see a harsh
Western response to
the Made in China 2025 initiative under which the country has sought to compete in key
technological fields formerly monopolized by the Western Bloc and Japan – and the result
of this will have a considerable impact on the balance of economic power in the coming years.
We see direct economic warfare and technological competition between China and the United
States – although the latter has so far refrained from escalating too far due to the
potentially devastating impact reprisals could have. We further see an information war in full
swing, with Sinophobic stories often citing 'anonymous sources' being propagated by Western
media to target not only their own populations – but also to influence public opinion in
Southeast Asia and elsewhere. Influence over third parties remains vital to isolating China and
cementing the Western sphere of influence. Use of social media and social engineering, as the
events of the past decade have demonstrated from the Middle East in 2011 to Hong Kong today,
remains key and will only grow in its potency in the coming years. We also see a major arms
race, with the Western Bloc investing heavily in an all new generation of weapons designed to
leave existing Chinese and allied defenses obsolete – from laser air defenses to
neutralize China's nuclear deterrent to sixth generation stealth fighters, new heavy bombers,
new applications of artificial intelligence technologies and new hypersonic missiles.
All these are fronts of the major conflict currently underway, and the Obama and Trump
administrations have stepped up their offensives to bring about a new 'end of history' much
like that of the 1990s – only this time it is likely to be permanent. To prevail, China
and Russia will need to cooperate at least as closely if not more so as the Western powers do
among themselves.
The Saker: thank you very much for your time and answers!
That being said, there is a major threat of conflict in the Asia-Pacific of a different
nature. Several organizations including the United Nations and the defense ministries of
Russia, Singapore and Indonesia among others have warned of the dangers posed by Islamic
terrorism to stability in the region. Radical Islamism, as most recently attested to by
Saudi Arabia's crown prince, played a key role in allowing the Western Bloc to cement its
dominance over the Middle East and North Africa – undermining Russian and Soviet
aligned governments including Algeria, Libya, Egypt and Syria – in most cases with
direct Western support. CIA Deputy Director Graham Fuller in this respect referred to the
agency's "policy of guiding the evolution of Islam and of helping them against our
adversaries." Several officials, from the higher brass of the Russian, Syrian and Iranian
militaries to the former President of Afghanistan and the President of Turkey, have all
alleged Western support for radical terror groups including the Islamic State for the sake
of destabilizing their adversaries. As the Asia-Pacific has increasingly slipped out of the
Western sphere of influence, it is likely that this asset will increasingly be put into
play. The consequences of the spread of jihadism from the Middle East have been relatively
limited until now, but growing signs of danger can be seen in Xinjiang, Myanmar, the
Philippines and Indonesia. It is this less direct means of waging war which arguably poses
the greatest threat.
There is hardly such a thing called "Islamic Terrorism." In most egregious cases, such as
IS, etc., it can be shown that those lowlifes have been the mercenaries of the evil West and
their accursed implant in the ME (and nowadays the hindutvars too), collectively the avowed
enemies of true monotheism, Islam. I am including the recent Colombo attacks here.
How can any so-called "muslim" who is a tool-of-evil of the enemies of Islam, be a true
muslim? How then can it be termed "Islamic Terror"? Perhaps "Islamic Apostate Terror" would
be more suitable.
Of course, there are many other non-IS muslims who are called "terrorists." The
Palestinians, the Kashmiris, etc. For us muslims, they are simply freedom fighters.
Finally, there are a few muslims who do kill in the name Islam the Charlie Hebdo killers,
Bombay\Dhaka attackers, etc. Some of them are justified (due to intense provocations) and
others not at all. I will leave it for others to judge which falls under which category.
Perhaps the listed order will help decipher that.
It must be conceded, when it comes to setting the narrative of pure deceit, the West (and
its minions, the Jooscum and their lickspittle, the hindutvars), like in all things bad, can
be satanically good. We muslims are being decimated in the propaganda war.
We still got our True Monotheism though. The pagan/godless enemies of the Almighty One are
doomed to fail against it. God willing.
The American system ran on immigration that kept discontent about massive inequality under
control because a substantial proportion of the lowest SES were immigrants just glad to be in
the US. The tAmerican ruling class decided they could make more money by offshoring
everything that could be offshored and mass immigration to keep wags from going up in the non
offshorable parts of the economy.
China and America's venal globalising elite had converging agendas, but could not fool the
common people of America and their tribune . Even the military had began to get alarmed about
the economic growth and technological progress of China, which had been benefiting from
officially sanctioned preferential treatment by the US since Carter.
Free ride is over for China, we will see China's economic and military strength
progressively tested. What America built it can break.
China was made an economic superpower by the US elites. Not because they felt sorry for China
and wanted to speed up conversion to democracy by switching them to capitalist way of doing
business first.
They made them an economic superpower, because the US elites have lost their marbles. They
simply didn't see it coming. They wanted to turn China into one giant cheap sweatshop in
order to exploit their population with a low paying manufacturing jobs, which were never
supposed to make China reach.
But they did, because no matter how much the lost generation of the western elites were
foaming at their mouths about knowledge based economy, value added economy, high tech jobs
and the other crap, it is obvious that manufacturing remains a basis for any strong economy.
That doesn't look like it's going to change even when you add robots to the mixture.
I think that Napoleon was right when he warned the world about waking up the sleeping
dragon. First they made them an economic superpower, and now they want to contain them
militarily. Good luck with that.
There is a reason why China wants to build the silk road. Silk road implies land. The US
military has never been any good at land warfare. Neither where their predecessors –
the British. China, on the other hand, showed in Korea that even then, with a backward army,
equipped with handouts from the Soviet Union, they can pretty much trash the US army.
With the silk road initiative, China will seize the control of the entire Euro-Asian land
mass – the most populous and economically productive region of the world and will be
more than happy to let the US play pirates on the seas.
Abrams is giving the West too much credit for the Sino-Soviet rift of the late 5os and 60s.
That was NOT the doing of the CIA or Western Europe. It was 90% the fault of Mao who tried
to shove Khrushchev aside as the head of world communism. Because Stalin had treated Mao
badly, Krushchev wanted to make amends and treated Mao with respect. But Mao turned out to be
a total a-hole. There are two kinds of people: Those who appreciate friendly gestures and
those who seek kindness as 'weakness'.
It's like Hitler saw Chamberlain's offer as weakness
and pushed ahead. Being kind is nice, but one should never be kind to psychopaths, and
Khrushchev was nice to the wrong person.
Mao only understood power. He sensed Khrushchev as
'weak' and acted as if he wanted to be the new Stalin. He also made international statements
that made the US-USSR relations much worse. He berated Khrushchev for seeking co-existence
with the West and pressed on for more World Revolution.
He also ignored Soviet advice not to
attempt radical economic policies (that were soon to bring China to economic ruin -- at least
Stalin's collectivization led to rise of industry; in contrast, Mao managed to destroy both
agriculture and heavy industry).
When Stalin was alive, he didn't treat Mao with any respect,
and Mao disliked Stalin but still respected him because Mao understood Power. With Stalin
gone, Khrushchev showed Mao some respect, but Mao felt no respect for Khrushchev who was
regarded as a weakling and sucker.
It was all so stupid. China and Russia could have gotten along well if not for Mao's
impetuosity. Of course, Khrushchev could be reckless, contradictory, and erratic, and his
mixed signals to the West also heightened tensions. Also, he was caught between a rock and a
hard place where the Eastern Bloc was concerned. He wanted to de-Stalinize, but this could
lead to events like the Hungarian Uprising.
Anyway, Putin and Xi, perhaps having grown up in less turbulent times, are more stable and
mature in character and temperament than Mao and Khrushchev. They don't see the Russo-China
relations as a zero sum game of ego but a way for which both sides can come to the table
halfway, which is all one can hope for.
@Priss Factor You are probably right about Hitler seeing (Neville) Chamberlain as weak.
But Hitler was a dupe for Britains much smarter and devious elites, who successfully played
him to do their bidding. Hitler, along with the major members of the nazis, had been
significantly influenced by Neville's elder cousin who spurred the nazis towards 'the
ultimate solution'.
Instead of being weak in the manner Hitler may have thought, Neville saved Hitler from his
own generals.
In historical turns , when Britain has appeared weak, it mostly is a deliberate faint.
Be it in Gallipoli, St Petersburg in 1919, Norway or Singapore in WW2.
Commendable contribution by Mr Abrams to enlighten the confused western establishment.
" China by contrast has historically conducted statecraft based on the concept of a
civilization state – under which its strength is not measured by the weakness and
subjugation of others but by its internal achievements. "
In my view the Usa had an excellent opportunity to enact in a positive way after WW2 but
blew it. The main reason was the failure to live up to the above quoted characterisation of
the Chinese. To encourage potential achievers in the best sense of the word.
Instead the Us oligarchy held back independent and creative thinking and brainwashed the
population, in a way that weakened them.
Jfk tried to encourage his countrymen but other forces prevailed.
Americans cannot understand our relations with China by looking at events just the past 75
years. During the century before, European imperial powers and the United States treated
China as a open borders business opportunity backed by foreign military force. China was
infested by mini-colonies to profit from China's riches. The "Opium Wars" shock decent
Americans.
All Wars Are Evil. Period. "Military men are just dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns
in foreign policy." – Henry Kissinger
Picture if you will Jesus. Seriously? Can you imagine Jesus firing a machine gun at a
group of people? Can you picture Jesus in an F-16 lobbing missiles at innocents?
Do you see Jesus piloting a drone and killing Muslims, other non-believers, or anyone for
that matter? Can you picture Jesus as a sniper?
Impossible.
Because if God loved wars, He'd be wrong; but He's not wrong, so He doesn't love wars.
Some point to the various killings in the Old Testament to somehow "prove" that God always
had a blood lust, and that He often commanded the ancient Hebrews to kill in wars.
What they don't understand is that the Hebrews then were an extension of God's army on
earth. God used them to remove the wicked from the face of the earth. So when they killed on
God's order in specific and directed circumstances – which cannot be transferred to
today's circumstances – it was God's doing, not theirs.
"The LORD your God is the one who goes with you, to fight for you " Deuteronomy
20:4
But, as the prophet Zechariah prophesied, with the advent of Christ everything would
change.
" 'Not by might nor by power, but by my Spirit,' says the LORD Almighty." Zechariah
4:6
JESUS AND THE NEW COVENANT
Now it's no longer by the might of the sword nor
by the
power of one's army , but by the Spirit of Christ that things truly change for the
better.
"The wrath of man does not produce the righteousness of God." James 1:20
Ever since Jesus's birth, death, and resurrection the world has not been the same.
"If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new
has come." 2 Corinthians 5: 17
If anyone really knows Christ, he knows there is no such thing as a Just War or a
Just War
Doctrine. Jesus's sacrifice
on the cross was for the renewal of the world through peace – hence His name the Prince
of Peace – and for the salvation of
man's soul through the New Covenant in His blood – hence life eternal, not death and
destruction.
"Then Jesus said to him, 'Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up
the sword shall perish by the sword.' " Matthew 26: 52
"You have heard that it was said, 'AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.' But I
say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the
other to him also. " Matthew 5: 38,39
"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.
But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be
sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good,
and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous." Matthew 5: 43-45
"If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those
who love them." Luke 6:32
"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God." Matthew
5:9
AGGRESSOR AND DEFENDER
If everyone understood Christ, there would be no war. Unfortunately, many don't.
Therefore, every so often an aggressive war to dominate and subjugate others may come
about.
In such an instance, the only country that can claim the moral high ground is the
defending country, whose governing authority has a divine mandate to defend its citizenry
from the onslaught of wrongdoers and aggressors.
"The authorities that exist have been established by God. .. for rulers do not
bear the sword for no reason They are God's servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on
the wrongdoer." Romans 13: 2,4
That's why, in any given war, the aggressor always tries to camouflage its belligerent
intentions by projecting a semblance of moral superiority before embarking on its dark
deed.
And though the government of the defending country has a godly injunction to protect its
people, its better option, for the good of all, would be to avoid a devastating war at all
costs.
"Strive for peace with everyone " Hebrews 12:14
"It is to one's honor to avoid strife." Proverbs 20:3
FACTS OF THE AGGRESSOR'S WAR TO REMEMBER
Those who push for war in our time cleverly conceal through propaganda their ulterior
motives, and the reality of war's devastating effects on humanity.
1) Dead innocents. 95% of all war casualties are innocent civilians. What if you were one
of those civilians?
"Their feet run to evil, And they hasten to shed innocent blood; Their thoughts are
thoughts of iniquity, Devastation and destruction are in their highways." Isaiah 59:7
2) Hidden agenda. In war there's always a hidden agenda that the public at large is never
aware of: territorial expansion, control of another country's resources, control of access to
trade to favor a certain group, currency domination, keeping the military industrial machine
humming, etc. In one word: Money or Mammon.
"Who devise evil things in their hearts; They continually stir up wars." Psalm
140:2
3) Personal dislike. If a foreign country's leader refuses to kowtow to the current
Empire's whims and wishes, then the Empire (presently the
US, manipulated or not by third
parties ) goes on the attack. That foreign country's leader is sullied in the Empire's
mass media in order to prepare the imperial citizenry to acquiesce in sending their children
to be killed in a senseless war . More often than
not, such a war tees off by way of a false flag operation
(such as 9/11
and the Gulf
of Tonkin incident ), designed and executed by the Empire to deceive its citizens and
demonize the adversary.
"All wars are based on deception," wrote Sun Tzu in The Art of War
.
"Deceit is in the heart of those who devise evil." Proverbs 12:20
4) Senseless aggression. There is no greater act of stupidity than when soldiers on the
aggressor's side kill for no apparent reason. They obey like dumb myrmidons just because
low-life politicians with hidden
agendas decide they should murder those their government hates. In all other
circumstances, their senseless killings of the defending soldiers and of innocent civilians
would and should be called terrorism
.
"Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good." Romans 12:21
5) Economic breakdown. Countries that go to war not only destroy the economies of the
nations they attack, but they also wreck
theirs .
"Whoever satisfies others will himself be satisfied." Proverbs 11:25
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you." Matthew
7:12
"Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows." Galatians
6:7
6) Godlessness. In the aftermaths of wars people rebuild and forget God. Europe suffered
two World Wars, and the Christian foundation on which that civilization was built has been
severely shaken and is in dire need of repair – the Church there is in a coma.
"Sin when it is fully grown brings forth death." James 1:15
7) Blowback. Countries that participate in aggressive wars or send their soldiers to kill
in foreign wars are at the receiving end of wars' repercussions. Destructive heresies and
habits quickly materialize and drastically alter their societies for the worst: atheism
, feminism
, mammonism
, drug use, suicide (especially by veterans whose consciences are disturbed because of the
murders they committed), societal violence, destruction of the family unit, perversion, etc.
In other words, the souls of those who participate in and/or agree to these aggressive wars
are plunged into darkness or spiritual death, which then engenders ruins in the natural
world.
"For the wages of sin is death." Romans 6:23
CONCLUSION
If non-Christians want to become murderers and/or kill themselves in foolish, aggressive
wars, that's their free-will
prerogative. But we, true Christians, will opt out as we fight for peace with all our
strength.
"Thou shall not kill." Exodus 20:13
If you are in the military and you say you're a Christian, start taking all of the
aforementioned verses seriously and begin to think for yourself, especially if your country
is the aggressor.
If it is, immediately put this into practice:
"They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks."
Isaiah 2:4
"... More importantly, Ryan's campaign using the word "isolationism" to describe the simple common sense impulse to withdraw from a costly, deadly military occupation which isn't accomplishing anything highlights an increasingly common tactic of tarring anything other than endless military expansionism as strange and aberrant instead of normal and good. ..."
"... Under our current Orwellian doublespeak paradigm where forever war is the new normal, the opposite of war is no longer peace, but isolationism. This removal of a desirable opposite of war from the establishment-authorised lexicon causes war to always be the desirable option. ..."
"... A few months after Bush's address, Antiwar 's Rich Rubino wrote an article titled " Non-Interventionism is Not Isolationism ", explaining the difference between a nation which withdraws entirely from the world and a nation which simply resists the temptation to use military aggression except in self defense. ..."
"... "Isolationism dictates that a country should have no relations with the rest of the world," Rubino explained. "In its purest form this would mean that ambassadors would not be shared with other nations, communications with foreign governments would be mainly perfunctory, and commercial relations would be non-existent." ..."
"... "A non-interventionist supports commercial relations," Rubino contrasted. "In fact, in terms of trade, many non-interventionists share libertarian proclivities and would unilaterally obliterate all tariffs and custom duties, and would be open to trade with all willing nations. In addition, non-interventionists welcome cultural exchanges and the exchange of ambassadors with all willing nations." ..."
"... "A non-interventionist believes that the U.S. should not intercede in conflicts between other nations or conflicts within nations," wrote Rubino. "In recent history, non-interventionists have proved prophetic in warning of the dangers of the U.S. entangling itself in alliances. The U.S. has suffered deleterious effects and effectuated enmity among other governments, citizenries, and non-state actors as a result of its overseas interventions. The U.S. interventions in both Iran and Iraq have led to cataclysmic consequences." ..."
"... Calling an aversion to endless military violence "isolationism" is the same as calling an aversion to mugging people "agoraphobia". ..."
"... Another dishonest label you'll get thrown at you when debating the forever war is "pacifism". "Some wars are bad, but I'm not a pacifist; sometimes war is necessary," supporters of a given interventionist military action will tell you. They'll say this while defending Trump's potentially catastrophic Iran warmongering or promoting a moronic regime change invasion of Syria, or defending disastrous US military interventions in the past like Iraq. ..."
"... All Wars Are Evil. Period. "Military men are just dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy." – Henry Kissinger ..."
"... Can you imagine Jesus firing a machine gun at a group of people? Can you picture Jesus in an F-16 lobbing missiles at innocents? ..."
"... instead of getting us out of Syria, Trump got us further in. Trump is driving us to ww3. ..."
"... funny how people, fresh from the broken promises "build that wall" etc, quickly forget all that and begin IMMEDIATELY projecting trustworthiness on yet ANOTHER candidate. I'Il vote for Tulsi when she says no more Israeli wars for America. ..."
"... if there's even a small chance Tulsi can get us out of the forever wars i will be compelled to vote for her, as Trump clearly has no intention on doing so. yes, it is that important ..."
"... As for this next election? Is Ron Paul running as an independent? No? Well then, 'fool me once...' Don't get me wrong: I hope Gabbard is genuine and she's absolutely right to push non-interventionism...but the rest of her platform sucks. There's also the fact that she's a CFR member ..."
"... Just as they did with Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, and Pat Buchanan, the MSM and the swamp have already effectively buried Gabbard. It's unlikely that she'll make the next debate cut as the DNC and MSM will toss her out. ..."
"... All the MSM is talking about post-debates, even on Faux Noise, is Harris's race-baiting of old senile Biden. ..."
After getting curb stomped on the debate
stage by Tulsi Gabbard, the campaign for Tim "Who the fuck is Tim Ryan?" Ryan
posted a statement decrying the Hawaii congresswoman's
desire to end a pointless 18-year military occupation as "isolationism".
"While making a point as to why America can't cede its international leadership and retreat from around the world, Tim was
interrupted by Rep. Tulsi Gabbard," the statement reads.
"When he tried to answer her, she contorted a factual point Tim was making -- about the Taliban being complicit in the 9/11
attacks by providing training, bases and refuge for Al Qaeda and its leaders. The characterization that Tim Ryan doesn't know
who is responsible for the attacks on 9/11 is simply unfair reporting. Further, we continue to reject Gabbard's isolationism and
her misguided beliefs on foreign policy . We refuse to be lectured by someone who thinks it's ok to dine with murderous dictators
like Syria's Bashar Al-Assad who used chemical weapons on his own people."
Ryan's campaign is lying. During an exchange that was explicitly about the Taliban in Afghanistan, Ryan plainly said "When we
weren't in there, they started flying planes into our buildings." At best, Ryan can argue that when he said "they" he had suddenly
shifted from talking about the Taliban to talking about Al Qaeda without bothering to say so, in which case he obviously can't legitimately
claim that Gabbard "contorted" anything he had said. At worst, he was simply unaware at the time of the very clear distinction between
the Afghan military and political body called the Taliban and the multinational extremist organization called Al Qaeda.
More importantly, Ryan's campaign using the word "isolationism" to describe the simple common sense impulse to withdraw from a
costly, deadly military occupation which isn't accomplishing anything highlights an increasingly common tactic of tarring anything
other than endless military expansionism as strange and aberrant instead of normal and good.
Under our current Orwellian doublespeak
paradigm where forever war is the new normal, the opposite of war is no longer peace, but isolationism. This removal of a desirable
opposite of war from the establishment-authorised lexicon causes war to always be the desirable option.
This is entirely by design. This bit of word magic has been employed for a long time to tar any idea which deviates from the neoconservative
agenda of total global unipolarity via violent imperialism as something freakish and dangerous. In
his farewell address to the nation , war criminal George W Bush said the following:
"In the face of threats from abroad, it can be tempting to seek comfort by turning inward. But we must reject isolationism
and its companion, protectionism. Retreating behind our borders would only invite danger. In the 21st century, security and prosperity
at home depend on the expansion of liberty abroad. If America does not lead the cause of freedom, that cause will not be led."
A few months after Bush's address, Antiwar 's Rich Rubino wrote an article titled "
Non-Interventionism
is Not Isolationism ", explaining the difference between a nation which withdraws entirely from the world and a nation which
simply resists the temptation to use military aggression except in self defense.
"Isolationism dictates that a country should have no relations with the rest of the world," Rubino explained. "In its purest
form this would mean that ambassadors would not be shared with other nations, communications with foreign governments would be
mainly perfunctory, and commercial relations would be non-existent."
"A non-interventionist supports commercial relations," Rubino contrasted. "In fact, in terms of trade, many non-interventionists
share libertarian proclivities and would unilaterally obliterate all tariffs and custom duties, and would be open to trade with
all willing nations. In addition, non-interventionists welcome cultural exchanges and the exchange of ambassadors with all willing
nations."
"A non-interventionist believes that the U.S. should not intercede in conflicts between other nations or conflicts within
nations," wrote Rubino. "In recent history, non-interventionists have proved prophetic in warning of the dangers of the U.S. entangling
itself in alliances. The U.S. has suffered deleterious effects and effectuated enmity among other governments, citizenries, and
non-state actors as a result of its overseas interventions. The U.S. interventions in both Iran and Iraq have led to cataclysmic
consequences."
Calling an aversion to endless military violence "isolationism" is the same as calling an aversion to mugging people "agoraphobia".
Yet you'll see this ridiculous label applied to both Gabbard and Trump, neither of whom are isolationists by any stretch of the imagination,
or even proper non-interventionists. Gabbard supports most US military alliances and continues to voice full support for the bogus
"war on terror" implemented by the Bush administration which serves no purpose other than to facilitate endless military expansionism;
Trump is openly pushing regime change interventionism in both Venezuela and Iran while declining to make good on his promises to
withdraw the US military from Syria and Afghanistan.
Another dishonest label you'll get thrown at you when debating the forever war is "pacifism". "Some wars are bad, but I'm
not a pacifist; sometimes war is necessary," supporters of a given interventionist military action will tell you. They'll say this
while defending Trump's potentially catastrophic Iran warmongering or promoting a moronic regime change invasion of Syria, or defending
disastrous US military interventions in the past like Iraq.
This is bullshit for a couple of reasons. Firstly, virtually no one is a pure pacifist who opposes war under any and all possible
circumstances; anyone who claims that they can't imagine any possible scenario in which they'd support using some kind of coordinated
violence either hasn't imagined very hard or is fooling themselves. If your loved ones were going to be raped, tortured and killed
by hostile forces unless an opposing group took up arms to defend them, for example, you would support that. Hell, you would probably
join in. Secondly, equating opposition to US-led regime change interventionism, which is literally always disastrous and literally
never helpful, is not even a tiny bit remotely like opposing all war under any possible circumstance.
Another common distortion you'll see is the specious argument that a given opponent of US interventionism "isn't anti-war" because
they don't oppose all war under any and all circumstances.
This tweet by The Intercept 's Mehdi Hasan
is a perfect example, claiming that Gabbard is not anti-war because she supports Syria's sovereign right to defend itself with the
help of its allies from the violent extremist factions which overran the country with western backing. Again, virtually no one is
opposed to all war under any and all circumstances; if a coalition of foreign governments had helped flood Hasan's own country of
Britain with extremist militias who'd been murdering their way across the UK with the ultimate goal of toppling London, both Tulsi
Gabbard and Hasan would support fighting back against those militias.
The label "anti-war" can for these reasons be a little misleading. The term anti-interventionist or non-interventionist comes
closest to describing the value system of most people who oppose the warmongering of the western empire, because they understand
that calls for military interventionism which go mainstream in today's environment are almost universally based on imperialist agendas
grabbing at power, profit, and global hegemony. The label "isolationist" comes nowhere close.
It all comes down to sovereignty. An anti-interventionist believes that a country has the right to defend itself, but it doesn't
have the right to conquer, capture, infiltrate or overthrow other nations whether covertly or overtly. At the "end" of colonialism
we all agreed we were done with that, except that the nationless manipulators have found far trickier ways to seize a country's will
and resources without actually planting a flag there. We need to get clearer on these distinctions and get louder about defending
them as the only sane, coherent way to run foreign policy.
* * *
The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing
list for my website , which will get you an email notification for everything
I publish. My work is
entirely
reader-supported , so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on
Facebook , following my antics on
Twitter , throwing some money into my hat on
Patreon or
Paypal , purchasing some of my
sweet merchandise , buying my new book
Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone ,
or my previous book
Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers . For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I'm trying to do with this platform,
click
here . Everyone, racist platforms excluded,
has my permission to republish or use any part of this work (or anything else I've written) in any way they like free of charge.
"If America does not lead the cause of freedom, that cause will not be led."
Fascinating belief, has he been to Libya lately, perhaps attended an open air slave Market in a country that was very developed
before the US decided to 'free' it.
When we weren't there, they flew planes into our buildings?
Excuse me mutant, but I believe we paid Israel our jewtax that year like all the others and they still flew planes into our
buildings. And then danced in the streets about it. Sick people.
All Wars Are Evil. Period. "Military men are just dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy." –
Henry Kissinger
Picture if you will Jesus. Seriously? Can you imagine Jesus firing a machine gun at a group of people? Can
you picture Jesus in an F-16 lobbing missiles at innocents?
Do you see Jesus piloting a drone and killing Muslims, other non-believers, or anyone for that matter? Can you picture Jesus
as a sniper?
Soooo,,, If my favorite evening activity, is to sit on the front porch steps, while the dog and the cats run around, with my
shotgun leaning up next to me,,, Is that Isolationist, or Protectionist,,,
instead of getting us out of Syria, Trump got us further in. Trump is driving us to ww3. we can't do **** if we're
glazed over in a nuclear holocaust. maybe Tulsi is lying through her teeth, but i am so pissed Trump went full neocon
funny how people, fresh from the broken promises "build that wall" etc, quickly forget all that and begin IMMEDIATELY
projecting trustworthiness on yet ANOTHER candidate. I'Il vote for Tulsi when she says no more Israeli wars for America.
If you read her positions on various issues, a quick survey shows that she supports the New Green Deal, more gun control (ban
on assault rifles, etc.), Medicare for all. Stopped reading at that point.
We refuse to be lectured by someone who thinks it's ok to dine with murderous dictators like Syria's Bashar Al-Assad
who used chemical weapons on his own people.
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only
for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus
becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the
lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State. ~ Joseph Goebbels
The better educated among us know exactly as to who Goebblels was referring to. Even a dullard should be able to figure out
who benefits from all of our Middle East adventures.
"Under our current Orwellian doublespeak paradigm where forever war is the new normal, the opposite of war is no longer
peace, but isolationism. "
Under military might WAS the old world order... Under the new world order the strength is in cyber warfare .
If under technology the profiteers can control the masses through crowd control ( which they can-" Department of Defense has
developed a non-lethal crowd control device called the
Active Denial System (ADS) . The ADS works by firing a high-powered beam of 95 GHz waves at a target that is, millimeter wavelengths.
Anyone caught in the beam will feel like their skin is burning.) your spending power ( they can through e- commetce and digital
banking) and isolation cells called homes ( they can through directed microwaves from GWEN stations).... We already are isolated
and exposed at the same time.
That war is an exceptable means of engagement as a solution to world power is a confirmation of the psychological warfare imposed
on us since the creation of our Nation.
Either we reel it in and back now or we destroy ourselves from within.
"
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
if there's even a small chance Tulsi can get us out of the forever wars i will be compelled to vote for her, as Trump clearly
has no intention on doing so. yes, it is that important
Idiot, Tulsi is a sovereign nationalist on the left. You have just never seen one before. If you were truly anti-globalist
you'd would realize left and right are invented to divide us. The politics are global and national, so wake the **** up
""War Is the U.S. Racket!"" They are not good at it, there "great at it". My entire life 63yrs,they been fighting someone or
something. When times where rough in the 1800s,Hell! they fought themselves(Civil War. As I said b4 No one seems to ask, Where
does the gold go of the vanquished foe? Truly Is A Well Practiced Racket.
Good article with several salient points, thought I would ask "what's wrong with a little isolationism?" Peace through internal
strength is desirable, but good fences make good neighbors and charity begins at home!
The gradual twisting of language really is one of most insidious tactics employed by the NWO Luciferians. I think we'd all
like to see the traitorous Neocons gone for good. Better yet, strip them of their American citizenship and ill-gotten wealth and
banish them to Israel. Let them earn their citizenship serving in a front-line IDF rifle company.
As for this next election? Is Ron Paul running as an independent? No? Well then, 'fool me once...' Don't get me wrong:
I hope Gabbard is genuine and she's absolutely right to push non-interventionism...but the rest of her platform sucks. There's
also the fact that she's a CFR member and avowed gun-grabber, to boot. Two HUGE red flags!
She almost strikes me as a half-assed 'Manchurian Candidate.' So, if she's elected (a big 'if' at this point) I ask
myself 'what happens after the next (probably nuclear) false flag?' How quickly will she disavow her present stance on non-interventionism?
How quickly and viciously will the 2nd Amendment be raped? Besides, I'm not foolish enough to believe that one person can turn
the SS Deep State away from it's final disastrous course.
These word games were already in use looong ago. Tulsi Gabbard is using Obama's line about fighting the wrong war. She
would have taken out Al Qaeda, captured Bin Laden, and put a dog leash on him. So that she could make a green economy, a
new century of virtue signalling tyranny. No thanks.
Just as they did with Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, and Pat Buchanan, the MSM and the swamp have already effectively buried
Gabbard. It's unlikely that she'll make the next debate cut as the DNC and MSM will toss her out.
All the MSM is talking about post-debates, even on Faux Noise, is Harris's race-baiting of old senile Biden.
I went to some of the so-called liberal websites and blogs and the only mention of Gabbard is in the context of her being a
Putin stooge. This combined with the fact that virtually all establishment Republicans are eager to fight any war for Israel clearly
shows that it will take something other than the ballot box to end Uncle Scam's endless wars.
"... Jeffrey Epstein's story is similarly abusive. The convicted sex offender prostituted dozens of underage girls and should have spent the rest of his life in jail. Again this is no 'one-off' abuse of an underage child, he was a serial sex predator. ..."
"... According to Joseph Recarey, the lead Palm Beach detective on the case, Epstein was essentially operating a "sexual pyramid scheme." ..."
"... The Vox writes that the girls and women who reported abuse by Epstein, meanwhile, were markedly powerless. Most of them "came from disadvantaged families, single-parent homes or foster care, Many of the girls were one step away from homelessness." ..."
Jeffrey Epstein's story is similarly abusive. The convicted sex offender prostituted dozens of underage girls and should have
spent the rest of his life in jail. Again this is no 'one-off'
abuse of an underage child, he was a serial sex predator.
According to Joseph Recarey, the lead Palm Beach detective on the case, Epstein was essentially operating a "sexual pyramid scheme."
The Vox
writes that the girls and women who reported abuse by Epstein, meanwhile, were markedly powerless. Most of them "came from disadvantaged
families, single-parent homes or foster care, Many of the girls were one step away from homelessness."
In November 2017 the genius comedian Larry David was criticized in the
Jewish press for admitting on Saturday Night Live that many of those
accused of sexual harassment in Hollywood are Jewish.
... Alan Dershowitz , who was a member
of Epstein's legal team and was later accused by one of the victims' lawyers of himself participating in the
sex trafficking ring .
A few days ago the
BBC reported on an extraordinary French identity theft scam. For two years starting in late
2015, an individual or individuals impersonating France's defence minister, Jean-Yves Le Drian,
scammed an estimated €80m from wealthy French patriots.
The victims of this fraud were tricked into believing that they were being contacted by
France's Defence Minister who was requesting money to help pay ransom for journalists held
hostage by Islamists in the Middle East. Since France officially does not pay ransom to
terrorists, the fake minster assured the victims that payments could not be traced and asked
for the funds to be wired to a bank in China.
The BBC deemed the operation "one of the most outlandish and successful rackets of recent
times."
You may not be surprised that the accused evil genius behind this con is a French-Israeli
character of Tunisian Jewish background named Gilbert Chikli. Chikli grew up in the
working-class Belleville neighbourhood of northeast Paris.
In 2015, Chikli was found guilty of scamming money from French corporations by pretending to
be their chief executive. By the time the verdict was reached, Chikli was safely ensconced in
the Jewish State, which refuses to extradite its nationals.
Chikli's luck ran out in August 2017 when he made the mistake of travelling to Ukraine where
he was arrested at the request of the French police. Chikli told police he was on a pilgrimage
to the tomb of a well-known rabbi. But a search into his phone's communication revealed that he
went to Ukraine to buy a silicone mask
The alleged crime saga didn't end there. Recently reports began to arrive at French
embassies around the world that once again a fake Le Drian, now French foreign minster, was
trying to squeeze money out of influential 'friends of France'. In February, three
French-Israeli citizens were arrested near Tel Aviv in connection with this new swindle.
Chikli's racket is astonishing, creative; criminologists may decide that it borders on
genius. Although Chikli didn't invent the art of the swindle, he ratcheted it up to a higher
level.
What I find remarkable about Chikli's operation is not the stunning amounts of money, the
sophistication, or even the chutzpah involved: it is the fact that Chikli 's scam was dependent
upon the humane compassion of others. He banked on the fact that humans feel and care for each
other. We are dealing with a disgraceful blow against the most precious aspect of humanity,
that which sustains kindness and brotherhood.
Will neoliberal MSM "Ron Paul" Tulsi ? "Merchants of death" control Washington and they will fiercely attack
anybody who attempt to change the current neocon policies even one bit. Looks at color revolution launched against Trump
despite the fact that he folded three month after inauguration.
Notable quotes:
"... Nope. That denunciation of John Bolton interventionism came from Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii during Wednesday night's Democratic debate. At 38, she was the youngest candidate on stage. ..."
"... Gabbard proceeded to rip both the "president and his chickenhawk cabinet (who) have led us to the brink of war with Iran." ..."
"... "The Taliban didn't attack us on 9/11," Gabbard replied, "Al-Qaida attacked us on 9/11. That's why I and so many other people joined the military, to go after al-Qaida, not the Taliban." ..."
"... By debate's end, Gabbard was the runaway winner in both the Drudge Report and Washington Examiner polls and was far in front among all the Democratic candidates whose names were being searched on Google. ..."
"... If she can rise a few points above her 1-2% in the polls, she could be assured a spot in the second round of debates. ..."
"... If she makes it into the second round, Gabbard could become the catalyst for the kind of globalist vs. nationalist debate that broke out between Trump and Bush Republicans in 2016, a debate that contributed to Trump's victory at the Cleveland convention and in November. ..."
"... Given more airtime, she will present problems for the GOP as well. For the foreign policy Tulsi Gabbard is calling for is not far off from the foreign policy Donald Trump promised in 2016 but has since failed to deliver. ..."
"... Rather than engaging Russia as Trump promised, we have been sanctioning Russia, arming Ukraine, sending warships into the Black Sea, beefing up NATO in the Baltic and trashing arms control treaties Ronald Reagan and other presidents negotiated in the Cold War ..."
"... At the end of the Cold War, we were the lone superpower. Who forfeited our preeminence? Who bled us of 7,000 U.S. lives and $6 trillion in endless Middle East wars? Who got us into this Cold War II? ..."
"... They're already trying to 'Ron Paul' her, which means we should support her, CFR, and Zionist associations notwithstanding. She's the only one saying 'Enough!' to the insanity of Eternal War, as America's infrastructure crumbles, and our progeny are enslaved to trillions of un-payable debt. ..."
"... Does Pat Buchanan know? During a radio interview he assured me that his friend Dick Cheney wouldn't do something like that. I asked Pat's friend Paul Craig Roberts what he thought. Craig said Pat just can't go there or he'll never appear in the MSM again. Then Pat got purged anyway. https://www.veteranstodayarchives.com/2012/02/20/pat-buchanan-avoids-911-truth-gets-fired-anyway/ ..."
"... Hi Kevin. I am a big fan of yours but I think that you should market your beliefs about Israel's role in 911 a bit more modestly. While the evidence is compelling, it is not air-tight. ..."
"... This also applies to the Zio-Judaic role in the assassinations of John and Robert Kennedy. You posit (in your otherwise excellent article on the Raptors' proposed visit Israel) that the Zions basically killed both Kennedys. While this position may be correct, it is an allegation that, at present, cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Your confidence therefore seems excessive. This weakness might therefore turn off average folks to your otherwise astute insights. ..."
"... The media is so terrified of Tulsi that they digitally added a zit to her face during the debate while she was discussing foreign policy to try to subliminally turn people off to her anti-war message. Here's an article on it showing videos of it happening: ..."
"... Tulsi Gabbard's foreign policy ideas are anathema to the war-prone Washington establishment and the media class, not to speak of the Israel firster. The anti-Gabbard slur is already underway. ..."
"For too long our leaders have failed us, taking us into one regime change war after the
next, leading us into a new Cold War and arms race, costing us trillions of our hard-earned tax
payer dollars and countless lives. This insanity must end."
Donald Trump, circa 2016?
Nope. That denunciation of John Bolton interventionism came from Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard
of Hawaii during Wednesday night's Democratic debate. At 38, she was the youngest candidate on
stage.
Gabbard proceeded to rip both the "president and his chickenhawk cabinet (who) have led us
to the brink of war with Iran."
In a fiery exchange, Congressman Tim Ryan of Ohio countered that America cannot disengage
from Afghanistan: "When we weren't in there they started flying planes into our buildings."
"The Taliban didn't attack us on 9/11," Gabbard replied, "Al-Qaida attacked us on 9/11.
That's why I and so many other people joined the military, to go after al-Qaida, not the
Taliban."
When Ryan insisted we must stay engaged, Gabbard shot back:
"Is that what you will tell the parents of those two soldiers who were just killed in
Afghanistan? 'Well, we just have to be engaged.' As a solider, I will tell you, that answer is
unacceptable. We are no better off in Afghanistan that we were when this war began."
By debate's end, Gabbard was the runaway winner in both the Drudge Report and Washington
Examiner polls and was far in front among all the Democratic candidates whose names were being
searched on Google.
Though given less than seven minutes of speaking time in a two-hour debate, she could not
have used that time more effectively. And her performance may shake up the Democratic race.
If she can rise a few points above her 1-2% in the polls, she could be assured a spot in the
second round of debates.
If she is, moderators will now go to her with questions of foreign policy issues that would
not have been raised without her presence, and these questions will expose the hidden divisions
in the Democratic Party.
Leading Democratic candidates could be asked to declare what U.S. policy should be -- not
only toward Afghanistan but Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Jared Kushner's "Deal of
the Century," and Trump's seeming rejection of the two-state solution.
If she makes it into the second round, Gabbard could become the catalyst for the kind of
globalist vs. nationalist debate that broke out between Trump and Bush Republicans in 2016, a
debate that contributed to Trump's victory at the Cleveland convention and in November.
The problem Gabbard presents for Democrats is that, as was shown in the joust with Ryan, she
takes positions that split her party, while her rivals prefer to talk about what unites the
party, like the terribleness of Trump, free college tuition and soaking the rich.
Given more airtime, she will present problems for the GOP as well. For the foreign policy
Tulsi Gabbard is calling for is not far off from the foreign policy Donald Trump promised in
2016 but has since failed to deliver.
We still have 2,000 troops in Syria, 5,000 in Iraq, 14,000 in Afghanistan. We just moved an
aircraft carrier task force, B-52s and 1,000 troops to the Persian Gulf to confront Iran. We
are about to impose sanctions on the Iranian foreign minister with whom we would need to
negotiate to avoid a war.
Jared Kushner is talking up a U.S.-led consortium to raise $50 billion for the Palestinians
in return for their forfeiture of sovereignty and an end to their dream of a nation-state on
the West Bank and Gaza with Jerusalem as its capital.
John Bolton is talking of regime change in Caracas and confronting the "troika of tyranny"
in Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela.
Rather than engaging Russia as Trump promised, we have been sanctioning Russia, arming
Ukraine, sending warships into the Black Sea, beefing up NATO in the Baltic and trashing arms
control treaties Ronald Reagan and other presidents negotiated in the Cold War
U.S. policy has managed to push our great adversaries, Russia and China, together as they
have not been since the first Stalin-Mao decade of the Cold War.
This June, Vladimir Putin traveled to Beijing where he and Xi Jinping met in the Great Hall
of the People to warn that in this time of "growing global instability and uncertainty," Russia
and China will "deepen their consultations on strategic stability issues."
Xi presented Putin with China's new Friendship Medal. Putin responded: "Cooperation with
China is one of Russia's top priorities and it has reached an unprecedented level."
At the end of the Cold War, we were the lone superpower. Who forfeited our preeminence? Who
bled us of 7,000 U.S. lives and $6 trillion in endless Middle East wars? Who got us into this
Cold War II?
Was all this the doing of those damnable isolationists again?
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made
and Broke a President and Divided America Forever."
They're already trying to 'Ron Paul' her, which means we should support her, CFR, and Zionist
associations notwithstanding. She's the only one saying 'Enough!' to the insanity of Eternal War, as America's
infrastructure crumbles, and our progeny are enslaved to trillions of un-payable debt.
Perhaps there's no way we can dislodge the Zionist fiend slurping from America's jugular,
but at least we can use our voice to say 'no' to it. And support the only person who's
willing to strike at the root, the Eternal Wars for Israel.
By debate's end, Gabbard was the runaway winner in both the Drudge Report and Washington
Examiner polls and was far in front among all the Democratic candidates whose names were
being searched on Google.
Which got the MIC to paint a giant target on her. The Atlantic Council is not going to be
happy with this kind of anti war shtick entering the debates, and their patrons own the
media.
Does Tulsi know she's lying when she says "al-Qaeda attacked us on 9/11"? I suspect she does,
and that her disgust with the big lie behind the 9/11-wars-for-Israel has something to do
with her anti-interventionism.
I would hope Gabbard has more sense than to accept any position in Trumps administration.
Trump is the kiss of death for any decent person who works for or with him.
Hi Kevin. I am a big fan of yours but I think that you should market your beliefs
about Israel's role in 911 a bit more modestly. While the evidence is compelling, it is not
air-tight.
This also applies to the Zio-Judaic role in the assassinations of John and Robert Kennedy.
You posit (in your otherwise excellent article on the Raptors' proposed visit Israel) that
the Zions basically killed both Kennedys. While this position may be correct, it is an
allegation that, at present, cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Your confidence
therefore seems excessive. This weakness might therefore turn off average folks to your
otherwise astute insights.
As for Tulsi Gabbard, who you suggest is "lying" about her belief in what/who caused 911,
I bet that she (like myself) rejects the Official 911 report but is unsure of what/who did
exactly what on Sept. 11, 2001. Mysteries remain. The puzzle is incomplete.
Allow me to respectfully advise you to stick with what you know for certain, as you do it
quite well.
As for the mysteries concerning 911 and Israel's role, it may be more fruitful to concede
that the evidence has not only been partially destroyed but that a coverup has occurred. And
yes, there's overwhelming evidence pointing to Israeli involvement. And no honest person can
deny that.
The media is so terrified of Tulsi that they digitally added a zit to her face during the
debate while she was discussing foreign policy to try to subliminally turn people off to her
anti-war message.
Here's an article on it showing videos of it happening:
@Robert
Dolan As if Hillary 'War with Russia' Clinton would have been different.
Trumps foreign policies in obedience to 'that shitty little country' are disgusting, no
doubt, but we would still have all of that and much worse under Hillary.
It's a charming idea; Pat Buchanan is ventilating. Tulsi Gabbard as Trump's national security
adviser; what a treat! But poor Tulsi, she wouldn't survive very long in the Zionist
environment, which dominates Trump's White House.
Tulsi Gabbard's foreign policy ideas are
anathema to the war-prone Washington establishment and the media class, not to speak of the
Israel firster. The anti-Gabbard slur is already underway.
Tulsi Gabbard was half right by saying that the Taliban didn't do 9/11, but Al-Qaida did,
which is false. None of them committed the murderous attack. Everybody with a clear mind can
see of the web of lies and inconsistencies that the 9/11 Commission Report has solidified.
The American people have to come to grips with the fact that it was an inside job, and those
responsible are still all alive and kicking. The problem with the whole truth is that nobody
can afford to tell it, because it would be his or her political death.
So, Tulsi Gabbard was wise sticking to the half-truth.
@Kevin
Barrett 'Does Tulsi know she's lying when she says "al-Qaeda attacked us on 9/11"?'
She has been showing signs of hedging since her campaign began. I can't make up my mind
how bad that is. If she went on telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth
– such as that Mr Assad has done little or nothing to deserve the abuse heaped on him
– she might simply be ruling herself out as a candidate.
On the other hand, once a candidate starts telling herself, "Oh, it's worth one or two
little white lies to get myself elected, because I can do so much good then", it's the start
of a long slippery slope.
That specific statement can be justified, to my mind, with a little Jesuitical
equivocation. Because no one has ever really pinned down who or what "Al Qaeda" is – or
even whether such an organization exists at all.
If she said, "No one can be certain who was responsible for 9/11, but it's time we had a
really thorough, impartial investigation", she would alienate a huge section of the
voters.
There's almost always something like this tucked into Mr. Buchanan's columns. The other
day, he was still celebrating Uncle Sam's rescue of medical students from the "Marxist thugs"
in Grenada. That little "our" is the key. Pronoun propaganda is one of the ways that this
website's "Mr. Paleoconservative" helps to keep Americans identifying with Uncle Sam.
Another fundamental way that Mr. Buchanan actually supports the Establishment is by
channeling and harmlessly blowing off dissent through "Red v Blue" politics. Enjoy columns
like this one in the meantime, but keep in mind that he's also going to tell you to believe
the puppet show and vote (almost certainly GOP) in November 2020. Even if someone who says
things like Ms. Gabbard is elected, there will be ample drama in and about Washington to
excuse the lack of meaningful change and fire people up for the next Most Important Election
Ever in 2022.
And note this:
"For the foreign policy Tulsi Gabbard is calling for is not far off from the foreign
policy Donald Trump promised in 2016 but has since failed to deliver."
Oh, a mere logistical problem due to people like John Bolton, Mike Pompeo, and Elliot
Abrams somehow crashing the MAGA party? Mr. Buchanan should have written "the foreign policy
Donald Trump lied about in 2016." But that might lead people to doubt the system.
If she can rise a few points above her 1-2% in the polls, she could be assured a spot in
the second round of debates.
Oi Vey! If Tulsi starts to rise in the polls then then (((they'll))) create a new dossier
and claim she's colluding with Russia or the Taliban to steal the 2020 election. I wouldn't
be surprised if elements of Trump's administration did the very same things to Tulsi as
Obongo's did to Trump.
Was all this the doing of those damnable isolationists again?
Pat knows (((who))) but has lost the will to say it. But we know. The goyim know.
@mark
green We, we all have our opinions. I think you're most charitable to Mr. Barrett's
fictions. Zio-terrorists (I'm not using the word Zionist, since I am Zionist – sort of
-because I support the idea of Jewish nation-state as a democratic country) may have
contributed (just freely associating), say, max 30% to 9/11, while the possibility of their
involvement in the assassination of JFK is way below 5%.
"... If I were a particularly cynical analyst, it might look to me like global capitalism, starting right around 1990, freed by the collapse of the U.S.S.R. to do whatever the hell it wanted, more or less immediately started dismantling uncooperative power structures throughout the Greater Middle East. My cynical theory would kind of make sense of the "catastrophic policy blunders" that the United States has supposedly made in Iraq, Libya, and throughout the region, not to mention the whole "Global War on Terror," and what it is currently doing to Syria, and Iran. ..."
"... Take a look at that map again. What you're looking at is global capitalism cleaning up after winning the Cold War. And yes, I do mean global capitalism, not the United States of America (i.e., the "nation" most Americans think they live in, despite all evidence to the contrary). I know it hurts to accept the fact that "America" is nothing but a simulation projected onto an enormous marketplace but seriously, do you honestly believe that the U.S. government and its military serve the interests of the American people? If so, go ahead, review the history of their activities since the Second World War, and explain to me how they have benefited Americans not the corporatist ruling classes, regular working class Americans, many of whom can't afford to see a doctor, or buy a house, or educate their kids, not without assuming a lifetime of debt to some global financial institution. ..."
"... OK, so I digressed a little. The point is, "America" is not at war with Iran. Global capitalism is at war with Iran. The supranational corporatist empire. Yes, it wears an American face, and waves a big American flag, but it is no more "American" than the corporations it comprises, or the governments those corporations own, or the military forces those governments control, or the transnational banks that keep the whole show running. ..."
If I were a particularly cynical analyst, it might look to me like global capitalism,
starting right around 1990, freed by the collapse of the U.S.S.R. to do whatever the hell it
wanted, more or less immediately started dismantling uncooperative power structures throughout
the Greater Middle East. My cynical theory would kind of make sense of the "catastrophic policy
blunders" that the United States has supposedly made in Iraq, Libya, and throughout the region,
not to mention the whole "Global War on Terror," and what it is currently doing to Syria, and
Iran.
Take a good look at
this Smithsonian map of where the U.S.A. is "combating terrorism." Note how the U.S.
military (i.e., global capitalism's unofficial "enforcer") has catastrophically blundered its
way into more or less every nation depicted. Or ask our "allies" in Saudi Arabia, Israel,
Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, and so on. OK, you might have to reach
them in New York or London, or in the South of France this time of year, but, go ahead, ask
them about the horrors they've been suffering on account of our "catastrophic blunders."
See, according to this crackpot conspiracy theory that I would put forth if I were a
geopolitical analyst instead of just a political satirist, there have been no "catastrophic
policy blunders," not for global capitalism. The Restructuring of the Greater Middle East is
proceeding exactly according to plan. The regional ruling classes are playing ball, and those
who wouldn't have been regime-changed, or are being regime-changed, or are scheduled for regime
change.
Sure, for the actual people of the region, and for regular Americans, the last thirty years
of wars, "strategic" bombings, sanctions, fomented coups, and other such shenanigans have been
a pointless waste of lives and money but global capitalism doesn't care about people or the
"sovereign nations" they believe they live in, except to the extent they are useful. Global
capitalism has no nations. All it has are market territories, which are either open for
business or not.
Take a look at that map again. What you're looking at is global capitalism cleaning up after
winning the Cold War. And yes, I do mean global capitalism, not the United States of
America (i.e., the "nation" most Americans think they live in, despite all evidence to the
contrary). I know it hurts to accept the fact that "America" is nothing but a simulation
projected onto an enormous marketplace but seriously, do you honestly believe that the U.S.
government and its military serve the interests of the American people? If so, go ahead, review
the history of their activities since the Second World War, and explain to me how they have
benefited Americans not the corporatist ruling classes, regular working class Americans, many
of whom can't afford to see a doctor, or buy a house, or educate their kids, not without
assuming a lifetime of debt to some global financial institution.
OK, so I digressed a little. The point is, "America" is not at war with Iran. Global
capitalism is at war with Iran. The supranational corporatist empire. Yes, it wears an American
face, and waves a big American flag, but it is no more "American" than the corporations it
comprises, or the governments those corporations own, or the military forces those governments
control, or the transnational banks that keep the whole show running.
This is what Iran and Syria are up against. This is what Russia is up against. Global
capitalism doesn't want to nuke them, or occupy them. It wants to privatize them, like it is
privatizing the rest of the world, like it has already privatized America according to my
crackpot theory, of course.
if I were a geopolitical analyst, I might be able to discern a pattern there, and
possibly even some sort of strategy.
Sounds good.
Some other people did it before, wrote it down etc. but it's always good to see that
stuff.
it might look to me like global capitalism, starting right around 1990, freed by the
collapse of the U.S.S.R. to do whatever the hell it wanted, more or less immediately
started dismantling uncooperative power structures throughout the Greater Middle East.
.there have been no "catastrophic policy blunders," not for global capitalism. The
Restructuring of the Greater Middle East is proceeding exactly according to plan. The
regional ruling classes are playing ball, and those who wouldn't have been regime-changed,
or are being regime-changed, or are scheduled for regime change.
Sure, for the actual people of the region, and for regular Americans, the last thirty years
of wars, "strategic" bombings, sanctions, fomented coups, and other such shenanigans have
been a pointless waste of lives and money but global capitalism doesn't care about people
or the "sovereign nations" they believe they live in, except to the extent they are useful.
Global capitalism has no nations. All it has are market territories, which are either open
for business or not.
Spot on.
Now .there IS a bit of oversight in the article re competing groups of people on top of
that "Global capitalist" bunch.
It's a bit more complicated than "Global capitalism".
Jewish heavily influenced, perhaps even controlled, Anglo-Saxon "setup" .. or Russian
"setup" or Chinese "setup".
Only one of them can be on the top, and they don't like each other much.
And they all have nuclear weapons.
"Global capitalism" idea is optimistic. The global overwhelming force against little
players. No chance of MAD there so not that bad.NOPE IMHO.
There is a chance of MAD.
That is the problem . Well, at least for some people.
Globalists are not Capitalists. There is no competition. Just a hand full of monopolies.
These stateless corporate monopolists are better understood as Feudalists. They would have
everything. We would have nothing. That's what privatization is. It's the Lords ripping off
the proles.
I was a union man in my youth. We liked Capitalism. We just wanted our fair share of the
loot. The working class today knows nothing about organizing. They don't even know they are
working class. They think they are black or white. Woke or Deplorable.
ALL OF US non billionaires are coming up on serious hard times. Serious enough that we
might have to put aside our differences. The government is corrupt. It will not save us.
Instead it will continue to work to divide us.
Another great article by C J Hopkins.
Hopkins (correctly) posits that behind US actions, wars etc lies the global capitalist
class.
"Global capitalism has no nations. All it has are market territories, which are either open
for business or not"
This is correct -- but requires an important caveat.
Intrinsic to capitalism is imperialism. They are the head & tail of the same coin.
Global capitalists may unite in their rapacious attacks on average citizens the world over.
However, they will disunite when it comes to beating a competitor to a market.
The "West" has no (real) ideological differences with China, Russia & Iran. This is a
fight between an existing hegemon & it's allies & a rising hegemon (China) & it's
allies.
In many ways it's similar to the WW I situation: an established imperial country, the UK,
& it's allies against a country with imperial pretensions -- Germany (& it's
allies)
To put it in a nice little homily: the Capitalist wolves prefer to eat sheep (us) -- but,
will happily eat each other should they perceive a sufficient interest in doing so.
Globalists are not Capitalists. There is no competition. Just a hand full of
monopolies.
In most key sectors, competition ends up producing monopolies or their near-equivalent,
oligopolies. The many are weeded out (or swallowed up) by the few . The
situation is roughly the same with democracy, which historically has always resulted in
oligarchy, as occurred in ancient Rome and Athens.
Globalists are not Capitalists. There is no competition. Just a hand full of monopolies.
These stateless corporate monopolists are better understood as Feudalists. They would have
everything. We would have nothing. That's what privatization is. It's the Lords ripping off
the proles.
You are right in expecting that in Capitalism there would be competition – the
traditional view that prices would remain low because of competition, the less competitive
removed from the field, and so on. But that was primitive laisser-faire Capitalism on a fair
playing field that hardly existed but in theory. Occasionally there were some "good"
capitalists – say the mill-owner in a Lancashire town who gave employment to the
locals, built houses, donated to charity and went to the Sunday church service with his
workers. But even that "good" capitalist was in it for the profit, which comes from taking
possession for himself of the value added by his workers to a commodity.
But modern Capitalism does not function that way. There are no mill-owners, just absentee
investor playing in, usually rigged, stock market casinos. Industrial capitalism has been
changed into financial Capitalism without borders and loyalty to worker or country. In fact,
it has gone global to play country against country for more profit.
Anyway, the USA has evolved into a Fascist state (an advanced state of capitalism, a.k.a.
corporatocracy) as Chomsky stated many years ago. Seen from abroad here's a view from the
horse's mouth ( The Guardian is official organ of Globalist Fascism).
'Christian Zionism' is the direct fruit of Anglo-Saxon Puritanism broadly understood. Over its
life, it has manifested itself in many ways. The beliefs were so powerful even before the
Puritan revolution that groups of English Dissenter/Low Church Protestants existed that taught
that the original natives of Britain, barbarians in every sense, had been uplifted by the
arrival of the 10 Lost Tribes of Israel – this was taught to prove that the English had
Hebrew blood and so were the Chosen Race, which meant that Anglophone Protestantism (Low
Church) was the true faith.
By the dawn of the Victorian age, standard Brit WASP Judaizing had become secular and had
discovered that Arabs are also Semites linguistically and culturally. That allowed many of the
Brit WASP Elites to adopt Arabs and/or Mohammedanism as their pet Semite to elevate over the
vast majority of British Isles natives that they despised.
The religiously pro-Jewish original focus of the culture produced by the Judaizing heresy
that was Anglo-Saxon Puritanism was still alive and very powerful at the dawn of the 20th
century. That is how the Oxford UP came to publish the Scofield Study Bible.
Churches across the South were remarkably free of any taint of overt Judaizing in the WASP
vein until well after WW2. The growth was slow but steady until after the Reagan years, when it
exploded. I have seen no signs of a regression in the 21st century.
You also are way off about the economic notions held by rural Evangelicals in the South.
And probably, if we just impeach the Walrus of Death nothing will change . Its a freight
train to war. It moves slowly at first but its hell to try and stop.
This awesome demonstration of American resolve was meant to be punishment for the vicious
slaughter of an expensive U.S. military drone, which was peacefully invading Iranian airspace,
and not at all attempting to provoke the Iranians into blowing it out of the sky with a missile
so the U.S. military could "retaliate."
The military-industrial complex would never dream of doing anything like that, not even to
further the destabilization and restructuring of the Greater Middle East that they've been
systematically carrying out the since the collapse of the former Soviet Union, which more on
that in just a moment.
Justify your actions by the need to protect the weak and vulnerable. This is the first rule
of political rhetoric. If you bomb Syria, do not admit you did it to install your puppet regime
or to lay a pipeline. Say you did it to save the Aleppo kids gassed by Assad the Butcher. If
you occupy Afghanistan, do not admit you make a handsome profit smuggling heroin; say you came
to protect the women. If you want to put your people under total surveillance, say you did it
to prevent hate groups target the powerless and diverse.
Remember: you do not need to ask children, women or immigrants whether they want your
protection. If pushed, you can always find a few suitable profiles to look at the cameras and
repeat a short text. With all my dislike for R2P (Responsibility to Protect) hypocrisy, I can't
possibly blame the allegedly protected for the disaster caused by the unwanted protectors.
This thought came to my mind during my recent visit to France for the publication of my new
book In The Name of
Christ . France is going through a rapid shrinking of freedom. All the nations experience
that, but France leads. For years they had laws that banned things displeasing to Jews; and now
they expand these laws punishing not only saying or writing but also thinking, implying or
winking. The bill criminalising anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism may be voted on very soon. As
the law voted in 2015 (after the Charlie Hebdo attack ), against the
"apology of terrorism", the new law will allow the government to seize anyone, just for a tweet
or a post on Facebook, and send a person for 18 months to "preventive imprisonment", even
before he comes to a court. The judge will sanction him on the basis of "intimate conviction"
of his "hidden intentions".
This fight against alleged antisemitism has become – like in the UK – a powerful
tool of the ruling elites against the people. It is used against the Gilets Jaunes (the
Yellow Vests), and against the opposition in general. The authorities apply the R2P principle
to assault French freedom, that is they allegedly protect the Jews, as if Jews need protection,
and in the name of Jews they steal freedom of all.
With a certain poetic license, one can proclaim the Jews are innocent of this assault, like
the Aleppo kids are not guilty of bombing Syria and Afghan women are not guilty of American
occupation. The Jews have been used as proverbial victims, but so were children and women. The
guilt and responsibility is of those who use them as a pretext.
You may argue that the comparison is forced, for the French Jewish bodies actively
participate in this campaign against French freedom. Yes, that's true, but these organisations
are voluntary self-appointed guardians of Jewish interest. Jews didn't vote for them, didn't
elect them. The government was free to disregard them saying they do not represent their Jewish
citizens. Actually, that was the traditional French approach, refusing to deal with Jewish
organisations saying the French Jews are French and they do not need an intermediary. If the
government preferred to listen to them, it is only because they say what the government wants
to hear.
In Annecy, one of France's prettiest medieval towns I had met Maître Viguier, the
lawyer for Mr Alain Soral, and over the pot of cheese fondue the place is famous for he told me
an amazing story.
In the course of their demo, the Yellow Vests had burned a picture of a French TV
personality, Bernard Henri Levi (BHL for short), and of some other worthies. This event had
been depicted in a jolly video clip that you can watch with pleasure and the clip had been
uploaded on a website associated with Alain Soral.
The CRIF (or/and LICRA and other bodies) had accused Mr Soral of antisemitism, a criminal
offence, on the strength of this fact, and demanded 2 years of prison + 30,000 euros, requested
as punishment + 82,500 as compensations for the "victims". The Maître said the elites try
to unite the Jewish people against Gilets Jaunes and against ordinary French people. Other
supporters of the GJ, Jean Bricmont and M. Chouard are the next on the list, after Soral.
The CRIF said that the rap was in coded language. The burned picture of BHL suggests a
great fire to burn every Jew. "Between 1940 and 1945, the Nazis called the Jews 'vermin' and
'parasites' that should be exterminated", they say. And that's why the word "parasites" in the
clip necessarily refers to Jews that should be exterminated. A very weak logic; Socrates
would send these CRIF sophists back to the holes they usually hide from sunlight. Whatever the
Nazis said, they have no copyright on the word 'parasites'. In the Soviet Union after the
October 1917 Revolution, when Jews occupied quite a prominent place in the society, the most
popular revolutionary song said the parasites have no right to rule the land.
Parasites are those who do not toil but consume; and this is not a specific Jewish feature.
By claiming that Jews are the parasites, the self-proclaimed Jewish organisations indulge in
vile antisemitism, I told them.
What's wrong in burning a picture of BHL? BHL is a French citizen who is entitled to his
views. However, none of his views could or should be accepted as "the Jewish position". The
French Jews, and certainly the Jews of the world, hold a wide variety of views, some of them
agree with BHL in some points and some disagree, sometimes disagree strongly. Mr BHL had been a
fervent supporter, or even an instigator of the NATO attack on Libya in 2011 that had made this
rather prosperous North African country a failed state ruled by Islamist armed gangs. Mr BHL
had been a fervent supporter or an instigator of the Kiev 2014 coup that deposed the legitimate
president of the Ukraine and had brought followers of the Nazi Quisling Stepan Bandera to
power. Mr BHL had tried to ignite the ire of his French compatriots against the GJ. These and
other strong views of Mr BHL had caused indignation of some French citizens who expressed their
indignation by burning his photo. These acts by Mr BHL and his adversaries are perfectly
legitimate within the limits of free public discourse.
What is not and can't be legitimate is an attempt by the CRIF to create a false impression
as if those opinions and acts by Mr BHL were an expression of the Jewish position. This is an
obnoxious anti-Semitic lie. The Jews of France, of Israel and of the world didn't necessarily
wish Libya to be bombed or Kiev upturned; the Jews have no united single political position on
French elections or on French political movements. Some French Jews support the GJ, and some
reject them. Some vote for Mr Macron and some for Mme Le Pen or Mr Soral.
It's only vicious anti-Semites who claim that all Jews follow and support BHL. This nasty
claim had been upheld by a self-proclaimed "Jewish organisation" CRIF.
Let me reiterate: the body called CRIF does not represent French Jews, for it was not
elected by French Jews. Its leadership is not accepted by French or any other Jews. It is a
political organisation with its own goals; its goals do not coincide with those of majority of
Jews in France or elsewhere.
While it is possible to argue that in some cases CRIFF acts in the interests of the Jews by
fighting anti-Jewish prejudice, in this particular case the CRIF acts against the Jewish
interests, as this action is likely to enforce the anti-Jewish prejudice of all Jews acting
together for some dubious goal like break-up of Libya or Ukraine or for other controversial
goal.
The Jews qua Jews have no position on these topics. Mr BHL is neither an elected
representative nor a spiritual authority for the Jews in France or anywhere else. He does not
dress as an observant Jew, he does not observe Jewish laws and customs; his family famously
includes apostates; his actions were always those of a free agent; he never consulted with
Jewish authorities, spiritual or temporal.
He is perfectly entitled to his views and opinions; however he may not claim he acts in the
Jewish interests or represents the Jews. Even less so CRIF may present a protest against BHL as
an act against Jewish people as the whole; as an act of anti-Semitism. If somebody is
anti-Semitic it is CRIF that suggest that an attack of BHL is an attack on the Jewish people.
If this would be a case, should we consider a condemnation of the Black comedian Mr
Dieudonné – an act of anti-black racism?
It is perfectly legal to burn the image of BHL in Israel; and I intend to do it tomorrow in
Tel Aviv on the Gordon Beach, I told them. No court in Israel would accuse me of anti-Semitism
if I burn his picture; or a picture of Mr Netanyahu who is anyway an elected representative of
the Jewish state of Israel. While Israeli flag is protected from desecration, an image of a
person of a Jewish origin is not. It is free to burn or despoil it in any way you like.
I am certain that French citizens are not less free than Israeli citizens, and I hope that
the French court will reject the frivolous claim of the self-proclaimed Jewish body called
CRIFF against Mr Alain Soral. It would be good if Mr BHL would find courage to support Mr Soral
against CRIF by affirming that he was not and is not acting as a legitimate representative or
spiritual authority of the French Jews. It would be even better if the French Republic would
accuse CRIF for encouraging anti-Jewish prejudice by frivolous claims.
If the French Republic finds it necessary to condemn Mr Alain Soral for whatever reason, let
her do it without pretence of acting for the Jewish cause. Keep Jews out of this polemics! The
Jews have enough troubles of their own without being used as a sort of supreme argument in an
intra-French dispute.
This is what I said to the French lawyer, and he produced my argument in the French court.
You can read all this argumentation
here in French or just watch a conversation (in English with French translation) I had with
a popular French presenter Jean-Michel Vernochet and the charming poet, political thinker and
my translator Mme Maria Poumier:
I think it would be better for everyone, Jews included, if the organized Jewish community had
less influence in the highest levels of society in western countries. I also think it would
be helpful if it wasn't such a taboo to criticize them and their culture. Every other ethnic,
racial, and religious group that I know of is subject to criticism. Jews should join the
party.
I want what's best for all people, including Jews. Thank you to Israel Shamir, Gilad
Atzmon, Ron Unz and others for reminding us that there are decent people of Jewish heritage
out there.
I seriously doubt a non Jew in the US government thought up the idea of criminalizing
BDS, which neither the government nor the public gets any benefit from.
You don't have to be German to be a Nazi, and likewise, you don't have to be Jewish to be
a Zionist. Lots of non-Jews in Congress want to criminalize BDS.
@Pinche Perro You are
correct, sir, but any criticism of The Chosen–however constructive or
well-meaning–summons Zombie Hitler and the 4 Horsemen of the Holocaust...
"... But if a ground war is ruled out, then Iran is engaged in the sort of limited conflict in which it has long experience. A senior Iraqi official once said to me that the Iranians "have a PhD" in this type of part political, part military warfare. They are tactics that have worked well for Tehran in Lebanon, Iraq and Syria over the past 40 years. The Iranians have many pressure points against the US, and above all against its Saudi and Emirati allies in the Gulf. ..."
"... Saddam Hussein sought to throttle Iran's oil exports and Iran tried to do the same to Iraq. The US and its allies weighed in openly on Saddam Hussein's side – an episode swiftly forgotten by them after the Iraqi leader invaded Kuwait in 1990. From 1987 on, re-registered Kuwaiti tankers were being escorted through the Gulf by US warships. There were US airstrikes against Iranian ships and shore facilities, culminating in the accidental but very avoidable shooting down of an Iranian civil airliner with 290 passengers on board by the USS Vincennes in 1988. Iran was forced to sue for peace in its war with Iraq. ..."
But the dilemma for Trump is at a deeper level. His sanctions against Iran, reimposed after
he withdrew the US from the Iran nuclear deal in 2018, are devastating the Iranian economy. The
US Treasury is a more lethal international power than the Pentagon. The EU and other countries
have stuck with the deal, but they have in practice come to tolerate the economic blockade of
Iran.
Iran was left with no choice but to escalate the conflict. It wants to make sure that the
US, the European and Asian powers, and US regional allies Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates,
feel some pain. Tehran never expected much from the EU states, which are still signed up to the
2015 nuclear deal, and has found its low expectations are being fulfilled.
A fundamental misunderstanding of the US-Iran confrontation is shared by many commentators.
It may seem self-evident that the US has an interest in using its vast military superiority
over Iran to get what it wants. But after the failure of the US ground forces to win in Iraq
and Afghanistan, not to mention Somalia, no US leader can start a land war in the Middle East
without endangering their political survival at home.
Trump took this lesson to heart long before he became president. He is a genuine
isolationist in the American tradition. The Democrats and much of the US media have portrayed
Trump as a warmonger, though he has yet to start a war. His national security adviser John
Bolton and secretary of state Mike Pompeo issue bloodcurdling threats against Iran, but Trump
evidently views such bellicose rhetoric as simply one more way of ramping up the pressure on
Iran.
But if a ground war is ruled out, then Iran is engaged in the sort of limited conflict in
which it has long experience. A senior Iraqi official once said to me that the Iranians "have a
PhD" in this type of part political, part military warfare. They are tactics that have worked
well for Tehran in Lebanon, Iraq and Syria over the past 40 years. The Iranians have many
pressure points against the US, and above all against its Saudi and Emirati allies in the
Gulf.
The Iranians could overplay their hand: Trump is an isolationist, but he is also a populist
national leader who claims in his first campaign rallies for the next presidential election to
"have made America great again". Such boasts make it difficult to not retaliate against Iran, a
country he has demonised as the source of all the troubles in the Middle East.
One US military option looks superficially attractive but conceals many pitfalls. This is to
try to carry out operations along the lines of the limited military conflict between the US and
Iran called the "tanker war". This was part of the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s and the US came
out the winner.
Saddam Hussein sought to throttle Iran's oil exports and Iran tried to do the same to Iraq.
The US and its allies weighed in openly on Saddam Hussein's side – an episode swiftly
forgotten by them after the Iraqi leader invaded Kuwait in 1990. From 1987 on, re-registered
Kuwaiti tankers were being escorted through the Gulf by US warships. There were US airstrikes
against Iranian ships and shore facilities, culminating in the accidental but very avoidable
shooting down of an Iranian civil airliner with 290 passengers on board by the USS Vincennes in
1988. Iran was forced to sue for peace in its war with Iraq.
Some retired American generals speak about staging a repeat of the tanker war today but
circumstances have changed. Iran's main opponent in 1988 was Saddam Hussein's Iraq and Iran was
well on its way to losing the war, in which there was only one front
"Trump took this lesson to heart long before he became president. He is a genuine
isolationist in the American tradition."
Mr. Cockburn does not understand the meaning of isolationist. Trump has been pro-empire
since the day he took office.
I have better stuff in my blog:
June 22, 2019 – Iran
People familiar with US military history know what just happened off Iran. American
aircraft and drones have violated Iranian airspace every week for years, either by accident
or because American officers like to screw with them, especially when lots of high-level
American officials want war with Iran. Complaints were filed and ignored, so the Iranians
shot one down. Note there is no international airspace in the Strait of Hormuz. Half belongs
to Iran and the other to UAE and Oman. It is an international waterway, so all ships have the
right to transit, but aircraft require permission from one of these nations.
The American people are clueless about this stuff since most only know what our
warmongering media tells them, as Jimmy Dore explains in this video. I was shocked and
pleased that President Trump saw through this ruse and bravely did nothing. If we bomb Iran
they will hit back, maybe openly with a missile barrage, or covertly using Shia militias in
Iraq, Bahrain, and Afghanistan. The USA has tens of thousands of soldiers and contractors all
over the Arab world. I'm sure local teams have spent years scouting targets and preparing to
attack after a green light from Tehran. Trump wisely cancelled this chaos, at least until
after his reelection.
"He is a genuine isolationist" Oh please; Mr. Cockburn, you're old enough to have heard of
projection. There is nothing genuine about Trump's public persona, except for his
greed and egotism. He's a world-class grifter and charlatan–i.e., still not to be
underestimated. His calculation will probably be "Can I get re-elected without jumping into
the breach? Then that's fine too. If the polls look awful, I'll roll the dice and be a
War-Time President like Dubya."
At least, Mr. Cockburn understands that the "crippling sanctions" (the way Americans are
always proud of those show that they're just knee-capping mafiosi) are leaving Iran no choice
but to fight back. So the decision may not be in Donald's hands; he may be smarter than his
media caricature, and yet not as smart as he thought.
Once American servicemen start dying for this rather nebulous cause, it will be the
reaction of American voters that will ultimately determine the extent and duration of yet
another Middle East military, nation re-engineering "adventure".
"Note there is no international airspace in the Strait of Hormuz. Half belongs to Iran and
the other to UAE and Oman. It is an international waterway, so all ships have the right to
transit, but aircraft require permission from one of these nations."
You might want to examine the UNCLOS agreement. It's created some sticky issues in the
South China Seas and in the straight in question, Iran and Oman are leaning very heavily on
that the policy. In their view it is for use exclusively for noncombatant enterprise as part
of their claim as territorial waters, they have a say in its use.
Madeline Albright responded to the question "1 million dead Iraqi babies is that an
acceptable number for the US"? Like a true American woman and mother she said, "yes its
acceptable."
You mean 'Like a true ((American)) woman and mother'
U.S. Navy photo by
Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class John Philip Wagner, Jr./Released◄►◄►▲▼ Remove from
Library B Show Comment Next
New Comment Next New Reply Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This
Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public
Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to
recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information'
checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour. Email Comment Ignore Commenter Follow
Commenter Add to Library
Bookmark Toggle All ToC ▲▼ Search
Text Case Sensitive
Exact Words
Include Comments
Search Clear Cancel
Sooner or later the US "maximum pressure" on Iran would inevitably be met by "maximum
counter-pressure". Sparks are ominously bound to fly.
For the past few days, intelligence circles across Eurasia had been prodding Tehran to
consider a quite straightforward scenario. There would be no need to shut down the Strait of
Hormuz if Quds Force commander, General Qasem Soleimani, the ultimate Pentagon bête
noire, explained in detail, on global media, that Washington simply does not have the military
capacity to keep the Strait open.
would destroy the American economy by detonating the $1.2 quadrillion derivatives market;
and that would collapse the world banking system, crushing the world's $80 trillion GDP and
causing an unprecedented depression.
Soleimani should also state bluntly that Iran may in fact shut down the Strait of Hormuz if
the nation is prevented from exporting essential two million barrels of oil a day, mostly to
Asia. Exports, which before illegal US sanctions and de facto blockade would normally reach 2.5
million barrels a day, now may be down to only 400,000.
Soleimani's intervention would align with consistent signs already coming from the IRGC. The
Persian Gulf is being described as an imminent "shooting gallery." Brigadier General Hossein
Salami stressed that Iran's
ballistic missiles are capable of hitting "carriers in the sea" with pinpoint precision.
The whole northern border of the Persian Gulf, on Iranian territory, is lined up with anti-ship
missiles – as I confirmed
with IRGC-related sources.
We'll let you know when it's closed
Then, it happened.
Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces, Major General Mohammad Baqeri,
went straight
to the point ; "If the Islamic Republic of Iran were determined to prevent export of oil
from the Persian Gulf, that determination would be realized in full and announced in public, in
view of the power of the country and its Armed Forces."
The facts are stark. Tehran simply won't accept all-out economic war lying down –
prevented to export the oil that protects its economic survival. The Strait of Hormuz question
has been officially addressed. Now it's time for the derivatives.
Presenting detailed derivatives analysis plus military analysis to global media would force
the media pack, mostly Western, to go to Warren Buffett to see if it is true. And it is true.
Soleimani, according to this scenario, should say as much and recommend that the media go talk
to Warren Buffett.
The extent of a possible derivatives crisis is an uber-taboo theme for the Washington
consensus institutions. According to one of my American banking sources, the most accurate
figure – $1.2 quadrillion – comes from a Swiss banker, off the record. He should
know; the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) – the central bank of central banks
– is in Basle.
The key point is it doesn't matter how the Strait of Hormuz is blocked.
It could be a false flag. Or it could be because the Iranian government feels it's going to
be attacked and then sinks a cargo ship or two. What matters is the final result; any blocking
of the energy flow will lead the price of oil to reach $200 a barrel, $500 or even, according
to some Goldman Sachs projections, $1,000.
Another US banking source explains; "The key in the analysis is what is called notional.
They are so far out of the money that they are said to mean nothing. But in a crisis the
notional can become real. For example, if I buy a call for a million barrels of oil at $300 a
barrel, my cost will not be very great as it is thought to be inconceivable that the price will
go that high. That is notional. But if the Strait is closed, that can become a stupendous
figure."
BIS will only commit, officially, to indicate the total notional amount outstanding for
contracts in derivatives markers is an estimated $542.4 trillion. But this is just an
estimate.
The banking source adds, "Even here it is the notional that has meaning. Huge amounts are
interest rate derivatives. Most are notional but if oil goes to a thousand dollars a barrel,
then this will affect interest rates if 45% of the world's GDP is oil. This is what is called
in business a contingent liability."
Goldman Sachs has projected a feasible, possible $1,000 a barrel a few weeks after the
Strait of Hormuz being shut down. This figure, times 100 million barrels of oil produced per
day, leads us to 45% of the $80 trillion global GDP. It's self-evident the world economy would
collapse based on just that alone.
War dogs barking mad
As much as 30% of the world's oil supply transits the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz.
Wily Persian Gulf traders – who know better – are virtually unanimous; if Tehran
was really responsible for the Gulf of Oman tanker incident, oil prices would be going through
the roof by now. They aren't.
Iran's territorial waters in the Strait of Hormuz amount to 12 nautical miles (22 km). Since
1959, Iran recognizes only non-military naval transit.
Since 1972, Oman's territorial waters in the Strait of Hormuz also amount to 12 nautical
miles. At its narrowest, the width of the Strait is 21 nautical miles (39 km). That means,
crucially, that half of the Strait of Hormuz is in Iranian territorial waters, and the other
half in Oman's. There are no "international waters".
And that adds to Tehran now openly saying that Iran may decide to close the Strait of Hormuz
publicly – and not by stealth.
Iran's indirect, asymmetric warfare response to any US adventure will be very painful. Prof.
Mohammad Marandi of the University of Tehran once again reconfirmed, "even a limited strike
will be met by a major and disproportionate response." And that means gloves off, big time;
anything from really blowing up tankers to, in Marandi's words, "Saudi and UAE oil facilities
in flames".
Hezbollah will launch tens of thousands of missiles against Israel. As
Hezbollah's secretary-general Hasan Nasrallah has been stressing in his speeches, "war on
Iran will not remain within that country's borders, rather it will mean that the entire [Middle
East] region will be set ablaze. All of the American forces and interests in the region will be
wiped out, and with them the conspirators, first among them Israel and the Saudi ruling
family."
It's quite enlightening to pay close attention to what this Israel intel op is saying .
The dogs of war though are barking mad .
Earlier this week, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo jetted to CENTCOM in Tampa to discuss
"regional security concerns and ongoing operations" with – skeptical – generals, a
euphemism for "maxim pressure" eventually leading to war on Iran.
Iranian diplomacy, discreetly, has already informed the EU – and the Swiss –
about their ability to crash the entire world economy. But still that was not enough to remove
US sanctions.
War zone in effect
As it stands in Trumpland, former CIA Mike "We lied, We cheated, We stole" Pompeo
– America's "top diplomat" – is virtually running the Pentagon. "Acting" secretary
Shanahan performed self-immolation. Pompeo continues to actively sell the notion the
"intelligence community is convinced" Iran is responsible for the Gulf of Oman tanker incident.
Washington is ablaze with rumors of an ominous double bill in the near future; Pompeo as head
of the Pentagon and Psycho John Bolton as Secretary of State. That would spell out War.
Yet even before sparks start to fly, Iran could declare that the Persian Gulf is in a state
of war; declare that the Strait of Hormuz is a war zone; and then ban all "hostile" military
and civilian traffic in its half of the Strait. Without firing a single shot, no shipping
company on the planet would have oil tankers transiting the Persian Gulf.
American government arrogance under the control of sickos has not shied away from the belief
that destroying countries that do not cave in to Washington's demand of "surrender or perish"
-- an ultimatum made in Israel. Indeed it regards that despicable policy as an entitlement
– to protect the "international community". Iran may well be the nation that will do
away with the nations of turbaned lapdogs and absolute monarchs who have been kept in power
by the dozens of US military bases in the area. Maybe a serious jolt of the global economy is
long overdue, to bring the Washington dogs of perpetual war to come to their senses.
Was Iran succumbing to the JCPOA provisions and abiding by them not sufficient
capitulation for the insane leaders in Washington?
I hope we don't go into another stupid war. Bring all our troops home from all around
the world. Just protect this Republic. We're not the policemen of the world.
@joeshittheragman
It astonishes me that people are still using the phrase "policemen of the world" to define US
behavior.
The last time I recall The US even remotely acting as the "worlds's policeman" was in
1991, when we pushed Saddam out of Kuwait.
The Iraq 2003 "debacle", the Libya"shit show" and the Syria" fiasco" have all proven, over
time, to be acts of wanton carnage and illegal aggression, . not "police work".
The United States, under Neocon tutelage , is no "policeman" .not by any stretch
It is more like a humongous version of "Bernie Madoff meets Son of Sam."
We have become a grotesque, misshapen empire .of lies fraud .,illegal war, .mass murder
..and heinous f#cking debt.
You have to hand it to the Iranians for basically announcing their intentions to destroy the
US economy via the derivatives market that the US financial industry largely produced. Kill
them with their own weapon.
A show down between the US and some entity is inevitable. Be it Iran, China or Russia, the
US will be over extended and their very expensive weaponry will, I believe, come up wanting
on all counts. The MIC has been scamming the country for decades. The military brass is just
bluster. When it comes down to an actual confrontation, the US military will come up short as
BS won't cut it.
Yes, they will destroy lots of stuff and kill lots of people but then their toys will run
out and then what? Missiles will take out the aircraft carriers and the world will see that
the emperor is naked.
In June of 2014, as the forces of the Islamic State swept toward Baghdad, President
Barack Obama began to recommit American military forces to Iraq. He also observed that
"Iran can play a constructive role, if it sends the same message to the Iraqi government
that we're sending, which is that Iraq only holds together if it is inclusive." In an
instantly famous article by Atlantic magazine correspondent and White House amanuensis
Jeffrey Goldberg, Obama indicated that Saudi Arabia and other Arab states had to learn to
"share" the Middle East with Iran.
In imagining a kind of strategic partnership with Tehran, Obama is recycling a deeply
held belief of late-Cold War "realists" like former National Security Adviser Brent
Scowcroft. "For U.S. strategy, Iran should be viewed as a potential natural partner in
the region, as it was until 1979," when Shah Reza Pahlavi was toppled in the Khomeini
revolution." "Envisioning 2030: U.S. Strategy for a Post-Western World," foresaw that "a
post-Mullah dominated government shedding Shia political ideology could easily return to
being a net contributor to stability by 2030
https://en.mehrnews.com/news/143606/Mearsheimer-S-Arabia-a-threat-not-Iran
"The truth is that it is the United States that is a direct threat to Iran, not the other
way around. The Trump administration, with much prompting from Israel and Saudi Arabia, has
its gunsights on Iran. The aim is regime change.
America does not seem to think the Iranian regieme can do anything except bluster as they
are slowly smothered.
Famous last words -- review what Bernanke said just before subprime exploded: 2007 --
Bernanke: Subprime Mortgage Woes
Won't Seriously Hurt Economy -- that said, I have no idea what will happen if Iran
decides to interfere with shipping in the straits -- or how likely that is.
The biggest long-term threat to the US is the end of the petrodollar scheme -- due to its
unmatched worldwide political and military hegemony, and 'safe haven' status, the dollar has
largely been insulated from the consequences of what are in reality staggering, almost
structural (at this point) US deficits -- but that can't and won't go on forever.
In reality, the US is today far less dependent on imported oil than most people probably
imagine, and therefore far less vulnerable to any import supply issue.
Israel and the zio/US has interfered in Iran since the 1953 CIA/Mossad coup and at intervals
ever since then and have brought this problem on by the zio/US and Israeli meddling in the
affairs of Iran and an all out war via illegal sanctions which in fact are a form of war.
Iran has not started a war in over 300 years and is not the problem , the problem is the
warmongers in the zio/US and Israel and will not end as long as the warmongers remain in
power.
A good start to ending these problems would be to abolish the CIA!
@MLK
Yes, the sanctions on Iran are having an effect, and the recent Iranian actions acknowledge
this; but that does not mean Iran is weak. Iran is telling the U.S. that it is NOT Venezuela
or North Korea. Kim is all bark, but no bite; Trump was quite right to call him "little
rocket man." Even he, with his singular lack of style and grace, is not doing this to the
Iranian leadership.
The economic sanctions against Iran already constitute acts of war. The Iranians have just
demonstrated that they can disrupt oil flow from the Middle East in retaliation, and not just
in the Street of Hormuz. In addition, they have now shown that they can take down American
aircraft, stealth or not, with precision. This means Iran is able and willing to strike back
and escalate as it sees fit, both economically and militarily. If the U.S. don't relent, Iran
WILL send the oil prices through the roof, and it will humiliate the U.S. on the world stage
if they are stupid enough to go to war over it.
The Iranian messages are simple, clear, and consistent. Compare this to the confused
cacophony that emerges from the clown troupe in Washington, and you can easily tell which
side has been caught unawares by recent events.
This is a watershed moment for Trump – he will either assert himself, return to
reason, and keep the peace; or he will stay aboard the sinking ship. No good options for him
personally, of course; his choices are impeachment, assassination, or staying in office while
presiding over the final act of the U.S. empire.
The US is committed to conflict not only most obviously against Iran, but also with
Russia.
US, or rather a bunch of lunatics infesting Trump's Admin, might be committed, but it
absolutely doesn't mean that the US has resources for that. In fact, US doesn't have
resources to fight Iran, let alone Russia. By now most of it is nothing more than
chest-thumping and posturing. Today Bolton's statement is a further proof of that.
Instead, Bush saw that situation, within the unique moment of US no longer constrained
by a rival superpower, as an opportunity to exert US global dominance.
The much derided Chomsky
There were once two gangsters in town, the USA and USSR, there's relative peace cuz each
was constrained by the rival's threat.
NOW that the USSR is gone, the remaining gangster
is running amok with total impunity.
Now I dunno if the USSR was a 'gangster' ,
as for uncle scam, .. needs no introduction I presume ?
"Iran's ability to target and destroy the high-altitude American drone, which was
developed to evade the very surface-to-air missiles used to bring it down, surprised some
Defense Department officials, who interpreted it as a show of how difficult Tehran can make
things for the United States as it deploys more troops and steps up surveillance in the
region.– "
@Wally
It's all cashflow and OPM, on the hope of hitting the big-time when prices spike. A giant
house of cards waiting to implode, and that is before one takes into account all the hugely
negative externalities associated with fracking that give it any hope of profitability, which
would vapourise if the costs of the externalities were charged to the operators.
According to preliminary data for 2018, oil demand surpassed 20 mmb/d for the first time
since 2007 and will be just shy of the 2005 peak (20,524 mb/d versus 20,802 mb/d in
2005).
It's really tragic to see two brotherly ideologies Capitalism and Islam (both want to rule
the world) go at each other throats in this manner. After all, they have fought shoulder to
shoulder a holly jihad against socialism in such far flung places as Afghanistan, Iraq and
now Syria.
I think that based on this latest conflict, people can see what a principled country US
is. People used to think that US hates only socialist revolutions. Until Iran's Islamic
revolution came along – and US was against it too. So, it's safe to say that US are
against ANY revolutions – be they Socialist or Islamic. I guess we can call them
contra-revolutionaries.
At least 95% of the American people do not want war with Iran. For that matter the same
percentage did not want war with Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam or Korea. But the powers that be
do not ask the American people if they want to go to war, they just do it based on the
authority they assume is theirs. Meanwhile, our elected representatives who do have the
authority to start or prevent wars turn a deaf ear to their constituents because the voices
they hear in protest are weak or muted. Let's face it, the wars since WWII have affected only
a relatively minor segment of our population. A hell of a lot more people die in traffic
accidents than on the battlefield so what's to get excited about. Keeping a large standing
army, navy and air force is good for the economy, the troops have to be provided the latest
best of everything and as for the troops themselves for many it's not a bad way to make a
living with a retirement and health care system better than many jobs in the civilian sector.
So my message to the American people is if you really do not want war with Iran you had
better speak up louder than you are now.
CAN IRAN ENTER ITO NEGOTIATION WITH IRAN? IT CANT. BECAUSE ISRAEL WITH NO FOOT IN THE DOOR OF
THE HELL IS WAGING THE WAR AND GETTING US PUNISHED .
UC Berkeley journalism professor Sandy Tolan, Los Angeles Times, December 1, 2002–
[Richard] Perle, in the same 1998 article, told Forward that a coalition of pro-Israeli
groups was 'at the forefront with the legislation with regard to Iran. One can only speculate
what it might accomplish if it decided to focus its attention on Saddam Hussein.' Now,
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has joined the call against Tehran, arguing in a November
interview with the Times of London that the U.S. should shift its focus to Iran 'the day
after' the Iraq war ends
[Hide MORE]
-- -- -
They want to foment revolution in Iran and use that to isolate and possibly attack Syria in
[Lebanon's] Bekaa Valley, and force Syria out," says former Assistant Secretary of State for
Near East Affairs Edward S. Walker, now president of the Middle East Institute. http://prospect.org/article/just-beginning
03/14/03
--
in 2003 Morris Amitay and fellow neocon Michael Ledeen founded the Coalition for Democracy
in Iran, an advocacy group pushing for regime change in Iran . According to the website, it
will be un-American,immoral and unproductive to engage with any segment of the regime .
During a may 2003 conference at the AEI on the future of Iran,Amitay sharply criticized the
U.S State Department's efforts to engage the Islamic Republic ,claimed the criticism of Newt
Gingrich did not go far enough . Amiaty was introduced by M Ledeen as the "Godfather" of
AIPAC Amitay admitted that direct action against Iran would be difficult before 2004
election.
Nostalgia for the last shah's son, Reza Pahlavi ? has again risen," says Reuel Marc
Gerecht, a former CIA officer who, like Ledeen and Perle, is ensconced at the AEI. "We must
be prepared, however, to take the battle more directly to the mullahs," says Gerecht, adding
that the United States must consider strikes at both Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps and
allies in Lebanon. "In fact, we have only two meaningful options: Confront clerical Iran and
its proxies militarily or ring it with an oil embargo." http://prospect.org/article/just-beginning
March 14,2003
"Neoconservatives in the Bush Administration have long targeted Iran. Richard Perle,
former Defense Policy Board member, and David Frum, of the neo-com Weekly Standard,
co-authored "An End to Evil," which calls for the overthrow of the "terrorist mullahs of
Iran." Michael Ladeen of the influential American Enterprise Institute argues that "Tehran is
a city just waiting for us." http://www.counterpunch.org/2004/05/26/the-oil-connection/
According to the 2016 documentary Zero Days by director Alex Gibney, Israel's incessant
public threats to attack Iran coupled with intense secret demands for cyber warfare targeting
Iran were the catalyst for massive new US black budget spending
NSA Director (1999-2005) and CIA Director (2006-2009) Michael Hayden claimed in Zero Days
that the goal of any Israeli air attack against Iran's nuclear facilities would be to drag
the United States into war.
"Our belief was that if they [Israel] went on their own, knowing the limitations No, they're
a very good air force, alright? But it's small and the distances are great, and the targets
dispersed and hardened, alright? If they would have attempted a raid on a military plane, we
would have been assuming that they were assuming we would finish that which they started. In
other words, there would be many of us in government thinking that the purpose of the raid
wasn't to destroy the Iranian nuclear system, but the purpose of the raid was to put us [the
United States] at war with Iran."
https://original.antiwar.com/smith-grant/2018/11/06/israel-and-the-trillion-dollar-2005-2018-us-intelligence-budget
Emergence of ISIS is linked to US efforts to weaken Iran
-In "The Redirection", written in 2008(!) – years before the 2011 uprising, Seymour
Hersh wrote of plans to use extremists in Syria.
Excerpts:
To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in
effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has
coöperated with Saudi Arabia's government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations
that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The
U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A
by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse
a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.
Nasr compared the current situation to the period in which Al Qaeda first emerged. In the
nineteen-eighties and the early nineties, the Saudi government offered to subsidize the
covert American C.I.A. proxy war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. Hundreds of young
Saudis were sent into the border areas of Pakistan, where they set up religious schools,
training bases, and recruiting facilities. Then, as now, many of the operatives who were paid
with Saudi money were Salafis. Among them, of course, were Osama bin Laden and his
associates, who founded Al Qaeda, in 1988.
This time, "
@Simply
Simon In the old days, the orders for the US government were coming down from the
Tri-Lateral Commission and the 6-7 major companies. Rockefeller took the TLC underground
ground with himself. The oil companies continue asking the US government for protecting the
ME/NA resources. Then Neocons replaced the TLC which their focus was twofold.
1. Destabilize the regions for protecting Israel
2. Control the resources militarily
3. Keep the Chinese out and cut their access to the resources
Guess what, Chinese have penetrated the regions constructively and quietly. America with its
unjustified fucking wars is being hated even more than 1953.
@KA
Very true! Unfortunately the presidents were misinformed or uninformed about the proxies
created by the CIA. The first created to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan manned and financed
by the Saudis, recruited by Mossad and intelligence was provided by the CIA. Sound really
really good to the Americans since it was free of charge with no loss of life! Then during
the Iraq war its neighbor Syria was getting destabilized so the CIA replicated Al-Qaeda and
formed a new gang which called themselves ISIS. The function of ISIS was to overthrow
Al-Bashar of Syria. The secondary mission for both groups was to bug Iran from its western
and eastern front.
Manning both of these groups with Sunnis was the biggest mistake that KSA, Mossad and the CIA
made. See the Sunnis are not fighters without sophisticated weapons from the West. On the
other Shiites can fight with a sword and empty handed if they have to. They remind me of VC's
in Vietnam. The Shiites decimated the ISIS and most of AlQaeda now the US is trying to get
credit for that but they know better now. So my recommendation to the US is please don't
aggravate the Shiites otherwise they will embarrass us just the VC's
@Monty
Ahwazi{ All insurance companies will drop their coverage of the oil tankers
immediately.}
During the Iran-Iraq war, US re-flagged Kuwaiti tankers and ran them under US flag and
protection through the straight.
Same thing can be done again.
And if insurance companies drop coverage, US Treasury will provide the coverage: some US
insurance company will be "convinced" by US Gov to provide the coverage and US Treasury will
guarantee _any_ losses incurred by the insurance company or companies.
US can always add to the national debt ( .i.e. print more dollars).
So, no: declaration won't do.
Only destroying stuff works.
{You guys sitting here and making up these nonsensical policies}
Nobody is making policy here: we are not a government.
We are exchanging opinions.
btw: where are you sitting?
Are your personal opinions considered 'policy', because you are ..what?
@anon
That was buried deep in the article. (Thanks for posting link.) Next lines, the NYT is
skeptical of US claims. Too bad this isn't first pararaphs!)
Lt. Gen. Joseph Guastella, the Air Force commander for the Central Command region in the
Middle East, said the attack could have endangered "innocent civilians," even though
officials at Central Command continued to assert that the drone was over international
waters. He said that the closest that the drone got to the Iranian coast was 21 miles.
Late Thursday, the Defense Department released additional imagery in an email to support
its case that the drone never entered Iranian airspace. But the department incorrectly
called the flight path of the drone the location of the shooting down and offered little
context for an image that appeared to be the drone exploding in midair.
It was the latest attempt by the Pentagon to try to prove that Iran has been the
aggressor in a series of international incidents.
@Zumbuddi
Thank you. If the US were a real [HONEST] policeman, they would have stopped Kuwait from
stealing Iraqi oil. But no, Bush was a dirty cop, on the take.
@dearieme
Read "JFK and the Unspeakable" by James W. Douglass. JFK was getting us out of Vietnam. In
his time, there was not massive amounts of US troops in Vietnam, only advisors. JFK planned
to get all the troops out after he was re-elected.
It was during Johnson's presidency that the Vietnam war became a huge war for the US.
Johnson set up the Gulf of Tonkin false flag on August 2 1964. This started the huge draft of
young men for Vietnam war that dragged on till the early 1970s.
Johnson also allowed Israel to do a false flag on the US on June 8 1967. Israel attacked
the USS Liberty. 34 servicemen killed and 174 injured. Israel wanted to kill them all and
blame it on Egypt, so US would nuke Egypt. Lovely nation is little Israel. The song " Love is
all you need" by the Beatles was released on June 7 1967. Summer of Love, Hippies in San
Francisco, all planned to get Americans into drugs and forget about what Israel is doing in
the Middle East. It worked, nobody noticed what Israel did since we have a "free" 500 Zion BC
press in the US in 1967 and we still do these days.
Iran is pretty self sufficient with minimal foreign debt. Their Central Bank is under their
control and works for the people. They should just hunker down and hope Trumps crew is out of
a job after the elections next year
If the US strikes they can block the straits. However, the US would probably knock out the
refineries so that will hurt
They shot down the drone because it was collecting intelligence on targets the US plans to
strike. Thats defensive not provocative
If the US wants to go at Iran they will manufacture something. People are so dumbed down
they can made to believe anything, as events 18 years ago and since have proven
Hopefully this is just distraction to cover up some nefarious plan to loot the working
class some more. Or maybe getting the straits closed is part of the plan. Who knows?
THE TICK TOCKS WHY TRUMP DIDN'T BOMB IRAN NYT'S PETER BAKER, MAGGIE HABERMAN and THOMAS
GIBBONS-NEFF:
"Urged to Launch an Attack, Trump Listened to the Skeptics Who Said It Would Be a Costly
Mistake": "He heard from his generals and his diplomats. Lawmakers weighed in and so did his
advisers. But among the voices that rang powerfully for President Trump was that of one of
his favorite Fox News hosts: Tucker Carlson.
"While national security advisers were urging a military strike against Iran, Mr. Carlson
in recent days had told Mr. Trump that responding to Tehran's provocations with force was
crazy. The hawks did not have the president's best interests at heart, he said. And if Mr.
Trump got into a war with Iran, he could kiss his chances of re-election goodbye.
"The 150-dead casualty estimate came not from a general but from a lawyer, according to the
official. The estimate was developed by Pentagon lawyers drafting worst-case scenarios that,
the official said, did not account for whether the strike was carried out during daytime,
when more people might be present at the targets, or in the dark hours before sunrise, as the
military planned.
"That estimate was passed to the White House counsel, Pat A. Cipollone, without being cleared
with [Patrick] Shanahan or General [Joseph] Dunford. It was then conveyed to the president by
the White House lawyers, at which point Mr. Trump changed his mind and called off the
strike." NYT NYT A1
"That estimate was passed to the White House counsel, Pat A. Cipollone, without being cleared
with [Patrick] Shanahan or General [Joseph] Dunford. It was then conveyed to the president by
the White House lawyers, at which point Mr. Trump changed his mind and called off the
strike." NYT NYT A1
Saddam was given plenty of time, and plenty of resolutions to pack up his troops and go
home
.
Saddam was given the assurance by US ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie, that the USA
supported his retaliatory action against Kuwait. Same usual trap and deliberate provocation;
all the rest is obfuscation.
@AnonFromTN
The loss of two American aircraft carriers appears to be the assumption you are making to
guarantee an Iranian victory.
Such a loss is by no means assured.
The idea that American willpower will collapse in the event of the loss of two capital
ships is your second assumption, and it's both a fanciful and dangerous assumption.
I'm not myself terribly impressed by American military power, but comparing naval combat
to counterinsurgency operations is absurd.
Your economic assumptions appear to come from the permabear school. Actual economies and
governments don't work that way. A major reduction in global supplies will result in
compulsory conservation, rationing, price controls, etc. This was done in recent memory in
the 1970s in both North America and Western Europe, when you were still behind the Iron
Curtain and perhaps not aware.
@alexander
Saddam was given plenty of time, and plenty of resolutions to pack up his troops and go
home."
Efforts by Egypt to arrive an Arab initiated solution was ignored and dismissed by USA
Initial Saudi effort to find a face saving exit by Saddam was met with resistance and then
a manufactured satellite image of Saddam massing his soldiers for invasion of Saudi was
widely disseminated by US.
Saddam crimes was no less or more egregious than what Israel was enjoying with US dollars
and with US support and with impunity ( It was still occupying Pastien and Parts of Syria and
Lebanon )
It was Levy the Israeli FM who threatened that his country would attack Iraq if US did
not.
War against Saddam was orchestrated by Jewish members of Thatcher and by Democrats of USA
) Solarz – NY Senator was one of the guys and the AIPAC whose president Mr. Dine
confessed the crimes )
@alexander
UN has been abused by USA taking the advantage of the collapse of Soviet . (This is what
Wolf0owitz told Wesley Clarke in 1992 in Feb : This was the time we can and we should take
care of these countries Iran Iraq Syria Libya and Yemen while Russia is still weakened and
unable to help its erstwhile vassals states) .
USA had no right to ask Saddam to leave . Subsequent behaviors of USA has proved it.
Israel also in addition has no right to exist .
If correction had to come from Iran Hezbollah and Syria- then so be it. That news would be
best thing that would happen to humanity within last 200 yrs .
@Iris
but -- but -- but (sputters Alexander the otherwise sage commenter), The UN -- that's the
U-nited Nations!! fer pete's ache, Agreed!! ( Agreed is Diplomatese for: "Please stop
twisting my arm; Please stop bankrupting my country; Please stop threatening to tell my wife
-- ).
in other words, the UN is a toy and a ploy for someone like G H W Bush salivating at the
once in a lifetime opportunity to exert world dominance -- 'scuse me: "Create a New World
Order" -- in the context of a power vacuum / dissolution of the Soviet Empire, previously the
only counterbalance to US superpower status.
No doubt the UN was got on board. It acted like the paid-for- judge and show-trial in a
case the prosecutor had already rigged.
imho, what is more significant, and what it takes years to unearth, is the decision making
and back-room dealing that came BEFORE the UN was induced to stamp its imprimatur.
Tony Blair endorsed Bush the Lesser's war on Iraq. Does that grant it legitimacy, or in
any way explain why US waged that war?
I don't care about numbers.
50 (proper) sea mines backed up by 20 air/land-sea missiles do the job. Block the Hormuz.
I am sure the regime in Tehran has that number.
Does anyone?
Don't think so.
Mines in particular.
While missiles could be tricky to produce even smart sea mines are not.
A lot of explosive-check.
A couple of sensors (acoustic/magnetic)-check.
A couple of hardened micro controller boards-check.
That's it.
In this very game there are, really, only two elements that interest me:
Tactical nukes.
Selective draft.
What hehe really interests me is the escalation from "tactical" to "strategic".
@Thorfinnsson
Let me make this clear: there won't be Iranian victory. Iran will pay a hefty price. There
will be the defeat of the Empire, though, a major climb down. The worst (for the Empire) part
would be that the whole world would see that the king has no clothes. Then the backlash
against the Empire (hated by 6/7th of the Earth population) starts, and that would be
extremely painful for everyone in the US, guilty and innocent alike (myself included).
Compulsory rationing and price controls were possible when the governments actually
governed. When the whole governments and legislatures are full of corporations' marionettes,
as is the case now in the US and EU, these measures are impossible. Profiteers will have
their day. They will crush Western economies and therefore themselves, but never
underestimate the blinding force of greed. The same greedy bastards are supplying the US
military with airplanes that have trouble flying and with ships costing untold billions that
break down in the Panama canal, of all places. The same greedy scum destroyed the US industry
and moved all production to China, in effect spelling the doom of the only country that could
have protected their loot from other thieves. That's the problem with greed: it makes people
incredibly shortsighted.
So what? That nice lessons are being imparted slowly to the Israeli slave USA.
USA does what other countries are accused of before invading . USA throws out any qualms
any morality any legality . It uses UN . Right now it is illegally supplying arms to Saudi to
Israel and to the rebels in Syria. These are the reasons US have gone to wars against other
countries for. Now some countries are standing up and saying – those days are gone ,
you can't attack any country anymore just because someone has been raped or someone has been
distributing Viagra.
As a matter of fact, the whole world began to ask, you are willing to launch your military
to eject Saddam from Kuwait Bravo! ..Now what are willing to do about Israels illegal seizure
of Palestinian territory in the West bank .It is more or less the exact same crime, Isn't
it?
George Bush Senior was the last US President in American History to withhold all loans to
Israel, until it ceased and desisted from illegal settlement activity in the Palestinian
Territories.
Many believe it was his willingness to hold Israel to the same standard as everyone else,
which cost him his second term.
@Thorfinnsson
Iran shot down a US Navy RQ-4A intel drone that cost $250: A model that is marketed as being
hard to shoot down since it has an 11 mile high altitude ceiling and a long operational
range. That a coastal AA missile battery knocked it down with one shot answers several
questions.
WASHINGTON -- Maintaining that the unmanned aerial vehicle was simply going about its day
without posing a threat to anyone, U.S. Department of State officials claimed Thursday that
one of their drones was minding its own business on its way to church when Iran attacked it
out of nowhere. "This was an outrageous, unprovoked attack by the Islamic Republic of Iran on
an innocent drone who merely wanted to attend mass in peace," said acting Secretary of State
Mike Pompeo, emphasizing the drone's upstanding moral character by pointing out its history
of donating to charity, volunteering at soup kitchens, and making homemade cookies for school
bake sales. "We're talking about a drone that sings in the church choir and coaches little
league baseball games on the weekends -- an absolute pillar of the community. This is an
upstanding family drone who did nothing to deserve any sort of attack. What kind of world do
we live in where an innocent drone can't fly through Iranian air space on its way to church?"
At press time, Department of Defense officials confirmed that their request for Iran to
return the drone's body back to the U.S. for a proper burial had gone unanswered.
It is a very lightly written article but it touches on a very sensitive nerve rather hard. I liked the entire premise of this
story and have ome to agree with the writer that Americans hardly care who dies wherever as long as they can find themselves shoping
goods they dont need with the money they don't have and stuffing their mouth with food they don't deserve.
The first thing to say here is that we have no means to know what really happened. At the
very least, there are two possible hypotheses which could explain what took place:
1) a US provocation: it is quite possible that somebody in the US chain of command decided
that Iran should be put under pressure and that having US UAV fly right next to, or even just
inside, the international border of Iran would be a great way to show Iran that the US is ready
to attack. If that is the case, this was a semi-success (the Iranians had to switch on their
radars and attack the UAV which is very good for US intelligence gathering) and a semi-failure
(since the Iranians were clearly unimpressed by the US show of resolve).
2) an Iranian provocation: yup, that is a theoretical possibility which cannot reject
prima facie : in this scenario it was indeed the Iranians who blew up the two tankers
last week and they also deliberately shot down the US UAV over international waters. The goal?
Simple: to show that the Iranians are willing and ready to escalate and that they are confident
that they will prevail.
Now, in the real world, there are many more options, including even mixes of various
options. What matters is now not this, as much as Trump's reaction:
Now, whether this was a US provocation or an Iranian one – Trump's reaction was the
only correct one. Why? Because the risks involved in any US "more than symbolic strike" would
be so great as to void any rationale for such a strike in the first place. Think of it: we can
be very confident that the Iranian military installations along the Persian Gulf and the
southern border of Iran are highly redundant and that no matter how successful any limited US
missile strike would have been, the actual military capabilities of Iran would not have been
affected. The only way for the US to effectively degrade Iranian capabilities would be to have
a sustained, multi-day, attack on the entire southern periphery of Iran. In other words, a real
war. Anything short of that would simply be meaningless. The consequences of such an attack,
however, would be, in Putin's words "catastrophic" for the entire region.
If this was an Iranian provocation, then it was one designed to impress upon the Empire that
Iran is also very much "locked, cocked and ready to rock". But if that is the case, there is
zero change that any limited strike would achieve anything. In fact, any symbolic US attack
would only signal to the Iranians that the US has cold feet and that all the US sabre-rattling
is totally useless.
I have not said such a thing in many months, but in this case I can only admit that Trump
did the right thing. No limited attack also makes sense even if we assume that the Empire has
made the decision to attack Iran and is just waiting for the perfect time. Why? Because the
longer the Iranian feel that an attack is possible, the more time, energy and money they need
to spend remaining on very high alert.
The basic theory of attack and defense clearly states that the attacking side can gain as a
major advantage if it can leave the other side in the dark about its plans and if the costs of
being ready for a surprise attack are lower than the costs of being on high alert (those
interested in the role and importance of surprise attack in the theory of deterrence can read
Richard Betts' excellent book "
the longer the Iranian feel that an attack is possible, the more time, energy and money
they need to spend remaining on very high alert.
Yep. Men and material getting tired. Tired men and material make mistakes.
Smart.
As I've said plenty of times before, the "beauty" of the setup is that TPTBs simply create a
climate for a mistake resulting in loss of life of American personnel. BANG.
Or, you put two combat forces next to each other and ramp up the tension. Just a matter of time.
I am currently very slightly optimistic (48-52%) that the US will not attack Iran in the
short term. In the long term, however, I consider that an AngloZionist attack is a quasi certainty.
Yep. Short term being 3 months (related to the first paragraph).
Sean Hannity lives in the largest Mansion in Lloyd Neck I have driven past his Mansion to get
a look as to just how big it is IT'S HUGE ..Lloyd Neck has the most expensive zip code in the
US ..Hannity the Chicken-Hawk thinks he is even tougher Chicken-Hawk War Hawk now that he
studies MMA Serra Brazilian Ji-jitsu on Jericho Turnpike ..Yesterday Sean Hannity"My
philosophy is you hit me .I hit you back ten times harder" .of course, Sean will be hiding in
his mega-Mansion in Lloyd Neck .as the US Cargo Planes land in Virginia with a 100 stainless
steel coffins containing the bodies headless bodies of Native Born White American Working
Class Young Men Donald and Melania step inside the cargo bay to view the stainless steel
coffins ..
Military action needs to support the underlying political goals. And, the political goal is
to stop the Iranian regime from threatening and destabilizing the region.
Would killing 150+ Iranians help dislodge the violent regime? No. Thus, the proposed
strike did not align with the political goal. Trump was right to cancel it.
Think of it as the Putin Playbook. Did Putin go for mass casualties when Turkey shot down
one of its fighters in 2015? No. Both Putin and Trump show similar strength. Restraint
against precipitous, ill conceived, and overly bloody actions.
_____
Trump realizes that the Iranian people are the victims of sociopath Kahmeni. There will be
a response with minimal bloodshed. Instead it will focus on the regime. Deepening the divide
between the Iranian people and their despotic leaders prepares the path for internal
forces to replace those leaders.
Oil storage is a likely choice. The tanks are large and spilled oil is highly visible. It
would demonstrate the inability of the regime to stop the U.S. Storage facilities are visible
to the public, so the government would have trouble denying or misrepresenting the event.
Port facilities would also be a good choice, although that would be harder to time for few to
no casualties.
That's going overboard on precision though. And what's with the oil refinery in Pennsylvania going up into balls of flame. I hope this
won't get dragooned into an "Iranian sleeper cell attack".
The provocations have to be such that domestic acquiescence in elite war profit taking will
not be disturbed. That requires a series of propaganda events ramping up for domestic
consumption.
10 minutes from striking is worryingly close, and Trump's disclosures on the matter are
troubling. Apparently it was only at this late hour that Trump came around to asking for
specifics on how many Iranians his order would kill. The generals told him approximately
150.
This was the game-changer, and Trump was nominally ordering this attack over the shoot
down of a single US surveillance drone, and he rightly noticed that killing 150 people was
not very proportionate to that, fortunately, he called the attack off before the first
missiles were fired.
Trump went on to issue a flurry of Tweets saying Iran would never be allowed to have
nuclear weapons, which of course this entire almost-attack had not a thing to do with. He
also bragged about how much damage the US sanctions have done to Iran and how weakened Iran
already is.
Troublingly though, administration hawks were still able to get Trump to sign off on the
attack earlier on Thursday, and his assurances on Twitter suggest that the loss of the
single drone really didn't enter into it as a big issue for him. This raises ongoing
concerns that having called off the Thursday attack, Trump might be sold on a lesser attack
at any time, or at least something nominally different that gets carried out before he gets
around to asking about the casualties.
Why would you end your mis-analysis where you justify war with the word PEACE? Spelling it out in all CAPS? You are seriously proposing that the US has the right to judge the government of another
country and to deliberately destabilize that country in order to oerturn its governemtn?
Do you realize that economic sanctions are considered to be acts of war? In other words, you support acts of war and think that is PEACE? Are you insane?
Military action needs to support the underlying political goals. And, the political goal
is to stop the Iranian regime from threatening and destabilizing the region.
Yeah. Makes total sense from an Israeli/Saudi perspective. When bullshit is all there is,
Hollywood logic can be used to explain the world!
Trump realizes that the Iranian people are the victims of sociopath Kahmeni.
I hope you have been given a sheet with talking points, otherwise I pity you.
The Deep State never rests.
Dual treason sandwich via Reuters for Mr. Trump. It's really like living in a Nazi regime, with Heydrich walking the corridors,
blackmailing and manipulating and "disposing of" problem factors.
Iran's top national security official has denied a Reuters report claiming that Tehran
had received a low-key message via Oman from the US warning of an imminent attack on the
Islamic Republic.
"The US didn't send any message," Keyvan Khosravi, spokesman for the National Security
Council, told Iranian television.
The comment dismissed a previous report by Reuters, which cited unnamed Iranian
officials as saying that Donald Trump had warned Tehran of a military strike and also gave
a time to respond. The message was reportedly delivered via Oman and followed the downing
of a US spy UAV (Unmanned Aerial Vehicle) earlier in the week.
Hmm, so they shot down a drone; would they be able to shoot down every American plane that
entered their airspace? A good reason to call off the strike; if the Iranians had a missile
lock on every American plane. Having all their planes shot down would be an even worse defeat
for the United States than just calling off an attack.
Putin checks Trump.
The Iranians might be deciding to stand firm against US sanctions and other provocations as
de facto acts of war before the sanctions do materially impact the Iranian
economy and its military capability.
Recall the chicanery through which the United States surreptitiously provoked Japan into
attacking the United States at Pearl Harbor so that FDR, a committed Anglophile, could enter
the European war through the back door to save his British friends.
1. Via economic sanctions, the United States and its European colonial allies
systematically denied Japan the resources it needed to sustain its population and its
industrial economy.
2. Japan decided that it would have to act to obtain those resources or, accept its
eventual demise as a nation state.
3. FDR hinted to the Dutch that the newly-positioned naval resources at Pearl Harbor would
attack and cut the Japanese lines-of-communication per chance Japan struck south to obtain
oil, rubber, and other resources in Southeast Asia. This was intentionally leaked to the
Japanese.
4. The United States monitored the locations and progress of the Japanese fleet en route
to Pearl Harbor to protect its exposed flank per the above. Japanese naval resources were
under a communications blackout. However, the Japanese merchant marine supporting those
forces were not. The US monitored their locations as a proxy for the location of the Japanese
fleet. The rest is history
The Iranians are in a similar position: either fight now at the peak of their military
power or, fight for survival later at a significant economic and military disadvantage. Like
the Japanese, the Iranians would be wise to do the former. This strategy optimizes their
chances for national survival.
The first thing in is missiles that target air defense batteries. I doubt
the US is worried about Iran shooting down every plane. The drone probably was flying a
steady even course and took no evasive maneuvers unlike an attacking aircraft. The success
rate of surface to air missiles is not very high.
@TheJester1. Via economic sanctions, the United States and its European colonial
allies systematically denied Japan the resources it needed to sustain its population and its
industrial economy.
BS. The embargo was because Japan continued to occupy part of China. All they had to do
was go back home. Did FDR do it to get us into the war? Maybe, but Hitler was under no
obligation to declare war on the US since Japan did not declare war on the USSR when Hitler
attacked the USSR.
No limited attack also makes sense even if we assume that the Empire has made the
decision to attack Iran and is just waiting for the perfect time. Why? Because the longer
the Iranian feel that an attack is possible, the more time, energy and money they need to
spend remaining on very high alert.
Then
this might also be a strategic PSYOP destined to lull the Iranians into a false sense of
security. If that is the plan, it will fail: the Iranians have lived with a AngloZionist
bullseye painted on their heads ever since 1979 and they are used to live under constant
threat of war.
Trump Claims He Canceled an Airstrike Against Iran at the Very Last Minute
I one hundred percent support letting The Orange One continue on with his awesome cowboy
delusions as long as it keeps a war from starting.
My reaction:
"Wow, sir! You have such self-control! Those Iranians don't know how close they were to you
just kicking them back to the Stone Age! It's great that the better (wiser and more patient)
side of you won out in the end – you are awesome!"
WASHINGTON -- Maintaining that the unmanned aerial vehicle was simply going about its day
without posing a threat to anyone, U.S. Department of State officials claimed Thursday that
one of their drones was minding its own business on its way to church when Iran attacked it
out of nowhere. "This was an outrageous, unprovoked attack by the Islamic Republic of Iran on
an innocent drone who merely wanted to attend mass in peace," said acting Secretary of State
Mike Pompeo, emphasizing the drone's upstanding moral character by pointing out its history
of donating to charity, volunteering at soup kitchens, and making homemade cookies for school
bake sales. "We're talking about a drone that sings in the church choir and coaches little
league baseball games on the weekends -- an absolute pillar of the community. This is an
upstanding family drone who did nothing to deserve any sort of attack. What kind of world do
we live in where an innocent drone can't fly through Iranian air space on its way to church?"
At press time, Department of Defense officials confirmed that their request for Iran to
return the drone's body back to the U.S. for a proper burial had gone unanswered.
@MarkinLA Read Frazier Hunt, The Untold Story of Douglas MacArthur.
TheJester is right.
Yes, China was under Japanese occupation. The Chinese Communists were fighting the Japs.
The USA was supporting the side that was not fighting the Japs but the Communists, being, the
USA, fanatically anti-communist.
My guess is that the USA forced Japan into war because of the economic potential of China,
i.e. they wanted to take Japan's place.
And the USA didn't side with Hitler but with the other side because they didn't know
Indian independence would come immediately after the War. So they sided with the Brits
because of the apparent economic potential of the British Empire. If India had gained
independence just before the war the USA would have sided with Hitler, because then, without
India, German Europe would have had a greater economic potential than the British Empire.
The Iranians claim that a manned spy plane was next to the drone (i.e. that it also was in
their territory) but that they chose not to shoot it down since 35 soldiers were on board.
"Along with the American drone was an American P8 aircraft with 35 on board, and it was
also violating our airspace and we could have downed it too," he said, adding, "But we did
not do [shoot down] it, because our aim was to warn the terrorist forces of the US."
To me, a total cynic, it looks like the Americans attempted a repeat of the incident when
they deliberately misled their sailors so that they sailed into Iranian territorial waters. I
guess they messed up the GPS for them.
"Iran releases video of captured American sailor crying "
I too would cry if I realised that my superiors had set me up as a sacrificial lamb.
Let's not forget the attempt to sink the USS Liberty. That was a joint operation between
the US Deep State and Israel to try and get the US to attack Egypt.
"'But Sir, It's an American Ship.' 'Never Mind, Hit Her!' When Israel Attacked USS
Liberty"
@TheJester But why were sanctions imposed on Japan? Because Japan was acting in violation
of international law? Well yes due to Japanese imperial aggression against China. In 1935-40
Japan was no angelic virgin. It committed unprovoked aggression against China, committed
massive war crimes and crimes against humanity. Yes FDR likely wanted to have USA enter the
Pacific war to enable war against Hitler but the crippling sanctions against Japan had a
legitimate basis. To punish Japan for aggression in China
It looks like the Americans are having a false flag feast.
The positions in Iraq – whether directly or indirectly connected to the US
interests in Iraq – for example Baghdad, Basra and al-Taji base to Northwest of Baghdad
and Nineveh operations command headquarters in Northern Iraq have come under Katyusha missile
attacks in recent day, the Al-Akhbar newspaper reported.
The paper reiterated that the missile attacks have taken place as a result of recent
regional tensions, and said that the US officials are trying to portray the attacks as
messages by Iran after al-Fujaira and the Sea of Oman mishaps.
It noted that no group has claimed responsibility for the recent missile attacks on Iraqi
cities.
Sources close to Hashd al-Sha'abi Commander Abu Mohandes al-Mahdi, meantime, categorically
dismissed any accusations against the Iraqi popular and resistance forces, and said that the
Americans themselves are most probably behind some of these attacks because some of the
missiles are made in the US.
@HEREDOT Mr. Saker left out the inconvenient fact that while that drone was indeed flying
over Iranian air space, a much larger target, the Poseidon P8 was flying nearby. The P8 is a
converted Boeing 737, making for a much larger radar profile for that missile. The P8 has
many ASW capabilities, and also can control drones.
It's usual crew numbers nine, but this one had 35 sacrificial lambs packed onboard, to be
murdered by the (((Deep State))) to push Trump into the corner, with the (((MSM))) screaming
that it was Iran's fault, no proof needed or lies fabricated–just like the illegal
invasion of Iraq–to give Israel what it's demanding that its American colony do: Bomb,
bomb, bomb Iran.
My guess is that the American thugs behind this latest FF attempt were hoping the
Iranian surface-to-air missile would of shifted its initial target–the drone– and
went for the much larger P8.
That Butcher Boy Bolton and his fellow homicidal maniacs failed means that more Americans
are being lined up in their cross-hairs, ready to be sacrificed for the glory of Apartheid
Israel.
If that is the plan, it will fail: the Iranians have lived with a AngloZionist bullseye
painted on their heads ever since 1979 and they are used to live under constant threat of
war.
Wrong, Saker, the Iranians have been getting attacked by America and the Brits since we
overthrew their democratically elected prez in 1953, because he had the audacity to think and
say that the majority of Iran's oil revenues should be going to Iranians, not Wall Street
.
@BengaliCanadianDude Agreed. If Israel want to attack Iran, go ahead, but they won't,
because they know they'd get their asses kicked unless Uncle Sucker was leading the way.
Or maybe Israel could send in its fearsome DIAPER BRIGADES to wreak havoc in
Tehran?
The diaper reference is not a joke, it's fact that the IDF has issued combat nappies to
their troops, who let loose their bladder anytime they engage REAL men with guns who shoot
back. But let's give credit where its due, when it comes to shooting Palestinian kids with
slingshots or medics, Israel is #1.
@peterAUS Iran has been living with the same threat since 1979. The result is a hugely
popular military and IRGC which is one of the best career choices in the country. It's a way
of life for the nation to be under siege by now and for Shia Muslims the idea of being ready
to fight to the death always hovers due to the history of Islam with respect to the
Sunni/Shia divide. This disagreement is extreme, to be a Muslim and understand it is to feel
horror! ; and despair at the idea any reconciliation is even possible between the two sects
and a shared history does not make for a shared point of view. Shias have always been
outnumbered and it was us who were targeted for extreme violence in the end (or the
begginning) when a dispute over leadership turned bitter. Successive Islamic powers have
attempted to exterminate Shias and the latest incarnation of the Salafis begginning with
Wahhabism (nurtured by the Rothschild controlled British SS at the end of the Ottoman Empire)
and lately morphed into Takfirism which is Daesh and their ilk, have always sought out Shias
first and foremost for attack.
The Islamic Republic of Iran is firstly an Islamic Republic in full revolutionary mode,
(as opposed to 'fundamentalist') it is also in a close second the "Capital" of Shia Islam and
what I have described is the history of Iran and the times the Persian state was not an
Islamic one are no less a part of the historical memory of the nation. Even those times
(which invariably ended in defeat for Persia) reinforce the idea that it is as an Islamic
state Iran stands best chance of survival and the confidence that if they remain true to
these principles they will prevail is backed by an unbroken history of successful defense as
a righteous Islamic state. This may be beyond many of the younger generation and ignored by
the wealthy older generation Iranians but it must be ingrained in the political and social
cosnciousness of the political and religious and intellectual elite.
Iran is ready. They have always been ready in one sense. Saddan Hussein who attacked them
when they were at their weakest and still lived to regret it could attest to that if he was
still around to talk. That war in which the USA gave full and unconditional support to their
protege Saddam who only became their enemy when he became a better man and leader later on in
time, was a wake up call to Iranian leadership and the nation as one. They knew that they
needed missiles and a very strong defensive posture and that is what they have. F^ck with
them at your peril I say.
I doubt myself the USA will attack Iran, at least as long as they have ships and troops
within 1000 miles of Iran. That includes towing their static aircraft carrier "Israel" out of
range as well.
@2stateshmustate agree, the comment that "the USA is taking the events to the UN is
loaded with false something or other..
Iran initiated the UN hearing AFAIK and IRAN says it will present evidence that it was the
USA's intention.. to do the deeds ..<=personally, my feeling is neither Russia nor China
will veto .. anything about these deeds.. the only veto will come from Article II of the COUS
, present leader [one Mr. Trumpy]. who is elected not by popular vote of the govern people
in America but instead by the hidden behind the scene, state to state vote of the
electoral college.. .. <== you mean all that to-do every four years to elect a president:
democrats vs republicans beating each other up, newspapers collecting billions in
contribution dollars to publish fake I hate you slogans, and he saids, you saids: dey all
be fake news, propaganda erotic ? yep.. sure enough is. dem guys dat rites dem
Konstitutions ain't no dummies deys knows vat ve good fore dem. Read Article II, sections 2
and 3.. you see..
Popular vote elects the Article I folks ( 525 in all: 425 members of the house of
congressional districts (Art. 1, Section 2), and 100 Senators (amendment 17, proposed 1912,
approved 1913federal reserve(act of congress), income tax (amendment 16) both also 1913
),
=>but Article I (section 2 and amendment 17 ) folks have no power to act.. as powerless
buffoons ..they are authorized only to approve a few things, try cases of Treason, and make
the laws, fund the actions, wants and needs demanded by Article II persons. It takes 2/3 of
each a divided Senate and 2/3 of a divided House [Art. I, sec 7[2,3] to over-power the Art II
privilege of veto.. and
==get this=> Article II persons are charged to enforce the law( Art II, section
2 [3] he[the President} shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed. Where is
Hillary? I see no words making such duty to enforce the law optional (so does the AG have an
option that the President does not, .) ?
I am in full agreement with the author about who was most likely behind the attacks on the
ships and how the two separate attacks were done. Even down to accepting the possibility Iran
was behind some or all of this as provocation for the reasons given. If so it would mean they
are hurting badly and need to bring things to a head fast. This does not fit with my
observations of Iranian leadership which has always demonstrated a very long term and
patient, typically oriental approach to logjams in diplomacy and nothing has happened to
suggest they are suddenly feeling extremely more pain than previously. In short it is
possible but I doubt it.
To my mind the things which speak against the Iranians having attacked the tankers the
second time at least are substantial: Both ships were Japanese owned. This attack as such was
against Japanese interests WHILST the Japanese PM (Japanese death cult and mafia associations
and all) was making a historical visit to Tehran! What sort of dung for brains clowns would
invite someone for dinner and then send the kids out to set fire to their car whilst they
dined? Of course Washington would do something like this (shooting missiles at Syria whilst
enjoying a lovely piece of cake with their Chinese ally ffs ) but Iran? Give me a break.
Secondly if Iran was guilty, how come the USA is lying like a cheap rug from the get go?
The video the US Navy quickly produced is PROOF they are lying. The black and white imagery
does NOT hide the distinctly different paint jobs on the ship depicted and the actual one
involved. Whatever that video is, it is NOT a video of either of the ships involved in the
second incident. So if Iran was guilty why is the USA using fabricated evidence to assert
it?
The claim that the Iranians tried unsuccesfully to shoot down a Reaper drone which was
according to the USA monitoring the ship BEFORE IT WAS ATTACKED was what stuck in my craw
from the start. What the hell was a REAPER Drone doing monitoring that particular ship at
that particular time? Is this a common practice? Reaper drones are NOT recon drones they
carry hellfire missiles and kill things! When you consider the reports by the crew, as
relayed by the Japanese company owner about a flying object just before the explosion and the
pictures of the damage which clearly show fairly small holes about half way between the
gunwale and waterline the conclusion these were small missiles is hard to avoid. Indeed
HELLFIRE missiles would fit the bill nicely.
As for attacking Iran I do not believe that the USA will dare start anything, especially
now, so long as they have troops and ships within range of Iranian missiles. Iranian missiles
power is immense and an unknown because they do not know where it all is, and they do know
much of it is very, very well hardened against attack. IF they do start a war with Iran
whilst they have assets in the region, invluding "Israel" then they have completely lost
their minds and I'd say the war will end very fast and hard for them. Not even going nuclear
will do it. They are deluded if they think so. Nukes are not magic, they are just big bombs
and even the radiation component is not a big deal these days. (few realise it but modern
nukes are quite 'clean') Iran is a vast country and well dug in over millenia. However
unleashing a full nuclear war against a non nuclear state will end the USA forever as a world
citizen in every way. There is no solution for the USA except to make peace or back off. They
can plan and scheme all they like but Allah is the best of planners.
@Fran Macadam Well if that line of turkeys pecking at the crumbs of provocations
unfolding which purport to involve Iran keep on gobbling on cue they are going to realise too
late they just walked into the slaughter house. Iran will send home many thousands of their
boys and girls in body bags and sink their ships but the real hurt will be the end of the US
economy. They'll be missing even allegorical crumbs when they only have dirt to eat.
@MarkinLA Japan continued to occupy part of China (and viciously so, clearly stamping on
the foot of white-colonial interests with their homegrown late-comer colonialism) but i
mainly started to challenge US power in the Pacific, and with strong determination.
Israel does not have the ability to deceive the US, and why would it need to with Trump in
power? American fracking technology has greatly limited Iranian ability to cause trouble. If
it was the Iranians that did the limpet mine attack on international shipping then what would
their objective have been? Clearly they don't want more any real war or even more sanctions.
What they do want is create demand for their oil and sell it at a good price. The price of
oil is already up from the mere tension over the limpet mine and shootdown and had there been
US military action oil prices would have gone much higher. I see this whole affair as a sign
that the Iranian regieme is getting desperate, because America's slow smothering strategy is
working. Iran wants to breack out of its current situation and Trump is walking them into
that.
Israel will do nothing, the partisan supporters of Israel in the US can be kept quiet on
the immigration Issue by throwing them a bone (as Trump has been doing). Iran want to rase
oil prices and create demand for its oil, that is all. Hitting Iran, but quite lightly, is
the best option for Trump if he wants to win reelection. And so he will hit Iran at a time of
his choosing, which will probabally be closer to the election. The armed forces of America or
any other country are not for enforcing international law or notions of fair play, but rather
for defending that country's interests. Iran and Trump's agendas converge on a clash well
short of all out war in the very near future.
Occam's Razor suggests Trump got news that the drone was indeed inside Iranian airspace and
decided for once to call BS.
Besides, in the great scheme of things, one lost drone doesn't make up for the USS
Vincennes killing 290 people on Iran Air 655 by shooting it down in Iranian Airspace. When
the Empire warned that civil aircraft were not safe in the airspace, it wasn't the Iranian
forces they were warning about.
@Miggle Sorry, "My guess" covers all that follows. It's only my guess that the USA would
have sided with Hitler if they'd known India would not be part of the British Empire.
@TheJester But it wasn't wise for the Japanese as they were completely defeated.
The key difference between Japan and Iran is that the Japanese Empire was an aggressor,
endlessly invading its neighbours. Iran has not fought an offensive war in 40 years.
Also have to question you on the time element. Time is on the side of the Asian countries.
It's countries, like Israel, who see this as peak time for military action. Iran has survived
40 years of sanctions and can certainly survive this time, especially with the support of
Russia and China. Yet they still must react to military planes threatening their air space.
Plus they have no control over oil tankers being targeted by third parties.
The more I see of this, the more convinced I am that the US as a society is clinically
insane.
Its borders are under attack by what can only be described as an invasion is taking place
with millions off illegal immigrants pour across the border to commit crime, steal jobs or
mooch of the welfare programs.
Its cities are decaying with armies of homeless, shit and drugs flooding the streets in
ever greater numbers while the working class people flee in great waves.
Masked and armed criminals roam the streets of major US cities, attack anyone they deem to
be a wrong thinker when not busy rioting, stealing and chanting for the deaths of others.
Its economy is in a bi-polar mood. On one hand the GDP is as high as ever with tons of new
jobs getting created, on the other hand the physical economy is shrinking as stores closes
and houses go unsold due to half the nation being unable to buy anything but food and
clothes.
In the face of all of these problems, the US Government has decided to put its full
attention on overthrowing the government of Venezuela and starting a war with Iran because
somehow, those two nations who posed no danger to the US have been declared high priority
targets that requires the full spectrum attention and political intervention by the US.
@A123 "There will be a response with minimal bloodshed." Yes, we are noted for the
delicate, nearly bloodless nature of our military reactions, merely focusing on regimes with
the full-throated applause of the grateful populaces. It would be a cake-walk, to quote our
valiant SecDef Rumsfeld prior to our 2003 Iraqi minimally bloody response.
And speaking of armchair generalship, I wonder where Trump's multi-starred consultant got
the figure "150" in answer to the question of civilian casualties. This is the kind of
clear-sighted strategic vision that has a U. S. victory in Afghanistan just around the
corner, to quote our junior Clausewitz's.
But it is also plausible (if by no means certain) that at least two groups could have
opposed such a strike:
1) The planners at CENTCOM and/or the Pentagon.
Yes, it's reported that the Pentagon advised Trump not to retaliate militarily for the
drone shoot down.
Given advanced missile technologies, surface warships of any stripe are sitting ducks. I'm
guessing that Iran has a plethora of missile batteries up and down its coast. If Iran
launched a barrage of missiles simultaneously (10? 20? 30?) at a single surface warship in
the Persian Gulf, what would be the probability that the ship's self-defense systems could
neutralize them all?
If a single multi-billion dollar warship were sunk, the credibility of U.S. naval "power
projection" would evaporate. In that context, the Pentagon's reluctance may be because they'd
rather not establish that their hyper-expensive blue-water surface Navy is an
anachronism.
There is a very simple solution to all this, and the sooner it happens the better.
Everyone who conspired to defraud the US taxpayer into illegal wars (dating back to 2002),
should be forced to pay for the cost of the wars they lied us into.
All the assets of these "deceivers" should be "seized" .to pay down the 22 trillion war
debt their lies created.
If there is anything left over , it should be placed in an " Iran War Escrow Account
".
This would ensure that the burden of the war costs falls directly on "their" shoulders and
NOT the US taxpayers.
This seems like a just and fair solution for everybody ., doesn't it ?
An authentic act of war before even before firing the first bullet. First, make the
economy scream in the tradition of yet another thug masquerading as head of state (Nixon).
Second, starve them into submission. Does the first Iraq war resulting in the death of an
estimated half a million children denied essential medicines ring a bell? Venezuela is
similarly being starved into surrender. Meanwhile Guaido is embezzling the humanitarian aid
intended for his needy countrymen.
All said, the history of our country's lies and deception going back a long ways, more
than speaks for itself.
@Justsaying Of course, starvation is a favorite tactic of OUR international Communist
overlords. They've used it for decades and killed hundreds of millions of people using it.
It's cheap and easy.
On direct orders from Donald Trump ..the US Military is illegally occupying the sovereign
Nation of Syria .and Trump took a direct order from JEW ONLY ISRAEL to do this think about it
A case can be made that the US strategy is not to go to war with Iran .but rather, use the
boogey man of Iran to justify a 100 year illegal US Military occupation of Syria on behalf of
JEW ONLY ISRAEL .
The late Fat Cockroach Christopher Hitchens justified murdering thousands of Iraqis
because it would be good for the Kurds Well, here is what I say:THE CRYPTO JEW KURDS WERE
NEVER WORTH IT .Kurdish autonomy in northern Iraq always meant an IDF presence in Northern
Iraq
The best analysis of the 225 million dollar MQ-4C drone(more expensive than the F-35) shoot
down in my opinion is that of Jim Stone:
"The drone shot down was an MQ-4C, which is basically a more advanced clone of the Global
Hawk. A better score for Iran than a Global Hawk. ADDITIONALLY IMPORTANT: Iran was the one
that recovered the debris, the U.S. navy did not, which means Iran was telling the truth
about where it was flying to begin with. If they got it, it fell on their turf. It is really
blown to smithereens, a direct hit. That's good for Iran because it proves their missile
systems can do it, but it is bad because they don't have any big pieces. Additionally, there
was an American P-8 spy plane accompanying the drone, Iran was able to differentiate between
the two, and hit the drone. The P-8 was a much easier target. Iran obviously opted not to hit
it because killing it's crew would have meant war."
What everyone needs to be aware of here is "stealth" technology is a total farce, and can
be defeated with long wave radar, basically the same system used by England during WWII. The
drone shot down was considered a Max Stealth aircraft, same as the F-35. The F-35 and F-22
are basically "hanger queens"(many hours of maintenance required for every hour of flying
time), and with their stealth capabilities being defeatable, they are pretty much worthless.
Trump did not pull the trigger on this because he figured out the whole thing could go real
bad real quick.
Everyone who conspired to defraud the US taxpayer into illegal wars (dating back to
2002), should be forced to pay for the cost of the wars they lied us into.
Everyone who conspired to defraud the US taxpayer into illegal wars, their heirs and all
who profited from (dating back to 1812), should be forced to pay for the cost of the wars
they lied us into.
@Justsaying You are correct. This is economic and siege warfare. Flying bullets, etc.,
add to the drama and consequences, but the war on Iran began many years ago. The vicious
clowns are up to the same old tricks, but bullshitting only the willing gulls.
No, it's not. Clearly the Nazis were on the defensive . Lying Abe Lincoln was, in
fact, much worse than the Nazis ever thought of being; in a totally different category
even.
Iran has not started a war in over 300 years and is not a terrorist nation and does not
export terrorism, that title belongs the the unholy trinity of the zio/US and Israel and
Britain, the creators and funders and suppliers of AL CIADA aka ISIS and all the various off
shoots thereof.
This war on Iran is a zionist project of the zionists who control the governments of the
zio/US and zio/Britain as has been the case in every war in Iraq and Libya and Syria and
Yemen and Lebanon , Israel has been the agent provocateur in every one of these wars!
The zionists have a goal of a satanic zionist NWO and are hell bent to get there if they
have to kill off all the goyim and muslims to accomplish it and they are well on their
way!
Read the book Blood In The Water by Joan Mellen on the zio/US and Israeli attack on the
USS Liberty for a look at how these two terrorist nations operate!
A handful of psychopaths determine our destiny. What makes us different from
animals?
I don't think other animals have psychopaths of the same species ruling over them nor do
they have hasbara clowns spouting sewage and doing worse 24/7, such as the alphanumeric zero,
above.
Mr. Saker left out the inconvenient fact that while that drone was indeed flying over
Iranian air space, a much larger target, the Poseidon P8 was flying nearby. The P8 is a
converted Boeing 737, making for a much larger radar profile for that missile. The P8 has
many ASW capabilities, and also can control drones.
If this is true the stupid bastards in control of this country better take note. If the
missile, that Iran says they developed, is cabable of distinguishing between a P8 and a drone
the US may have a big problem.
More likely, Trump and his Neocons knew that Iran had proof that the spy drone was shot down
over Iran's territory, that the truth would come out after the U.S. strike, earning the
world's condemnation and making Trump et al look like warmongering fools. That's what they
are, of course, but it gave Trump the chance to pose as a big humanitarian, stopping the
strike because, since it was only a plane, with no Americans on board, he didn't want to
"disproportionately" kill anybody. Yeah. Just wait until the Israeli puppets send another
plane with Americans on board, it'll give Israel and our traitorous Neocons the war they've
been lusting after for a decade or more.
In fact it's my understanding that the Japanese were bending over backwards in an attempt
to avoid war with the US but the Wall Street Commie catamite FDR and his henchmen foiled and
insulted them at every turn. The story of how they were repeatedly humiliated would raise the
hackles of the least sensitive among us.
The big picture is that the Wall Street and London Commies were aiming for world hegemony
even at their own populations' expense, of course, and Japan and Germany had to be castrated
even if populated and run by angels and innocent choir boys to ensure that they could be
turned into industrial slave states. It's apparent that the scum of the Earth won't rest
until they've accomplished their goals as we can clearly see here.
Sean Hannity lives in the largest Mansion in Lloyd Neck I have driven past his Mansion
to get a look as to just how big it is IT'S HUGE ..Lloyd Neck has the most expensive zip
code in the US
A simple Google search reveals Hannity sold his Lloyd Neck home in 2014, and has lived in
Oyster Bay for several years. Also, Lloyd Neck isn't even in Forbes' Top 50 Most Expensive
Zip Codes; the list is headed by four communities in California and one in Florida.
I'm not saying Sean isn't a pussy and a faggot, but your facts are suspect.
Israel is just another 'settlers" country. It might be successful or it might fail like South
Africa and Rhodesia. The survival of Israel as the settler country hinges on the USA
unconditional support as yet another (stealth) USA state, and the continuation of the role of the
USA as the world hegemon and the center of the global neoliberal empire. . The USA position as
for Israel might eventually change with the collapse of neoliberalism.
One problem that creates negative attitude to Israel around the world (according to
BBC data
only the USA and a couple of African countries having the majority of population that views
Israel positively) is, as one commenter observed, the situation in which "The Children of the
Holocaust survivors, born into Israel, have now become the "Holocaust-ers of Palestine"
When Israeli prime ministers are in trouble, facing difficult elections or a corruption
scandal, the temptation has typically been for them to unleash a military operation to bolster
their standing. In recent years, Gaza has served as a favourite punching bag.
Benjamin Netanyahu is confronting both difficulties at once: a second round of elections in
September that he may struggle to win; and an attorney general who is widely expected to indict
him on corruption charges shortly afterwards.
Netanyahu is in an unusually tight spot, even by the standards of an often chaotic and
fractious Israeli political system. After a decade in power, his electoral magic may be
deserting him. There are already rumblings of discontent among his allies on the far right.
Given his desperate straits, some observers fear that he may need to pull a new kind of
rabbit out of the hat.
In the past two elections, Netanyahu rode to success after issuing dramatic last-minute
statements. In 2015, he agitated against the fifth of Israel's citizens who are Palestinian
asserting their democratic rights, warning that they were "coming out in droves to vote".
Back in April, he declared his intention to annex large chunks of the occupied West Bank, in
violation of international law, during the next parliament.
Amos Harel, a veteran military analyst with Haaretz newspaper, observed last week that
Netanyahu may decide words are no longer enough to win. Action is needed, possibly in the form
of an announcement on the eve of September's ballot that as much as two-thirds of the West Bank
is to be annexed.
Washington does not look like it will stand in his way.
Shortly before April's election, the Trump administration offered Netanyahu a campaign
fillip by recognising Israel's illegal annexation of the Golan Heights, territory Israel seized
from Syria in 1967.
This month David Friedman, US ambassador to Israel and one of the chief architects of Donald
Trump's long-delayed "deal of the century" peace plan, appeared to offer a similar, early
election boost.
In interviews, he claimed Israel was "on the side of God" – unlike, or so it was
implied, the Palestinians. He further argued that Israel had the "right to retain" much of the
West Bank.
Both statements suggest that the Trump administration will not object to any Israeli moves
towards annexation, especially if it ensures their favoured candidate returns to power.
Whatever Friedman suggests, it is not God who has intervened on Israel's behalf. The hands
that have carefully cleared a path over many decades to the West Bank's annexation are all too
human.
Israeli officials have been preparing for this moment for more than half a century, since
the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza were seized back in 1967.
That point is underscored by an innovative interactive map of the occupied territories. This
valuable new resource is a joint project of the Israeli human rights group B'Tselem and
Forensic Architecture, a London-based team that uses new technology to visualise and map
political violence and environmental destruction.
Titled Conquer
and Divide , it reveals in detail how Israel has "torn apart Palestinian space, divided the
Palestinian population into dozens of disconnected enclaves and unravelled its social, cultural
and economic fabric".
The map proves beyond doubt that Israel's colonisation of the West Bank was never
accidental, defensive or reluctant. It was coldly calculated and intricately planned, with one
goal in mind – and the moment to realise that goal is fast approaching.
Annexation is not a right-wing project that has hijacked the benign intentions of Israel's
founding generation. Annexation was on the cards from the occupation's very beginnings in 1967,
when the so-called centre-left – now presented as a peace-loving alternative to Netanyahu
– ran the government.
The map shows how Israeli military planners created a complex web of pretexts to seize
Palestinian land: closed military zones today cover a third of the West Bank; firing ranges
impact 38 Palestinian communities; nature reserves are located on 6 per cent of the territory;
nearly a quarter has been declared Israeli "state" land; some 250 settlements have been
established; dozens of permanent checkpoints severely limit movement; and hundreds of
kilometres of walls and fences have been completed.
These interlocking land seizures seamlessly carved up the territory, establishing the walls
of dozens of tightly contained prisons for Palestinians in their own homeland.
Two Nasa satellite images of the region separated by 30 years – from 1987 and 2017
– reveal how Israel's settlements and transport infrastructure have gradually scarred the
West Bank's landscape, clearing away natural vegetation and replacing it with concrete.
The land grabs were not simply about acquisition of territory. They were a weapon, along
with increasingly draconian movement restrictions, to force the native Palestinian population
to submit, to recognise its defeat, to give up hope.
In the immediate wake of the West Bank's occupation, defence minister Moshe Dayan, Israel's
hero of the hour and one of the architects of the settlement project, observed that
Palestinians should be made "to live like dogs, and whoever wants to can leave – and we
shall see where this process leads".
Although Israel has concentrated Palestinians in 165 disconnected areas across the West
Bank, its actions effectively won the international community's seal of approval in 1995. The
Oslo accords cemented Israel's absolute control over 62 per cent of the West Bank, containing
the Palestinians' key agricultural land and water sources, which was classified as Area C.
Occupations are intended to be temporary – and the Oslo accords promised the same.
Gradually, the Palestinians would be allowed to take back more of their territory to build a
state. But Israel made sure both the occupation and the land thefts sanctioned by Oslo
continued.
The new map reveals more than just the methods Israel used to commandeer the West Bank.
Decades of land seizures highlight a trajectory, plotting a course that indicates the project
is still not complete.
ORDER IT NOW
If Netanyahu partially annexes the West Bank – Area C – it will be simply
another stage in Israel's tireless efforts to immiserate the Palestinian population and bully
them into leaving. This is a war of attrition – what Israelis have long understood as
"creeping annexation", carried out by stealth to avoid a backlash from the international
community.
Ultimately, Israel wants the Palestinians gone entirely, squeezed out into neighbouring Arab
states, such as Egypt and Jordan. That next chapter is likely to begin in earnest if Trump ever
gets the chance to unveil his "deal of the century".
A version of this article first appeared in the National, Abu Dhabi.
This study shows us that the pro-Israel narrative has become so firmly entrenched in the
American mainstream media that it is almost impossible for news consumers to discern the
truth about the situation in Israel and Palestine. This has greatly benefitted Washington
which has made it abundantly clear that it sides with Israel in this fifty year-old
conflict.
If Netanyahu partially annexes the West Bank – Area C – it will be simply
another stage in Israel's tireless efforts to immiserate the Palestinian population and
bully them into leaving. This is a war of attrition – what Israelis have long
understood as "creeping annexation", carried out by stealth to avoid a backlash from the
international community.
Ultimately, Israel wants the Palestinians gone entirely, squeezed out into neighbouring
Arab states, such as Egypt and Jordan. That next chapter is likely to begin in earnest if
Trump ever gets the chance to unveil his "deal of the century".
This is probably true-and? I don't see Palestinians as a real people; they're just a bunch
of Arabs & it is absolutely irrelevant whether they are in Syria, Egypt or Arabia. They
themselves say they're not a "real" people:
On the other hand, real peoples like Uyghurs & Tibetans are swamped by the
Chinese, which is a real tragedy & only, huh, Richard Gere complains.
So, what the big deal with "Palestinians"? Why would they have a "right to exist"on some
shitty piece o land Jews seem to be obsessively addicted to in past 2 millennia?
And then, what with Amazonian Indians, Eskimos, Ostyaks, Okinawans, ..? What about
expulsion of 13 million Germans in what are now parts of Poland, Czechia, Russia .?
Israelis should have expelled all of them in 1967. & there would be peace.
There is one point in the article that is not completely accurate. J. Cook writes: "Israeli
officials have been preparing for this moment for more than half a century, since the West
Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza were seized back in 1967."
In fact, Ilan Pappe shows in his book "The biggest Prison on Earth" (2017) that plans to
occupy the whole land were much older. The plans weren't made because Israel took Palestinian
lands in 1967. Israel took lands in 1967 because of the plans to colonize it. Those plans
were older.
So, Pappe says in a more general way in his book that " . since 1948 and even more since
1956, Israel's military and political elites was looking for the right historical moment to
occupy the West Bank." (p. XIV). He also says more specifically: "The strategy was presented
by the CoGS to the army on 1 May 1963 and was meant to prepare the army for controlling the
West Bank as an occupied military area" (p. XIII).
All talk about "peace", about "coexistence", about a "two state solution" are (and were)
made in bad faith. About Pappe's book: I don't want to reccomend it for a casual reading. It
may be valuable historically because it deals with historical material from archives. But
it's basically a book about the Israeli burocracy, about laws, rules which would make sure
that Israel controls the conquested territory which it never thought of giving back. It's a
dry book. He has other books that which are much more agreeable to read like his short book
"Ten Myths About Israel".
My own analysis is that the choice of Iran is more or less incidental.
For reasons I won't repeat, Israel always has to have an enemy. Between one thing and
another, Iran is the most attractive target at the moment.
Should she be reduced to quivering submission or blood-soaked anarchy, Israel will just
pick another victim for us to attack. My guess is that it would be Turkey, but first things
first.
"7 Countries in 5 years" and the first Arab Spring dress rehearsal designed to culminate in
an Iranian overthrow. Wayback time machine for warnings of what was and was to come: http://www.arkofcrisis.com/id51.html
@Colin
Wright no the Iran War will not be "incidental":
1) as it'll likely set the rest of the Middle East on fire, the Iran War will greatly
facilitate the Greater Israel Project; esp. as cover for a Final Solution of Israhell's
Palestinian Arab Problem.
2) Iran no longer takes 'Murkan debtbucks for oil. That must be put down, as international
demand for the 'Murkan debtbuck-that-buys-oil is what prevents the domestic debtbuck from
going to hyperinflationary collapse. Oil-producing Iraq dropped the 'Murkan debtbuck and so
did Libya. See what happened to them?
& expect Drumpf to announce his "great discovery about 9/11" any day now:
"Iran did it!" and as Linh D. says, the MAGA-idiots will believe it.
@Haxo
Angmark'no the Iran War will not be "incidental" '
My point is that what's at the heart of this is Israel's need for an enemy. Iran could
vanish tomorrow; it'd just mean Israel would have to start the work up on someone else.
Since we're in the endless war era, another war for Israel is on the horizon, but hardly
anyone seems alarmed, least of all Americans, for they've come to see themselves, quite
casually and indifferently, as only asskicking agents of war, and never its victims.
Please, don't be stupid. The "white man" goyim are not your enemies. We're all in
this together.
If we were that bad, we'd end everyone else tomorrow.
@Escher
If all it takes are some cocaine-addicted pedophiles who molested child actors like Corey
Faim to make some cheesy films for Americans to be brainwashed, perhaps they DESERVE this.
Definitely Jews themselves are not brainwashed.
Nor are Hindus in America. You won't see many Indian-Americans running out to die in Iran
because of the latest film about Nazis.
Muslims-and I worked in a Muslim country-won't care. Emirate Arabs will continue making
money.
Asian-Americans will not care, though clearly our author might be the exception.
Hispanics won't care.
So tell me, why do whites care? What meaning is missing in their lives that can only be
filled by stupid Hollywood films.
Trump's foreign policy is that of the neocons and Israel , the B-52's are fuelled and armed
just waiting for the false flag/pretext to bomb Iran back into the stone age , there will be
no invasion as the costs will be too high . There is speculation that the US is waiting for
Boris Johnson to become Prime Minister as unlike Theresa May he will come out strongly in
favor of military action against Iran .
"Above, I named Jews as the instigators of war against Iran, which made some readers
cringe" Try not to let it bother you. It's pretty obvious that most of the people that read
this website are learning and having a lifetime of indoctrination undone. Many are scared out
of their wits at even having a negative thought about Jews in private. I know the feeling. I
felt similarly growing up.
Growing up I was I was bombarded with non-stop anti-German hatred in the media and
everywhere else. This probably would not have bothered me except that both my parents grew up
in Germany during the war. That meant that like 99% of the other Germans, they were
patriotic. Both of them experienced some harassment when they came to the US, but my mother
liked the USA until we noticed a change around 1970. My father had a more difficult time at
work, but he survived and did very well, but he too noticed a change around that time. That
is the time period Norman Finkelstein identifies as the beginning of the "Holocaust
Industry". Finkelstein explains, that after Israel's victory in the 1967 war, Israel was
considered a valuable ally to the US when they defeated the Soviet backed Arabs. The Jews in
the US became more bold and the word "Holocaust" was abducted by them and was redefined to
refer to what supposedly happened to them during the war. There was an explosion of holocaust
movies, newspaper and magazine articles, everywhere you were bombarded with this propaganda.
In school too. On top of that, we lived in New York, which the Jews openly dominated by the
1970's. My parents also noticed how some Jews mocked Christianity and how Christianity was
being torn down. I think Europeans are more alert than Americans in regards to some things.
When I think about how Christianity has been destroyed in the west I can credit my parents
with seeing it coming.
My parents hardly noticed Jews until they began this full blown propaganda campaign that
went on for decades and I don't think it ever really ended. If it bothered you, it bothered
you less as the years passed by. I asked my mom, and during the National Socialist period,
she knew some Jews but they were a small minority so she had little interaction with them and
their was very little discussion of them. So, in other words, my parents growing up didn't
have negative thoughts about Jews, certainly not strong ones. That changed when the Holocaust
Industry took off and the Jews showed their hatred for the Germans everywhere, and as I said,
it never really stopped. Back then, while having some feelings for my parents homeland, I was
often arguing with them and going against them and Germany. And like the frightened readers
on this website, I knew better than to say, or even think a negative thought about Jews. I
always knew there were many things wrong with the WW II narrative but I think I really became
aware of the lies when I wrote an email to David Irving and he replied in 2007. With the
advent of the internet and reading some important books, you have to be a coward or liar to
deny the hatred and lies that many powerful Jews peddle and how they shove these lies down
everyone else's throats. I'm not as timid as I used to be.
Not only are we fighting Israels wars in the mideast, but the zionists who control the US can
attack and kill 34 and wound 174 Americans on the USS Liberty and got away with it and then
Israel and the zionist controlled deep state attacked the WTC on 911 and killed some 3000
Americans and got away with that also, and plunged America into 18 years and counting of
unending war!
In regards to the USS Liberty see the book Blood In The Water by Joan Mellen, can be had
on amazon.
"... Trump issued an executive order, according to which a schedule of tariffs will be implemented unless Mexico polices its borders and ups its dismal rate of deportation, currently at 10 to 20 percent. ..."
"... Beginning on June 10, " a 5 percent tariff was placed on all imports from Mexico, to be increased by five percentage points each month until it hits 25 percent in October." ..."
"... Lo and behold, Mexico quickly promised to arrest Central American migrants headed north. Agreements may soon materialize with Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala, to which Trump has already cut off foreign aid, in March ..."
"... How free and fair is trade anyway? Are unfettered markets at work when Canada, for instance, taxes purchases of American goods starting at $20, while America starts taxing Canadian goods at $1000? Hardly. ..."
"... There needs to be a huge turnaround in the number of illegals crossing the border if Trump wants to avoid being a one term president. It's hard to see the republicans staying relevant as well if the current numbers continue. They might hold the Senate for a little while but the presidency and a majority in Congress will be out of reach forever. ..."
"... In 2018, there were 70 million refugees, seeking safety from the world's conflict zone. One person was forced to flee their home because of war and violence every two seconds. ..."
"... Trump should have made reducing LEGAL immigration (and building the Wall to stop illegals) his #1 priority as soon as he was inaugurated. Instead, he dithered with personnel issues, then Obmacare (betrayed by rot-in-hell you bastard McCain), then tax cuts, Kavanaugh, loss of House, the End. ..."
If President Trump doesn't waver, his border deal with Mexico will be a victory. The Mexicans have agreed to quit serving as conduits
to hundreds of thousands of central Americans headed for the U.S.A.
Despite protests from Democrats, stateside -- Mexico has agreed to significantly increase enforcement on its borders.
At first, Mexico was as defiant as the Democrats -- and some Republicans.
Democrats certainly can be counted on to argue for the other side -- any side other than the so-called sovereign people they swore
to represent.
In fairness to the Democrats, Republicans are only notionally committed to the tough policing of the border. And certainly not
if policing the porous border entails threatening trade tariffs against our neighborly narco-state. Some Republican senators even
considered a vote to block the tariffs.
Nevertheless, to the hooting and hollering of the cretins in Congress and media, Trump went ahead and threatened Mexico with tariffs
.
More than that. The president didn't just tweet out "strong words" and taunts.
Since Mexico, the party duopoly, and his own courts have forced his hand, the president proceeded to "retrieve from his arsenal
a time bomb of ruinous proportions."
Or, so the Economist hyperventilated.
Trump issued an executive order, according to which a schedule of tariffs will be implemented unless Mexico polices its borders
and ups its dismal rate of deportation, currently at 10 to 20 percent.
Beginning on June 10, "
a 5 percent tariff was placed on all imports from Mexico, to be increased by five percentage points each month until it hits
25 percent in October."
Lo and behold, Mexico quickly
promised
to arrest Central American migrants headed north. Agreements may soon materialize with Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala, to which
Trump has already cut off foreign aid, in March
It remains for Trump to stick with tough love for Mexico and the rest. If the torrent of grifters from Central America does not
let up, neither should the tariffs be lifted or aid restored.
Trump's trade and tariff tactics are about winning negotiations for Americans; they're not aimed at flouting the putative free-market.
How free and fair is trade anyway? Are unfettered markets at work when Canada, for instance, taxes purchases of American goods
starting at $20, while America starts taxing Canadian goods at $1000? Hardly.
Free trade is an unknown ideal, to echo Ayn Rand's observations. What goes for "free trade," rather, is trade managed by bureaucratic
juggernauts -- national and international -- central planners concerned with regulating, not freeing, trade; whose goal it is to
harmonize labor, health, and environmental laws throughout the developed world. The undeveloped and developing worlds generally exploit
labor, despoil land and kill off critters as they please.
The American market economy is massive. Trump knows its might. The difference between the president and his detractors is that
Trump is prepared to harness the power of American markets to benefit the American people.
But what of the "billions of dollars in imports from Mexico" that are at stake, as one media shill
shrieked
.
Give me a break. The truth about what Fake News call a major trading partner, Mexico, is that it's a trade pygmy -- a fact known
all too well to Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador and his foreign minister, Marcelo Ebrard.
The reason these leaders were quick to the negotiating table once a schedule of tariffs had been decided upon by the president
is this.
Via the Economist :
"Only about 15 percent of the United States' exports go to Mexico, but a whopping 80 percent of Mexico's exports head the other
way. 'There is nothing we have in our arsenal that is equivalent to what the United States can do to us,' says Andrés Rozental, a
Mexican former diplomat and minister."
Next, President Trump must compel Mexico to accept "safe third-country status." Translated, this means that the U.S. can expel
any and all "asylum seekers" if they pass through Mexico, as Mexico becomes their lawful, first port-of-call.
Thinking people should realize that Trump's victory here is a Pyrrhic one. For what the president has had to do is convince the
Mexican president to deploy his national guards to do the work American immigration police is not allowed to do.
The U.S. must turn to Mexico to police its border because the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has, to all intents and purposes, outlawed
immigration laws.
Congressional quislings, for their part, have sat back and grumbled about the need for new laws. But as Daniel Horowitz
argues
convincingly, this is "a separation of powers problem." Unless the Trump administration understands that the problem lies with
the lower-court judges [exceeding their constitutional authority] and not the law -- there will be no fix.
For President Trump, the executive order serves as a way around the courts' violation of the constitutionally enshrined federal
scheme, within which the role -- nay, the obligation -- of the commander in chief -- is to defend the country.
Although they're temporary fixes, executive orders can serve to nullify unjust laws. As I argued in my 2016 book,
"The Trump Revolution: The Donald's Creative Destruction Reconstructed," executive
orders are Trump's political power tool -- justice's Jaws of Life, if you will -- to be used by the Executive to pry the people free
from judicial oppression.
Understand: The right of a nation to stop The World from flooding its communities amounts to upholding a negative right. In other
words, by stopping trespassers at their borders, Americans are not robbing invaders of the trinity of life, liberty and property.
All Americans are asserting is their right to be left alone. What we are saying to The World is what we tell our disobedient toddlers
every day, "No. You can't go there."
If you believe Mexico is going to squelch the flow of humans into America -- the same humans who are wiring $25BILLION per year
back to family members in Mexico -- I've got a fleet of taco trucks with square tires to sell you.
There needs to be a huge turnaround in the number of illegals crossing the border if Trump wants to avoid being a one term
president. It's hard to see the republicans staying relevant as well if the current numbers continue. They might hold the Senate
for a little while but the presidency and a majority in Congress will be out of reach forever.
The more this nonsense carries on, the more I empathize with Stalin. Sometimes you gotta bulldoze your way through. Democracy
produces nothing but obstacles. Time to put the keys into the caterpillar.
I applaud this move by Trump, and will of course vote for him in 2020 (for a patriot, what is the alternative?). But unless we
end the LEGAL immigration invasion, all this is for nought, and Trump will likely be the last non-leftist Republican President.
I have fought immigration for 40 years without success, except for CA Prop 187 in 1994, quickly overturned by a dirty Muslim
immigrant Federal judge. Immigration of racial and cultural and (now it's clear to everyone, as I knew by the 80s in CA) ideological
aliens is simple invasion, imperialism by non-military means. We needed Pat Buchanan in the 90s; instead, the stupid Christianists,
with whom I used to argue in the 80s-90s-00s endlessly wrt their insane priorities, worried more about abortion and queers (how'd
that work out, morons?) than alien conquest – with the obvious result that "globohomo" is stronger than ever – AND we have another
50+ MILLION race aliens voting 8-1 Democrat.
Sadly, Trump and the all-GOP 2017-18 Congress were America's very last chance to stop the invasion and save our (and the GOP's)
future. Trump blew it, utterly. Now the USA as a unitary, Occidental, Constitutional, capitalist nation-state cannot be salvaged
and/or restored. The only hope for American patriots is White conservative territorial ingathering and eventual racial secession
and new sovereignty.
Unless the Trump administration understands that the problem lies with the lower-court judges [exceeding their constitutional
authority] and not the law -- there will be no fix.
This is the crux. And this is true, too..
Free trade is an unknown ideal, to echo Ayn Rand's observations. What goes for "free trade," rather, is trade managed by
bureaucratic juggernauts -- national and international -- central planners concerned with regulating, not freeing, trade; whose
goal it is to harmonize labor, health, and environmental laws throughout the developed world. The undeveloped and developing
worlds generally exploit labor, despoil land and kill off critters as they please.
In 2018, there were 70 million refugees, seeking safety from the world's conflict zone. One person was forced to flee their home
because of war and violence every two seconds.
"And I'll huff and puff and bow your house down," said the Big, Bad Wolf.
When stories about the record number of illegals flooding in stop hitting the news cycle, and we no longer get possibly Ebola
infected Congolese with wads of $100 bills, I might believe your assumptions.
Africans Coming Across The Southern Border Have "Rolls Of $100 Bills"
One more thought: Remember that hot air the Big, Bad Orange wolf blew that ICE was going to start rounding up millions of
illegals
on Tuesday? Here it is Friday and no action.
How many times will people fall for Trump's BS promises where nothing gets done or he backtracks?
Madame Mercer, I suspect the real reason behind your story is that Trump is the best POTUS for Israel since the traitor
LBJ and that a certain group wants to keep Tubby the Grifter in the WH so he can keep acting as Israel's de facto real estate
agent.
The simpleton Mercer misses what is really going on. The re-election push is on and Trump will roll out "plans" to deal with immigration.
They will never come into fruition as they are mere "boob bait for bubba". The drug cartels run Mexico and people trafficking
is a bigger business than drug trafficking. If you think they are going to stop, you are as delusional as Ms Mercer. By the way
the politicians work for the drug cartels in Mexico. Of course the advice that Mercer gave to South Africa led to the current
situation where the ANC runs the country and whites are disenfranchised. But what else would you expect from a Jew who sell the
goyim down the river every chance they get.
@sarz Grade:
D+ (every other President since Kennedy: F)
Trump should have made reducing LEGAL immigration (and building the Wall to stop illegals) his #1 priority as soon as he was
inaugurated. Instead, he dithered with personnel issues, then Obmacare (betrayed by rot-in-hell you bastard McCain), then tax
cuts, Kavanaugh, loss of House, the End.
America is gone as not only a White nation, but within 25 years, even a semi-civilized and First World one. Diversity is what
destroyed us. We could have integrated (more or less) the blacks, but the sheer numbers of mostly clannish nonwhite colonizers
since 1968 has doomed us. America was its White, Christian, Anglo-Nordic majority. Without that majority, American dies.
Yong is a typical neoliberal candidate, a creature of Silicon Valley. His cult of entrepreneurship looks silly, because this is
neoliberal myth which is destructive for the society (a lot of Silicon Valley startup are useless or harmful). Politically he is tend
to lean libertarian.
He own success look pretty accidental. He is a despicable venture capitalist himself. His NGO is essentially trying to compensate
for the neoliberalism flaws: they want fully trains candidate for the jobs and do not want tot "train on the job" candidates, who has
potential to be more productive in a long run.
Notable quotes:
"... After graduation, he worked as a corporate lawyer; as a Silicon Valley businessman; as the CEO of a GMAT prep company; and lastly, as the director of Venture for America, an NGO that provided training and seed money for aspiring entrepreneurs. ..."
"... Moore's Law basically already came to an end. While, there are possibly new architectures to explore, i don't see how AI will continue to advance without sharp increases in processing power. ..."
"... I believe it is also immoral to brain drain countries. ..."
"... Considering the fact that 99% of the U.S. government is appointed(by the deciders), and the rest is pre-approved for voting so you can play 'democracy' on special Tuesdays, it doesn't look too good for populism or populists like Andrew or Tulsi. They want another Obama – another shit eating grin to sell a load of false claims and empty promises. ..."
"... Even a big name like Kamala Harris, who has lots of money, a strong organization, tons of endorsements and close to double digit poll numbers, will have to drop out after Iowa and New Hampshire if she doesn't secure, at minimum, no less than third place in either state. Without the momentum a strong finish in these two states provide, campaigns wither and die. The money stops flowing. Volunteers quit. The press pool shrinks. ..."
"... Andrew Yang isn't even polling at 1% in either Iowa or New Hampshire (or anywhere else). He has no ground game. He has no organization. He hasn't raised much money. He has no fired up volunteers willing to make countless phone calls and trudge through the snow to knock on doors. Basically, he has nothing. ..."
"... Moreover, UBI is a terrible idea if it is proposed as a replacement for current social welfare programs, which provide a great deal more value to recipients than $1000 a month. A strict libertarian interpretation of the UBI concept would, in exchange for $1k a month, get rid of food stamps, section 8 housing, AFDC, cash welfare benefits, Medicaid, Medicare, the earned income tax credit and even mortgage interest deductions. There are more moderate proposals. But, ultimately, UBI has to be paid for somehow, either by raising taxes or eliminating much of the welfare state. ..."
"... The narcissistic, self-congratulatory rambling about the superior traits of people who live in coastal cities sounds very much like that Zuckerberg guy, or Chelsea Clinton – in other words, a "progressive" type who want to set up re-education camps for the masses of unwashed, reactionary "white people" – for their own good, of course. ..."
"... The war on terror is a self induced psychosis that is eating away at the moral core of america. Opiods, underage sex, porn are merely diversions. Blessed are the blessed. ..."
"... $12k a year isn't going to free anybody, it's just going to accelerate white genocide (more money for heroin and opiate pills and alcohol). In a world of $1500 a month apartments you're still living on the street with $12k income. ..."
"... Yang says he is against the income tax in principle because you shouldn't tax what you want more of (work) and rich people find loop holes around it anyway. ..."
"... Well, who else offers a better solution? Trump who is to busy being a legendary Isreali president ..."
"... A vomit-inducing brew of Establishment globalists, SJW-appeasing identity politicians, bland corporate stooges, Russiagate conspiracy theorists, and "liberal interventionists" who call Christians "Easter worshippers." ..."
"... America is being continually being deindustrialised by outsourcing every thing to China and Mexico etc. ..."
Andrew Yang – THE WAR ON NORMAL PEOPLE (
2018 )
Rating: 5 /5
You can access all of my latest book, film, and video game reviews
at this link , as well as an ordered, categorized list of
all my book reviews and ratings here: https://akarlin.com/books
I
I don't normally read the vapid hagiographies that characterize most political manifestoes. The two exceptions are Trump's
ART OF THE DEAL , and Putin's FROM THE FIRST PERSON .
The former was a genuinely well-written book that provided many insights into real estate development, and really explained the logic
behind Trump's showman "style" of politics (see Scott Alexander's
great review ). Though it wasn't
a Trump manifesto as such, having been written three decades ago by a guy who now actually hates The Donald, it was probably the
closest thing to one amidst the meme wars of 2016. The Putin book was a relatively dull series of interviews, though it still accounts
for a significant percentage of what we know about Putin's career before the Presidency and remains required reading for any serious
Russia watcher. That said, I imagine the vast majority of such books hew to the pattern of Hillary Clinton's
HARD CHOICES , which was apparently so bad that Amazon was forced to mass delete one star reviews to avoid embarrassing their
favored candidate.
So why did I make an exception for Andrew Yang's
THE WAR ON NORMAL PEOPLE ? Well, part of it is that he is my favorite candidate to date (as a proponent of Universal Basic Income
(UBI) since 2015 , there is nothing particularly illogical
or contradictory about that). His rational, common sense positions on a bewildering amount of issues help. But what really impressed
me is a Twitter post that highlighted his familiarity with the work of Peter Turchin:
At this point, it was obvious that reading the rest of THE WAR ON NORMAL PEOPLE would not be a waste of time, even if Yang's campaign
was to otherwise pete out (ha-ha). And good thing I did. While I consider myself relatively well read, especially on "futurist" topics,
I was nonetheless continuously regaled with all manner of original insights and things that I didn't know before.
II
The Yang bio only takes up one chapter. This is a good thing. I don't feel people should be writing about themselves unless they're
over 60, or have done something pretty impressive, or participated in a war or something. Quite the welcome contrast to Obama, who
wrote an entire memoir on the subject at the age of 34.
Yang is highly intelligent. Both of his parents went to grad school, and his father made 69 patents over the course of his career.
His brother is a professor. "Good genes, very good genes." He got admitted to Stanford and Brown. He is obviously well read, and
the literature he reads is K-selected. Apart from Turchin's book, he also cites Yuval Hari (HOMO DEUS) and Martin Ford (RISE OF THE
ROBOTS). After graduation, he worked as a corporate lawyer; as a Silicon Valley businessman; as the CEO of a GMAT prep company;
and lastly, as the director of Venture for America, an NGO that provided training and seed money for aspiring entrepreneurs.
One curious, endearingly personal note is that it seems he was bullied at school:
"Hey, Yang, what's it like having such a small dick? Everyone knows Chinese guys have small dicks. Do you need tweezers to
masturbate?" Most of this was in middle school. I had a few natural responses: I became quite self-conscious. I started wondering
if I did indeed have a small dick. Last, I became very, very angry.
I admit I chuckled a bit at the idea that there
is perhaps
a 6% chance (today's odds on PredictIt) that high school taunts about anatomy might end up playing a role in creating America's
next President. Many of these bullied Asian-Americans tend to become bitter and withdraw into communities such as the SJWs at
/r/azidentity or the Chinese nationalists at
/r/Sino . Yang didn't go down that path. That said, as someone raised
in an Asian-American family, bused tables at a Chinese restaurant as a teen, and who has
maintained strong ties to the wider Asian-American
community, those ideological currents must have influenced him to at least some extent.
His father immigrated from Taiwan. Geopolitics regardless, many Taiwanese-Americans are very proud of Chinese progress. The early
base of Yang's support was predominantly Asian-American, and I was told that many of his earliest foreign fans were Chinese. I have
a friend who was slightly acquainted with Yang before he became famous, and he confirmed
my impressions – based on the
exclusively positive mentions
of China on his Twitter, and his website – that Yang is a strong Sinophile. As we saw with Trump and Russia – or for that matter,
with Gabbard and Syria – being unseemingly friendly with or even just objective towards countries that have been declared strategic
competitors, rivals, or enemies of the US isn't all that great for your political capital. You heard it here first: If Yang somehow
wins the Dem nomination, the possibility of a "Chinagate" cannot be excluded. III
As Yang recounts it, his travels throughout America opened his eyes to the yawning gap between the flourishing coasts and its
depressed hinterlands. From the chapter "Life in the Bubble":
We joked at Venture for America that "smart" people in the United States will do one of six things in six places: finance,
consulting, law, technology, medicine, or academia in New York, San Francisco, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, or Washington, DC.
Other parts of the book consist of depressive travelogues about cities in the Rustbelt, with their abandoned malls, dilapidated
infrastructure, brain drain, opioid epidemics, and casinos filled with people who probably shouldn't be gambling.
So he is quite aware of the distinction in outcomes between the "Belmont" and "Fishtown" of Charles Murray's
COMING APART (for a summary, see " Trump's
America " in The Wall Street Journal).
Moreover, I am reasonably sure that Yang is more or less directly familiar with Murray's thesis:
Think of your five best friends. The odds of them all being college graduates if you took a random sampling of Americans would
be about one-third of 1 percent, or 0.0036. The likelihood of four or more of them being college graduates would be only about
4 percent. If that described you, you're among the educated class (even without necessarily knowing it; in your context, you're
perfectly normal).
This argument that America is developing into a meritocratic caste system is directly lifted from COMING APART, as is the "bubble"
metaphor used to describe its Brahmins. E.g., see Charles Murray's
Bubble Quiz .
Today, thanks to assortative mating in a handful of cities, intellect, attractiveness, education, and wealth are all converging
in the same families and neighborhoods. I look at my friends' children, and many of them resemble unicorns: brilliant, beautiful,
socially precocious creatures who have gotten the best of all possible resources since the day they were born.
I imagine them in 10 or 15 years traveling to other parts of the country, and I know that they are going to feel like, and
be received as, strangers in a strange land. They will have thriving online lives and not even remember a car that didn't drive
itself.
They may feel they have nothing in common with the people before them. Their ties to the greater national fabric will be minimal.
Their empathy and desire to subsidize and address the distress of the general public will likely be lower and lower.
That pretty much cinches it. "Assortative mating" isn't the sort of term that everyone throws around; although it is a biological
term, its popularization in sociology was led by Murray and other "HBD realists." While I understand and sympathize that these people
are generally "unhandshakeworthy", and hence uncitable by someone running for the Dem nomination, I think it is legitimate to think
of THE WAR ON NORMAL PEOPLE as the solutions set to the problems posed by COMING APART.
IV
Here are some of the main problems and challenges that Yang talks about:
1. Automation . I won't go on here at length, as this has already been widely covered in the media. I recommend Martin
Ford's book RISE OF THE ROBOTS, or at least this 15 minute
video , for a full treatment. But the basic thing to take away is that automation is coming for many jobs, and it won't just
be manufacturing ones this time round. Some things that struck me as noteworthy:
There are now less than 400 NYSE floor traders, down from 5,500. Legal review: Humans have 60% accuracy, AI already at 85%. Friend
of Yang's who works in a ride-sharing company says that according to internal projections, half of all rides will accrue to autonomous
vehicles by 2022.
This will eliminate jobs in truck driving, the ride-sharing sector (Uber, Lyft, etc.), and more and more repetitive cognitive
white-collar work.
2. Unsatisfactory jobs . There will be jobs to take the place of automated ones, but these will be low productivity jobs
with lower salaries (which will further incentivize companies to automate them away). Perhaps uniquely for a politician, Yang is
sympathetic to people who can no longer be bothered to pull themselves up by the bootstraps, as conservative orthodoxy dictates.
Imagine a 21-year-old college dropout who is not excited to make sandwiches at Jimmy John's and prefers his gaming community.
You could say to him, "Hey, this Jimmy John's job could go places. Sure you make $8 an hour now. But maybe if you stick with it
for a few years you could become a manager. Eventually, you could make $35,000 or so if you really excel and are willing to work
long and hard hours, including waking up at 5 a.m. to slice up tomatoes and cucumbers every morning, and commit to it." The above
is possibly true. Or, the retail district around his Jimmy John's could shrink and a management job might never open up. Or Jimmy
John's could bring in an automated system that gets rid of cashiers and front-of-house staff two years from now. Or his manager
could just choose someone else.
3. Video games . This explains why NEETs like the above have turned to video games; young men without college degrees now
spend 75% of the time they used to spend working with gaming. This is easy, because the marginal cost of video games is near zero;
as Yang sagely points out, they are an "inferior good" in economic terms. However, he also notes – as a onetime gamer – that while
playing games for hours on end might seem "sad", their satisfaction level is high, especially relative to their low social status
and high rates of unemployment.
4. Disability . More and more people, especially discouraged workers, are entering the disability rolls. This is an understandable
reaction to the loss of good jobs. However, since most disability applications are more or less fake – rates have been soaring, even
as the rate of workplace accidents plummets – this encourages a culture of dishonesty, and disincentivizes people from rejoining
the workforce since they would then lose their disability "basic income." There are no solid ways to disprove some common ailments,
so getting a note from a doctor is relatively easy. This is a way of life for many depressed rustbelt communities.
5. Other social maladies . These include:
Abandoned malls creating derelict no-go zones. The poverty of communities left behind by falling manufacturing employment, soon
to be repeated on an even bigger scale as automation takes off. Rising white middle-aged mortality, in which he cites
Case & Deaton's research . He is woke to
the opioid crisis: " Many of the deaths are from opiate overdoses. Approximately 59,000 Americans died of drug overdoses in
2016, up 19 percent from the then-record 52,404 reported in 2015. For the first time, drug overdoses have surpassed car accidents
as the leading cause of accidental death in the United States. " I assume he's likelier to make progress on it
than Kushner
. " An army of drug dealers in suits marketed addictive opioids to doctors, getting paid hundreds of thousands to do it.
"
V
In the final "problems"-related chapter, he mentions the work of Russian-American biologist/historian Peter Turchin, one of the
founders of cliodynamics, a new multidiscplinary field that aims to mathematize the cycles of history*.
In his book Ages of Discord, the scholar Peter Turchin proposes a structural-demographic theory of political instability based
on societies throughout history. He suggests that there are three main preconditions to revolution:
(1) elite oversupply and disunity,
(2) popular misery based on falling living standards, and
(3) a state in fiscal crisis.
Most of the variables that he measures began trending negatively between 1965 and 1980 and are now reaching near-crisis levels.
By his analysis, "the US right now has much in common with the Antebellum 1850s [before the Civil War] and, more surprisingly,
with France on the eve of the French Revolution." He projects increased turmoil through 2020 and warns that "we are rapidly approaching
a historical cusp at which American society will be particularly vulnerable to violent upheaval."
Turchin isn't one of those "doomers" who have predicted all ten of America's past zero collapses since he began predicting.
But he
did predict the rise of Islamic State in Iraq back in 2005 :
Western intrusion will eventually generate a counter-response, possibly in the form of a new theocratic Caliphate (War and
Peace and War, Penguin, 2005).
And he predicted that populism and social instability in the US would increase through to the 2020s. This was well before either
Trump or Sanders came on the radar.
So given this impressive predictive record, it's certainly worth listening to what Turchin has to say.
In addition to Turchin's analysis, Yang also mentions that there will be racial ressentiments:
A highly disproportionate number of the people at the top will be educated whites, Jews, and Asians. America is projected to
become majority minority by 2045. African Americans and Latinos will almost certainly make up a disproportionate number of the
less privileged in the wake of automation, as they currently enjoy lower levels of wealth and education.
and suggests that SJW policing of speech will complicate frank discussions of these problems:
Contributing to the discord will be a climate that equates opposing ideas or speech to violence and hate. Righteousness can
fuel abhorrent behavior, and many react with a shocking level of vitriol and contempt for conflicting viewpoints and the people
who hold them. Hatred is easy, as is condemnation.
This could set the stage for RACE WAR NOW as economic dislocations produced by automation further turbocharge preexisting trends
towards inequality and polarization:
After the riots, things continue to deteriorate. Hundreds of thousands stop paying taxes because they refuse to support a government
that "killed the working man." A man in a bunker surrounded by dozens of guns releases a video saying, "Come and get your taxes,
IRS man!" that goes viral. Anti-Semitic violence breaks out targeting those who "own the robots." A white nationalist party arises
that openly advocates "returning America to its roots" and "traditional gender roles" and wins several state races in the South.
Incidentally, I would say that this explains the context behind Yang's "whites will shoot up Asian-Americans in another generation"
video .
VI
Yang's signature issue is UBI, so it makes sense that he devotes two entire chapters to the topic. Despite its current association
with libertarians, crypto evangelists, NEETS, gamers, digital nomads, and various other eccentrics who have only begun spawning on
a reasonably large scale these past 1-2 decades, it was once much more mainstream**.
It's hard to fathom now, but the idea of a guaranteed annual income was mainstream political wisdom in the United States in
the late 1960s and early 1970s. Medicare and Medicaid had just been passed in 1965, and the country had an appetite for solutions
for social problems. In May 1968, over 1,000 university economists signed a letter supporting a guaranteed annual income. In 1969,
President Nixon proposed the Family Assistance Plan, which would provide cash benefits of about $10,000 per family and serve as
a guaranteed annual income with some eligibility requirements; this bill was supported by 79 percent of respondents polled at
the time. The Family Assistance Plan passed the House of Representatives by a wide margin -- 243 to 155 -- but then stalled in
the Senate due to, of all things, Democrats who wanted an even more robust plan.
But then the Reagan Revolution rolled out, economists produced (now discredited) studies that UBI depressed work hours and increased
the divorce rate, and the general public lost interest.
The literature that Yang has amassed tells a different story. He mentions a study by Evelyn Forget (2005) in Canada, who found
the effect on work to be "minimal." The only groups of people that worked substantially less were new mothers and teens, which seems
to be a perfectly fine outcome. There was also a rise in high school graduation rates, a reduction in hospital visits, less domestic
violence, and fewer cases of mental illness. Another study by Akee on Native Americans who got basic income from casino earnings
found that children became more conscientious and agreeable.
I was genuinely surprised to learn that there is one major country that has already adopted UBI: Iran. During the 2011 reforms,
it eliminated inefficient food and gas subsidies, and replaced them with basic income of $16,000 per year. ( Strictly speaking,
this is not quite accurate on Yang's part; this is far too much for a middle-income country like Iran, and as I subsequently confirmed,
$16,000 is their basic income NORMED to US standards, i.e. what Americans would get under a scheme that drew on a similar share of
the national income ). But in any case, there was apparently no reduction in hours worked. I don't know what effect it had on
Iranian economic productivity, and Yang doesn't go into it. I would imagine that doing such analyses on the Iranian economy would
be complicated by the relative opacity of its national accounts, as well as by the (much larger) economic shocks created by US sanctions
over this past decade.
Either way, the general picture – so far as we can say based on the limited UBI experiments to date – is that they don't have
much effect either way on employment or GDP, but they do increase happiness and general welfare. But in any case, when the current
President thinks it is very normal to mark Easter with an economic growth update
perhaps it is time to stop worshipping the latest quarterly GDP figures, as was suggested by Simon Kuznets in 1934, the inventor
of the GDP:
economic welfare cannot be adequately measured unless the personal distribution of income is known. And no income measurement
undertakes to estimate the reverse side of income, that is, the intensity and unpleasantness of effort going into the earning
of income. The welfare of a nation can, therefore, scarcely be inferred from a measurement of national income as defined above.
In Yang's vision, the size of American UBI – the "Freedom Dividend", as he calls it – will be $12,000 for each American aged 18-64,
subsequently indexed to inflation. This is just above the current poverty line of $11,700.
But will it be affordable?
An analysis by the Roosevelt Institute of this $12,000 per year per adult proposal found that adopting it would permanently
grow the economy by 12.56 to 13.10 percent -- or about $2.5 trillion by 2025 -- and it would increase the labor force by 4.5 to
4.7 million people. Putting money into people's hands and keeping it there would be a perpetual boost and support to job growth
and the economy. The cost would be about an additional $1.3 trillion per year on top of existing welfare programs, most of which
would be folded into the plan, as well as increased taxable revenue and cost savings.
The cost of $1.3 trillion seems like an awful lot. For reference, the federal budget is about $4 trillion and the entire U.S.
economy about $19 trillion. But there are myriad ways to pay for it. The most sensible way to pay for it in my view would be with
a value-added tax (VAT) -- a consumption tax -- that would generate income from the people and businesses that benefit from society
the most.
A VAT would result in slightly higher prices. But technological advancement would continue to drive down the cost of most things.
And with the backdrop of a universal basic income of $12,000, the only way a VAT of 10 percent makes you worse off is if you consume
more than $120,000 in goods and services per year, which means you're doing fine and are likely at the top of the income distribution.
This counters one of the central "leftist" arguments against UBI – that it is regressive, and falls disproportionately on the
poor. Sure, they'll be paying 10% more for most goods and services. But their income will also increase by at least 50%, and by around
100% if they work part-time. It will be rich consumers who lose out.
For people who consider this farcical, consider the bailouts that took place during the financial crisis. You may not recall
that the U.S. government printed over $4 trillion in new money for its quantitative easing program following the 2008 financial
collapse. This money went to the balance sheets of the banks and depressed interest rates. It punished savers and retirees. There
was little to no inflation.
This one is for the inflation bears.
VII
While UBI is the mainstay of Yang's policy platform, he has many other excellent ideas, which he elucidates in the three final
chapters.
1. Raise government worker retirement packages, with President getting $4 million per year . This is to be coupled with a lifetime
prohibition on making money from their office through speeches, etc.
I very strongly agree with this, and have proposed this on many occasions in the past as well. Admittedly, I was talking about
Russia, but it really applies to any country. Politicians and bureaucrats get less money than businessmen, even though they are often
just as talented. This is a truism nigh well everywhere. This makes them resentful. Many of them want to close the gap. In the more
corrupt countries, they do that directly, from pressuring companies to "contribute" to their family's accounts (at best) to directly
"raiding" successful companies and stealing from government accounts. In less corrupt countries, they tend to be slaves to lobbyist
interests, on the unspoken understanding that they would be rewarded for their service once out of office (this describes the US).
I suppose that in a few countries they might genuine "servants of the people" but the number of such countries isn't all that high.
As it is, the only country that I am aware of that runs similar policies is Singapore, where Ministers get close to $1 million
per year. As a high IQ authoritarian state, it is able to resist populist demotism.
2. Stop corporate welfare . This one, I wager, would play well with both Bernie and Trump supporters:
Here's an idea for a dramatic rule -- for every $100 million a company is fined by the Department of Justice or bailed out
by the federal government, both its CEO and its largest individual shareholder will spend one month in jail. Call the new law
the Public Protection against Market Abuse Act. If it's a foreign company, this would apply to the head of the U.S. operation
and the largest American shareholder. There would be a legal tribunal and due process in each case. The president would have the
ability to pardon, suspend, shorten, or otherwise modify the period or sentence. The president would also have the ability to
claw back the assets of any such individual to repay the public.
3. Education realism . He notes that while tertiary enrollment is rising, its efficiency is falling.
That is, only 59 percent of students who started college in 2009 had completed a bachelor's degree by 2015, and this level
has been more or less consistent the past number of years. For those who attended private, selective colleges, this number will
seem jarringly low; the same number at selective schools is 88 percent. Among schools with open admissions policies the rate is
only 32 percent, and among for-profit universities the six-year graduation rate is 23 percent.
This is inevitable. Only 25% of students
can benefit from a university education, as there is only so much space on the right hand side of the IQ bell curve. Only choice
is to fail more and more students, to lower standards, or to abandon the fiction that everyone is suited for university.
While Yang can't exactly couch it in such terms, he is – unlike the increasing number of Democrats agitating for free college
– obviously woke to the Education Question:
(a) Administrative staff at US universities is blooming, and they are passing on the costs to the captive student market. Meanwhile,
they use their tax exempt status to run hedge funds.
One way to change this would be a law stipulating that any private university with an endowment over $5 billion will lose its
tax-exempt status unless it spends its full endowment income from the previous year on direct educational expenses, student support,
or domestic expansion. This would spur Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Princeton, MIT, Penn, Northwestern, and others to spend billions
each year directly on their students and expansion within the United States. There could be a Harvard center in Ohio or Michigan
as well as the new one they just opened in Shanghai.
Incidentally, describing the Ivy League colleges as hedge funds with a university attached is something that Ron Unz has also
done, though his solution was to suggest forcing Harvard
to eliminate its fees .
(b) He talks of the need for more vocational training and apprenticeships.
(c) Massive open online courses (MOOCs) are largely ineffective. While I wasn't expecting miracles, I was still surprised to learn
that Udacity's course completion rate is only around 4%. They are not a panacea.
(d) He is especially hard on government "retraining" programs for displaced workers:
The reality is more often displaced workers spending government funds or racking up debt at the University of Phoenix or another
for-profit institution in desperate bids to stay relevant and marketable.
In particular, he agrees that "learn to code" is useless advice for the vast majority of these people. They would be better off
with a UBI.
4. Mandate "serenity" settings for smartphones and social media . Currently it's a pain to get notifications settings down to
a manageable level. Would be good to have an all-in-one option.
5. Social credits . No, this is not the quasi-totalitarian Chinese scheme to coercively promote good behavior. This is similar
to a thing called "time banking", which are already exisiting voluntary associations in the US where people get credits within communities
by performing useful tasks, e.g. minor home repairs, walking dogs, etc. The idea is to have the government allocate these credits
towards solving some major problem, e.g. "100 million DSCs to reduce obesity levels in Mississippi", and let normal people sort out
the details in a more efficient way than bureaucrats could dictate. Apart from the direct benefits, it should also help people feel
more useful and enhance life satisfactino. I am not fully convinced having the government being involved in this is such a good idea,
but I will reserve judgment until I learn more about it.
6. Primary care doctors helped by AI in healthcare . This will also help keep costs down, and lessen the strain on overworked
doctors.
Martin Ford, the author of Rise of the Robots, suggests that we create a new class of health care provider armed with AI --
college graduates or master's students unburdened by additional years of costly specialization, who would nonetheless be equipped
to head out to rural areas. They could help people monitor chronic conditions like obesity and diabetes and refer particularly
hairy problems to more experienced doctors. Call them primary care specialists. AI will soon be at a point where technology, in
conjunction with a non-doctor, could offer the same quality of care as a doctor in the vast majority of cases. In one study, IBM's
Watson made the same recommendation as human doctors did in 99 percent of 1,000 medical cases and made suggestions human doctors
missed in 30 percent of them. AI can reference more cases than the most experienced physician while keeping up to date with the
latest journals and studies.
In return for a less hectic pace and greater freedom to focus on patients as opposed to paperwork, doctors will need to take a
salary hit:
What's required is an honest conversation in which we say to people who are interested in becoming doctors, "If you become
a doctor, you'll be respected, admired, and heal people each day. You will live a comfortable life. But medicine will not be a
path to riches. On the bright side, we're not going to burn you out by forcing you to see a million patients a day and fill out
paperwork all the time. We're going to supplement you with an army of empathetic people equipped with AI who will handle most
routine cases. We'll only call you when the case genuinely requires distincthuman judgment or empathy. We want you to become the
best and most human version of yourself, not Dr. Speed Demon who can bang out a nine-minute appointment. Let's leave that to Watson."
VIII
It should be blindingly obvious, but yes, Yang is really the only US Presidential candidate that interests me at this point in
time. I consider his policies to be head and shoulders above those of any other candidate. Note that many of his other great ideas,
such as banning robocalls, regulating social media as a public utility, and promoting nuclear power are not even in this book. The
one mostly blank spot on his policy agenda – admittedly, a very big one – is his stance on foreign policy.
In my view, Yang correctly identifies that a war is being waged on "normal people." And he has a battlefield strategy – a mixture
of paternalistic technocracy and capitalism with a human face – that has at least some chance of turning the tables.
I mean look, here is the situation come 2020:
1. An orange man turned POTATUS whose foreign policy agenda is set by neocons and AIPAC, and who has gone from calling for a Wall
to calling for millions of LEGAL immigrants to work in factories that will soon be swept away by automation. Yang, at least, will
favor cognitively elitist immigration, i.e. which actually creates
tons of value and will continue to be viable in the age of automation.
2. A vomit-inducing brew of Establishment globalists, SJW-appeasing identity politicians, bland corporate stooges, Russiagate
conspiracy theorists, and "liberal interventionists" who call Christians "
Easter worshippers ." Sure, there's one other decent
candidate there, but she doesn't seem to have policies between foreign policy and has a <1% chance of getting elected, while Yang
has at least a distant shot at it.
3. While I like people such as Tucker Carlson, the problem is that he is not running. It doesn't seem that there will be any challenger
to Trump from the Dissident Right. Fortunately, there is no great contradiction, as Yang and Carlson also seem to like each other.
Furthermore, while both Yang and Carlson are concerned with automation, the Freedom Dividend is clearly a better and more adaptive
policy than the latter's Neo-Luddism.
Most likely, Yang will not win the Dem nomination, and will fade from the scene by this time next year. (Just like Audacious Epigone,
I bet on Kamala Harris on PredictIt). This does not mean he will fade from history. Automation isn't going anywhere, and pressure
for UBI will continue to build up (and not just in the US). It is reasonable to posit that Yang will continue to serve as a figurehead
for it within the US. However, at the rate that "contradictions" are piling up in US society, it is unclear if it will come about
in time to prevent mayhem.
The choice is essentially to cut and run or to stand and fight. We must convert from a mindset of scarcity to a mindset of
abundance. The revolution will happen either before or after the breakdown of society. We must choose before.
On the off chance that Yang actually makes it, I hope this book review will convince at least a few people into helping bring
that about and launch fully automated luxury cyborg space human capitalism.
** I also learned that Thomas Paine was a fan, writing in 1796: Out of a collected fund from landowners, "there shall be paid
to every person, when arrived at the age of twenty-one years, the sum of fifteen pounds sterling, as a compensation in part, for
the loss of his or her natural inheritance, to every person, rich or poor."
Karlin, how do you reconcile your support for UBI with your equally strong support for the Putin entitlement reform?
"But the basic thing to take away is that automation is coming for many jobs, and it won't just be manufacturing ones
this time round."
Stagnant productivity for eight years and counting. This is not just a problem unique to Russia, Brazil, Italy, etc.
"is clearly a better and more adaptive policy than the latter's Neo-Luddism"
I actually find Tucker much more Woke than UBI advocates. The central challenges of our generation are basically not about
GDP, though more is helpful. Like Ron Unz, I support free college, though obviously for a small minority.
i don't dislike the guy and in a better world i could more easily vote for a left-liberal Ron Paul than a right-libertarian one
but the western world's root problem is it has a hostile elite (banking mafia) and Yang would be a sedative when (imo) we need
acceleration.
automation
all the arguments about automation apply to immigration
a meritocratic caste system
quibbling but a genuinely meritocratic system would block high IQ sociopaths from the ruling class and promote stewardship
instead.
how do you reconcile your support for UBI with your equally strong support for the Putin entitlement reform?
Pensions privilege older generations. This is perfectly fine, since people should be able to enjoy their twilight years in
moderate comfort. But a retirement age of 60M/55W becomes absurd once life expectancy approaches 80 years by 2030 (i.e. the date
at which this reform will end). I would note that further note that the increase in the pensions age was also paired with general
pensions increases, which further mitigated its welfare impact. Apart from that, I don't really see how a 55 year old woman *absolutely
needs* a basic income more than a 30 year old working couple trying to pay for an apartment, kids, etc.
I actually find Tucker much more Woke than UBI advocates.
How is banning robots going to help?
Like Ron Unz, I support free college, though obviously for a small minority.
It's a subsidy to people who are generally already very well off (though also brighter than average, so I am not opposed for
eugenic reasons). However, it seems that the much bigger problem is spiraling costs. Putting taxpayers on the hook for infinity
administrators and Gender Studies departments doesn't seem like a good idea.
– Apr 17–23: 1% (poll includes 21% Undecideds; if omitted Yang up to 2% ?)
– Apr 15–21: 2% (huge sample size; margin of error +/1%, implying Yang at 1-3% ).
– Apr 12–15: 3% without Biden in poll; 2% with Biden in poll
– Apr 11–15: 1% without Biden in poll; <1% with Biden in poll (poll includes 20% Undecideds when Biden not included
and 14% Undecideds when Biden included)
– Apr 11–14: 3%
– Apr 8–14: 2% without Biden in poll; 1% with Biden in poll
– Apr 1–7: 1%
These 1-3% numbers are right where Buttigieg's were in March (<1% to 4% across 17 polls), before the media began promoting
him in the first week of April.
Buttigieg's last four national poll results: 7%, 9%, 17%/21%, 8%/11% (latter two are "with Biden / without Biden"), conducted
April 11 to April 23.
Maybe I'm a little slow on the uptake, but I still don't see how a UBI won't just cause inflation or rising rents. Even so, I'm
glad at least one candidate in the race is now discussing the problems of AI and robotics. Within 10 years, a majority of people
in the country may well be unemployed and probably unemployable, too. It's high time we started talking about this looming problem,
so I'm grateful to Yang for that.
I used to be more convinced of the automation argument, but now I'm not so sure. Think about Robin Hanson's experience with prediction
markets. They work well, so he puzzled over why they aren't used more. Why, for instance, will a company not want to set up a
prediction market on whether a project will meet a deadline? He says it's because they say they would like to know in advance
if the deadline will be met, but don't really want this because if they are saying one thing and the prediction market is saying
another they will look like fools. I think there's a similar phenomenon with employers. Employers say they want two things, to
make profit and for their workers to be well-off. What if those conflict? It's natural to think that the former will always dominate
in their decision making process. So they should want to replace their workers with machines. But what do they really want? If
the "employer" is just a guy who wants an Uber ride he really does want the whole thing to go as efficiently as possible. In those
kinds of areas automation will be most welcomed. But what of the manager at a large company? He says he wants the company to make
a profit, but his main concern is keeping his job and being promoted. The workers are his job, replacing them could end up replacing
him. Reducing their numbers could make his position seem less important. So if presented with the opportunity to automate their
workforce he's going to clap and say "great demonstration, but I'm worried the robot will fail for edge case X, Y, and Z so come
back when you can fix them."
@Digital Samizdat I
agree – it would probably cause a lot of inflation. There would obviously be groups of people adopting it as a reproductive strategy
too, living together like sardines and pooling their resources.
I'd rather have real money – money that holds it value. I think that would be a killer foreign policy. No aid, just real money
that people can use to save.
I think the only remote chance for something like UBI to work would be to totally gut the government and fire all bureaucrats,
but that is beyond the power a president. While Congress might conceivably vote for something like UBI, they would not vote to
end these systems of patronage.
@Alexander Turok There's
an expectation that we are on the course to the singularity, but Moore's Law basically already came to an end. While, there
are possibly new architectures to explore, i don't see how AI will continue to advance without sharp increases in processing power.
I think it is interesting that he used the term "assortative mating", but many of his policy positions seem blank-slatist. Is
it just camouflage?
For instance, the idea that Puerto Rico should become a state (though not unique to him, and probably going to happen anyway.)
Or the idea that all foreign undergrads should stay (or was it only in STEM?) One might be able to delude oneself that having
smart foreign overlords would be a sound economic policy, but an undergrad degree doesn't actually have much validity as a cognitive
separator, anymore. Many Africans get them. I think by now, it might mean like an average IQ of 100, which certainly isn't worth
the cost of increasing diversity and rootlessness. America is full of degree mills. I believe it is also immoral to brain
drain countries.
Considering the fact that 99% of the U.S. government is appointed(by the deciders), and the rest is pre-approved for voting
so you can play 'democracy' on special Tuesdays, it doesn't look too good for populism or populists like Andrew or Tulsi. They
want another Obama – another shit eating grin to sell a load of false claims and empty promises.
That said, though, what exactly is your beef with Bernie Sanders? Is it that he's allegedly sucking up to neoliberalism.txt?
Or is it something else?
I could very well be willing to vote for Yang if it looks like he has a realistic shot at the Democratic presidential nomination.
If he doesn't, though, then I would probably feel compelled to choose among the candidates who actually do have a realistic shot
at this.
The one thing that I have an issue with in Yang's platform is making the US President's pension four million dollars per year.
I mean, with a 25-year retirement, that would equal to 100 million dollars. Based on the success of the Clintons in giving speeches
and publishing and selling books, one would think that politicians -- or at least prominent politicians -- in the US already have
enough means to become extremely wealthy after they leave office. Maybe less prominent US politicians (such as Congressmen and
Senators) should be given a nicer retirement package, though.
Is having a much nicer retirement package actually going to stop Republican advocacy of policies such as tax cuts for the rich?
Or are Republicans simply going to be even more motivated to push for this if their own incomes and pensions are going to become
much larger?
I haven't heard of politicians in the US resorting to stealing money or taking bribes from businesses–though maybe I am missing
something here. Trump could certainly benefit from his Presidency, but that's because he's a businessman and still kept his businesses
within his family.
@songbird Nomorobo
does help, especially for business phones where you need to answer unrecognized numbers in case they might be a business prospect.
For private phones get rid of your land line and use only a mobile smart phone. Those provide a do not disturb mode in which the
phone only rings if the call is coming from someone in your contact list, otherwise the call goes straight to voice mail. A real
caller will leave a message. Problem pretty much solved.
Politicians and bureaucrats get less money than businessmen, even though they are often just as talented.
Every article you write has to have at least one bit of unmitigated bullshit. This is that piece. Politics and bureaucracy
are the grimy sump of both societies and economies, filled with hucksters, malingerers, has-beens, never-weres, and, in the bureaucracy
especially, the clueless and useless. The notion that their already budget shredding pensions are too low is utterly farcical.
It's almost as farcical as the "justification" for such a notion, that the cure for the insatiable greed of those in public
employ is to give them even more of other people's hard-earned.
"You will hear everlastingly that the rich man cannot be bribed. The fact is, of course, that the rich man is bribed; he has
been bribed already. That is why he is a rich man." -- G.K Chesterton
It will be even more so if getting a degree means you get to stay in the US.
On both literacy and computer operations, foreign-educated immigrants with a college or advanced degree perform so poorly
that they score at the level of natives who have only a high school diploma.
On numeracy, foreign-educated immigrants with a college or advanced degree perform closer to the level of natives who have
some college education, but not a bachelor's.
Despite their reputation for specializing in STEM fields, about one in six foreign-degree holders score "below basic" in
numeracy.
The skill gap between foreign and U.S. degree holders persists even among immigrants who have had at least five years in the
United States to learn English.
how did you arrive at the figure of 7%? he has a 0% chance of winning, and that should be obvious. this is a non-trivial difference.
see, normally, as long as you have a chance in something, it can't be 0%. but the democrat primary is rigged. it's not a fair
contest. so his chances are not even 1%. they are literally 0%.
of course i'm being pedantic, and one could say that yang raises important issues that could be discussed, so he's worth talking
about either way. but anatoly prides himself on accuracy in his posts, and that 7% figure is bogus, bro.
setting aside the mechanics of the democrat superdelegate system, which will eliminate any guy like him on purpose, his popularity
polling will never be more than like 2% against a field of other democrats. nobody is interested in a Chinese guy. plus they have
no charisma. that's important, guys. hard to understand yet again, how the political analysis is so wrong here.
Ron Paul had a much better chance, and he didn't have much chance. and that was in the republican party, where an insurgent
can, once in a blue moon, have a real shot.
Ross Perot had a better chance. he was actually in an election. and 100% of every political analyst correctly said he had zero
chance. which was accurate.
The infatuation with AI makes people overlook three AI's built-in glitches.
1) AI is software. Software bugs. Software doesn't autocorrect bugs. Men correct bugs. A bugging self-driving car leads its passengers
to death. A man driving a car can steer away from death.
2) Humans love to behave in erratic ways, it is just impossible to program AI to respond to all possible erratic human behaviour.
Therefore, instead of adapting AI to humans, humans will be forced to adapt to AI, and relinquish a lot of their liberty as humans.
3) Humans have moral qualms (not everybody is Hillary Clinton), AI being strictly utilitarian, will necessarily be "psychopathic".
In short AI is the promise of communism raised by several orders of magnitude. Welcome to the "Brave New World".
1) AI is software. Software bugs. Software doesn't autocorrect bugs. Men correct bugs. A bugging self-driving car leads
its passengers to death. A man driving a car can steer away from death.
Agreed, but it is much worse. The newer Ai program themselves, and the creators don't understand it.
Based on the success of the Clintons in giving speeches and publishing and selling books, one would think that politicians–or
at least prominent politicians–in the US already have enough means to become extremely wealthy after they leave office.
Yes, but the point is that the route to this wealth is a certain set of policies favoring those who are likely to pay for those
speeches. It's basically a kind of delayed corruption.
I don't care what you read on Five Thirty Eight. Andrew Yang is running a mock candidacy. He's basically comic relief.
Do you even understand how the American caucus and primary systems work? Even a big name like Kamala Harris, who has lots
of money, a strong organization, tons of endorsements and close to double digit poll numbers, will have to drop out after Iowa
and New Hampshire if she doesn't secure, at minimum, no less than third place in either state. Without the momentum a strong finish
in these two states provide, campaigns wither and die. The money stops flowing. Volunteers quit. The press pool shrinks.
Harris is strong in her home state of California and also in South Carolina where she has a network of sorority sisters who
are helping her get out the black vote. But it will all be for naught if she doesn't do well in Iowa or New Hampshire.
Andrew Yang isn't even polling at 1% in either Iowa or New Hampshire (or anywhere else). He has no ground game. He has
no organization. He hasn't raised much money. He has no fired up volunteers willing to make countless phone calls and trudge through
the snow to knock on doors. Basically, he has nothing.
Moreover, UBI is a terrible idea if it is proposed as a replacement for current social welfare programs, which provide
a great deal more value to recipients than $1000 a month. A strict libertarian interpretation of the UBI concept would, in exchange
for $1k a month, get rid of food stamps, section 8 housing, AFDC, cash welfare benefits, Medicaid, Medicare, the earned income
tax credit and even mortgage interest deductions. There are more moderate proposals. But, ultimately, UBI has to be paid for somehow,
either by raising taxes or eliminating much of the welfare state.
@Digital Samizdat I
suspect the inflation objection against UBI is probably exaggerated – although I would agree that in the short term there may
be some price gouging.
It's about time the US got State & Federal consumer protection, with real teeth. It's not socialism but
pragmatics & justice. Private actors should not be allowed to exploit their market position at the expense of the Nation & it's
citizens.
I have no fundamental objections to ubi. However, it should be roled out in the context of some kind of jobs guarentee. Many
people want to work. Meaningful work helps provide meaningful lives. The US has a great need of public infrastructure.
These should be real needs, not bridges to nowhere.
Such jobs are not inflationary. Nor does the government need to borrow $$ to fund it. Like president Lincoln, they can print the
money. If the government spends a dollar to buy a dollar's worth of (real) labour or production it is not inflationary. It is,
on the contrary, a stimulus.
The book review says that Yang states that drug overdose has replaced auto accidents as the leading cause of accidental deaths.
However, 60,000 annual drug deaths is only 1/4 the number who die annually as a result of medical negligence. (2016 Hopkins study).
Yang is smart enough to know this 250,000 finding. He should acknowledge the 250,000 number, attribute it to overworked doctors,
and propose policies to dramatically increase the number of physicians .let's say, double the number. This would take 7 years
to kick-in, but still, could well get him elected. Voters care about medical access. Short of banning leafblowers, this would
be the most popular election policy conceivable.
@Robert Dolan "No .actually
..if UBI were instituted whites would no doubt be excluded."
Oh, yes, no doubt !
There's a racialist answer to all/any question/s. Like astrology, racialism it's unfalseafiable.
@Germanicus I've seen
horrible examples of computer bugs sitting there for decades (!) undetected, and then finally blowing up. I think it's inevitable,
but I'm definitely not looking forward to this.
@songbird "I believe
it is also immoral to brain drain countries."
I agree. Immoral to the foreign country & immoral to one's own country.
It's also selfish & short-sighted.
If we deported all "Syrian refugees", Syria would suddenly triple its population at least. Many black dudes from the African
bushes would be suddenly Syrian, because according to the media, these are all "Syrian refugees".
I find it hard to believe there are intelligent people at large who could come up with more than 5,000 words about Andrew Yang.
The narcissistic, self-congratulatory rambling about the superior traits of people who live in coastal cities sounds very
much like that Zuckerberg guy, or Chelsea Clinton – in other words, a "progressive" type who want to set up re-education camps
for the masses of unwashed, reactionary "white people" – for their own good, of course.
Finally, hand-wringing concern over the economic damage soon be done to the troglodytes by automation, and by technical progress
in general, is very tiresome. Some of this article sounds like the lyrics to a Bruce Springsteen song from the 80's.
@OkechukwuKamala
Harris, who has lots of money, a strong organization, tons of endorsements and close to double digit poll numbers, will have to
drop out after Iowa and New Hampshire if she doesn't secure, at minimum, no less than third place in either state.
Perhaps not surprisingly, California has moved up its primary from June to March (Super Tuesday):
3 Feb – Iowa (caucus)
11 Feb – New Hampshire
22 Feb – Nevada (caucus)
29 Feb – South Carolina
3 Mar – Alabama, Arkansas, California , Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Utah,
Vermont, Virginia
So I don't think Kamal Harris will be dropping out before 3 March, no matter how poorly she does in Iowa and New Hampshire.
That said, though, what exactly is your beef with Bernie Sanders? Is it that he's allegedly sucking up to neoliberalism.txt?
I am fine with Bernie Sanders. I will have my remaining student loan (~$10,000) written off, it's a minor issue but I wouldn't
mind having an extra $200 per month. He will probably be non-interventionist, and he is not a Russia hawk by US standards. He
will (if he follows his program) preside over some of the biggest capital misallocations in US history, which I imagine will have
a sad ending, but if that is what American voters want, that's perfectly ok by me.
Based on the success of the Clintons in giving speeches and publishing and selling books, one would think that politicians–or
at least prominent politicians–in the US already have enough means to become extremely wealthy after they leave office.
It's coupled with a lifetime prohibition on making money from their office through speeches, etc. I should add that.
2. Incorrect. He is polling in a range from 1%-4%. About same as Buttigieg before MSM started amplifying him in early April.
3. Correct, most of the welfare state as concerns 18-64 year olds – the people eligible for UBI – will be eliminated. That's
one major cost saving. The other is the 10% VAT (typical rate in Europe being 20%).
He should acknowledge the 250,000 number, attribute it to overworked doctors, and propose policies to dramatically increase
the number of physicians
Actually he does do all that.
(1) He suggests training many more primary care doctors, without the costly specializations that massively inflate their costs
in the US.
Intermediate level doctor + Dr. Watson AI = solutions to 99% of health problems (this is literally the percentage of cases
in which Dr. Watson agreed with human doctors; in a remaining 30% of cases, the AI made suggestions that humans missed). The most
qualified specialists can then deal with only the most complicated cases.
(2) As it happens, he has ideas on overworked doctors as well:
The best approach is what they do at the Cleveland Clinic -- doctors simply get paid flat salaries. When doctors aren't
worried about billing, they can focus on patients. Dr. Delos Cosgrove, the CEO of the Cleveland Clinic, said, "I think you
have to recognize that people do what you pay them to do. If you pay doctors to do more of something, then that's what they'll
do. If you put the emphasis on looking after patients, they'll do that." The Cleveland Clinic is consistently ranked among
the top hospitals in the country. And physician turnover is only 3.5 percent per year, much lower than normal. The Cleveland
Clinic has achieved financial success in part by universalizing a sense of cost control. They put price tags on things so everyone
knows how much it costs to, say, open up a new set of sutures. They don't allow redundant tests. They include doctors in purchasing
decisions. Everyone is interested in the company's financial sustainability because they feel a sense of ownership and mission.
Plus, if the hospital does well, you're more likely to get a raise.
What's required is an honest conversation in which we say to people who are interested in becoming doctors, "If you become
a doctor, you'll be respected, admired, and heal people each day. You will live a comfortable life. But medicine will not be
a path to riches. On the bright side, we're not going to burn you out by forcing you to see a million patients a day and fill
out paperwork all the time. We're going to supplement you with an army of empathetic people equipped with AI who will handle
most routine cases. We'll only call you when the case genuinely requires distincthuman judgment or empathy. We want you to
become the best and most human version of yourself, not Dr. Speed Demon who can bang out a nine-minute appointment. Let's leave
that to Watson."
I'm sure that many doctors would enjoy this shift in role and embrace becoming better, more empathetic clinicians. Changing
their incentives would change everything.
@animalogic While I
am not a huge fan either , it is far better
for the host country than massive illegal immigration (Merkel's Boner) or massive legal migration (POTATUS). Which seem to be
the only choices on offer atm in developed white countries.
The war on terror is a self induced psychosis that is eating away at the moral core of america. Opiods, underage sex, porn
are merely diversions. Blessed are the blessed.
Yang has ideological appeal for a considerable number of people who will not be voting in the Democratic primary. In most states
(all except California?), if you want to vote for Republican candidates in the down ballot races you will not be able to vote
for Yang.
The more accurate solution to healthcare is the financially incentivizing those in med school to focus on general practice with
by way ending their educational debt. It is the hyper focus on specialization for illness that could be prevented by more general
practitioners.
The GDP question requires over hauling GDP valuation from potential sales to actual sales. You want to get a look at the real
economy stop counting what's on the shelf as goods sold (my abbreviated version of the current method).
Stop importing people and train the one's you have – period.
$12k a year isn't going to free anybody, it's just going to accelerate white genocide (more money for heroin and opiate pills
and alcohol). In a world of $1500 a month apartments you're still living on the street with $12k income.
As for the big "Medicare for everybody!" scam, using your Medicare at all will eat up that $12k fast! I have Medicare, and
just walking into my local health providers for a checkup means I'm going to be facing up to $2k in co-pays ($800 co-pay for a
standard blood test, $100 to have an assistant check your blood pressure, $100 to see the doctor, repeat co-pays to come back
and get the results of standard blood tests, and what I call the sodomy charge: an additional $500 "for choosing _____"(enter
name of our local monopolistic health provider).
I would prefer getting a one-time check of say $3,000 and using it to get out of the country.
@reiner Tor Not exactly.
The new rules simply prevent the superdelegates from voting if any given candidate already has at least 51% or more of the
normal primary delegates at the start of the convention. But if no one does, then the superdelegates get to vote. Many have
speculated that that's precisely why they're flooding the Democrat primaries with so many candidates this year: to prevent Bernie
Sanders (or somebody else objectionable to the oligarchy) from winning on the first ballot, so that the superdelegates can still
pick the nominee. Pretty sneaky!
Moreover, UBI is a terrible idea if it is proposed as a replacement for current social welfare programs, which provide a
great deal more value to recipients than $1000 a month. A strict libertarian interpretation of the UBI concept would, in exchange
for $1k a month, get rid of food stamps, section 8 housing, AFDC, cash welfare benefits, Medicaid, Medicare, the earned income
tax credit and even mortgage interest deductions.
That's another good point. If UBI simply replaces stuff like Medicare, then it could just become another subsidy for the big
corporations–another form of privatization by stealth.
@Mr. Hack Phone companies
make too much money off bothersome telephone calls, and they fly jets to D.C. to lobby for what they want. We poor schmucks who
answer the calls don't have jets to fly to D.C. to schmooze with the lobbyists.
The problem is easily solvable, outlaw "spoofing of caller IDs" and actually enforce the law on robocalls.
Yang is clearly the most intelligent and sensible candidate, even if I am not 100% sold on some of his ideas and/or politics.
That said, I feel like his slate of policy proposals are what you propose when you don't really want actual democracy (at least
at the federal level) in the future – for his stuff to stick, we'd need a Congress that mostly confined itself to taxes and spending,
rather than the endless investigations, pandering, and outrage that animates it today, while a technocratic elite really runs
things.
In reality though, even if he could get some of this enacted, you'd have the Democrats constantly proposing jacking up the
benefits and/or increasing them for favored groups, and Republicans trying to strangle it by undoing any taxes levied on corporations
to help fund it. Neither party can resist "doing something" and reverting to type.
Well Yang won me over in his interview with Ben Shappiro. On the show they talked about the income tax and Yang says he is
against the income tax in principle because you shouldn't tax what you want more of (work) and rich people find loop holes around
it anyway.
Well, who else offers a better solution? Trump who is to busy being a legendary Isreali president or Bernie who is
a literal socialist? I am skeptical about a lot of things, but I'm not going to be such a nihilist that I get stuck in the what
if loophole.
@Digital Samizdat I
believe that you are incorrect with regard to the rules for superdelegate voting. Superdelegates cannot vote in the 1st round.
If no candidate get 50% plus one in the 1st round, then they can start voting beginning in the 2nd round. Which is when it will
hit the fan.
How could UBI not end in a price dictate?
Germany basically has it already.
1/3 of it gives you 40m² living space.
1/3 of it gives you about 75.000 Calories / month.
1/3 for all the rest of costs.
UBI is bait and switch. Eventually it will be genocide. They will reduce you to starvation wages. It is the endgame of the masters
of mankind Fools will hand over everything they have and close their own cell doors, rub their hands waiting for three square
meals a day. Trust these people? Nimrod himself tried the control dynamic of UBI before, didn't end well in Babel, wont end well
for the globe either. Take heart though, being monitored and his majesty will end the evil plot. It is more endgame than those
elitist, eugenecist elect, of society than they know.
Not sure which racial group bullied Yang. It's possible it was white kids but blacks treat Asians far worse than whites to the
point of regular physical assaults. Whites kids might occasionally taunt Asians and other non-white kids but it almost never escalates
to physical assault.
So many Asians share a similar racial worldview to white liberals since they have little experience with feral ghetto blacks
(not the mythical TV negro), so they tend to romanticize them.
I'm not against UBI, especially for struggling whites, but I believe Yang said this would be financed with a VAT tax which
to me defeats the whole purpose. Whites have been shouldering the crushing tax burden for decades and it's gone to subsidizing
black and brown welfare parasites and wars for Israel. They shouldn't have to pay additional taxes to receive UBI.
@Anatoly Karlin Yang
hasn't told us what the VAT rate would be but based on others who've proposed it previously then I assume 15-17%. And you wouldn't
need to buy 120K worth of shit per year for your losses to exceed your gains. At 10% you'd be paying 12K in VAT taxes and getting
1K in benefits, so I'd say that's upside down. But if you meant 1% you might be correct.
Even if working poor people spend a VAT taxable amount of 3K per year that would amount to $300.00 at a 10% rate, so their
true net gain from Yang's UBI program would be a measly $700.00 which is better than nothing but won't lift them out of poverty
or a hand to mouth existence.
@Johnny Rico Don't
expect Blacks to pay attention till about Dec. 2019 or Jan. 2020 at the earliest.
(My recollection is it wasn't until late 2007 that Blacks began to seriously line up behind Obama, and only really consolidated
by Jan./Feb. 2008. And yet, by about May/June 2008, Blacks had secured Obama the nomination thru racial block-voting especially
in the South. You can still find articles and data from throughout 2007, including late 2007, that show Black ambivalence towards
Obama -- which is I think where Harris is now. It's a little different because Obama was this overtly strange-seeming, foreign-name-having
person whereas Harris is a more recognizable personality [just not a pleasant one] with a US-seeming name; a viable Stacy Abrams
candidacy would have Black enthusiasm a lot better, sooner.)
South Carolina Primary [Feb. 29, 2020] (
link ) Four polls conducted between beginning of Feb. and end of April, all mid sample size (n=300 to n=750); of which the averages
are :
– Biden 35%
– Sanders 14% – Harris 11%
– Booker 7.5%
– O'Rourke 6%
– Warren 6%
– Buttigeg 2% (mathematically; 0% in three pre-April polls; then the media began promoting him in early April, after which he
scored 7%)
– Yang 1%
– Others 10%
The three things that stand out to me:
In California, support for Sanders, Harris, and Buttigieg are all higher. Harris has home-state recognition, Buttigieg is the
Gay Candidate with the flamboyant surname (as of the time of polling, he had been recently promoted by the media; may fade by
summer), and Sanders does not sell well to Blacks (Clinton took 75% of SC's delegates in Feb. 2016 despite Sanders' momentum at
the time and big New Hampshire win; Clinton's final, convention delegate count was 60%, meaning she hugely outperformed in South
Carolina).
Their empathy and desire to subsidize and address the distress of the general public will likely be lower and lower.
It looks like a new aristocracy inbreeding and looking down on the "Deplorables".
Perhaps uniquely for a politician, Yang is sympathetic to people who can no longer be bothered to pull themselves up by
the bootstraps, as conservative orthodoxy dictates.
True enough – elite sympathy with the deplorables is minimal to non-existent.
2. A vomit-inducing brew of Establishment globalists, SJW-appeasing identity politicians, bland corporate stooges, Russiagate
conspiracy theorists, and "liberal interventionists" who call Christians "Easter worshippers."
There's a good Telegraph article on PC gymnastics to avoid the word "Christian".
Compare and contrast the reaction of Hillary Clinton to the two tragedies. On Sunday, she tweeted, "I'm praying for everyone
affected by today's horrific attacks on Easter worshippers and travelers in Sri Lanka." Easter worshippers? That's a clunking
new euphemism for Christians. When the mosques in Christchurch were targeted, did Clinton talk of Ramadan worshippers? No,
she wrote, "My heart breaks for New Zealand and the global Muslim community."
The zio/US government lies about everything, unemployment is around 22% and America is being continually being deindustrialised
by outsourcing every thing to China and Mexico etc., and America is being destroyed via the illegal immigration hordes that
are crossing the southern border, and all of this is going according to plan as laid out in The Protocols of Zion!
The middle class is being destroyed and the satanic zionists are in the saddle on the gray horse of death and are ridding down
the normal American people and turning America into Orwell Oceania!
To top it all off the zionists have their judas goat Trump leading the naive Americans to destruction!
"... If one does even a cursory check of what dictators around the world are up to recently, you'll find that the U.S. doesn't care in the slightest whether they are bad or good, whether they're using their free time to kill thousands of innocent people or to harmonize their rock garden. ..."
We now know that the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction. We now know that the crushing of Libya
had nothing to do with "stopping a bad man."
If one does even a cursory check of what dictators around the world are up to recently, you'll find that the U.S. doesn't
care in the slightest whether they are bad or good, whether they're using their free time to kill thousands of innocent people or
to harmonize their rock garden.
"... Early in any psychology course, students are taught to be very cautious about accepting people's reports. A simple trick is to stage some sort of interruption to the lecture by confederates, and later ask the students to write down what they witnessed. Typically, they will misremember the events, sequences and even the number of people who staged the tableaux. Don't trust witnesses, is the message. ..."
"... The three assumptions -- lack of rationality, stubbornness, and costs -- imply that there is slim chance that people can ever learn or be educated out of their biases; ..."
"... So, are we as hopeless as some psychologists claim we are? In fact, probably not. Not all the initial claims have been substantiated. For example, it seems we are not as loss averse as previously claimed. Does our susceptibility to printed visual illusions show that we lack judgement in real life? ..."
"... Well the sad fact is that there's nobody in the position to protect "governments" from their own biases, and "scientists" from theirs ..."
"... Long ago a lawyer acquaintance, referring to a specific judge, told me that the judge seemed to "make shit up as he was going along". I have long held psychiatry fits that statement very well. ..."
"... Here we have a real scientist fighting the nonsense spreading from (neoclassical) economics into other realms of science/academia. ..."
"... Behavioral economics is a sideline by-product of neoclassical micro-economic theory. It tries to cope with experimental data that is inconsistent with that theory. ..."
"... Everything in neoclassical economics is a travesty. "Rational choice theory" and its application in "micro economics" is false from the ground up. It basically assumes that people are gobbling up resources without plan, meaning or relevant circumstances. Neoclassical micro economic theory is so false and illogical that I would not know where to start in a comment, so I should like to refer to a whole book about it: Keen, Steve: "Debunking economics". ..."
"... As the theory is totally wrong it is really not surprising that countless experiments show that people do not behave the way neoclassical theory predicts. How do economists react to this? Of course they assume that people are "irrational" because they do not behave according to their studied theory. (Why would you ever change your basic theory because of some tedious facts?) ..."
"... The title of the 1st ed. of Keen's book was "Debunking Economics: The Naked Emperor of the Social Sciences" which was simply a perfect title. ..."
Early in any psychology course, students are taught to be very cautious about accepting people's reports. A simple trick is
to stage some sort of interruption to the lecture by confederates, and later ask the students to write down what they witnessed.
Typically, they will misremember the events, sequences and even the number of people who staged the tableaux. Don't trust witnesses,
is the message.
Another approach is to show visual illusions, such as getting estimates of line lengths in the Muller-Lyer illusion, or studying
simple line lengths under social pressure, as in the Asch experiment, or trying to solve the Peter Wason logic problems, or the puzzles
set by Kahneman and Tversky. All these appear to show severe limitations of human judgment. Psychology is full of cautionary tales
about the foibles of common folk.
As a consequence of this softening up, psychology students come to regard themselves and most people as fallible, malleable, unreliable,
biased and generally irrational. No wonder psychologists feel superior to the average citizen, since they understand human limitations
and, with their superior training, hope to rise above such lowly superstitions.
However, society still functions, people overcome errors and many things work well most of the time. Have psychologists, for one
reason or another, misunderstood people, and been too quick to assume that they are incapable of rational thought?
He is particularly interested in the economic consequences of apparent irrationality, and whether our presumed biases really result
in us making bad economic decisions. If so, some argue we need a benign force, say a government, to protect us from our lack of capacity.
Perhaps we need a tattoo on our forehead: Diminished Responsibility.
The argument leading from cognitive biases to governmental paternalism -- in short, the irrationality argument -- consists
of three assumptions and one conclusion:
1. Lack of rationality. Experiments have shown that people's intuitions are systematically biased.
2. Stubbornness. Like visual illusions, biases are persistent and hardly corrigible by education.
3. Substantial costs. Biases may incur substantial welfare-relevant costs such as lower wealth, health, or happiness.
4. Biases justify governmental paternalism. To protect people from theirbiases, governments should "nudge" the public
toward better behavior.
The three assumptions -- lack of rationality, stubbornness, and costs -- imply that there is slim chance that people can ever
learn or be educated out of their biases; instead governments need to step in with a policy called libertarian paternalism (Thaler
and Sunstein, 2003).
So, are we as hopeless as some psychologists claim we are? In fact, probably not. Not all the initial claims have been substantiated.
For example, it seems we are not as loss averse as previously claimed. Does our susceptibility to printed visual illusions show that
we lack judgement in real life?
In Shepard's (1990) words, "to fool a visual system that has a full binocular and freely mobile view of a well-illuminated scene
is next to impossible" (p. 122). Thus, in psychology, the visual system is seen more as a genius than a fool in making intelligent
inferences, and inferences, after all, are necessary for making sense of the images on the retina.
Most crucially, can people make probability judgements? Let us see. Try solving this one:
A disease has a base rate of .1, and a test is performed that has a hit rate of .9 (the conditional probability of a positive
test given disease) and a false positive rate of .1 (the conditional probability of a positive test given no disease). What is
the probability that a random person with a positive test result actually has the disease?
Most people fail this test, including 79% of gynaecologists giving breast screening tests. Some researchers have drawn the conclusion
that people are fundamentally unable to deal with conditional probabilities. On the contrary, there is a way of laying out the problem
such that most people have no difficulty with it. Watch what it looks like when presented as natural frequencies:
Among every 100 people, 10 are expected to have a disease. Among those 10, nine are expected to correctly test positive. Among
the 90 people without the disease, nine are expected to falsely test positive. What proportion of those who test positive actually
have the disease?
In this format the positive test result gives us 9 people with the disease and 9 people without the disease, so the chance that
a positive test result shows a real disease is 50/50. Only 13% of gynaecologists fail this presentation.
Summing up the virtues of natural frequencies, Gigerenzer says:
When college students were given a 2-hour course in natural frequencies, the number of correct Bayesian inferences increased
from 10% to 90%; most important, this 90% rate was maintained 3 months after training (Sedlmeier and Gigerenzer, 2001). Meta-analyses
have also documented the "de-biasing" effect, and natural frequencies are now a technical term in evidence-based medicine (Akiet
al., 2011; McDowell and Jacobs, 2017). These results are consistent with a long literature on techniques for successfully teaching
statistical reasoning (e.g., Fonget al., 1986). In sum, humans can learn Bayesian inference quickly if the information is presented
in natural frequencies.
If the problem is set out in a simple format, almost all of us can all do conditional probabilities.
I taught my medical students about the base rate screening problem in the late 1970s, based on: Robyn Dawes (1962) "A note on
base rates and psychometric efficiency". Decades later, alarmed by the positive scan detection of an unexplained mass, I confided
my fears to a psychiatrist friend. He did a quick differential diagnosis on bowel cancer, showing I had no relevant symptoms, and
reminded me I had lectured him as a student on base rates decades before, so I ought to relax. Indeed, it was false positive.
Here are the relevant figures, set out in terms of natural frequencies
Every test has a false positive rate (every step is being taken to reduce these), and when screening is used for entire populations
many patients have to undergo further investigations, sometimes including surgery.
Setting out frequencies in a logical sequence can often prevent misunderstandings. Say a man on trial for having murdered his
spouse has previously physically abused her. Should his previous history of abuse not be raised in Court because only 1 woman in
2500 cases of abuse is murdered by her abuser? Of course, whatever a defence lawyer may argue and a Court may accept, this is back
to front. OJ Simpson was not on trial for spousal abuse, but for the murder of his former partner. The relevant question is: what
is the probability that a man murdered his partner, given that she has been murdered and that he previously battered her.
Accepting the figures used by the defence lawyer, if 1 in 2500 women are murdered every year by their abusive male partners, how
many women are murdered by men who did not previously abuse them? Using government figures that 5 women in 100,000 are murdered every
year then putting everything onto the same 100,000 population, the frequencies look like this:
So, 40 to 5, it is 8 times more probable that abused women are murdered by their abuser. A relevant issue to raise in Court about
the past history of an accused man.
Are people's presumed biases costly, in the sense of making them vulnerable to exploitation, such that they can be turned into
a money pump, or is it a case of "once bitten, twice shy"? In fact, there is no evidence that these apparently persistent logical
errors actually result in people continually making costly errors. That presumption turns out to be a bias bias.
Gigerenzer goes on to show that people are in fact correct in their understanding of the randomness of short sequences of coin
tosses, and Kahneman and Tversky wrong. Elegantly, he also shows that the "hot hand" of successful players in basketball is a real
phenomenon, and not a stubborn illusion as claimed.
With equal elegance he disposes of a result I had depended upon since Slovic (1982), which is that people over-estimate the frequency
of rare risks and under-estimate the frequency of common risks. This finding has led to the belief that people are no good at estimating
risk. Who could doubt that a TV series about Chernobyl will lead citizens to have an exaggerated fear of nuclear power stations?
The original Slovic study was based on 39 college students, not exactly a fair sample of humanity. The conceit of psychologists
knows no bounds. Gigerenzer looks at the data and shows that it is yet another example of regression to the mean. This is an apparent
effect which arises whenever the predictor is less than perfect (the most common case), an unsystematic error effect, which is already
evident when you calculate the correlation coefficient. Parental height and their children's heights are positively but not perfectly
correlated at about r = 0.5. Predictions made in either direction will under-predict in either direction, simply because they are
not perfect, and do not capture all the variation. Try drawing out the correlation as an ellipse to see the effect of regression,
compared to the perfect case of the straight line of r= 1.0
What diminishes in the presence of noise is the variability of the estimates, both the estimates of the height of the sons based
on that of their fathers, and vice versa. Regression toward the mean is a result of unsystematic, not systematic error (Stigler,1999).
Gigerenzer also looks at the supposed finding that people are over-confidence in predictions, and finds that it is another regression
to the mean problem.
Gigerenzer then goes on to consider that old favourite, that most people think they are better than average, which supposedly
cannot be the case, because average people are average.
Consider the finding that most drivers think they drive better than average. If better driving is interpreted as meaning fewer
accidents, then most drivers' beliefs are actually true. The number of accidents per person has a skewed distribution, and an
analysis of U.S. accident statistics showed that some 80% of drivers have fewer accidents than the average number of accidents
(Mousavi and Gigerenzer, 2011)
Then he looks at the classical demonstration of framing, that is to say, the way people appear to be easily swayed by how the
same facts are "framed" or presented to the person who has to make a decision.
A patient suffering from a serious heart disease considers high-risk surgery and asks a doctor about its prospects.
The doctor can frame the answer in two ways:
Positive Frame: Five years after surgery, 90% of patients are alive.
Negative Frame: Five years after surgery, 10% of patients are dead.
Should the patient listen to how the doctor frames the answer? Behavioral economists say no because both frames are logically
equivalent (Kahneman, 2011). Nevertheless, people do listen. More are willing to agree to a medical procedure if the doctor uses
positive framing (90% alive) than if negative framing is used (10% dead) (Moxeyet al., 2003). Framing effects challenge the assumption
of stable preferences, leading to preference reversals. Thaler and Sunstein (2008) who presented the above surgery problem, concluded
that "framing works because people tend to be somewhat mindless, passive decisionmakers" (p. 40)
Gigerenzer points out that in this particular example, subjects are having to make their judgements without knowing a key fact:
how many survive without surgery. If you know that you have a datum which is more influential. These are the sorts of questions patients
will often ask about, and discuss with other patients, or with several doctors. Furthermore, you don't have to spin a statistic.
You could simply say: "Five years after surgery, 90% of patients are alive and 10% are dead".
Gigerenzer gives an explanation which is very relevant to current discussions about the meaning of intelligence, and about the
power of intelligence tests:
In sum, the principle of logical equivalence or "description invariance" is a poor guide to understanding how human intelligence
deals with an uncertain world where not everything is stated explicitly. It misses the very nature of intelligence, the ability
to go beyond the information given (Bruner, 1973)
The key is to take uncertainty seriously, take heuristics seriously, and beware of the bias bias.
One important conclusion I draw from this entire paper is that the logical puzzles enjoyed by Kahneman, Tversky, Stanovich and
others are rightly rejected by psychometricians as usually being poor indicators of real ability. They fail because they are designed
to lead people up the garden path, and depend on idiosyncratic interpretations.
Critics of examinations of either intellectual ability or scholastic attainment are fond of claiming that the items are "arbitrary".
Not really. Scholastic tests have to be close to the curriculum in question, but still need to a have question forms which are simple
to understand so that the stress lies in how students formulate the answer, not in how they decipher the structure of the question.
Intellectual tests have to avoid particular curricula and restrict themselves to the common ground of what most people in a community
understand. Questions have to be super-simple, so that the correct answer follows easily from the question, with minimal ambiguity.
Furthermore, in the case of national scholastic tests, and particularly in the case of intelligence tests, legal authorities will
pore over the test, looking at each item for suspected biases of a sexual, racial or socio-economic nature. Designing an intelligence
test is a difficult and expensive matter. Many putative new tests of intelligence never even get to the legal hurdle, because they
flounder on matters of reliability and validity, and reveal themselves to be little better than the current range of assessments.
In conclusion, both in psychology and behavioural economics, some researchers have probably been too keen to allege bias in cases
where there are unsystematic errors, or no errors at all. The corrective is to learn about base rates, and to use natural frequencies
as a guide to good decision-making.
Don't bother boosting your IQ. Boost your understanding of natural frequencies.
Good concrete advice. Perhaps even more useful for those who need to explain things like this to others than for those seeking
to understand for themselves.
"intelligence deals with an uncertain world where not everything is stated explicitly. It misses the very nature of intelligence,
the ability to go beyond the information given (Bruner, 1973)"
"The key is to take uncertainty seriously, take heuristics seriously, and beware of the bias bias."
Actually I think this is an example of an increasingly common genre of malapropism, where the writer gropes for the right word,
finds one that is similar, and settles for that. The worst of it is that readers intuitively understand what was intended, and
then adopt the marginally incorrect usage themselves. That's perhaps how the world and his dog came to say "literally" when they
mean "figuratively". Maybe a topic for a future article?
In 2009 Google finished engineering a reverse search engine to find out what kind of searches people did most often. Seth Davidowitz
and Steven Pinker wrote a very fascinating/entertaining book using the tool called Everybody Lies
Everybody Lies offers fascinating, surprising, and sometimes laugh-out-loud insights into everything from economics to ethics
to sports to race to sex, gender, and more, all drawn from the world of big data. What percentage of white voters didn't vote
for Barack Obama because he's black? Does where you go to school effect how successful you are in life? Do parents secretly
favor boy children over girls? Do violent films affect the crime rate? Can you beat the stock market? How regularly do we lie
about our sex lives, and who's more self-conscious about sex, men or women?
Investigating these questions and a host of others, Seth Stephens-Davidowitz offers revelations that can help us understand
ourselves and our lives better. Drawing on studies and experiments on how we really live and think, he demonstrates in fascinating
and often funny ways the extent to which all the world is indeed a lab. With conclusions ranging from strange-but-true to thought-provoking
to disturbing, he explores the power of this digital truth serum and its deeper potential – revealing biases deeply embedded
within us, information we can use to change our culture, and the questions we're afraid to ask that might be essential to our
health – both emotional and physical. All of us are touched by big data every day, and its influence is multiplying. Everybody
Lies challenges us to think differently about how we see it and the world.
I shall treat this posting (for which many thanks, doc) as an invitation to sing a much-loved song: everybody should read Gigerenzer's
Reckoning with Risk. With great clarity it teaches what everyone ought to know about probability.
(It could also serve as a model for writing in English about technical subjects. Americans and Britons should study the English
of this German – he knows how, you know.)
Inspired by "The original Slovic study was based on 39 college students" I shall also sing another favorite song. Much of Psychology
is based on what small numbers of American undergraduates report they think they think.
" Gigerenzer points out that in this particular example, subjects are having to make their judgements without knowing a key fact:
how many survive without surgery. "
This one reminds of the false dichotomy. The patient has additional options! Like changing diet, and behaviours such as exercise,
elimination of occupational stress , etc.
The statistical outcomes for a person change when the person changes their circumstances/conditions.
@Tom
Welsh A disposition (conveyance) of an awkwardly shaped chunk out of a vast estate contained reference to "the slither of
ground bounded on or towards the north east and extending two hundred and twenty four meters or thereby along a chain link fence "
Not poor clients (either side) nor cheap lawyers. And who never erred?
Better than deliberately inserting "errors" to guarantee a stream of tidy up work (not unknown in the "professional" world)
in future.
Good article. 79% of gynaecologists fail a simple conditional probability test?! Many if not most medical research papers use
advanced statistics. Medical doctors must read these papers to fully understand their field. So, if medical doctors don't fully
understand them, they are not properly doing their job. Those papers use mathematical expressions, not English. Converting them
to another form of English, instead of using the mathematical expressions isn't a solution.
Regarding witnesses: When that jet crashed into Rockaway several years ago, a high percentage of witnesses said that they saw
smoke before the crash. But there was actually no smoke. The witnesses were adjusting what they saw to conform to their past experience
of seeing movie and newsreel footage of planes smoking in the air before a crash. Children actually make very good witnesses.
Regarding the chart. Missing, up there in the vicinity of cancer and heart disease. The third-leading cause of death. 250,000
per year, according to a 2016 Hopkins study. Medical negligence.
1. Lack of rationality. Experiments have shown that people's intuitions are systematically biased.
2. Stubbornness. Like visual illusions, biases are persistent and hardly corrigible by education.
3. Substantial costs. Biases may incur substantial welfare-relevant costs such as lower wealth, health, or happiness.
4. Biases justify governmental paternalism. To protect people from theirbiases, governments should "nudge" the public toward
better behavior.
Well the sad fact is that there's nobody in the position to protect "governments" from their own biases, and "scientists"
from theirs.
So, behind the smoke of all words and rationalisations, the law is unchanged: everyone strives to gain and exert as much power
as possible over as many others as possible. Most do that without writing papers to say it is right, others write papers,
others books. Anyway, the fundamental law would stay as it is even if all this writing labour was spared, wouldn't it?
But then another fundamental law, the law of framing all one's drives as moral and beneffective comes into play the papers
and the books are useful, after all.
An interesting article. However, I think that the only thing we have to know about how illogical psychiatry is this:
In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) asked all members attending its convention to vote on whether they believed
homosexuality to be a mental disorder. 5,854 psychiatrists voted to remove homosexuality from the DSM, and 3,810 to retain
it.
The APA then compromised, removing homosexuality from the DSM but replacing it, in effect, with "sexual orientation disturbance"
for people "in conflict with" their sexual orientation. Not until 1987 did homosexuality completely fall out of the DSM.
The article makes no mention of the fact that no "new science" was brought to support the resolution.
It appears that the psychiatrists were voting based on feelings rather than science. Since that time, the now 50+ genders have
been accepted as "normal" by the APA. My family has had members in multiple generations suffering from mental illness. None were
"cured". I know others with the same circumstances.
How does one conclude that being repulsed by the prime directive of every
living organism – reproduce yourself – is "normal"? That is not to say these people are horrible or evil, just not normal. How
can someone, who thinks (s)he is a cat be mentally ill, but a grown man thinking he is a female child is not?
Long ago a lawyer acquaintance, referring to a specific judge, told me that the judge seemed to "make shit up as he was going
along". I have long held psychiatry fits that statement very well.
Thank you for this article. I find the information about the interpretation of statistical data very interesting. My take on the
background of the article is this:
Here we have a real scientist fighting the nonsense spreading from (neoclassical) economics into other realms of science/academia.
Behavioral economics is a sideline by-product of neoclassical micro-economic theory. It tries to cope with experimental
data that is inconsistent with that theory.
Everything in neoclassical economics is a travesty. "Rational choice theory" and its application in "micro economics" is
false from the ground up. It basically assumes that people are gobbling up resources without plan, meaning or relevant circumstances.
Neoclassical micro economic theory is so false and illogical that I would not know where to start in a comment, so I should like
to refer to a whole book about it:
Keen, Steve: "Debunking economics".
As the theory is totally wrong it is really not surprising that countless experiments show that people do not behave the
way neoclassical theory predicts. How do economists react to this? Of course they assume that people are "irrational" because
they do not behave according to their studied theory. (Why would you ever change your basic theory because of some tedious facts?)
We live in a strange world in which such people have control over university faculties, journals, famous prizes. But at least
we have some scientists who defend their area of knowledge against the spreading nonsense produced by economists.
The title of the 1st ed. of Keen's book was "Debunking Economics: The Naked Emperor of the Social Sciences" which was simply
a perfect title.
There is so much disinformation that it is difficult to judge the Israeli news report below
that the US is planning a military attack on Iran. Israel wants the US to attack Iran and the
report could be an attempt to push events in that direction.
There is no valid reason for Washington to serve Israeli interests.
It would be extremely irresponsible for Washington to risk starting another war.
As Russian and Chinese interests could be threatened by a US war with Iran, the situation
could become uncontrollable.
If there is a real prospect of a US attack on Iran, it would be a responsible action for
Russia and China to block it in advance by taking a firm position.
U.N. officials: U.S. planning a 'tactical assault' in Iran
By SHLOMO SHAMIR/MAARIV ONLINE
06/17/2019
The military action under consideration would be an aerial bombardment of an Iranian
facility linked to its nuclear program, the officials further claimed.
Is the US going to attack Iran soon?
Diplomatic sources at the UN headquarters in New York revealed to Maariv that they are
assessing the United States' plans to carry out a tactical assault on Iran in response to the
tanker attack in the Persian Gulf on Thursday.
According to the officials, since Friday, the White House has been holding incessant
discussions involving senior military commanders, Pentagon representatives and advisers to
President Donald Trump.
The military action under consideration would be an aerial bombardment of an Iranian
facility linked to its nuclear program, the officials further claimed.
"The bombing will be massive but will be limited to a specific target," said a Western
diplomat.
"... Tyler Durden on Zero Hedge reports that the ability to falsify reality is growing by leaps and bounds. Thoughtless geeks have now developed technology that makes fake reality indistinguishable from real reality ..."
"... This new artificial intelligence capability allows competent programmers to create audio and video of anyone, saying absolutely anything. ..."
"... The creations are called “deepfakes” and however outrageous they may be, they’re virtually indistinguishable from the real thing. No sooner had we adjusted to a world where our reality seemed fake, then things that are fake became our reality. ..."
"... “We’re outgunned,” said a UC Berkeley digital-forensics expert, “The number of people now working on video-synthesis outnumber those working on detecting deepfakes by 100-1.” . . . Already two-thirds of Americans say altered images and videos have become a major problem for understanding the basic facts of current events. ..."
"... Misinformation researchers warn of growing “reality apathy” whereby it takes so much effort to distinguish between what’s real and fake that we simply give up and rely on our base instincts, tribal biases, impulses. Immersed in our leader’s deceits, we come to believe in nothing. Two oil tankers burst into flames, billowing smoke. ..."
"... Without truth there is no liberty, no freedom, no independent thought, and no awareness. There is only The Matrix. ..."
"... The most difficult thing in the world today is to ascertain the truth. It is what I attempt to do for readers. Those who rely on this website should support it. This site has very loyal supporters, which is why it exists. But it has far more users than supporters. The cavalier attitude toward truth on the part of so many readers is not encouraging of the survival of truth. ..."
Tyler Durden on Zero Hedge reports that the ability to falsify reality is growing by
leaps and bounds. Thoughtless geeks have now developed technology that makes fake reality
indistinguishable from real reality :
"I don't think we're well prepared at all. And I don't think the public is aware of what's
coming," said the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. He was discussing the rapid
advance of synthesis technology. This new artificial intelligence capability allows
competent programmers to create audio and video of anyone, saying absolutely
anything.
The creations are called “deepfakes” and however outrageous they may be,
they’re virtually indistinguishable from the real thing. No sooner had we adjusted to a
world where our reality seemed fake, then things that are fake became our reality.
“We’re outgunned,” said a UC Berkeley digital-forensics expert,
“The number of people now working on video-synthesis outnumber those working on
detecting deepfakes by 100-1.” . . . Already two-thirds of Americans say altered images
and videos have become a major problem for understanding the basic facts of current
events.
Misinformation researchers warn of growing “reality apathy” whereby it
takes so much effort to distinguish between what’s real and fake that we simply give up
and rely on our base instincts, tribal biases, impulses. Immersed in our leader’s
deceits, we come to believe in nothing. Two oil tankers burst into flames, billowing
smoke.
On cue, a suspicious Iranian Revolutionary Guard boat appeared on grainy video. Viral
images flooded earth’s nine billion screens. Each side told a different story. No one
quite knew who to trust. Conspiracy theories filled the void, as we each clung to what we
most want to believe.
Why is it that tech geeks take pride in developing technology that makes truth even harder
to find? What is wrong with their character as humans that they create methods of destroying
the ability to know truth? How is this different from releasing an undetectable substance into
the air that wipes out life?
The only use of this technology is to allow the police state complete control. It is now
possible to put words and deeds into the mouths and actions of anyone and use the faked
evidence to convict them of the simulated crime.
Without truth there is no liberty, no freedom, no independent thought, and no awareness.
There is only The Matrix.
How has America so lost the way that corporations, investors, and scientists are motivated
to develop truth-destroying technology? Aren’t these mindless idiots our real
enemies?
The most difficult thing in the world today is to ascertain the truth. It is what I
attempt to do for readers. Those who rely on this website should support it. This site has very
loyal supporters, which is why it exists. But it has far more users than supporters. The
cavalier attitude toward truth on the part of so many readers is not encouraging of the
survival of truth.
The border situation is so outrageous it appears like something out of a black comedy. "We
are in a full blown emergency," said acting Customs and Border Protection Commissioner John
Sanders, "and I cannot say this stronger: the system is broken". [ 32% increase
in migrants encountered or arrested at the southern border in May, by Priscilla
Alvarez, CNN, June 5, 2019] Why is this happening? Migrants all
over the world from Guatemala
to
Angola know the loopholes in immigration border enforcement imposed by a
treasonous Leftist
kritarchy , especially the claim of "
credible fear " potentially qualifying people for asylum.
[ While everyone sleeps, the courts are abolishing all immigration enforcement, by Daniel Horowitz, Conservative Review, March 11, 2019] Thus, most migrants
are not sneaking across the border: they are eagerly turning themselves in at ports of entry,
knowing they will soon be released into the country on the promise, which they intend to break,
that they will show up for adjudication.
Remember, President Trump has the authority to solve this problem without Congress. The
Supreme Court has already ruled that the president can impose a
travel ban on certain countries . Conservative Review's Daniel Horowitz argues the
president has inherent powers under Article II to exclude asylum applicants from entering the
country, authority that has been reaffirmed by Congress and repeatedly sanctioned by the
Supreme Court. [ No
judge has jurisdiction to erase our border, ConservativeReview, November 26,
2018]
But Trump won't do it -- partially because he has inexplicably surrounded himself with
political foes who won't back strong action . Instead, he's blaming the Democrats for not
undertaking the "simple" measure of closing the "loopholes."
The most optimistic explanation: Trump intends to use immigration as an election issue in
2020. Yet his fecklessness in office will be as unappealing to many voters as the Democrats'
extremism. [ Trump Is
Vulnerable to Biden on Immigration, by Michael Brendan Dougherty, National
Review, June 11, 2019] After all, Trump
began his campaign vowing to solve the immigration problem almost exactly four years ago --
but essentially nothing has been done.
The "maximum pressure campaign," as it has been called, puts Iran in the position of either
accepting a humiliating surrender or striking out where it can [ Maximum
pressure on Iran Means Maximum Risk of War, by Ilan Goldenberg, Foreign
Policy, June 14, 2019].
... ... ...
There is also a deeper fundamental question. Our country is crumbling. The border is
non-existent; entire communities are being overrun. There’s something perverse about even
entertaining a dangerous and costly military intervention halfway around the world. It’s
akin to a Roman emperor declaring he will conquer India while barbarians are crossing the
Rhine.
The State Department revealed in a letter to Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) that it had
identified "multiple security incidents" committed by current or former employees who handled
Hillary Clinton's emails, according to
Fox News .
So far 23 "violations" and seven "infractions" have been issued as a part of
the department's ongoing investigation - a number that will likely rise according to State
Department Assistant Secretary in the Bureau of Legislative Affairs, Mary Elizabeth Taylor.
"To this point, the Department has assessed culpability to 15 individuals, some of whom were
culpable in multiple security incidents," said Taylor in the letter to Grassley, adding "DS has
issued 23 violations and 7 infractions incidents. ... This number will likely change as the
review progresses. "
October 2016. Trump promises to assign a special prosecutor to investigate HRC if he is
elected president; given before multiple witnesses incl HRC herself.
First this is another nothing burger, the Demos can't afford to hang Clinton and neither
can the Republicans.. If Clinton goes down she will takes 3/4 of congress and senate with
her. The Clinton cartel takes anyone out that tries to go against them. Look at the number of
dead following them all the way back from Arkansas. We forget history, how about the three
planes that flew down to arkansas supposedly collecting all the Clinton Foundation paperwork
etc......???? Another case of the crowds cheering they are going down. Didn't see that happen
either, but did see a lot of people mysteriously show up dead.
Nope just sit back and enjoy the passing of a great country that is in decline. Thank the
Clintons, Bushes, and Obamas for the quick descent to the level this country is now. Just
wait until 2020 when it all goes up in smoke. No pun intended Obama.
Essentially Sen. Graham is treating Israel as yet another US state. If we make this
assumption, then the USA policy toward Israel at least looks more logical.
"The two generals were referring to the fact that the U.S. already has airmen stationed
permanently at Israel's Mashabim Air Base in spite of the fact that the two countries have
no defense agreement of any kind. The Americans, though few in number, would serve as a
trip wire to guarantee that Washington would become involved in any war that Israel chooses
to start"
Israel will soon get their long sought US-Israel Defense Treaty if Lindsey Graham can pull
it off and congress I am sure will be all for it. There aren't words to describe what such a
treaty would do to the US -- -it's signing up any and all wars Israel wants to create ..it
will be the end of the US.
HEARD YESTERDAY -- Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) confirmed to Jewish Insider a July trip to
Israel to work out details for a U.S.-Israel defense treaty to counter the Iranian
threat. He later elaborated on his plans during a speech at the Endowment for Middle East
Truth in Washington D.C. on Wednesday night.
"So, here's the next thing, here's our marching orders. I'm going to Israel in July. We're
going to sit down and we're going to talk about what a security agreement would look like,"
he said. "But I think it's important to send a signal in the 21st century. If you're
intending to destroy Israel, you have to go through us. And it will not turn out well for
you."
"... Its political benefit: minimizing the number of U.S. "boots on the ground" and so American casualties in the never-ending war on terror, as well as any public outcry about Washington's many conflicts. ..."
"... Its economic benefit: plenty of high-profit business for weapons makers for whom the president can now declare a national security emergency whenever he likes and so sell their warplanes and munitions to preferred dictatorships in the Middle East (no congressional approval required). ..."
"... Think of all this as a cult of bombing on a global scale. America's wars are increasingly waged from the air, not on the ground, a reality that makes the prospect of ending them ever more daunting. The question is: What's driving this process? ..."
"... In a bizarre fashion, you might even say that, in the twenty-first century, the bomb and missile count replaced the Vietnam-era body count as a metric of (false) progress . Using data supplied by the U.S. military, the Council on Foreign Relations estimated that the U.S. dropped at least 26,172 bombs in seven countries in 2016, the bulk of them in Iraq and Syria. Against Raqqa alone, ISIS's "capital," the U.S. and its allies dropped more than 20,000 bombs in 2017, reducing that provincial Syrian city to literal rubble . Combined with artillery fire, the bombing of Raqqa killed more than 1,600 civilians, according to Amnesty International . ..."
"... U.S. air campaigns today, deadly as they are, pale in comparison to past ones like the Tokyo firebombing of 1945, which killed more than 100,000 civilians; the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki later that year (roughly 250,000); the death toll against German civilians in World War II (at least 600,000); or civilians in the Vietnam War. (Estimates vary, but when napalm and the long-term effects of cluster munitions and defoliants like Agent Orange are added to conventional high-explosive bombs, the death toll in Southeast Asia may well have exceeded one million.) ..."
"... the U.S. may control the air, but that dominance simply hasn't led to ultimate success. In the case of Afghanistan, weapons like the Mother of All Bombs, or MOAB (the most powerful non-nuclear bomb in the U.S. military's arsenal), have been celebrated as game changers even when they change nothing. (Indeed, the Taliban only continues to grow stronger , as does the branch of the Islamic State in Afghanistan.) As is often the case when it comes to U.S. air power, such destruction leads neither to victory, nor closure of any sort; only to yet more destruction. ..."
"... Just because U.S. warplanes and drones can strike almost anywhere on the globe with relative impunity doesn't mean that they should. Given the history of air power since World War II, ease of access should never be mistaken for efficacious results. ..."
"... Bombing alone will never be the key to victory. If that were true, the U.S. would have easily won in Korea and Vietnam, as well as in Afghanistan and Iraq. ..."
"... Despite total air supremacy, the recent Iraq War was a disaster even as the Afghan War staggers on into its 18th catastrophic year. ..."
"... No matter how much it's advertised as "precise," "discriminate," and "measured," bombing (or using missiles like the Tomahawk ) rarely is. The deaths of innocents are guaranteed. Air power and those deaths are joined at the hip, while such killings only generate anger and blowback, thereby prolonging the wars they are meant to end. ..."
"... A paradox emerges from almost 18 years of the war on terror: the imprecision of air power only leads to repetitious cycles of violence and, even when air strikes prove precise, there always turn out to be fresh targets, fresh terrorists, fresh insurgents to strike. ..."
"... Using air power to send political messages about resolve or seriousness rarely works. If it did, the U.S. would have swept to victory in Vietnam. In Lyndon Johnson's presidency, for instance, Operation Rolling Thunder (1965-1968), a graduated campaign of bombing, was meant to, but didn't, convince the North Vietnamese to give up their goal of expelling the foreign invaders -- us -- from South Vietnam. ..."
"... Air power is enormously expensive. Spending on aircraft, helicopters, and their munitions accounted for roughly half the cost of the Vietnam War. ..."
"... Aerial surveillance (as with drones), while useful, can also be misleading. Command of the high ground is not synonymous with god-like "total situational awareness ." ..."
"... Air power is inherently offensive. That means it's more consistent with imperial power projection than with national defense ..."
"... Despite the fantasies of those sending out the planes, air power often lengthens wars rather than shortening them. ..."
"... Air power, even of the shock-and-awe variety, loses its impact over time. The enemy, lacking it, nonetheless learns to adapt by developing countermeasures -- both active (like missiles) and passive (like camouflage and dispersion), even as those being bombed become more resilient and resolute. ..."
"... Pounding peasants from two miles up is not exactly an ideal way to occupy the moral high ground in war. ..."
"... all the happy talk about the techno-wonders of modern air power obscures its darker facets, especially its ability to lock America into what are effectively one-way wars with dead-end results. ..."
"... War's inherent nature -- its unpredictability, horrors, and tendency to outlast its original causes and goals -- isn't changed when the bombs and missiles are guided by GPS. Washington's enemies in its war on terror, moreover, have learned to adapt to air power in a grimly Darwinian fashion and have the advantage of fighting on their own turf. ..."
From Syria to Yemen in the Middle East, Libya to Somalia in Africa, Afghanistan to Pakistan
in South Asia, an American aerial curtain has descended across a huge swath of the planet. Its
stated purpose: combatting terrorism. Its primary method: constant surveillance and bombing --
and yet more bombing.
Its political benefit: minimizing the number of U.S. "boots on the ground" and so
American casualties in the never-ending war on terror, as well as any public outcry about Washington's many
conflicts.
Its economic benefit: plenty of high-profit business for weapons makers for whom the president can now
declare a national security emergency whenever he likes and so sell their warplanes and
munitions to preferred dictatorships in the Middle East (no congressional approval
required).
Its reality for various foreign peoples: a steady diet of "
Made in USA " bombs and missiles bursting here, there, and everywhere.
Think of all this as a cult of bombing on a global scale. America's wars
are increasingly waged from the air, not on the ground, a reality that makes the prospect of
ending them ever more daunting. The question is: What's driving this process?
For many of America's decision-makers, air power has clearly become something of an
abstraction. After all, except for the 9/11 attacks by those four hijacked commercial
airliners, Americans haven't
been the target of such strikes since World War II. On Washington's battlefields across the
Greater Middle East and northern Africa, air power is always almost literally a one-way affair.
There are no enemy air forces or significant air defenses. The skies are the exclusive property
of the U.S. Air Force (and allied air forces), which means that we're no longer talking about
"war" in the normal sense. No wonder Washington policymakers and military officials see it as
our strong suit, our asymmetrical
advantage , our way of settling scores with evildoers, real and imagined.
Bombs away!
In a bizarre fashion, you might even say that, in the twenty-first century, the bomb and
missile count replaced the Vietnam-era body count as a metric of (false) progress . Using data
supplied by the U.S. military, the Council on Foreign Relations estimated that the U.S. dropped
at least 26,172 bombs in seven
countries in 2016, the bulk of them in Iraq and Syria. Against Raqqa alone, ISIS's "capital,"
the U.S. and its allies dropped more than
20,000 bombs in 2017, reducing that provincial Syrian city to
literal rubble . Combined with artillery fire, the bombing of Raqqa killed more than 1,600
civilians, according to
Amnesty International .
Meanwhile, since Donald Trump has become president, after claiming that he would get us out
of our various never-ending wars, U.S. bombing has surged, not only against the Islamic State
in Syria and Iraq but in
Afghanistan as well. It has driven up the
civilian death toll there even as "friendly" Afghan forces are sometimes mistaken for the
enemy
and killed , too. Air strikes from Somalia
to
Yemen have also been on the rise under Trump, while civilian casualties due to U.S. bombing
continue to be
underreported in the American media and
downplayed by the Trump administration.
U.S. air campaigns today, deadly as they are, pale in comparison to past ones like the Tokyo firebombing of 1945,
which killed more than 100,000 civilians; the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki later
that year (roughly 250,000); the death toll against German civilians in World War II (at least
600,000); or civilians in the Vietnam War. (Estimates vary, but when napalm and the long-term
effects of cluster
munitions and defoliants like Agent Orange are added to
conventional high-explosive bombs, the death toll in Southeast Asia may
well have exceeded one million.) Today's air strikes are more limited than in those past
campaigns and may be more accurate, but never confuse a 500-pound bomb with a surgeon's
scalpel, even rhetorically. When " surgical " is applied to bombing in today's
age of lasers, GPS, and other precision-guidance technologies, it only obscures the very real
human carnage being produced by all these American-made bombs and missiles.
This country's propensity for believing that its ability to rain hellfire from the sky provides a
winning methodology for its wars has proven to be a fantasy of our age. Whether in Korea in the
early 1950s, Vietnam in the 1960s, or more recently in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, the
U.S. may control the air, but that dominance simply hasn't led to ultimate success. In the case
of Afghanistan, weapons like the Mother of All Bombs, or MOAB (the most powerful
non-nuclear bomb in the U.S. military's arsenal), have been celebrated as game changers even
when they change nothing. (Indeed, the Taliban only continues to grow stronger
, as does the branch of the Islamic State in Afghanistan.) As is often the case when it comes
to U.S. air power, such destruction leads neither to victory, nor closure of any sort; only to
yet more destruction.
Such results are contrary to the rationale for air power that I absorbed in a career spent
in the U.S. Air Force. (I retired in 2005.) The fundamental tenets of air power
that I learned, which are still taught today, speak of decisiveness. They promise that air
power, defined as "flexible and versatile," will have "synergistic effects" with other military
operations. When bombing is "concentrated," "persistent," and "executed" properly (meaning not
micro-managed by know-nothing politicians), air power should be fundamental to ultimate
victory. As we used to insist, putting bombs on target is really what it's all about. End of
story -- and of thought.
Given the banality and vacuity of those official Air Force tenets, given the
twenty-first-century history of air power gone to hell and back, and based on my own experience
teaching such history and strategy in and outside the military, I'd like to offer some air
power tenets of my own. These are the ones the Air Force didn't teach me, but that our leaders
might consider before launching their next "decisive" air campaign.
Ten Cautionary Tenets
About Air Power
1. Just because U.S. warplanes and drones can strike almost anywhere on the globe with
relative impunity doesn't mean that they should. Given the history of air power since World
War II, ease of access should never be mistaken for efficacious results.
2. Bombing alone will never be the key to victory. If that were true, the U.S. would
have easily won in Korea and Vietnam, as well as in Afghanistan and Iraq. American air
power pulverized both North Korea and Vietnam (not to speak of neighboring
Laos and Cambodia ), yet the Korean War ended in a stalemate and the Vietnam War in
defeat. (It tells you the world about such thinking that air power enthusiasts, reconsidering
the Vietnam debacle, tend to argue the U.S. should have bombed even more -- lots
more .) Despite total air supremacy, the recent Iraq War was a disaster even as the
Afghan War staggers on into its 18th catastrophic year.
3. No matter how much it's advertised as "precise," "discriminate," and "measured,"
bombing (or using missiles like the Tomahawk ) rarely is. The deaths of
innocents are guaranteed. Air power and those deaths are joined at the hip, while such
killings only generate anger and blowback, thereby prolonging the wars they are meant to
end.
Consider, for instance, the "decapitation" strikes launched against Iraqi autocrat Saddam
Hussein and his top officials in the opening moments of the Bush administration's invasion of
2003. Despite the hype about that being the beginning of the most precise air campaign in all
of history, 50 of those attacks, supposedly based on the best intelligence around, failed to
take out Saddam or a single one of his targeted officials. They did, however, cause "dozens"
of civilian deaths. Think of it as a monstrous repeat of the precision air attacks launched
on Belgrade in 1999 against Slobodan Milosevic and his
regime that hit the Chinese
embassy instead, killing three journalists.
Here, then, is the question of the day: Why is it that, despite all the "precision" talk
about it, air power so regularly proves at best a blunt instrument of destruction? As a
start, intelligence is often faulty. Then bombs and missiles, even "smart" ones, do go
astray. And even when U.S. forces actually kill high-value targets (HVTs), there are
always more HVTs out there. A paradox emerges from almost 18 years of the war on terror:
the imprecision of air power only leads to repetitious cycles of violence and, even when air
strikes prove precise, there always turn out to be fresh targets, fresh terrorists, fresh
insurgents to strike.
4. Using air power to send political messages about resolve or seriousness rarely
works. If it did, the U.S. would have swept to victory in Vietnam. In Lyndon Johnson's
presidency, for instance, Operation Rolling Thunder (1965-1968), a
graduated campaign of bombing, was meant to, but didn't, convince the North Vietnamese to
give up their goal of expelling the foreign invaders -- us -- from South Vietnam.
Fast-forward to our era and consider recent signals sent to North
Korea and
Iran by the Trump administration via B-52 bomber deployments, among other military
"messages." There's no evidence that either country modified its behavior significantly in
the face of the menace of those
baby-boomer-era airplanes.
5. Air power is enormously expensive. Spending on aircraft, helicopters, and their
munitions accounted for roughly half the cost of the Vietnam War. Similarly, in the
present moment, making operational and then maintaining Lockheed Martin's boondoggle
of a jet fighter, the F-35, is expected to cost at least
$1.45 trillion over its lifetime. The new B-21 stealth bomber will cost more than $100 billion
simply to buy. Naval air wings on aircraft carriers cost billions each year to maintain and
operate. These days, when the sky's the limit for
the Pentagon budget, such costs may be (barely) tolerable. When the money finally begins to
run out, however, the military will likely suffer a serious hangover from its wildly
extravagant spending on air power.
6. Aerial surveillance (as with drones), while useful, can also be misleading. Command
of the high ground is not synonymous with god-like "total situational
awareness ." It can instead prove to be a kind of delusion, while war practiced in
its spirit often becomes little more than an exercise in destruction. You simply can't
negotiate a truce or take prisoners or foster other options when you're high above a
potential battlefield and your main recourse is blowing up people and things.
7. Air power is inherently offensive. That means it's more consistent with imperial
power projection than with national defense . As such, it fuels imperial ventures, while
fostering the kind of "
global reach, global power " thinking that has in these years had Air Force generals in
its grip.
8. Despite the fantasies of those sending out the planes, air power often lengthens
wars rather than shortening them. Consider Vietnam again. In the early 1960s, the Air
Force argued that it alone could resolve that conflict at the lowest cost (mainly in American
bodies). With enough bombs, napalm, and defoliants, victory was a sure thing and U.S. ground
troops a kind of afterthought. (Initially, they were sent in mainly to protect the airfields
from which those planes took off.) But bombing solved nothing and then the Army and the
Marines decided that, if the Air Force couldn't win, they sure as hell could. The result was
escalation and disaster that left in the dust the original vision of a war won quickly and on
the cheap due to American air supremacy.
9. Air power, even of the shock-and-awe variety, loses its impact
over time. The enemy, lacking it, nonetheless learns to adapt by developing countermeasures
-- both active (like missiles) and passive (like camouflage and dispersion), even as those
being bombed become more resilient and resolute.
10. Pounding peasants from two miles up is not exactly an ideal way to occupy the
moral high ground in war.
The Road to Perdition
If I had to reduce these tenets to a single maxim, it would be this: all the happy talk
about the techno-wonders of modern air power obscures its darker facets, especially its ability
to lock America into what are effectively one-way wars with dead-end results.
For this reason, precision warfare is truly an oxymoron. War isn't precise. It's nasty,
bloody, and murderous. War's inherent nature -- its unpredictability, horrors, and tendency
to outlast its original causes and goals -- isn't changed when the bombs and missiles are
guided by GPS. Washington's enemies in its war on terror, moreover, have learned to adapt to
air power in a grimly Darwinian fashion and have the advantage of fighting on their own
turf.
Who doesn't know the old riddle: If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear
it, does it make a sound? Here's a twenty-first-century air power variant on it: If foreign
children die from American bombs but no U.S. media outlets report their deaths, will anyone
grieve? Far too often, the answer here in the U.S. is no and so our wars go on into an endless
future of global destruction.
In reality, this country might do better to simply ground its many fighter planes, bombers, and
drones. Paradoxically, instead of gaining the high ground, they are keeping us on a low road to
perdition.
In December of 2017, Daniel Ellsberg published a book,
"The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner" . Among many other things,
he revealed the actual Strangelovian nature of our military establishment. Most enlightening
is his revelation that many in the high command of our nuclear triggers do not trust, or even
have contempt for, civilian oversight and control of the military. They covertly regard the
presidential leadership as naïve and inept, though it would be professional suicide to
admit such an attitude openly.
Comes now 𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕹𝖊𝖜
𝖄𝖔𝖗𝖐 𝕿𝖎𝖒𝖊𝖘 with the
revelation that the Pentagon's Cyber Command has attacked Russia's power grid with software
"implants" designed to destroy that grid the instant a mouse click is given, thereby possibly
initiating global war. Most alarmingly, the details of this secret action were kept from the
President, lest he countermand the operation or leak it to the Russians.
So now we have a general staff that is conducting critical international military
operations on its own, with no civilian input, permission or hindrances of any kind. A
formula for national suicide, executed by a tiny junta of unelected officers who decide to
play nuclear Russian roulette.
We seem to be ineluctably and irreversibly trapped in a state of national dementia.
Just remember this: The U.S. had the technological advantage in Viet Nam, and blasted that
country, along with Cambodia, and Laos, with 7.5 million tons of bombs, (more than the entire
WWII campaign of 2.25 million tons), and the Vietnamese were still able to kick our *** out
of the country by 1975.
There is a 11th tenet: air force operations need airports or aircraft carriers, and these
are very vulnerable to modern, high precision missiles. If the enemy has plenty of missiles,
your fighters and bombers can be impeded to take off and land, or even be destroyed. Modern
aircrafts need very sophisticated and working infrastructures to be operational.
In the case of a full war with Iran, I see all hostile bases and airports destroyed or
damaged by Iranian, Hezbollah and Syrian missiles. They have tens of thousand of them - it is
30 years they have been accumulating missiles in prevision of a possible forthcoming war.
You are right. Also, there are many nations with subs and probably more countries have
acquired nukes than are willing to admit. I strongly suspect Iran already has nukes. If North
Korea has them, I see no reason that Iran wouldn't be even further ahead. They have been
under threat of US attacks for my entire lifetime. Anyway, I would not put it past some other
countries to hit US coastal cities and then deny any knowledge about who did it. There are
many capable and many people have been made enemies by our foreign policy. Surely these
people have treaties to help each other should be attack. And why would they make these
treaties public and antagonize the US military further. I'm sure there are many well kept
secrets out there. We must evolve, or the US and Israel could find it is us against the
world.
War is hell. It has always been so. The failure here is that since World War II all US
wars have been fatuously political. Actions have not been taken to win but to posture about
moral greatness and the ability to force the enemy to deal without destroying his capacity to
resist.
How can you say the US lost in Vietnam when the entire country could have been removed
from the face of the Earth? Yes the price of such removal would have been very high but it
could have been done. Do such considerations mean that if one withdraws one has lost?
The US won the war in the Pacific but it is now considered an excessive use of force that
the US used nuclear weapons to conclude the war. Perhaps the US did not use enough force then
to successfully conclude the Vietnam war? Perhaps, it failed to field the right kind of
force?
The definition of lost is an interesting one. The practical answer is that the US did lose
in many places because it was unwilling to pay the price of victory as publicly expressed.
Yet it could have won if it paid the price.
So an interesting question for military types is to ask how to lower the price. What kind
of weapons would have been needed to quickly sweep the enemy into oblivion in Vietnam let us
say, given the limits of the war? Could the war have been won without ground troops and
choppers but with half a million computer controlled drones armed with machine guns and
grenades flying in swarms close to the ground?
The factories to produce those weapons could have been located in Thailand or Taiwan or
Japan and the product shipped to Vietnam. Since only machines would be destroyed and the
drones are obviously meant to substitute for ground troops then how about a million or two
million of the drones in place of the half a million ground troops? Could the US, with
anachronistic technology to be sure, have won the war for a price that would have been
acceptable to the US?
The idea here is that one constructs an army, robot or otherwise, than can destroy the
enemy it is going to fight at a price which is acceptable. This is actually a form of
asymmetric warfare which requires a thorough understanding of the enemy and his capabilities.
The US did not enter Vietnam with such an army but with one not meant to serve in Vietnam and
whose losses would be deeply resented at home. The price of victory was too high.
But this does not mean that the US cannot win. It only means that the commitment to win in
a poorly thought out war must be great enough to pay the price of victory. This may be a
stupid thing to do but it does not mean that it cannot be done. One cannot assume that the US
will never again show sufficient commitment to win.
Victory means you get to write your own ******** version of history.The most devastating
civilian bombing campaign in human history is not even mentioned in this article. The US fire
bombing of 30 major cities in Korea with the death toll estimated at between 1.2 million and
1.6 million. I bet most US citizens aren't even aware of this atrocity or that the military
requested Truman to authorize the use of nuclear warheads which he, thankfully, declined to
do.
What does the word "victory" mean? It means whatever the rulers want it to mean. In this
case, "victory" is synonymous with prolongation and expansion of warmaking around the world.
Victory does not mean an end to combat. In fact, victory, in the classic sense, means defeat,
at least from the standpoint of those who profit from war. If someone were to come up with a
cure for cancer, it would mean a huge defeat for the cancer industry. Millions would lose
their jobs. CEO's would lose their fat pay packages. Therefore, we need to be clearheaded
about this, and recognize that victory is not what you think it is.
Talked with a guy recently. He is a pilot. He flies planes over Afghanistan. He is a
private contractor.
The program began under the Air Force. It then was taken over by the Army. It is now a
private contractor.
There are approx 400 pilots in country at a time with 3 rotations. He told me what he gets
paid. $200,000 and up.
They go up with a NSA agent running the equipment in back. He state that the dumbass
really does not know what the plane is capable of. They collect all video, audio, infrared,
and more? (You have to sense when to stop asking questions)
I just wanted to know the logistics of the info gathered.
So, the info is gathered. The NSA officer then gets with the CIA and the State Dept to see
what they can release to the end user. The end user is the SOCOM. After it has been through
review then the info is released to SOCOM.
So with all of this info on "goatherders" we still cannot pinpoint and defeat the "enemy"?
No. Too many avenues of profit and deceit and infighting. It will always be. May justice here
and abroad win in the end.
Concentrate on the true enemies. It is not your black, or Jewish, or brown, or Muslim
neighbor. It is the owners of the Fed, Dow chemical, the Rockefellers, McDonnel Douglas and
on and on and on and on and on and on..............
The ROAD to perdition passes through APARTHEID Israhell.
"It does not take a genius to figure out that the United States... has no vital
interests at stake in places like Syria, Libya, Iran and Iraq. Who is driving the process
and benefiting? Israel is clearly the intended beneficiary... " – Philip Giraldi,
Former CIA officer.
First let me be clear; I greatly admired the principles that Americans used to espouse, in
my lifetime; I am very fond of the majority of the people; I've spent in total some of years
living there, in different States; it is I suppose mostly the silent majority, the 'middle
Americans' that I am most fond of certainly not the 'elite', the super rich 1% 'ters it has as
a Country dramatically changed since 9/11 .and sadly the Catch 22 that defines America today is
best summed up thus:
"The United States is exceptional, just like every country is. But it has problems just like
every other country has. It ought to be able to learn from other countries but it refuses,
because it believes it's exceptional "
The above is a recent quote by eighty one year old Jared Mason Diamond, an American
historian.
Let's talk specifics.
According to a Middle Eastern English language newspaper of 12 June, "the US appears
confident that boosting its military presence in the Gulf is having an impact on Iran's
behaviour in the region but insisted that the end goal is still to bring Tehran to the
negotiating table".
What does it mean when the US, at its most arrogant, says, "it is having an impact on Iran"?
What bullshit. Iran, ancient Persia (the second oldest civilisation on the planet after China)
doesn't give a damn what America says or does; never did since its 1979 revolution. Nor does
China for that matter.
Who is threatening who?
In the case of Iran, is Iran in the Gulf of Mexico with its Navy or is the huge American
Navy in the Persian Gulf supported by numerous US Military Bases in the region threatening
Iran?
Now yesterday new very serious news, a lie, was confirmed by Pompeo: "It is the assessment
of the United States that the Islamic Republic of Iran is responsible for the attacks."on the
two oil tankers the other side of the Strait of Hormuz, in the Gulf of Oman.
Why would Iran?
Without any doubt this is a false flag operation to blame Iran in order to create
circumstances for Neocons like Pompeo and 'President Bolton' to start a war with Iran.
Where and what is President Trump? Does he really know what's going on?
Let American madmen Neocon Zionists have their wish (as dictated by Netanyahu); let the US
attack Iran .and then see what happens!
While the US attempts to start yet a new war also ask yourself why there are upwards of
nearly a thousand US Military bases around the world?
There is no doubt that US, with Israel, are the two most dangerous terrorist States that
exist today in the world and that they both threaten world peace, even nuclear Armageddon, more
than any countries on earth. Yet anyone who says the truth is labelled 'a conspiracy theorist '
or 'a Russian sympathiser'. I am neither.
America is today like a wounded animal as it faces its gradual decline as an Empire, much
like the Roman, Ottoman and British Empires did.
But let's forget at this time Iran (also Syria and Venezuela et al and regime changing), how
about talking of this US Administration's threat to British democracy?
The Guardian reported on the 9th June: "Labour has accused Donald Trump's top official, Mike
Pompeo, of trying to stop Jeremy Corbyn becoming Prime Minister, after he was caught on tape
telling Jewish leaders that he would "push back" against the party's leadership. In a recording
leaked to the Washington Post, the US secretary of state was asked what he would do if Corbyn
were to be elected as prime minister, after sustained criticism over Labour's handling of
accusations of antisemitism within the party."
Pompeo added "It could be that Mr Corbyn manages to run the gauntlet and get elected," he
said on the recording. "It's possible. You should know, we won't wait for him to do those
things to begin to push back. We will do our level best. It's too risky and too important and
too hard once it's already happened."
Is this not the most serious threat ever to the world's oldest parliamentary democracy, that
has been in existence from the early 13th century. America as an independent country has been
around since only the latter part of the 18th Century!
That said, America is today singularly the most powerful State on earth with a military
bigger than the rest of the world's countries combined; She spends trillions of dollars a year
on defence, security and wars; with a global state surveillance reach that can see and hear
anyone with a phone and a laptop at any time, and we Brits, our precious BBC in particular,
remain silent despite the US's top diplomat implying that the US will act to undermine a
potential democratically elected leader of the UK if needs be.
If needs be for who?
What happened to British reporters and media? Why is this not front page news? Why are their
few protestations?
The crimes of the United States have been recorded in history. Abd is the empire of
persecution, He will be tried by history. History and god will not forgive.
US, Israel, Saudi Arabia, UK Who Is Behind the False Flag in Gulf of Oman
They all are. Even if they weren't directly operationally involved in the actual
attacks, they are all clearly involved in the propaganda. It is impossible that anyone with
functioning critical faculties can honestly claim to be convinced that the Iranians did the
attack.
As chief diplomat Pompeo's comments on Corbyn don't particularly surprise me -- monumental
arrogance, hypocracy & contempt, just another day . That Zionists are behind it all? Big
fucking surprise. That their (the UK Zionists') behaviour amounts to some kind of
constructive treason, but will remain invisible is also no surprise.
What does surprise me a little (it shouldn't but I suffer bouts of irrational optimism ) is
the muted British response. This should go way beyond Party politics. It is a national
insult, a display of casual disdain & utter contempt for the sovereignty of another
nation -- & this nation is said to be the US's greatest ally!
The UK should be frothing at the mouth with anger!
The UK has sold it's collective soul .
"... Well I saw/heard Tulsi on Joe Rogan too and was very impressed, her heart is in the right place and she is anti war. However what worries me most is that Israel is only waiting for one more surgical strike on it's enemies per Israel's shopping list revealed by Gen. Wesley Clark and we all know that is Iran. The US will probably have to sacrifice a warship to Mossad in October to kick this one off. ..."
Well I saw/heard Tulsi on Joe Rogan too and was very impressed, her heart is in the right
place and she is anti war. However what worries me most is that Israel is only waiting for
one more surgical strike on it's enemies per Israel's shopping list revealed by Gen. Wesley
Clark and we all know that is Iran. The US will probably have to sacrifice a warship to
Mossad in October to kick this one off.
Tulsi in all liklihood will be swept away by events and I have a sneaky suspicion she is
the 'wildcard candidate' insurance for the 'kingmakers' after all she has kissed the AIPAC
arse is member of CFR etc – she was after all on the fast track before she cried
'foul'.
She is far more honest than most but sadly is still compromised and there is no getting
around that one. She owes them and they never forget. My 'outside choice' is the formidably
'loose cannon' Robert David Steele and his partnering with Cynthia McKinney.
The Zionists are in open war with them both. If they can wake up the black voters en masse
to who runs America now it could cause the biggest shock to the US system since the McCarthy
purge. Steele is appealing to 'Truthers', independents, and Alt Right Constitutionalists and
McKinney to the working class and Black vote.
Trump is trying to exploit the same groups but next time around they will be wiser. The
problem now is the Evangelist 'Christian Zionist' rump. Kushner/Trump and Netanyahu have got
them all at fever pitch for the 2nd coming.
Parteigenosse Mueller mission was to derail Trump. Investigation of real DNC scandal was outside of scope of this tool of
the Deep State. From comments: "Mueller was brought in as the Cleaner! It is a massive cover-up for which most of those who
are complicit should be behind bars! "
Mueller report was concocted with only goal: to sink Trump. Objective investigation of events was beyond the scope.
Moreover it looks like Mueller investigators were instrumental in setting an entrapment for members of Trump team and as such might
be criminally liable for this abuse of their status.
Images deleted.
Notable quotes:
"... No one knows who killed Rich in Washington, D.C., on July 10, 2016. All we know is that he was found at 4:19 a.m. in the Bloomingdale neighborhood "with apparent gunshot wound(s) to the back" according to the police report . Conscious and still breathing, he was rushed to a nearby hospital where he was pronounced dead at 5:57. ..."
"... Rich's mother, Mary, told local TV news that her son struggled with his assailants: "His hands were bruised, his knees are bruised, his face is bruised, and yet he had two shots to his back, and yet they never took anything . They took his life for literally no reason. They didn't finish robbing him, they just took his life." ..."
"... But cops said shortly after the killing that they had no immediate indication that robbery was a motive. Despite his mother's report of two shots in the back, all the local medical examiner would say is that the cause of death was a gunshot wound to the torso. According to Rich's brother, Aaron , Seth "was very aware, very talkative," when police found him lying on the pavement. Yet cops have refused to say if he described his assailant. A month later, they put out a statement that "there is no indication that Seth Rich's death is connected to his employment at the DNC," but refused to elaborate. ..."
"... all the Mueller report did was replace one conspiracy theory with another involving the Kremlin and its minions that is equally unconvincing. ..."
"... there's nothing in the Mueller report indicating that the special counselor independently reviewed the forensic evidence or questioned family members and friends. ..."
"... He certainly didn't interview Assange, the person in the best position to know who supplied the data, even though Craig Murray, the ex-British diplomat who serves as an unofficial WikiLeaks spokesman, says the WikiLeaks founder would have been "very willing to give evidence to Mueller" while holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, "which could have been done by video-link, by interview in the Embassy, or by written communication." ..."
"... This was as close as Assange could come to confirming that Rich was tied up with the leak without actually saying it. Hours later, WikiLeaks tweeted about the $20k reward. ..."
"... Four months after that, Craig Murray told the Libertarian Institute's Scott Horton: "Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that he [Rich] was the source of the leaks. What I'm saying is that it's probably not an unfair indication to draw that WikiLeaks believe[s] that he may have been killed by someone who thought he was the source of the leaks." (Quote begins at 11:20 .) ..."
"... But if speculation refuses to die, it's for a simple reason. If the DNC email disclosure was a hack, then Rich clearly had nothing to do with it, which means his death was no more than a robbery gone awry. But if it was a leak, then – based on broad hints dropped by Assange and Murray – it looks like the story could well be more complicated. This proves nothing in and of itself. But it guarantees that questions will grow as long as the Washington police make zero progress in its investigation and the Mueller report continues to fall apart. ..."
"... And that's just what's happening. Mueller's account of how Russian intelligence supposedly supplied WikiLeaks with stolen data makes no sense because, according to the report's chronology, the transfer left WikiLeaks with just four days to review some 28,000 emails and other electronic documents to make sure that they were genuine and unaltered – a clear impossibility. ..."
"... The FBI assessment that Paul Manafort associate Konstantin Kilimnik "has ties to Russian intelligence" – which Mueller cites (vol. 1, p. 133) in order to justify holding Manafort in solitary confinement during the Russia-gate investigation – is similarly disintegrating amid reports that Kilimnik actually served as an important State Department intelligence source. ..."
"... "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." Arthur Conan Doyle ..."
"... No need for arrests, extradition requests, or 17 espionage charges. A simple email phone call might just do the trick... It shows once again that Trump is a similar fascist as Hillary and the DNC! ..."
"... Why would an assassin leave him alive on the sidewalk? ..."
"... Today we've learned that the FBI didn't, inexplicably, go and grab the DNC server but also never even saw the report from Crowdstrike that was used as the basis for blaming everything on Russia. ..."
"... Of course, the FBI admitted that it never examined the DNC servers and just revealed in court that it never saw a detailed report from Crowdstrike showing that Russians hacked the server. That's why Mueller never investigated. He knew it was a lie but one the entire 3 years, Obama admin, Hillary, the DNC & corrupt cabal depend on maintaining. ..."
"... If you followed the story, the Rich family was very much doubted this was a random robbery until political operators had a long chat with them. Their stories changed and cooperation with the independent investigation ended. This neighborhood has cameras everywhere. Suddenly, none of them worked. ..."
"... Not only did the FBI never get the DNC server for forensic investigation, it turns out the FBI never even got a finalized report on "DNC hacking" from Crowdstrike. Every conclusion drawn by the various agencies within the Intelligence Community is based on a redacted copy of a draft report from Crowdstrike, and this report was never finalized from its draft form. And even the draft was never unredacted for the FBI. ..."
"... 'Why Didn't Mueller Investigate Seth Rich?' Occam's razor. Why would a paid lackey disobey direct orders by the chief architects of this Criminal Conspiracy and risk his own life in the process? It makes no sense on any level. ..."
The idea that the DNC
email disclosures were produced by a hack - not a leak - makes less and less sense...
After bungling every last aspect of Russia-gate since the day the pseudo-scandal broke, the
corporate press is now seizing on the Mueller report to shut down debate on one of the key
questions still outstanding from the 2016 presidential election: the murder of Democratic National
Committee staffer Seth Rich.
No one knows who killed Rich in Washington, D.C., on July 10, 2016. All we know is that he was
found at 4:19 a.m. in the Bloomingdale neighborhood "with apparent gunshot wound(s) to the back"
according to the police
report
.
Conscious and still breathing, he was rushed to a nearby hospital where he was pronounced dead at
5:57.
Police have added to the confusion by releasing information only in the tiniest dribs and
drabs.
Rich's mother, Mary,
told
local
TV news that her son struggled with his assailants: "His hands were bruised, his knees are bruised,
his face is bruised, and yet he had two shots to his back, and yet they never took anything . They
took his life for literally no reason. They didn't finish robbing him, they just took his life."
But cops
said
shortly
after the killing that they had no immediate indication that robbery was a motive. Despite his
mother's report of two shots in the back, all the local medical examiner
would
say
is that the cause of death was a gunshot wound to the torso. According to Rich's brother,
Aaron
,
Seth "was very aware, very talkative," when police found him lying on the pavement. Yet cops have
refused
to
say if he described his assailant. A month later, they put out a
statement
that
"there is no indication that Seth Rich's death is connected to his employment at the DNC," but
refused to elaborate.
The result is a scattering of disconnected facts that can be used to support just about any
theory from a random killing to a political assassination. Nonetheless, Robert Mueller is dead
certain that the murder had nothing to do with the emails -- just as he was dead certain in 2003
that Iraq was bristling with weapons of mass destruction "
pos[ing]
a clear threat to our national security
.
Scene of the crime. (YouTube)
Mueller's Theory About Assange 'Dissembling'
Mueller is equally positive that, merely by expressing concern that the murder may have had
something to do with the release of thousands of DNC emails less than two weeks later,
WikiLeaks
founder
Julian Assange was trying to protect the real source, which of course is Russia.
Here's how the Mueller report puts it:
"Beginning in the summer of 2016, Assange and WikiLeaks made a number of statements about
Seth Rich, a former DNC staff member who was killed in July 2016. The statements about Rich
implied falsely that he had been the source of the stolen DNC emails. On August 9, 2016, the
@WikiLeaks Twitter accounted posted: 'ANNOUNCE: WikiLeaks has decided to issue a US$20k reward
for information leading to conviction for the murder of DNC staffer Seth Rich.'
Likewise, on August 25, 2016, Assange was asked in an interview, 'Why are you so interested
in Seth Rich's killer?' and responded, 'We're very interested in anything that might be a threat
to alleged WikiLeaks sources.' The interviewer responded to Assange's statement by commenting,
'I know you don't want to reveal your source, but it certainly sounds like you're suggesting a
man who leaked information to WikiLeaks was then murdered.'
Assange replied, 'If there's someone who's potentially connected to our publication, and that
person has been murdered in suspicious, circumstances, it doesn't necessarily mean that the two
are connected. But it is a very serious matter that type of allegation is very serious, as
it's taken very seriously by us'" (vol. 1, pp. 48-49).
Mueller: Says Assange's real source was Russia. (All Your Breaking News Here via Flickr)
This is what the Mueller report calls "dissembling."
The conclusion caused
jubilation in corporate newsrooms where hostility to both Russia and
WikiLeaks
runs
high. "The Seth Rich conspiracy theory needs to end now,"
declared
Vox.com.
"The special counsel's report confirmed this week that Seth Rich was not the source,"
said
The
New York Times
. "The Mueller report might not end the debate over what President Donald Trump
did," the Poynter Institute's
Politifact
added
,"but
it has scuttled one conspiracy theory involving a murdered Democratic party staffer and WikiLeaks."
One Conspiracy Theory for Another
But
all the Mueller report did was replace one conspiracy theory with another involving the
Kremlin and its minions that is equally unconvincing.
Remarkably,
there's nothing in the Mueller report indicating that the special counselor
independently reviewed the forensic evidence or questioned family members and friends.
He
certainly didn't interview Assange, the person in the best position to know who supplied the data,
even though Craig Murray, the ex-British diplomat who serves as an unofficial
WikiLeaks
spokesman,
says
the
WikiLeaks
founder
would have been "very willing to give evidence to Mueller" while holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy
in London, "which could have been done by video-link, by interview in the Embassy, or by written
communication."
Bike rack and plaque outside DNC headquarters. (Johanna745, CC0 via Wikimedia Commons)
Murray says Mueller's team made no effort to contact him either even though he has publicly
stated
that
he met clandestinely with an associate of the leaker near the American University campus in
Washington.
Why not? Because Mueller didn't want anything that might disturb his a priori assumption that
Russia is the guilty party. If he had bucked the intelligence community finding – set forth in a
formal
assessment
in January 2017
– that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign aimed at undermining Hillary
Clinton's candidacy -- it would have been front-page news since an anti-Trump press had already
accepted the assessment as gospel. ButMueller is far too much of an establishmentarian to do
anything so reckless.
So he selected evidence in support of the official theory that "[t]he Russian government
interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion," as the report
states on its very first page. And since Assange had consistently
maintained
that
the data was the result of an inside leak rather than internal hack and that "[o]ur source is not
the Russian government," he cherry picked evidence to show that Assange is a liar, not only about
Russia but about Seth Rich.
Cryptic Exchange
It's a self-serving myth that corporate media have swallowed whole because it serves their
interests too. One problem in exposing it, however, is Assange's pledge – intrinsic to the
WikiLeaks
mission
– to safeguard the identities of whistleblowers who furnish it with information. The upshot has
been a good deal of beating around the bush. A month after the murder, the
WikiLeaks
founder
appeared on a Dutch program called "Nieuwsuur" and took part in
a
cryptic exchange
with journalist Eelco Bosch van Rosenthal:
Assange during exchange with Rosenthal. (YouTube)
Assange:
Whistle blowers go to significant efforts to get us material and
often very significant risks. There's a 27-year-old – works for the DNC – who was shot in the
back, murdered, just a few weeks ago for unknown reasons as he was walking down the street in
Washington, so .
Rosenthal:
That was just a robbery, I believe, wasn't it?
Assange:
No, there's no finding, so –
Rosenthal:
What are you suggesting?
Assange:
I'm suggesting that our sources take risks, and they become
concerned to see things occurring like that.
Rosenthal:
But was he one of your sources then? I mean –
Assange:
We don't comment about who our sources are.
Rosenthal:
But why make the suggestion about a young guy being shot in the
streets of Washington?
Assange:
Because we have to understand how high the stakes are in the United
States and that our sources, you know, face serious risks. That's why they come to us – so we
can protect their anonymity.
Rosenthal:
But it's quite something to suggest a murder. That's basically
what you're doing.
This was as close as Assange could come to confirming that Rich was tied up with the leak
without actually saying it. Hours later,
WikiLeaks
tweeted
about
the $20k reward.
Four months after that, Craig Murray told the Libertarian Institute's Scott Horton: "Don't get
me wrong, I'm not saying that he [Rich] was the source of the leaks. What I'm saying is that it's
probably not an unfair indication to draw that WikiLeaks believe[s] that he may have been killed by
someone who thought he was the source of the leaks." (Quote begins at
11:20
.)
Thanks to such foggy rhetoric, it was all but inevitable that conspiracy theories would ignite.
Two months after the killing, an ultra-conservative talk-radio host named Jack Burkman – best known
for organizing a protest campaign against the Dallas Cowboys' hiring of an openly gay football
player named
Michael
Sam
– approached members of the Rich family and offered to launch an investigation in their
behalf.
The family said yes, but then backed off when Burkman
grandly
announced
that the murder was a Kremlin hit. Things turned even more bizarre a year later when
Kevin Doherty, an ex-Marine whom Burkman had hired to look into the case, lured his ex-boss to a
Marriott hotel in Arlington, Virgina, where he shot him twice in the buttocks and then tried to run
him down with a rented SUV. Doherty received
a
nine-year sentence
last December.
The rightwing
Washington Times
meanwhile reported that
WikiLeaks
had paid Seth
and Aaron Rich an undisclosed sum, a story it was forced to
retract
,
and Fox News named Seth as the source as well. (A sympathetic judge
dismissed
a
lawsuit filed by the Rich family on technical grounds.) But still the speculation bubbled on,
with
conservative
nuts
blaming everyone from ex-DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz to acting DNC chairwoman Donna
Brazile, Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, and Bill and Hillary themselves.
All of which plays into the hands of a corporate press happy to write off any and all
suspicion as a product of alt-right paranoia.
But if speculation refuses to die, it's for a simple reason. If the DNC email disclosure was a
hack, then Rich clearly had nothing to do with it, which means his death was no more than a robbery
gone awry. But if it was a leak, then – based on broad hints dropped by Assange and Murray – it
looks like the story could well be more complicated. This proves nothing in and of itself. But it
guarantees that questions will grow as long as the Washington police make zero progress in its
investigation and the Mueller report continues to fall apart.
And that's just what's happening. Mueller's account of how Russian intelligence supposedly
supplied
WikiLeaks
with stolen data makes no sense because, according to the report's
chronology, the transfer left
WikiLeaks
with just four days to review some 28,000 emails
and other electronic documents to make sure that they were genuine and unaltered – a clear
impossibility.
(See "
The
'Guccifer 2.0' Gaps in Mueller's Full Report
," April 18.)
The FBI assessment that Paul Manafort associate Konstantin Kilimnik "has ties to Russian
intelligence" – which Mueller cites (vol. 1, p. 133) in order to justify holding Manafort in
solitary confinement during the Russia-gate investigation – is similarly disintegrating amid
reports
that
Kilimnik actually served as an important State Department intelligence source.
So the idea of a hack makes less and less sense and an inside leak seems more and more
plausible, which is why questions about the Rich case will not go away.
Bottom line: you don't have to be a loony rightist to suspect that
there is more
to the murder than Robert Mueller would like us to believe.
Question: why is the Trump Administration still actively PERSECUTING
Julian Assange?
"...Craig Murray, the ex-British diplomat who serves as an
unofficial WikiLeaks spokesman,
says
the WikiLeaks founder
would have been "very willing to give evidence to Mueller" while
holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, "which could have
been done by video-link, by interview in the Embassy, or by
written communication."
No need for arrests, extradition requests, or 17 espionage
charges. A simple email phone call might just do the trick...
It shows once again that Trump is a similar fascist as Hillary and
the DNC!
The best thing a person can do if anything happens to them is try to
document it and send it to a friendly media outlet since the police
and FBI may cover it up. Perhaps dump it directly on to the
internet so at least some folks hear/see the truth before it all
vanishes.
Why didn't the red team make him do it, or do it themselves?
Today
we've learned that the FBI didn't, inexplicably, go and grab the DNC
server but also
never even saw the report from Crowdstrike that
was used as the basis for blaming everything on Russia.
Of course, the FBI admitted that it never examined the DNC servers
and just revealed in court that it never saw a detailed report from
Crowdstrike showing that Russians hacked the server.
That's why
Mueller never investigated.
He knew it was a lie but one the entire 3 years, Obama admin,
Hillary, the DNC & corrupt cabal depend on maintaining.
The author quotes Seth Rich's brother to support his theory.
According to Rich's brother,
Aaron
,
Seth "was very aware, very talkative," when police found him lying
on the pavement.
... but then fails to quote his brothers press statement ?
Which is:
The special counsel has now provided hard facts that
demonstrate this conspiracy is false. I hope that the people who
pushed, fueled, spread, ran headlines, articles, interviews, talk
and opinion shows, or in any way used my family's tragedy to
advance their political agendas -- despite our pleas that what they
were saying was not based on any facts -- will take responsibility
for the unimaginable pain they have caused us. We will continue to
pursue justice for Seth's murderers, as well as those who used his
murder to advance their personal or political agendas by advancing
false conspiracy theories
If you followed the story, the Rich family was very much doubted
this was a random robbery until political operators had a long
chat with them. Their stories changed and cooperation with the
independent investigation ended.
This neighborhood has cameras
everywhere. Suddenly, none of them worked.
Not only did the FBI never get the DNC server for forensic
investigation, it turns out the FBI never even got a finalized report
on "DNC hacking" from Crowdstrike. Every conclusion drawn by the
various agencies within the Intelligence Community is based on a
redacted copy of a draft report from Crowdstrike, and this report was
never finalized from its draft form. And even the draft was never
unredacted for the FBI.
The whole thing was a sham from the start,
as many people suspected. The Mueller operation was never seeking to
uncover truth; it was an impeachment investigation by any other name.
Why Mueller didn't carry it over the goal line will forever remain a
mystery to me.
Yet that did not stop Mueller from a pre-dawn raid of Stone's
house with 27 armed officers & CNN claiming he helped Wikileaks
get the DNC emails from Russian hackers. It isn't stopping the
corrupt cabal from prosecuting Stone & Assange for that continued
lie.
'Why Didn't Mueller Investigate Seth Rich?' Occam's razor.
Why would a paid lackey disobey direct orders by the chief
architects of this Criminal Conspiracy and risk his own life in the
process? It makes no sense on any level.
Funny how we hear about all the great whistle blower-leakers in
Wastergate and the wonder cub reporters aka CI$$A shills like
Woodward, Bernstein and Ben Bradley who were and are CI$$A puppets.
Watergate was Deepstate Rockefellers/Rothschilds taking Nixon out for
tariffs and ending the gravy train Vietnam war with endless opium and
heroin.
But when you have Seth Rich murdered and Wiki Leaks saying
he is the guy then "democracy dies in the darkness" with the fake ***
USA news media aka Operation Mockingbird Wa Post, NY Times, AP and
the rest.
The significance of that can't be overstated. The investigations
that have been going on NON-STOP for three years are all fake and
*everybody* in DC knows it.
page 48 of the mueller report does mention seth rich as the source of
the hack. As quoted by Julian Assange and Mueller casually mentioned
that it's untrue with no further investigation.
"... Threats are cheap, but Mr. Trump can't really follow through without turning farmers, Wall Street and the stock market, Walmart and much of the IT sector against him at election time if his tariffs on China increase the cost of living and doing business. His diplomatic threat is really that the US will cut its own economic throat, imposing sanctions on its own importers and investors if China does not acquiesce. ..."
"... China has a great sweetener that I think President Xi Jinping should offer: It can nominate Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize. We know that he wants what his predecessor Barack Obama got. And doesn't he deserve it more? After all, he is helping to bring Eurasia together, driving China and Russia into an alliance with neighboring counties, reaching out to Europe. ..."
President Trump has threatened China's President Xi that if they don't meet and talk at the
upcoming G20 meetings in Japan, June 29-30, the United States will not soften its tariff war
and economic sanctions against Chinese exports and technology.
Some meeting between Chinese and U.S. leaders will indeed take place, but it cannot be
anything like a real negotiation. Such meetings normally are planned in advance, by specialized
officials working together to prepare an agreement to be announced by their heads of state. No
such preparation has taken place, or can take place. Mr. Trump doesn't delegate authority.
He opens negotiations with a threat. That costs nothing, and you never know (or at least, he
never knows) whether he can get a freebee. His threat is that the U.S. can hurt its adversary
unless that country agrees to abide by America's wish-list. But in this case the list is so
unrealistic that the media are embarrassed to talk about it. The US is making impossible
demands for economic surrender – that no country could accept. What appears on the
surface to be only a trade war is really a full-fledged Cold War 2.0.
America's wish list: other countries' neoliberal subservience
At stake is whether China will agree to do what Russia did in the 1990s: put a Yeltsin-like
puppet of neoliberal planners in place to shift control of its economy from its government to
the U.S. financial sector and its planners. So the fight really is over what kind of planning
China and the rest of the world should have: by governments to raise prosperity, or by the
financial sector to extract revenue and impose austerity.
U.S. diplomacy aims to make other countries dependent on its agricultural exports, its oil
(or oil in countries that U.S. majors and allies control), information and military technology.
This trade dependency will enable U.S. strategists to impose sanctions that would deprive
economies of basic food, energy, communications and replacement parts if they resist U.S.
demands.
The objective is to gain financial control of global resources and make trade "partners" pay
interest, licensing fees and high prices for products in which the United States enjoys
monopoly pricing "rights" for intellectual property. A trade war thus aims to make other
countries dependent on U.S.-controlled food, oil, banking and finance, or high-technology goods
whose disruption will cause austerity and suffering until the trade "partner" surrenders.
China's willingness to give Trump a "win"
Threats are cheap, but Mr. Trump can't really follow through without turning farmers, Wall
Street and the stock market, Walmart and much of the IT sector against him at election time if
his tariffs on China increase the cost of living and doing business. His diplomatic threat is
really that the US will cut its own economic throat, imposing sanctions on its own importers
and investors if China does not acquiesce.
It is easy to see what China's answer will be. It will stand aside and let the US
self-destruct. Its negotiators are quite happy to "offer" whatever China has planned to do
anyway, and let Trump brag that this is a "concession" he has won.
China has a great sweetener that I think President Xi Jinping should offer: It can nominate
Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize. We know that he wants what his predecessor Barack Obama
got. And doesn't he deserve it more? After all, he is helping to bring Eurasia together,
driving China and Russia into an alliance with neighboring counties, reaching out to
Europe.
Trump may be too narcissistic to realize the irony here. Catalyzing Asian and European trade
independence, financial independence, food independence and IT independence from the threat of
U.S. sanctions will leave the U.S. isolated in the emerging multilateralism.
America's wish for a neoliberal Chinese Yeltsin (and another Russian Yeltsin for that
matter)
A good diplomat does not make demands to which the only answer can be "No." There is no way
that China will dismantle its mixed economy and turn it over to U.S. and other global
investors. It is no secret that the United States achieved world industrial supremacy in the
late 19 th and early 20 th century by heavy public-sector subsidy of
education, roads, communication and other basic infrastructure. Today's privatized,
financialized and "Thatcherized" economies are high-cost and inefficient.
Yet U.S. officials persist in their dream of promoting some neoliberal Chinese leader or
"free market" party to wreak the damage that Yeltsin and his American advisors wrought on
Russia. The U.S. idea of a "win-win" agreement is one in which China will be "permitted" to
grow as long as it agrees to become a U.S. financial and trade satellite, not an independent
competitor.
Trump's trade tantrum is that other countries are simply following the same economic
strategy that once made America great, but which neoliberals have destroyed here and in much of
Europe. U.S. negotiators are unwilling to acknowledge that the United States has lost its
competitive industrial advantage and become a high-cost rentier economy. Its GDP is
"empty," consisting mainly of the Finance, Insurance and Real Estate (FIRE) rents, profits and
capital gains while the nation's infrastructure decays and its labor is reduced to a prat-time
"gig" economy. Under these conditions the effect of trade threats can only be to speed up the
drive by other countries to become economically self-reliant.
The crux of the "trade" dispute is never discussed: the Chinese refusal to allow the
international financial services sector to penetrate the Chinese economy and operate freely.
Get it? The Chinese won't let the Jews in to loot the place and the Jews are pissed.
Trumpstein, the cryto Jew, has promised his sponsors to rectify the situation. The Chinese
witnessed what happened when Yeltsin allowed the IMF to parachute Jeffrey Sachs and his Jew
Boys into Russia in 1991 Jews looted the place mercilessly, calling it democracy and
capitalism, and Russia is still recovering. The Chinese have a bright future, as long as they
keep the Jews out.
I agree.
I am afraid spokes person Trump and those he is speaking for have it wrong. They believe
external trade is interfering with the La-Zi-Faire fat cat monopoly powered corporations the
CPI (congress, president and Israeli governance represent.
Few western companies can compete because only monopoly endowed Global corporations are
allowed or licensed to compete. Individual ability, the creative mind of the lone rangers
with highly disruptive inventions and ideas, are not allowed access to the knowledge or money
to play. Making people pay for sleazy operating systems when better ones are free, allowing
big corporations to hack the data of everyone, and on and on.
Even when a person finds a way to play and actually produces a product or concept, the
financial condition of the inventor is so weak or the barriers to promote his product is so
strong that as soon as the idea or product is patented or copyrighted it somehow absorbed
into one of the monopoly powered giants; in other words, competition is only allowed if the
competitor gives the profits to one of the monopoly powered giants. China should be
complaining, at least their competitors can produce, in the USA governed America unlicensed
competition is denied.
Copyright, patents, standardized testing and licensing every breath have terminated
competition in America.
America still competes with Americans as long as the business does not compete with the
global corporations.
The problem Trump thinks he can solve, is not sourced in India, China, Iran, Russia, or
any other nation. The problem is at home, in government policy, laws that turn capitalistic
competition into monopolistic fat-cat wealth storing private domain havens. Education by
degree and license by examination and standardization of performance are used to restrict
competition. Education, is a bureaucracy and no matter its efficiency; a degree cannot
provide competitive performance. The USA governance over America has served only the interest
of monopoly endowed corporations and their oligarch owners and investors. Trump is trying to
overcome foreign competition, by threat and blocking maneuvers, to deny foreigners the fruits
of their competitive successes I do not believe he can be successful. Already the Russian and
Chinese have developed a new currency and banking system to circumvent the Trump block. Work
around-s are in progress everywhere.. Soon even the USA will not be allowed to compete I
fear.
It is not a matter of where the competition comes from, its that the monopoly powers have
used the behavior enforcing rule making capacity of the USA to deny native American
creativity; creativity that America needs to be competitive. USA policy continues to be to
enrich a few by channeling and encapsulating all effort within the confines of the monopoly
holders instead of encouraging every back yard to be a new competitor. It will be many years
before Americans will be able to compete..
What Trump is now demanding reminds me of the brutally efficient system that Trump grew up
in: New York City business. (Author Tom Wolfe has a great line in his book The Bonfire Of The
Vanities that the strange, unrelenting background droning sound one hears in NYC is that of
"people constantly braying for money").
New York City real estate in particular is an area of business that is so brutally
competitive, unscrupulous , and backstabbing that it is best described as war under another
name. It is a business arena where a close friend one day can turn into a staunch enemy the
next. Trust is rare.
New York real estate, in fact, brings to mind the old saying about sausage making: You
would never eat it if you saw it being made. Yet deals are made. In fact, a lot of them. This
is the milieu Trump comes from.
Trump isn't one of those more genteel, old-time American negotiators of prior years the
author of this article speaks fondly of. These are the very same people who so readily agreed
to disasters like NAFTA or allowed, for instance, Or allowed Japan to levy two hundred
percent duties on things like American made Harley Davidson motorcycles while the USA was
pressured (or bribed) to apply few if any comparable duties on Japanese motorcycles or
automobiles (or virtually anything else Japan sold in the USA). These toothless. genteel
types also stood back for decades and allowed Japan to use red tape (like obscure safety
regulations for instance) to make it almost impossibly difficult to sell American products
like automobiles in Japan.
These very same US negotiators, politicians, and bureaucrats have more recently stood back
and allowed China to absolutely devastate American manufacturing.
Screw China, It's now payback time. The Chinese are shaking in their boots because the
previously hoodwinked and comatose Americans are finally waking up. No more wimpy Obama or
Bush looking out for our interests. It is now Truly Scary Trump instead.
Wait until the negotiations are concluded to see if they are successful. The sausage that
comes out of them might be very appealing for the first time in many, many decades.
" His diplomatic threat is really that the US will cut its own economic throat, imposing
sanctions on its own importers and investors if China does not acquiesce "
I get that the US financial system is up to no good with their positions on China but the
criticisms Trump made of China are correct. They have lots of tariffs on finished goods from
the US. They require technology transfer to do business there. Their government and industry
are tied at the hip and they are manipulating their currency. All these things are true and
if we keep trading with them with the same terms we have been we would lose ALL our
industrial infrastructure. Now we hear over and over how we can't build anything but the
Chinese went from being dirt farmers to the largest industrial power in a fairly short period
of time. Could we not do the same at least for our own countries market? Certainly global
trade destruction between countries is not a good thing but we'd be fools to keep on as we
are now. At some point when you dig a hole you have to stop to get yourself out.
I don't think we have a choice if we wish to continue to be an industrialized country. All
those that say China will do fine without us are not taking into account how all the other
countries who are being handled the exact same way as we are, are going to handle China's
trade with them. Will they keep allowing China to have large tariffs on their products while
they Chinese ship whatever they wish into theirs? I'm not so sure they will. If the US starts
refusing the Chinese free entry without reciprocal trade then I can easily see others
following our lead.
We should have stopped this many years ago but as bad as the situation is now it will only
get worse if we don't act.
Let them remove their tariffs. We should take every single anti-trade act and tariff they
have on us, weigh them on China and "then" negotiate. If they don't wish to it's their
country they can do what they please and so can we.
"The crux of the "trade" dispute is never discussed: the Chinese refusal to allow the
international financial services sector to penetrate the Chinese economy and operate freely.
Get it? "
Absolutely. Like inviting a handful of worms into your apple -- economy hollowed out in an
eye blink.
However, there is another side to this "trade dispute" coin.
FIRE want to economicly destroy China. The neocon', MIC, security sector wants to destroy
China's 2025 plan to become high-tech world leaders. 5G, AI, semi conductors etc are some of
the areas that China's public/private sectors are voraciously pushing. Hence, the
(wonderfully "free market") US attacks on Heiwai.
These short term US gambles are more than likely to pay off by the medium-long term
undermining of US hegemony via Eurasian integration led by China & Russia.
And all the time we are left wondering whether the US will choose the "Samson Option" rather
than accept reduced status. (Insane with power lust, the US can't even accept "first among
equals")
The US is making impossible demands for economic surrender – that no country could
accept. What appears on the surface to be only a trade war is really a full-fledged Cold
War 2.0
.
Typical mobster protection racket threats. Now the US has moved from waging military wars
on behalf of their Jewish owners to aggressively push their neoliberal economic warfare for
them. The facade for promoting democracy and human rights is no longer required.
And to call attempts at starving the population and murdering children by denying them
essential medicines as has happened in Iraq and now is going on in Iran and Venezuela, a Cold
War 2.0 is a gross understatement. It is a flagrant act of war. America is launching a war of
attrition on the world and who better to spearhead that war than an idiot manipulated by
Zionist Jews? The fact that many countries remain silent is testament to their surrender. But
China may prove to be a different proposition.
"the United States achieved world industrial supremacy in the late 19th and early 20th
century" That is a myth. The US may have had the highest GDP because it was the leader in
manufacturing, as China is now, but Europe and in particular Germany was far ahead of the US
in technology and science. If you compare China to the US today the situation is very similar
to comparing the US to Germany before 1939. Germany was far ahead of the US in the number of
Nobel Prizes received thru 1945 and very few of the Americans that did receive the Nobel
Prize were native born. The US received a few Nobel Prizes starting in the 1940's because
some recent European immigrants that became US citizens received it for work they had done in
Europe. The three biggest technological breakthroughs of WW II were the jet, the rocket and
the atomic bomb. Germany invented the jet, built the first modern rockets and the German
scientist Otto Hahn split the atom in 1939 (for which he received the Nobel Prize in 1944)
kicking off the USA's atomic bomb project and Germany's limited attempt. The people that
eventually achieved success in the US were almost all recent European immigrants (Bethe,
Teller, etc.), many being Jewish.
I basically agree with the rest of the article. I believe Trump's tactics make sense. The
problem is it's too late. The US economy can't be fixed by anyone. The US has 22 trillion
dollars in debt and will never be able to pay it back. The dollar is going to take a deep
dive within the next few years and it will lose its status as the reserve currency. I believe
this based upon what people like Peter Schiff, Paul Craig Roberts, David Stockman and Ron
Paul say.
I think the two biggest events of the last 75 years were WW II, completely changing the
countries that run the world and the emergence of a backwards and dirt poor China to become
an economic powerhouse and I think they will get stronger.
The US is making impossible demands for economic surrender – that no country could
accept.
Yes country. If the world was one big free trade area, it there were no bloks or even no
countries in the sense we understand them then the population of the would be wealthier, on
average. But countries are not primarily economic units, even if one can look at them as
such.
Nation states exist and have the emergent quality that they to survive against other
nation states and the best way to do that is to gain extra power relative to other states, or
at least maintain their position. Why would America agree to terms of trade that do not
maintain its position relative to China.
U.S. negotiators are unwilling to acknowledge that the United States has lost its
competitive industrial advantage
There is no absolute standards by which such an advantage could be judged. The terms of
trade that are finally settled on will be a compromise and reflect the interests of both, and
the total balance of forces between the two.
The combination of both nations will make it extremely difficult for Washington to impose
its hegemonic agenda without serious repercussions as two of the world's leading military
forces seek to increase the level of co-operation between their nations.
Trump's Trade Tariff Theatre 2018 results:
Country/Trade Balance/2018 vs. 2017
Mexico: trade DEFICIT -$81.5 billion; up 14.9% from 2017;
Canada: trade DEFICIT -$19.8 billion; up 15.8% from 2017;
China: trade DEFICIT -$375.6 billion; up 11.6% from 2017;
South Korea: trade DEFICIT -$17.9 billion; down 22.4% from 2017;
Japan: trade DEFICIT -$67.7 billion; down 1.8% from 2017
Germany: trade DEFICIT -$68.3 billion; up 7.2% from 2017;
France: trade DEFICIT -$16.2 billion; up 5.8% from 2017;
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: trade DEFICIT -$10.5 billion; up 313.3% from 2017;
Russia: trade DEFICIT -$14.1 billion; up 40.9% from 2017;
Asia: trade DEFICIT -$622.2 billion; up 8.8% from 2017;
Europe: trade DEFICIT -$202.4 billion; up 16.6% from 2017;
World: trade DEFICIT -$795.7 billion; up 10.4% from 2017
To all of the "free traders", the media ,and academia ,i have this simple question:
why i cant purchase a Toyota work van(the best and must popular of the world),neither here in
the USA nor abroad and bring it in?
how come that even in Cuba there are more of those Toyota work van than here in all
continental USA.
In 25 year i has to purchase more than 6 work vans,and like Penelope i have been waiting for
the Toyota ,and still waiting.
They ,the free traders,did not has allowed not even one.
The problem with the zio/US is the control of the US by the zionists and this control is
derived via the zionist privately owned FED and IRS that they got installed in 1913 and then
came the debt and wars and the hijacking of the foreign policy by the satanic zionists and
the US gov was started on a down hill slide pushed started by the zionists!
The trade policy of the zio/US has turned Russia into the largest grain exporter in the
world and turned Russia into an agriculture miracle , this can be shown by watch videos of
Russian agriculture on youtube. Germany is also in Russia building cars and other industrial
products for Russia thus bypassing the zio/US trade sanctions and last but not least Russia
is trading in non dollars in trade with more and more countries such as China thus
effectively rendering the dollar non and void in international trade.
So the people of the zio/US can thank their zionist masters for the demise of America and
true to form the zionist parasites are killing their American host
Join Mike Maloney as he examines the latest moves in the US/China trade war, and visits
some compelling arguments from the Foundation for Economic Education.
The "Chinese dragon" of the last two decades may be faltering but it is still hailed by
many as an economic miracle. Far from a great advance for Chinese workers, however, it is the
direct result of a consolidation of power in the hands of a small clique of powerful
families, families that have actively collaborated with Western financial oligarchs.
"Threats are cheap, but Mr. Trump can't really follow through without turning farmers, Wall
Street and the stock market, Walmart and much of the IT sector against him at election time
if his tariffs on China increase the cost of living and doing business. "
Tariffs are taxes and both governments like collecting taxes.
Farmers. Farmers sell a commodity so if they cannot sell to China one result is they will
sell to other customers while China buys more from other producers.
Cost of living. DC does not care. There is a solid inflation lobby in the fed that
supports increasing the cost of living.
"Walmart and much of the IT sector against him." I am not buying it.
Well, more accurate to say that Germany and Britain invented the jet engine independently
of each other. Just as they both invented radar independently of each other as well.
As it is, the post-war jet engine was based primarily on the British design of Frank
Whittle, though some of the German ideas were also later incorporated.
"... Let's start with this very reasonable supposition: Guccifer 2.0 is an entity operating within US time zones who has gone out of his way to pose as a Russian hacker who was the source for the Wikileaks DNC/Podesta releases. ..."
"... villain du jour ..."
"... The subsequent mysterious death of Shawn Lucas by a weird drug cocktail might also be related. Shawn had been the process server for the class-action lawsuit against the DNC. According to Sy Hersh's FBI source, Seth indicated that he had allies who were aware of the drop box he was providing Wikileaks. It would have been necessary to eliminate these allies. Was Shawn one of these allies, and did the creator of G2.0 know this? Shawn, who was not known to be a drug user, died suddenly about a month after Seth. ..."
"... So who created G2.0? G2.0 appears to have worked in coordination with Crowdstrike. One day after Crowdstrike announced that the DNC had been hacked (with Russia the chief suspect) and that the hackers had grabbed a file of Trump Opposition Research, G2.0 makes his first public appearance, claiming to be the hacker, posting Trump Opposition Research -- and purposely leaving "Russian fingerprints" on the meta-data of his release. ..."
"... Crowdstrike was also in a position to concoct the "Russian hack" that they claimed to be investigating. Cyberanalysts have determined that two-thirds of the allegedly "Russian malware" which Crowdstrike "found" on the DNC servers had in fact been compiled subsequent to the date that Crowdstrike was brought in to investigate the "hack". In other words, there is reason to believe that Crowdstrike itself concocted this "hack" -- likely because they had been warned that Wikileaks was going to release leaked DNC emails. ..."
"... Also notable is the fact that Shawn Henry, co-founder of Crowdstrike, is a master of cyberfuckery. Prior to founding Crowdstrike, Henry served under Robert Mueller as head of FBI counterintelligence -- in which capacity he engaged in efforts to entrap and discredit Julian Assange. Indeed, others have suspected that Henry was behind G2.0, in light of the fact that G2.0's behavior was reminiscent of that of "Sabu" (Hector Monsignor), a hacker who, after secretly being arrested by the FBI during Henry's tenure there, worked under FBI direction to entrap other hackers. And the G2.0 hoax is clearly another - so far, highly successful - attempt to smear Assange. ..."
"... @The Voice In the Wilderness ..."
"... After the Popodouplous interview by Mark Steyn, there was clarity after following Russiagate since it really started before the election of 2016. The deep state actors were trying to setup some significant figure in the Trump as having ties with the Russian government. ..."
"... The irony is that we have McCarthyism once again and not one Russian is guilty of what they are being accused of. They were set up as the fall guys, and of course in the future nuclear war. ..."
Let's start with this very reasonable supposition: Guccifer 2.0 is an entity operating
within US time zones who has gone out of his way to pose as a Russian hacker who was the source
for the Wikileaks DNC/Podesta releases. The notion that this absurdly preening entity is a
GRU hacker is idiotic.
The Mueller report's tale of how G2.0 allegedly transferred the DNC emails to Wikileaks is
absurd on its face -- which is to say, Mueller is acting as an accomplice to G2.0 in his
fraud.
The evident purpose of the G2.0 fraud was to detract attention from the incriminating
content of the DNC/Podesta releases, by blaming those releases on Russian government hackers
operating in cahoots with Julian Assange. This accomplishes 3 goals dear to the hearts of the
Deep State actors behind G2.0: minimizing the damage to Hillary's campaign inflicted by the
released emails; smearing the reputation of Assange, who has made an unparalleled contribution
to unmasking the egregious crimes of the Western Deep State; and further defaming "the
Russians", the villain du jour which our
Military-Industrial-Congressional-Intelligence-Media-Academia-Think Tank* complex needs to
justify the continuing rape of American taxpayers on behalf of our grotesque overspending on
military hardware and our bloated global military empire.
But what was the evident fly-in-the-ointment for this brilliantly diabolic plan? The ACTUAL
source of the Wikileaks releases could have blown it sky high. And if G2.0 and the Russian
hacking tale had been unmasked prior to the election, the blowback on Hillary's campaign would
have been enormous. Which is why the creators of G2.0 needed to eliminate the source.
There are a number of reasons to suspect that Seth Rich was the source, or a confederate of
the source:
Hints dropped by Assange;
Award for info on Seth's killer offered by Wikileaks;
Wikileaks re-tweeting essays speculating that Seth was the leaker;
Craig Murray's repeated assurances that DNC/Podesta releases resulted from leaks, not
hacks;
Kim Dotcom's claim that he helped Seth with the leak;
Sy Hersh's secretly recorded phone call in which he stated that a trusted source within the
FBI claims to have seen an FBI memo describing an FBI analysis of Seth's laptop -- this
revealed that Seth had offered to sell DNC emails to Wikileaks, and subsequently conveyed the
docs to Wikileaks via drop box;
Claims by Ed Butowsky, Larry Johnson, and Bill Binney indicating that they have sources
inside the intel community verifying that Seth was the leaker -- in conjunction with brother
Aaron;
Jared Beck's claim that both Seth and Shawn Lucas were planning to testify in the
class-action lawsuit against the DNC -- speaks to Seth's possible motive for leaking;
Claim by Rod Wheeler that, according to a source inside the DC police, the police have been
ordered to "stand down" on the Seth Rich investigation;
Frenzied reaction of Donna Brazile on learning that Wheeler was investigating the Seth Rich
murder - and her overt lie regarding her whereabouts on the morning of the murder.
Some have speculated that, in line with an email by John Podesta, Seth was murdered "to make
an example of him". I reject this explanation. They could have made an example by firing him
and suing him. As it stands, no example was made, as the DNC claims that Russians, not Seth,
were responsible for the Wikileaks DNC releases.
If the puppetmaster of G2.0 knew or believed that Seth was the leaker, Seth had to be
murdered to insure success of the G2.0 hoax.
(The alternative is that G2.0 did not know that, and that Seth was beaten up and murdered in
a robbery so "botched" that no valuables were taken. Yeah, right!)
The subsequent mysterious death of Shawn Lucas by a weird drug cocktail might also be
related. Shawn had been the process server for the class-action lawsuit against the DNC.
According to Sy Hersh's FBI source, Seth indicated that he had allies who were aware of the
drop box he was providing Wikileaks. It would have been necessary to eliminate these allies.
Was Shawn one of these allies, and did the creator of G2.0 know this? Shawn, who was not known
to be a drug user, died suddenly about a month after Seth.
Curiously, the day after Seth died, and again the day after Shawn died, the DNC made
payments of about $100K to Crowdstrike. Sheer coincidence? Maybe.
So who created G2.0? G2.0 appears to have worked in coordination with Crowdstrike. One
day after Crowdstrike announced that the DNC had been hacked (with Russia the chief suspect)
and that the hackers had grabbed a file of Trump Opposition Research, G2.0 makes his first
public appearance, claiming to be the hacker, posting Trump Opposition Research -- and
purposely leaving "Russian fingerprints" on the meta-data of his release. Unfortunately,
this little dog-and-pony show turned out to be a screw-up, as it was subsequently revealed that
(by the DNC itself!) that the Opposition Research document had been an attachment in Podesta's
emails, and hadn't been hacked from the DNC. It is also notable that releasing Trump Opposition
Research would do nothing to damage the chances of Hillary -- the alleged intent of the
mythical Russian hackers. Indeed, nothing that G2.0 subsequently released was notably harmful
to Hillary.
Crowdstrike was also in a position to concoct the "Russian hack" that they claimed to be
investigating. Cyberanalysts have determined that two-thirds of the allegedly "Russian malware"
which Crowdstrike "found" on the DNC servers had in fact been compiled subsequent to the date
that Crowdstrike was brought in to investigate the "hack". In other words, there is reason to
believe that Crowdstrike itself concocted this "hack" -- likely because they had been warned
that Wikileaks was going to release leaked DNC emails.
It bears repeating that the latest dated DNC email which Wikileaks published was written on
April 25th -- several weeks after Crowdstrike had been brought in to investigate the
alleged hack. Anti-hacking programs do not stop leaks .
Also notable is the fact that Shawn Henry, co-founder of Crowdstrike, is a master of
cyberfuckery. Prior to founding Crowdstrike, Henry served under Robert Mueller as head of FBI
counterintelligence -- in which capacity he engaged in efforts to entrap and discredit Julian
Assange. Indeed, others have suspected that Henry was behind G2.0, in light of the fact that
G2.0's behavior was reminiscent of that of "Sabu" (Hector Monsignor), a hacker who, after
secretly being arrested by the FBI during Henry's tenure there, worked under FBI direction to
entrap other hackers. And the G2.0 hoax is clearly another - so far, highly successful -
attempt to smear Assange.
Whether or not Crowdstrike concocted G2.0, we need to find out who did -- the answer should
be highly pertinent to unraveling Seth's murder.
And let's bear in mind that the creator of G2.0 has also played an integral role in
concocting a Second Cold War with Russia - luring an entire generation of "leftists" into
hating both Russia and Wikileaks, on completely spurious grounds. The evil of that is HUGE.
about hammering on these points is productive of narrowing in on the truth, whatever it
may be. That's my awkward way of saying that you're not just on to something but that your
precision, where you're hammering, is getting to the truth. I say that as a person who isn't
convinced that Seth Rich was the DNC leaker, but who thinks he may have been murdered because
he was a potential witness in a
DNC voter suppression lawsuit , which amounts to the same thing really.
The strength of your outlook for me is that you emphasize the stupidity of the G2.0
revelations, the stupidity of Russian cyber-fingerprints, the vapidity of the released
Opposition Research, and the timeliness of this junk evidence. It matches in tone and
stupidity the evidence used to convince the American people that Saddam gave the anthrax to
Mohamed Atta in Prague. Turns out Atta was not in Prague, turns out the anthrax was not
Saddam's, but ours, turns out the Vice President of the United States lied about it on
camera. Doesn't matter. Once the scene of the transfer to Atta was fixed in the minds of some
American people, even if just a few Americans half believed it, the narrative was
written.
The other strength of your essay for me is your hammering on Seth Rich's murder as
eliminating a possible contradiction of the Russia narrative. The death of his associate
Lucas only adds to that possibility. Clearly Seth Rich's murder was timely and important. It
could very well have been a random street crime, but why he was out on the street in the
middle of the night just before the filing of a lawsuit that could have involved him and the
DNC is worth asking. The problem is that the media, and as far as we can tell, our
government, are not asking.
I just want to thank you again for focusing on the weak points of the narrative. Each time
you do, I think you bring us closer to the truth.
Here is a good report on the false evidence generated on the anthrax attack.
Yes, but I'd suggest it's because she's lived a career
in the Deep State. Hilz never really was a Dem. She was an undercover Republican/CIA when she
started out. In 1968 she started the year as a volunteer for Clean Gene McCarthy, the
"anti-Vietnam" Dem candidate who went on to endorse Ronald Reagan.
She then went to the the
Republican convention in Miami, then spent that summer as an intern for House Republicans,
where she wrote a speech about Vietnam for Representative Melvin Laird. Melvin Laird was
Nixon's Secretary of Defense, who oversaw a lot of the bludgeoning of Southeast Asia.
So when
she was anti-war with McCarthy was she really anti-war (subsequently there have been stories
about how infiltrated McCarthy's '68 campaign was riddled with CIA infiltrators), or was she
pro-war, writing speeches for Mel Laird? I suggest she never gave a shit about all those
napalmed deplorables in Southeast Asia. It was a pose. I'd don't think that Bill was anti-war
either. Like a lot of future politicians he didn't want his ass shot there.
She and Bill
worked their way up the ladder among CIA-owned politicians. Ultimately, they were in place to
deliver the Democratic Party to the Agency.
After the Popodouplous interview by Mark Steyn, there was clarity after following
Russiagate since it really started before the election of 2016. The deep state actors were
trying to setup some significant figure in the Trump as having ties with the Russian
government.
This include Flynn, the meeting at Trump Towers, and Popodouplos. So many details
now fall in place like the Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya meeting with Fusion after the
Trump Tower meeting. Say what?
Or just bullshit like US intelligence found out GRU agents
were doing the hacking because some GRU master computer jock forgot to login into his VPN. G2
does seem to be an invention.
The irony is that we have McCarthyism once again and not one Russian is guilty of what
they are being accused of. They were set up as the fall guys, and of course in the future
nuclear war.
As for Seth Rich all I can speculate is that he was involved somehow. And if his murder
was not random, he was about to blow apart the entire conspiracy to such a level, action had
to be taken against him.
Every time you think the corporatocracy's manufactured anti-Semitism hysteria cannot
possibly get more absurd, they somehow manage to outdo themselves. OK, stay with me now,
because this is a weird one.
Apparently, American Hitler and his cronies are conspiring with some secret group of "Jewish
leaders" to stop British Hitler from becoming prime minister and wiping out all the Jews in
Great Britain. Weird, right? But that's not the weird part, because maybe American Hitler wants
to wipe out all the Jews in Great Britain himself, rather than leaving it to British Hitler
Hitlers being notoriously jealous regarding their genocidal accomplishments.
No, the weird part is that everyone knows that American Hitler does not make a move without
the approval of Russian Hitler, who is also obsessed with wiping out the Jews, and with
destroying the fabric of Western democracy. So why would Russian Hitler want to let American
Hitler and his goons thwart the ascendancy of British Hitler, who, in addition to wanting to
wipe out all the Jews, also wants to destroy democracy by fascistically refunding the NHS,
renationalizing the rail system, and so on?
Kirt
says: June
13, 2019 at 2:40 pm GMT Very logical analysis! Obviously the work of a racist, anti-Semite,
white, male, patriarchalist, Putin-puppet. Did I forget homophobic? That too!
This is a classic, even for Hopkins. In the US most people cannot really comprehend that, if
by some miracle, Bernie Sanders or Tulsi Gabbard became President, the same relentless attack
visited on Trump by the 'Deep State' would be directed at them as well. It doesn't matter
that they are very different from Trump. This article (in hilarious fashion) explains that
perfectly.
The only relevant fact in the case of the U.K. (and Washington D.C.) is "Which lobby
directly interferes with the governance of the country"?
It's the Israel lobby – doh!
Do stop trying to complicate and apologize for a disgraceful state of affairs. The
parasitic Israel lobby needs to be monitored and called out wherever it finds a host.
"... After nearly 40 years of privatization and restructuring, British society is on the brink of being permanently transformed into the type of savage, neo-feudal, corporatist nightmare that the USA already is. ..."
"... Thus, they need to Hitlerize Corbyn, so they can fold him into their official narrative, Democracy vs. The Putin-Nazis ..."
"... In the USA, the populist insurgency is primarily a right-wing phenomenon (because, again, there is no Left to speak of). Thus, the neoliberal ruling classes are focused on Hitlerizing Donald Trump, and stigmatizing the millions of Americans who voted for him as a bunch of Nazis. Hitlerizing Trump has been ridiculously easy (he almost Hitlerizes himself), but the ultimate goal is to delegitimize the populist sentiment that put him into office. That sentiment is primarily neo-nationalist. So it's a one-front counter-insurgency op (i.e., neoliberalism versus neo-nationalism). ..."
"... And this is why Corbyn had to be Hitlerized, and why Putin, Trump, Assad, Gabbard, Assange, the "Yellow Vest" protesters in France, and anyone else opposing global neoliberalism has to be Hitlerized. ..."
I realize that both the neoliberal establishment and the neo-fascist fringe disagree with
me, and that both are determined (for different reasons) to conflate the two in the public's
mind, but that's my take, and I'm sticking to it. I don't think the world is controlled by "the
Jews." I think it's controlled by global capitalism.
Go ahead, call me a conspiracy theorist. Here's how the anti-Semitism panic in the United
Kingdom looks to me.
After nearly 40 years of privatization and restructuring, British society is on the brink of
being permanently transformed into the type of savage, neo-feudal, corporatist nightmare that
the USA already is. The global capitalist ruling classes are extremely pleased about this state
of affairs. They would now like to finish up privatizing Britain, so they can get on with
privatizing the rest of Europe. The last thing they need at this critical juncture is Jeremy Corbyn to become prime minister and start attempting to remake their nascent neoliberal
marketplace into a society you know, where healthcare is guaranteed to all, you don't need a
mortgage to buy a train ticket, and people don't have to eat out of trash bins.
Unlike in the USA, where there is no functional political Left, and where the
non-parliamentary "two-party system" is almost totally controlled by the corporatocracy, in the
UK, there are still a few old-fashioned socialists, and they have taken back the Labour Party
from the neoliberal Blairite stooges that had been managing the transformation of Britain into
the aforementioned neo-feudal nightmare. Jeremy Corbyn is the leader of these socialists. So
the corporatocracy needs to destroy him, take back control of the Labour Party, and turn it
back into a fake left party, like the Democratic Party in the USA, so they can concentrate on
crushing the right-wing populists. Thus, they need to Hitlerize Corbyn, so they can fold him
into their official narrative, Democracy vs. The
Putin-Nazis.
And, see, this is what makes the corporatocracy's War on Populism so seemingly
psychotic at least to anyone paying attention.
In the USA, the populist insurgency is primarily a right-wing phenomenon (because, again,
there is no Left to speak of). Thus, the neoliberal ruling classes are focused on Hitlerizing
Donald Trump, and stigmatizing the millions of Americans who voted for him as a bunch of Nazis.
Hitlerizing Trump has been ridiculously easy (he almost Hitlerizes himself), but the ultimate
goal is to delegitimize the populist sentiment that put him into office. That sentiment is
primarily neo-nationalist. So it's a one-front counter-insurgency op (i.e., neoliberalism
versus neo-nationalism).
In the UK, things are not that simple. There, the neoliberal ruling classes are waging a
counter-insurgency op against populist forces on two major fronts: (1) the Brexiters (i.e.,
nationalism); and (2) the Corbynists (i.e., socialism). They're getting hit from both the left
and right, which is screwing up the official narrative (according to which the "enemies of
democracy" are supposed to be right-wing neo-nationalists). So, as contradictory and absurd as
it sounds, they needed to conflate both left and right populism into one big scary Hitlerian
enemy. Thus, they needed to Hitlerize Corbyn. Presto Labour Anti-Semitism crisis!
Now, anyone who is isn't a gibbering idiot knows that Jeremy Corbyn is not an anti-Semite
and the Labour Party is not a hive of Nazis. It's a testament to the power of the corporate
media that such a statement even needs to be made but, of course, that's the point of the smear
campaign the neoliberal corporate media have been waging for the last three years.
Smear campaigns are simple and effective. The goal is to force your target and his allies
into proclaiming things like, "I am not an anti-Semite," or "I've never had sex with underage
boys," or whatever smear you want to force them to deny. You don't have to prove your target
guilty. You're just trying to conjure up a "reality" in which every time someone thinks of your
target they associate him with the content of your smears.
The corporate media have done just that, to Jeremy Corbyn, to Donald Trump, to Putin, and to
assorted lesser figures.
They did it to Sanders in 2016. They are
doing it now to Tulsi Gabbard . The goal is not only to smear these targets, but also, and
more so, to conjure a "world" that reifies the narrative of their smears a binary "good versus
evil" world, a world in which whatever they want to accuse their targets of being linked to
(e.g., terrorism, fascism, racism, or whatever) is the official enemy of all that is good.
Since the Brexit referendum and the election of Trump, the ruling classes have conjured up a
world where "democracy" is perpetually under attack by a global conspiracy of "Russians" and
"Nazis" (just as they previously conjured up a world where it was perpetually under attack by
"terrorists"). They have conjured up a post-Orwellian reality in which "democracy" (i.e.,
global capitalism) is the only alternative to "neo-fascism" (i.e., anything opposed to global
capitalism).
And this is why Corbyn had to be Hitlerized, and why Putin, Trump, Assad, Gabbard, Assange,
the "Yellow Vest" protesters in France, and anyone else opposing global neoliberalism has to be
Hitlerized. Socialism, nationalism it makes no difference, not to the global capitalist ruling
classes. There are always only two sides in these "worlds" that the ruling classes conjure up
for us, and there can be only one official enemy. The official enemy of the moment is
"fascism." Therefore, all the "bad guys" are Hitler, or Nazis, or racists, or anti-Semites, or
some other variation of Hitler.
The fact that this "reality" they have conjured up for us is completely psychotic makes it
no less real. And it is only going to get more insane until the corporatocracy restores
"normality." So, go ahead, if you consider yourself "normal," and try to force your mind to
believe that Jews are no longer safe in Great Britain, or in Germany, or France, or the USA,
and that Donald Trump is a Russian asset, and is also literally Adolf Hitler, and an
anti-Semitic white supremacist who is conspiring with Israel and Saudi Arabia in their campaign
to destroy Iran and Syria, which are allies of his Russian masters, as is Venezuela, which he
is also menacing, and that Jeremy Corbyn's secret plan is to turn the UK into Nazi Germany,
with the support of Trump, who is trying to destroy him, and that the Yellow Vests are
Russian-backed fascists, and that Julian Assange is a rapist spy who conspired with Russia to
get Trump elected, which is why Trump wants to prosecute him, just as soon as he finishes
wiping out the Jews, or protecting them from Jeremy Corbyn, or from Iran, or brainwashing Black
Americans into reelecting him in 2020 with a handful of Russian Facebook ads.
Go ahead, try to reconcile all that or whatever, don't. Just take whatever medication you
happen to be on, crank up CNN, MSNBC, or any other corporate media channel, and report me to
the Internet Police for posting dangerous "extremist" content. You know, in your heart, I
probably deserve it.
C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and political satirist
based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play
Publishing (USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is
published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant Paperbacks. He can be reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org .
I think it is oversimplification. It was the intelligence agencies that controlled Hillary,
not vise versa. The interests of intelligence agencies and Hillary campaign coincided, that's why
she got as much support form CIA and FBI: Trump represented a central danger to flow of funds to
"national security parasites" so their reaction was predictable reaction of any large bureaucracy
of the possibility of losing power -- they circle the wagons.
Notable quotes:
"... But Steele's first overture on July 5, 2016, failed to capture the FBI's imagination. So the Clinton machine escalated. Steele, a British national, went to senior Department of Justice official Bruce Ohr -- whose wife, Nellie, also worked for Fusion -- to push his Trump dirt to the top of the FBI. ..."
"... Nellie Ohr likewise sent some of her own anti-Trump research augmenting Steele's dossier to the FBI through her husband. Perkins Coie lawyer Michael Sussmann used his connection to former FBI general counsel James Baker to dump Trump dirt at the FBI, too. ..."
"... In short, the Clinton machine flooded the FBI with pressure -- and bad intel -- until an investigation of Trump was started. The bureau and its hapless sheriff at the time, James Comey, eventually acquiesced with the help of such Clinton fans as then-FBI employees Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. ..."
"... The Clinton team's dirty trick was as diabolical as it was brilliant. It literally used house money and a large part of the U.S. intelligence apparatus to carry out its political hit job on Trump. ..."
"... After two years of American discomfort, and tens of millions of taxpayer dollars spent, it's time for the house to call in its IOU. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton owes us answers -- lots of them. So far, she has ducked them, even while doing many high-profile media interviews. ..."
"... Longtime Clinton adviser Douglas Schoen said Friday night on Fox News that it's time for Clinton to answer what she knew and when she knew it. ..."
"... John Solomon is an award-winning investigative journalist whose work over the years has exposed U.S. and FBI intelligence failures before the Sept. 11 attacks, federal scientists' misuse of foster children and veterans in drug experiments, and numerous cases of political corruption. He serves as an investigative columnist and executive vice president for video at The Hill. Follow him on Twitter @jsolomonReports . ..."
During the combined two decades she served as a U.S. senator and secretary of State,
Hillary Clinton 's
patrons regularly donated to her family charity when they had official business pending before
America's most powerful political woman.
The pattern of political IOUs paid to the Clinton Foundation was so pernicious that the
State Department even tried to execute a special
agreement with the charity to avoid the overt appearance of "pay-to-play" policy.
Still, the money continued to flow by the millions of dollars, from foreigners and Americans
alike who were perceived to be indebted to the Clinton machine or in need of its help.
It's time for the American public to call in their own IOU on political transparency.
The reason? Never before -- until 2016 -- had the apparatus of a U.S. presidential candidate
managed to sic the weight of the FBI and U.S. intelligence community on a rival nominee during
an election, and by using a foreign-fed, uncorroborated political opposition research
document.
But Clinton's campaign, in concert with the Democratic Party and through their shared law
firm, funded Christopher Steele's unverified
dossier which, it turns out, falsely portrayed Republican Donald Trump as a treasonous asset colluding with
Russian President Vladimir Putin to hijack the U.S. election.
Steele went to the FBI to get an investigation started and then leaked the existence of the
investigation, with the hope of sinking Trump's presidential aspirations.
On its face, it is arguably the most devious political dirty trick in American history and
one of the most overt intrusions of a foreigner into a U.S. election.
It appears the Clinton machine knew that what it was doing was controversial. That's why it
did backflips to disguise the operation from Congress and the public, and in its Federal
Election Commission (FEC) spending reports.
Clinton and the Democratic National Committee (DNC)
used the law firm of Perkins Coie to hire Glenn Simpson's research firm, Fusion GPS, which
then hired Steele -- several layers that obfuscated transparency, kept the operation off the
campaign's public FEC reports and gave the Clintons plausible deniability.
But Steele's first overture on July 5, 2016, failed to capture the FBI's imagination. So
the Clinton machine escalated. Steele, a British national, went to senior Department of Justice
official Bruce Ohr -- whose wife, Nellie, also worked for Fusion -- to push his Trump dirt to
the top of the FBI.
Nellie Ohr likewise sent some of her own anti-Trump research augmenting Steele's dossier
to the FBI through her husband. Perkins Coie lawyer Michael Sussmann
used his connection to former FBI general counsel James Baker to dump Trump dirt at the
FBI, too.
In short, the Clinton machine flooded the FBI with pressure -- and bad intel -- until an
investigation of Trump was started. The bureau and its hapless sheriff at the time, James
Comey, eventually acquiesced with the help of such Clinton fans as then-FBI employees Peter
Strzok and Lisa Page.
To finish the mission, Simpson and Steele leaked the existence of the FBI investigation to
the news media to ensure it would hurt Trump politically. Simpson even
called the leaks a "hail Mary" that failed.
Trump won, however. And now, thanks to special counsel Robert Mueller, we know the
Russia-collusion allegations relentlessly peddled by Team Clinton were bogus. But not before
the FBI used the Clinton-funded, foreign-created research to get a total of four warrants to
spy on the Trump campaign , transition and presidency from October 2016 through the
following autumn.
The Clinton team's dirty trick was as diabolical as it was brilliant. It literally used
house money and a large part of the U.S. intelligence apparatus to carry out its political hit
job on Trump.
After two years of American discomfort, and tens of millions of taxpayer dollars spent,
it's time for the house to call in its IOU.
Hillary Clinton owes us answers -- lots of them. So far, she has ducked them, even while
doing many high-profile media interviews.
I'm not the only one who thinks this way. Longtime Clinton adviser Douglas Schoen said
Friday night on Fox News that it's time for Clinton to answer what she knew and when she knew
it.
Here are 10 essential questions:
Please identify each person in your campaign, including Perkins Coie lawyers, who were
aware that Steele provided information to the FBI or State Department, and when they learned
it.
Describe any information you and your campaign staff received, or were briefed on, before
Election Day that was derived from the work of Simpson, Steele, Fusion GPS, Nellie Ohr or
Perkins Coie and that tried to connect Trump, his campaign or his business empire with
Russia.
Did you or any senior members of your campaign, including lawyers such as Michael
Sussmann, have any contact with the CIA, its former Director John Brennan, current Director
Gina Haspel, James Baker, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page or former FBI Deputy Director Andrew
McCabe?
Describe all
contacts your campaign had with Cody Shearer and Sidney Blumenthal concerning Trump,
Russia and Ukraine.
Describe all contacts you and your campaign had
with DNC contractor Alexandra Chalupa, the Ukraine government, the Ukraine Embassy in the
United States or the U.S. Embassy in Kiev concerning Trump, Russia or former Trump campaign
chairman Paul Manafort.
Why did your campaign and the Democratic Party make a concerted effort to portray Trump as
a Russian asset?
Given that investigations by a House committee, a Senate committee and a special
prosecutor all have concluded there isn't evidence of Trump-Russia collusion, do you regret
the actions by your campaign and by Steele, Simpson and Sussmann to inject these unfounded
allegations into the FBI, the U.S. intelligence community and the news media?
Hillary Clinton owes us answers to each of these questions. She should skip the lawyer-speak
and answer them with the candor worthy of an elder American stateswoman.
John Solomon is an award-winning investigative journalist whose work over the years has
exposed U.S. and FBI intelligence failures before the Sept. 11 attacks, federal scientists'
misuse of foster children and veterans in drug experiments, and numerous cases of political
corruption. He serves as an investigative columnist and executive vice president for video at
The Hill. Follow him on Twitter @jsolomonReports .
"... It appears Israelis had tempted the Russians into the ambitious meeting by promising to take the US sanctions off Russian back. It is doubtful Israel can deliver on such a promise to start with. Putin is a very experienced statesman, and he won't accept a US promise in lieu of full delivery. Not after the Hanoi failure of Trump-Kim talks, and not before that, either. Anyway, Putin would like to be un-sanctioned, but not at the price the US asks. ..."
"... "Look, here's what I believe. It becomes obvious when you think about it. Judging by NATO's estimates, there won't be a large European war until about 2025. And by 2025, Ukraine, being a large anti-Russian foothold, will evolve into something that will begin dragging us into trouble, connected with various matters including transfer of power. It's not a coincidence that some of our neighbors are getting rid of the Russian inscriptions on their money in 2024. We see that and we should be ready. From where we get the approximate schedule of our actions." ..."
"... " Undoubtedly, the issue of de-Americanization of Europe is critical. There's no Soviet border anymore. I said that yesterday. And there's no line dividing Germany. We must get rid of it up to the Atlantic Ocean. The elimination of either the American presence or the NATO bloc in general. ..."
Last week, at 'Russian Davos', St Petersburg Economic Forum, President Putin
reiterated the main points of his memorable
Munich Speech . He voiced seven complaints leaving no doubt
he is unhappy with American heavy-handedness, with the US attempts to weaponise the dollar, Google, Facebook and knowhow as in case
of Huawei. "States that previously advocated the principles of freedom of trade, fair and open competition, started speaking the
language of trade wars and sanctions, blatant economic raiding, arm twisting, intimidation, eliminating competitors by so-called
non-market methods," – he said. This is not the language of a man who waits for a cue to join the US entourage.
Still, there are other, less pleasant signs.
The 'Russian Bolton', Mr Eugene Satanovsky, the head of pro-Israeli think tank, a former head of a Zionist Jewish body and a frequent
commentator on Russian TV had been appointed an adviser to the Russian Defence Minister Mr Sergey Shoygu. His nomination came
directly from Kremlin and surprised the ministry officials. A prominent Russian churchman, Fr Chaplin, expressed his satisfaction
with Israeli control of Jerusalem, in a column in the
Nezavisimaya Gazeta . At the same time, the Russian
S-300 did not respond to Israeli bombing runs in Syria.
It appears Israelis had tempted the Russians into the ambitious meeting by promising to take the US sanctions off Russian
back. It is doubtful Israel can deliver on such a promise to start with. Putin is a very experienced statesman, and he won't accept
a US promise in lieu of full delivery. Not after the Hanoi failure of Trump-Kim talks, and not before that, either. Anyway, Putin
would like to be un-sanctioned, but not at the price the US asks.
Israelis want to neutralise Iran, as the Islamic Republic is the only remaining defender of the al-Aqsa Mosque. Amman, ar-Riyad
and other Arab capitals will not fight Israel, if Netanyahu were to destroy the Mosque. The Palestinians will fight, but they have
no weapons. The last Jewish victim of a Palestinian attack had been wounded by scissors. Iran has weapons and cares for the Mosque.
Can Netanyahu convince Putin to neutralise Iran, or pressure Iran to stay away from Palestine? It would be a major feat worthy of
a magician.
And now we come to the important point. Instead of receiving two superpower envoys in splendour as [almost] the King of Jews,
Bibi Netanyahu will meet them as the head of a transitional government facing new elections and a possible trial. In such a status,
it is hard to convince your banker to give you a loan to buy a new car, let alone convincing Putin to switch alliance and Trump to
deny Christ.
In the same time, the baby-faced son-in-law Kushner had planned to execute his (and Trump's) Deal of the Century. Even an impregnable
Trump and unassailable Netanyahu would have a great difficulty to make this trick. Trump facing impeachment and Bibi facing elections
and police investigation have no chance. Probably it is good, too. Russia and China decided to stay away. Mahmud Abbas, the PNA President,
refused it, too, and this fraud's flop will preclude Palestine from being sanctioned.
The intended deal had not been officially disclosed; all we have is a
leak
in a newspaper close to Bibi Netanyahu and financed by Sheldon Adelson, saying it was leaked from the Israeli Ministry of Foreign
Affairs. Bear with me, gentle reader, and suspend your disbelieve! Though this piece of daydreaming looks like a project written
by high school kids during summer vacation time, it is not particularly good-natured.
It says the US will kill (that's right, k_i_l_l) Palestinian leaders that won't accept it, but before, it will sanction Palestine
to death and forbid all its allies to buy, sell, and donate or anything to Palestinians.
The deal envisages a permanently disarmed Palestinian entity that will pay Israel for its "protection". All Jewish settlements
remain inviolable, and are considered a part of Israel. Israel will control every arrival and departure from the entity called "New
Palestine". Jerusalem stays Jewish. Gaza will be connected to the West Bank by 30 km long bridge under Israeli control. This bridge
will be paid for by China. Desalination plant for Gaza will be paid by Japan. If not for the threat to kill the disobedient Arabs,
it would be plainly preposterous. So the demise of this bizarre 'deal' is not to be regretted.
President Trump understood that with Bibi facing trial and re-election there is no chance to advance on this project – or any
other project. "Israel is all messed up in their election," Trump told reporters. "They have to get their act together." "Bibi got
elected and now they have to go through the process again? We're not happy about that," Trump
said .
Thus, the two great plans of Bibi: the trilateral meeting in Jerusalem and Deal of the Century went down when Bibi failed to form
a government.
It says the US will kill (that's right, k_i_l_l) Palestinian leaders that won't accept it, but before, it will sanction
Palestine to death and forbid all its allies to buy, sell, and donate or anything to Palestinians.
The deal envisages a permanently disarmed Palestinian entity that will pay Israel for its "protection". All Jewish settlements
remain inviolable, and are considered a part of Israel. Israel will control every arrival and departure from the entity called
"New Palestine". Jerusalem stays Jewish. Gaza will be connected to the West Bank by 30 km long bridge under Israeli control.
And so we've leaders that we deserve,
dumbed-down goybeans, ready to serve,
boiled in the same old kettle of fish,
cooked to perfection, a vomitous dish.
' They say Lieberman did it following wily Putin's orders. Putin was not keen to be pushed by Netanyahu and Trump to act against
Iran; he didn't want to quarrel with these two leaders either. He activated Lieberman and torpedoed the new Netanyahu's government
'
There's a theory that Russia has something on Lieberman; that willingly or unwillingly, he's effectively a Russian agent.
The deal envisages a permanently disarmed Palestinian entity that will pay Israel for its "protection". All Jewish settlements
remain inviolable, and are considered a part of Israel. Israel will control every arrival and departure from the entity called
"New Palestine". Jerusalem stays Jewish. Gaza will be connected to the West Bank by 30 km long bridge under Israeli control.
This bridge will be paid for by China. Desalination plant for Gaza will be paid by Japan.
This is just hilarious. Did Kushner and Bolton think this one up with after an all-week meth-binge together?
'Hey, Beavis! Let's get the Palestinians to officially surrender and the Chinese and Japanese to pay for it. Heh, heh, heh!'
"The 'Russian Bolton', Mr Eugene Satanovsky .... outlined in a media interview a few short weeks ago, where he asserted:
"Look, here's what I believe. It becomes obvious when you think about it. Judging by NATO's estimates, there won't be a large
European war until about 2025. And by 2025, Ukraine, being a large anti-Russian foothold, will evolve into something that will
begin dragging us into trouble, connected with various matters including transfer of power. It's not a coincidence that some of
our neighbors are getting rid of the Russian inscriptions on their money in 2024. We see that and we should be ready. From where
we get the approximate schedule of our actions."
" Undoubtedly, the issue of de-Americanization of Europe is critical. There's no Soviet border anymore. I said that yesterday.
And there's no line dividing Germany. We must get rid of it up to the Atlantic Ocean. The elimination of either the American presence
or the NATO bloc in general.
I'm talking about any forms of elimination, not just peaceful methods and negotiations. The issue remains."
" America will pay with its territory, its military facilities, and it will be lucky if not with its civilian population, for
any anti-Russian activities in Europe. If America doesn't realize that, then you should replace the idiots that run your country.
They'll bury it. We're talking on the eve of that. Can't you see that? Don't you realize that?"
What delay, the Satanic Anti-Christ has arrived (one of them, anyway).
@sarz It seems
he's spent considerable time on Trade and Immigration issues. Russiagate was a hoax from the outset, and considerable resources
are being expended in an effort to deal with the criminal conduct of the previous administration. Jared has been given credit
for some accomplishments, nothing extraordinary. Most Americans see him and Ivanka for what they are, an indulgement of The Donald,
and as long as he keeps delivering for the American People, he will have their forbearance.
To claim Trump is a top Jew, is just a fabrication of what you want to believe. Jews aren't cause of the woes of the world,
the Devil is. Swiss templars control the world's finances. The rothies are but one of their client banks, which includes the houses
of saxe-coburg and saad, bolsheviks, chicoms, the vatican, and the deep state. Did I leave anything out?
Trump and the nationalist backlash against immigration in the EU and elsewhere are a pause in the banking cabals march to globalism.
What is needed is a debt reset. There will be a reset of the global financial system, what remains to be seen is what takes it's
place.
The jews are not a religion or a nationality. They are, and always have been a corporation of swindlers – nothing more. They always
have a back door escape route for when the Gentiles finally wake up and tire of their constant cheating and overall immoral behavior.
What is important here is the what(Bibi and company's evil plans have been sidelined-for now). The who and the how is less important,
but thanks to Israel Shamir for informing as it is good to know.
I'll bet John Hagee and his CUFI crowd are wiping their tears on their prayer shawls. LOL
Is Donald
Trump a fascist? The question is usually posed as an insult rather than as a serious
inquiry. A common response is that "he is not as bad as Hitler", but this rather dodges the
issue. Hitler was one hideous exponent of fascism , which comes in different flavours
but he was by no means the only one.
The answer is that fascist leaders and fascism in the 1920s and 1930s were similar in many
respects to Trump and Trumpism. But they had additional toxic characteristics, born out of a
different era and a historic experience different from the United States.
What are the most important features of fascism? They include ultra-nationalism and
authoritarianism; the demonisation and persecution of minorities; a cult of the leader; a
demagogic appeal to the "ignored" masses and against a "treacherous" establishment; contempt
for parliamentary institutions; disregard for the law while standing on a law and order
platform; control of the media and the crushing of criticism; slogans promising everything to
everybody; a promotion of force as a means to an end leading to violence, militarism and
war.
The list could go on to include less significant traits such as a liking for public displays
of strength and popularity at rallies and parades; a liking also for gigantic building projects
as the physical embodiment of power.
Hitler and Mussolini ticked all these boxes and Trump ticks most of them, though with some
important exceptions. German and Italian fascism was characterised above all else by aggressive
and ultimately disastrous wars. Trump, on the contrary, is a genuine "isolationist" who has not
started a single war in the two-and-a-half years he has been in the White House.
It is not that Trump abjures force, but he prefers it to be commercial and economic rather
than military, and he is deploying it against numerous countries from China to Mexico and Iran.
As a strategy this is astute, avoiding the bear traps that American military intervention fell
into in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is an approach which weakens the targeted state economically,
but it does not produce decisive victories or unconditional surrenders.
It is a policy more dangerous than it looks: Trump may not want a war, but the same is not
true of Mike Pompeo, his secretary of state, or his national security adviser John Bolton. And
it is even less true of US allies like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, who have been
pushing Washington towards war with Iran long before Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman took
control in Riyadh in 2015.
Trump's aversion to military intervention jibes with these other influences, but it is
erratic because it depends on the latest tweet from the White House. A weakness, not just of
fascist leaders but of all dictatorial regimes, is their exaggerated dependence on the
decisions of a single individual with God-like confidence in their own judgement. Nothing can
be decided without their fiat and they must never be proved wrong or be seen to fail.
Trump has modes of operating rather than sustained policies that are consequently shallow
and confused. One ambassador in Washington confides privately that he has successfully engaged
with the most senior officials in the administration, but this was not doing him a lot of good
because they had no idea of what was happening. The result of this Louis XIV approach to
government is institutionalised muddle: Trump may not want a war in the Middle East but he
could very easily blunder into one.
Of course, Trump is not alone in this: populist nationalist authoritarian leaders on the
rise all over the world win and hold power in ways very similar to the fascists of the
inter-war period. What is there in these two eras almost a century apart that would explain
this common political trajectory?
Fears and hatreds born out of the First World War, the Russian Revolution and the Great
Depression propelled the fascists towards power. When old allegiances and beliefs were
shattered and discredited, people naturally looked to new creeds and saviours. "The more
pathological the situation the less important is the intrinsic worth of the idol," wrote the
great British historian Lewis Namier in 1947. "His feet may be of clay and his face may be
blank: it is the frenzy of the worshippers which imparts to him meaning and power."
Is the same thing happening again? Fascism was the product of a cataclysmic period in the
first half of the 20th century that is very different from today. The US failed to get its way
in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but these were small-scale conflicts in no way comparable to
the First World War. The recession that followed the 2008 crash was a blip compared to the
Thirties.
Many of the better off reassure themselves with such thoughts. But they underestimate the
destructiveness of de-industrialisation and technological change for great numbers across the
globe. Inequality has vastly increased. Economies expand, but the benefits are skewed towards
the wealthy. Metropolitan centres plugged into the global economy flourished, but not their
periphery.
The distinction between winners and losers varies from country to country but governments
everywhere underestimated the unhappiness caused by social and economic upheaval. Beneficiaries
of the status quo invariably downplay the significance of fault lines that populists are swift
to identify and exploit.
Philip Hammond, the British chancellor of the exchequer, contemptuously dismisses claims by
the UN that great number of people in Britain were living in "dire poverty" and saying that, in
so far as deprivation existed, the government was acting effectively to address the problem.
The new wave of Trump-like leaders springing up all over the globe do not have to do very much
to do better than this.
Such overconfidence on the part of the powers-that-be is becoming rarer. Democrats who had
convinced themselves that Trumpism would be exposed and discredited as a conspiracy wished on
America by the dark powers in the Kremlin have seen their fantasy evaporate.
But there is probably worse to come: experience shows that populist authoritarian
nationalism – what Namier called "Caesarian democracy" – is not a static
phenomenon. It may not begin with all the fascist characterisation listed above, but its
trajectory is always in their direction. Regimes become more nationalistic, authoritarian,
demagogic, shifting from intolerance of criticism or opposition to a determination to
extinguish it entirely.
A case study of this process is Turkey, where President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is reinforcing
his one-man rule by overturning an opposition victory in the election to choose the mayor of
Istanbul. Many Americans deny that the same process is happening in the US, but they tend to be
the same people who did not believe that Trump could be elected in the first place.
'Trump may not want a war in the Middle East but he could very easily blunder into one.'
Nations blunder into the very war they are trying to avoid – abject defeat. The US
president, encouraged by his counselors, might launch an attack on Iran, not realizing the
consequences. He wouldn't be alone in history for doing that, so it cannot be held against
him. Regional conflicts today are so interconnected that a localized dispute could drag in
the major nuclear powers in multiple theaters. That is what happens if vital interests clash.
It is the pattern of history. And there is nothing to suggest it has changed. https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/
Let me get this straight: Cockburn identifies the central problem as the widening inequality
that emerged following the Great Recession of 2008, but then he blames Trump for being Trump.
WTF!
Here's Cockburn: " Inequality has vastly increased. Economies expand, but the benefits are
skewed towards the wealthy. Metropolitan centres plugged into the global economy flourished,
but not their periphery."
Trumps a ceo which is dictatorial hardly as dangerous as your FDR WILSON TEDDY LINCOLN ETC.
FASISM is the death throes of democracy as it tries to resist its inevitable slide into
further extremes of Mobism it tries to put a bit of lipstick on the pig with fascism. It
tries to recover a bit of order with authority and a bit of lawfulness by reigning in a bit
of the elite looting Democracy leads to cultural degeneracy and so there's often a lowbrow
attempt at restoring the culture the elite highbrows having led the degeneracy spiral only
the middle is available to try and save the culture.
I am yet to read a convincing argument how the most hardline Zionist president in US history,
who had his campaign run by the AIPAC guy Michael Glassner, influenced by Jared Kushner and
proud Christian Zionist Steve Bannon, who hired Jewish Goldman Sachs bankers Mnuchin and
Cohen right from the start, made the Jewish olgarchy of the Kushners and others into Jewish
aristocracy in the white house, has most to all his children married or dating Jews, is an
obscene, vulgar and tasteless vessel for the wishes of the Jewish Casino Godfather Sheldon
Adelson, filled his government with Neocons, has his power base in Zionist Evangelical
Christians, has somehow anything remotely to do with with Adolf Hitler or Benito
Mussolini. -- This one isn't.
Neither are Boomerisms about what "fascism" is or isn't. And the downright idiotic
habbit of Anglosphere journalists and intellectuals to label totalitarianism as "fascist"
brings already a fundamental misinformation in the term itself. And I can only explain it
from a necessity of the Anglosphere commentators, who are drenched in post WW2 mythology, to
obfuscate the fact that one was allied to a certain Stalin and produced the rise of
communist China starting under Mao himself. The greatest mass murderer in human history who
did have near total control over his subjects and their minds. Unlike Mussolini and Hitler or
even Stalin.
What are the most important features of fascism? They include ultra-nationalism and
authoritarianism
As ultra-nationalistic as Churchill or Roosevelt, as authoritarian as Stalin and Mao.
the demonisation and persecution of minorities
Tibetans, Uyghurs, Palestinians – ah yes, and concentration camps for the Boer!
a cult of the leader
Echnaton, Caesar himself is actually a weaker example, Mao, Stalin, again Churchill, then
Truman; or John F. Kennedy for that matter: The enshrined patron-saint of US democracy and
its tragedy and crucifixion, his mythological rise to almost sainthood like Lincoln, or until
recently MLK jr. Nevermind that Hillary Clinton was the absolute and total cult leader figure
for the US establishment and Angela Merkel was crowned leader of the free world in a
detestable act of disinformation and lies, almost on the level of Stalinist lies. A woman who
has turned German parliamentary politics into a GDR like one party coalition of leftist
neo-liberal imperialism on her own people.
a demagogic appeal to the "ignored" masses and against a "treacherous" establishment
The masses are ignored. Want Anglosphere examples? Brexit. And as Charles Murray
noted: the peoples have – for generations! – voted against more
immigration, the establishment has also for generations ignored them. There is also something
to be said about the victims of Rotherham and how they were ignored, for over a decade crimes
comitted against them systematically covered up.
And when it comes to a treacherous establishment, look no further than to the Ziocons,
Merkel, May and unfortunately Trump himself now. How utterly rotten and morally bankrupt, for
example, the establishment of Britain is shows the case of again Rotherham and Jimmy
Savile.
contempt for parliamentary institutions
And for good reason! Politicians are mindless and usually incompetent drones to be bought
by foreign and corporate lobbies, pushed by manipulative and deceptive mass media and to be
used as pawns for foreign policy of unelected deep state actors.
disregard for the law while standing on a law and order platform
Ah yes! There is something about the acts of the declared "leader of the free world"
Angela Merkel breaking the German constitution and European law while ordering a stand down
to the German border police who was ready to close the German borders, to allow in a million
illegals against the strong wishes of at least a significant minority. This crypto-communist
also leads the "conservative" party of "stability" who loves to talk about democracy,
toleranz and openness and the dangers of undemocratic Russia.
control of the media and the crushing of criticism
ADL, SPLC, overwhelming control over the old media corporations and near monopoly control
over the internet and social media platforms of a certain group that shall not be named. But
it's certainly not better when the government itself directly controls the media as in
Europe. Is the author seriously trying to make the claim that today the dangers in
this regard come from new right populists? Or that this was something singular and a defining
characteristic of fascism?
slogans promising everything to everybody
"Wir schaffen das!", "Stadt für alle!", "Land für alle!", "Diversity is our
strength!" , "Globalism brings more wealth for everyone involved!", "Free trade is good
for everybody!", "Workers of the world unite! All you have to lose is your chains!"
a promotion of force as a means to an end leading to violence, militarism and war.
Ah yes such a true forces for peace and democracy and the freedom of all peoples of the
world the British Empire was and the USA are! The peoples of Vietnam, Serbia, Libya, Syria,
Iraq, Yemen, Palestine and Germany can sing a song about it. The USA are such a peaceful
hegemon! Dedicated to spreading human rights, democracy and freedom globally. -- But they are
also nothing special in this regard. Indeed this point is typical for basically all forms of
government. Haven't you people read your Machiavelli?
What did derail the Trump movement and turned MAGA into MIGA and a continuation of the
status quo and its lobbies, were not the populist grassroots support for Trump – across
the entire West, even globally, or the hopes and wishes of the indeed ignored masses of the
USA, or the populist supporters in the West who saw him as a beacon of their own hopes and
wishes. It was the 'deep state' which by all means is just the functional reality of
representative, parliamentary democracy in the age of mass media, a global financial system
and corporations.
The claim that tree of life recipient Donald Trump and life long supporter and friend of
Israel is a "fascist" is even more bizarre and ridiculous than calling Saddam Hussein or
Muammar al-Gaddaffi Adolf Hitler. And do I really need to quote all the things Trump said
about Israel and Netanyahu, or after the synagogue shootings..?
But the idea that he is a true isolationist who doesn't want war, is absurd. The Syria
strikes speak volumes about his intellect, judgement, foreign policy independence and also
about his willingness to do anything what Bibi and Adelson want. Just as the embassy move to
Jerusalem, just as the Golan Heights and so much more.
The USA simply cannot start a war with Iran. Because they don't have the sufficient
access to execute a major ground invasion of Iran through Iraq, Turkey, Afghanistan,
Turkmenistan, Pakistan or a D-Day like operation from the Sea. The USA also cannot do it,
because the overwhelming majority of the people in Europe, globally and even a majority in
the USA itself would condemn another war of aggression by the USA. This has nothing to
do with the wishes of the Kushner, Bolton, Pompeo Trump government and its shadow puppeteers
Netanyahu and Adelson. The same is true for Venezuela and Syria.
The Anglosphere, with the USA as its hegemonic leader, is caught in its own life-long
delusions, its own mythology from the British Empire to WW2, its decade spanning structural
and fundamental mistakes and errors and flaws. It's not the first Empire to be in this
situation and it won't be the last Empire who will have its own downfall accelerated by it
all.
Liberal democracy is a failed, a false and a falsified political model turned into a
post-political ideology of an increasingly undemocratic establishment. The Europeans do not
want it, the Africans do not want it, the Asians do not want it and increasingly the citizens
of the USA and Great Britain do not want it. Trump and Brexit are indeed indicators for
this.
Because people are communal, they do not wish to be atomized individuals. And nobody wants
social-democracy either for that matter. They do not solve problems, they do not provide
people with what they need and they have no truly inspiring visions to offer either. And
that's why the future lies in nations and peoples. Not because there is a threat of
"fascism". And I think when it comes to the erosion of the rule of law and democracy being a
means for the demos, the establishment has done absolutely everything itself to make this the
reality for the citizens in the USA and EU.
@dearieme The false claims about Trump are intended to deflect from the Truth.
dasFuherer Obama started down the road to Facism directing the SS/FBI to conduct
surveillance and enforce political orthodoxy. If the transfer of power to dasFuherer H.
Clinton had taken place successfully we would be living in a Facist nation by this point.
Authoritarian Left National Socialism (Nazism), also known as Globalism, is a threat to
the Christian Citizens of the U.S. The Democratic party openly embraces these National
Socialist / Globalist goals. The Facist Stormtroopers of Antifa are their version of the
Hitler Youth.
@Paul "control of the media and the crushing of criticism; slogans promising everything
to everybody; a promotion of force as a means to an end leading to violence, militarism and
war.
The list could go on to include less significant traits such as a liking for public
displays of strength and popularity at rallies and parades; a liking also for gigantic
building projects as the physical embodiment of power."
Trump hasn't conquered any nations, while Emperor Obama conquered Honduras, Libya, Somalia,
Ukraine, and tried to conquer Yemen, Turkey, and Syria. Obama also expanded the drone
assassination campaign, to include US citizens. Obama restarted the Cold war by demonizing
Russia and dispatching American troops to Russia's borders with new military bases in the
Baltic states.
Control of the media? Trump has none, while the media cheered Obama all the time, even
when he imprisoned journalists. They want to impeach Trump, but have no specific reason. I
can list a dozens reasons to impeach any of our past Presidents. Finally, whenever Trump
tries to ease tensions with Russia and North Korea, or pull troops from Syria, he is attacked
by the media and Democrats.
Trump is no saint, but this article is absurdly biased; typical of a corporate media
figure.
Fascism (A police state created by the wedding of corporate and state powers) has been coming
to America along various lines for quite some time but it's not the "nationalism" that we
need to worry about. In fact our tendencies to run fascistic have moved quickest while
nationalism evaporated.
The US is a divided nation, there is barely a "nation" here anymore, so we can stop
worrying about nationalism. We are no longer a single nation and haven't been for some time.
Trump isn't going to change that. LOL We are more in danger from increasing polarity ripping
us apart than we are nationalism uniting us into some new Reich.
Trump has at best hit 40% approval ratings in the polls, he barely holds onto power and in
fact lost the house. That's not a dictator in the making. There is zero danger that he will
unite the country either, that isn't going to happen.
As for socially that one is really a joke. There has never been a nation on Earth that is
less "Socially" fascist, NEVER. How a nation like ours, where you can literally self identify
as any thing you want, would be socially fascist is beyond me, yet that is actually what is
being described.
The fascism I'm worried about comes in the form of Crony Capitalism spawning endless wars
for profit while cracking down on liberty at home with the Patriot act and all the rest.
That's the creeping fascism we all should be worried about and many of us were. We voted for
Trump as the only alternative to that very problem.
No, no, no, missing the point. A 'Fascist' is someone saying something that the rich and
powerful don't want said.
So when Donald Trump said that he wanted to stop us from wasting trillions of dollars on
pointless winless foreign wars that serve only to enrich politically-connected defense
contractors, that was Fascist and Rascist and Literally Hitler.
Trump got beaten down, and without consulting Congress, launched a completely unjustified
and stupid missile attack on Syria, and suddenly he was 'presidential.' So you see, a leader
taking power into his own hands and running roughshod over the rule of law, that's
'Democracy' – as long as he's doing what the rich want done.
Bottom line: now that Trump has morphed into "Swamp Thing," there will be political
theater and screaming and howling, but it's all for show. It's a circus.
Trumpism is a mixture of kosher Americana and an apotheosis of the sharp vulgarian
businessman as politician as opposed to the hero or the visionary leader as statesman. It is
a kind of halfhearted bourgeoisie reaction to the extreme cultural Marxism and social
engineering, as well as a slavish adherence to Zionism. Its so called "national spirit" may
be more exemplified by a hexagram or skull cap on top of its figurehead leader, as opposed to
a legionary's helmet, Fuehrer's cap or Latin Cross. It is almost the polar opposite of the
eponymous Fascism of Mussolini, in which the Fascist Council dictated to the cartels, not
vice versa, and Il Duce was in charge and not a boardroom of soulless corporate
internationalists . Fascism can cut both ways- it can be used by an authoritarian leader to
unify the state and nation or it can be used by corporate oligarchs and their figurehead to
destroy the nation and its people.
Trumpism is even further removed from National Socialism and the Fuehrer. A man of the
people arose from humble origins on his own merits and reputation for courage under fire and
engineered both the greatest economic recovery and most spectacular renaissance of national
pride and dignity in recorded history. Hitler was not driven by personal vanity to see the
"H" of his name in lights, nor was he a crooked vulgarian beholden to casino pimps and
subterranean international Jews. Had National Socialism been allowed to flourish and had not
been destroyed by the world Sanhedrin and its shabbos goyim camp followers, Europe would in
all likelihood be a far cleaner, culturally vibrant and thriving culturally radiant center of
power for the entire world and especially its own far flung diaspora.
Trump could have been a true, independent nationalist leader but he scorned that role and
has largely turned on his base. While he is still the lesser of the two evils compared to
most of the Democratic automaton and pervert contenders, he certainly knows on which side his
shekels are buttered.
"... The one glaring example of how the media can deep six a political candidate is the story of Ron Paul's presidential run in 2012. After tying for first place in the Iowa Straw Poll with Michelle Bachman he was disappeared from the media completely . His name was never mention again, and the RNC stole his delegates. He became persona non grata. This is probably Tulsi's future. ..."
"... Moreover,our Neocon Warmongers eighteen year assault on the federal balance sheet , has been so massive, so larcenous and so protracted it has all but eviscerated the credit worthiness of the Nation. They have QUADRUPLED our ENTIRE NATIONAL DEBT in a mere 18 years. IT IS BEYOND BELIEF. ..."
"... All while he sends more troops to the ME but not to our border. As a wag on ZeroHedge observed, Trump has spent more time at the Wailing Wall than on our southern border. ..."
"... Tulsi is my preferred candidate. That said, I'm disappointed that she "served" in Iraq, a country which we invaded and devastated on a total lie that it had nukes. Also, I believe now she has distanced herself from ring-wing US Hindu groups who are strong supporters of the genocidal Indian prime minster Modi. ..."
"... That said, I admire Tulsi for going against the grain of our Zionist-run Congress and our crypto Jewish prez. ..."
"... The war party has many tentacles. The mainstream media and cable are fundamentally just their propaganda service. Fellow corporatists supporting each other's revenue stream. Then RT comes along, and does journalism -- demonstrates some journalistic integrity -- and the world is turned upside down. All of a sudden the truth -- mostly -- is declared Russian propaganda. ..."
"... Not just Trump and O, but Clinton and Bush II as well. I recall Bush II's tag line of a "more humble foreign policy." How'd that work out? ..."
"... I remember in 2011, I believe it was, he was leading in the polls and I heard a radio talking head opining: "I think we can all stipulate that Ron Paul is not a viable candidate for the nomination, but " For a moment there I wondered why we could all stipulate that, and then it occurred to me to notice the commentator's last name. He was using the royal we, as in we the Chosen. RP not an Israel lickspittle? End of story. ..."
"... However, Sanders had always been anti-immigration until he started running against Hillary in 2016. He was both anti illegal immigration and anti H1b. The problem is, DNC candidates have to pander to the far left to win nomination ..."
"... Tucker said he supports Elizabeth Warren's national economic plan of bringing back manufacturing jobs to save the heartland, as Trump is trying to do. Warren also wants maximum legal immigration like Trump. What good are bringing back these jobs if we are just going to import more foreign workers to work in them? ..."
"... "Both Obama and Trump were elected as anti-war candidates, and look what happened?" ..."
"... As for Trump, war in fact has not "happened". Beside the silly nothing attack on an essentially unstaffed Syrian runway that was warned ahead of time, Trump has attacked no one. He talks a lot to placate Jews, but talk is not action. Obama? A true war monger who bombed & bombed, & bombed. ..."
Probably the only honest Democrat out there. OK Demo-dunces, when Dem primary comes around,
here is a candidate you can vote for without normal people saying What? Are you nuts? Dems
are honestly going to push for Feelsy Weelsy Biden, unless the Hildabeast thinks she can give
it another try.
Tulsi Gabbard needs to add one more thing to her campaign and she will win: promise a drastic
cut on immigration in favor of American workers.
America is hungry for a candidate who will actually deliver on the no-more-wars and
no-more-immigration pledge. Trump campaigned on that but has turned out to be a total fraud
who failed on both counts.
We need Tulsi to step into the void. Not only will she win over a lot of Trump voters, but
she will also win over a lot of those on the left who are sick of wars and not particularly
pro immigration.
Hilariously, the MSM trumpeted the message last time around that we simply MUST have a female
president, that it was long past time a woman was in charge, and that anyone reluctant to
vote for Hillary was an evil misogynist. Before that, we were told that we simply HAD to have
a noble Person of Color in the White House, that it was everyone's duty to vote for Obama and
not some old white guy.
Despite Gabbard ticking off both those boxes, wouldn't you know It? Suddenly the
importance of having a non-White or female President mysteriously vanishes! Suddenly it's our
duty to have the lecherous, creepy old white dude in office! Suddenly the importance of
Diversity ("diversity is our strength" don't you know?) vanishes into the ether when Tulsi
comes up.
I think she should use this to her advantage. Not resort to identity politics or faux
feminism, but simply point out the hypocrisy, draw attention to the inconsistency and get the
general public asking themselves why all this diversity / Girl Power shit suddenly gets
memory holed by the media when it's Tulsi, or any anti establishment figure, in the
spotlight.
I mat switch party registration just so I can vote for her in a primary. I wonder, however,
if once in office, she could implement her program against the Deep State
After Gabbard announced her (2020) campaign, the Russian government owned RT, Sputnik
News and Russia Insider together ran about 20 stories favorable to her. NBC News reported
that these websites were the same that were involved in Russian interference in the 2016
elections. Matt Taibbi, in Rolling Stone, called the report by NBC a "transparent hit
piece". In The Intercept, Glenn Greenwald wrote that what he found "particularly unethical
about the NBC report is that it tries to bolster the credentials of this group [New
Knowledge] while concealing from its audience the fraud that this firm's CEO just got
caught perpetrating on the public on behalf of the Democratic Party."
@Tired of Not Winning Totally agree. To those who saw it, that's what Tucker's monologue
was all about last night. Anti-war with America-first anti-immigration is the winning ticket.
Unfortunately, from what I've been able to gather, take away her principled anti-war stance
and Tulsi's just another bleeding-heart liberal democrat. She did back Sanders after all.
Maybe Tucker, who has often had her on his show, can straighten Tulsi out.
Gabbard should switch parties and challenge Trump. I would vote for her. She has no chance at
all as a Democrat. Obviously she cannot be allowed to participate in the Democratic debates.
But her reasons for running probably do not include winning the nomination. I wish her
well. But I will never support a Democrat. Not even one I respect. I'm a white man. It's not
about the POC. My fear and loathing pertains to the white liberals.
@Diversity Heretic That's the $64,000 question, isn't it? Both Obama and Trump were
elected as anti-war candidates, and look what happened? The Deep State, i.e. the Permanent
Government, is probably more powerful than any elected president, who will be there for at
most 8 years. But who else out there beside Tulsi has the guts to take on the Hegemon? I
think she means what she says, while Obama and Trump did not.
We'll know she's being taken serious when, like Donald Trump in 2016, AIPAC summons her to
appear before the Learned Elders of Zion to pledge fealty to Israel and the holohoax.
● 'Immigration is a tremendous economic benefit for Hawai'i and our country as a
whole.'
● 'Trump's comments on immigrants fly in the face of aloha spirit, American
values.'
She has no chance and isn't going to go against immigration.
It doesn't really matter what they say anyway, because it's just lies to get elected.
Once elected they do what the nose tells them to do.
If she's CFR, she's an open borders globalist.
Trump was adamantly anti-war during his campaign, and then the nose stepped in and fixed
it.
I read that everything Trump said, all of those lies, all of those promises, were the
result of analytics.
I was dubious at first, but now I think it's true. He quite literally just mouthed what we
wanted to hear, and then did what the nose told him to do.
Obama got the peace prize and did more drone strikes than Bush.
Tulsi would be anti-war right up to her inauguration, then the reality that the nose OWNS
her entire party would sink in and she'd realize who's the boss.
Giraldi and his fans here are cool with mass Third World migration to the USA if it means
finally electing out and proud anti-Israel politicians like Ilhan Omar and the other
Congressmuslima.
Despite Gabbard ticking off both those boxes, wouldn't you know It? Suddenly the
importance of having a non-White or female President mysteriously vanishes! Suddenly it's
our duty to have the lecherous, creepy old white dude in office! Suddenly the importance of
Diversity ("diversity is our strength" don't you know?) vanishes into the ether when Tulsi
comes up.
But I will never support a Democrat. Not even one I respect. I'm a white man. It's not
about the POC. My fear and loathing pertains to the white liberals.
I like Tulsi a lot. We've almost forgotten what a serious person looks like, and she is one
of the 3 or 4 in Washington.
Her Democrat satanic baggage poisons the well, but she is still an inspiring figure, in my
view.
The one glaring example of how the media can deep six a political candidate is the story of
Ron Paul's presidential run in 2012. After tying for first place in the Iowa Straw Poll with
Michelle Bachman he was disappeared from the media completely . His name was never
mention again, and the RNC stole his delegates. He became persona non grata. This is probably Tulsi's future.
Right now, Tulsi is the only candidate who matters.
I hope she wins the nomination by a landslide.
The United States, due to the abysmal stewardship of our neocon oligarchs , is in a wholly
unprecedented and catastrophic situation.
They know it, I know it, and the majority of Americans are fast waking up to it.
Never before in US history, has so much taxpayer solvency been squandered through acts of
wanton criminal war.
The utter decimation being wrought upon countries around the world . which never attacked
us, AT ALL, is beyond human imagination.
Moreover,our Neocon Warmongers eighteen year assault on the federal balance sheet , has
been so massive, so larcenous and so protracted it has all but eviscerated the credit
worthiness of the Nation. They have QUADRUPLED our ENTIRE NATIONAL DEBT in a mere 18 years. IT IS BEYOND BELIEF.
Even as I write this, steps are being taken by all the major world powers to eject the US
dollar as the worlds reserve currency.
If this happens, nobody will continue to buy our currency ..or our bonds.
The heinous 22 trillion dollar debt, created by our neocon warmongers, will not be
underwritten anymore, anywhere.
The US will have to turn "inward" to deal with this fiscal abomination , and dare I say
that when this happens a "solvency holocaust" will truly be upon us.
The greatest nation on earth, turned belly up, in a mere twenty years .all due to
pernicious .. Neocon ..War Fraud.
@Tired of Not Winning Total fraud is correct. He refuses to characterize the illegals as
invaders and to anchor any action in response in his responsibility under Art. IV, Sect. 4 to
repel invasion. He insists on pretending that his authority to act is founded in legislation
pertaining to "emergencies" of which we possess an infinite supply.
All while he sends more troops to the ME but not to our border. As a wag on ZeroHedge
observed, Trump has spent more time at the Wailing Wall than on our southern border.
And while every month 100,000 invaders are released into the interior of the US.
Tulsi is my preferred candidate. That said, I'm disappointed that she
"served" in Iraq, a country which we invaded and devastated on a total lie that it had nukes.
Also, I believe now she has distanced herself from ring-wing US Hindu groups who are strong
supporters of the genocidal Indian prime minster Modi.
That said, I admire Tulsi for going against the grain of our Zionist-run Congress and our
crypto Jewish prez.
@Lot So what's wrong with Ilhan Omar? Is that she's Muslim? Two people in Congress I
admire are AOC (who's to young of run for prez) and Omar. Both have cojones.
@anonymous India is a polluted shit-hole run by a genocidal, Hindu nationalist PM, with
almost half of parliament members under some kind of criminal charge.
The war party has many tentacles. The mainstream media and cable are
fundamentally just their propaganda service. Fellow corporatists supporting each other's
revenue stream. Then RT comes along, and does journalism -- demonstrates some journalistic
integrity -- and the world is turned upside down. All of a sudden the truth -- mostly -- is
declared Russian propaganda.
Awakening from the bad dream of neoliberal servitude will cause cognitive dissonance,
confusion, and distress. Learning the truth, even a little bit of Truth, is almost like
poison when, for a lifetime, you've been fed nothing but lies.
@Tired of Not Winning Agree, but . . . even if elected, she would run into the same AIPAC
and pro-cheap labor lobbies that have stymied Trump (assuming Trump wanted to do anything
about these issues). Even if she wanted to do something about War and Immigrants, she would
up against a united establishment from both parties. Having a D after her name would not
count for much.
@c matt You've already been destroyed. Omar and AOC had both the brains and the balls to
identify your real enemy. Your ass is owned buddy, lock, stock and barrel ..and it took two
women to say it .not a sign of a man with any balls in congress.
Florida's Governor just signed a bill that will censor criticism of Israel throughout
the state's public schools
News
Michael Arria on June 6, 2019 23 Comments
U.S. Congressman Ron DeSantis of Florida speaking at the 2017 Conservative Political
Action Conference (CPAC) in National Harbor, Maryland. (Photo: Gage Skidmore)
[MORE]
On May 31, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed a bill that prohibits anti-Semitism in public
schools and universities throughout the state. However, the legislation also equates
criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism, effectively censoring the advocacy of Palestinian
rights.
Two days before DeSantis officially signed HB 741 into law in Florida, he carried out a
symbolic signing during a ceremonial state cabinet meeting in Israel. The session featured a
variety of Israeli speakers and culminated with Florida lawmakers issuing a declaration of
support for the country. "Since we're in Jerusalem, we may actually get some interest in our
Cabinet meetings for a change, which would be great," joked DeSantis during the meeting. A
number of news organizations filed a lawsuit against the state's government, claiming that
the meeting violated Florida's transparency law, as it took place in a foreign country and
wasn't made publicly accessible to journalists. Although they weren't officially listed as
members of DeSantis' delegation, he was accompanied by pro-Israel megadonors Sheldon and
Miriam Adelson.
HB 741 states that, "A public K-20 educational institution must treat discrimination by
students or employees or resulting from institutional policies motivated by anti-Semitic
intent in an identical manner to discrimination motivated by race." The bill identifies
anti-Semitism as calls for violence against Jews, Holocaust denial, or the promotion of
conspiracy theories that target Jewish people, but it also contains an entire section that
equates Israel critcism with the prohibited anti-Semitism. This includes, "applying a double
standard to Israel by requiring behavior of Israel that is not expected or demanded of any
other democratic nation." According to the bill's text, criticism of Israel is always
anti-Semitic unless it is "similar to criticism toward any other country."
"We know what could happen in Florida from the chilling effects we've already seen elsewhere:
human rights defenders will be smeared as antisemites, investigated by schools, and in some
cases punished. Events will be cancelled, or censored via bureaucratic harassment. Theses
will not be written. Debates in class will not take place. And many activists will
self-censor out of pure exhaustion," Palestine Legal's senior staff attorney Meera Shah told
Mondoweiss, "All of this profoundly diminishes Florida's ability to educate students to be
leaders in a global economy."
The House version of HB 741 was sponsored by State Representative Randy Fine, a rabidly
pro-Israel lawmaker who has held office since 2016. In April, after Sen. Audrey Gibson voted
against HB 741's companion bill and called it "divisive", Fine denounced the Senate
Democratic Leader and called on Democrats to "hold her accountable." "It is sad that in the
world propagated by Washington Democrats like Congresswomen Ihlan Omar and Rashida Tlaib and
Tallahassee Democrats like Audrey Gibson, fighting anti-Semitism is 'divisive', said Fine,
"In this time of rising anti-Semitism around both the country and globe, it is unconscionable
that the most powerful Democrat in the Florida Senate would vote against banning
discrimination based on anti-Semitism."
That same month, Fine made headlines for referring to a Jewish constituent as "Judenrat", a
term used to describe Jews who collaborated with the Nazis during World War 2. Fine used the
word in reference to Paul Halpern, a Palm Bay resident who organized a panel discussion
regarding the Israel/Palestine conflict. Fine took to Facebook to criticize the panel for
being anti-Semitic. "First, there is no 'Palestine,'" Fine wrote, "Second, having a bunch of
speakers who advocate for the destruction of Israel but promise that this one time they
won't, is a joke. We should not engage these bigots. We crush them." After Halpern pushed
back on this assertion and pointed out that the majority of the panelists were Jewish, Fine
responded, ″#JudenratDontCount..I know that Judenrat liked to keep tabs on all the Jews
in order to report back to the Nazis back in that time, but no one is making you continue
that tradition today."
"In my mind, Judenrat is the worst thing that you can call a Jewish person," Halpern told the
Huffington Post, "He's despicable as a representative and a person."
Governor DeSantis is a close ally of the President and some believe that the Israel trip
could help deliver Florida for Trump in 2020. "For a lot of Jewish voters, this trip puts an
exclamation point on the Republican Party's commitment to Israel and to Jewish people," the
Republican Jewish Coalition's Neil Strauss recently proclaimed, "We saw a nice rise in
support for Gov. DeSantis and we want to keep that going. Florida is the best example of
where if Republicans gain Jewish voters, it can make a real difference."
I remember in 2011, I believe it was, he was leading in the polls and I heard a
radio talking head opining: "I think we can all stipulate that Ron Paul is not a viable
candidate for the nomination, but " For a moment there I wondered why we could all stipulate
that, and then it occurred to me to notice the commentator's last name. He was using the
royal we, as in we the Chosen. RP not an Israel lickspittle? End of story.
Well a lot of the comments here are ridiculous it's like the guy who has cancer and somebody
comes along with a cure, but he says 'fuck it' because it doesn't involve ice cream
Yet these same morons support Trump who has only done things for Israel's benefit so far
and even though Trump supports legal immigration
Speaking of which why don't all these immigration zealots take up the issue with the real
bosses on the matter corporate America ?
It's the plutocracy that WANTS immigration at any and all cost because it creates a
surplus labor pool and drives wages down while driving shareholder profits up the same reason
is why industry is offshored, along with the jobs that go with it it's called labor
arbitrage
In other words this is what CAPITALISM is about yet here these monkeys are screaming about
'leftist' Tulsi because she wants Medicare for all, instead of a ripoff system that enriches
a few corporate parasites while we foot the bill
How much do the endless, unnecessary wars cost the taxpayer ? [they don't cost the
billionaire class anything because they don't pay taxes ]
How much does corporate welfare cost the taxpayer ? ask King Bezos how many billions he's
been gifted in 'tax holidays' and other such freebies
Tulsi's entire approach is a major win-win for ordinary folks right up to and including
high earning professionals
Anybody with half a brain would be overjoyed that we even have such a person in our midst
as if we don't have enough completely briandead zombies that are going to vote for Gore or
that gay guy, or that fake 'socialist' Bernie
@Sako Sako, yours is one of the best posts ever on this site. I am tempted to volunteer
for Tulsi's campaign on the basis of her anti-war position alone. I did about fourteen years
of active duty in the Army, and when I hear her refer to soldiers as her "brothers and
sisters," I actually get teary-eyed. I have to restrain myself from adoring her completely.
Excellent expose by Philip Giraldi, for one of our best candidates Tulsi Gabbard.
Indeed the enemy is "the band of oligarchs and traitors that run the United States."
@Tired of Not Winning Like me. Hopefully she is still in it when super Tuesday gets here.
I'm sick of the alt right (and their tangerine leader) and sicker of blm/reparations/open
borders. I now know why non voters don't vote.
Tulsi is a Hawaii democrat, a very corrupt group. Tell her to comment on the kealohas, the
police chief of Honolulu and his wife are being tried for corruption and drug dealing by the
feds. She and all the other dems here will not comment. She likes to rock the boat about war
at the federal level but no comment on her state evolving into a third world dump.
I think the local dems want her out, Mufi wants revenge.
@follyofwar Yep, it is a big if. She is pretty far to the left on immigration, which is
unfortunate. But I appreciate her being honest. We don't need another lying scum like Trump.
However, Sanders had always been anti-immigration until he started running against Hillary
in 2016. He was both anti illegal immigration and anti H1b. The problem is, DNC candidates
have to pander to the far left to win nomination. I'm holding out hope that he would revert
back to those pre 2016 immigration positions after winning nomination. He recently came out
and railed against the border invasion.
A Sanders-Gabbard ticket might be the winning ticket.
(assuming Trump wanted to do anything about these issues).
That's just the problem. I don't think Trump ever really wanted to reduce legal
immigration. He has said more than once that he wants to let "the largest number ever" of
immigrants come in because "we" need these workers as we have "all these jobs coming back",
i.e. employers need their cheap labor, except instead of keeping the cheap labor offshore, he
wants to bring millions of them to the US like the tech sector.
Tucker said he supports Elizabeth Warren's national economic plan of bringing back
manufacturing jobs to save the heartland, as Trump is trying to do. Warren also wants maximum
legal immigration like Trump. What good are bringing back these jobs if we are just going to
import more foreign workers to work in them?
In the end the rich will just get richer, while the rest of us have to put up with even
more immigration, more congestion, overcrowded schools, crime, poverty, unemployment,
underemployment, failed schools I say no thank you! Let's just send all the immigrants
packing. We already have plenty of jobs in America, they are just all going to
foreigners.
The only job program we need is one that calls for drastic cuts in immigration. Anything
else is bullshit.
"Both Obama and Trump were elected as anti-war candidates, and look what
happened?"
As for Trump, war in fact has not "happened". Beside the silly nothing attack on an essentially unstaffed Syrian runway that was warned
ahead of time, Trump has attacked no one.
He talks a lot to placate Jews, but talk is not action. Obama?
A true war monger who bombed & bombed, & bombed.
yet here these monkeys are screaming about 'leftist' Tulsi because she wants Medicare
for all, instead of a ripoff system that enriches a few corporate parasites while we foot
the bill
Sorry, I haven't seen anyone on this thread complain about Medicare-for-all. You must have
this website confused with Conservative Treehouse or something.
@Tired of Not Winning Tulsi Gabbard won't because She is waging Democratic Party race war
against the Historic Native Born White American Working Class Majority .Tulsi Gabbard would
massively increase the H1b L1b Visa Program .she is already courting the Hindu "American"
Democratic Party Voting Bloc ..
@Robert Dolan I believe you've summed it up well. I haven't voted in a "national"
election since W's first term because the ballot-box is a non-answer to the dilemma.
@Johnny Rottenborough Her positions on immigration disqualify her from consideration
regardless of how strong her foreing policy might be at this stage. Plus, she's made woke
statements on other social issues so in a lot of ways she's perhaps only slightly to the
right of Barack Obama with a non-interventionist foreign policy.
I had concerns about her ties to India and therefore Israel. But I doubt she would let Jews
or Israelis run the US like Trump does.
Trump has gathered the US Jewish vultures to handle his "deal of the century' ..and that
deal will be raping Palestine and as much of the ME as they can. Given the opportunity I
don't know whose throat I'd cut first probably the little girlie fop Kushner.
White House invites key Trump business allies to Bahrain forum in search for a Middle
East 'deal of the century' .. CNBC
[MORE]
The White House has invited some of President Trump's key business allies to an event in
Bahrain intended to kick-start the administration's long-awaited Middle East peace plan. The
Bahrain meeting will focus on the economic part of the "deal of the century," which has been
led by Jared Kushner. Tom Barrack, CEO of real estate investment firm Colony Capital, will be
heading to the event. Blackstone's Steve Schwarzman, BlackRock's Larry Fink and Goldman
Sachs' Dina Powell were also invited.
Tom Barrack, a loyal supporter of the president and the CEO of real estate investment firm
Colony Capital, will be heading to the event slated to start on June 25 at the Four Seasons
in Bahrain's capital, Manama.
"Tom is pleased to be a participant in a well organized forum for the purpose of advancing
the peace process in the Middle East," said his spokesman, Owen Blicksilver. "He has been a
lifelong advocate of economic prosperity being a foundation stone of hope for the entire
region especially its exploding young and largely unemployed population."
Blackstone CEO Steve Schwarzman, BlackRock CEO Larry Fink and Goldman Sachs' Dina Powell
are among the heavy hitters who have been invited to the gathering dubbed "Peace to
Prosperity," according to people familiar with the planning.
Schwarzman is likely to attend, one of the people said, while Fink will not be going due to
previous commitments, a separate source added. It's unclear whether Powell, a former deputy
national security advisor under Trump, will join the group.
Schwarzman is a top donor to Trump's reelection campaign. In 2017, he contributed $344,400
Trump's joint fundraising committee.
Blackstone, BlackRock and Goldman Sachs all have extensive ties to the Middle East, including
offices in Dubai, Riyadh and Tel-Aviv.
A senior administration official did not deny that Schwarzman, Fink and Powell were invited
to the forum.
The Trump White House and its associates have close ties to Bahrain. Reuters previously
reported that the administration was pursuing a nearly $5 billion sale of F-16 fighter jets
to island nation in the Gulf. The president's outside lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, landed a
security consulting contract with the country's Ministry of Interior, The Daily Beast
reported.
A team of White House officials led by Kushner has been attempting to bring Israeli and
Palestinian leaders to the negotiating table since the administration's earliest days. Last
month, the White House announced the Bahrain summit, which was described at the time as a
chance for attendees to "galvanize support for potential economic investments and initiatives
that could be made possible by a peace agreement," with a particular focus on
Palestinians.
Meanwhile, Palestinian business executives are turning down invitations to the event,
which Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has ripped.
"Trump's 'deal of the century' will go to hell, as will the economic workshop in Bahrain
that the Americans intend to hold and present illusions," Abbas said last week.
Kushner, in a recent interview with Axios, fired back at the Palestinian government, and
blamed the leadership for the loss of U.S. aid that was cut from the West Bank and Gaza.
"The actions we've taken were because America's aid is not entitlement. Right, if we make
certain decisions which we're allowed to as a sovereign nation to respect the rights of
another sovereign nation and we get criticized by that government, the response of this
president is not to say, 'Oh, let me give you more aid,'" Kushner said.
Representatives from wealthy Gulf states the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia will be
attending. Officials from Qatar are set to take part as well.
Barrack, who was the chairman of Trump's inaugural committee and is a grandson of Lebanese
immigrants, has a long history of attempting to make inroads in the Middle East, particularly
through advocating for business investments.
While Barrack is not running point on the Trump administration's efforts, he is still
deeply involved in the process. He authored a white paper for the administration titled "The
Trump Middle East Marshall Plan," which specifically mentions expanding U.S. and
international business opportunities there as a way to unite the region.
"... Trump's eunuchs are still guarding and serving their master I see. And their master is a psychopath who is getting ready to pardon the tough guy kind of psychopath he admires. Of course the Orange psychopath doesn't consider the fact that this kind of thing , just like the Iraqi prison tortures , incentivizes the commission of war crimes by our opponents and allies, and in doing so puts US service members at greater risk. ..."
Trump's eunuchs are still guarding and serving their master I see. And
their master is a psychopath who is getting ready to pardon the tough guy kind of psychopath
he admires. Of course the Orange psychopath doesn't consider the fact that this kind of thing
, just like the Iraqi prison tortures , incentivizes the commission of war crimes by our
opponents and allies, and in doing so puts US service members at greater risk.
Here's Trump's hero ..
"One day, from his sniper nest, Chief Gallagher shot a girl in a flower-print hijab who
was walking w/ other girls on the riverbank. She dropped, clutching her stomach, & the
other girls dragged her away."
A mass murderer according to Senior Seals: "Would order needless risks, to fire rockets at
houses for no apparent reason. He routinely parked an armored truck on a Tigris River bridge
& emptied the truck's heavy machine gun into neighborhoods on twith no discernible
targets."
"Platoon members said he spent much of his time in a hidden perch with a sniper rifle,
firing three or four times as often as other platoon snipers. They said he boasted about the
number of people he had killed, including women."
Two other snipers said, the chief shot an unarmed man in a white robe with a wispy white
beard. They said the man fell, a red blotch spreading on his back."
Gallagher ordered a hatchet & a hunting knife" before 2017 deployment. He texted the
man who made them (a Navy Seal veteran) shortly after arriving in Iraq: "I'll try and dig
that knife or hatchet on someone's skull!"
May 2017, a SEAL medic was treating a wounded 15 y/o Islamic State fighter. "He's mine,"
Gallagher said. "Gallagher walked up without a word and stabbed the wounded teenager several
times in the neck and once in the chest with his hunting knife, killing him."
He didn't even try to hide the murder of the 15 y/o. He brought other seals around minutes
later & took a photo over the body. Later, he texted the photo to a fellow SEAL in
California: "Good story behind this, got him with my hunting knife." https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/23/us/navy-seals-crimes-of-war.html
Now Trumpies bear in mind that Gallagher's own fellow Seals testified against him
that's how depraved this guy Trump is pardoning is.
Here's Gallagher if you live in a stand your ground state and run into him shoot the
bastard, he'll have his hunting knife on him so you can claim self defense.
"... It wasn't like this 15 years ago. The credibility of our establishment is at an end. ..."
"... A significant number of people are becoming aware of it. Enough to easily have a revolution succeed. We're well beyond the 15% threshold. ..."
"... Tried and true propaganda methods pioneered by Edward Bernays are no longer effective. If "Russian Collusion" was done in 1995, you'd be insane to believe it wasn't true. Now you're around 1/2 of the population. ..."
"... People forget, or are too young, to realize why the USSR collapsed in 1991. It wasn't because living conditions were intolerable, it's because the citizens of the USSR had no confidence or faith in their government and it hit a peak on December 26 of that year. ..."
"... You probably think people screaming expletives are real people, mostly they aren't, they are public relation systems – they are propagandists. They are designed to shut you up, you filthy anti-Semite, Assad loving, Communist, NeoNazi, Fascist ..."
"... Our ruling class has not changed, you have changed – for the better. ..."
"... Then Trump got elected, and it was pretty obvious that the standard channels of propaganda were no longer effective. ..."
"... They aren't titans. They are intelligence agency assets now and although they won't lose a single dime of market revenue, because they just lie about their market revenue and user base anyhow, they are becoming irrelevant and will become entirely irrelevant over time. ..."
"... You'd realize they are intelligence agency assets if you thought about it. How is it in the favor of Facebook or Twitter, to drive users off their platform, if they actually depended on actual users of their "service" to generate revenue? They don't make their money by peddling ads on their platforms. ..."
"Power is what makes 'reality' reality." Exactly. Power can cram a lie, repeated over and over, down our throats, e.g. the holocaust,
and it becomes a fact.
"I mean, come on you don't really believe that the global capitalist ruling classes are going to let Trump serve a second term,
do you?"
Why not? They let him serve a first, didn't they?
Mr. Hopkins is one of my favorites here. But when it comes to President Trump, I'm afraid that he's not cynical enough. Washington
politics -- including the supposedly emerging pursuit of those Swampsters who really did meddle in the 2016 election and since
-- are a puppet show to channel and harmlessly blow off dissent, another part of the Official Reality.
The powerful are not arguing with us. They are not attempting to win a debate about what is and isn't "true," or what did
or didn't "really" happen. They are declaring what did or didn't happen. They are telling us what is and is not "reality,"
and demonstrating what happens to those who disagree.
Yup. In short, they are attempting to gas-light us.
The "reality" that the power elites are "creating" has another, more common name – it's called propaganda.
If anyone should be familiar with propaganda, it should be any western citizen, because that's all they have been hearing throughout
their lives – incessant stream of propaganda.
The beauty of it is that they are not even aware of it. The great unwashed think that they have been told the truth. And that's
the main difference between truth and propaganda.
If you accept some miserable, unimaginative 2 cents worth of fabrication as "truth", then it ceases to be a propaganda and
becomes the "truth". And that's the main purpose of propaganda – to become the official "truth".
Truth – the way is understood in the west – is nothing more than propaganda that has succeeded.
I'm a misanthrope. It's obvious to me that tyranny, poverty and war (unnecessary suffering) proceed directly from human nature.
It's the "problem of evil" if you will. People are stupid and they suck. And they think they are so fucking smart and righteous.
Have you heard this one? Man is God's highest creation. Well la tee da!
And the worst of the lot are the ruling class. They get to be the ruling class precisely by being the worst of the lot. Or
did you think they just work harder than you? I'm not going to write a book. Why bother. But if I did the title would be The
Scum Also Rises .
Power is what makes "reality" "reality." Not facts. Not evidence. Not knowledge. Power.
Those in power, or aligned with those in power, or parroting the narratives of those in power, understand this (whether consciously
or not). Those without power mostly do not, and thus we continue to "speak truth to power," as if those in power gave a shit.
They don't.
The powerful are not arguing with us. They are not attempting to win a debate about what is and isn't "true," or what did or
didn't "really" happen. They are declaring what did or didn't happen. They are telling us what is and is not "reality," and demonstrating
what happens to those who disagree.
not really C J!!
power is not what makes reality.
if it was hillary would be president.
what makes social and ideological reality that is a reality without a physical form or mathematically measurable is the ..control
of opinion .
without the control of opinion governments come and go. traditionally those in power also controlled opinion. now its a bit
more involved than owning a newspaper or a network as those in power discovered to their great dismay when the clinton crime family
was walloped at the polls in 2016.
they are doing all they can to ensure this does not happen in 2020. the jury is still out on that one.
gore vidal wrote many years that history is merely the agreed upon facts .another way of saying the control of opinion.
having raw power as used by our increasingly intellectually enfeebled ruling class just isn't enough anymore. the social media
titans are trying furiously to use censorship in the run up to november 2020 to try ans get it right ..LOL this time.
the problem for rulers in advanced societies face is . the misdirection of the masses into approved channels is becoming harder
to implement. yes, they don't give a damn what us proles think and now the same goes for us regarding them.
watching this farce is very entertaining, much better than the flotsam and jetsam hollywood spews forth to distract us.
Just think about the reaction to the "It's okay to be white" posters. Media, institutions and politicans are all condemning it
as being white nationalist propoganda when it was a joke, but it doesn't matter the 'reality' or causation of the posters because
they, as described by C.J, cram it down the unconscious class of people who just lap it up.
They have made it synonymous with propoganda just as the circle game as been turned into another dogwhistle. If you are not
accepting and acceding to their ideals you are retrogressive, you must accept the truth as they profess as ultimate reality or
you will be smeared, fired, harassed, assaulted and denied any place in the world. Looking at these people's reactions confirm
that they are totally enthralled, subjectivity to the narrative is complete.
No it hasn't. The result of this propaganda has been to entirely discredit our media, our intelligence agencies, our justice
system, our political system, and the mafia that controls them all.
Repeat a lie a million times and it becomes truth, but only when people can only hear that lie and nothing else.
Who here believes Assad was gassing his people? Who here believes Qaddafi was about to cause a humanitarian crisis? Who here
believes Hussein worked with bin Laden to take down the world trade centers, and had a secret weapons of mass destruction program?
Who here believes Juan Guaido is the legitimate ruler of Venezuela? Who here believes Iran just attacked a bunch of ships and
is a threat to the United States? Who here believes Russia got Trump elected?
It wasn't like this 15 years ago. The credibility of our establishment is at an end.
What the author doesn't realize is that we've always had propaganda that we accepted as undisputed fact. We've always been
lied to this way. What the author is actually complaining about, not realizing it, is that people are now becoming aware of it.
A significant number of people are becoming aware of it. Enough to easily have a revolution succeed. We're well beyond the 15%
threshold.
Tried and true propaganda methods pioneered by Edward Bernays are no longer effective. If "Russian Collusion" was done
in 1995, you'd be insane to believe it wasn't true. Now you're around 1/2 of the population.
Trust me, it's a lot less scary now, than it was 20 years ago, when nearly everybody believed any ridiculous story handed out
by the government. I wonder how many people actually realized the Bush administration was lying, while they were lying? I did,
and it was pure misery to be in that position and it was astonishing and very frightening.
Power is what makes "reality" "reality." Not facts. Not evidence. Not knowledge. Power.
Knowledge is power. You have an infinite amount of knowledge in front of you right now. I am glad to see so many people make
use of it.
People forget, or are too young, to realize why the USSR collapsed in 1991. It wasn't because living conditions were intolerable,
it's because the citizens of the USSR had no confidence or faith in their government and it hit a peak on December 26 of that
year.
Loosing confidence in your criminal oligarchy and it's minions? Wonderful, it's a step in the right direction.
This post-Orwellian, neo-McCarthyite mass hysteria is not going to stop
Yes it will. You just aren't aware of who will eventually end it. We all will, not the people producing it.
You probably think people screaming expletives are real people, mostly they aren't, they are public relation systems –
they are propagandists. They are designed to shut you up, you filthy anti-Semite, Assad loving, Communist, NeoNazi, Fascist
There's a reason these "people" won't actually discuss anything with you in depth, it's because an AI assisted program can't
really think. The purpose of the programs are to keep you silent, they don't represent the actual population in any form.
Our ruling class would not resort to this, if their position was solid and not threatened.
Our ruling class has not changed, you have changed – for the better.
Those without power mostly do not, and thus we continue to "speak truth to power," as if those in power gave a shit. They
don't.
Oh?
Why the censorship on Facebook and Twitter then?
They didn't care before, when they didn't think it made any difference for people to freely communicate. The Internet, after
all, was just something a FEW people used, and they didn't use it to learn anything. What people said didn't matter, it didn't
change anything.
Then Trump got elected, and it was pretty obvious that the standard channels of propaganda were no longer effective.
the social media titans are trying furiously to use censorship in the run up to november 2020
They aren't titans. They are intelligence agency assets now and although they won't lose a single dime of market revenue,
because they just lie about their market revenue and user base anyhow, they are becoming irrelevant and will become entirely irrelevant
over time.
You'd realize they are intelligence agency assets if you thought about it. How is it in the favor of Facebook or Twitter,
to drive users off their platform, if they actually depended on actual users of their "service" to generate revenue? They don't
make their money by peddling ads on their platforms.
Do you know what drug companies and defense contractors advertise on television "news"? It's not because they are trying to
find buyers for their products, it's to keep the "news" from ever reporting negatively on them, it's a bribe. If you never see
an advertisement on Facebook for, I dunno, Raytheon, does that mean they don't pay for "advertisement" there? Facebook's accounting
ledger is opaque.
"the problem for rulers in advanced societies face is . the misdirection of the masses into approved channels is becoming
harder to implement. "
Absolutely.
As CJ points out, there are two variations on reality -- the ideological & the material (ie his chair, your screen).
As you note, paraglider, these two realities are coming into ever sharper contradiction. At some point elite lies (ideology or
propaganda) become so out of sync with lived, material reality that average people start to notice -- sometimes called a naked
emperor moment.
Sadly, our elites are totally expert in "spinning" reality (they make the Nazis or USSR look like mere amateurs). It will probably
take a massive breakdown in material reality (ie economic circumstances) for enough people to wake up.
Mr. Hopkins is one of my favorites here. But when it comes to President Trump, I'm afraid that he's not cynical enough.
Washington politics -- including the supposedly emerging pursuit of those Swampsters who really did meddle in the 2016 election
and since -- are a puppet show to channel and harmlessly blow off dissent, another part of the Official Reality.
Exactly correct. This is internecine back biting, Kabuki theater or as you say puppet show. We'll see how many are brought
to justice from the AG Barr investigations .my quess .none.
From the fascism in Italy link: "populist glorification of Mussolini's WWII regime is contaminating Italy's culture and politic."
So populism CONTAMINATES. As written by ARIAL DAVID FROM TEL AVIV. How long did it take me to look that up? About 30 seconds.
Because my mind is not CONTAMINATED by the Jewstream media, social media, video games, professional sports, and blind adherence
to ideologies.
"'Putin-Nazis' narrative is our new 'reality.'" Just divorce yourself from the sick Western society that you are living in
and you won't have to say "our." You can keep going to your Western job and live in your Western town, but mentally you can know
that you are us and they are them. And teach your children this truth, too.
@Richard Wicks Great post!
But, back in March 2003, it wasn't "pure misery" for me. I just knew that I was an intellectual oasis in an intellectual desert.
And apparently so were you.
Man, we need to get this guy into one of the camps to disabuse him of these foolish ideas.
Think of "reality" as an ideological tool a tool in the hands of those with the power to designate what is "real" and what
isn't . Power is what makes "reality" "reality." Not facts. Not evidence. Not knowledge. Power.
Wait, he gets the real "reality." But that's not good, he's only supposed to buy the reality, not see it for what it is. Get
him to the camp, tout de suite!
I mean, come on you don't really believe that the global capitalist ruling classes are going to let Trump serve a second
term, do you?
I figured that sly Mr. Putin was going to work our electoral sytem into knots and get himself elected POTUS, because his puppet,
Mr. Trump, has utterly failed in carrying out his mission.
But, back in March 2003, it wasn't "pure misery" for me.
It was terrible, I thought we were going into a fascist society. It never occurred to me we were actually in one at the time
and I was only just then becoming aware of it.
I just knew that I was an intellectual oasis in an intellectual desert.
I wouldn't go that far. I just had built up enough cognitive dissonance that I was forced to think about what was actually
going on finally. It's a laborious process to go through all you think you know and when you run into two conflicting beliefs,
eliminate at least one of them.
And here's the kicker, I was Silicon Valley, California at the time. I'm an electrical engineer. Lots of smart people here,
supposedly. I was forced to question my very sanity when I found myself in disagreement with nearly everybody around me and I
am by no means the most brilliant engineer in Silicon Valley.
Now millions of people are going through the process.
There's a desperate attempt to get us all back into our little cages and make us all trust whatever the official propaganda
is again, but once you become aware of the situation, you never will go back. You've heard the saying there's nobody more fanatical
than the converted? Anybody that has gone through the process to realize their government incessantly lies to them, they spread
it, and there's too many people to just kill off or imprison to stop it.
@Richard Wicks Beautiful,
Mr. Wicks. I don't believe you're correct, but I love the sentiment; usually the assholes win, and that's just how it unfortunately
goes. Go it the other way–your way, and I'm totally on your side.
@Richard Wicks You are
so very correct; my disagreement with you, Sir, is the thought we little peeps can CHANGE anything.
Now, on 9/11, I was awake but groggy, dig? I remember telling someone that DAY that this will culminate in WWIII, and she said
to me, AND I quote–"Good, and them little dot-headed MFers need to DIE!"
Facepalm. All is lost, thought I, and moved to Belize. Never had that dissonance problem cuz my dad was the domestic-terrorist
type and never had ANY faith in this country (duly passed down), but I've watched people wake up, and they're not at ALL happy
about it. Doesn't happen very often, but when it DOES, an axe-handle to the face would have done less damage.
Oddly, peeps in other countries got our number. MEMORIZED like no tomorrow and on speed-dial! Most Americans don't realize
that, but it's a fact carved in solid granite and has been since I became aware of it in 1979. Mexico, Canada, Scotland, England,
France, Guatemala, Belize. They hate us so bad that here I am, back in the good ol' US of A, mostly cuz I don't like being a TARGET
for everybody else's righteous hatred.
Love it or leave it ain't really a viable option anymore and HASN'T been for some time.
You know, despite the inundation, I have never ever heard regular people talking about Russiagate. I think we have finally come
to the point where the majority of regular people actually don't give a damn. Which is as it should be.
@WorkingClass sadly working
class our society is intrinsically geared toward allowing sociopathic personalities rise to the top in every profession. though
they constitute barely a few percent of any given population their lack of empathy, remorse and an ability to mimic healthy human
behavior gives them an enormous advantage in climbing the corporate, military and political ladders.
once in control they become public symbols for those young to aspire to reinforcing the cycle.
its not that humans are evil per se, it is that human nature never changes from one millenium to another and in a system that
rewards sociopathic behavior you wind up with a clinton (both), a bush junior, a cheney, bolton, pompeo, brennan, comey, zuckerberg
and countless incompetent generals, politicans and corporate ceo's male and female and voila .
predatory capitalism where looking out for number 1 is the only goal.
fortunately these people are also myopic and in their greed and avarice for power they kill the goose that lays their eggs
always thinking its they who are smarter than the game they play.
look east for the next great improvements in health, medicine, science of all kinds and a 1000 and 1 other achievements not
yet born to the betterment of human kind.
the west is spent, it's finished, at least for the next few centuries as hope, vision, optimism, confidence and a can do attitude
migrates to asia.
@WorkingClass It's more
about being truthophiles than misanthropes.
Common human nature has the very same earmarks at all levels, the ones in the top echelon are a magnifying mirror of what's
below, and there is no other way they would be up there doing what they do if most of the other people weren't akin.
In other words, the average mainstream account of either World War is to truth as either the average testimony of a divorcing
wife to a divorce court or the reasons she'll give to her pleading husband when he asks why her resolution to break-up.
Just for one example.
Then since people hold beliefs about themselves far removed, if not opposite, to reality, they look at they élite and tbink:
what a bad lot, 'tis people really aren' t the people I wan to be governed by. But then they are ever governed by people like
that -- nor would they let any people unlike that govern.
@Cyrano They are propagandized
the most who think they are propagandized the least. I came to this "reality" some 68+ years ago in my first year of Catholic
high school!
Yet such BLM propaganda is psychological projection, as all negroes need exterminated, and for a good reason. There is no way
to live peaceably with the pests, any more than you can live with an infestation of rattlesnakes in your house, as Paul Kersey
well documents.
I do agree to the certain extent. Ideology is introduced into population by a certain part of the population.
The ideology is successful if it becomes prevalent public opinion of the majority of the population.
But that is not a reality. it becomes reality if all population is acting in accordance with aims of that ideology. But still
that ideology must go through o lengthy testing period in order to prove that acting accordingly with that ideology is beneficial
to all people.
jewish authoritarians believe that they can dictate "reality" to the goyim that reality is the collective will of the jewish
people. And when they had complete control of the sources of information, they could spew endless propaganda and they were rarely
called on it.
How times have changed!
Logos is rising, and TRUTH is leaking out. The Sanhedrin has lost control of the goyim and is feverishly trying to get it back.
When do parents stop having the responsibility and right to "teach their children the truth?" When your children are self-supporting?
Or have children of their own?
Part of the pernicious agenda of the destruction of the family is the total marginalization of elders. They may not be wise
or even particularly virtuous, but they've been around the block a time or two.
Whether you child is 4 or 40, teach them the truth.
About that 4 – or 14- year old: teaching them lies in school is child abuse. Cramming holohoax ed. into your child is intentional
infliction of emotional distress. Neither (((Randi Winegarten))) nor ADL nor US Congress has a greater right to decide what your
child should be taught than do you, his parent.
If you love you children, skip the soccer game and raise your voice at the school board meeting.
The result of this propaganda has been to entirely discredit our media, our intelligence agencies, our justice system, our political
system, and the mafia that controls them all. it was facts..
Things like Wikileaks and Julian Assange and all of the whistle blowers in jail or in graves throughout the world today who
individually made the decision to risk their freedom, to give if they must, the balance of their lives and their own futures,
in order to uphold in reality, the dreams and ideologies embodied, in the such as the 1688 glorious revolution, the human rights
embodied, not in the Constitution of the USA [COUS, 1789], but in the Declaration of Independence by the British Colonist against
British Colonial corporate rule, and in the French Revolution in (1790?), and in the UN declaration on human rights, that honesty,
integrity, and adherence to human rights are the foremost consideration in the design and implementation of governments every_where
and that humanity has the right to expect their governments to serve them equally, and not to become or to be used as conduits
to make a very few wealthy at the expense of the balance of us .
These concepts, that those who are the governed, should govern those who are the governors.. were to these whistle blowers,
elements, required and expected by the masses to be implicit in our constitutions, and in the operations of the governments such
constitutions outlined and in the activities of those who have imposed on the public trust, to attain positions which allows them
to lead and manage our societies. And when these concepts of duty to humanity were found [by those few, who because of their skill
were hired and given privilege of access to perform for their nations leaders] to be lacking, such persons were by virtue of circumstance
duty bound to an authority much greater than a nation state, its laws or its leaders, his duty was to humanity, and that duty
required that the misdeeds of the few be revealed to the masses no matter the personal sacrifice.
And when these few talented persons of conscious, came upon evidence, they knew, the world out side of secret government did
not know about, they became soldiers in the universal army of humanity, and like good soldiers they exposed the criminal, corrupt
and illicit goings on in the civil governments and those tainted with the dirty filthy hands of such corrupt governments.
It was not just whistle blowers and misleading or highly wrongfully purposed propaganda that exposed them, it was the methods
used: secret governments, secret government agencies to spy on us, secret courts, allowing private owned media and technology
corporations to control the nation dialog and access to information, and requiring each member of the masses to carry personal,
picture ids, reducing government agency access to a person-less website and the like. Nothing about government or those who use
it, has been of benefit to the governed since 1913..in America and I suspect the people in every nation can identify when the
bandits of the fruits of their societies were redirected to the bandits.
The left isn't entirely wrong, democracy really is slipping away. The world is becoming more authoritarian with every election.
It's isn't because of Putin, it's because of democracy is founded on an outdated myth–that humans are or should be equals.
That was never going to last. Good riddance.
Straight on, and you are not the only one in this thread.
A reality show, as most of the mass humanoids can grasp. All of the elites beyond redemption, and society selected out any-one
to replace them. Edward Dutton. The few bootstapped to the end of the graph, to the right at nil, zero, in less then a generation.
Psychopathy has a group secondary effect.
No more cathedrals for now, just crowing on a pile of dung. Hopkins cannot shed his value system, his profession are as outdated
as the horse in times of tractors and trucks.
@Jason Liu It was founded
on the fake myth that election by voting is democracy. Only millionaires, usually supported by billionaires, can become congressmen
with the rarest exceptions. Is that democracy?
The ancient Athenian Upper House was representative, but its members were elected by lot. No second term. Democracy.
The nearest we could conceivably come to that in the modern world is the dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e.the rule of the
people. Never yet achieved.
The powers that be want us off balance and they want us going down argumentative rabbit holes. Don't get angry with them or be
frightened of them. Laughter is the best defense against their hateful and self-serving propaganda.
@Jason Liu Equality does
not mean each person must throw the football 35 yards, no less and no more.. Democracy means everyone has an equal right to engage
and equal right to access the place, knowledge and training needed to throw the football as far as he or she is capable and wishes..
so long as the toss of the football does not interfere with the life or activity of another. Rules that resolve conflicts must
somehow accommodate all needs.
In-side of the nation state container, democracy means no ruler can claim by authority of the nation state that such ruler
is empowered to make a rule (law) if such law infringes on the human rights of others.. and that every nation state and its rulers
must stand guard and insist that the conditions of economics, sociability, cultural, language, and race are honored, keep safe,
and adequately maintained, as if each such fraction were the majority or better. Equality is an obligation of government, it is
different from democracy..
democracy is a government created by the governed, maintained for the benefit of the governed, and audited and regulated by the
governed.
Democracy implies a rule making structure that collectively might become a government but government or whatever fails the
test of democracy when it cuts out or denies the right of each element in its governed masses access to the same knowledge, provisions
to get loans and to engage in enterprises as everyone else, Still the democratic structure (governments) fail the test of democracy
if both the structure and the operation of the governing structure fails to include each element "within its governed masses"
in the establishment of every law, in every decision and in every event. in other words a government with actors that operate
behind closed doors cannot be democratic, governments that spy on its people can be democratic iff it exposes to everyone, all
its spying discovers, but it cannot be democratic if it denies any information to anyone of those it governs or if it allows others
within the democracy to lie with impunity.
despite the inundation, I have never ever heard regular people talking about Russiagate.
Most people will not touch a sensitive subject. Russiagate with its security implications is too scary to discuss. So
they don't.
At the height of Christian power, most people also didn't discuss how exactly did 'virgin' Mary' have a demigod baby – too
sensitive. The fact that it is not discussed makes it into a convenient taboo subject – as C. Hopkins says 'immutable truth'.
A few more years of this and the West will resemble a scared, docile, labor colony with ambitious people tripping over themselves
to prove their loyalty.
@Richard Wicks I saw a
youtube by Thomas Sheridan from one of those goofy Alternative View conferences and he asked the audience (parallel to Reagan
asking the voters in the 1980 president election debates "are you better off now than you were four years ago?"):
if you could go back to the world as it was in August of 2001 would you choose to do so?
Most of his presentation was forgettable but that little snip was not. What they call this in the head hoodlum strategy conferences
is unintended consequences. The Be Powers had complete control of the narrative in August of 2001. Same in 2002. They have
pissed it all away. Every milliliter of it.
Western propaganda machine was better 20 -30 years ago . Now it is just a propagandistic and insulting machine , and it is so
dumb and coarse that it has lost contact with reality . Most modern journalists in Europe and the US lack a mimimum of culture
, dignity and good taste . They have lost so much prestige that many people interprets them the other way around , ex. if they
insult say Putin , Trump etc that probably means that Putin and Trump are not too bad for their people , and if they praise someone
, say Merkel that probably means that the old fat lady is a despot . So the " press " ( propaganda ) has abused so much , has
lied so much that few people takes it very seriously .
@Fool's Paradise to a
point , a delusional , psychotic , out of reality " power " , goes crazy and self destroys . The loss of touch with reality is
crazines , dementia .
Quod Jupiter vult perdere dementat prius
( Those who the gods want to destroy , first they make them mad )
Psychological studies have shown that a group of people will go along with practically any old crap (even to the extent of
disbelieving their own eyes) in the absence of any contradictory voices. Even one "rebel" in the group is usually enough to break
the spell. The Facebook, Twitter and general media censorship is evidently intended to erase all the contradictory voices.
Unfortunately the herd instinct is still very strong in the human race and should not be under-estimated. It is easy for those
with well developed critical faculties to overestimate those of the general population.
The powerful ones trying to make people believe a false reality are really only fooling the very gullible these days. No amount
of censorship is going to solve that problem for them. Since 911 their credibility has taken a nosedive and isn't going to recover
before it crashes completely. Even flat Earthers have more credibility and they know it.
"... So there was about a year between the FBI's first notification of some potential problems with the DNC network and then that information getting on -- getting on Wikileaks. . ..."
"... Ten months? So the FBI notified the DNC of the hack and it was not until 10 months later that you had any details about what was actually going on forensically on their network? ..."
"... Whoa!!! How did the FBI know that the DNC was "hacked" in August 2015? The FBI does not have a "Hacking Monitor" team that sits around identifying attempted hacks within the United States. There are only a few possibilities that would account for the FBI's knowledge of this alleged event: ..."
"... The FBI had an informant who was connected to the hacker. ..."
"... The FBI had an informant inside the DNC that alerted them to the hack. ..."
"... The FBI had an active counter intelligence investigation of the person/group that was conducting this hack. ..."
"... Regardless of how the FBI learned of the August 2015 hack, the natural and unanswered question is why did the FBI not act to warn the DNC and to pursue the person or entity responsible for the hack? ..."
"... Given that Comey admitted that the FBI did not have forensic access to any of the DNC computers or network, how could Comey know that the same person/entity was responsible for the unspecified activities in August 2015? ..."
The American public, with the enthusiastic support of most of the media, have been sold a
big lie about Russian meddling in the 2016 Presidential election. As I have noted in previous
pieces, there was nothing new nor special nor unique about Russian espionage activities inside
the United States, including information and computer network operations, in 2016. Russian
espionage and covert action against the United States has been a matter of fact since 1919. And
the United States has been similarly engaged in such activities inside Russia.
What made 2016 unique and dangerous is that US law enforcement and intelligence agencies
decide to use the ruse of Russia as a weapon to attack the candidacy and then the Presidency of
Donald Trump. This attack entailed creating evidence that Trump was soliciting Russian
assistance and the creation of the myth that Russia hacked the DNC. Anyone who challenges this
lie is branded immediately as a Russian stooge and puppet of Putin.
We have very specific evidence regarding the fraud perpetrated about the so-called "hacking"
of the DNC. Bill Binney and I have posted two pieces--one showing that
the forensic evidence in the metadata of the DNC documents posted at Wikileaks could not
have transferred over the internet and one showing that
Guccifer 2.0 was the creation of some person or entity other than Russia.
There is another piece of public evidence that provides circumstantial evidence that the
intelligence community case against Russia with respect to the allegation of extraordinary
meddling is a fabrication. I am referring to the January 2017 Intelligence Community
Assessment-- Assessing Russian Activities and
Intentions in Recent US Elections .
I want to focus on one of the more important Key Judgements:
We assess with high confidence that Russian military intelligence (General Staff Main
Intelligence Directorate or GRU) used the Guccifer 2.0 persona and DCLeaks.com to release US
victim data obtained in cyber operations publicly and in exclusives to media outlets and
relayed material to WikiLeaks.
It is natural and understandable to assume that this judgment is based on real intelligence
held in classified channels. But it is not. Bill Binney and I have shown that Guccifer 2.0 was
a fabrication. But we also have the testimony of NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers and FBI
Director Jim Comey on the "evidence" underlying the so-called hack. This key judgment was based
on unverified and uncorroborated information provided by CrowdStrike.
Three months after the ICA was published, Rogers and Comey testified before the House
Intelligence Committee. They were asked specifically about the proof that the DNC was hacked by
the Russians. Here is the key part of that testimony:
HURD: So there was about a year between the FBI's first notification of some potential
problems with the DNC network and then that information getting on -- getting on Wikileaks.
COMEY: Yes, sir.
HURD: Have you been able to -- when did the DNC provide access for -- to the FBI for your
technical folks to review what happened?
COMEY: Well we never got direct access to the machines themselves. The DNC in the spring of
2016 hired a firm that ultimately shared with us their forensics from their review of the
system.
HURD: Director Rogers, did the NSA ever get access to the DNC hardware?
ROGERS: The NSA didn't ask for access. That's not in our job...
HURD: Good copy. So director FBI notified the DNC early, before any information was put on
Wikileaks and when -- you have still been -- never been given access to any of the technical or
the physical machines that were -- that were hacked by the Russians.
COMEY: That's correct although we got the forensics from the pros that they hired which --
again, best practice is always to get access to the machines themselves, but this -- my folks
tell me was an appropriate substitute.
HURD: The -- at what point did the company and the DNC use -- share that forensic
information to you?
COMEY: I don't remember for sure. I think June. I could be wrong about that. . . .
HURD: So -- so that was -- how long after the first notification of -- that the FBI did of
the DNC?
COMEY: Ten months.
HURD: Ten months? So the FBI notified the DNC of the hack and it was not until 10 months
later that you had any details about what was actually going on forensically on their
network?
COMEY: That's correct, assuming I have the dates about right. But it was -- it was some
months later.
Neither the FBI nor the NSA got "direct access to the machines". Their words, not mine.
And where did the forensic data come from? CrowdStrike.
So much for the intelligence community relying on real intelligence. They were given
information from a cyber security firm that waited at least 5 weeks before allegedly taking
steps to disconnect the DNC computers from the infected network.
Even in an unclassified setting, Admiral Rogers and Director Comey could have stated that
they had other information from intelligence sources that corroborated the CrowdStrike
findings. They did not testify to this. This is more than curious, it is a tacit admission that
they were relying on information from a firm hired by the Democrats and the law firm working
for Hillary Clinton. This is not an independent, reliable source of information.
This fact alone does not prove the lie. But when considered as part of the entire evidence
available, including the metadata from the documents posted at Wikileaks, the case for
fabrication grows.
UPDATE--Thanks to "H" for spotting the obvious. I missed this completely but "H" is quite
correct that this statement by Comey raises more disturbing questions. Let's go to the
transcript:
HURD: Copy, I apologize. Director Comey, when was the first time the FBI notified the DNC of
the hack? Roughly.
COMEY: I think august of 2015.
HURD: And was that prior to information being leaked to -- being sent on -- put on
WikiLeaks?
COMEY: Yes the -- the first Russian directed releases where middle of June of the next year
by D.C. leaks and this Guccifer 2.0 persona and then that was followed by Wikileaks. So about a
year. A little less than a year really.
HURD: So there was about a year between the FBI's first notification of some potential
problems with the DNC network and then that information getting on -- getting on Wikileaks.
. . .
HURD: So -- so that was -- how long after the first notification of -- that the FBI did of
the DNC?
COMEY: Ten months.
HURD: Ten months? So the FBI notified the DNC of the hack and it was not until 10 months
later that you had any details about what was actually going on forensically on their
network?
COMEY: That's correct, assuming I have the dates about right. But it was -- it was some
months later.
HURD: Knowing what we know now, would the FBI have done anything different in trying to
notify the DNC of what happened?
COMEY: Oh Sure.
HURD: What -- what -- what measures would you have done differently?
COMEY: We'd have set up a much larger flare. Yeah we'd have just kept banging and banging on
the door, knowing what I know now. We made extensive efforts to notify, we'd have -- I might
have walked over there myself, knowing what I know now. But I think the efforts we made, that
are agents made were reasonable at the time.
Whoa!!! How did the FBI know that the DNC was "hacked" in August 2015? The FBI does not
have a "Hacking Monitor" team that sits around identifying attempted hacks within the United
States. There are only a few possibilities that would account for the FBI's knowledge of this
alleged event:
The FBI had an informant who was connected to the hacker.
The FBI had an informant inside the DNC that alerted them to the hack.
The FBI had an active counter intelligence investigation of the person/group that
was conducting this hack.
Regardless of how the FBI learned of the August 2015 hack, the natural and unanswered
question is why did the FBI not act to warn the DNC and to pursue the person or entity
responsible for the hack? Moreover, how did the FBI know that the person/entity doing the
hack of the DNC in August 2015 was the same one responsible for the May 2016 "theft" of emails?
Given that Comey admitted that the FBI did not have forensic access to any of the DNC
computers or network, how could Comey know that the same person/entity was responsible for the
unspecified activities in August 2015?
I am wondering what Larry Johnson and others make of this recent analysis by b at Moon of
Alabama: to wit, that there is an existing log of communications between Obama administration
and Putin government the publication of which would clearly exculpate Russia from these
accusations?
This information would seem to corroborate and help explain the utterly ridiculous
chain-of-evidence collapse and timeline at the basis of Comey's "investigation" of the DNC
leak.
I read some of the McCabe testimony and recall an interchange in which he said the FBI was
determined to get hold of two laptops (which had been used to sort the emails into those
deemed relevant to the investigation, and those not) and that the FBI would not close the
investigation until they had. It came up as an example of FBI/DoJ differences - FBI wanting
to subpoena the Doj preferring to negotiate for access - in the end they did get the units by
negotiation. What I did not see (I did not read all of it) was any mention of efforts to get
the servers.
My question to all is has anyone else seen anything on attempts to get the servers or, if
none, why the same effort had not been made?
Here's a question that seemingly goes unanswered when anyone writes about the hack of the
DNC servers - How did the FBI even know the DNC servers had been compromised in the first
place? How did they know to warn them?
The DNC is a private corporation NOT a government entity. Are all registered political
corporations tethered to a governmental system by law or by contract that the FBI is
monitoring? If so, what is that system and why?
If not, then how did the FBI even know their system was compromised?
The reading public is left to assume a lot in how the FBI even knew to warn them a full 10
months before the FBI's vendor, Crowdstrike, released its hack report.
Larry, can you or Bill answer this question? If they have a contract of some sort for
monitoring the corporate political parties great. It'd be nice to know. But if they don't,
then how in the world did they know to warn them?
Larry, would you along the lines give some thought to the argument, considering time
frames between FBI alert as published and discovery. Ideally what additional "IT
intelligence" may have resulted from cutting servers and whatever connected periphery, at, at
what point in time?, off and analyze it.
Funny that! I can't imagine the DNC, let alone any other private entity, permitting the
FBI to monitor their systems daily activity 365 days out of the year. If they do, well, how
stupid of them. If they don't then indeed St Comey may have told the biggest lie of them all.
Crazy.
I sincerely look forward to reading what you learn.
You're doing great work here and I thank the good Colonel for hosting you.
At this point I wonder if it's even true that the DNC was hacked in August, 2015. Could a
false accusation have been planted to serve as a component of the plan to subvert Trump's
candidacy/presidency?
The DNC/Clinton campaign's "Pied Piper" strategy to promote Trump, Cruz and Carson
(thinking either of them would be the easiest for her to defeat) was launched in April,
2015 . Cruz announced in March, 2015. Carson in May, 2015. Trump announced in June 2015.
How did the DNC/Clinton camp even know Carson would be a candidate a month before his
announcement, or that Trump would be a candidate 2 months before he announced?
I hope AG Barr and US Att'y. Durham are digging deeply.
"... Second, it is equally obvious that the pension reform is profoundly unpopular and that Putin's personal credibility has never recovered from this political fiasco. ..."
As predicted, Putin's popularity takes a nosedive.
This fact is not often discussed in the West, but the popularity of Vladimir Putin is in decline and has been so ever
since, following his reelection, he kept more or less the same (already unpopular) government while that government very
clumsily attempted to "sneak by" undetected a pension reform. Now
the
latest numbers are in
, and they are not good: only 31.7% of Russians trust Vladimir Putin, that is his worst
score in 13 years! His score last year was 47.4% (by the way, Shoigu got only 14.8%, Lavrov got 13%, and Medvedev got
7.6%. These are terrible scores by any measure!)
I have been warning about this for a while now (see
here
,
here
,
here
,
here
,
here
,
here
and
here
),
and we now can try to understand what happened.
These are the faces most Russians are fed-up with
First, it is obvious that millions of Russians (including yours truly) were deeply disappointed that Putin did not
substantially reorganize the Russian government following his triumphant reelection last year. Putin himself is on
record saying two things about that: first, that he is generally happy with the performance of the government and,
second, that he needs an experienced team to implement his very ambitious reform program (more about that in a moment).
Second, it is equally obvious that the pension reform is profoundly unpopular and that Putin's personal credibility has
never recovered from this political fiasco.
Third, and this is the most overlooked and yet most interesting development – there is a
real
opposition
gradually emerging in Russia. What do I mean by "real"? First, I mean not a "pretend opposition" as we see in the
Russian Duma (which is a glorified rubber-stamping parliament). Second, I mean a
patriotic
opposition
which is neither financed nor controlled by Mr. Soros nor the CIA nor any of their innumerable offshoots. The problem is
that this opposition has many severe problems and that it completely fails to present an alternative to the current "Putinocracy."
Here we need to state something significant: Putin is indeed a "liberal," at least in terms of economic policies. When
he says that he is happy ("on the whole") with the performance of the Medvedev government, it is because he probably is.
Furthermore, while Putin apparently likes to listen to folks like Glaziev, he is clearly wary of implementing the more
"social" (or even "socialist") measures advocated by Glaziev and his supporters.
But if Putin is a liberal, is there really a 5
th
column
acting behind the scenes?
This being said, it would be wrong to jump to the primitive conclusion that there is no 5th column (or no "Atlantic
Integrationists") in the Kremlin or in the
Staraya
Square
. In fact, it would be impossible for such a 5th column not to exist. How do we know that? For three very
basic reasons
The AngloZionist leaders of the Empire absolutely
hate
Putin.
Those pretending to deny that are either terminally dishonest or fantastically stupid. Either way, they are wrong.
Simply put: by the late 1990s Russia as a country was quasi-dead, finished, something like the Ukronazi occupied
Ukraine today. Not only has Putin single-handedly saved Russia from collapse, he turned Russia into a power capable
of defeating the plans of the Empire not only in Syria but also in the rest of the Middle-East. Yes, all the
accusations of "collusion" and "hacking" are verbal
prolefeed
for
TV-watching intellectual midgets, but that does not mean that the leaders don't have real, factual and logical
reasons to fear Putin and Russia. They do. And they are doing everything in their power to weaken Russia and
overthrow Putin.
Most of the Russian elites achieved their elite status in the 1990s (some even in the 1980s!), and many of them hate
Putin for putting a stop to the total robbery bonanza which made it possible for these people to not only come to
power but also make a killing financially. As for the so-called "economic block" of the Russian government, it is
entirely made up of what I loosely call the "WTO/IMF/WB/etc." -Types: folks who sincerely endorse the so-called "
Washington
Consensus
." The very
least
one
could say about these folks is that their worldview and ideology are not only totally alien to traditional Russian
values, they are in fact
profoundly
anti-Russian
. For these folks to become the 5
th
column
is the most natural development.
The system which Putin inherited was one deeply integrated with the AngloZionist sphere of financial, economic,
political, and social influence. While western sanctions (and general political shortsightedness) severed many of
these ties (thank you to the Neocons for their life-saving sanctions and, especially, hysterically Russophobic
propaganda!), there are very few cases (if any) of Russians severing such ties. Some believe that Putin sincerely
wanted Russia to join NATO or/and the EU. I don't agree with that, but whether he was sincere or not, the fact is
that Putin did initially try to court the West. The fact that the West was too stupid to see the fantastic
opportunity this situation was offering is yet another powerful testimony of how incompetent western "area
specialists" have become.
Putin's 2007 "
Munich
speech
" should have acted like an urgent wake-up call to the leaders of the West, but they lacked the brains and
courage to listen to what Putin was saying. The same thing happened during
Putin's
2015 speech at the UNGA
. To his internal Russian audience, Putin bluntly said, when asked if the West was trying
to "humiliate" Russia: "
They
do not want to humiliate us, they want to subdue us, solve their problems at our expense
." Personally, I believe
that Putin, as any other officer of the First Main Directorate (foreign intelligence) of the KGB always understood that
the West was a mortal enemy of Russia and that this has been true for at least 1000 years. Thus I think that it would be
naive to believe that Putin ever "trusted" the West. But did he deliberately give that impression for as long as it
could serve his purposes? Yes, absolutely. Now, this period is clearly over.
The one thing which the Russian 5th column cannot really be is any type of "opposition." First, the 5th column is
internal
to
the Kremlin, to the Presidential Administration, to the "United Russia" party and to all the other centers of power in
Russia. This forces the opposition to
pretend
loyalty
to Putin while sabotaging every effort at re-sovereignizing Russia (admittedly a tough task since Russia has been ruled
by foreign elites since at least the times of Peter I).
I am often asked why Russia Today and Sputnik publish what can only be called "trash" or even anti-religious
propaganda on their websites. The answer is simple: there are plenty of folks at RT and Sputnik (especially in the
teams operating their websites as opposed to the actual broadcasts) who are pure products of the AngloZionist
worldview and who love some sleazy sex story almost as much as they love to bash or ridicule the Orthodox church.
While there are plenty of terrific people in both of these media, there are also plenty who secretly would love
Russia to return to the 1990s or become a kind of "Poland" east of the Ukraine. This is also why these outlets make
a strenuous effort not to discuss the Israel lobby in the West (not only the USA), but they also stay away from any
discussion of 9/11. I know for a fact that any mention of the real events of 9/11 is strictly forbidden by some
"bigshot" editors in Moscow as my own interviews were censored that way.
One word of caution here: there are millions of Russians abroad, and many of them are what are now called "
вырусь
"
(vy-roos') in Russia: folks who might speak Russian, and even visit Russia from time to time, but who have completely
lost their "Russian-ness" and whose worldview does not extend beyond wishing that Russia was more like the US or
Germany. They think of Russia as "rashka," and they absolutely hate any genuine manifestation of Russian culture,
spirituality, traditions or religion. Some of them will join the Alt-Right movement and pretend that the racist
categories and ideology used by this movement have some traction in Russia (they don't). Some will try to impersonate
Orthodox Christians. In truth – they are still a pure product of the AngloZionst Empire. Some of them have clearly found
gainful employment in the Russian media where they keep a vigilant watch for any signs that the ideological dogma of the
West (we all know what they are) are being debunked by Russian patriots. These "vyroos" are yet another manifestation of
the Russian 5
th
column.
What about the official opposition to Putin?
Ukie Defense Minister Poltorak photoshops himself before an exploding Kremlin Tower. This is the kind of
nonsense that gets even Duma members angry.
Then there is the "official" Duma opposition, which is more or less a joke. Some Russian MPs are better than others, but
even the comparatively better ones are entirely unable to present a real challenge to the Russian government (we saw
that painfully illustrated by the Duma vote on the pension reform).
As for the ordinary people, most of them probably still trust Putin in foreign policy issues, but many are also getting
genuinely fed-up with an arrogant and condescending ruling elite which couldn't care less about the plight of regular
people and who live in an ivory tower of wealth, arrogance and power.
There is also a gradual realization that Putin in generally being "too soft" on the Empire and not proactive enough in
defense of Novorussia against the Ukronazi junta in Kiev. Sadly, I have to agree with them. Yes, there has been some
progress: the Russian ban on exporting energy to the Ukraine and the deliverance of Russian passports to the people of
Novorussia. Furthermore, the Kremlin has expressed precisely
zero
approval
of Zelenskii's election and, apparently, this was the correct move since even though the policies of Poroshenko were
categorically rejected by an absolute majority of the Ukrainian people, all the signs are that Zelenskii has already
wholly caved to the demands of the "collective West". Unless this trend towards "more of the same, only worse" is
reversed, it is likely that the popular pressure in Russia to be far more proactive against the regime in Kiev will only
increase. In recent months the Duma has been under pressure from the public to take a more forceful reaction to the
events in the Ukraine, and this has had some, albeit limited, effect: the totally lame Duma has now become a little bit
less lame, but not by much.
So what is this new opposition to Putin?
How our power structure is organized: This is the Kremlin. Putin is there. He issues decrees and ensures that
the Constitution is upheld; This is the Government building. Medvedev is there and he loots the budget of our
country; This is the Duma, Volodin is there and he adopts anti-popular laws; This is the Federation Council,
Matvienko and she approves anti-popular laws..
The distinguishing characteristic of this new opposition to Putin is that it sees itself as the truly patriotic segment
of Russian society. These are folks who blame Putin for being weak, indecisive and corrupt (including personally). They
believe that Putin sits on the top of an oligarchic pyramid which only pays lip service to Russian national interests,
but which in reality is interested only in wealth, power and influence. Frankly, much of their argumentation about
Putin's alleged corruption is based on a mix of disinformation and personal hatred for Putin himself. In contrast,
however, their arguments that Putin is too weak or indecisive are based on a completely rational and fact based analysis
of the events which have marked Putin's presidency. After all, the man has been in power for 20 years or so, he has
enjoyed tremendous bureaucratic power and the full support of the vast majority of the population. How then can he (or
his supporters) blame it all on a "bad system" or the power of a 5
th
column
whose existence some don't believe in in the first place?
On the right is a typical opposition "Internet poster".
While I personally don't agree with this point of view, I have to recognize that it is not self-evidently absurd or
solely based on propaganda. In other words, they do have a point, and much of their criticism is valid.
Alas, much of it is not, and that mix loses a lot in credibility when 50% of it is fact-based and logical, and 50% is
not.
What is even worse is that these patriots regularly find themselves in the same camp as the Soros/CIA -funded folks whom
the patriots claim to hate, but whose arguments they often recycle (about the personal corruption of Putin, for
example).
The other major weakness of this new opposition is that it lacks any kind of leader. This is why I did not bother
listing the names of the main representatives of this opposition: for most of those who will read this article, these
names will mean nothing.
Finally, this new patriotic opposition seems to lack an original worldview: much of their argumentation boils down to
"it was better in the Soviet era" (they typically tend to overlook how bad things indeed were, at least since the
1980s!).
So where do we go from here? Will Russia ever have a real, vibrant, opposition?
My short personal answer is, yes, Russia will have such an opposition. Here is why:
The official Duma opposition is both useless and hopeless.
The Soros/CIA financed opposition is discredited beyond rescue.
The 5
th
column
is fundamentally a fraud, and most Russians hate it.
The current "patriotic" opposition will grow due to the policies of the Russian government, and they will probably
learn from their mistakes.
Crises often (almost always) generate the appearance of new leaders
I hope that the newly emerging "patriotic" opposition will focus its wrath not on Putin as a person, but on the mistakes
of the Russian government wherever they happen: President, Prime Minister, Minister or below – it should not matter. If
the opposition succeeds in focusing on issues rather than venting its rage against specific individuals, then real
changes become possible, including personnel changes.
The latest opinion polls show that
all
the
members of the government are suffering from falling ratings, not just the Atlantic Integrationists. If this trend
maintains itself, the Eurasian Sovereignists will have a powerful incentive to cut their ties with the Atlantic
Integrationists. Who knows, maybe Medvedev and the so-called "economic block of the government" will be shown to the
door? If not, then the plunge in the polls will most likely continue, and social unrest becomes a real possibility.
Just full of unsupported assertions and with an overall lack of understanding about how countries, especially big ones,
really work.
Citing some polling on individual figures is meaningless without context and without any details about the nature of the
poll. Faked and/or incompetent polling happens regularly in the West."Push"polls are a constant gimmick used in the Western
press to give authority to assertions.
Any poll which shows Shoigu getting only 14.8%, Lavrov getting 13%, is highly suspect on its face. These are genuinely
super-capable individuals in their jobs, quite beyond any norms for performance.
When something smells as bad as this article, sharp reader knows something is going on beyond the mere speculations of an
amateur affairs analyst.
Показатель одобрения деятельности Президента стабилен и находится в рамках сформировавшегося коридора: по среднему
значению с 13 по 19 мая он составил 65,8%.
2. Svobodnaya Pressa (SP) is not exactly unbiased (or competent) source. Enough to take a look at such odious figures as
Boldyrev hanging out there as a "columnist";
3. Russia's so called opposition (mainly left) committed suicide when went with Grudinin. In general, they don't have anyone
of required scale and competence to even approach a vicinity of Putin.
In many respects, SP's commentaries are merely a tempest in the cup.
I suspect if they distrust Putin the diabolical skripal RT interview with the "Russian Tourists" may have something to do
with it.
Tens of Millions of Russians were ready to believe the false flag CIA / M16 setup explanation, then suddenly two idiots
popup, on national tv who just scream military / security looking men to say they were there just to check out the
cathedral spire of course!
I mean what a shot in the foot who authorised that interview to happen?
Some believe that Putin sincerely wanted Russia to join NATO or/and the EU. I don't agree with that, but whether he was
sincere or not, the fact is that Putin did initially try to court the West. The fact that the West was too stupid to see
the fantastic opportunity this situation was offering is yet another powerful testimony of how incompetent western "area
specialists" have become.
Washington would never allow Russia to join EU/NATO. Russia's too big for them to control, and might even end up partly or
entirely co-opting these organizations. No, their original plan was to break Russia up into bite-sized pieces first, then
induct those little statelets into NATO (or some other Washington-dominated 'alliance'), then use them to surround and
harass China–all very similar to the way they're using Ukraine and the Caucasus to surround and harass Russia now.
@JOHN CHUCKMAN
finance infrastructure and vital
technology that's what sovereign countries do but Russia is still acting like a banana republic
Neither Putin nor anyone in government has actual control of the central bank which 'independence' [read
absolute
dependence
on the global finance cabal] is enshrined in the US-written Yeltsin era 'Constitution'
Now there are some that argue that Putin has done very well just to fend off the ongoing financial, economic and
informational war on Russia and perhaps Russia cannot simply make a clean break with the western financial octopus with
which it's entangled
I don't know there may be some truth to that a gradual weaning off may be the more
prudent
course and
Putin is nothing if not that
When Putin gets too old to govern, the next leader will not come from some "vibrant" opposition. The next leader will be
hand-picked by Putin, same way he was hand-picked by that fool Yeltsin – the best move he ever made.
There are people in Russia who still believe that trying to emulate the western "democratic practices" will win them
approval and love from the west.
Leave the winning of love and approval by the west to the lesser Slavs like the Polaks and the Ukrainians.
The only time west "approved" of Russia was when they were doing self-harm to themselves – like in 1980's and 90's.
Listen carefully, my dear Russians – west will never love you, and it's not your fault. So don't worry about it. Choose your
own path and forget about "democracy". The whole thing is a sham anyway.
I am often asked why Russia Today and Sputnik publish what can only be called "trash"
Some of it is unbearable
these outlets make a strenuous effort not to discuss the Israel lobby in the West (not only the USA), but they
also stay away from any discussion of 9/11.
Ordinance fired in that direction is likely to ricochet – they do a pretty good job of demolishing the Ukraine
narrative; the "White Helmets" the Venezuelan coup etc as presented by MSM and they have taken a lot of punishment
for that already. And, yes
there are plenty of folks at RT and Sputnik (especially in the teams operating their websites as opposed to the
actual broadcasts) who are pure products of the AngloZionist worldview
There are people in Russia who still believe that trying to emulate the western "democratic practices" will win
them approval and love from the west.
Let's put it this way–the strata of these people is extremely narrow (thin) and consists mostly of human freaks such
as kreakls and some parts of large urban centers office plankton. Majority of Russians have no illusions about the
West anymore. The talk about new Iron Curtain (this time erected by Russia) is not just idle talk–Western degeneracy
is an issue which needs to be dealt with.
I agree. The "evidence" Saker bases this essay upon is extremely weak. He would have been better off just leaving it out and
writing the article as an opinion piece. But then, he would have been subject to evidence based rebuttals . I generally
look forward to his articles. This was disappointing
Why does Putin go along with neo-liberal economic policies in Russia? Does Putin really believe in this bullshit? I don't
believe Jeffrey Sachs with a very guilty conscience .. believes in this bullshit anymore.
@Yuritarasovych
iet ( or maybe sarcastic Soviet nostalgic) opposition, are sanguine about
the profound danger posed by China. As if not ironic enough, the right-wing Republicans in DC after two years
jostling with Trump, also came to the same conclusion.
5) The traditionalist "racist" "white guard" "monarchist" "Russian soul" type of right wing romanticist patriotic
opposition seems to suffer collective cognizance retardation when it comes to China. Saker has the same blindness.
This is also interesting. They are more stupid than their ancestors back in 1916-1918. The White Guards were as
responsible for Tsar's downfall as Miliukov or Kerensky. The cultural gene pool of Russia today will not permit the
growing up of people such as Lenin and Trotsky, with corresponding political genius, resoluteness, or maniacal
cruelty, whatever. Woe, tragedy of Russia.
Difficult to say how much of that difference is due to the sort of human resources they have to work with though. Xi
certainly had a much more functional country to start with. Overall, both of them are clearly among the most
impressive leaders currently on the world stage.
The Russian people should thank God for Putin and as an American I thank God that Putin has checkmated the unholy trinity ie
the US and Israel and Britain and their terrorists ie the CIA and the Mossad and MI6 the creators of AL CIADA aka ISIS and
all the offshoots thereof.
Putin is the only zane head of state on the world stage and has saved Syria from the Christian killing terrorists created
and supplied and supported by the unholy trinity.
The decline in Putin's approval rating/popularity is an emphatically positive indicator for Russia that the existential or
at least catastrophic geopolitical threats to Russia have greatly lessened.
Putin has been The Indispensable Man since he came to power. He is (very) roughly akin to FDR. While Putin is a vigorous
man, he strikes me as understanding that effecting the peaceful transition of power Russia-style, will seal his legacy as
among the greatest Russian rulers.
Get ready, because you and your readers' heads are about to pop . . . . .
Israel and Netanyahu were and remain in a similar position. The Obama Administration attempted to regime change Netanyahu
out. That's why Israelis engaged in a similar Better Safe Than Sorry the election previous to this most recent one.
Netanyahu barely won last time because the external threat had passed with the passing of the Obama Administration. The only
reason he got as close as he did to winning and being able to form a government is because of POTUS Trump.
The Saker lost his way due to what some call Trump Derangement Syndrome. I've never like that catchall term because the more
intelligent suffering from it are really blinded by resentment toward the man.
Whether any of you wish to get your minds around it or not, he has become the most powerful POTUS in modern memory. He
represents a sharp break from the increasingly Figurehead/Pitchman POTUSs of the post-Cold War period.
It's long past the time for you and many of your readers to knock it off with the folding table in front of the student
union wackiness. What with all the shouting about "AngloZionists" and such.
The Post-Cold War quarter century is effectively over. China won it, hands down. Now POTUS Trump is sufficiently able to
exercise his Article II powers for even those blinded by resentment toward him to see the US Sovereign is once again
coherently pursuing its geopolitical and geo-economic objectives.
For Russia/Putin this is altogether positive. The US Sovereign is now "Deal Capable/Ready."
Apr 24, 2019 Rand Corporation: How to Destroy Russia
Force the adversary to expand recklessly in order to unbalance him, and then destroy him. This is not the description of a
judo hold, but a plan against Russia elaborated by the Rand Corporation, the most influential think tank in the USA. With a
staff of thousands of experts, Rand presents itself as the world's most reliable source for Intelligence and political
analysis for the leaders of the United States and their allies.
I hope that the newly emerging "patriotic" opposition will focus its wrath not on Putin as a person, but on the mistakes
of the Russian government wherever they happen: President, Prime Minister, Minister or below – it should not matter.
If
the opposition succeeds in focusing on issues rather than venting its rage against specific individuals, then real
changes become possible
, including personnel changes.
Constructive political processes & loyal opposition are also entirely missing in the USA.
Putin did not save Russia single-handedly. He was and is just a front man for the forces that did. Even in the 1990s, when
the traitors ruled the roost in Russia, a lot of people sabotaged traitorous actions of Yeltsin and associated oligarchs.
Many ballistic missiles that were supposed to be destroyed were actually kept intact, as well as many production facilities.
That's the only reason Russia came back from what appeared to be the ashes so quickly. It is very likely that Putin's rise
to power was organized by those same forces. The most plausible scenario is that patriotic forces in the military, KGB, and
police, seeing wholesale treason of Yeltsin and his cronies, presented Yeltsin with an ultimatum: either he resigns,
promotes Putin, and gets off the hook, or he gets overthrown and prosecuted for his crimes. Remember, the first act of Putin
as president was a wholesale pardon to Yeltsin and his family.
As to real opposition, Russia does need it. Not the traitorous scum like Navalny, Khodorkovsky, or late unlamented Nemtsov,
but people with integrity, whose prime goal is to advance the interests of Russia, rather than just steal as much as
possible. What the Saker ignores is the fact that many Russian oligarchs (I have no illusions about them: they are all
mega-thieves, many are murderers, like Khodorkovsky) learned the lesson of Ukrainian oligarchs: unless you have a strong
state behind you, other equally unscrupulous thieves will gladly steal your loot.
Realistically, serious patriotic opposition in Russia will emerge when smarter oligarchs join forces with those fighting for
social justice. At that point leaders with savvy and charisma that makes them competitive with Putin have a chance of
emerging. The opposition won't be knights in shining armor, but it will be a force capable of ruling the country, not just
criticizing the rulers. The first task is really hard, whereas any moron can criticize any government making valid points.
The policies of the opposition must be mostly middle-of-the-road: limit (but not eliminate) the opportunities for oligarchs'
thievery, and use un-stolen resources to improve the life of ordinary people. In foreign policy, it must keep a strong
stance against the crumbling Empire, joining tactical alliances with all other anti-imperial countries and forces.
@FB
nd the loot ending up in England, Israel,
and who knows where else.
The fundamental strength of Chinese is that the country is being run by some kind of patriotic committee, that is
highly fault-tolerant and immune to Western interference. Xi, like his predecessors, is just a colorless bureaucrat:
the
Long
March
continues, no matter who the front man is. It is unthinkable that the Committee would allow someone like
Yeltsin to run the country into the ground.
Putin & Co need to solve this fundamental weakness of Russia, while he is in power and can change things. Otherwise,
another Yeltsin might come along and wreck everything.
Russia under Putin is the largest grain exporter in the world and has been for the last 3 years and if anyone doubts how
Russian farming has entered the modern world just go to youtube and watch the videos on Russian agriculture.
Seeing how Ukies managed to turn Ukraine into a pile of shit, the only way to profit by their advice is this: listen to what
they have to say and do exactly opposite.
@Avery
iullina just for a start then a number of banks and large private
corporations need to be nationalized after 20 years of playing the capitalist game, it's clear that this is a losing game
Russia needs to make domestic capital available for things like massive infrastructure projects and big science and
technology PCR, probably the most astute Russia 'hand', certainly on the subject of economics, has stated the obvious fact
that these kinds of state investments [and printing the money to do that] are NOT inflationary I keep waiting for that to
happen, but it never does I think Putin is just too cautious for big moves like that
The question is whether anyone else will do it ?
Russia needs an Uncle Joe but they just don't build them like that anymore
None of the commentators seem to show the minimum awareness of the following, except for the gent from Tennessee: 1)
the acute psychological and practical importance of social justice for basic Russian people; and 2) harder to define
to basically totalitarian capitalistic essence of the Chinese model. This shows that A) you all live in the West, B)
with good justification are obsessed with a burning hatred against Globalist empire and you throw out the baby of
basic values of freedom and democracy with the dirty water western propaganda bubble, C) you guys don't realize how
many Russians live on 30,000 rubles a month, and you project this rosy hope on them ( saving the west with
"conservative Christian values and brave fight against globalism" ) 4) you guys have not the remotest ideas of how
the petty Chinese traders and their large state corporations behave, when the other party happens to be not some
tall Anglo-saxon / Jew whose white asses the Chinese want to lick. Many Russians on the other hand, have such first
hand experience.
Yeltsin was legitimate until 1993. Dismissing vice president and shooting, and then dismissing parliament was
unconstitutional. He became even less legitimate when his goons falsified two rounds of the presidential elections in 1996,
making him a winner of the vote he lost badly. In addition, he was an alcoholic, traitor, and mega-thief. End of story.
"... Second, it is equally obvious that the pension reform is profoundly unpopular and that Putin's personal credibility has never recovered from this political fiasco. ..."
As predicted, Putin's popularity takes a nosedive.
This fact is not often discussed in the West, but the popularity of Vladimir Putin is in decline and has been so ever
since, following his reelection, he kept more or less the same (already unpopular) government while that government very
clumsily attempted to "sneak by" undetected a pension reform. Now
the
latest numbers are in
, and they are not good: only 31.7% of Russians trust Vladimir Putin, that is his worst
score in 13 years! His score last year was 47.4% (by the way, Shoigu got only 14.8%, Lavrov got 13%, and Medvedev got
7.6%. These are terrible scores by any measure!)
I have been warning about this for a while now (see
here
,
here
,
here
,
here
,
here
,
here
and
here
),
and we now can try to understand what happened.
These are the faces most Russians are fed-up with
First, it is obvious that millions of Russians (including yours truly) were deeply disappointed that Putin did not
substantially reorganize the Russian government following his triumphant reelection last year. Putin himself is on
record saying two things about that: first, that he is generally happy with the performance of the government and,
second, that he needs an experienced team to implement his very ambitious reform program (more about that in a moment).
Second, it is equally obvious that the pension reform is profoundly unpopular and that Putin's personal credibility has
never recovered from this political fiasco.
Third, and this is the most overlooked and yet most interesting development – there is a
real
opposition
gradually emerging in Russia. What do I mean by "real"? First, I mean not a "pretend opposition" as we see in the
Russian Duma (which is a glorified rubber-stamping parliament). Second, I mean a
patriotic
opposition
which is neither financed nor controlled by Mr. Soros nor the CIA nor any of their innumerable offshoots. The problem is
that this opposition has many severe problems and that it completely fails to present an alternative to the current "Putinocracy."
Here we need to state something significant: Putin is indeed a "liberal," at least in terms of economic policies. When
he says that he is happy ("on the whole") with the performance of the Medvedev government, it is because he probably is.
Furthermore, while Putin apparently likes to listen to folks like Glaziev, he is clearly wary of implementing the more
"social" (or even "socialist") measures advocated by Glaziev and his supporters.
But if Putin is a liberal, is there really a 5
th
column
acting behind the scenes?
This being said, it would be wrong to jump to the primitive conclusion that there is no 5th column (or no "Atlantic
Integrationists") in the Kremlin or in the
Staraya
Square
. In fact, it would be impossible for such a 5th column not to exist. How do we know that? For three very
basic reasons
The AngloZionist leaders of the Empire absolutely
hate
Putin.
Those pretending to deny that are either terminally dishonest or fantastically stupid. Either way, they are wrong.
Simply put: by the late 1990s Russia as a country was quasi-dead, finished, something like the Ukronazi occupied
Ukraine today. Not only has Putin single-handedly saved Russia from collapse, he turned Russia into a power capable
of defeating the plans of the Empire not only in Syria but also in the rest of the Middle-East. Yes, all the
accusations of "collusion" and "hacking" are verbal
prolefeed
for
TV-watching intellectual midgets, but that does not mean that the leaders don't have real, factual and logical
reasons to fear Putin and Russia. They do. And they are doing everything in their power to weaken Russia and
overthrow Putin.
Most of the Russian elites achieved their elite status in the 1990s (some even in the 1980s!), and many of them hate
Putin for putting a stop to the total robbery bonanza which made it possible for these people to not only come to
power but also make a killing financially. As for the so-called "economic block" of the Russian government, it is
entirely made up of what I loosely call the "WTO/IMF/WB/etc." -Types: folks who sincerely endorse the so-called "
Washington
Consensus
." The very
least
one
could say about these folks is that their worldview and ideology are not only totally alien to traditional Russian
values, they are in fact
profoundly
anti-Russian
. For these folks to become the 5
th
column
is the most natural development.
The system which Putin inherited was one deeply integrated with the AngloZionist sphere of financial, economic,
political, and social influence. While western sanctions (and general political shortsightedness) severed many of
these ties (thank you to the Neocons for their life-saving sanctions and, especially, hysterically Russophobic
propaganda!), there are very few cases (if any) of Russians severing such ties. Some believe that Putin sincerely
wanted Russia to join NATO or/and the EU. I don't agree with that, but whether he was sincere or not, the fact is
that Putin did initially try to court the West. The fact that the West was too stupid to see the fantastic
opportunity this situation was offering is yet another powerful testimony of how incompetent western "area
specialists" have become.
Putin's 2007 "
Munich
speech
" should have acted like an urgent wake-up call to the leaders of the West, but they lacked the brains and
courage to listen to what Putin was saying. The same thing happened during
Putin's
2015 speech at the UNGA
. To his internal Russian audience, Putin bluntly said, when asked if the West was trying
to "humiliate" Russia: "
They
do not want to humiliate us, they want to subdue us, solve their problems at our expense
." Personally, I believe
that Putin, as any other officer of the First Main Directorate (foreign intelligence) of the KGB always understood that
the West was a mortal enemy of Russia and that this has been true for at least 1000 years. Thus I think that it would be
naive to believe that Putin ever "trusted" the West. But did he deliberately give that impression for as long as it
could serve his purposes? Yes, absolutely. Now, this period is clearly over.
The one thing which the Russian 5th column cannot really be is any type of "opposition." First, the 5th column is
internal
to
the Kremlin, to the Presidential Administration, to the "United Russia" party and to all the other centers of power in
Russia. This forces the opposition to
pretend
loyalty
to Putin while sabotaging every effort at re-sovereignizing Russia (admittedly a tough task since Russia has been ruled
by foreign elites since at least the times of Peter I).
I am often asked why Russia Today and Sputnik publish what can only be called "trash" or even anti-religious
propaganda on their websites. The answer is simple: there are plenty of folks at RT and Sputnik (especially in the
teams operating their websites as opposed to the actual broadcasts) who are pure products of the AngloZionist
worldview and who love some sleazy sex story almost as much as they love to bash or ridicule the Orthodox church.
While there are plenty of terrific people in both of these media, there are also plenty who secretly would love
Russia to return to the 1990s or become a kind of "Poland" east of the Ukraine. This is also why these outlets make
a strenuous effort not to discuss the Israel lobby in the West (not only the USA), but they also stay away from any
discussion of 9/11. I know for a fact that any mention of the real events of 9/11 is strictly forbidden by some
"bigshot" editors in Moscow as my own interviews were censored that way.
One word of caution here: there are millions of Russians abroad, and many of them are what are now called "
вырусь
"
(vy-roos') in Russia: folks who might speak Russian, and even visit Russia from time to time, but who have completely
lost their "Russian-ness" and whose worldview does not extend beyond wishing that Russia was more like the US or
Germany. They think of Russia as "rashka," and they absolutely hate any genuine manifestation of Russian culture,
spirituality, traditions or religion. Some of them will join the Alt-Right movement and pretend that the racist
categories and ideology used by this movement have some traction in Russia (they don't). Some will try to impersonate
Orthodox Christians. In truth – they are still a pure product of the AngloZionst Empire. Some of them have clearly found
gainful employment in the Russian media where they keep a vigilant watch for any signs that the ideological dogma of the
West (we all know what they are) are being debunked by Russian patriots. These "vyroos" are yet another manifestation of
the Russian 5
th
column.
What about the official opposition to Putin?
Ukie Defense Minister Poltorak photoshops himself before an exploding Kremlin Tower. This is the kind of
nonsense that gets even Duma members angry.
Then there is the "official" Duma opposition, which is more or less a joke. Some Russian MPs are better than others, but
even the comparatively better ones are entirely unable to present a real challenge to the Russian government (we saw
that painfully illustrated by the Duma vote on the pension reform).
As for the ordinary people, most of them probably still trust Putin in foreign policy issues, but many are also getting
genuinely fed-up with an arrogant and condescending ruling elite which couldn't care less about the plight of regular
people and who live in an ivory tower of wealth, arrogance and power.
There is also a gradual realization that Putin in generally being "too soft" on the Empire and not proactive enough in
defense of Novorussia against the Ukronazi junta in Kiev. Sadly, I have to agree with them. Yes, there has been some
progress: the Russian ban on exporting energy to the Ukraine and the deliverance of Russian passports to the people of
Novorussia. Furthermore, the Kremlin has expressed precisely
zero
approval
of Zelenskii's election and, apparently, this was the correct move since even though the policies of Poroshenko were
categorically rejected by an absolute majority of the Ukrainian people, all the signs are that Zelenskii has already
wholly caved to the demands of the "collective West". Unless this trend towards "more of the same, only worse" is
reversed, it is likely that the popular pressure in Russia to be far more proactive against the regime in Kiev will only
increase. In recent months the Duma has been under pressure from the public to take a more forceful reaction to the
events in the Ukraine, and this has had some, albeit limited, effect: the totally lame Duma has now become a little bit
less lame, but not by much.
So what is this new opposition to Putin?
How our power structure is organized: This is the Kremlin. Putin is there. He issues decrees and ensures that
the Constitution is upheld; This is the Government building. Medvedev is there and he loots the budget of our
country; This is the Duma, Volodin is there and he adopts anti-popular laws; This is the Federation Council,
Matvienko and she approves anti-popular laws..
The distinguishing characteristic of this new opposition to Putin is that it sees itself as the truly patriotic segment
of Russian society. These are folks who blame Putin for being weak, indecisive and corrupt (including personally). They
believe that Putin sits on the top of an oligarchic pyramid which only pays lip service to Russian national interests,
but which in reality is interested only in wealth, power and influence. Frankly, much of their argumentation about
Putin's alleged corruption is based on a mix of disinformation and personal hatred for Putin himself. In contrast,
however, their arguments that Putin is too weak or indecisive are based on a completely rational and fact based analysis
of the events which have marked Putin's presidency. After all, the man has been in power for 20 years or so, he has
enjoyed tremendous bureaucratic power and the full support of the vast majority of the population. How then can he (or
his supporters) blame it all on a "bad system" or the power of a 5
th
column
whose existence some don't believe in in the first place?
On the right is a typical opposition "Internet poster".
While I personally don't agree with this point of view, I have to recognize that it is not self-evidently absurd or
solely based on propaganda. In other words, they do have a point, and much of their criticism is valid.
Alas, much of it is not, and that mix loses a lot in credibility when 50% of it is fact-based and logical, and 50% is
not.
What is even worse is that these patriots regularly find themselves in the same camp as the Soros/CIA -funded folks whom
the patriots claim to hate, but whose arguments they often recycle (about the personal corruption of Putin, for
example).
The other major weakness of this new opposition is that it lacks any kind of leader. This is why I did not bother
listing the names of the main representatives of this opposition: for most of those who will read this article, these
names will mean nothing.
Finally, this new patriotic opposition seems to lack an original worldview: much of their argumentation boils down to
"it was better in the Soviet era" (they typically tend to overlook how bad things indeed were, at least since the
1980s!).
So where do we go from here? Will Russia ever have a real, vibrant, opposition?
My short personal answer is, yes, Russia will have such an opposition. Here is why:
The official Duma opposition is both useless and hopeless.
The Soros/CIA financed opposition is discredited beyond rescue.
The 5
th
column
is fundamentally a fraud, and most Russians hate it.
The current "patriotic" opposition will grow due to the policies of the Russian government, and they will probably
learn from their mistakes.
Crises often (almost always) generate the appearance of new leaders
I hope that the newly emerging "patriotic" opposition will focus its wrath not on Putin as a person, but on the mistakes
of the Russian government wherever they happen: President, Prime Minister, Minister or below – it should not matter. If
the opposition succeeds in focusing on issues rather than venting its rage against specific individuals, then real
changes become possible, including personnel changes.
The latest opinion polls show that
all
the
members of the government are suffering from falling ratings, not just the Atlantic Integrationists. If this trend
maintains itself, the Eurasian Sovereignists will have a powerful incentive to cut their ties with the Atlantic
Integrationists. Who knows, maybe Medvedev and the so-called "economic block of the government" will be shown to the
door? If not, then the plunge in the polls will most likely continue, and social unrest becomes a real possibility.
Just full of unsupported assertions and with an overall lack of understanding about how countries, especially big ones,
really work.
Citing some polling on individual figures is meaningless without context and without any details about the nature of the
poll. Faked and/or incompetent polling happens regularly in the West."Push"polls are a constant gimmick used in the Western
press to give authority to assertions.
Any poll which shows Shoigu getting only 14.8%, Lavrov getting 13%, is highly suspect on its face. These are genuinely
super-capable individuals in their jobs, quite beyond any norms for performance.
When something smells as bad as this article, sharp reader knows something is going on beyond the mere speculations of an
amateur affairs analyst.
Показатель одобрения деятельности Президента стабилен и находится в рамках сформировавшегося коридора: по среднему
значению с 13 по 19 мая он составил 65,8%.
2. Svobodnaya Pressa (SP) is not exactly unbiased (or competent) source. Enough to take a look at such odious figures as
Boldyrev hanging out there as a "columnist";
3. Russia's so called opposition (mainly left) committed suicide when went with Grudinin. In general, they don't have anyone
of required scale and competence to even approach a vicinity of Putin.
In many respects, SP's commentaries are merely a tempest in the cup.
I suspect if they distrust Putin the diabolical skripal RT interview with the "Russian Tourists" may have something to do
with it.
Tens of Millions of Russians were ready to believe the false flag CIA / M16 setup explanation, then suddenly two idiots
popup, on national tv who just scream military / security looking men to say they were there just to check out the
cathedral spire of course!
I mean what a shot in the foot who authorised that interview to happen?
Some believe that Putin sincerely wanted Russia to join NATO or/and the EU. I don't agree with that, but whether he was
sincere or not, the fact is that Putin did initially try to court the West. The fact that the West was too stupid to see
the fantastic opportunity this situation was offering is yet another powerful testimony of how incompetent western "area
specialists" have become.
Washington would never allow Russia to join EU/NATO. Russia's too big for them to control, and might even end up partly or
entirely co-opting these organizations. No, their original plan was to break Russia up into bite-sized pieces first, then
induct those little statelets into NATO (or some other Washington-dominated 'alliance'), then use them to surround and
harass China–all very similar to the way they're using Ukraine and the Caucasus to surround and harass Russia now.
@JOHN CHUCKMAN
finance infrastructure and vital
technology that's what sovereign countries do but Russia is still acting like a banana republic
Neither Putin nor anyone in government has actual control of the central bank which 'independence' [read
absolute
dependence
on the global finance cabal] is enshrined in the US-written Yeltsin era 'Constitution'
Now there are some that argue that Putin has done very well just to fend off the ongoing financial, economic and
informational war on Russia and perhaps Russia cannot simply make a clean break with the western financial octopus with
which it's entangled
I don't know there may be some truth to that a gradual weaning off may be the more
prudent
course and
Putin is nothing if not that
When Putin gets too old to govern, the next leader will not come from some "vibrant" opposition. The next leader will be
hand-picked by Putin, same way he was hand-picked by that fool Yeltsin – the best move he ever made.
There are people in Russia who still believe that trying to emulate the western "democratic practices" will win them
approval and love from the west.
Leave the winning of love and approval by the west to the lesser Slavs like the Polaks and the Ukrainians.
The only time west "approved" of Russia was when they were doing self-harm to themselves – like in 1980's and 90's.
Listen carefully, my dear Russians – west will never love you, and it's not your fault. So don't worry about it. Choose your
own path and forget about "democracy". The whole thing is a sham anyway.
I am often asked why Russia Today and Sputnik publish what can only be called "trash"
Some of it is unbearable
these outlets make a strenuous effort not to discuss the Israel lobby in the West (not only the USA), but they
also stay away from any discussion of 9/11.
Ordinance fired in that direction is likely to ricochet – they do a pretty good job of demolishing the Ukraine
narrative; the "White Helmets" the Venezuelan coup etc as presented by MSM and they have taken a lot of punishment
for that already. And, yes
there are plenty of folks at RT and Sputnik (especially in the teams operating their websites as opposed to the
actual broadcasts) who are pure products of the AngloZionist worldview
There are people in Russia who still believe that trying to emulate the western "democratic practices" will win
them approval and love from the west.
Let's put it this way–the strata of these people is extremely narrow (thin) and consists mostly of human freaks such
as kreakls and some parts of large urban centers office plankton. Majority of Russians have no illusions about the
West anymore. The talk about new Iron Curtain (this time erected by Russia) is not just idle talk–Western degeneracy
is an issue which needs to be dealt with.
I agree. The "evidence" Saker bases this essay upon is extremely weak. He would have been better off just leaving it out and
writing the article as an opinion piece. But then, he would have been subject to evidence based rebuttals . I generally
look forward to his articles. This was disappointing
Why does Putin go along with neo-liberal economic policies in Russia? Does Putin really believe in this bullshit? I don't
believe Jeffrey Sachs with a very guilty conscience .. believes in this bullshit anymore.
@Yuritarasovych
iet ( or maybe sarcastic Soviet nostalgic) opposition, are sanguine about
the profound danger posed by China. As if not ironic enough, the right-wing Republicans in DC after two years
jostling with Trump, also came to the same conclusion.
5) The traditionalist "racist" "white guard" "monarchist" "Russian soul" type of right wing romanticist patriotic
opposition seems to suffer collective cognizance retardation when it comes to China. Saker has the same blindness.
This is also interesting. They are more stupid than their ancestors back in 1916-1918. The White Guards were as
responsible for Tsar's downfall as Miliukov or Kerensky. The cultural gene pool of Russia today will not permit the
growing up of people such as Lenin and Trotsky, with corresponding political genius, resoluteness, or maniacal
cruelty, whatever. Woe, tragedy of Russia.
Difficult to say how much of that difference is due to the sort of human resources they have to work with though. Xi
certainly had a much more functional country to start with. Overall, both of them are clearly among the most
impressive leaders currently on the world stage.
The Russian people should thank God for Putin and as an American I thank God that Putin has checkmated the unholy trinity ie
the US and Israel and Britain and their terrorists ie the CIA and the Mossad and MI6 the creators of AL CIADA aka ISIS and
all the offshoots thereof.
Putin is the only zane head of state on the world stage and has saved Syria from the Christian killing terrorists created
and supplied and supported by the unholy trinity.
The decline in Putin's approval rating/popularity is an emphatically positive indicator for Russia that the existential or
at least catastrophic geopolitical threats to Russia have greatly lessened.
Putin has been The Indispensable Man since he came to power. He is (very) roughly akin to FDR. While Putin is a vigorous
man, he strikes me as understanding that effecting the peaceful transition of power Russia-style, will seal his legacy as
among the greatest Russian rulers.
Get ready, because you and your readers' heads are about to pop . . . . .
Israel and Netanyahu were and remain in a similar position. The Obama Administration attempted to regime change Netanyahu
out. That's why Israelis engaged in a similar Better Safe Than Sorry the election previous to this most recent one.
Netanyahu barely won last time because the external threat had passed with the passing of the Obama Administration. The only
reason he got as close as he did to winning and being able to form a government is because of POTUS Trump.
The Saker lost his way due to what some call Trump Derangement Syndrome. I've never like that catchall term because the more
intelligent suffering from it are really blinded by resentment toward the man.
Whether any of you wish to get your minds around it or not, he has become the most powerful POTUS in modern memory. He
represents a sharp break from the increasingly Figurehead/Pitchman POTUSs of the post-Cold War period.
It's long past the time for you and many of your readers to knock it off with the folding table in front of the student
union wackiness. What with all the shouting about "AngloZionists" and such.
The Post-Cold War quarter century is effectively over. China won it, hands down. Now POTUS Trump is sufficiently able to
exercise his Article II powers for even those blinded by resentment toward him to see the US Sovereign is once again
coherently pursuing its geopolitical and geo-economic objectives.
For Russia/Putin this is altogether positive. The US Sovereign is now "Deal Capable/Ready."
Apr 24, 2019 Rand Corporation: How to Destroy Russia
Force the adversary to expand recklessly in order to unbalance him, and then destroy him. This is not the description of a
judo hold, but a plan against Russia elaborated by the Rand Corporation, the most influential think tank in the USA. With a
staff of thousands of experts, Rand presents itself as the world's most reliable source for Intelligence and political
analysis for the leaders of the United States and their allies.
I hope that the newly emerging "patriotic" opposition will focus its wrath not on Putin as a person, but on the mistakes
of the Russian government wherever they happen: President, Prime Minister, Minister or below – it should not matter.
If
the opposition succeeds in focusing on issues rather than venting its rage against specific individuals, then real
changes become possible
, including personnel changes.
Constructive political processes & loyal opposition are also entirely missing in the USA.
Putin did not save Russia single-handedly. He was and is just a front man for the forces that did. Even in the 1990s, when
the traitors ruled the roost in Russia, a lot of people sabotaged traitorous actions of Yeltsin and associated oligarchs.
Many ballistic missiles that were supposed to be destroyed were actually kept intact, as well as many production facilities.
That's the only reason Russia came back from what appeared to be the ashes so quickly. It is very likely that Putin's rise
to power was organized by those same forces. The most plausible scenario is that patriotic forces in the military, KGB, and
police, seeing wholesale treason of Yeltsin and his cronies, presented Yeltsin with an ultimatum: either he resigns,
promotes Putin, and gets off the hook, or he gets overthrown and prosecuted for his crimes. Remember, the first act of Putin
as president was a wholesale pardon to Yeltsin and his family.
As to real opposition, Russia does need it. Not the traitorous scum like Navalny, Khodorkovsky, or late unlamented Nemtsov,
but people with integrity, whose prime goal is to advance the interests of Russia, rather than just steal as much as
possible. What the Saker ignores is the fact that many Russian oligarchs (I have no illusions about them: they are all
mega-thieves, many are murderers, like Khodorkovsky) learned the lesson of Ukrainian oligarchs: unless you have a strong
state behind you, other equally unscrupulous thieves will gladly steal your loot.
Realistically, serious patriotic opposition in Russia will emerge when smarter oligarchs join forces with those fighting for
social justice. At that point leaders with savvy and charisma that makes them competitive with Putin have a chance of
emerging. The opposition won't be knights in shining armor, but it will be a force capable of ruling the country, not just
criticizing the rulers. The first task is really hard, whereas any moron can criticize any government making valid points.
The policies of the opposition must be mostly middle-of-the-road: limit (but not eliminate) the opportunities for oligarchs'
thievery, and use un-stolen resources to improve the life of ordinary people. In foreign policy, it must keep a strong
stance against the crumbling Empire, joining tactical alliances with all other anti-imperial countries and forces.
@FB
nd the loot ending up in England, Israel,
and who knows where else.
The fundamental strength of Chinese is that the country is being run by some kind of patriotic committee, that is
highly fault-tolerant and immune to Western interference. Xi, like his predecessors, is just a colorless bureaucrat:
the
Long
March
continues, no matter who the front man is. It is unthinkable that the Committee would allow someone like
Yeltsin to run the country into the ground.
Putin & Co need to solve this fundamental weakness of Russia, while he is in power and can change things. Otherwise,
another Yeltsin might come along and wreck everything.
Russia under Putin is the largest grain exporter in the world and has been for the last 3 years and if anyone doubts how
Russian farming has entered the modern world just go to youtube and watch the videos on Russian agriculture.
Seeing how Ukies managed to turn Ukraine into a pile of shit, the only way to profit by their advice is this: listen to what
they have to say and do exactly opposite.
@Avery
iullina just for a start then a number of banks and large private
corporations need to be nationalized after 20 years of playing the capitalist game, it's clear that this is a losing game
Russia needs to make domestic capital available for things like massive infrastructure projects and big science and
technology PCR, probably the most astute Russia 'hand', certainly on the subject of economics, has stated the obvious fact
that these kinds of state investments [and printing the money to do that] are NOT inflationary I keep waiting for that to
happen, but it never does I think Putin is just too cautious for big moves like that
The question is whether anyone else will do it ?
Russia needs an Uncle Joe but they just don't build them like that anymore
None of the commentators seem to show the minimum awareness of the following, except for the gent from Tennessee: 1)
the acute psychological and practical importance of social justice for basic Russian people; and 2) harder to define
to basically totalitarian capitalistic essence of the Chinese model. This shows that A) you all live in the West, B)
with good justification are obsessed with a burning hatred against Globalist empire and you throw out the baby of
basic values of freedom and democracy with the dirty water western propaganda bubble, C) you guys don't realize how
many Russians live on 30,000 rubles a month, and you project this rosy hope on them ( saving the west with
"conservative Christian values and brave fight against globalism" ) 4) you guys have not the remotest ideas of how
the petty Chinese traders and their large state corporations behave, when the other party happens to be not some
tall Anglo-saxon / Jew whose white asses the Chinese want to lick. Many Russians on the other hand, have such first
hand experience.
Yeltsin was legitimate until 1993. Dismissing vice president and shooting, and then dismissing parliament was
unconstitutional. He became even less legitimate when his goons falsified two rounds of the presidential elections in 1996,
making him a winner of the vote he lost badly. In addition, he was an alcoholic, traitor, and mega-thief. End of story.
"... The Wall Street Crash in 1929 exposed the fragility and rottenness of much in the United States. Brexit may do the same in Britain. In New York 90 years ago, my father only truly appreciated how bad the situation really was when his boss said to him in a low voice: "Remember, when we are writing this story, the word 'panic' is not to be used." ..."
There is a story about an enthusiastic American who took a phlegmatic English friend to see the Niagara Falls.
"Isn't that amazing?" exclaimed the American. "Look at that vast mass of water dashing over that enormous cliff!"
"But what,"
asked the Englishman, "is to stop it?"
My father,
Claud Cockburn, used to tell this fable to illustrate what, as a reporter in New York on the first day of the Wall Street
Crash on 24 October 1929, it was like to watch a great and unstoppable disaster taking place.
I thought
about my father's account of the mood on that day in New York as
Theresa
May
announced her departure as prime minister, the latest milestone – but an important one – in the implosion of British
politics in the age of
Brexit
.
Everybody with their feet on the ground has a sense of unavoidable disaster up ahead but no idea of how to avert it; least
of all May's likely successors with their buckets of snake oil about defying the EU and uniting the nation.
It is a mistake to put all the blame on the politicians. I have spent the last six months travelling around Britain,
visiting places from Dover to Belfast, where it is clear that parliament is only reflecting real fault lines in British
society. Brexit may have envenomed and widened these divisions, but it did not create them and it is tens of millions of
people who differ radically in their opinions, not just an incompetent and malign elite.
Even so, May
was precisely the wrong political personality to try to cope with the Brexit crisis: not stupid herself, she has a
single-minded determination amounting to tunnel vision that is akin to stupidity. Her lauding of consensus in her
valedictory speech announcing her resignation was a bit rich after three years of rejecting compromise until faced with
imminent defeat.
Charging
ahead regardless only works for those who are stronger than all obstacles, which was certainly not the case in Westminster
and Brussels. Only those holding all the trump cards can ignore the other players at the table. This should have been
blindingly clear from the day May moved into Downing Street after a referendum that showed British voters to be split down
the middle, something made even more obvious when she lost her parliamentary majority in 2017. But, for all her tributes to
the virtues of compromise today, she relied on the votes of MPs from the sectarian Protestant DUP in Northern Ireland, a
place which had strongly voted to remain in the EU.
Her
miscalculations in negotiating with the EU were equally gross. The belief that Britain could cherry pick what it wanted from
its relationship with Europe was always wishful thinking unless the other 27 EU states were disunited. It is always in the
interests of the members of a club to make sure that those who leave have a worse time outside than in.
The balance
of power was against Britain and this is not going to change, though
Boris
Johnson
and Dominic Raab might pretend that what has been lacking is sufficient willpower or belief in Brexit as a sort
of religious faith. These are dangerous delusions, enabling Nigel Farage to sell the idea of "betrayal" and being "stabbed
in the back" just like German right-wing politicians after 1918.
Accusations
of treachery might be an easy sell in Britain because it is so steeped in myths of self-sufficiency, fostered by
self-congratulatory films and books about British prowess in the Second World War. More recent British military failures in
Iraq and Afghanistan either never made it on to the national news agenda or are treated as irrelevant bits of ancient
history. The devastating Chilcot report on Britain in the Iraq War received insufficient notice because its publication
coincided with the referendum in 2016.
Brexiters
who claim to be leading Britain on to a global stage are extraordinarily parochial in their views of the outside world. The
only realistic role for Britain in a post-Brexit world will be, as ever, a more humble spear carrier for Trump's America. In
this sense, it is appropriate that the Trump state visit should so neatly coincide with May's departure and the triumphant
emergence of Trump's favourite British politicians, Johnson and Farage.
Just how
decisive is the current success of the Brexiters likely to be? Their opponents say encouragingly that they have promised
what they cannot deliver in terms of greater prosperity so they are bound to come unstuck. But belief in such a comforting
scenario is the height of naivety because the world is full of politicians who have failed to deliver the promises that got
them elected, but find some other unsavoury gambit to keep power by exacerbating foreign threats, as in India, or locking up
critics, as in Turkey.
Britain is
entering a period of permanent crisis not seen since the 17
th
century.
Brexit was a symptom as well as a cause of divisions. The gap between the rich and the poor, the householder and the tenant,
the educated and the uneducated, the old and the young, has grown wider and wider. Brexit became the great vent through
which grievances that had nothing to with Brussels bubbled. The EU is blamed for all the sins of de-industrialisation,
privatisation and globalisation and, if it did not create them, then it did not do enough to alleviate their impact.
The
proponents of Leave show no sign of having learned anything over the last three years, but they do not have to because they
can say that the rewards of Brexit lie in a sun-lit future. Remainers have done worse because they are claiming that the
rewards of the membership of the EU are plenteous and already with us. "If you wish to see its monument, look around you,"
they seem to say. This is a dangerous argument: why should anybody from ex-miners in the Welsh Valleys to former car workers
in Birmingham or men who once worked on Dover docks endorse what has happened to them while Britain has been in the EU? Why
should they worry about a rise or fall in the GDP when they never felt it was their GDP in the first place?
May is
getting a sympathy vote for her final lachrymose performance, but it is undeserved. Right up to the end there was a
startling gap between her words and deeds. The most obvious contradiction was her proclaimed belief that "life depends on
compromise". But it also turns out that "proper funding for mental health" was at the heart of her NHS long term plan,
though hospital wards for the mentally ill continue to close and patients deep in psychosis are dispatched to the other end
of the country.
The Wall
Street Crash in 1929 exposed the fragility and rottenness of much in the United States. Brexit may do the same in Britain.
In New York 90 years ago, my father only truly appreciated how bad the situation really was when his boss said to him in a
low voice: "Remember, when we are writing this story, the word 'panic' is not to be used."
"... "All political analysis which favors either the Democratic Party or the Republican Party is inherently worthless, because both parties are made of swamp and exist in service of the swamp. If you can't see that the entire system is one unified block of corruption and that ordinary people need to come together and unite against it, then you really don't understand what you're looking at." ..."
Whatever you may think of Trump, the people who set out to 'get him' are the scum of the
Earth. I recommend listening to the two-part interview of George Papadopoulos with Mark
Steyn, where he describes the convoluted plot to use him to bring down Trump.
What they did to this guy is truly disgusting. Brennan belongs in a prison cell, and he
should be sharing it with Mueller. Papadopoulos also has written a book about his
experiences called 'Deep State Target, How I got caught in the crosshairs of the plot to
bring down President Trump.
And, a final comment. Hillary Clinton proved beyond all doubt that she and not Trump was
not fit to be President. To engage in this scheme and then to raise tensions through the
roof with a nuclear superpower, which can destroy this country, is about as low and selfish
as it is possible to be.
As I stated on the open thread, to paraphrase Muller;
I don't give a s###. figure it out yourself, Im f***ing outta' here.
The whole point of impeachment, is to have a show trial, not actually impeach. If the
thing is on TV, the American people may watch it, and that would be interesting.
Not to worry though, Pelosi and Schumer won't let that happen. Appeasing their donors,is
all they care about.
psycho @ 2 quoting C. Johnston stated;
"All political analysis which favors either the Democratic Party or the Republican
Party is inherently worthless, because both parties are made of swamp and exist in service of
the swamp. If you can't see that the entire system is one unified block of corruption and
that ordinary people need to come together and unite against it, then you really don't
understand what you're looking at."
Referring to Israel during an interview in August 1983, U.S. Navy Admiral and former head of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff Thomas Moorer
said
"I've
never seen a President -- I don't care who he is -- stand up to them. It just boggles the mind. They always get what
they want. The Israelis know what is going on all the time. I got to the point where I wasn't writing anything down.
If the American people understood what a grip these people have got on our government, they would rise up in arms.
Our citizens certainly don't have any idea what goes on."
Moorer was speaking generally but he had something specific in mind, namely the June 8, 1967, Israeli attack on the
American intelligence ship, U.S.S. Liberty, which killed 34 American crewmen and wounded 173 more. The ship was
operating in international waters and was displaying a huge stars and stripes but Israeli warplanes, which had
identified the vessel as American, even strafed the life rafts to kill those who were fleeing the sinking ship. It
was the bloodiest attack on a U.S. Naval vessel ever outside of wartime and the crew deservedly received the most
medals every awarded to a single ship based on one action. Yes, it is one hell of a story of courage under fire, but
don't hold your breath waiting for Hollywood to make a movie out of it.
President Lyndon B. Johnson, may he burn in hell, had ordered the recall of U.S. carrier planes sent to aid the
stricken vessel, saying that he would prefer the ship go to the bottom rather than embarrass his good friend Israel.
Then came the cover-up from inside the U.S. government. A hastily convened and summarily executed board of inquiry
headed by Admiral John McCain, father of the senator, deliberately interviewed only a handful of crewmen before
determining that it was all an accident. The sailors who had survived the attack as well as crewmen from Navy ships
that arrived eventually to provide assistance were held incommunicado in Malta before being threatened and sworn to
secrecy. Since that time, repeated attempts to convene another genuine inquiry have been rebuffed by congress, the
White House and the Pentagon. Recently deceased Senator John McCain was particularly active in rejecting overtures
from the Liberty survivors.
The Liberty story demonstrates how Israel's ability to make the United States government act against its own
interests has been around for a long time. Grant Smith of IRMEP, cites how Israeli spying carried out by AIPAC in
Washington back in the mid-1980s resulted in a
lopsided
trade agreement
that currently benefits Israel by more than $10 billion per year on the top of direct grants
from the U.S. Treasury and billions in tax exempt "charitable" donations by American Jews.
If Admiral Moorer were still alive, I would have to tell him that the situation vis-à-vis Israeli power is much
worse now than it was in 1983. He would be very interested in reading a
remarkable
bit of research
recently completed by Smith demonstrating exactly how Israel and its friends work from inside
the system to corrupt our political process and make the American government work in support of Jewish state
interests. He describes in some detail how the Israel Lobby has been able to manipulate the law enforcement
community to protect and promote Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's agenda.
A key component in the Israeli penetration of the U. S. government has been President George W. Bush's 2004 signing
off on the creation of the Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence (OTFI) within the Department of the
Treasury. The group's website proclaims that it is responsible for "safeguarding the financial system against
illicit use and combating rogue nations, terrorist facilitators, weapons of mass destruction (WMD) proliferators,
money launderers, drug kingpins, and other national security threats," but it has from its founding been really all
about safeguarding Israel's perceived interests. Grant Smith notes however, how "the secretive office has a special
blind spot for major terrorism generators, such as tax-exempt money laundering from the United States into illegal
Israeli settlements and proliferation financing and weapons technology smuggling into Israel's clandestine nuclear
weapons complex."
The first head of the office was Undersecretary of Treasury Stuart Levey, who operated secretly within the Treasury
itself while also coordinating regularly both with the Israeli government as well as with pro-Israel organizations
like AIPAC, WINEP and the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD). Levey also traveled regularly to Israel
on the taxpayer's dime, as did his three successors in office.
Levey left OTFI in 2011 and was replaced by David Cohen.
It
was reported
then and subsequently that counterterrorism position at OTFI were all filled by individuals who
were both Jewish and Zionist. Cohen continued the Levey tradition of resisting any transparency regarding what the
office was up to. Smith reports how, on September 12, 2012, he
refused
to answer reporter questions
"about Israel's possession of nuclear weapons, and whether sanctioning Iran, a
signatory to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, over its internationally-inspected civilian
nuclear program was an example of endemic double standards at OTFI."
Cohen was in turn succeeded in 2015 by Adam Szubin who was then replaced in 2017 by Sigal Pearl Mandelker,
a
former and possibly current Israeli citizen
. All of the heads of OTFI have therefore been Jewish and Zionist.
All work closely with the Israeli government, all travel to Israel frequently on "official business" and they all
are in close liaison with the Jewish groups most often described as part of the Israel Lobby. And the result has
been that many of the victims of OTFI have been generally enemies of Israel, as defined by Israel and America's
Jewish lobbyists. OTFI's
Specially
Designated Nationals And Blocked Persons List (
SDN
),
which
includes sanctions and enforcement options
,
features
many Middle Eastern Muslim and Christian names and companies but nothing in any way comparable relating to Israel
and Israelis, many of whom are well known to law enforcement otherwise as weapons traffickers and money launderers
.
And
once placed on the SDN there is no transparent way to be removed, even if the entry was clearly in error.
Here in the United States, action by OTFI has meant that Islamic charities have been shut down and individuals
exercising their right to free speech through criticism of the Jewish state have been imprisoned. If the Israel
Anti-Boycott Act succeeds in making its way through congress the OTFI model will presumably become the law of the
land when it comes to curtailing free speech whenever Israel is involved.
The OTFI story is outrageous, but it is far from unique. There is a history of American Jews closely attached to
Israel being promoted by powerful and cash rich domestic lobbies to act on behalf of the Jewish state. To be sure,
Jews who are Zionists are
vastly
overrepresented in all government agencies
that have anything at all to do with the Middle East and one can
reasonably argue that the Republican and Democratic Parties are in the pockets of Jewish billionaires named Sheldon
Adelson and Haim Saban.
Neoconservatives, most of whom are Jewish, infiltrated the Pentagon under the Reagan Administration and they and
their heirs in government and media (Doug Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, Scooter Libby, Richard Perle, Bill Kristol) were
major players in the catastrophic war with Iraq, which, one of the architects of that war, Philip Zelikow,
described
in 2004
as being all about Israel. The same people are now in the forefront of urging war with Iran.
American policy towards the Middle East is largely being managed by a small circle of Orthodox Jews working for
presidential son-in-law Jared Kushner. One of them, David Friedman, is currently U.S. Ambassador to Israel.
Friedman, a bankruptcy lawyer who has no diplomatic or foreign policy credentials, is a Zionist Jew who is also a
supporter of the illegal settlements on the West Bank and a harsh critic of other Jews who in any way disagree with
the Israeli government. He has contributed money to settlement construction, which would be illegal if OTFI were
doing its job, and has consistently defended the settlers while condemning the Palestinians in speeches in Israel.
He endlessly and ignorantly repeats Israeli government talking points and has
tried
to change the wording
of State Department communications, seeking to delete the word "occupied" when describing
Israel's control of the West Bank. His humanity does not extend beyond his Jewishness, defending the Israeli
shooting thousands of unarmed Gazan protesters and the bombing of schools, hospitals and cultural centers. How he
represents the United States and its citizens who are not dual nationals must be considered a mystery.
Friedman's top adviser is Rabbi Aryeh Lightstone,
who
is described
by the Embassy as an expert in "Jewish education and pro-Israel advocacy." Once upon a time, in an
apparently more enlightened mood, Lightstone described Donald Trump as posing "an existential danger both to the
Republican Party and to the U.S." and even accused him of pandering to Jewish audiences. Apparently when opportunity
knocked he changed his mind about his new boss. Pre-government in 2014, Lightstone founded and headed Silent City, a
Jewish advocacy group supported by extreme right-wing money that opposed the Iran nuclear agreement and also worked
to combat the nonviolent Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement. He is reportedly still connected
financially with anti BDS groups, which might be construed as a conflict of interest. As the Senior Adviser to
Friedman he is paid in excess of $200,000 plus free housing, additional cash benefits to include a 25% cost of
living allowance and a 10% hardship differential, medical insurance and eligibility for a pension.
So, what's in it all for Joe and Jill American Citizens? Not much. And for Israel? Anything, it wants, apparently.
Sink a U.S. warship? Okay. Tap the U.S. Treasury? Sure, just wait a minute and we'll draft some legislation that
will give you even more money. Create a treasury department agency run exclusively by Jews that operates secretly to
punish critics of the Jewish state? No brainer. Meanwhile a bunch of dudes at the Pentagon are dreaming of new wars
for Israel and the White House sends an ignorant ambassador and top aide overseas to represent the interests of the
foreign government in the country where they are posted. Which just happens to be Israel. Will it ever end?
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible
educational foundation that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is
www.councilforthenationalinterest.org,
address
is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is
[email protected].
Now however, when through the malice of fate a large part of these Jews whom we fought against are alive, I must
concede that fate must have wanted it so. I always claimed that we were fighting against a foe who through
thousands of years of learning and development had become superior to us.
I no longer remember exactly when, but it was even before Rome itself had been founded that the Jews could
already write. It is very depressing for me to think of that people writing laws over 6,000 years of written
history. But it tells me that they must be a people of the first magnitude, for lawgivers have always been
great.
good documentation on several salient aspects of 'Murka's Zionist Occupation Government.
the principal institution remains: the (((Rothschild Central Bank))), alias "Federal Reserve" , a debt-bombing and
money manufacturing racket through which the entire political class and, indeed, much of the population, is trap'd
and bribed into submission.
and it'll end violently when the Jewbuck dies, and
America starting from the time of LBJ has been hijacked by the Deep State, which is 70% Jewish, 20% spineless white
treasonous rats who follow along because they have something to gain, and 10% naive white fools who think they're
really doing something good for the world.
Good thinking Philip Giraldi, it really is time for a movie to be made about the attempted sinking of the USS
Liberty and the wilful killing of so many US sailors. It should be done without any Hollywood backing and
distribution along the lines of Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ. (Hey Mel, do you read The Unz Review? You
should).
It could easily be crowdfunded if necessary, with survivors of the incident serving as consultants. There are loads
of 60s era military surplus items available on the cheap, including aircraft and I would imagine a massive response
to a call for actors and extras. It certainly would help kick open the door to awareness of where the real threat to
America lies.
@FKA Max
/jewish-activists-crowd-funding-breed-red-heifer-third-temple-cow#img-2">
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/10/jewish-activists-crowd-funding-breed-red-heifer-third-temple-cow#img-2
what do you propose we do Phil they control all the media so no one is alamred as to what they are up to. the people
of the USA are stupid and dont care the the zionist control them
I can say "
obviously
didn't
develop a writing system" prior to the 2nd century BCE, because otherwise
we
would be
inundated
with
evidence of it
, as we are for the other regional languages.
For example, we have
13,000
Etruscan
texts (some little more than fragments, but many lengthy, bi-lingual texts) from the period ~700BCE to ~140BCE;
there are
several
hundred
examples of
Etiocypriot
(famously
including a bilingual – with Attic Greek – text on a slab from the Acropolis of Amathus which dates to 600BCE).
It reminds me of that joke from the 1980s when someone from the audience poses a question to a UN panel: "Excuse me,
what is your opinion about the world food shortage?"
The Ethiopian ambassador asks: "What is: 'food'?" The American ambassador asks: "What is: 'shortage'?" The Soviet
ambassador asks: "What is: 'opinion'?" And the Israeli ambassador asks: "What is: 'excuse me'?"
I think your comment was stuck in some infinite loop from the 1960s an got spit out into our present conversation
due to the unusually low number of sun spots.
Since these groups are tax-free entities, gathering in at least 26 billion a year-not including money to
synagogues–that's close to 30 billion a year Americans have to make up for out of their wallets on April 15 of each
year.
26 Billion Bucks: The Jewish Charity Industry Uncovered
The Forward's investigation has uncovered a tax-exempt Jewish communal apparatus that operates on the scale of a
Fortune 500 company and
focuses
the largest share of its donor dollars on Israel.
This analysis doesn't include
synagogues
and other groups
that avoid revealing their financial information by claiming a religious exemption.
The Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence has been run by either American or Israeli Jews since its
inception. Similar to the US Treasury, where five out of the last eight Treasury heads were American Jews. One of
the GOYIM appointed, Hank Paulson, was installed to put an American face on the 2008 MBS generated economic crash,
which enriched Wall Street before AND after, but devastated Main Street.
After Israel realized it could attack the USS Liberty and not only not be held accountable, but the USG would help
them protect their lies, that gave them the incentive to start planning their biggest attack on the USA to date: the
9/11 False Flag. And like the Liberty incident, the USG is protecting Israel by helping with the lies that keep the
Big Lie alive, that Bin Laden and his posse were the attackers, so Israel could use it's MSM buddies to generate an
army of lies about Iraq; Libya, Syria and Iran, three of which we've already destroyed with Iran in the cross-hairs
of unhinged psychos like Bolton and Nutty Nikki.
Drain the Swamp? Hell, Trump and his minions like Shadow President Kushner come from the murkiest depths of that
Swamp.
Bottom line? Either we WTFU and realize that our nation has been taken over by Israel, which is using our military
might, wealth and blood to do their dirty work in the ME, invading and busting up nations Israel wants destroyed, or
we resign ourselves and condemn our offspring to a lifetime of poverty, misery, tyranny and endless wars for the
glory of Apartheid Israel.
@FKA Max
t of academic intellectual standards of any reasonable university permanent staff. Though there are,
and must be, highly intelligent Jews like our host and some others, there are highly intelligent people in all
ethnic groups. I would never write anything like Eichmann because that is utter nonsense. Only members in a party
that was created by a secret society founded by a Mizraim Mason and a Theosophist could write such nonsense, and
people who write such can be expected to have participated to the create Israel project. Just like the people the
author of the article speaks of. Eichmann was a servant of Zionists, admirer, not their enemy.
I wonder at the reference for the claim that LBJ stated his preference that the LIBERTY sink rather than embarass
Israel. I am mindful of LBJ's apparent indifference to the violent deaths of thousands of US servicemen in another
part of the world at that time.
An Israeli journalist stated over 20 years ago that 'the White House, the Senate, and much of the American media
[are] in our hands'. His words were
picked
up
by Joseph Sobran:
'In an essay reprinted in the May 27, 1996, issue of the
New
York Times
Ari Shavit, an Israeli columnist, reflected sorrowfully on the wanton Israeli killing of more than a
hundred Lebanese civilians in April. "We killed them out of a certain naive hubris. Believing with absolute
certitude that now, with the White House, the Senate, and much of the American media in our hands, the lives of
others do not count as much as our own "'
Sobran observes that 'this is interesting less for what it tells us about Israel than for what it tells us about
America. Frank discussion of Israel is permitted in Israel, as Mr Shavit's article illustrates. It's rarely
permitted here. Charges of anti-Semitism and a quiet but very effective boycott will be the reward of any journalist
who calls attention to his own government's -- and his own profession's -- servitude to Israeli interests.'
"Nazis were a creation of Masons through Theosophists, and therefore servants of Zionists with the task of pushing
Jews to Palestine." – Seems highly likely to me
If I may, I'd like to ask you why David Irving never dare to suggest that.
Is it because there isn't enough evidence ?
Irving is the only historian, afaik, that wrote about where the money that put Hitler into power came from. But he
stops there. He sees nothing unnatural in fact that Hitler get into power thanks to zionist bankers.
thank you for your articles but is time for you to explain how and why we get to such ridiculous,caricaturesque
level of control,that cant be explain even if the case we are inferiors to them.
@anonymous
ia and the SU) died about 1M and in Auschwitz
died only registered inmates, in the SU of 1940 died unknown number between 3.3 and 1.3, most likely about 2M and in
Romania 0.2M. And that most sent to Operation Reinhard cams did not die there. Here Irvin could have found all the
evidence needed, yet he did not write about it. So, it is not lack of evidence, it is common sense: do not touch
certain issues if you want to sell your books. But you can write and publish books of occult connections of Nazis
even though there is not much evidence of their occult nature. Some things you can write, somethings not. Evidence
has little to do with it.
Will it ever end? Frankly I see no end in sight. Their grip gets stronger, the goy public gets stupider and more
indoctrinated, and the politicians get more owned, every year. But there is a danger for these zionist Jews with
this. As their power and influence gets greater and greater, so will their demands for the masses. Eventually the
masses will wake up, and the dam of pent up resentment may break with a tidal wave. This is how things have played
out in the past.
@Johnny Rottenborough
Brett Kavanaugh.
Despite the Trump administration's near complete servitude to Israel evidenced by his staffing of Jews in vital
government positions, including son-in-law Jared Kushner & Steve Mnuchin, please consider the video (below) which
makes clear how Zionist Jew organizations, for example the ADL, demand their prejudiced & extreme left-wing law
become the LAW of the, uh (gag/choke!), "Homeland."
Let's see how many GOP Senators cast a cold Israeli eye upon parts of Brett Kavanaugh's ideology?
Post scriptum: Thanks, Philip Giraldi, for your perpetual "heroic" service!
The bastards have the whole system wired. Their tenures at the Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence (OTFI)
provided a springboard to critical posititions within the architecture of 'the system'.
From Wikipedia:
In January 2012, Levey joined HSBC as the bank's Chief Legal Officer.
(trivia : In 2014 HSBC closed North London Central Mosque's account and some Muslim clients' and groups' accounts.
Several sources report that HSBC closed them because they donated their money to Palestine during the recent
conflict)
and
In 2015 Cohen was appointed
Deputy
Director of the Central Intelligence Agency
. At the time of his appointment, some speculated that Cohen's
selection was due to the Obama administration's reluctance in picking someone with ties to past incidences of CIA
torture and extraordinary rendition. The post of deputy director has traditionally been filled by military officers
or intelligence community veterans.
(note the whitewashing of Cohen's appointment. No mention of the jewish/zionist angle.)
I always appreciate Giraldi's articles because in spite of my own research on Israel's (negative, crippling and
cancerous) influence on America he invariably imparts some incisive information I haven't yet encountered.
Once again, a suggestion to Ron Unz to use this website to host a Solution Week (not that this site isn't already
part of the solution!) , but I would love to see specifically what others think in that regard.
So far, Brother Nathan had one of the more substantive lists of solutions (registering AIPAC as foreign agents,
getting the 'dual citizens' out of US government positions, etc).
As people become more informed on the Israeli/influence issue, the common refrain I see on forums across America is
the question:
what
exactly can I do to change this situation?
British immigrants are required to RENOUNCE UK Citizenship, to become US Citizens.
This is entirely proper.
Mexicans & Jews retain dual citizenship, without any problem. This is so wrong. Jews routinely serve in IDF &
Mossad, but seldom in the US Military. This is a GLARING form of disloyalty. Such 'citizenship' should be revoked,
and the holders deported. IMHPO.
I suspect that Jews & Mexicans on SCOTUS, are at the bottom of this.
Will it ever end? Mr. Giraldi asks (rhetorically). Trump got something right when he said that Media was the enemy,
but he didn't say who owned Media. "Masters of Discourse" Israel Shamir calls Jews who control what we see and hear.
Since Media lies to us 24/7, and since Congress is scared to death of AIPAC's power and money (Netanyahu's 29
standing ovations before that group of pathetic whores), nothing will change until Media changes ownership and
Congress is subjected to campaign finance reform. No more "campaign contributions" (bribes).
Glad to see you put Homeland in quotes. That's a Bush/Cheney construction I've never used in conversation, evokes
images of jackboots and NSA surveillance.
It is terrifying but both US warmongering and Israeli control will only end when the dollar system collapses. That's
a very sad thing to say but Israel will abandon the US like a used condom if the US fails economically.
Zionists took over the U.S. government on December 23, 1913 with the passage of the Federal Reserve Act which took
the money creation power away from the U.S. gov and gave it to the Zionist privately owned banking cabal the FED,
and this was totally unconstitutional and created money out of thin air and thus began the wars and ensuing debt and
enslavement of America.
Along with the FED the Zionists got the IRS through congress also in 1913 and thus had the power to create money out
of thin air plus the power to tax the American people to pay for the Zionist banker created wars which they were
soon to create in Europe starting with WWI and continuing down through the years to the Mideast wars all for the
Zionist bankers NWO.
The Zionists control America lock stock and gun barrel and have been the agent provocateur in every war the U.S. has
been involved in since 1913 and the Zionists also attacked America on 911 when Israel and the Zionist controlled
deep state attack on 911 killed some 3000 Americans and got away with it and every thinking American knows Israel
did it.
When LBJ ordered the recall of the fighters that were flying to the rescue of the Liberty, he said that he didn't
want to embarrass his ally. This was at a time when the sailors on the Liberty had not yet identified the
nationality of the attackers. People in the White House knew it was Israel before the sailors on the Liberty knew.
Think about the implications of that.
Any time a political system can be hijacked by a foreign power and forced to do the bidding of that foreign power
that political system has to be replaced.
The American political system based on republican and constitutional government has collapsed, largely because the
Jewish people have made a total, complete and utter mockery out of that system. The so-called American "democracy"
is a code word for plutocracy. Wherever you have a "democracy" what you have in practice is a plutocracy.
The Jews love plutocracies because with their money they can literally buy politicians. Furthermore, the non-Jewish
populations cannot defend themselves from the Jewish power in these so-called "democracies".
It will take the proverbial man on the white horse to remedy this situation, i.e., a Caesar, Napoleon, Mussolini or
Hitler. If any of you reading this think that this collapsed political system can be resurrected, well then you are
living in la-la land.
OTFI's Specially Designated Nationals And Blocked Persons List (SDN), which includes sanctions and enforcement
options , features many Middle Eastern Muslim and Christian names and companies but nothing in any way
comparable relating to Israel and Israelis, many of whom are well known to law enforcement otherwise as weapons
traffickers and money launderers .
OTFI SDN features names only, of those individuals/businesses/organisations which are engaged in illegal activities
against the United States and her interests.
Your well-known bias clouds your vision.
Went through the list cursorily and looked for names I knew to be criminally engaged and thus under U.S.
surveillance and sanctions. Names with a Jewish ethnicity, that is. Lo behold, they are indeed there:
Mikhail Abramov
Valerii Abramov
Nicolai Shusanshvili a.k.a Moshe Israel
Arkadevic Rotenberg
Roman Rotenberg
I am sure there are more.
Don't suppose any clarification, let alone a retraction, of your demonstrated hatred of Jews and the resulting bias
would be forthcoming?
I am deeply sorry.
I just cannot agree with introduction. Most of the US presidents at the end of their term and after become critical
of Israel.
Typical examples are Carter and Obama.
Don't forget that Jewish Power is a staunch enemy of the freedom of information. Zionists and their Arab cousins are
not able to grasp the tenets of western civilization. Unlike the Arabs, Jewish power has been very effective in
capturing the rotten head of the US/UK governments and imposing the rule of parasitism on westerners.
"Mueller supposedly has forwarded
some material to federal and New York State prosecutors who have clear legal authority in those domains.
It has been known for at least two years, though, that substantial grounds (and evidence) already
existed to bring several cases to a grand jury.
That suggests that serious action never will be taken.
For one things, a number of prominent people would be exposed: e.g. Bibi Netanyahu, the heads of the
Russo-Israeli mafias, Felix Sater, the twice convicted felon and Trump 'counsellor' who avoided a second
prison term by agreeing to inform for the FBI and CIA but in fact worked both sides of the street, and
God knows who else.
Just as the Panama Papers scandal disappeared over the horizon, and the big 5
financial families got away with massive money-laundering for the drug cartels, and Deutsche Bank was
granted immunity by Angela Merkel despite their multiple criminal activities, so will the Trump affair
die out in obscurity."
In this interview we discuss
Trump-Russia and the deep state, disagree about 9/11, but agree that high-level corruption is out of
control.
Michael Brenner is Professor of
International Affairs at the University of Pittsburgh; a Senior Fellow at the Center for Transatlantic
Relations, SAIS-Johns Hopkins (Washington, D.C.), contributor to research and consulting projects on
Euro-American security and economic issues. He publishes and teaches in the fields of American foreign
policy, Euro-American relations, and the European Union.
Trump did business with cement companies run by mafioso thugs because they also controlled the unions
and would call strikes if crossed. He was basically a target for shakedowns, and Trump knew those people
were not anyone to profitably do business with. I am sure Russian-Israeli organised crime would be the
same.
Anything to do with the Mafia back in the days of Gotti was massively investigated Trump is too
wary and careful with his money to get burned that way.
As Halifax observed, men often mistake
themselves but they never forget themselves, so I would think it is neither conspiracy as Barrett says
or the incompetence which Brenner suggests.
You did not need to be in the CIA to have an inkling. In
fact the whole plan was virtually public knowledge beforehand. It was broadcast on the BBC well before
9/11 that mullahs in London mosques were advocating the highjacking of airplanes and crashing them into
American skyscrapers. This fact was subsequently alluded to by BBC reporters in the aftermath of 9/11.
I think it is becoming clear that a disproportionate amount of FBI and NY DA's resources were put
into chasing the Mafia instead of Muslim terrorism.
Giuliani made such a reputation on the back of
prosecuting the Mafia, and then the FBI had a household name like Gotti to go after, that the careerists
in law enforcement doubled down on a bunch of low level racketeers, even after the first WTC attack.
The belief that somehow the Mafia was more of a threat to New York than al Qaeda -- that caused
the FBI to let their guard down on the bin Laden threat. [ ]
There is now little doubt that if the Feds had devoted as much energy to a surveillance of Sphinx
as they had to the Ravenite Social Club, they would have been in the middle of the 9/11 plot months
before Black Tuesday. Because in July of 2001, Khalid al-Midhar and Salem al-Hazmi got their fake
I.D.'s delivered to them in a mailbox at the identical location the FBI had been onto in the decade
since El Sayyid Nosair had killed Meier Kahane. The man who supplied those fake ID's that allowed
al-Midhar and al-Hazmi to board A.A. Flight #77 that hit the Pentagon, was none other than Mohammed
El-Attriss the co-incorporator of Sphinx with Waleed al-Noor – whom Patrick Fitzgerald had put on
the unindicted co-conspirators list along with bin Laden and Ali Mohamed in 1995.
@anon26_
that, and the fact that it's race-realist throughout. Note, for instance, the early juxtaposition of the
2 rich "Russian" mafia Jew sisters (played to the hilt by 2 Jewesses, Gal Gadot and Kate Winslett)
reading to the half-'groid kid (while getting their feet manicured) with the elementally poor-but-good,
White cop's wife reading to their White kid. It's full of subtle stuff like this, but you have to see it
a few times to pick it all out. I also like the way they got actual spic 'bangers playing spic 'bangers.
That worked.
@Haxo Angmark
I saw this film a year ago and I can tell you exectly why it got no distribution:
It was a shitty,
mean-spirited story of horrible people robbing, stealing, killing for no good reasons. Yeah there were
reasons but none of them were good ones.
Furthermore the tragic ending made absoutely no sense and was just a stupid contrivance. Despite good
acting from Gal Gadot, Woody and Alfeck, nothing could save this movie.
I needed to shower and scrub myself 10 times after watching this horrible nonsense.
Horrible in every respect.
I know that wasn't what you were expecting. It's because of the Jews. Ugh. Had nothing to do with
that, but a lot to do with how the movie tested and it tested poorly because if you watch it, you hate
humanity and yourself just from this movie.
"I have been making this point for some time, that immigration leading to lower average
IQs, while bad, cannot logically lower scientific productivity because in absolute numbers
the talented fraction remains unaffected. There are still the same numbers of smart
people."
I wouldn't say that at all; or at least I would say the situation isn't quite what you may
think of it. Changing demographics* can certainly change economic/scientific/national policy,
perhaps disastrously so. Karlin's piece ends with an ominous reference to the Brazilian
president, but it just as easily might have been someone like America's AOC and her very
unwise 100% green energy in 10 years scheme. Changing demographics means more AOC's and more
turns at the economic disaster roulette wheel. In a democracy (or a representative republic),
it's easy for a lower IQ population to impose its disastrous ideas on the higher IQ former
majority; hence, the election of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and the resultant economic
dysfunction.
In the future, not only will China produce quality scientific research, but efficiencies
conferred by its cultural and ethnic homogeneity may allow its corporations to out compete
American companies to a much greater degree than mere scientific discovery might otherwise
suggest. Additionally, China's economy will be so large that its companies will be able to
afford the massive R&D costs required for making ever more difficult discoveries. Their
smaller global competition likely won't be able to match spending, so China's corporations
could one day become far more dominant than you might anticipate. After all, it's really
about who can best exploit new discoveries and not just about who makes them first.
Otherwise, ancient China would have ruled the world; they invented paper, gunpowder, and the
compass.
Huawei was maybe 3% of the global smartphone market in Q4 of 2011 but it is set to pass
both Samsung and Apple in marketshare within the next five years. You see a bit of this
cultural/linguistic/ethnic homogeneity = efficiency phenomenon with the video game industry,
specifically in regards to competition between Sony and the much larger, but more
multicultural and less efficient Microsoft. Japan's Sony corporation dominates Microsoft in
sales just like their car companies dominate their American competition; GM was recently
chased out of Europe because it couldn't compete and none of these companies can sell
anything in Japan.
Also, notice that the EU core area has a white European population probably on par with
the white European-American population, but the US still has the greater share of scientific
discovery. I would posit this has much to do with the efficiency conferred by language
homogeneity in the United States (English) -- among other things. China in the future will
enjoy many of the same efficiencies the US has now, in terms of both language and culture.
And this is why India isn't as dynamic as some have predicted. Despite having a "smart
fraction", it is a low trust society deeply divided by color and class. Its leadership,
imposed by the lower IQ fraction, is also somewhat inept. The same fate awaits the United
States under current demographic trends.
*Has there been a single example of a global superpower in modern history that has lost
its ethnic majority but still retained functional status and prosperity over the long term?
Maybe Singapore (but they weren't a superpower), although I admittedly know little about that
country. Austria-Hungary? In any case, I would suspect the sample size here is far too small
to make any definitive prediction about the future of scientific discovery and resultant
economic success for the United States of America.
Today's fraudulent multiculturalist faith fragments society -- and fractures the
psyche.
Multiculturalism has an unexpected connection to another of the great challenges to
America's civic order: social atomism.
Both the state and the ever-expanding market tend to reduce individuals' reliance on the
other human beings who are nearest to them. This is a good thing up to a point, but the solvent
properties of big government and global markets have no natural limit short of society's total
decomposition. The natural and traditional ties between people are subjected to a constant acid
bath.
Yet society does not completely dissolve because it is not bound together merely by ties of
function. Affection itself counts for something, and a web of affections -- which is one aspect
of what social institutions such as families and churches and political units are -- can find
new functions for itself if it is deprived of the old ones. But this is where multiculturalism
is most insidious: far from preserving such webs, it tears them to shreds at the psychological
points of contact that matter most.
For decades now, conservatives have criticized welfare statism for its atomizing effect on
society. Programs intended to aid single mothers, their children, and the poor, for example,
have the effect of making society's vulnerable more dependent on government and less connected
to the men and institutions who would once have provided for them: husbands and fathers, faith
communities, extended families and ethnic neighborhoods, and civil society writ large. As men
are relieved of responsibility, they become more irresponsible, and the duty to care for their
children comes to be enforced less by social sanction -- once seemingly all-powerful -- than by
the machinery of the justice system.
Entitlements of all kinds, most of which are not aimed at the neediest Americans, similarly
crowd out social capital. Material needs are met, and in some sense freedom has increased
(freedom from commitments other than to the state), but the social and emotional supports of
the intact family and woven community are gone. Outside the family, our culture of celebrity
individualism is indistinguishable from underclass irresponsibility. And corporate America's
preference is for interchangeable workers and consumers, distinguished only by their specific
mix of preconceived appetites. The result is a lonely, anomic country.
But multiculturalism surely can't be part of the problem: after all, isn't identity politics
about belonging to a group rather than being a loose individual tied only to the state?
One might imagine so -- except that multiculturalism is a fraud. Multiculturalism is a
substitute for organic identities connected to neighborhoods, religion, and class: real
friends, places, and economic conditions. The group identities with which multiculturalism is
concerned are actually ideological identities in racial, cultural, or sexual disguise.
Evidence of this is to be seen in the fact that white liberals are more devoted to
multiculturalism than the non-elite members of any minority typically are.
Multiculturalism means more in the faculty lounge than it does on the streets, and its
evangelists who proclaim the faith and condemn heretics hail overwhelmingly from the ranks of
the educated. Multiculturalism unites and militarizes the members of an educated class whose
education chiefly concerns their own fitness to rule -- on account of their greater
enlightenment and moral sensitivity, of course, but also their recognition of the fitness to
rule in other rulers. They respect the right idols, the right kinds of authority for their
class.
Multiculturalism is a class ideology, but not in a purely economic sense: it binds a group
that is distinct in its position within the social hierarchy together and provides it a common
spirit. It is the religion of the ruling class. Google provided a telling illustration of this
when it tried to suppress the
Claremont Institute's criticism of multiculturalism. Google is not weak, oppressed, or lacking
in power, wealth, and social standing -- just the opposite.
The U.S. has a highly democratic society with an expansive view of social equality. A
religion or group ideology that emphasizes hierarchy is therefore bound to provoke outrage.
Multiculturalism avoids that by being a belief system which Google executives and university
administrators, government officials and millionaire celebrities alike can enforce in the name
of the weak, rather than a transparent assertion of their own social superiority. More
specifically, multiculturalism uses racial and sexual identities as weapons in a war against
class enemies: the historically guilt-ridden Protestant middle, which remains guilt-ridden
whether or not it's Protestant anymore; the uneducated (and therefore deplorably uncatechized);
and the dwindling number of elite Americans who remember what self-governing liberty is
supposed to be.
Beyond supplying a mythology of justification for power and camouflaging class warfare,
multiculturalism, crucially, identifies an enemy. The enemy is white, Christian and Jewish,
heterosexual, "cisgendered," bourgeois, and consciously or habitually conservative. In short,
the enemy is what were once the country's mainstream and typically majority identities -- and
in fact, still are. This definition of the majoritarian enemy makes sense if multiculturalism
is understood as a small and elite class's effort to assert and maintain power over a larger
populace that would otherwise resist its rule.
The multicultural clerisy -- the intellectuals and media figures, including social media
activists, who formulate and propagate the doctrine -- is not by itself the country's ruling
class. The spiritual power it wields has to be employed in tandem with the temporal power of
the plutocracy and the administrative class. Those temporal elites rest their claim to rule on
technical expertise and a supposed natural relationship to wealth-creation. Yet such claims,
widely believed though they may be, are lacking in the moral dimension. The clerisy supplies
the ruling classes' missing moral legitimacy.
"Woke capitalism" should thus not be a surprising phenomenon -- it's a logical formula for
aggregating and legitimizing power. Its multicultural component softens the moral case against
plutocracy (Google and Facebook are on "the right side of history"), and it demonizes the older
middle class and Protestant patrician alternatives to the present system of power.
Herein lies the greatest harm that multiculturalism inflicts. That a self-serving elite
would devise an ideological weapon with which to enforce its rule may be lamentable, but it's
not at all exceptional in human history. What is exceptional is the collateral destruction
caused by this particular weapon: it splits not atoms, but the psychological bonds of human
society.
A well-ordered political community consists of many "little platoons," chiefly families and
localities, which tend to their own affairs to a large degree -- rather than being dependent on
a remote tutelary power -- and are wellsprings of moral and political strength for the nation
as a whole. These groups can act as a check on abusive power from above, to be sure, but they
also stabilize higher levels of power by keeping the responsibilities of those upper levels
limited and manageable. Legitimacy is threaded throughout the system, from the family itself to
the local informal powers of society to government at each level.
Churches, neighborhoods, families, and local institutions of all kinds might be besieged by
competing institutions like the welfare state or the global market, but they are not without
defenses derived from their members' loyalty. What multiculturalism does is to delegitimize
that loyalty by recasting it as simply a form of white supremacy or religious bigotry. Almost
all subsidiarity loyalties have to fall into such categories, for the simple reason that the
country has always been majority white and Christian.
Even traditional left-wing working-class politics is now delegitimized in this way. More
than a few woke Twitter personalities have claimed that the very term "working class" -- even
when Bernie Sanders uses it, and certainly any time Trump does -- is really code for "white."
Working-class solidarity is therefore suspect, and a fortiori religious liberty and
federalism and everything else that might organize and protect the wrong sorts of minorities
and non-ruling classes is illegitimate. Borders too, of course: the principle of having loyalty
to the people near you with whom you interact regularly and share a bond of citizenship must be
replaced with distant and abstract loyalties -- to humanity, to multiculturalism, and to
maximally efficient global markets. The nuclear family itself can no longer be a nexus of
loyalty and solidarity -- it is only a collection of individuals who express ideological
identities, not intimate natural relationships.
Smash an institution, take away its function, and still its ghost may haunt you -- many a
people conquered, scattered, or enslaved has reconstituted its way of life after the burning of
its temple or the sack of its cities, as long as the nexus of affections and loyalties remained
intact, in memory if nowhere else. Multiculturalism, which is a petty ideology of power, does
graver damage than its adherents may intend when it deprives Americans of the psychological as
well as social context in which human beings and citizens are formed. With affections no longer
bound to traditional, natural, and proximate relationships, the individual is left to attach
feeling to almost anything, including nihilistic violence and ideological extremism.
But most often the unmoored feelings attach to nothing at all -- leading not to a situation
in which plutocracy and clerisy enjoy uncontested authority, but to one in which there is no
legitimacy to be had anywhere. Tocqueville's Old Regime and the French Revolution warns
of what happens when the intricate structure of authority dissolves and society is atomized and
administered from above. Sooner or later this entropy consumes even the plutocrats and
ideologues who brought it into being, and a new, possibly crueler form of rule emerges.
Ideology and power are in the end simply no substitute for real human relationships of
place, faith, work, and love. Yet by poisoning those relationships at their psychological
wellsprings, multiculturalism destroys what it can never create: the clusters of affection
necessary for the well-ordered and good society.
Dan McCarthy is a contributor to The
American Mind. He is the editor of Modern Age and director of the Robert Novak Journalism
Fellowship Program at The Fund for American Studies.
"... The Clinton campaign and the DNC retained the law firm of Perkins Coie; in turn, one of its partners, Marc E. Elias, retained Fusion GPS. We don't know how much Fusion GPS was paid, but the Clinton campaign and the DNC paid $9.1 million to Perkins Coie during the 2016 campaign (i.e., between mid-2015 and late 2016). ..."
"... Fusion GPS then "hired" FBI Informant Christopher Steele in May 2016. More about that later. ..."
"... As Lisa Page and Peter Strzok noted in their text exchange, Ted Cruz dropping out of the race in early May was the catalyst for focusing all resources on Donald Trump. This effort, which I label, the Trump Russia covert action, involved the CIA, the NSA, the FBI and British Intelligence ..."
"... May 4, 2016, George Papadopolous forwarded to Corey Lewandowski an email from Timofeev [who was introduced to Papadopolous by Joseph Mifsud] raising the possibility of a meeting in Moscow ..."
"... May 4, 2016, FBI Informant Felix Sater followed up with Michael Cohen re Trump Tower Moscow Project: ..."
"... John Brennan convened a secret task force at CIA headquarters composed of several dozen analysts and officers from the CIA, the NSA and the FBI. ..."
"... The unit functioned as a sealed compartment, its work hidden from the rest of the intelligence community. Those brought in signed new non-disclosure agreements to be granted access to intelligence from all three participating agencies ..."
"... It was manufactured as part of a broader plan to paint Trump as a tool of Putin and a servant of Russia ..."
"... We must take a new look at the story told about the so-called Russian hack of the DNC. I believe that Crowd Strike is lying about its role and the timeline. Here is the "official" story ..."
"... We are asked to believe that the Russians were in the DNC network on the 6 th of May and that Crowd Strike knew it. But what steps did Crowd Strike take to shut down the "Russians." Short answer -- nothing until June 10 th ..."
"... The DNC emails were taken on the 25 th of May 2016. That is the last date for the DNC emails posted on Wikileaks ..."
"... CrowdStrike effort did not shut down the DNC network until 10 June. If you know on May 6 th that the "Russians" are in the network, why does any credible, competent cyber security company wait until the 10 th of June to shut the system down? ..."
"... Seth Rich, a DNC employee and Bernie Sanders supporter, downloaded the emails and then gave them to Wikileaks. Rich was in contact with Wikileaks. That is not my opinion. We know that courtesy of a FOIA request by lawyer Ty Clevenger to the NSA filed in November 2017, who requested any information regarding Seth Rich and Julian Assange. ..."
"... NSA has records of communications between Seth Rich and Julian Assange. ..."
"... the CIA had a task force set up. I believe this intelligence was communicated to the Clinton campaign and that a bogus story, with Crowd Strike in a starring role, was cooked up. Implausible? ..."
"... It was Crowd Strike with the help of the Washington Post that went public and pinned the blame on the Russians ..."
"... But that was not the only active measure in place. Christopher Steele, a fully signed up FBI informant, was hired by Fusion GPS and produced his first block buster report on June 20 th claiming Trump was under the thumb of Vladimir Putin ..."
"... Things should get very interesting with the declassification in force. Can you see the NSA/Seth Rich/Wikileaks material being made declassified as well (albeit redacted for methods, etc of course)? ..."
"... Can Barr declassify the Rich/Assange material? Also, was Skripal one of Steele's "sources"? ..."
"... Joseph Mifsud is missing in this time line. He always appeared to be the most curious player. Any reason he is left out? ..."
"... This is the second time in the past few weeks I've read about surveillance on Sanders. Is there a link to a reliable source? ..."
"... I believe it's established that a guy from the UK worked in his campaign, and is now on the Integrity Initiative payroll. And the investigation into his wife's role in the financial affairs of the college she works for seems mysteriously to have run into the sands ..."
"... Before joining Manafort in Kiev, Kliminik worked for almost a decade in Moscow for the International Republican Institute, effectively running that office for some of those years. The IRI is part of the NED/USAID network. There is no way an identified "GRU agent" would be permitted as a long time employee of such an organization. ..."
"... To avoid the conflict [of interest] President Trump designates the U.S. Attorney General as arbiter and decision-maker for the purposes of declassifying evidence within the investigation ..."
"... I realize Larry Johnson's already alluded to the existence of NSA files about communications between Seth Rich and Julian Assange, but the implications are finally sinking in as to how evil this whole mess is. ..."
"... I've always been dismissive of those who've made comments about "Arkancide" in connection with the Clintons, but I may have to revise my POV. I wonder who was involved in the process of getting rid of Mr. Rich? ..."
"... Declassify the list of persons "Samantha Powers" asked FISA courts to unmask during the 11th hours of the Obama administration. Or learn who signed her name to these requests, if in fact she did not as she claimed. ..."
"... Redstate reports the 260 FISA unmasking requests in 2016 in Samantha Power name were perhaps for an Israel Settlesment-gate; not Russiagate? https://www.redstate.com/elizabeth-vaughn/2019/05/25/samantha-powers-unmasked-260-americans-2016-soon-well-learn/ ..."
Forget July 31, 2016 as the alleged start date for the full blown Trump counter intelligence investigation. That day is a sham.
The actual campaign to paint Trump as a full fledged stooge of Russia started in early May 2016. We now know the start date thanks
to the text messages between star-crossed lovers Strzok and Page and the timeline buried in the Mueller Report:
It is important to understand that the collection of intelligence on U.S. Presidential candidates was not limited to Donald Trump.
The collection effort started in the summer of 2015 and included the main Republican candidates and, according to a knowledgeable
source, also targeted Bernie Sanders.
Also remember that the Presidential campaign is a dynamic event that changes over time. In the summer of 2015, the conventional
wisdom touted Jeb Bush as the likely nominee. But as the months passed the field narrowed. By March of 2016, Donald Trump was the
leader and appeared likely to garner the nomination.
April was the turning point where the foundation for attacking Trump was being laid. The law firm, Perkins Coie, hired
Fusion GPS on
behalf of Hillary Clinton's campaign . Andy McMarthy reported on the details of this arrangement in October 2017:
The Clinton campaign and the DNC retained the law firm of Perkins Coie; in turn, one of its partners, Marc E. Elias, retained
Fusion GPS. We don't know how much Fusion GPS was paid, but the Clinton campaign and the DNC paid $9.1 million to Perkins Coie during
the 2016 campaign (i.e., between mid-2015 and late 2016).
Fusion GPS then "hired" FBI Informant Christopher Steele in May 2016. More about that later.
As Lisa Page and Peter Strzok noted in their text exchange, Ted Cruz dropping out of the race in early May was the catalyst
for focusing all resources on Donald Trump. This effort, which I label, the Trump Russia covert action, involved the CIA, the NSA,
the FBI and British Intelligence. How do we know? Just look at the Robert Mueller Report:
May 4, 2016, George Papadopolous forwarded to Corey Lewandowski an email from Timofeev [who was introduced to Papadopolous
by Joseph Mifsud] raising the possibility of a meeting in Moscow , asking Lewandowski whether that was " something we want
to move forward with. " The next day, Papadopoulos forwarded the same Timofeev email to Sam Clovis, adding to the top of the email
"Russia update." (From Mueller Report)
May 4, 2016, FBI Informant Felix Sater followed up with Michael Cohen re Trump Tower Moscow Project: "I had a chat with
Moscow. ASSUMING the trip does happen the question is before or after the convention. I said I believe, but don't know for sure,
that 's it's probably after the convention. Obviously the pre-meeting trip (you only) can happen anytime you want but the 2 big
guys where [sic] the question. I said I would confirm and revert. . . . Let me know about If I was right by saying I believe after
Cleveland and also when you want to speak to them and possibly fly over." (From Mueller Report)
May 5, 2016, FBI Informant Felix Sater wrote to Michael Cohen: "Peskov would like to invite you as his guest to the St. Petersburg
Forum which is Russia's Davos it's June 16-19. He wants to meet there with you and possibly introduce you to either Putin or Medvedev
, as they are not sure if 1 or both will be there. This is perfect. The entire business class of Russia wiU be there as well. He
said anything you want to discuss including dates and subjects are on the table to discuss[. ]" (From Mueller Report)
May 6, 2016, George Papadopoulos suggested to a representative of a foreign government [i.e., Erika Thompson, senior aide to
Alexander Downer] that the Trump Campaign had received indications from the Russian government that it could assist the Campaign
through the anonymous release of information that would be damaging to candidate Clinton. (p. 81 Mueller Report)
May 6, 2016, two military attachés at the US embassy in London, Terrence Dudley and Gregory Baker, reach out to George Papadopolous
to set up a meeting." [Both, per Papadopolous are with Defense Intelligence Agency, {
https://books.apple.com/us/book/deep-state-target/id1446495998
) (From Papadopolous Book)
May 7, 2016 (12 days before becoming campaign chair for Trump's) Paul Manafort meets with Konstantin Kilimnik, a Russian national
who has lived in both Russia and Ukraine and was a longtime Manafort employee. (From Mueller Report) [NOTE -- Mueller's team identified
this as "suspect" activity that needed to be investigated.]
May 16, 2016, while that request was still under consideration, Carter Page emailed Clovis, J.D. Gordon, and Walid Phares and
suggested that candidate Trump take his place speaking at the commencement ceremony in Moscow. (From Mueller Report)
May 19, 2016, Paul Manafort was promoted to campaign chairman and chief strategist, and Gates, who had been assisting Manafort
on the Campaign, was appointed deputy campaign chairman. (From Mueller Report) [NOTE -- the Mueller team believed that Manafort
was acting on behalf of Russian interests but failed to find corroborating evidence.]
May 2016, the IRA created the Twitter account @march_for_trump , which promoted IRA-organized rallies in support of the Trump
Campaign (From Mueller Report
May 2016-- FBI Informant Henry Oknyansky (who also went by the name Henry Greenberg), claimed to have information pertaining
to Hillary Clinton. Michael Caputo notified Roger Stone and brokered communication between Stone and Oknyansky. Oknyansky and Stone
set up a May 2016 in-person meeting. (From Mueller Report)
John Brennan convened a secret task force at CIA headquarters composed of several dozen analysts and officers from the CIA,
the NSA and the FBI.
The unit functioned as a sealed compartment, its work hidden from the rest of the intelligence community. Those brought in
signed new non-disclosure agreements to be granted access to intelligence from all three participating agencies.
They worked exclusively for two groups of "customers," officials said. The first was Obama and fewer than 14 senior officials
in government. The second was a team of operations specialists at the CIA, NSA and FBI who took direction from the task force on
where to aim their subsequent efforts to collect more intelligence on Russia.
Investigators must get the date that this CIA task force was established. They also need to identify and interview the people
who participated and were cleared to work on this task force. President Trump must understand that this was not a legitimate intelligence
operation. It was weaponizing the intel community to act against a Presidential candidate. It was manufactured as part of a
broader plan to paint Trump as a tool of Putin and a servant of Russia.
We must take a new look at the story told about the so-called Russian hack of the DNC. I believe that Crowd Strike is lying
about its role and the timeline. Here is the "official" story
May 6, 2016, Dmitri Alperovitch woke up in a Los Angeles hotel to an alarming email. Alperovitch is the thirty-six-year-old cofounder
of the cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike, and late the previous night, his company had been asked by the Democratic National Committee
to investigate a possible breach of its network. A CrowdStrike security expert had sent the DNC a proprietary software package,
called Falcon, that monitors the networks of its clients in real time. Falcon "lit up," the email said, within ten seconds of being
installed at the DNC: Russia was in the network. (From Esquire--
Esquire Magazine offers a different
timeline)
We are asked to believe that the Russians were in the DNC network on the 6 th of May and that Crowd Strike knew
it. But what steps did Crowd Strike take to shut down the "Russians." Short answer -- nothing until June 10 th.
The DNC emails were taken on the 25 th of May 2016. That is the last date for the DNC emails posted on Wikileaks.
Washington Post reporter Ellen Nakashima and Esquire magazine each reported that that the CrowdStrike effort did not shut down
the DNC network until 10 June. If you know on May 6 th that the "Russians" are in the network, why does any credible,
competent cyber security company wait until the 10 th of June to shut the system down?
I believe this is a cover story. Here is what I think really happened.
Seth Rich, a DNC employee and Bernie Sanders supporter, downloaded the emails and then gave them to Wikileaks. Rich was in contact
with Wikileaks. That is not my opinion. We know that courtesy of a FOIA request by lawyer Ty Clevenger to the NSA filed in November
2017, who requested any information regarding Seth Rich and Julian Assange. The NSA informed Clevenger in a letter dated 4 October
2018 that:
Former NSA Technical Director, William Binney commented on this revelation:
Ty Clevenger has FOIAed information from NSA asking for any data that involved both Seth Rich and also Julian Assange. And they
responded by saying we've got 15 files, 32 pages, but they're all classified in accordance with executive order 13526 covering classification,
and therefore you can't have them.
That says that NSA has records of communications between Seth Rich and Julian Assange. I mean, that's the only business
that NSA is in -- copying communications between people and devices.
We already know, as noted above, that the CIA had a task force set up. I believe this intelligence was communicated to the
Clinton campaign and that a bogus story, with Crowd Strike in a starring role, was cooked up. Implausible? Not as implausible
as a supposed cracker jack cyber security company waiting almost six weeks before taking common sense steps to shut down and clean
the DNC servers.
It was Crowd Strike with the help of the Washington Post that went public and pinned the blame on the Russians.
But that was not the only active measure in place. Christopher Steele, a fully signed up FBI informant, was hired by Fusion
GPS and produced his first block buster report on June 20 th claiming Trump was under the thumb of Vladimir Putin.
This is not a complete timeline. More remains to be discovered. But there are key facts that most of the media and punditry have
ignored. Donald Trump's announcement tonight (Thursday, 23 May 2019) to start declassifying documents on the Trump counter intelligence
investigation and directing the intelligence agencies to cooperate may be the final straw that ends the conspiracy of ignorance.
Once again, thank you for the good work on this important topic. Looking forward to your future installments.
Things should get very interesting with the declassification in force. Can you see the NSA/Seth Rich/Wikileaks material
being made declassified as well (albeit redacted for methods, etc of course)?
O'Shawnessey, if the Rich/Assange material establishes communication between the two, I would expect it to be declassified
to bolster the "Russia didn't do it" narrative. Even if that communication was't specifically about transferring DNC files or
the actual transference of DNC files, it would be useful to Russia and/or Trump supporters.
If, OTOH, the file NSA files consist of Assange discussing the use of Rich as a useful scapegoat, the files will never see
the light of day. According to what Larry has written, Clevenger asked for files with information involving Rich and Assange
and did not specify communications between Assange and Rich.
Clevenger should have at least specified a cut off date. If the NSA files were produced before Rich's death, it would be
a gold mine for Barr and Trump. If the documents covered the time after Rich's death, not so much.
My theory is that the Rich as leaker story is similar to the whole G2 story. They muddy the water and create chaos. Classic
maskirovka.
Siht, I hadn't even thought about classified info on SR. I had thought about how it would be interesting if it turned out
Sanders had been spied on. Seriously explosive stuff. Something about Robert Duvall using the other N word, quote from Apocalypse
Now.
This is the second time in the past few weeks I've read about surveillance on Sanders. Is there a link to a reliable
source?
I believe it's established that a guy from the UK worked in his campaign, and is now on the Integrity Initiative payroll.
And the investigation into his wife's role in the financial affairs of the college she works for seems mysteriously to have
run into the sands.
Before joining Manafort in Kiev, Kliminik worked for almost a decade in Moscow for the International Republican Institute,
effectively running that office for some of those years. The IRI is part of the NED/USAID network. There is no way an identified
"GRU agent" would be permitted as a long time employee of such an organization.
The Mueller team deliberately seeded the suspicion, and credulous journalists speculated on polling data without pause. Kliminik
was, in effect, Manafort's deputy in Kiev, working very closely with him - so again for the Mueller team to suggest there was
anything at all sinister in the two men holding meetings, whether tied to campaign events or not, is unfounded speculation,
which should have been obvious to all.
I've been waiting for that one. Next comes Papadopoulos. I think the British Fraud Act of 2006 is quite relevant to what
Halper was doing. Cambridge University, Magdalene College, even Pembroke College would seem to me to be at risk for lawsuits.
Fraud Act 2006 Wikipedia explains why litigation is now appropriate.
To avoid the conflict [of interest] President Trump designates the U.S. Attorney General as arbiter and decision-maker
for the purposes of declassifying evidence within the investigation
...
[etc.]
I realize Larry Johnson's already alluded to the existence of NSA files about communications between Seth Rich and Julian
Assange, but the implications are finally sinking in as to how evil this whole mess is.
I've always been dismissive of those who've made comments about "Arkancide" in connection with the Clintons, but I may
have to revise my POV. I wonder who was involved in the process of getting rid of Mr. Rich?
Wasn't there a "murder case" in DC itself? In other words do you really need to lead us down to Arkansas, murky real estate
deals, drugs, extramarital relationships bordering on rapes and other shady associate networks? But I agree, suicided may not fit all too well.
I am struck by the irony of the Trump administration is prosecuting Julian Assange under the Espionage Act for actions that
are common journalistic practices, while simultaneously conducting an investigation that is closing in on malefactors of high
position for probable actions that threaten the very core of our democracy and which in all likelihood would still be unknown
to the public were it not for the work of that same heterodox journalist.
I suspect that the Trump government really doesn't want Assange extradited but feels it has to be seen to have gone through
the motions. 17+ indictments might be effective in the American judicial system but here in good old Blighty it's way too many
and they might all be thrown out as being oppressive.
But then again the Conservative government after Brexit will be a bunch of craven shits desperate for a trade deal from Trump
and will reply "how high" when he says jump.
Declassify the list of persons "Samantha Powers" asked FISA courts to unmask during the 11th hours of the Obama administration.
Or learn who signed her name to these requests, if in fact she did not as she claimed.
@WHAT
The point is not to stop them entirely, but to delay and disrupt their ambitious programs.
The infamous Stuxnet cyberweapon did not destroy more than a fifth of Iran's nuclear
centrifuges, but that does not mean it was not a real success for Israel/America's campaign
against the Iranian nuclear program.
Since the end of the Malthusian era, science-based technological growth has been the source
of almost all long-term economic growth. However, we also know that it didn't accrue in all
regions evenly. For instance, Charles Murray in
Human Accomplishment showed that the vast majority of "eminent" figures in science and the
arts hailed from Europe, especially its central "core". Areas that saw high intensities of
researchers centuries ago
tend to remain at the forefront of world economic success to the present day.
Despite the hype around Moore's Law , there is mounting
and disquieting evidence that technological growth is slowing down. It takes more and more researchers to get similar rates of
innovation. The price of chip fabs double with every new quadrupling in chip
density (Rock's Law). At the most fundamental level, problems tend to get harder – not
easier – as one climbs up the technological ladder (see my article Apollo's Ascent ). Meanwhile, the
epochal increases in literacy, population, and average IQ in the past two centuries that have
increased the human capital available to our civilization by several orders of magnitude are
now petering out.
Given these mounting constraints on the future expansion of technological civilization, I
would submit that it is now especially important to acquire a good understanding of where elite
science currently comes from.
***
The Nature Index
What can we use as a proxy? Nobel Prizes in the sciences lag real world accomplishments by 20-30 years. Measures
of individual eminence, such as
Pantheon , only become crisp in long-term retrospect, and moreover, the Human
Accomplishment database only runs to 1950. Total number of articles published , patents granted, R&D
personnel, or R&D spending don't adjust for quality. University rankings may be biased due
to reputational and "brand" name factors, such as the worldwide prestige enjoyed by Oxbridge
and the Ivy League. What can we then use instead?
The Nature Index ( natureindex.com ) bypasses almost all of these problems.
This index measures the amount of publications in the 82 most prestigious scientific journals
in the natural sciences. While they account for less than 1% of natural science journals in the
Web of Science database, they produce almost 30% of all citations in this sphere. Every year,
every research institution and country that contributed to these journals gets a score on the
Nature Index measuring its research output (there is also a "running
total" for the past year that covers Dec 2017-Nov 2018 as of the time of writing). This
makes the Nature Index an ideal source of crisp, up-to-date, quantitative data on the
production of elite level science.
There are two versions of this index: AC (article count) and FC (fractional count). In the
former, every author's institute and country gets a uniform score regardless of the number of
coauthors. In the latter, every accepted article gets one point, which is divided equally
between its co-authors' institutions and countries. It would appear that FC would be the better
measure of the true level of elite science production, while AC would be a better measure of
involvement in international scientific collaboration.
***
The Noosphere
So where do the "Science Points" in our run of the Civilization game get generated?
Country
FC12
FC13
FC14
FC15
FC16
FC17
FC18
Grow
pc
1
USA
37.2%
36.5%
34.9%
35.0%
34.6%
34.1%
32.8%
-2.1%
100.0
2
China
8.9%
10.2%
12.0%
12.9%
14.0%
15.8%
18.4%
12.7%
10.9
3
Germany
8.0%
8.0%
7.9%
7.8%
7.8%
7.6%
7.4%
-1.3%
87.8
4
UK
6.4%
6.4%
6.3%
6.5%
6.6%
6.3%
6.1%
-1.0%
90.9
5
Japan
6.8%
6.6%
6.2%
5.7%
5.5%
5.3%
5.0%
-5.0%
40.1
6
France
4.6%
4.4%
4.3%
4.1%
4.0%
3.8%
3.6%
-4.1%
53.6
7
Canada
3.0%
2.9%
2.9%
3.0%
2.7%
2.7%
2.6%
-2.2%
69.9
8
Switzerland
2.3%
2.3%
2.5%
2.3%
2.3%
2.3%
2.3%
-0.4%
259.9
9
Korea
2.3%
2.3%
2.3%
2.4%
2.3%
2.2%
2.2%
-1.1%
41.4
10
Spain
2.4%
2.3%
2.1%
2.0%
2.1%
1.9%
1.9%
-3.7%
38.4
11
Australia
1.7%
1.8%
1.9%
2.0%
2.0%
1.8%
2.0%
2.6%
71.7
12
Italy
2.1%
2.1%
2.0%
2.0%
1.8%
1.8%
1.7%
-3.9%
27.8
13
India
1.5%
1.7%
1.8%
1.6%
1.6%
1.7%
1.6%
1.3%
1.2
14
Netherlands
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.6%
1.6%
1.5%
0.1%
86.7
15
Singapore
0.9%
0.9%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.1%
176.7
16
Sweden
0.9%
1.0%
1.0%
1.1%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.2%
97.7
17
Israel
1.0%
0.9%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
-0.9%
110.2
18
Taiwan
1.2%
1.1%
0.9%
0.8%
0.8%
0.7%
0.6%
-10.1%
29.7
19
Russia
0.6%
0.7%
0.7%
0.7%
0.7%
0.7%
0.7%
3.9%
4.7
20
Belgium
0.7%
0.6%
0.7%
0.7%
0.8%
0.7%
0.7%
-0.7%
57.4
21
Austria
0.5%
0.5%
0.6%
0.5%
0.6%
0.6%
0.6%
1.7%
69.4
22
Denmark
0.6%
0.6%
0.6%
0.6%
0.7%
0.6%
0.7%
1.6%
102.1
23
Brazil
0.4%
0.5%
0.5%
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
0.5%
4.0%
2.0
24
Poland
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
1.3%
9.5
25
Czechia
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
5.4%
30.0
This table shows each country's global share of the FC, that share's annual growth rate
from 2012-2018, and per capita performance relative to the USA (=100).
Note that data for FC2018 is based on Dec 2017-Nov 2018, since the final data for the year is
not available yet.
The immediate thing that strikes one is the sheer extent to which global science production
is lopsided in favor of the developed world.
World map of elite science production per capita (USA=100%), based on Nature Index 2018
(FC 2017 – that is, fractional count for the year 2017) .
In per capita terms, the US plus "core Europe" (Switzerland is single best performer)
dominate, while developed East Asia & the Mediterranean are twice lower. China and Eastern
Europe are 3-4 times lower in turn, while the Third World is negligible.
In absolute terms, there is an emerging triarchy dominated by the US (33% of global elite
science production), the EU (27%, of which just ~1% accrues to the new members), and China
(18%).
Those three blocs accounting for almost 80% of global science production. Almost all of the
rest accrues to other developed countries, such as Japan, Switzerland (its 8.5 million people
account for 2.3% of elite science production – marginally more so than South Korea's 52
million!), and the various Anglo (Australia, Canada, New Zealand) and Sino (Taiwan, Singapore)
territories. India accounts for just 1.7%, Russia and the V4 – about 0.8% each; Brazil
– 0.5%.
About 68% of world elite science production (76% in 2012) accrues to what we might term "the
West" (the "Five Eyes" Anglosphere, the EU-28, Switzerland, Norway, Iceland, and Israel).
Another 27% (20% in 2012) accrues to East Asia (the Sinosphere, Japan, the Koreas, and
Vietnam); the Sinosphere itself (China, Taiwan, Singapore) accounts for 20% of it, up from 11%.
In total, the global demographic that John Derbyshire refers to as "ice people" – high IQ
northerners, i.e. "Greater Europe" (the West, f.USSR, and non-EU Balkans) and East Asia –
account for an astounding 96.2% of global elite science production. Moreover, even as the
balance within the "ice people" shifted from the West to East Asia during the past half decade,
their overall share of elite science production has remained almost perfectly constant (96.4%
in 2012).
The remainder is accounted for by India (1.6%; up from 1.5% in 2012); East-Central Europe
(~1.1% up from 1.0%); Latin America (~1.1%; up from ~0.9%); Russia (0.75%; up from 0.59%); Dar
Al-Islam (~0.70%; up from ~0.42%); Sub-Saharan Africa (0.20%; up from ~0.11%).
NOTE : Data for lower ranked countries (not in Top 50) is not available for 2012-2014, so
the above figures will slightly overstate the improvements within blocs containing many such
countries, e.g. Dar Al-Islam and Africa. This is not going to make any significant difference
to global patterns, as the Top 50 countries consistently account for >99.5% of world elite
science production.
***
Within the developed countries, the EU and the US have both lost their share of global
scientific production at an annual rate of ~2% since 2012. However, there are marked national
differences. The Mediterranean (Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece), France, and Japan have all
collapsed at 3-5% per annum; meanwhile, Switzerland and the UK have almost tread water, while
the Scandinavians and Australians outright increased their shares by ~1% and ~2.5% per annum,
respectively. The Med's underperformance relative to Northern Europe may be linked to brain
drain,
The Visegrad countries increased their share at a modest 2.5% per annum (modest because they
should be at least the level of the Mediterranean). However, there are major differences
between them. Starting off at 0.23% and 0.16% of world elite science production, respectively,
Czechia increased its share to 0.32% by 2018, versus a decline to 0.13% in Hungary. Orban has
not been good for Hungarian science. Poland was middling between the two, increasing from 0.35%
to 0.38% of world elite science production.
As mentioned above, Russia increased its share from 0.59% to 0.75% from 2012-2018,
translating into 4% annual increases (although coming from the collapsed post-Soviet base).
While Russia is a minnow on the global stage, it has nonetheless consistently produced 90% of
elite science in the former Soviet space. The Ukraine collapsed from 0.07% to 0.03% during this
same period, translating to an annual declnie of 10% every year; together with Taiwan, this is
the worst performance of any country in the Top 50. The only other countries of note are in the
Baltics, which have collectively increased their share from 0.03% to 0.05%.
China has seen blistering growth rate of 13% per annum (!), overtaking Poland in per capita
terms. In the process, it has gone from 24% to 56% of US absolute performance from 2012-2018
while doubling its share of global elite science production from 9% to 18%. China's share of
the Sinosphere has soared from 81% in 2012 to 92% by 2018. In the meantime, Taiwan saw the
biggest collapse of any major scientific country, with its share of global production falling
by 10% annually between 2012-18. I have speculated that this may be a direct result of China's
" 31 Steps for
Taiwan " strategy to drain the renegade island of human capital.
South Korea lost its share at a rate of 1% per annum, suggesting that it had already fully
converged to its potential c.2010.
It is worth noting that some 0.14% (up from 0.11% in 2012) points of Sub-Saharan Africa's
0.20% share of world elite science production accrues to the Republic of South Africa.
Consequently, "Black Africa" north of the RSA produces just 0.05% of world elite science
production. This means that tiny Switzerland produces ~50 times more elite science than all of
Black Africa, despite having just 1% of its population size; the average Swiss is 5,000 more
scientifically productive than the average Sub-Saharan African.
***
IQ and the Noosphere
What explains the regional patterns above! You guessed it!
We found explained variance of 40% between national IQ and research output when fitted with
a quadratic function, which increased to 54% when we adjusted for the impact of a socialist
legacy in the past or present, and this socialist legacy's interaction with IQ. GDP per capita
was not found to predict science production above that predicted by average IQ, while IQ did
account for 7% points above what just GDP pre capita explained. National IQ was likewise found
to be explain more of the variance in science production than personality factors.
Scientific production (per capita) is generally imperceptible within countries with an
average IQ lower than 90, and largely insignificant in countries with an average IQ lower than
95.
There appears to be an order of magnitude increase in per capita elite science production
for every 10 point gain in national average IQ.
***
The Future of the Noosphere
As we have established, only a small subset of high-IQ capitalist countries hosting most of
the world's "smart fractions" are responsible for 95%+ of elite science production. This would
not be a surprise to HBD/IQ realistists. However, it doesn't hurt to underline an important
implication: If "ice people" were to vanish, world science production would, very likely, come
to a complete standstill. And then we get the Age of Malthusian
Industrialism .
It is true that many countries are performing below potential. In particular, on the basis
of national IQs, I expect the countries of the former socialist bloc – Visegrad, Balts,
and ex-USSR – to converge to at least Mediterranean levels (Czechia is already there).
This presumes a further doubling in Poland's performance, and a quadrupling in Russia's (at
least so long as funding is forthcoming
). However, the limited demographic weight of these regions will make their impact largely
irrelevant on the global level, even should they converge to US/core Europe levels.
While Chinese science production will eventually dominate the world – just as it will
economically, and probably militarily – I would caution against an excess of Sinotriumph . Despite their
high average IQs, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan have all ended up converging at the level of
the Mediterranean countries such as Italy and Spain. Now China tends to lag South Korean
development by a
remarkably constant 20 years ; extending this into the future against South Korea's
"scientific convergence" data of ~2010 suggests that Chinese science production will max out
relative to the US within another decade by ~2030. If that asymptote is somewhere around that
of Korea and Taiwan – which generate 41% and 30% of US per capita elite science
production, respectively – then total elite Chinese scientific output will not exceed the
American figures by much more than 50%. Consequently, at this point, we may only reasonably
expect for China to add another America's worth of elite science production to the world before
it stabilizes (as opposed to 3-4 Americas' worth if its science generation was a
straightforward function of average IQ).
There are no good grounds to believe that other regions of the world will become scientific
powerhouses anytime soon.
The only partial exception may be India, which has a Brahmin smart fraction that is
equivalent in absolute size to the population of a large European country. However, one should
not expect miracles. Despite vigorous economic development in the past half decade, India's
share of global science production has barely budged.
The only significant upwards exception to the IQ-science production correlation is Saudi
Arabia, which produces a modest amount of elite science – almost all of it at
KAUST
, a lavishly funded institution whose overwhelmingly Western professors were poached with oil
money.
Consequently, the prospects for radically increasing world elite science production without
machine superintelligence or genomic IQ augmentation seem rather limited.
This will mainly come from more efficient utilization of Chinese & East European talent,
which can be expected to converge to Med levels but probably no further. In the meantime,
dysgenic fertility trends will continue, even as the Flynn Effect completely peters out as
almost the entire world gets access to sufficient schooling, adequate nutrition and healthcare,
and near
optimal institutions . And – needless to say – the problems that need to be
solved for further progress to occur will tend to get harder and harder.
However, there's also good news – the possibility of science production collapse due
to demographic change may not be as serious as some HBD realists and/or immigration
restrictionists tend to believe. While massive Third World immigration may lower average IQs , the native
smart fractions are still preserved; and it is the quantity of these smart fractions, not
average IQ per se, that plays a much greater role in economic
prosperity and scientific productivity. Scandinavia remains on the ascent, memes about "Sweden
Yes" regardless. Repeated SJW censorship scandals regardless – from dismissing a
respected academic for making a light-hearted joke about women to the recent hounding of Carl
Noah out of a fellowship at Cambridge University – the United Kingdom continues to do
rather well. Despite the continuing depletion of its European population, South Africa –
perhaps the most extreme case of "population replacement" – actually increased its share
of global elite science production between 2012 and 2018. Meanwhile, it has fallen in Orban's
Hungary, despite its as of yet significant unexploited human potential.
However, there's also good news – the possibility of science production collapse
due to demographic change may not be as serious as some HBD realists and/or immigration
restrictionists tend to believe. While massive Third World immigration may lower average
IQs, the native smart fractions are still preserved; and it is the quantity of these smart
fractions, not average IQ per se, that plays a much greater role in econom
Thank you for making this point, the first time I have seen it stated by an HBD
proponent.
I have been making this point for some time, that immigration leading to lower average
IQs, while bad, cannot logically lower scientific productivity because in absolute numbers
the talented fraction remains unaffected. There are still the same numbers of smart
people.
I made this point on Vox Days blog once and he furiously attacked me disagreeing. (145 IQ
lol)
I am beginning to think that people have an innately hard time grasping the difference
between "absolute numbers" and "average IQ".
I think this also accounts for why it was so hard for otherwise intelligent people to
understand that higher Jewish IQ could not possibly account for their dominance, because in
absolute numbers of smart people Jews are dwarfed by whites.
A surprisingly large number of people had a hard time understanding this and continue to
misunderstand this distinction.
They say even smart people have a hard time intuitively grasping statistics.
Some things don't come naturally to most people.
But it is good that a major HBD proponent is beginning to introduce greater nuance and
sophistication into what is all too often a simplistic philosophy.
The post overall manages to achieve an unusual level of nuance for an HBD perspective, but
unfortunately continues to suffer from major distortions in characterizing the data
collected.
I think there are two things that should probably be distinguished because their likelihood
of change differs:
a) How many people from a certain country will become excellent scientists on the highest
levels.
b) How a certain country can develop excellent research centers and entice elite scientists
to move there.
From the perspective of Switzerland, the leader in that statistic, it seems a bit odd when
elite science production is set into relation with the country's population of a bit more
than 8 million. After all, the typical situation of elite research in Switzerland is that
most researchers came from abroad because Swiss research institutions offered them better
conditions than institutions in other countries like their country of origin. According to
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_technology_in_Switzerland
, Switzerland is the country with the highest proportion of foreign researchers (57%, and I
suppose in real elite research, the proportion of foreign researchers is even higher).
The situation in Switzerland is certainly not exactly the same like in Saudi Arabia with
KAUST (mostly Western researchers poached with oil money). There is also quite a significant
number of Swiss people among the researchers, even if they are a minority, and the native
population probably plays a role in creating the conditions for elite research. But I suppose
as far as elite scientists with a certain ancestry are concerned, Switzerland is probably on
a similar level like other Western European countries, while its massive overrepresentation
in the Nature index mostly comes from its ability to attract elite scientists from other
countries.
Migration of elite scientists leads to a massively higher score for Switzerland and a
moderately lower score for all those countries the people doing elite research in Switzerland
come from (mostly EU, but some also from Russia, China, US etc.). That lowering effect is
probably relatively moderate, after all, Switzerland is small, and in absolute terms, there
are not so many elite scientists here, even if in relative terms, there are many.
But there is also migration between Asian countries, Europe and the US. I have not looked
at the numbers, but I think it is fair to assume that there are by far more East Asians doing
research in the US and Europe than Europeans and Americans doing research in East Asia.
So, on one hand, we know something about the distribution of intelligence in different
countries and can attempt to estimate how many people will become elite scientists on that
basis. I think that works to some degree, and the results as far as, for example "ice people"
and "sun people" are concerned, seem quite robust. But then, the question is still where
these elite scientists will do their research, and in many cases, it won't be in their home
country. The places elite scientists mostly move to might be subject to change to a higher
degree than facts about intelligence distribution in different countries (though, of course,
in the long run migration of elite scientists has also some influence on the intelligence
distribution of the native population in the target country when some of the elite scientists
who go to another country to do research remain there permanently and procreate there).
@AaronB
Vox Day is very much into ethno-nationalism as a stand-alone value independent of
technological innovation and productive accomplishment. He appears to be motivated by wanting
to live in a society of his "own kind" rather than that of higher functioning individuals.
In this sense, Vox's world-view can actually be described as feudal (as is much of the
alt-right). I, too, no longer post this kind of issue on his blog. There is no point.
Modern science has nothing at all to do with innovation or technology.
I'm intimately familiar in a direct way with the way science works. Trust the source
here.
@AaronB
"I think this also accounts for why it was so hard for otherwise intelligent people to
understand that higher Jewish IQ could not possibly account for their dominance, because in
absolute numbers of smart people Jews are dwarfed by whites."
It depends on where you set the limit. Certainly, in countries like the US with a
significant, but small Jewish population, among at least moderately smart people, the vast
majority is non-Jewish.
But it is generally assumed that IQ of sub-populations is normally distributed. So, if the
mean of the distribution within a sub-population is significantly higher, as is the case with
Ashkenazi Jews, in the tails of the distribution (for example an IQ about 40), the share of
that sub-population will be larger – and the more extreme the tail we look at is, the
more will that sub-population with a significantly higher mean be overrepresented.
If Jews (mostly Ashkenazi, as far as the US is concerned) have a mean IQ that is 15 points
higher than that of gentiles, and the standard deviation is 15 in both cases, it would be
expected that among people with an IQ over 145, Jews would be represented with 25.6%, even
though they are only 2% of the population. If you take a higher limit, the expected share
would be even higher.
It should probably be taken into account that mostly the verbal IQ is significantly higher
in the Jewish population while that spacial IQ is not particularly high. One can discuss
whether the overrepresentation of Jewish people in elite position is what would be expected
– probably in some areas it is greater and in some it is smaller, but it is clearly not
the case that it is *obvious* that the IQ difference cannot generrally explain it. It may be
that further factors will be needed, but it does not seem far-fetched that the IQ difference
alone explains it quite well.
@Adrian
E. Many HBDers were reasoning based on the assumption that Jewish IQ was 115 and with no
fait tails.
From this, they concluded that Jewish dominance was entirely a function of higher IQ,
despite the fact that these numbers produce a Jewish smart fraction of at most 25% of the
American population.
To me, this shows an inability to intuitively grasp statistics – it is clear they
saw Jews and whites as "individuals", not aggregates, with the stronger "individual"
dominating.
Seeing nations as "individuals" rather than aggregates seems to be an error even smart
people are extremely prone to and have a very hard time getting beyond.
There are other elements to why their position was plainly illogical as well, but I have
no wish to get into the larger argument.
@Abelard
Lindsey That's correct in general, but Vox Day was plainly not able to understand the
difference between averages and absolutes when it comes to groups. There was s bit of a back
and forth, and he just couldn't get it.
I think humans have a feature in their minds that make them see groups as individual
units, and then match unit to unit as if they were individuals, with the averages being more
important than total size.
In the future, not only will China produce quality scientific research
I 100% agree with this. At any given moment in time, China will be producing quality
scientific research in the future.
As for the rest of your argument, sure, changing demographics can have all sorts of
politic and social effects that interfere with scientific production.
But the argument was very specific – declining average IQs will lead to fewer people
capable of high output. And in fact recent observed dysfunction is the result of fewer
available capable people. When explained that this decline is the result of the addition of
stupid people and not the subtraction of smart people, they could not understand it.
Ah, but the collapse or blatant standstill is probably still inevitable – unless the
Chinese really figure out their gene editing good. In that case, 2 billion Africans won't
turn into geniuses, but by a helping hand their children certainly will
@Vishnugupta Immigrants from
India with grad degrees in scientific and technical fields say they come here because of the
unavailability of jobs. This is due to India's entrenched cronyism -- something that
increasingly exists in the USA. Immigrants themselves often foster cronyism, hiring mostly
other immigrants or members of their own family, but there is more homegrown cronyism in
America all of the time.
A lot of America's New Cronyism is traceable to dual-high-earner parents and notions of
DNA dynasties.
History has seen this before in a different form. I am not sure that aristocratic thinking
of this ilk aided technological & scientific progress. This article notes that Americans
produced a large share of scientific innovation. I thought Murray located the premier high-IQ
Generation in American history at kids born around 1850.
That was well after the dug in aristocracies of Old Europe, with their strategic power
marriages and ideas of royal lineages, began to disintegrate, replaced by notions of
individualism and .even .a Populist Movement ..in the USA.
Old Europe's aristocracies did result in some stellar fine and applied art. A good
argument could be made that an aristocratic Elite is necessary for producing the conditions
for a quanity of top-grade artists / architects to flourish.
Artists never dominate discussions of the IQ Elite. I am pretty sure that a few of them
belong up there with the scientific greats. If scientific progress stops accelerating, there
might be more jobs for average people since computers will stop outdoing humans in performing
work, but there will still be room for artistic greatness.
Where are the world's Top Art Production Countries on that list? France should do pretty
well, assuming they start protecting their cultural monuments.
Murray should write a book explaining why the disciplines of visual art and music have
less IQ prestige. The theories behind both disciplines are complex and even scientific in
many ways. A good example is this guy's exhaustive, thorough-beyond-belief art blog.
It covers every art theory out there, connecting the science behind color vision, additive
color mixing, subtractive color mixing and how scientically tested differences in color
vision amongst individuals and at different times of day apply to specific palette choices
and color theory rules.
I don't care how high your IQ is or how scientific or math-related fields trump art in
terms of intellectual horse power, this is complex stuff.
It is quite a feat to convey convincing light patterns in practice, starting from a blank
canvas. The ability to relate things like the scientific research explaining how the full
gamut of daylight is perceived by humans back to specific color choices, color theory models
and materials requires quite a mind. It focuses on only one art medium, but most of what he
describes is applicable across different mediums.
Some programmers might prefer a more ordered way of accessing the information, but there
is a beauty behind the way it's structured. This blog meanders, associatively, with one
section growing out of another, kind of like creative thought, but it is still loaded with
scientific art information.
@Adrian
E. Switzerland obviously gets a huge boost because it's the default location for a lot of
pan-European projects. It has made a good profit out of being the one country that's easily
politically acceptable to both France and Germany. CERN alone is a big chunk of it and the
scientist staff looks like a random sample from all over Europe with a couple of Asians and
Americans.
Some countries get similar boosts of being the center of some bloc. A capable Belarusian
or Ukrainian has little reason to try to get the Minsk lab up to Moscow's standard when they
can just move to Russia. Sweden is the default location for Scandinavian joint projects. All
the English speaking countries get a boost from the language that all elite educated people
in the world now speak.
But remember that location of the Noosphere (what is described as scientific output is
only a part of it, as in the technology sector much of the work is also a kind of Noosphere)
– is also quite responsive to salaries.
For example, in Switzerland, most of the scientific research will be by non-Swiss people.
So Switzerland's high score is a result of high salaries attracting higher human capital from
other countries, and good funding for their projects, not the human capital level of native
people of Switzerland.
Conversely, much of the best Russian/Soviet educated scientists are now working in
America, Switzerland, Israel, Canada, Australia and Germany. So Russia's low currently score
is not perfectly reflecting the original human capital levels, as Russian origin human
capital is powering the Noosphere in multiple other countries at the moment.
A 2016 Johns Hopkins study concluded that 250,000 people die every year as a result of
medical negligence. My thought is that, while the smart fraction of medical science has
produced remarkable advances, the general unraveling works against those advances being
delivered. As a resident of dysfunctional California, which certainly possesses a smart
fraction, I could cite many examples of the smart fraction being unable to deliver its
benefits.
BTW, do you have an educated guess as to how much higher Israel's percentage on the chart
in your article is going to be if the Holocaust would have never happened and if most of the
Jews who were killed in the Holocaust in real life would have thus survived and moved to
Israel in this scenario?
@AaronB I
don't doubt it. However, in defense of Vox I will say that, given the nature of his obsession
with group identity, that he would believe that averages are more important than absolutes
for group cohesiveness. I think for his purposes, he is correct.
In any case, I remember seeing similar discussion about 10 years ago when HBD was becoming
a thing on the 'net. I forget the blog the discussion was on. But the discussion was about
how HBD types divided into two separate groups when it came to ideal communities they would
like to live in. One group was very much into the white-nationalist ethno-state. The second
group (which I consider myself a part of) was into the Singapore-like city-state consisting
of high functioning individuals of any race, but in reality would be mostly a mix of white
and north-east Asians. This latter concept is clearly not attractive to much of the
alt-right, let alone guys like Vox Day. If anything, Vox would argue that the Singapore
concept I mentioned would not be feasible at all. This latter point is, of course, a bogosity
given that trading city-states (think of Venice and Genoa) have endured for centuries, even
through tumultuous periods of history.
What I do remember at the time is that most HBD types were more interested in crafting
societies of high functioning individuals with less emphasis in ethnic identity in and of
itself than the alt-right movement that emerged some years later.
@Mr. XYZ
Regardless of that history, Israel is massively losing its human capital all the time today,
because their best scientists, academics and students almost all leave Israel and immigrate
to America and Canada.
While their cleverer young people, are brain draining to the technology industry and away
from science (or they will study computer science, instead of mathematics, for example, and
for computer science graduates Israel actually has a good job market).
There is very little money in Israeli science and universities, and not very many jobs, at
least compared to the West (but it will be more comparable situation with Russia/Ukraine, and
perhaps better job conditions in Israel than Russia overall).
A lot of America's New Cronyism is traceable to dual-high-earner parents and notions of
DNA dynasties.
It is incredibly annoying. By normal standards, I would be an elite given that I'm in the
top 95% of income now but by being a single income household, it drops me top the top 33%.
Most of my colleagues would basically do something like what I"m doing, but also then insert
their wives into sinecure positions which then cannot be disputed since it serves the
"diversity" purpose.
Its hard to see this as anything but blatantly parasitic and corrupt, and its common
practice serves to inflate the prices of goods for everyone else. I imagine as heritage
Americans become ever lower of a share of the elite, such practices will become ever more
common.
It is nice to see the Teilhardian concept of the noosphere has not been lost. It should be
used more often since it fits well with the intellectually interconnected world of today and
the future.
@Abelard
Lindsey It seems like this kind of discussion you describe in your comment, is just
attracting idealists, who live more in a dream world, and prefer debating about their mental
pictures of imaginative societies, than anything relevant to what we can live in.
In this case, this style of discussion is useful (and has real content) only for
discovering what your preferences are – and the debates between people, are just
debates about preferences and personal tastes in relation to pictures in their mind.
The "insights" of the debate can be in revealing your preferences to yourself, or finding
contradictions between your preferences. At the same time, it requires a lack of a realistic
or logical type of people to have this kind of debate.
I wonder if personality tests were given to internet forum members. I believe most people
who like this belong to "introvert intuitive" or "introvert feeling" typologies.
@Dmitry
Your comments are certainly correct for the entire dissident right community, including the
alt-right, since much of what they propose has no chance of ever being implement.
I don't understand what the y axis on the final two graphs is supposed to represent.
(it's also not clearly labeled in the first graph – one has to read quite a ways into
the article to figure out that it is showing "percent of US output, with US = 100")
Otherwise nice article.
The main question I would raise is the extent to which the value of contributions is the
actual determinant of a high ranking, vs. proximity to the main networking methods that
academics use. I mean, it's no secret that Russia is rather geographically far away from
where most of the activity happens, and it's not so easy for them to meet with their
colleagues in other countries.
GDP Per Capita explains the data pretty well w/o much of unnecessary gymnastics.
I took Karlin's FC18 column and calculated FC18 per capita using google population data
and plotted against google GDP per capita.
No need to invoke socialism to explain underperformance of smart Russians and Poles. They
are just poor like Chinese and Brazilians so they are on the left hand side bottom of the
curve. It is all about money.
Clearly si-Singapore and is-Israel and UK are over performers while USA is slight
underperform for the money they got.
Denmark, Germany, Korea, Spain, Czechia are slightly above the curve while Japan, Austria,
Australia, Netherlands and USA are below the curve.
China, Brazil and Russia are in one cluster.
It is all about money. Money talks and bullshit walks in particular the IQ bullshit.
"Despite the hype around Moore's Law, there is mounting and disquieting evidence that
technological growth is slowing down."
yeah i think this is overwhelmingly accepted by everybody. definitely not a case of 'there
might be a problem'. moore's law is totally over and has been over for a while. semiconductor
fabricators are now dropping out of the nanometer race. every step downwards now, another
big, billion dollar company drops out of the race. i think we're down to just 3 competitors
now, heading into the 7nm integrated circuit process. it's cost intel probably 50 billion
dollars to try to get from 10nm to 7nm, and they're still not there. AMD is the leader
currently.
computer generated GDP growth has absolutely, positively hit a wall. that free growth we
got every year in the 90s is totally over. supercomputers are still improving. miniature
computer devices are barely progressing though. this actually effects more than just cell
phones and laptops – autonomous robots were depending on this stuff. it's VERY, VERY
much harder to get to Terminator level robots if your microprocessors just suddenly stop
getting smaller and faster and more efficient every 3 years. autonomous cars have been
effected a lot by this. aside from the issues with lidar. which is actually improving
steadily.
"It takes more and more researchers to get similar rates of innovation. The price of chip
fabs double with every new quadrupling in chip density (Rock's Law). At the most fundamental
level, problems tend to get harder – not easier – as one climbs up the
technological ladder (see my article Apollo's Ascent)"
the general idea behind apollo's ascent is dead on the money, and it's probably your best
work. i've had similar thoughts. the apollo's ascent concept completely explains stuff that
michael woodley seems to ascribe to declining population intelligence. well, the evidence is
overwhelming that this actually is happening. but the main issue is more that it just gets
harder and harder to take the next step forward in tech. very similar to SHA-256 security
employed by the bitcoin algorithms for instance. cracking each next level of security takes
twice as much effort. you cracked level 26, now crack level 27, at twice the cost.
"Nobel Prizes in the sciences lag real world accomplishments by 20-30 years"
this isn't accurate anymore. that used to be the rule. now the prize can be awarded for
work less than 10 years ago. since they've run out of actual important stuff to award the
prize to. the prize MUST be awarded every year, but something important doesn't happen every
year, in these much older, well explored, fully developed fields. so stuff that matters a lot
less ends up getting awarded now. not much different than music. which is garbage now. but
the grammy awards MUST be awarded every year.
i've posted about this several times. also. the important fields today, are outside the
purview of the nobel board. so when important stuff does happen in computer science,
robotics, AI, they have nothing to say about it.
also i believe the nobel board is compromised now. they definitely take into accout
vibrancy issues. even the fields medal board is compromised now i suspect.
"Consequently, the prospects for radically increasing prospects for increasing world elite
science production without machine superintelligence or genomic IQ augmentation seem rather
limited."
basic eugenic practices would do it. simply using known techniques will increase
brainpower over generations. shrug. i'll assume china is doing this. the anglosphere used to
do this 100 years ago, but prefers government enforced dysgenics now instead.
"However, there's also good news – the possibility of science production collapse due
to demographic change may not be as serious as some HBD realists and/or immigration
restrictionists tend to believe."
the threat is not only from the vibrant population coming to predominate, reducing the
amount of people who can even do the work. the threat is that the vibrant people will elect a
vibrant government that is openly hostile to science and engineering work. which they
absolutely are.
when the vibrant are in control of the US, which they will be soon, that scene of the
africans harrassing NASA for wasting money on space when they should just be using that money
to feed useless africans, so they can make more africans, will be the normal scene in
america. not the exception.
GDP production will be diverted towards making more vibrants. vibrant governments will
ruthlessly tax and legally restrain ice people companies, industry, and medical research.
ice people GPD production will be a resource to be allocated to increasing the vibrant's
numbers instead of increasing mankind's tech levels. this is already how california and
washington DC work. california needs 50 million mexicans? no problem. get to work ice people.
solve the problems required to make that happen.
in short, the real threat is vibrant political capture of smart fraction output. this is
what has happened in south africa. this is certainly the future of france and sweden. we saw
what the obama adminstration did in the US. get ready for a century of that.
When I looked at H-index and IQ it seemed to me that GDP*research spending explained the
pattern better than IQ. From which I concluded that the science bottleneck was funding. Which
makes sense if one looks at the atrocious conditions in academic research. Would be
interesting whether GDP*research spending also accounts better for the nature index than IQ.
(This actually makes the NE-asian underperformance even more glaring because they spend a lot
of money on research.)
Of course the gold standard for this kind of analysis would be looking at author
ethnicity. It is really difficult to disambiguate the effects of money and talent. At some
point the scientists poached by the US might go to China instead. And certainly Chinese
talent has less and less reason to go to the US. If talent is the bottleneck, at some point
it becomes a zero-sum game. If money is the bottleneck we have less to worry about.
I wrote several blogposts on the NE-Asian underperformance. But it seems with the links my
comment doesn't make it through the spam filter.
Anyway, when I looked at the relationship of h-index and IQ, I found that GDP*research
spending explained the h-index differences better than IQ. From which I concluded that
science is bottlenecked by money not by talent. I wonder whether that is also true for the
nature index.
I am not sure I buy into the "problems are getting harder" thing. New technologies also
open up new fields of inquiry that are full of low hanging fruits. Deep Learning is such a
case. Same for Genome sequencing. Crispr/CAS9. Etc. Especially in biology it seems to me that
new technology makes a lot of problems trivial that used to be impossible.
I keep scratching my head over what to call the poz brain of the world. I think it is a very
important concept, but not well articulated by "noosphere", which has an academic and
somewhat apolitical connotation, which doesn't easily evoke evolutionary biology, and when
adapted via using the term "mind virus", seems hamfisted.
As I would define it, the "poz brain" is mostly a synergism of prog minds all over the
world being connected by greater tech. I think you could perhaps almost physically map it, by
making a connectome. If conservatives are a part of it, it is only in the sense of inhibitory
neurons, which are inadequate.
The disease is not so much a mind virus or a meme, as it is akin to a root physiological
dysfunction caused by overabundant excitatory connections. Something like epilepsy or
schizophrenia. And this would be a major area of potential study – how to increase the
inhibition/break some of the connections.
I have always liked the term "Matryoshka brain"(improper for my usage), so my test would
be if the term measured up to that – and "poz brain" doesn't. I feel like it requires
some foreign word, possibly Russian, combining with the word "brain."
@utuChina, Brazil and Russia are in one cluster. – These countries have similar GDP
per capita so their FC18 per capita are similar. But if you are an IQists you would enter
three numbers for IQ's: Br=83, Ru=96 and Ch=104 (per https://www.worlddata.info/iq-by-country.php
). which covers 21 IQ points span which is 140% of 1 SD. Yet these countries produce the same
FC18 per capita as if IQ did not matter. There is not IQ signal in these data! Their GDP per
capita are similar and this explains why their FC18 per capita are similar.
One can look at the graph above and conclude that UK, Israel and Singapore GDP are too
low. They are underpaid for the output they produce while in USA, Australia and Netherlands
they are overpaid. They are slacking off there.
They are just poor like Chinese and Brazilians so they are on the left hand side bottom
of the curve.
Brazil cannot be compared to China or Russia. It never had communism; it is different
demographically. The white people there are held hostage to an ever growing horde of browns.
Now, they measure people's lips with a ruler, and grade their skin with a colorimeter, to
disburse egalitarian gibs. That is why they have to cut R & D – it is not an
entitlement, like gibs are.
@prime
noticer I see that danger as well, but the good thing is that "making more vibrants" is
very hard, at least when it comes to fertility rates. Outside of Africa, their reproduction
is collapsing right now. Mexico has fallen below replacement level not long ago. So did
American Hispanics. Arabs will do the same.
Diversity may be a long-term risk to scientific production, but anti-intellectual
populism is a much more immediate one. Recent news of Brazil's Bolsonaro slashing
university funding by a third will soon provide us with another test case.
It seems to be a longer-term problem:
As a result of Brazil's mounting economic woes, federal funding for science and
technology is now at its lowest level in modern history, dropping by more than half over
the past 5 years. The science ministry kicked off this year with a slim $1.8 billion
budget, but President Michel Temer's administration later reduced that by 44%, imposing a
spending cap of just over $1 billion.
Brazilians anticipated that Bolsonaro would clamp down on the cultural and academic
funding supported by his leftist predecessors, but even the president of the Brazilian
Academy of Science, Luiz Davidovich, says he was surprised by the new reductions. He says
that Bolsonaro promised in a letter to the academy prior to his election to nearly triple
the government's investment in research and development. "This cut goes against his
promise," Davidovich says.
Bolsonaro, Brazil's far-right president who took office in January, has pledged to
increase spending on research and development from 1% to 3% of the country's gross domestic
product. He has also appointed Brazil's only astronaut, Marcos Pontes, as his science
minister. But Bolsonaro's economic minister, Paulo Guedes, is a neoliberal hardliner who is
pushing to shrink the size of Brazil's government in order to boost the economy.
So presumably Bolsonaro's first instinct was to increase science spending but was
counteracted by his Chicago Boys educated adviser.
However, it may seem a surprising approach for the chief economic adviser to a candidate
who largely endorsed corporatist, protectionist policies during his 27 years as a lawmaker.
Making light of this volte-face, he told Brazilian daily O Globo: "In truth, I know nothing
about the economy."
[ ]
"One factor explaining Guedes's role is that Bolsonaro has sought and won the backing of
Brazil's financial elite, who favour free-market economic policies," explained Glauber
Sezerino, co-editor of the Paris-based, Brazil-focused specialist publication Autres
Brésils.
Rather than spending cuts, although that could pose a threat, a deeper problem that may
arise is when universities and research facilities start being subjected to nepotist entryism
and informal or even mandated quotas for idiot ethnicities.
@songbird
Obviously, Brazil are not comparable to Russia from any historical perspective – they
are not the former superpower, with formerly the world's strongest army, achievements in
infrastructure and engineering, and one of the world's greatest history of achievements in
science and culture.
But I'm pretty sure that politically they have aspects of a tropical Russia –
including some similar problems of too many billionaires, large territories, difficult
neighbors, natives', extractive industries and falling fertility rates.
@Anon
This is true but when you look at it on the full scale where USA=100% Brazil,Russia and China
are on the low end somewhere between 3-10% bunched together and since their GDP per capita
are similar they create a distinct cluster.
The fitted curve in the full range of 1% (India) to 270% (Switzerland) represents the data
pretty well (see residuals).
What is interesting is that the curve is convex (2nd derivative is positive) even if
Switzerland point was removed tit would be convex hough then the convexity would be smaller.
What is the explanation for the increasing rates of return with the increased GDP per capita?
Is it because of cumulative infrastructure effect or an increase related to the brain drain.
Does Switzerland because it offers best salaries for PhD students and postdocs in the world
can attract best students? Postdoc salaries in Switzerland are about 1.5 times higher than in
Singapore and almost 2 times higher than in the US. The difference between these countries is
that the high postdoc salaries in Switzerland are congruent with its GDP per capita while in
the US the salaries of postdocs are somewhat below what GDP per capita would indicate which
possibly explains why the US data point is under the curve. And Singapore is somewhere
in-between though is is a strong over-performer. To answer these questions one would have to
look at statistical data about postdocs and PhD students in these countries, where do they
come from and so on.
Anyway, the problem when looked at in detail with a magnifying glass obviously is complex.
I did the curve and the presentation as a function of GDP per capita to show that it is the
best predictor we have for the data (keep it simple, stupid) that A. Karlin compiled while
his fanciful rumination about IQ's, which leads him to the invocation of the communist
retardation, do not provide nowhere near as much explanatory power as the GDP per capita.
Just look at the mess of his plots.
Really thanks for this article! I actually did similar calculations several weeks ago. They
are just not that detailed. Germanic countries are really the best in terms of scientific
progress.
@utu You
hit the nail on the head – it all is about the money, in more ways than one.
However, let's start with the measure AK is using: The Nature Index. I don't know what
journals are included in the select 50, but the narrative indicates that they are selected
based on impact. Non-scientists might not know what impact is: it is the number of citations
divided by the number of papers published. From that it should be obvious that in science,
like in Hollywood, there is no difference between famous and notorious. If 50 papers a year
cite your work and say that it's great, you get an impact of 50. If 50 papers a year cite you
and say that your work is BS, you get an impact of 50. High-impact journals (in biology
that's Nature, Science, and Cell, and a few of their family members) mostly care about
expected impact, so they go for sensational along with good science. Many for-profit
companies have already figured that the fraction of total BS (things that don't reproduce)
published in high-impact journals is a lot greater than in modest-impact journals. So the
measure used is seriously flawed.
Next, IQ. Even disregarding the issue of what exactly does IQ measure (it was devised to
measure mental retardation, which is faithfully does), the IQ of a human being does not
change much, yet that person's scientific output does. Today I see a lot of Russian names
among the authors of high quality scientific papers (I am talking about biology, which I
know), but most of them work in the US, a few in Europe, and very few in Russia. The
productivity is clearly defined by conditions, first and foremost by available funding. I can
illustrate this using my own experience: in 11 years in the USSR I published fewer than 10
papers indexed in PubMed (the most reputable database for biomedical research), whereas in 28
years in the US I got >200 papers in PubMed. All papers produced in the USSR collectively
were cited fewer than 200 times (with one methods development paper accounting for >100 of
these citations), whereas the work produced in the US was cited >16,000 times. None of the
Soviet period papers were in high-impact journals, whereas quite a few of those produced in
the US were. So, the productivity and citations, unlike the IQ, can change by orders of
magnitude, depending on the conditions, primarily funding. Out of 25+ people I had in my lab
over the years only four were US-born, yet our papers all contribute to the US score. Funding
has yet another effect. Most of high-class papers involve collaborations between several labs
with different expertise. Thus, the density of good labs, which is determined by research
funding, has a huge impact on the level of publications produced.
So, you are right, IQ has nothing to do with it. Funding availability determines how much
talent you can import and how much high-level science this talent produces for the glory of
the country supplying that funding. Indeed, money talks, and IQ walks.
@Cicerone
"I see that danger as well, but the good thing is that "making more vibrants" is very hard,
at least when it comes to fertility rates. Outside of Africa, their reproduction is
collapsing right now. Mexico has fallen below replacement level not long ago. So did American
Hispanics. Arabs will do the same."
there's 6 billion third worlders on earth, and half of them would love to live in the
west.
there will be no problem flooding the US with 500 million useless third worlders when
democrats permanently capture the white house and open the borders forever.
which is absolutely, positively the direction the united states is heading in. it's moving
directly towards the iceberg of vibrant political capture of european man's smart fraction
output. almost every democrat openly states as much now. half of the US government is already
set up on this assumption. GDP output will be captured for vibrant biological purposes.
this is why i propose the idea that the most likely future for us is that we will become
what i call
mules
there won't be any conflict or resistance to this slow and steady process of europeans
being outnumbered and replaced. instead, european men will simply be turned into mules, who
will do all the work, pay all the taxes, and in return, they will be harassed for life by the
vibrant hordes, ever expanding, who they provide for and keep alive.
they're not 'waking up' in south africa at very high rates. so there's probably no
threshold beyond which lots of europeans will wake up fast enough to trigger some sort of
resistance. enough of them will accept being turned into mules, that it will happen.
Outside of Africa , their reproduction is collapsing right now.
This is the elephant in the room. How is the global economy going to continue to grow as
the amount of working age non-blacks begin to gradually decline and due to this decline both
production and consumption of many goods decline?
I have some doubts about journals like Ecology Letters, Environmental Science and
Technology , Geophysical Research Letters, Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres,
Nature Climate Change
And I agree that Nature as well as Science have a lot of hyped politically
correct crap.
The list of journals is heavy on biology and medical sciences which may explain why UK is
so high because this is the basket UK put a lot of their eggs in. Otoh, there, I think, might
be less emphasis on material science and technology on the list which may results in lower
rank of Japan and China. Then astrophysics just like nuclear physics (which really do not
lead to new technologies and is open and not patentable) is very international and I wonder
how do they attribute the papers among countries that have 100's of coauthors from CERN or
LIGO who are from many countries. Is it possible that high rank of Switzerland is because of
CERN?
Moore's Law is generally ended now. Samsung has announced they will do 3nm mode starting next
year. A few other fabs such as TSMC may follow. Intel is struggling with getting out their
10nm devices, as well as GlobalFoundries. The 3nm mode is probably a hard limit because some
components such as the gate are at the molecular level and cannot get any smaller. They, you
have the cost of these new generations, which is driven mostly by the use of EUV (these are
several hundred millions PER SYSTEM and 10 or more are needed in a single fab). There will
continue to be improvements in computation, 3-D stacking and the like. But these improvements
are linear rather than exponential. We're also entering another "A.I. winter" with the
multi-layer neuro nets (deep learning) showing up in rack mounted stuff but nothing else. I
have yet to see a machine vision system come out based on deep learning neuro net. I think
quantum computing is a load of hype. Semiconductors and computation seem to be approaching
hard limits.
There are lots of potential developments in material science. Graphene, fullerines and
related materials offer potential in certain applications.
Where I think the major frontier is in technological innovation is in bio-engineering and
synthetic biology. I believe there are literally centuries of technological innovation
available in this field, even if dysgenics is not an issue in the future. I think the A.I.
singularity is a hype. But the bio-singularity is real, but will occur over a lot longer
period of time.
I am not that concerned with the industrial malthusianism because there will always be a
large enough smart fraction to do the work. Indeed, this smart fraction will increase more in
actual magnitude (if not in relative numbers) in the industrial malthusian scenario. My
dislike of industrial malthusianism is more aesthetic than anything else. A world with a 100
billion "people of Walmart" is a rather unpleasant thought to me.
@EastKekistani At the highest
levels, intellectual achievement has only been notable from European origin and Japanese
nationalities in the modern world, while it was located only in India and the Mediterranean
in the Ancient world – where the Indian mind overpassed even the Mediterranean in some
ways.
Recent national patterns have continued at least, in prizes and medalists in the
intellectual world (even if these don't always signify real intellectual achievement, they
might be at least a partial symptom of recent trends).
In Turing Award, some modest equality for India and China. Combined 2,7 billion Indians
and Chinese, so far with only one prize each https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_Award
But China and India, have had a lower economic level.
Hopefully it will change in this century – if income level is an important factor
for creating a climate for intellectual achievements, at least in the current historical
configuration, and China will hopefully start to contribute more at the highest levels.
I would also have hope for India to revolutionize the intellectual world, but this will
probably not be until later part of the 21st century if higher income level is such a
necessary condition.
And if Africa is less promising than India and China – but perhaps if Africa
eventually reaches a higher level of income, as well as institutional and political
stability, it could surprise us.
I just heard about this Nature 82 index yesterday! I was at a meeting where I was chair with
two deans and was telling them that we want more money, etc and one said, "We care about the
Nature 82 index, because we report to the government on it, and the proportion of articles at
the university there is only 20%, so if you have more, that will be considered."
Of course, I said "What is this Nature 82 index" and immediately looked it up on the phone
and while they were talking about something else. It had all the big hitters in my field, but
some big mistakes. It had some lower journals and didn't have some that were better. I said
"hey, they don't have this best society journal there, but have the one below it! Where I
actually have two papers after getting rejected from the big one. And they have this journal
from a different society, where I was told to send my article after a rejection from a
flagship but I refused and sent it to another journal where people in my field publish so
that they would actually read my work!" Then everyone laughed at me
I said "this list is garbage." And immediately one of the deans said, "well, the person in
charge of the list is coming here next week, maybe you'd like to tell him that? ". "Well, I
wouldn't use those exact words maybe ". Last thing I need to do is talk to some old guy about
his dubious list that he sells to government bean counters.
Anyways, this science post ignores the influence of rampant cheating that is increasing in
science the more money it attracts, and entrenched science systems in countries breeding
careerism and loss in innovation ability. I'll post on that a bit later. There is still a lot
that can be done in my field, but I prefer it not being so popular as bio-medicine for
example, where it seems from the side that the cheaters are now producing third generation
scientific offspring and vacuuming up funding.
All the English speaking countries get a boost from the language that all elite educated
people in the world now speak.
This is a huge factor. The problem with the Nature Index is that it doesn't account for
native-born researchers as seperated from immigrants. China in particular would likely come
across as much closer to the US if you only looked at native-born Americans.
However, even this may slowly come to a crawl as the US loses in global weight to China
and starts amping up "
yellow scares ", which in turn would turn off the tap of clever Chinese researchers.
India will likely send its best for much longer to the US than China since India's
development potential is far lower. As the US top scientific output is increasingly
cosmopolitan, in the event of any serious crisis, many of its national security hawks are now
realising that marshalling their intellectual elites for any major geopolitical conflict is
becoming far harder due to conflicted loyalties.
In my view, the US' scientific output should be added with that huge disclaimer if you
want to use this index as a measure of "national strength" along with other indicators. It's
less of an issue in the UK due to the UK's dimished status and even less in Switzerland,
since most of its immigrants are other Europeans.
But of course the same truism is accurate there, a lot of its output is generated by
clever non-Swiss immigrants and a bad measure of inherent innovation of its native peoples
the way it is in, say, most of East Asia due to much lower fractions of immigrant –
especially of non-East Asian stock – researchers.
In 2013 there were a total of 1,937,447 permanent residents (23.8% of the total
population of 8.14 million) in Switzerland. Of these, 1.65 million resident foreigners
(85.0%, or 20.2% of the 8.14 Million total population[18][19]), had European citizenship
(Italian: 298,875; German: 292,291; Portuguese: 253,227; French: 110,103; Serbian: 90,704;
Kosovan: 86,976; Spanish: 75,333, Macedonian: 62,633; British: 40,898; Austrian: 39,494;
Bosnian and Herzegovinian: 33,002; Croatian: 30,471). From other continents; 122,941
residents were from Asia; 83,873 from Africa; 78,433 from the Americas; and 4,145 from
Oceania.
IQ adds significant further explanatory power (7.3%) when added to a GDPpc model. GDPpc
does not when added to an IQ+socialism model (1.7%).
If I get some time I will try to address it later doing 2-parameter fit.
In the mean time FYI the fit FC18pC=FIT(GDPpC) in the figure in comment #29 explains 87.4%
of variance in the FC18pC data. So I will try to see if adding IQ to the model could explain
more and how much.
The second group (which I consider myself a part of) was into the Singapore-like
city-state consisting of high functioning individuals of any race, but in reality would be
mostly a mix of white and north-east Asians.
In other words, like a university (except possibly with even more pronounced flaws). I
think we can use our experiences with those to project how High-Functiontopia will turn
out.
Notice that the EU core area has a white European population probably on par with the
white European-American population, but the US still has the greater share of scientific
discovery. I would posit this has much to do with the efficiency conferred by language
homogeneity in the United States (English)
I think it has more to do with the US being a much larger single market. The EU is still a
patchwork of rules and exceptions and loopholes. Scale matters when building big stuff,
including big companies. That's why huge tech companies can only realistically come from very
large countries. You may have your one-off Samsung, but that company generates something like
a third of Korea's GDP. It can't replicate that again.
You see a bit of this cultural/linguistic/ethnic homogeneity = efficiency phenomenon
with the video game industry, specifically in regards to competition between Sony and the
much larger, but more multicultural and less efficient Microsoft. Japan's Sony corporation
dominates Microsoft in sales just like their car companies dominate their American
competition; GM was recently chased out of Europe because it couldn't compete and none of
these companies can sell anything in Japan.
OTOH, US tech companies seem to be doing better than Chinese ones. Outside of Huawei, I
don't see any Chinese company that can match Google, Microsoft etc. Baidu, Alibaba et al are
all too domestic-focused as of yet. Their impact outside of China is extremely limited.
@prime
noticer For long-term progress, CMOS has to be replaced by something better. I assume
this is a 15-20 year process at a minimum, because there is currently no viable replacement
on the horizon; the fancy materials being studied will need about 15 years to go into mass
production once someone decides to go for it.
Computer architects will provide a one-time boost by specializing processors further.
Ongoing. This won't drive 2x performance every 18 months though.
From an engineering standpoint, memory and storage is always becoming more of a
performance bottleneck. Some recent progress here actually, e.g., Intel Optane becoming
commercially available.
GDP production will be diverted towards making more vibrants. vibrant governments will
ruthlessly tax and legally restrain ice people companies, industry, and medical
research.
Also, vibrant research boss will divert funds to more congenial purposes as well as
support a, shall we say 'confused', agenda.
It's no question that IQ and GDP is associated with science output. The only question is what
the arrow of causality here is. Does IQ cause GDP and also science production? Or does
economic development -> high IQ -> high science production? It's a fact though, that
you need a lot of money to carry out modern research.
A good example is north korea – south korean science output is like US levels, while
north korean output is african tier. North Korea before communism were even more developed
than South Korea.
And this 'socialist legacy' stuff seems a bit iffy to me. Sure, communism will depress
science output. But that's not the only thing that's going to depress science output. Many
african countries in the 20th century had things far worse than socialist governments. Hey,
atleast the socialists were big on widespread literacy and education. Not the case for
cannibal warlords believing in voodoo that hold top positions in government and run around
sacrificing humans to their gods. That probably has even a bigger effect than communism.
Well, for one we do know that environment has SOME effect on scientific achievement. The
so amazing scientific achievement of the jews was basically nill before 18th century, and
only picked up by 19th/20th century. Scientific achievement was far lower in 16th century
England than today. Why? Well i could think one reason – it's that all the smart people
didn't do science – they did religion and philosophy instead. Infact, that's what smart
people did before science – theology. I don't think modern people are aware just *HOW
MUCH* brainpower went into religious matters, the greatest physicists and mathematicians of
the old days took religion&theology just as seriously (until the 19th century, and only
really the 20th century). One could say that that's what smart people still do in certain
countries (muslim countries).
Regarding Africans, african immigrants to the UK and the US perform among the best , on
average. Now you might say, selective migration! An example – "According to the United
Census Bureau, 4 percent of Nigerians hold the Ph.D. degree compared to 1% of the general US
population. 17% of Nigerians hold a master's degree and a whopping 37% have a bachelor's
degree.".
One has to just know that the percentage of nigerians who had PHDs in 1800 wasn't 4%, 1%,
0,5%, it wasn't even 0,01%. It was exactly 0 – none made it. So clearly environment
matters up to some point. Many african countries still have not achieved universal literacy,
which was achieved during the 19th century in Europe (Coincidentally, that's when there was a
massive explosion in science output in Europe..)
I think the A.I. winter will last a long time. The deep neuronets that are the technology
underlying the current A.I. craze were actually invented in 1986. They were shelved after a
year or two of discussion simply because the computing power to use them did not exist at the
time. It was only around '12 or '13 that the computing power became sufficient that people
started pursuing it. For the A.I. winter to end would require that a similar breakthrough be
developed now that could be implemented in some kind of nanotechnology during the 2040's.
Currently there's a shitshow about Orbán wanting to nationalize the Hungarian
Academy of Sciences. I don't know enough about the issue to make an informed opinion, but I
tend to think it's just some Fidesz idiot noticing there's a lot of money (like, a few
hundreds of millions of dollars) to be stolen, and decided to proceed. On the other side,
it's perhaps useless academics drawing upper middle class salaries without producing much
actual science, and now protecting their turf from anyone, be it Orbán or the
taxpayers. It's also probably the case that a lot of scientists are leftists. Still, overall
I tend to think they have a stronger case than Orbán.
Orbán has a habit of using his hobby, soccer, to pay his cronies. Now if he uses
his hobby for this, then it's very likely that his goal here in science, which he doesn't
even care for, is the same or worse.
Now some don't think science is of paramount importance for Hungary: we're members of NATO
and the EU, so we could theoretically simply buy or use results from others cheaper, while we
don't have much of an independent industry, and we aren't even very developed, so we'll
mostly just use foreign technologies or the results of foreign research anyway.
However, I have issues with this reasoning. One big advantage of having scientists in the
country is that they are smart. Keeping them in the country is eugenic. Instead, they are now
leaving in droves. I also wouldn't dismiss the idea that strong basic research could create
an atmosphere of innovation and perhaps lead to stronger indigenous industries. I also think
that these people, being smart and all that, are probably politically more influential than
numbers alone would indicate. So it's useful to bribe these (relatively cheap) smart people
into supporting the government. (Currently the opposite is happening.) I don't think it's
very stable to have a very liberal traitor smart fraction and a nationalistic government.
Something has got to give, and given the current trajectory of the West, I don't think it's
going to be the shitlib smart fraction. They might leave the country, of course, but that
will result in an economic and cultural decline.
@reiner
Tor This really depends on what "leftist" means. STEM folks are likely to be irreligious.
If that's what "leftist" means then of course STEM folks tend to be leftist. On the other
hand on economic issues and racial issues STEM folks don't exactly agree with commies or
SJWs.
on economic issues and racial issues STEM folks don't exactly agree with commies or
SJWs
There's some truth to it, but if you mean that they (or at least the majority of them)
secretly believe that whites are genetically smarter than blacks or that they strongly oppose
mass immigration, then that's simply a myth. Though many in the alt-right seem to believe
it.
@AnonFromTN What you and utu are
saying is very convincing.
However, quality scientific research can only be done, by definition, by a part of the
high-IQ population of each country. So, if we had a good metric to measure the scientific
output carried out by natives of each country, we would by necessity find a correlation
between this output and the amount of high IQ people that each nation produces (and is
capable of educating to an adequate level). This doesn't even sound to me like a hypothesis
that needs to be tested.
Granted, economic development will influence the amount of people that a country can raise
to scientific research standards. But, having lived in Latin America for quite a few years, I
have little doubt that HBD is real and determinant. However, some of James Thompson's latest
pieces lead me to think that we don't really know what the average IQ of each country is or
even if current ways of measuring IQ are very adequate.
Aside from IQ, East Asians should be doing even much better in science and innovation because
they have tons of money to burn from running huge trade surpluses, much more than Ivy League
and Oxbridge endowments.
Sovereign Wealth Fund Institute (total assets) figures;
China Investment Corporation – $941 billion.
Hong Kong Monetary Authority Investment Portfolio – $509 billion.
SAFE Investment Company (China) $440 billion.
GIC Private Limited (Singapore) $390 billion.
Temasek Holdings (Singapore) $375 billion.
National Council for Social Security Fund (China) – $341 billion.
Korea Investment Corporation (KIC) – $134 billion.
If you mean by "IQ" academic talent? Or if you mean by "IQ", what is measured in "IQ
tests"?
"IQ tests" are just simple word games, or rotating some different shape.
The results of these tests might correlate to some extent with peoples' academic talent, and
they might be filtering away people with unhealthy brains which cannot concentrate on a
task.
But the only interesting thing is academic talent and what extent this is inherited
(obviously looking at "IQ tests" is a bit of a distraction in all this, as you can use the
same time to look at actual academic achievements of different people or countries).
we don't really know what the average IQ of each country
What are peoples' and countries' academic talent , and what extent this can be genetically
determined (controlling for economic level) is a real question. There are certainly
differences between nationalities in their quantity of people with academic talent, which
will not be simply a result of their economic level.
What is the "IQ" (if it refers to test score results) does not seem like a real question.
Compare it to an Elo rating for example. An Elo rating is measuring how good people are at
chess. While "IQ test" is measuring how good people are at matching together pictures of
shapes.
If you can relate these kind of "IQ tests" (which remind me of books we had at children's
parties when we were 6 years old) to how good or bad we were in our studies at
university?
"IQ tests" are just simple word games, or rotating some different shape.
The results of these tests might correlate to some extent with peoples' academic talent,
and they might be filtering away people with unhealthy brains which cannot concentrate on a
task.
Do you have to keep doing the Jewish deconstructionist bit?
Compare it to an Elo rating for example. An Elo rating is measuring how good people are
at chess. While "IQ test" is measuring how good people are at matching together pictures of
shapes.
By which I mean, an Elo rating is measuring what we actually want to know – peoples'
chess ability.
On the other hand, an "IQ test" is measuring "something" (which should not be reified, as
it has no independent existence outside of the particular word games and shape rotating),
which people argue has a correlation with what we are actually interested in (academic
ability).
Elo rating measures the ability directly (the rating is caused by the chess ability),
while IQ is an unrelated test score which supposedly correlates with the actual ability.
Therefore, when you find a person with a "high IQ test score result", but who has not
produced any academic work. This is just data point arguing that the "IQ test score result"
is not related to what we actually want to measure in this case.
It doesn't mean the person has "a high IQ" like you can have "high blood pressure" –
because IQ has no existence outside of the particular test, and the test score is only
interesting to the extent it might have correlated with their academics.
I read this last night, laughing out loud, thinking about all of the overlaps with US
society. The Poopster Attitude is not just a feature of the Millennial Generation, although
it is magnified due to their bigness as a generation and due to the heightened trendiness of
politics. Politics was not a fashionable subject among the apolitical Eighties youths in the
USA, but the Poopster cultural shift goes way back.
This is why Obama's prom pics show him enjoying the company of a bunch of popular white
kids, including his date. Obama's best friends in the late Seventies / early Eighties were
white, belying the fake angst of his and his worshipful followers' race-baiting Wokeness
decades later.
Like this article points out, cultural things evolve more slowly than short-term, fevered
political shifts. Take these Woke Millennials, falling all over themselves to prove their PC
creds. As he points out, such efforts are comformist impulses at this point in
history, not the risky activities of an intellectual vanguard, challenging crusty social
norms.
I wonder if the Soviet Poopsterism, the bowing down to every lowly employee of the state,
has something to do with the way the original, truly revolutionary Soviet intellectual
vanguard sought to glorify common workers and government work.
Whereas in the USA, the Woke Millennial Poopsters grovel before every racial and ethnic
minority, trying to prove their association with the glory days of the civil rights movement,
which occurred long before they were born.
Since I have been a leftist, I really have no right to critique them. I have done the same
thing. And I'm an Xer, closer in age to Obama's late Boomers than the Millennials.
Given the post-civil-rights-era shift in social mores, enabling a Black future POTUS to
hang out with the most popular white kids in high school close to a decade before my equally
non-racist generation hit the secondary schools, its all just posturing, this Poopsterism.
It's an attempt to get ahead by associating yourself with ideas regarded as Elite, rather
than actually producing anything of merit.
Height exists in the real world. "IQ" only exists as an artifact of administering the
test.
To explain a bit more.
Elo rating is a result of peoples' chess ability.
But "IQ" is a description of peoples' ability to choose desired answer in the word games
and shape puzzles in a certain test, which has little relation to academic thinking, but
which is interesting only to the extent it might be a collateral effect of whatever variables
are determining differences in academic thinking.
Elo rating is interesting to us, because it is a result of chess ability, and the score is
created by chess playing.
On the other hand, "IQ" is interesting only to the extent we propose that the scores
correlate with academic ability (which would result in academic achievement).
This correlate has neither independent existence, but it might be interesting to the
extent it is correlating to the academic achievement or potential of the person. In other
words, we are assuming difference in IQ test scores is the useless collateral effect of
whatever the variables which are actually causing that academic ability.
In the case of man who has a high "IQ test score", but low academic achievements.
What such an example shows is only that we found a datapoint which weakens the
correlation. The existence of the example, just tells us that test which was administered, is
a little bit more useless than if the datapoint does not exist.
This is a way to say it's a tool which is less able to eliminate noise in this case, not
that there exists anything like a separate IQ of that person that has been hampered by other
factors (lack of creativity, etc).
However, people have a tendency to reify anything that is designated by a noun. And they
might say "He failed as an academic because, although he has a high IQ, he wasn't original
enough ,etc." Of course, the "high IQ" is just a way to say that the test has just found
noise and no signal in this case.
@reiner
Tor Sure. However things change over time. Secular STEM folks do not benefit from PC
which is often from people with very different psychological traits. People who truly value
science and truth should be Social Darwinists.
I think humans have a feature in their minds that make them see groups as individual
units, and then match unit to unit as if they were individuals, with the averages being
more important than total size.
@Dmitry
You cannot contribute much to scientific advancement if your intelligence is not well
above the average. So the amount of valuable scientific research that a country will be able
to produce is limited by the amount of people it has with well above-average intelligence.
IQ tests try to measure innate intelligence. They are not a perfect tool, as shown by some
inter-country comparisons (the idea that the average intelligence in certain countries is
below retardation levels, as suggested in one of Thomson's latest posts, is not very serious
in my view, although I am a witness that it is indeed noticeably lower than in Europe). But
when it comes to academic achievement in developed countries, these tests do show high
predictive power. That is the consensus in psychometrics, as far as I'm aware, and indeed,
whenever a renowned physicist's IQ has been measured it was invariably very high. So it seems
very reasonable to say that scientific research must be expected to be carried out by the
high IQ fraction of each country.
"Explaining East Asian economic and innovation underperformance relative to their IQs is a
topic for other posts"
The western mind is better at abstract thinking? .abstract transfer and synthesis. Taking
a concept from one application domain and applying it to another. Taking some number of
concepts and puzzle fitting them into a construct that is greater than the sum of it's
parts.
New tangible products require organizational entities. There might be a requisite IQ level
for workers to acquire the bottom up and top down skill sets needed to perform the
transformative processes.
@Dieter
Kief One problem with quantum computing is that it has to be done within a degree of
absolute zero. This makes any practical device wildly improbable even if the technical
hurtles to develop the process itself can be over come.
IQ has no existence outside of the particular test, and the test score is only
interesting to the extent it might have correlated with their academics
Very well put. IQ test score may have a utilitarian value only if the correlations with
actual activities, achievements and accomplishments are found. The correlations often are
hyped and boosted with various correction procedures (sometimes justifies and sometimes not).
A closer scrutiny of results may show that the correlations are not as high as the IQists
believe. IQ test scores are not as stable as it is believed and not as repeatable as it is
believed. And the correlations vary between societies or social groups.
The IQists from the very beginning wanted to put a scientific and theoretical foundations
so they postulated a g-factor (Spearman) which was in the spirit of reductionism and physics
envy of the late 19 century and early 20 century. This g is just a construct that is
mathematically inevitable because of mathematical necessity as it is defined, yet it is not
unique nor invariant because it depends on the battery of tests that are used. This fact is
rarely mentions or emphasized. So this theoretical foundation is hollow, nevertheless it
gives the believers a sense that their beliefs have some tangible solidity akin to hard
science concepts.
The IQists are given away by their language, i.e, how they use the acronym IQ or the g
symbol in phrases that almost always reify the concept meaning that it is a thing , that it
exists, that it is immutable and so on. It is no longer a test score of one of many not
always mutually congruent tests but a property associated with a person which defines that
person so just as well it could be put in ID document, passport or in a tattoo. For IQists
this IQ test score transmutes and reifies into some entity that they call IQ and it has for
them a separate ontological existence. But one does not have IQ just like Usain Bolt does not
have 9.58 sec on 100m. 9.58 sec is his score he once achieved.
@Daniel
Chieh Many dot Indian male managers (and quite a few Chinese ones) on H1B have their
H4EAD wives sit around and do stuff like "manual testing", a job which could have easily gone
to an entry level American undergrad. Yet the level of greed they display is phenomenal. If
one removes the Jewish influence from the west, the average westerner, more so an average
westerner of north west European stock is no where as money minded or capitalist as south and
east Asians.
In Asia [I do not consider west Asia or south Asia as Asia proper btw], only the SEA
peoples are a bit more primitive and less driven [read less money minded-ness]. Which is why
the Chinese have totally dominated the SEA region despite being a minority and are now being
increasingly challenged by the dot Indians there as well [singapore is a prime example of the
ensuing friction between the Indians and the Chinese as Chinese influence wanes while the
Indian influence rises]
I think the future of the world would be a Jew dominated world order with the dot Indians
and the Chinese the managers and the technocrats respectively while most of the other races
would be reduced different levels of serfdom irrespective of where they live
@Vishnugupta India's average IQ
is estimated to be 82. It means that there is no way there can be 100 million high IQ people
in India, and one look into the country shows that it is the case. If India had 100 million
high IQ people it would be the best country to live. Sure there are some very high IQ
Indians, but that is expected given 1.34 billion population. This is the case if you accept
the premise of IQ measurements.
@Adrian
E. Ashkenazi intelligence thing is not well established (well, not in the terms they
fantasize), first numbers fluctuate a lot, second same studies find their spatial IQ much
lower while verbal IQ is much higher. Personally, I don't think Ashkenazi Jews are any
smarter than say Germans or any population around them in Europe. In the past, most of the
success was related to hard work and study in intellectual fields, and reason for effort in
fields like law, medicine and so on is that these skills are transportable. Meaning, if you
get kicked out, you won't starve in exile. Ron Unz showed that success ratio of Jewish kids
is much lower compared to the Jewish students in earlier generations (but Harvard percentage
is much higher). This again can be explained by the fact that their families are more
affluent compared to immigrant ancestors and they grow up without discrimination in modern
America.
Fear of life, survival concerns, a sense of family are all great motivators. It is also
what often push Chinese or Korean students to study for ridiculously long hours nowadays,
which naturally brings them academic success. However, academic success still would not
result in the dominant position Jews have established in the US. They have very high
representation in Ivy league schools, especially relative to population and scores. Dominate
or have very high representation in media, business, arts, intellectual life, and
increasingly politics. This is mostly because of tribalism. Jews are not special in their
tribalism of course, however, they have been here longer than other tribalist people, and
they also have advantages Chinese or Indians don't have, such as easily passing as white or
being considered familiar (Judaism is the precursor to the other nonsense called Christianity
after all).
This is not to deny the success of Jews, they do have the necessary intelligence, and had
conditions and cultural factors (emphasis on study) to become successful. However, massive
overrepresentation is totally another issue. If it was based on IQ, shouldn't we have much
more prominent Asians in all walks of life? Unz.com itself has a writer named Linh Dinh who
is no less talented than any Jewish writer in The Atlantic or NYT, what is he up to? Oh
right, he is working at a recycling plant in Vietnam. Wonder why talent, intelligence and
hard work didn't bring him a prominent position in the US?
@Abelard
Lindsey There was never a summer, to begin with. AI was and is terrible at anything that
requires actual intelligence. All the hype is around data and a set of techniques to master
certain functions related to that partial set of data. There will simply never be a true AI,
a human-made replica of the human mind.
Indian IQ of 82 is irrational. Indian people in places like Suriname,South
Africa,Mauritius are 90%+ low caste descendants of indentured labourers shipped during the
British era..They score in the early 90s so therefore the genetic IQ ceiling of the average
Indian population must be atleast in the early 90s and any deficit explained by high
malnourishment/ disease burden.
Upper caste Hindus(Including Brahmins) don't suffer from malnourishment and a very crude
proxy for the smart fraction IQ of this pool could be the GRE/GMAT scores which compare
respectably with European and East Asian peoples,which explains why India has the most
advanced Industrial base outside the West, Russia and East Asia you know space program,can
build aircraft carriers,nuclear submarines,ICBMs, supercomputers etc..
Yet the level of greed they display is phenomenal.
Spot on. The set of morals Euros, Middle Easterners, and Americans have is basically the
same and has the same roots as well. The set of morals Chinese and Indians have is, well,
doesn't exist. Their whole culture and society are based around their family. They don't care
if they feed you poison to make an extra buck, let alone worry about displacing a new
graduate. When I mention morality Chinese simply don't have any clue, to their credit, they
seem to appreciate the ideas when presented and understand potential benefits (that when
individuals have morals the whole society, including themselves benefits). As far as Indians
are concerned, no hope, all they care is money and taking as much as possible. Worse yet,
contrary to the Chinese, they tend to think they have a superior religion. So they can't even
be taught Western morality, which is based on religious ideas.
@Vishnugupta I don't know much
about IQ or how dependable it is. I am pretty sure hard work has more influence on success
than intelligence as well. That said, what is so unbelievable about 82 IQ, it puts India in
same rankings around Madagascar and Egypt. As far as social indicators are concerned (GDP,
health, environment, HDI, safety) India does not appear any better than many Subsaharan
Africa countries. I did say there are very smart Indians, but it is expected given 1.34
billion population, even if 0.1% of people were really high IQ that would mean 1.34 million
people, which would be more than enough to build ICBMs or space programs. Yet at the same
time, India is having a toilet issue, something that most people solved thousands of years
ago. What is the explanation for that?
http://www.unz.com/book/lothrop_stoddard__into-the-darkness/
One of the most charming qualities of the Magyars is their informality. This applies to all
classes, and is due mainly to the fact that the whole spirit of the country is profoundly
aristocratic. The Magyars consider themselves to be a master-race, innately superior to
their Balkan neighbors. This may not be so agreeable for the neighbors, but it does promote
good social relations and national solidarity among themselves, and is pleasant for foreign
visitors. I never saw a Magyar with an inferiority complex. Nobleman or taxi driver, they
respect themselves and one another, with neither condescension nor servility. That is one
advantage of an aristocratic society, where each one knows just where he stands in the
social scale. Hungary is thus almost exempt from those plagues of other lands–the
vulgar ostentation of plutocrats and the ostentatious vulgarity of proletarians.
@Lo Most
people did not solve it thousands of years ago in fact regular bathing is a relatively new at
best 200 year old development for most westerners..which somewhat explains the massive death
rate during the black death..Finns with their sauna tradition were relatively much less
affected as was most of the east including India which had a regular bathing tradition from
the bronze age..
India is in course to solving the problem within the next 10 years .
@Vishnugupta Alright, look I am
not trying to give you a hard time. All I am saying is that there is no way India has 100
million high IQ people. It also depends on one's definition. I don't think someone who is
1std dev above means is high IQ, I don't believe 16% population is high IQ. I would start it
around 2std dev. If we take the world's average IQ is 100 and std dev is 15, that would mean
there are about 150.000.000 high IQ people. Surely 2/3 of that cannot be in India. Toilet
thing was not an actual question; I will not debate about the history of sewage systems. I
was merely pointing out the conflict between high IQ suggestion and the problems India faces.
It is also getting tiring to hear about Brahmin intelligence nonsense, I don't know who
started this malarkey. I am also pretty sure the caste system is forcing many geniuses into a
life of misery just because they were born in the wrong family. I don't think it is a
constructive step to blame everything on other billion people in your country instead of
utilizing the best among them.
No. It would be more like Singapore, which is the most successful city-state (nation) in
the world right now.
You do realise that Singapore's fertility rate is less than half replacement level. You
think that's a healthy society? It's a society that is little more than a death cult.
Your utopia of high functioning individuals would be another death cult.
I don't understand this far-right obsession with IQ. It's the White equivalent of "muh dick".
What does muh IQ even matter if you're so morally slack and decadent as to be repeatededly
hijacked and exploited by jews? The ability to science around with muh IQ is contemptible if
it can't even meet your most basic need of survival. Yeah, you can genetically engineer a
canola plant to produce high octane gas? Cool story bro, Tyrone's still fucking your daughter
and your son just changed his name to Abdullah Hammed Nazir. Muh Western civilization is just
coca cola, twinkies, drive thrus and shitty coffee. Congratulations White man, you're still
fucked, and navel gazing muh IQ isn't exactly helping you.
Like the awkward nice guy lead violinist thinking his latest performance will definitely make
his crush wanna fuck him. It's pathetic and it reeks of subjunctive resentment: "Even though
I'm not on top, I should be! Take that, Tyrone!"
Wow, turns out a spatter of geniuses isn't enough to compensate your defective communal
instincts. But it's Ok, Charles Murray has some nice bedtime stories for ypu
losertarians.
Hitler once said in Table Talks that you can tell more about a people from their food than
their language. Very interesting. When I go to a Mexican BBQ or a Japanese buffet, the people
cut up the steaks into strips and put them in the centre of the table to share. At a White
BBQ everyone just takes their own steak, away on their own special little individual plate,
and it's all "I got mine!".
That suburbian picket fence individualism
That's your biggest defect right there as a race.
Good luck beating a gang of virile Chechens, scheming Hindus, or highly networked jews with
that cowboy lone wolf mythology
@Xityl
Now you are basically trying to destroy the only existing individualistic civilization on
this planet while I'm working hard to create another one. Sigh. You don't even understand the
value of Germanic civilization which is why you trash it.
Have you seen the table above? The scientific output per capita of NE Asian countries is
clearly within the white range. However we are still doing poorly compared to Germanic
peoples and Ashkenazis. No matter whether you are white I have no idea why you don't
appreciate such creativity and scientific progress Of course I want to have it, not to see it
destroyed.
Their whole culture and society are based around their family.
But surly that is morality?
Western morality has become increasingly about putting the interests of complete strangers
ahead of one's own family. That seems to me to be less healthy than the Chinese approach.
@dfordoom
You probably don't want to get into non-Hajnali amoral familism. Trust me on that one. Of
course Western SJ cuckism also suck a lot. Amoral familism is not a nice alternative. The
West used to have a system much better than both. Please return to it.
@EastKekistani I'm White, Anglo.
And I grew up in Germany due to my father's job. So you can take it from me that I fully
appreciate German culture and community. It really is something special. Even if Germans were
as dumb as rocks, their culture would still be special to me. It's the communal aspect that
makes it special. Something Anglos critically lack. Don't conflate Anglos and Germans
together. I know both tribes of people very well, and they are very different from each
other. I'd even go as far to say that a German has more in common with a Russian than a
Hobbesian avaricious Anglo.
Anyway, creativity and "progress" are all in vain unless it's directed inward to God and
culture. Something Anglos, Westerners, and their Jewish masters have a very difficult time
comprehending.
@Cicerone
In 1900 Egypt had only 6 million people. This year Egypt's population reached 101 million. In
1900 Pakistan had about 10 million, today it is 205 million. Just how is "below replacement
level" going to change anything? If every woman in Pakistan has only 1 child, the population
will still increase by additional tens of millions in just a few years. This means hundreds
of millions more Muslims, n another billion Africans.
India's $3 Billion Nuclear Submarine Almost Sunk Because Someone Left Hatch Opened:
Report https://t.co/1dxUKnY0wO --
SouthFront (@southfronteng) May 11,
2019
But the discussion was about how HBD types divided into two separate groups when it came
to ideal communities they would like to live in. One group was very much into the
white-nationalist ethno-state. The second group (which I consider myself a part of) was
into the Singapore-like city-state consisting of high functioning individuals of any race,
but in reality would be mostly a mix of white and north-east Asians. This latter concept is
clearly not attractive to much of the alt-right, let alone guys like Vox Day.
I would also put myself in the second group – but with the very important proviso
that the high functioning individuals of any race recognize that political power
(citizenship) rests with the historic founding population. High (and low) functioning
individuals of any race are actually there as respected long term guests while still having
the option to marry (if they want), and integrate and become part of the historic founding
population – thereby acquiring political rights.
IMO the West is failing to get this point straight. They can't bring themselves to say
that Sweden belongs to Swedes or that France belongs to the French.
The idea that everywhere belongs to everybody is either a stupid SJW fantasy or a
deliberate Cultural Marxist wrecking policy (or a combination of both).
@EastKekistani But Chechens ARE
white. Didn't you read Anatolys piece on "white sharia" :). And haven't you seen Kadryov?? If
he doesn't look caucasian then i wonder who does
Then you have the East european and baltic whites
This shows whites are capable of communal thinking. It's just that whites in the west have
been marinating under (((cultural Marxism))) from quite some time and the "flavor" seems to
have seeped down to the bone. And all this has been deliberate
@reiner
Tor That is true. But I also think that Brazil could accomplish the same things if it
needed to or some of the Middle Eastern countries if they were as large (even Iran has
designed and produced several medium and short range missiles and submarines), so I don't
know how much this says about the competence of Indians relative to other population groups.
It is an interesting question though how much a low general level of intelligence (and
conscientiousness) contributes to these sorts of costs of stupidity.
My grandfather was in the navy in the Second World War and he has told me before that it
would take weeks for the Indian shipyards to repair something that the Chinese workers in
Singapore to do in days.
@Kent
Nationalist So ? The submarine was repaired and is presently on patrol. No lives were
lost.
There have been much more serious accidents involving N submarines in P5 navies..USS
Thresher, kursk etc..
Also I am not aware of any country outside the West,Russia and East Asia remotely capable
of designing an SSBN with all critical components nuclear reactor,combat management system
etc built in house which was my original point.
It was never my assertion that this sub is comparable to the Vanguard or Ohio class
SSBN.
Real intelligence ok and i mean real real intelligence is measured differently to what most
people understand.It is this
The speed of the subconscious mind in ratio to conscious mind.An answer to a question
before you can think of it,an instantaneous reaction.The quicker the subconscious mind the
more intelligent the mind.
For example if it takes 1 second for the sub conscious to arrive at an answer and 10
seconds for the conscious to arrive at an answer then ratio is 1:10.the greater the ratio the
less "intelligent".
It could be an intentional act of non cooperation(acting a lot dumber than someone actually
is not unknown in these parts of the world). The Royal Indian Navy mutinied in the 1940s and
Indians unlike Han Chinese did not see Japanese as the invading enemy. Quite the contrary.
some of the Middle Eastern countries if they were as large (even Iran has designed and
produced several medium and short range missiles and submarines)
Iran (along with Turkey) is one of the most functional Middle Eastern countries already. I
can imagine it being as functional as India, or more so.
The best Arab countries (maybe Egypt? Algeria?), if scaled up, might be capable of
something, but I doubt they'd be on Indian levels, because I'd think their smart fractions
are smaller. But I'm not very confident, this being based on subjective impressions, rather
than anything more thorough or scientific.
My impression was that the Indian army was quite loyal (although that is unsurprising
since it was made up of volunteers) and I did not realise that the navy was much less so.
@Vishnugupta India has the
dubious distinction of hosting the largest number of malnourished children in the world (42%
of the worlds total if my memory serves me right). These children will not grow up to be
Ramanujan or Satya Nadella.
The country needs to get basic human needs met before trumpeting its destiny as the next
superpower.
But one does not have IQ just like Usain Bolt does not have 9.58 sec on 100m. 9.58 sec
is his score he once achieved.
It's not comparable here though.
We are interested in Bolt, because he run (or had run) fast, and his record is a result of
that. In this case, Bolt's time, is comparable to Elmo rating of chess players we admire
(it's a direct result of the what we are interested in – speed, chess playing,
etc).
However, "IQ test scores" are interesting to an extent we see them as something which
correlate with the person's academics (while at the same time not being a product of the
latter, which would introduce circularity),
It's interesting only to the extent we would assume that differences in results in
"Raven's Matrices", would be a collateral effect of the common cause which also explains
people's academic level.
Sometimes such collateral effects can be useful indicators (for example, PSA levels in
blood although some kind of collateral effect – I'm not an expert on how this works
– , seems a useful indicator for prostate cancer).
The conceptual incoherence and lack of understanding, is when you hear comments like "He
failed as an academic because, although he has a high IQ score, he wasn't original enough
,etc." Of course, the "high IQ score" is just a way to say that the test was noise and not
signal in this particular case.
I meant to post something on how measuring science output with these journals is seriously
flawed because it's become a very careerist proposition. The amount of mediocre grant writing
you have to do, and the increasingly common cases of cheating suffocate innovation. It's not
a case of the problems just getting harder.
Take a look at one of the latest posts at the following blog for example. These people are
prominent scientists who published in these precious Nature 82 journals, but their whole
career and research is based on lies or dressing up wrong results as significant. That has
serious effects downstream when others try to use the work to create a drug, or when their
trainees start working in industry, because even if they are honest people, they feel
discouraged by their experience.
This means in countries where the proportion of Nature 82 journals is low, and where they
don't reward you on publishing there and the salaries are not that high so that a career in
science is not worth faking for, you can have something real happening actually.
"Even in their official press release photos, the cancer research professors Paul B
Fisher, Paul Dent and Steven Grant look like the characters of a Joel and Ethan Coen crime
movie, unfortunately never filmed. Together these Virginian fortune seekers seem to have
cooked up a scheme of getting rich by publishing fake science, which because of our utterly
rotten and corrupted scholarly publishing and academic evaluation system worked so far like a
charm. If trouble came, like an ORI investigation which recommended 11 retractions in 2015,
one of the minor accomplices ended up in the metaphorical wood chipper, while the trio got to
keep their coffers with funding money. And anyway, so far only 5 papers of who knows how many
fake ones were retracted, while new research grants keep rolling in."
@Kent
Nationalist Perhaps because post the mutiny the British Indian army was by design made
mutiny proof by its ethnic composition 50% Muslim 25% Sikh and 25% Hindus drawn from castes
that did not mutiny like Punjabi,Maratha's, Gurkha's etc.
Indian Navy otoh was broadly representative of British India's ethnic mix hence more prone
to revolt/sabotage.
@reiner
Tor Overall yes they are. More money,much more institutional experience both at the end
product and Sub Component level will do that.
But even then this is an unforgiving industry where even pastmasters screw up.
Take for example fighter aircraft a country like the US for whom SR 71 is1950s/60s tech
and has built many other flying wonders decades ahead of the rest of the world like the YF 23
black widow should not have had such serious problems with the JSF. But there you have
it..
@dfordoom
That's why they selectively give work permits and permanent residency to qualified
individuals, with preference to south East Asians of Chinese descent, who are the easiest to
assimilate.
@reiner
Tor Don't know how many generations it will take to overcome centuries of starvation,
especially for the lower castes.
IMO India (and Brazil) will stay "high potential" countries for the foreseeable future.
@reiner
Tor Many countries are going down the sub-replacement fertility path: Japan, Korea,
Taiwan, much of Western Europe. Singapore is not an exception. This seems to be the
unfortunate side effect of prosperity along with an unmooring from their traditions.
And now China as well. Why do you think their government has relaxed their one child policy?
I have been making this point for some time, that immigration leading to lower average
IQs, while bad, cannot logically lower scientific productivity because in absolute numbers
the talented fraction remains unaffected. There are still the same numbers of smart
people.
But the problem arises in the political arena. While, currently, smart people are
immensely out numbered by those of average IQ, lowering the average IQ would exacerbate the
voting power of idiots.
Scientific productivity is currently being adversely affected by lower IQ.
@Escher
What are you talking about? They need to end starvation of children, and that'll immediately
improve the IQ of those generations. That's easy.
They won't be able to fix genetic stupid, but fixing environmental stupid should be pretty
easy, and according to your data (I didn't check) there should be a huge room for improvement
there.
@Escher
But China as a whole is not yet a population sink of smart people moving there and then dying
childless (or at least grandchild-less).
Yes, it's a universal problem, but population sinks just increase the dysgenic trends
elsewhere. They are parasitic entities. So no need for another Singapore or Hong Kong.
@utu
Swiss salaries may be high, but so are their taxes. The presence of world class EU research
centers is probably the true reason as the author has said.
Small countries like Switzerland and Singapore score so highly because they attract qualified
researchers thorough opportunities and/or money, not because of their native talent pool.
@Abelard
Lindsey Vox Day identifies, much like Elizabeth "Pocahantas" Warren does, as an Injun.
Unfortunately, his own kind don't want him any more than they want Senator Warren.
I am beginning to think that people have an innately hard time grasping the difference
between "absolute numbers" and "average IQ".
One thing which interests me but I have never been able to find a straight answer to is
how much the absolute differences in underlying intelligence represented by one IQ point
change at different sections of the curve.
@Escher
STEM people include physicists and similar people, who, outside their areas of expertise,
just swallow whole the "official" view, whatever that happens to be. There are of course many
exceptions, but I haven't seen many STEM people who reject Blank Slatist orthodoxy. In
Budapest I know the opinion of people in one office, mostly computer programmers with
engineering degrees, and they are pretty leftist and Blank Slatist. Most of them think that
children are greatly influenced by parenting styles, so any bad outcome must be the result of
bad parenting. The majority of them reject racial differences in intelligence, though with
the majority of them I wouldn't even broach the topic, lest they consider me a horrible
incarnation of Hitler.
And this in based Hungary. I guess in Western Europe or the US STEM people are similar,
but worse.
@Escher
What I find even more horrible than STEM people in general being Blank Slatist is biologists
and geneticists and similar people in particular being so. Though you have to understand that
it's a huge field, and outside their field of expertise they also aren't especially
knowledgeable.
I also think that many of them lie for political reason, as you write, but it's not always
a good thing. Because many secret race realists think that it should be a secret or forbidden
knowledge, because Nazism! and Eugenics! and Hitler! So they think they are telling white
lies.
@reiner
Tor I had the same experience with high school friends. I went to an academic high
school, and most who went there (including those who later became engineers etc.) don't think
much about differences among races, but when they do, they simply swallow anti-racist
nonsense wholesale.
Even nationalists are usually all about "the Americans criticize us, but they are
oppressing the Negroes!" type idiocies.
What would a white Rhodesian smart fraction have been like?
For the past five years, all Standard Two European, Coloured and Asiatic students in the
Salisbury District of Rhodesia (which contains over 50 per cent of the white population)
have been given South African group intelligence tests. Those scoring 130+ have then been
tested individually, using the latest international standardization of the Terman-Merrill
test.*
About 95 per cent of those scoring 130+ on the group test did so on the individual test.
The Terman-Merrill tests revealed that about 7 per cent of the white children in the
government schools of the Salisbury district had IQs of 130 or better. This compares with
about 2.5 per cent in that range in the U.K. and the U.S. and about 3 per cent in New
Zealand . Group testing of pupils in privately operated schools indicated that their
inclusion would not have lowered the percentage of gifted children.
STEM people include physicists and similar people, who, outside their areas of
expertise, just swallow whole the "official" view, whatever that happens to be. There are
of course many exceptions, but I haven't seen many STEM people who reject Blank Slatist
orthodoxy.
True, at least to an extent.
One should remember that academics often, even as they burst with pride at their
unparalleled intellects, are quite cloistered and naive. The top professors of many STEM
subjects have usually never worked outside a university department or (shudder) perhaps a
megacorp research unit. Ivory tower all the way. Thus, their experiences are often at most
second hand.
@dfordoom
I agree, there isn't a current functioning model of a city-state.
When you bring a bunch of smart people together, it might be inherently dysgenic. Their
economic success drives up rents. Their competition probably causes them to work longer
hours. It may promote the idea of credentialism. All things that are anti-natalist.
Still, I am a bit reluctant to throw away the concept, even if we treat it as an inherent
population sink. Maybe, it could be made an attractive, trendy destination to people, who
would otherwise be a harm the society of larger countries. For instance, people who welcome
migrants, or who are obsessive virtue-signalers.
As I understan things, some 200,000,000 Euro whites in America do all the intellectual heavy
lifting and, potentially, a billion somewhat smarter Han in China. Throw in the productive
parts of Europe and the numbers are not so stark, but does this not imply that China's share
will grow as its population comes more on line? Conformism, which assuredly exists, may or
may not prevent blue-sky innovation, but not, I should think, superb engineering, advances in
AI etc. There is no hope that SJW enstupidation will be reversed for at least several decades
since it is being instilled from the first grade on and is embraced by the professoriat.
@Sin City
Milla In this case, I think the two relevant trends are:
1.) how many are coming to white countries?
2.) what is the internal TFR differential in these countries?
TFR in the third world is of marginal or tertiary importance, since the reality is that
the net population of whites is pretty low compared to these other groups. The potential for
continued inflow is virtually unlimited.
Though, there is something potentially positive about declining TFR: eventually the third
world might have ghost cities that they will be eager to fill up, and we can provide them
with the people, with mass deportations.
Salisbury whites appear larger, healthier, more vigorous, alert and bright than London
whites. Beatniks, transvestites and obvious homosexuals are conspicuously absent.
I love how un-PC Rhodesia and SA used to be.
As to the numbers: I think they are at least reasonably plausible. Wouldn't Rhodesians
primarily be the descendants of two separate emigration events? This could have weeded out
the dumber ones. Still, if we accept it, it is disturbing what happened to them, despite them
being smart.
If that's the gist of Anatoly's article, I concur. And, if so, the key long-term public
policy questions that must be answered by every country are these: how can government create
the right environment for the smart fraction to be fruitful and multiply? How can government
create the right incentives so that the smart fraction may be stimulated to "do their
thing"?
Well, according to Anatoly, the answer is certainly NOT what Brazil's new government has
just done -- and I would concur once more. We Brazilians are shooting ourselves in the foot
yet again by playing Robin Hood: we are snatching the few resources we do have away from the
smart fraction and dumping them into the bottomless pit where the great unwashed wail and
groan for limitless gibs. It is a nonsensical counterproductive anti-growth policy designed
to waste limited resources.
What we've done is gone on a warpath to smother the tiny sliver of a smart fraction we've
still got – which is not a lot, although certain academics would not agree (see
Flores-Mendoza's "Considerations about IQ and human capital in Brazil", in which she argues
that we have about 20 million Brazilians at "the highest levels of human capital" – fat
chance!).
Now, the new administration in Brazil is supposedly enlightened: they're whole government
program is based on Olavo de Carvalho's crusade against "globalism" and "cultural marxists".
Certainly they've got people who are hbd-aware – the new education minister, for
example. Certainly he knows about smart fractions. Then, why would he pursue this suicidal
policy? Why, minister Abraham Weintraub? Why?
@Bonner
Tal 'Deep learning' is a misnomer. The 'deep' part doesn't refer to depth of learning,
only to the number of layers in the (almost always software-simulated) neural network.
Sure, it works for many (not all) guidance and recognition tasks, the combination of those
may put many commercial drivers out of work, some time.
That depends on governments allowing it.
I don't want my taxi driver, for example, to be a P.K. Dick style automaton (perhaps it
would be entertaining if they were to sprout the kind of lines he posits), I prefer a human
taxi driver, no matter how taciturn, and I have only one bad experience (intentionally
misdirected) in twenty years back in Tokyo.
When overseas, in a high-immigrant population environment, taxi business is full of
cheats.
This was mainly Indian sub-continentals and Arabs, both groups having a relatively high
rate of raping lone passengers late at night (anecdotally, the sub-continentals are worse on
that point).
I eventually would just wave them by, and wait for a European or East Asian driver.
Who wants to be in a car with nobody in the driver's seat?
I kmow that it is a goal of tech. as of now, my work has, at times, been connected to
it.
IMHO, even trusted Toyota will not be convincing people in Japan to trust driver-less
vehicles.
@dfordoom
Singapore attracts competent as well as wealthy people from all over the planet. There will
never be any problem as long as this pipeline of talent continues to flow (which it will).
Longer term, you solve the problem of infertility by curing aging.
BTW, I am hearing through the internet grape vine that Singapore is becoming a hot-bed of
anti-aging research. They do have a rather large biotech industry. I am also hearing through
the same grape vine that a biotech company has achieved robust mouse rejuvenation this
month.
Those countries lose their brightest mind to the industrial countries' Academic-Scientific
Industrial Complex.
If you break down the TFR among social/educational classes, those countries are getting
more prole-ish before they get rich.
In Moroccan hinterlands and in Algerian ghettoes people are still having 4/5 kids. While
the academic elites of those countries are only having 1.5 children.
There is a demographic reason why Turkey & Arab countries became more conservative
over the last decades.
Only China, and SE-Asia are turning farmer-sons into technicians & engineers, while
turning middle-class sons into scientists.
@songbird
The numbers interest me because the opinion that I always heard about it was that it was a
lower-middle-class-nostate (and you can see this from the manners and accents of people in
videos of it). This also explains the contempt many British governments had from it, since
the lower-middle-class is by far the most despised class in British culture.
Still, that means that Rhodesian whites had essentially no working-class which would
explain the very high numbers, I think they are plausible too.
it is disturbing what happened to them, despite them being smart.
They did do incredibly well considering their isolation, tiny numbers and Communist
support for their enemies (although they were also supported by significant numbers of
blacks).
@Che
Guava Agreed. I would also say that autonomous cars will require that automation be built
into the roads themselves, which was the general idea in the 90's. Both cars and the roads
themselves must be automated for a truly redundant and robust system. This will be expensive
and will start with the freeways. I believe the Chinese are going this route with autonomous
cars. I know that they are building their "new" cities with freeways and main surface streets
separated from pedestrians and laid out for automation to be built in. I think we will see
limited autonomous cars in China before we see them here in the U.S. I agree with you I've
never had a problem with taxi drivers and do not understand the hard on people have for
automating them out of the job.
My bugaboo is the construction industry (all of it) that I utterly despise. I would like
to see robotics and 3D printing automate the construction industry and changing it beyond
recognition.
But still, some people are more intelligent than others. Einstein's contribution to
science was not so much bigger than mine because he put in more effort. He really was much
smarter than me. And he was born that way.
Likewise, it is an observable fact that people are on average smarter in some countries
than in others, as the PISA results clearly suggest.
Given the complexity of the human mind, IQ tests may be an imperfect tool for measuring
innate intelligence but they are not useless. In fact, they are widely used at schools, the
military and for job selection processes. For certain tasks they do have strong predictive
power.
I think that all this has all been discussed ad nauseam, both here at unz.com and in the
psychometric literature, so we're not going to make any breakthrough in this thread but
substitute IQ by intelligence (what IQ is trying to measure), correct for the
confounding factor of per capita GDP and Anatoly's analysis and predictions largely
stand.
What is going on at the northern border of Brazil ? (French Guiana) Huwhite Rocket Boyz
according to Wikipedia. Amazing that Huwhite Rocket Boyz could do their thing in a place
whose population at large probably has more in common with Haiti than the European Union.
Very good. I would add only add that scientific productivity, all other factors included,
depends on the will to live, fight & prosper. Man does not live to do science; he does
science to achieve greater & more fulfilled, free life.
Without it, no amount of investment, good life, IQ, planning, money, . does not
matter.
@Pericles
Another myth is the virgin distance runner v the chad right wing lifter. I know several guys
lifting weights who are leftists (including kettlebell and barbell coaches, for example
several so-called "OldSchool" coaches who are using the methods of old circus strongmen who
had to stay strong well into their sixties). Though it's still noticeably more right wing
than distance runners, but the difference is probably exaggerated.
For instance, Charles Murray in Human Accomplishment
A ridiculous tome, which ironically puts into vivid relief Murray's own stupidity.
Encyclopedia mentions as a barometer of civilizational accomplishment, eh? LMAO. Only people
like you and that imbecile Res would cite such garbage as evidence of anything.
While massive Third World immigration may lower average IQs blah blah blah
Tell that to Arab-Americans, Nigerian-Americans, Persian-Americans, Filipino-Americans,
Indian-Americans and many other so-called third worlders. For most of these people, America
is not at all a difficult, intellectually demanding environment but rather an easy downhill
ride where the natives offer little in the way of competition.
Oh, and I'm sure these two immigrants raise rather than lower the collective intelligence
of Mother Russia:
Nigerian students breaks world academic record in Russia, scores 5.0 GPA
The Federal Ministry of Education on Wednesday in Abuja honoured Dr Victor Olalusi who
scored 5.0 Cumulative Grade Point Average (GPA) in Russian National Research Medical
University, Moscow (RNRMU) in 2013, arguably the first in the world.
Olalusi, who was the best graduating student in the whole Russian Federation in 2013,
studied in RNRMU under the Russia-Nigeria Bilateral Education Agreement.
Young Nigerian Of Igbo Extraction Sets Academic Record In Russia
Ifesinachi Nelson Ezeh, a 26-year-old Nigerian, has dazzled Russia with his brilliance. The
Nsukka, Enugu State-born student finished his Master's degree in Agronomy at Saint Petersburg
State Agrarian University, graduating with a Cumulative Grade Point Average (CGPA) of 5.0
– the highest Russia has ever recorded.
So here you have a couple of Nigerians setting academic records in your own Russia (and
there's more where that came from) and you have the temerity to berate "third worlders" as
somehow intellectually incapacitated.
This would not be a surprise to HBD/IQ realistists.
HBD/IQism is not a valid scientific discipline. Rather, it is an ideology with an
inflexible canon of what are essentially laws, along with rites and rituals like any other
cult. For example, the belief that black people have small brains and are therefore less
intelligent is an aspect of the canon so integral to maintaining HBD/IQist canonical
coherence and integrity that it would be impossible to pierce that bubble of stupidity
without an intervention and comprehensive deprogramming. Actually, if the HBD/IQist sect
wasn't vanishingly small and inconsequential, it would necessarily be labeled a pernicious
cult and become the focus of anti-cult activities.
@Potato I
question the statement that Europe had near universal literacy in the 19th century.
Immigrants to the USA were about 30% illiterate. They signed their names with a X, or in the
case of Jews with an O. These 19th century immigrants were Germans, Irish, Italians, Polish,
Russians and Scandinavians. Early in the 20th century America had literacy tests for
immigrants.
In the US high school completion wasn't common til after WW II.
@Okechukwu OK, so you found a
hyper-outlier. I know a fellow who survived (with very minor injuries) a high speed car crash
because he forgot to buckle up and was ejected from the vehicle.
There is no hope that SJW enstupidation will be reversed for at least several decades
since it is being instilled from the first grade on and is embraced by the
professoriat.
Study of Physics, Chemistry, Biology and Engineering is too stressful for impressionable
young minds and, as well, this encourages elitism; causing students of more 'humane' subjects
to feel excluded.
@Patricus
In Hungary it was 44% among Hungarians (only mother tongue was registered) in 1880, grew to
around 67% by 1910. Germans in Hungary had higher literacy rates, but other ethnic groups
were significantly lower. Rusyns didn't reach 25% yet in 1910. Even Croats and Serbs were
below 50%.
I have been making this point for some time, that immigration leading to lower average
IQs, while bad, cannot logically lower scientific productivity because in absolute numbers
the talented fraction remains unaffected.
Unless resources that would have otherwise gone to scientific pursuits are redirected
towards accommodating immigrants in the form of welfare or other public programs. Also, don't
forget diversity quotas and affirmative action.
I think this also accounts for why it was so hard for otherwise intelligent people to
understand that higher Jewish IQ could not possibly account for their dominance, because in
absolute numbers of smart people Jews are dwarfed by whites.
That's right, goyim. There is no Jewish nepotism; we're just that much smarter than
you!
So, these two highly intelligent persons (the only ones in Africa, apparently) just
happened to end up in Russia where they broke academic records. If you really believe that, I
have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale. What's much more plausible and much more likely is that
these Nigerians are the tip of the iceberg rather than outliers.
This notion that everything that contradicts the HBD/IQist narrative is an outlier is the
engine that keeps the cult going within the echo-chambers of the cult. Outside of the cult,
however, it's a fantastically stupid notion. You can't go to a real scientific forum in the
real world and make that argument and not get laughed out of the building. Which is probably
why people like Karlin avoid real scientific fora like the plague.
From Isaac Newton threw WWI Britain had a remarkable run of scientific discovery. It did so
because of its culture. It cherished discovery – from nobleman to village teacher,
discovery of nature was held up as the pinnacle of achievement. Everyone was cognizant of
finding the next Michael Faraday. British society promoted those with natural talent. This
beneficial value system was a male endeavor.
Today in America – men (white men) are being academically shortchanged by the
leftist feminist culture. Male brilliance is the enemy – it is not valued – it is
not given its just due. Intellectual innovation is the lifeblood of a society. Every new
piece of science is a challenge to the existing order. This requires both brilliance and
fortitude – male traits.
In twenty years, the result of the SJW feminist clampdown, is that we will all be equal
– but poor.
@Okechukwu Nigeria has a very
large population (larger than Russia) so the number of people on the high end of bell curve
will also be large. The average Nigerian IQ is still low. By your logic, the fact that there
are many mentally retarded Nigerians must prove that Nigerians are stupid, because outliers
are nonsense.
I don't doubt the person you linked is very bright, but 'academic records' are not really
a sign of some great genius. Come back if he achieves something in the real world.
nz.com itself has a writer named Linh Dinh who is no less talented than any Jewish
writer in The Atlantic or NYT, what is he up to? Oh right, he is working at a recycling
plant in Vietnam
He is doing so because he wants to. He's not doing that out of necessity
@FvS Your
point stands. However your Japan #2 is wrong. Japan #2 should be 55% Japanese, 20% white, 15%
Chinese and 10% Korean to control for ability. Democracy and tribal diversity don't mix.
@Escher
Swiss taxes are high, by ridiculously high prices in Switzerland hit people there even more.
I know two countries where everything costs 2-3 times more than in normal developed
countries: Switzerland and Japan. That's why Swiss who live not too far from the border go
shopping to Germany, France, or Italy: there the money they have can get them what the
nominal suggests. The prosperity of Swiss who are forced to shop in Switzerland is fake, just
like the prosperity of Japanese. Everyone who was to Europe has seen little Japanese women
who shop like crazy, filling suitcases that are taller than they are. Having visited Japan, I
understand this phenomenon: for the Japanese everything in Europe is dirt-cheap. I don't know
who is inflating Swiss and Japanese bubbles, but their real buying power is way lower than
their salaries suggest.
Nigeria has a very large population (larger than Russia) so the number of people on the
high end of bell curve will also be large.
That's the same everywhere. Intelligence varies within every group, large or small. But
there's no evidence that the highest levels of intelligence are less prevalent among
Nigerians in comparison to Russians, for example.
The average Nigerian IQ is still low.
No credible Nigerian IQ survey has ever been done. So you just made that up. No one real
and credible cares what the national IQ of Nigeria is. So the vacuum is filled by jokers and
fraudsters like Richard Lynn, whose "data" is about as valid as used toilet paper. The real
world simply presumes (correctly) that Nigerians are as intelligent as any other nationality,
therefore it would be a complete waste of time and resources to undertake a real study of
Nigerian intelligence.
By your logic, the fact that there are many mentally retarded Nigerians must prove that
Nigerians are stupid, because outliers are nonsense.
You would lose serious money if you bet that there were more mentally retarded Nigerians
than Americans. In fact, according to The World Health Organization, the USA, Britain,
Finland, Japan and Australia all have much higher percentages of mentally retarded than
Nigeria.
You see, in the real world we focus on real mental retardation and real intellectual
disabilities. The fantasy HBDer/IQist world where perfectly functional Africans are deemed
functionality retarded per fraudulent "data" has no currency in reality.
I don't doubt the person you linked is very bright, but 'academic records' are not
really a sign of some great genius.
Nice try. It's no wonder that your ideology is such a joke that Karlin wouldn't even have
the balls to present his absurd pseudoscience at a scientific conference in Russia. Take a
hint.
China has invested more in R&D than the US since 2009 and currently outspends us 3:1.
[img]https://i.imgur.com/FRb0Lgk.jpg[/img]
China has 300,000 people with IQs above 160, compared to America's 10,000 (per Steve
Hsu).
China is fully committed to machine superintelligence and genomic IQ augmentation.
BGI has a large division devoted to superintelligence and, as we've seen, CRISPR
experimentation has already begun. If those children turn out normal and HIV
resistant, look out!
China's historic emphasis on material science and technology, which may results in
Nature's lower ranking, has changed. Expect their biological/medical ranking to level up.
@Daniel
Chieh In every field people know the labs whose results are usually reproducible (i.e.,
true), and whose are not. I know labs whose results reproduce >90% of the time, so that
you can base something on them, and those whose results you should simply ignore. I also know
a lab whose results were >80% reproducible 20 years ago, and today no more than 20% are
reproducible.
There are two key problems. One is how the impact is calculated (see my comment #49)
– it is the number of mentions (citations), which are counted regardless whether people
say that your data are great or complete BS. That's why the index AK is basing his musings on
is crap. What's more, in their desire to maintain or increase impact, "scientific" journals
prefer sensational stuff (which often times turns out to be BS) or papers from big-name labs,
because they will give you high impact by self-citation. The other problem is how funding is
distributed. In the US the key is the score you get from NIH study section. Usually study
section consists of 20-25 people from several fields, not necessarily even closely related.
Your grant usually gets three reviewers. If you are lucky, they are from your field, know
your reputation (if you are honest, that is), and score you high. If you get one
out-of-the-field person giving you random low score (the psychology of most grant reviewers
is that if they don't understand your proposal, than you are a fool, not them), you are
cooked. In the old days (say, 20-30 years ago) success rate was higher, so that one really
enthusiastic reviewer could have saved your grant. Nowadays one hostile reviewer can easily
kill it. So, the review becomes more of a lottery, and the only thing that can sway
out-of-the-field reviewers is your publications in high-impact journals (which are more often
BS than publications in medium-impact journals). Thus, bad behavior is rewarded, and cheating
is seldom punished.
the possibility of science production collapse due to demographic change may not be as
serious as some HBD realists and/or immigration restrictionists tend to believe. While
massive Third World immigration may lower average IQs, the native smart fractions are still
preserved; and it is the quantity of these smart fractions, not average IQ per se, that
plays a much greater role in economic prosperity and scientific productivity
Rather unfortunate that this portion is tucked away at the very end of the post.
Several things are implied there which I think are worth making more explicit, and
examining on their own terms more closely.
Claim : The West may still do well in many important respects even if/when native
(full-White) racial stock falls to <50%. This will start as soon as the 2040s for the
critical working-age population cohorts in one country after another. Even if Camp of the
Saints -like mass migration event (that dwarves the disgraceful Merkel Wave of 2015-16)
were to, say, move up this timeframe, there will still be 'x' million Whites, and 'y' million
other cognitive elites poached from abroad who are to some degree loyal technocrats/drones to
the adopted system. x(+y) is not reduced in number if 'z' -- low-IQ, non-native, unproductive
class -- becomes, say 3z, 5z, or even 10z.
– Implication 1 : (For that to hold,) an effective racial-IQ caste system can
be maintained for breeding purposes. If a system of hypothetical random interbreeding
occurred, the smart fraction (higher IQ genepool) would disappear, melt down towards the pop.
mean.
– Implication 2 : Low-IQ immigrant stock are never allowed to vote their way
into the Treasury and, effectively, ruin society (restriction on democracy).
– Implication 3 : Whereas the genius of the past in NW European-descended
populations basically came from the general population and not some kind of top-tier caste
(as if most American scientific activity were the purview of, say, Episcopalians in the
northeast USA with others contributing little to nothing), in the future scientific/other
endeavor is to come only from this emerging top-tier caste in the new race-IQ
stratification system . The general population, to the extent there is such a thing, will
be a kind of vast mush of mediocrity that needs to be managed by the new overclass.
(Comment: This race-IQ 'overclass' dynamic can already be observed to exist as of the
2010s in large parts of the West. It is almost certain to increase in the 2020s, and the
mid-2010s-or-so political speedbump [e.g., Brexit; Trump before his metamorphosis into
Blumpf] has failed to dislodge its ascent. The new overclass is already post-White,
increasingly in racial terms but definitely at the least in psychological terms.)
– Implication 4 : It is not low-IQ immigration (e.g., Central American
Amerind/mestizo, or most types of Muslim), as such, that is necessarily bad, but (to make the
point from the text quoted above more directly) it is interbreeding with them that is
necessarily bad because it erodes the pool from which the "smart fraction" draws. (This
makes for a certain kind of cynical racialism of its own.)
This leaves us with two contrasting social setups:
The "golden-age West," where talent was, to a great extent, 'native,' abundant, and
democratic; and the "post-West," where talent is (increasingly) restricted to a specific,
rather small, high-IQ quasi-social class operating as a parallel society that is separated
from the main body, and that is largely rootless (i..e., of non-local origin; and likely, at
the least, psychologically transient, wherever they are at the moment and however long
they've been there). Needless to say, the former ("golden-age West") is the classic White
Man's model, and the latter is actually pretty much the classic Jewish 'Diaspora' model.
Put in cruder terms, then, what I see in that argument is: mass immigration may not
destroy the West, but it may Judaize the West. In other words, our future elite will all
(have to) take on Jewish diaspora ethics and assimilate to that kind of group consciousness,
or disappear and be relegated to irrelevance in a post-White West.
Jewish Disapora Ethics is really not our m.o., not our style. Distasteful at best.
I would imagine that a lot of talented Western men today opt out of this on a kind of moral
principle.
But here is the ironic part (if "ironic" is the word I want): It was specifically a
culture, centuries in the making, that rejected such ethics that laid the groundwork for
modern science in the first place!
Chinese underperformance is even worse than I realized.
One of the best measures of innovation is if you can come up with a new product that
people will buy.
By this measure, I have been somewhat disappointed when it comes to their production of
movies. For instance, Red Cliff came out in 2008 and cost about $80 million – a
pretty big price tag in local buying power – nearly something unheard of outside
Hollywood. It shows their capacity to finance blockbusters. But the film itself was pretty
so-so. It was lacking in character depth.
Their 2nd most expensive film Asura ($100 million) was released in 2018. It was
pulled from theaters after only a week because it was so bad. I want them to develop into a
credible threat to Hollywood, but if anything they have regressed, compared to the old HK
films – for instance, people in the US used to talk about Jackie Chan's stunts. I blame
the decline on the bad influence of communism. Hopefully, they will figure out a way to tell
better stories.
@songbird
If you want a credible alternative to Hollywod try Japanese anime and cinema, as discussed in
another thread.
There is some vital spark missing from the Chinese at the moment, and I don't think it's
going to get any better soon. They seem to be heading in the direction of greater suppression
of individuality and quirkiness, which is so vital for high level creativity.
@Hail
Trouble is that egalitarians have already captured the legal system. What hope for
segregation is there, if websites like Christian Mingle have to now include gays? Try finding
a white school district in 2019 and see what a house costs you. And to top it off, if you are
near the city, they will bus blacks in.
Vernadsky defined the future evolutionary state of the biosphere as the Noosphere, the
sphere of reason. The term "Noosphere" was first coined by the French mathematician and
philosopher, Edouard Le Roy (1927). "Le Roy, building on Vernadsky's ideas and on
discussions with Teilhard de Chardin [they both attended Vernadsky's lectures on
biogeochemistry at the Sorbonne in 1922-1923], came up with the term "noosphere", which he
introduced in his lectures at the College de France in 1927 (Le Roy, 1927) Vernadsky saw
the concept as a natural extension of his own ideas predating Le Roy's choice of the term"
(Smil, 2002, p. 13).
@Hail If
whites adopt this approach you guys will become no different from Jews, Overseas Chinese,
Gujaratis, Overseas Lebanese and Parsis. You guys will have to face the wrath of an alien and
lower-performing people of another race every day, worry about their periodic pogroms against
you and have to give them money and girls to basically bribe them not to attack you.
Don't be like that.
Wait. Isn't this already how whites live in South Africa and Zimbabwe (if not Botswana
too)?
Moreover if all high-IQ races decide to reject ethnostates and go down this route who will
be the skilled farmers and factory workers? The world will be devoid of a good and reliable
working class permanently. If AI does not catch up this will be disastrous.
@Abelard
Lindsey Back to Vox Day. The last thing you can say about him is that he is not
realistic. I find people who like society of high functioning individuals lack basic
understanding of how diverse groups function. Having worked in this environment the last
thing I want is to live in it.
@Xityl
The groid "Tyrone" doesn't get any White pussy, much less anyone's daughter, to a White girl,
"Tyrone" is less than zero."Tyrone" merely consumes massive amounts of interracial porn. The
only White guys converting to the muzzie-slime cult are mentally ill clowns like Walker
Lindh, and that number is close to zero, still there are more Walker Lindhs than Tyrones.
You've been watching too much TV, Xityl, and I don't believe you are White, because if you
were, you would know like I do, that girls of all races prefer White Men. What I have
consistently noticed is Black guys act like girls, the Black male is an absurd joke. And you
have obviously never attended a "White BBQ", your entire comment reeks of fecal dishonesty.
@HailThe West may still do well in many important respects even if/when native (full-White)
racial stock falls to <50%.
Hmm -- California – half white – one party liberal SJW state – very rich
and very poor – white middle class flight – once best schools, now worst schools
– sky high home prices, rents – major drugged-out homeless – massive
regulations, high taxes.
@Okechukwu You don't even write
Mandarin. Hell you don't even know that East Indian (印度人) and Amerind
(印第安人) aren't the same word in Mandarin when you used the Google
Translate. Also what the hell is "巨魔"? We usually don't use that in Chinese
unless we are writing 玄幻小说.
@Lo
Agree. It is painful to listen to some celebrity ignoramuses of philosophical persuasion when
they bloviate about AI while showing a very poor understanding, in scientific terms, of what
consciousness is.
My immigrant ancestors were Irish and they had about a fourth grade education. They were
able to succeed in America because the economy was dynamic. Other groups had similar
educations but they also prospered in America. The sons of centuries long farmers became
airline pilots, college professors and successful business people. The early 20th century was
a great time to be alive.
@Okechukwu We are not your
brothers for we treated you with kindness and you repaid our kindness with TNB. We will never
forget TAZARA and other things we gave you out of kindness that you treated with contempt.
@reiner
Tor I believe Germany long led the way in (mass) literacy on the European continent, and
achieved near full literacy by some point in the 19th century, and impressively high levels
before that.
It is said that the Protestant movement, born in Germany, was heavily responsible for
getting this going. Gutenberg was a German, of course, but it's unclear what implications
that fact(oid) alone would have for people living, say, five generations later or their
leaders who set policy on, e.g., encouragement/discouragement of literacy. Large-scale policy
shifts occur with major political or religious movements like the Reformation (which is said
to have succeeded in large part thanks to the Gutenberg printing press )
@Okechukwu It is unfortunate that
we don't react to this like older whites or Arabs. However the people are angry at your AIDS,
crimes and muh dikking. If you are proud of muh dikking our chicks when people eventually
rise up against commies we will also deal with their Negroid pets fuxxating Guangzhou and
other mostly southern Chinese cities. That day will come. We NE Asian people are very nice
and patient. In fact we are even more patient than white people. However if we actually
counterattack because we had enough we won't need to counterattack twice.
@EastKekistani Shut-up, Hindu. No
one cares about you or what you think. Your opinion is about as valuable as a piece of soiled
toilet paper. Even if you were a real Chinese (which you're not), your opinion would be
irrelevant. Now shut the fuck up.
Oh, speaking of Guangzhou, you'll love this:
African-Chinese couples on the rise in Guangzhou, China
@Okechukwu I simply consider
Indians my 统战对象. Do you even know what 统战 is? It is
a commie term but non-commies like me also use it. It means "try to persuade X to join us in
fighting against Y". No matter how good or bad X is to us right now we need to invite them to
join the battle against Y.
It's really that simple. For example in Ni*germania Tom Shelly considers non-white
non-groids his 统战对象.
@EastKekistani You're a moron, of
course. China and India are eternal enemies. China and Africa, however, have always had
brotherly relations. It was China, after all, along with the USSR and Cuba, that helped
Southern African freedom fighters defeat the white supremacist regimes there.
Accordingly, I've decided to not let a Hindu provocateur like you goad me into disparaging
the Chinese people. The two great peoples of Africa and China are capable of symbioses and
synergies that can shake up the world.
@Okechukwu China and India are
currently geopolitical rivals. However that was a very recent development. Nobody before 1948
believed in that. Historically Chinese dynasties and Indian ones were not rivals simply
because it was extremely hard for us to reach each other (Xuanzang did visit India but he was
a very rare exception).
You Negroids are evil. The more you hate a people the stronger they become. The more you
love a people the weaker they become. I want to strengthen NE Asia hence I want you to hate
us as much as possible, the more the better. I don't hate whites which is why I warn them
about you Negroids and mestizos. I don't hate Indians which is why I don't trick you Negroids
into loving India.
I want to strengthen NE Asia hence I want you to hate us as much as possible, the more
the better
.
Dude, no one cares what you want. You're a piece of shit who lives here 24/7 writing some of
the most outlandish and idiotic shit on the entire Internet. You've admitted that this is
your entire life, that you don't even like women, that you essentially have no life; that
your life, such as it is, has no meaning.
You're a jobless pensioner or retiree without a woman or a family or friends or any life
whatsoever. So you are seething with anger. I'm pretty sure you're on an FBI watchlist as a
potential mass shooter. They're watching you, Hindu.
The African guy in this video is more Chinese than you are.
Here are why I want the NE Asian race to become the single worst enemy of Negroids:
1. The amount of aid to Negroids will finally be cut down to zero. Not a single yuan, won,
yen or Taiwanese dollar will be used to feed Negroids any more!
2. The amount of consensual sex between a racially NE Asian human and a Negroid will
decline to almost zero. This results in less HIV, less STD in general.
3. The amount of incidences of spread of diseases from Negroids to NE Asian people will
greatly decline as we all learn to avoid the groid.
4. The amount of crimes commited by Negroids against NE Asian people will decline again
because we learn to avoid the groid.
@EastKekistani Get it through
your thick skull, Hindu: No one gives a shit what you want. The piece of crud stuck to the
bottom of my shoe has more value than you.
However, there's also good news – the possibility of science production collapse
due to demographic change may not be as serious as some HBD realists and/or immigration
restrictionists tend to believe. While massive Third World immigration may lower average
IQs, the native smart fractions are still preserved; and it is the quantity of these smart
fractions, not average IQ per se, that plays a much greater role in economic prosperity and
scientific productivity.
The non-imported smart fractions come from the indigenous white populace. If you have
non-white blood mingle with white blood, as miscegenation is surely doing to the country, and
it's getting worse with each generation, you'll be depriving the smart fractions of members
in the future. Many gifted whites come from the middle and even lower classes, and these
classes are being affected by immigration and miscegenation. The smart fractions won't be
able to keep the mixed, negro and mestizo blood from tainting their families forever, you
can't be sure whom your descendants will marry.
Scientific and technological discoveries are not everything. You need to maintain
civilization, and you need quality people for that. When the quality of the skills needed for
the jobs drops, you'll end up with problems in all spheres of life – call it social
disfunction if you want.
And then if you believe in other forms of biological expression like I do, the 'soul' of
the places formerly inhabited by Celtic-Germanic peoples (here the Anglos are included) that
made up the majority of the US will change, and the country will lose its quaint essence.
@Bombercommand > takes
figurative language literally.
That's really shocking coming from a psycic such as yourself who can divine people's races
and social habits over the internet alone.
@EastKekistani If you're so
concerned about "Negroids" in NE Asia, why don't you go over there and do something about it?
What are you doing camping out here 24/7? To what end? For what purpose? To enlist white
supremacists to your cause? White supremacists are a useless fringe group that the
overwhelming majority of white people want nothing to do with. When they hold a rally only a
handful of them show up, besieged by thousands of white counterprotesters. White supremacists
can't help you in whatever inane project you've cooked up in your puny little brain.
You can at least take your act to a NE Asian Internet forum and try to drum up hatred of
"Negroids" there. That would make a great deal more sense than living on Unz Review and
imparting a "message" to people that don't like you, don't want you and are not in position
help you. Go test out your shtick at a real Chinese forum. See how your repetitive and boring
racist invective is received. It doesn't matter that you're an Indian. You can play Chinese
there too. See how far you get; how tolerant they are of your idiocy, and how many join in
your crusade. Good luck.
@AaronB
We're taking about Chinese researchers in America, remember. When they're at home it's a
different matter.
According to the JSTA, Japan Science and Technology Agency, China is the most influential
country in four of eight core scientific fields, tying with the U.S. The agency took the top
10% of the most referenced studies in each field, and determined the number of authors who
were affiliated with the U.S., the U.K., Germany, France, China or Japan. China ranked first
in computer science, mathematics, materials science and engineering. The U.S., on the other
hand, led the way in physics, environmental and earth sciences, basic life science and
clinical medicine. https://tinyurl.com/ydeqeqnb .
The Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence (Ai2) suggests that China will overtake
the US in the most-cited 50% of research papers this year, the top 10% of research papers in
2020, and the top 1% by 2025. Six of the 11 artificial intelligence (AI) unicorns –
valued over one billion U.S. dollars – come from China, according to CB Insights, a
research firm that tracks venture capital and startups. SenseTime took the top spot with a
valuation of $4.5 billion dollars, followed by Yitu Technology at 2.3 billion U.S. dollars
and smaller unicorns 4Paradigm, Horizon Robotics and Momenta. Chinese government policies
incentivize the development of AI, automation, and robotics. (In 2016, authorities released
the Robotics Industry Development Plan, outlining targets and strategies for growing the
robotics industry in the next five years. PWC predicts that China will be the biggest winner
from the application of AI worldwide. Adopting these novel technologies will lead to a 26%
boost in China's GDP by 2030, whereas, on average, world GDP will rise by 14%).
WIPO, The World Intellectual Property Organization, ranked 167 universities and public
research universities for the top 500 patent applications. 110 of the patents were from
China, 20 from the United States and 19 from South Korea. China dominates a global ranking of
the most-cited research papers published in the 30 hottest technology fields.
Though the U.S. accounted for 3.9 million research papers overall compared with 2.9
million from China, the Asian country produced the largest share in 23 of the 30 fields that
drew the most interest, while America took the crown for the remaining seven. Nikkei and
Elsevier compiled the ranking based on 2013-18 data provided by the Dutch publisher, covering
a total of 17.2 million papers. China led the world in the majority of the top 10 fields, and
each of the five areas in the top 10 tied to battery research. It accounted for more than 70%
of all papers on photocatalysts and nucleic-acid-targeted cancer treatment, which ranked 12th
and 14th. The U.S. led in three biotechnology fields, including No. 7 genome editing and No.
10 immunotherapy.[1]
China has overtaken the US to become the world's largest producer of scientific research
papers, making up almost a fifth of the total global output, according to a major new report.
[2]
China leads the world all fields of civil engineering, all fields of sustainable and
renewable energy, manufacturing, blockchain, supercomputing, speech recognition, graphenics,
thorium power, pebble bed reactors, genomics, thermal power generation, quantum communication
networks, ASW missiles, drones, in-orbit satellite refueling, Genomic Precision Medicine,
passive array radar, metamaterials, hyperspectral imaging, terahertz radar, nanotechnology,
UHV electricity transmission, HSR, speech recognition, radiotelescopy, hypersonic weapons,
satellite quantum communications, Railguns, quantum secure direct communications, quantum
controls,.. "Approximately 72% of the academic patent families published in QIT since 2012
have been from Chinese universities. US universities are a distant second with 12%."[3]
@Okechukwu Here and on other
English-language sites I'm building a global multiracial alliance against you Negroids. I
want to get whites, Indians, Iranians and Arabs on board. The Negroid problem can not be
fully tackled in a nation alone. Instead it has to be tackled worldwide. Segregationism of
WNs is a good intermediate step but it can not truly reduce effects of Negroid pathology to
acceptable levels because your diseases and important minerals don't always stay within your
borders. Eventually we have to have supervision, that is, Africa-Ditcher officials appointed
by UN or its successor to supervise a part of Negroid land and prevent events there from
disrupting the rest of the world.
In China 广州黑人吧 and other sites are already spreading
awareness about your (multiple) species. Some have even established contact with
ni*germania.
As for the diaspora the Chinese diaspora already consists of mostly ni*germaniacs. On
wenxuecity for example I can give you some random quotes under TNB articles.
@Godfree
Roberts Yet, they still can't master the elevator or escalator Just kidding! China is
very advanced. Look at all the modern automobiles they have.
I agree that this situation is bad in China. However the elevator or the escalator isn't
necessarily something not mastered in China. Another possible scenario is that this is caused
by fraud. When something doesn't work in China it is usually a consequence of malevolent
actions as opposed to lack of capabilities.
Here and on other English-language sites I'm building a global multiracial alliance
against you Negroids. I want to get whites, Indians, Iranians and Arabs on board.
Oh, that's very cute. This one probably won't be coming on board though:
The Negroid problem can not be fully tackled in a nation alone.
What Negroid problem?
Oh, you mean this?
This lady won't be joining your crusade either.
Eventually we have to have supervision, that is, Africa-Ditcher officials appointed by
UN or its successor to supervise a part of Negroid land and prevent events there from
disrupting the rest of the world.
Doesn't hurt to dream.
In China 广州黑人吧 and other sites are already spreading
awareness about your (multiple) species. Some have even established contact with
ni*germania.
LOL. Okay. Spoken like an Indian troll who's never been to China, knows nothing about
China and doesn't know a single Chinese.
@EastKekistani Haha, I'm just
having a little fun. China's alright, but they could use some better safety regulations.
Their government is practically national socialist now, and they know how to deal with
Muslims. I do have concerns about the Chinese people, though. There seems to be a
carelessness and disregard for human life that's prevalent among them. Where this comes from,
I do not know. Maybe it was from being constantly invaded and slaughtered or from all the
mass starvation. I also hear they are Jew-tier when it comes to doing business. Then there's
the gutter oil, pollution, boiling dogs alive, cannibalism, etc. But then again, I'm a white
American, and we are a perfect people with no flaws. #YangGang
@reiner
Tor > haven't seen many STEM people who reject Blank Slatist orthodoxy
The stereotype hard engineer is INTJ but the consulting engineers with people skill are
mostly INFJ or ISTJ with Feeling and Sensing and Judgemental rather than Intuition and
Thinking and Judgemental. In general population _NT_ type are rare, so most uni engineering
deans have to reach out to the _NF_ or _ST_ types to fill the quota.
@Sin City
Milla Indeed. And it also means they will be, indeed are, sending their surplus
population to stagnant open borders countries who just need muh pensions.
How interesting that the great and good elites managed to come up with the worst possible
response to the actual problem.
Lets look at the new generation of science researchers in USA, from the National Science
Foundation there is a list of 3422 research fellowships awarded in 2018. I will assume that
the process is that the senior researchers apply and got the research grants and they
selected and nominated the post-docs for those reseach fellowships. Some of those research
fellows might not be American citizens but they might receive permanent residency. It would
be nice if the list can be broken down into their countries of origin or ethnic origins but
in the list there are only names. So I tallied up the surnames which might give an idea of at
least their ethnic origins. The list is long so I only give the first 30 surnames.
Gupta only come in at 24 and Patel at 57. Only 27 with surname ending in *ski (Polish?),
11 ending with *v (Slav?), 131 ending with *z (Hispanic?), 19 ending with *sen (Nordic?)
There could be more for other nationalities with different surname patterns. Unexpectedly
there is only 1 Wong. Some Lee's might not be EastAsian, while some spell it as Li.
@Okechukwu "America is not at all
a difficult, intellectually demanding environment but rather an easy downhill ride where the
natives offer little in the way of competition."
-- What kind of the natives these "so-called third worlders" encounter in the US? The LA
ghettos? And why these "so-called third worlders" are so keen to demanding the various kinds
of affirmative actions -- to compensate for what?
By the way, whatever dazzling stuff is shown by the visiting Nigerians in Russia, the
Russians are not ready to invite Nigerians en masse. Instead, Russians are glad to see white
South Africans relocating from the suicidal, reverse-apartheid SA that has been decaying
since the ANC had acquired political power.
the entire nation seems to be in a state of decay where nothing works any more.
Electricity is first on the list. Wi-Fi, in a country where most cabinet ministers can't
use e-mail (as confessed to me by one such minister), is certainly on my list. For the
people of Kliptown, on the other hand, basic sanitation is a top priority.
It's as if the ANC government has an unconscious conviction that everything stopped at
liberation, that there is nothing left to learn. Whatever the rationale, they've certainly
stopped learning. South Africa is becoming a most unmodern state in all its official
habits, and in the protocols of its public administration. It is an old man's government
– and the old men seem to have learned nothing new in the 21 years since 1994.
Could black Africans do anything without white people or they need to relocate to the
white Russia or the white (and vibrant) UK to disclose their abilities?
@Daniel
Chieh There are so many blogs and articles devoted to this "publish or perish" culture
being bad, with a small subset devoted to saying how it encourages cheating.
I think that the main point is, and this is in reply to @AnonfromTN as well, is that there
are quite a few bureaucratic tweaks you can do to eliminate the stagnation in science, which
I really think comes from the huge amount of cheating and cutting corners. I thought it was a
fringe issue 10 years ago and had a small impact, but these days I think that even if 2-5% of
PIs do it, the downstream multiplier effect is so huge, that it shows in the lack of better
cancer therapies or better materials that were predicted by science fans (such as Karlin) 20
years ago. We could be a lot closer with the right policy, which I don't know what it would
be Maybe the Russian system where there is a harsh weeding out, but then a guaranteed job at
the end, with a living salary but no realistic prospects of fame, would be better. I'm not
that familiar with it. But I think the current grant system in the US (and other countries as
well, with China adopting some of the worst practices) encourages this cancer that can eat
away at honest scientists' motivation.
@Biff The
Persian/Medes AKA Iranians are Aryan. In fact "Iran" means Land of The Aryans. Iran has some
of the most beautiful girls on earth, with their white, white skin and dark eyelashes
..really a tragedy Iran got swarmed by the muzzie-slime cult. An Iranian acquaintance once
told me proudly "Our greatest author, a novel of a thousand pages, and not a single word of
Arabic".
@Bombercommand Iranians are a
self hating people desperate to be accepted as Europeans even though not more than 10% of
Iranians can pass for Southern European.
And the majority of European level white Iranians are not Persians but people from the
north like Gillan and Mazarendani a lot of the really really pretty women often have Georgian
ancestors as Shah Abass relocated a large number of Georgians when Persians used to rule
Georgia.
The real Aryan Iranians(Aryan was historically a self designation of Iranian and Indian
civilizations only and they did not resemble Northern Europeans though they were both Indo
European people by the time Cyrus founded the first Persian Empire this had long since mixed
with Elamites and other pre existing middle eastern populations on the Iranian plateau)look
like Cyrus the Great and Darius a distinct middle easternish facial structure not
European..
Even Tesla's primitive 'autopilot' relies on a certain type of road, certain types of
markings and barriers.
Useless on narrow rural roads as in Japan (the manoeuvering required to pass someone going
the other way, or allow them to pass, and I would guess dirt roads anywhere.
In the east, sure, much talk of inter-vehicle and road-to-vehicle signals.
The only period when I needed a car, I loved driving.
I can see that it might be less fun on a wide jammed road in, say. California or N.Y. and
N.J., but from photos, T.V., and movies, it looks like there are many places where it is fun
to drive in Nth. America!
I am a little annoyed at Anatoly's use of noosphere , it is not accurate, and many
will not know the term and its origin (Teilhard de Chardin, almost a century ago, and he was
not thinking of mechanical or electro-mechanical control systems, even though they had many
sophisticated ones at the time).
I am puzzled by your reference to construction.
Two questions
Why does it bother you so? I have my own points of dislike, but they are more local.
3-D printing is small-scale and mainly works with polymers. Sure, I know that there are
*very* expensive and *heavily* restricted machines that can work with metals, but the objects
produced are still small-scale and structurally weak.
Serious question, as for construction, how can it help except beyond a way of making
design models and decorations?
@Bombercommand I highly doubt
that the original Aryans in Iran would have looked like the people that live there today,
centuries of race mixing with browner people occurred there.
I know that there are *very* expensive and *heavily* restricted machines that can work
with metals, but the objects produced are still small-scale and structurally weak.
There is a new aerospace company called Relativity. They aim to completely print rockets.
First launch is scheduled for 2020. They already have at least one customer.
As I understand things, some 200,000,000 Euro whites in America do all the intellectual
heavy lifting and
Then you don't understand things. There's a huge amount of intellectual heavy-lifting from
Asian-Americans. If all of Ivy League had purely meritocratic admissions, it would look like
CalTech, i.e. at least 40% Asian.
China has 300,000 people with IQs above 160, compared to America's 10,000 (per Steve
Hsu).
Interesting, but three caveats:
First, the US is a supremely attractive place for high IQ immigrants. So it is not limited
to its domestic pool the same way China is.
Second, the accuracy of IQ decreases the further out you go on either side of the bell
curve. We're a lot worse at measuring accurately someone's intelligence once we go above 130,
140. IQ was designed to be normative for recruitment of soldiers and it does best in the
80-120.
Thirdly, the issues of historically innovation for East Asians despite higher IQ is still
unresolved.
That all said, I agree with you with regard to China's unblemished focus on HBD and
eugenics as a huge advantage going forward.
What would a white Rhodesian smart fraction have been like?
Yet not a single white Rhodesian was anywhere as smart as Mugabe or Nkomo, both of whom
spoke the English language better than whites in addition to their mastery of several African
languages. In fact all the leading figures in the black guerrilla movements were
brilliant
Rhodesia is no more due to the kind of unwarranted supremacism exhibited here. This notion
that only whites are intelligent, only whites are inventive, only whites can run countries,
etc. is fool's gold and has done immense, incalculable damage to whites themselves.
Instead, Russians are glad to see white South Africans relocating from the suicidal,
reverse-apartheid SA that has been decaying since the ANC had acquired political power.
Ahh the female Res in all her glory. Like Res, she writes like half of her brain is
missing. And like Res, she's as fanatical as Osama bin Laden.
Annamaria, please point me to an official Russian government document that throws the
South African government (its BRICS partner and ally) under the bus in favor of validating
the racist SA farmer genocide myth. A myth that any cursory fact-check will disprove.
Could black Africans do anything without white people or they need to relocate to the
white Russia or the white (and vibrant) UK to disclose their abilities?
the entire nation seems to be in a state of decay where nothing works any more.
Electricity is first on the list. Wi-Fi, in a country where most cabinet ministers can't
use e-mail (as confessed to me by one such minister)
It's as if the ANC government has an unconscious conviction that everything stopped at
liberation, that there is nothing left to learn. Whatever the rationale, they've certainly
stopped learning. South Africa is becoming a most unmodern state in all its official
habits, and in the protocols of its public administration. It is an old man's government
– and the old men seem to have learned nothing new in the 21 years since 1994.
"In the main, they were all law-abiding and left the country in their own time " Of the
remaining 5,000 or so, "we are undertaking operations to deport them and I hope that they
will all be deported by March 30."
All of these undocumented immigrants are from African decent, and are demanding that
prime minister Édouard Philippe will give all of them permanent legal status and
papers to stay in France.
There is no welfare for sub-Saharan migrants in China and India. Guess what, the Africans
do not hurry to relocate to either China or India; the Africans want to be next to white
people, the whiter, the better Why?
@annamaria There are plenty of
groids in China because commies DO coddle them a lot. Commies even assign ladies for groid
students to muh dik, causing HIV to spread in China. Fuck the commies and their groid pets.
They [Boers] are people who plan to make their contribution to general well-being These
people know how to work, they like to work and they do it perfectly.
South Africa is on the verge of a race war and economic disaster. The devastation and
confiscations, as well as the murders of white farmers, mean that the Boers are thinking of
massive emigration.
In addition, migration to South Africa from other parts of sub-Saharan Africa, has
increased substantially, and as a result, more violence – inter-tribal
black-on-black violence has increased substantively as well.
@annamaria Three cheers to Russia
and some people in Australia. However that's not enough. What about cutting aid to SA and
sanction its leaders unless it adequately protects the white community? If the SA gov
actually kills white people do what Anglos used to do and what Israelis do today.
Diversity may be a long-term risk to scientific production, but anti-intellectual populism
is a much more immediate one. Recent news of Brazil's Bolsonaro slashing university funding
by 30% will soon provide us with another test case.
Oh Anatoly, it always amazes me that you, of all people, should believe what the lying
fake news media reports about anything. This is just untrue.
About 90% of Brazilian federal spending on higher education is earmarked by law and cannot
be changed by the government, That's the money that funds the payroll, basic maintenance, and
such. Only about 10% of that budget is "discretionary" spending, that is, money that the
chancellors of the universities may decide to spend one way of the other. Of THAT money,
around 30% has been DELAYED (not "slashed"; I explain this below). That would be 30% of 10%
or around 3% – THREE PERCENT – of the higher education budget.
Let me now explain the "delayed". Right now the Bolsonaro administration and the
traditional establishment are in a tug-of-war regarding the congressional approval of the
government's main planks (pension reform, anti-corruption reform, and anti-crime reform,
among some others). It's a complicated mess which I won't take the space to explain here. The
result has been that the expected date for the approval of the pensions reform –
without which the Brazilian federal budget will be wholly consumed by pensions and the civil
servant's payroll within four years – is being pushed forward to the end of the year or
early next year. And this means that this year the economy will grow less than expected.
Which means that government revenue will be less. Which means
Boring, boring, boring, I know. But here's the rub. The national budged deficit is capped
by law. And the law also forbids taking up debt to cover normal expenses (as opposed to
capital investment). So Bolsonaro can't overrun the maximum deficit established by law, and
he cannot borrow money to cover up the missing amount. So he has a choice of printing money
(and killing his government with inflation), or delaying expenditures, or being impeached
(explained below).
This has happened every year since 2014 and was not uncommon before that. Optimistic
estimates of revenue prove false, the Finance Minister by the end of the first semester
delays expenditures across the board, usually more than is "mathematically necessary" since
this is difficult to implement, and by the end of the year rhe spigot is turned open once it
is clear the maximum deficit limit will not be breached. So, by say October, most of this
money will probably be spent anyway.
Why is this important? Remember I said that law forbids the government from racking up
debt to cover current expenses. This is what Dilma Rousseff did in 2014 and this was the
formal, legal reason she was impeached in 2016. The establishment would like Bolsonaro to
fall into the same trap, but he seems smarter than Rousseff. (Not a great feat, of
course).
The delay in sending money to the education ministry is very small (three percent,
remember). The energy ministry's comparable amount is around 70% of its theoretical budget.
Bolsonaro's government is chock full of military officers, remember? The armed forces budget
delay is almost 50% of its budget. So no, there's no "war against science" or "war against
education" going on in Brazil. Considering the uselessness and wokeness and most of what goes
by that name in Brazil, by the way, it would almost be good if there were such things.
A final comment on Brazilian IQ. There are not too many studies about that. The usual
quoted mean of around 86-87 seems right, but I know of not decent study on racial, regional
and class stratification. I suspect the Brazilian smart fraction is considerably higher that
what would be predicted from the country's meab IQ alone. Charles Murray – of "Bell
Curve" fame – once estimated its absolute number to be similar to Germany's, which is
not too bad, (Of course, per capita numbers would be much different, since Brazil's
population is more than double Germany's).
TLDR; Anatoly, stop reading, or at least believing, the lying press.
@annamaria There are plenty of
African 'students' in India except Ethiopians who are decent enough the rest are nothing but
trouble especially Nigerians who are into drug dealing and stuff..
There is many a slip between the cup and the lip. All of 'Science' today is not relevant to
the quality of life of average citizens. Much of it has been taken over by careerists.
Technology has a much closer bearing on quality of life. In the part of India where I live,
the roads have been improved many-fold in recent years using standard technology, by what you
dub as 'low IQ' people. Many of the 'high IQ' professions benefit disportionately from
ultra-liberal monetary and MIC policies. Primary producers -- 'low IQ' -- suffer and cannot
even complain legally.
All human beings -- of any IQ! -- need to note this: Economic exploitation -- under ANY
pretext -- will be resented and resisted. What good is a so-called 'high IQ' person if his or
her actions diminish my options of earning livelihood? Am I to treat such persons as kind of
'demi-gods' because of their alleged 'high IQ' -- conceding to them full rights of receiving
reverential offerings? Incidentally, most people working around POTUS -- for many decades! --
have been very high IQ people. I rest my case.
Is it realistic? Or is it like Ansari X-prize, which was, IMHO, unfairly awarded to a U.S.
military contractor, Scaled Composites? That they are contractors is undeniable, as is that
the subortilal flight, as was fun to watch, was lifted by an aeroplane closely modelled on
their own military reconnaisance products.
Awarding them the prize was a violation of their own conditions.
@Okechukwu Dude, everybody knows
the Igbo are the Ashkenazy of Africa. If only, like the Ashkenazy in the West, the Igbo were
running the show in Africa.
Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military
posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized,
complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction
of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task
forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free
university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has
experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs
involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity.
For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project
allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in
holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert
to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a
scientifictechnological elite.
How much of the elite science is people faking results? I believe the efficiency of
Europeans . Buy we live in the age where even though they are efficient they have been
corrupted to waste time and resources and we need a reset to right this.
@Che
Guava Seems pretty feasible, on a technical level. Rocket Lab actually already 3d prints
its own engines, which I would guess would be the hardest part, but their Electron rocket is
smaller, at least to the rocket on the drawing board.
Relativity's Terran 1 will be designed to send 1250 kg to LEO for a price of $10 million,
so it is still somewhat small scale. The hardest part might be the economics – in the
long term there will probably be the most competition on that end, and launch isn't a very
big market compared to building satellites.
They are really only a start up at this point, but some of their founding engineers have
experience. They haven't built the launch sites yet, but their staff is growing. I think what
they are doing is a good idea, but I'm not sure I'd invest. (though I do think they will
launch)
@AaronB I
know. This is why I strongly support CRISPR.
The universe is winner-takes-all. If we discuss modern history Anglos got the largest
share. Frenchmen really tried very hard and just got a barely working model. Hell at least
they still got some colonies even though almost all of them other than those taken by Anglos
were in Africa. In the long run all they did demographically was settling Quebec, Louisiana
etc. What did Germans get in the long run? Nothing. Spaniards? Mestizo Chile and Argentina I
guess?
@AaronB
The same applies to race. Nobody could foresee that the bipartite manor & outbreeding
turned out to be extremely helpful to Northwestern Europeans who basically created the modern
world. Other Europeans could easily freeload on their achievements as whites. Middle
Easterners really could if they can change their attitude and claim that they alre the ones
defending the Caucasoid peoples from Negroid hordes (that is, they need someone like me to be
their propagandists). Others obviously can't completely freeload because freeloading is not a
right. The Mandarin-statist model invented in China is just like the French model. It doesn't
work as well as the Hajnali one but at least it is a lot better than other alternatives.
What do I want to do? I want to contribute to (not freeload on) the cutting edge
development of this century. In the long run there is no mercy for those who are not
sufficiently competent. The standards one has to meet to survive will rapidly increase over
time as the Age of AI approaches. It is either succeed or die. I will succeed or at least die
trying.
You have conveniently omitted the quoted eye-witness report. Why?
"Decline and decay: a sobering trip through southern Africa:"
And you have conveniently cherrypicked information, as you clowns are wont to do. In life,
things are always fluid and multifaceted, not given to facile boneheaded pronouncements.
Sure, the countries mentioned in the article have their problems, but they also have their
virtues. They now have freedom and self-determination. People can go where they want, do what
they want and try to reach their full potential without some racist pinheads trying to keep
them down.
In your cherrypicking you will, of course, avoid stories like this like the plague:
Land reform is a Zimbabwe success story – it will be the basis for economic
recovery under Mnangagwa
Zimbabwe produced more maize in 2017 than was ever grown by white farmers, who have
repeatedly been praised for making the country into the breadbasket of Africa. Maize
production in 2017 was 2.2m tonnes, the highest in two decades.
The sector was previously dominated by white farmers until they were forcibly evicted
in a controversial government land seizure drive in 2000. Now tens of thousands of black
farmers who benefited from the land reforms are growing tobacco.
Tobacco Industry and Marketing Board (TIMB) data showed that sales of the crop at local
auctions had eclipsed the previous record of 236.9 million kg in 2000. Back then, 4,000 white
farmers produced 85 percent of the crop.
So taking land from thieves and giving the land back to its rightful owners works.
Naturally, being a white supremacist you had convinced yourself that black people cannot farm
or husband land. And you would rather have these black people under the heels of white fat
cats who owned parcels of stolen land the size of small cities. But all of that is no
more.
As for Russia, the country was kind enough to create a university named after Patrice
Lumumba. However, the uninvited blacks are shown the door, justifiably:
Nothing wrong with Russia enforcing its immigration laws. African countries do the
same:
Kenyan police detain another Chinese journalist as part of immigration
crackdown
Kenya last month began hunting down and arresting those illegally in the country after
holding a 60-day exercise in which every foreigner was required to revalidate their
permits.
I know this comes as a big shock to you, but just as some Africans seek their fortunes and
greener pastures elsewhere, non-Africans also seek the same things in Africa and often reside
in African countries illegally.
As compared to this permissiveness of French and disrespectful behavior of Africans in
France: "Hundreds Of "Black Vest" Migrants Seize Paris Airport Terminal: "France Does Not
Belong To The French!
Well, dummy, that pales in comparison to French misbehavior and exploitation in Africa.
France is trying, by hook or by crook, to hang on to its former African colonies in a sort of
colonialism by other means. These countries are enjoined to adopt the French language, which
is useless in the international arena. Moreover, all the African countries in the CFA Franc
zone, who ostensibly are sovereign and independent but actually are not, are the most
undeveloped, underperforming and backward countries in Africa.
Protests mount against Africa's 'colonial' CFA currency
The CFA franc is facing growing opposition in parts of West and central Africa.
Critics say the common currency has hampered the region's economic growth while France
profits.
So shut your stinking mouth about Africans in France. First work to get the French out of
Africa, then you might have a leg to stand on.
As someone pretty conversant with Russian history and culture, it saddens me that an idiot
like Anatoly Karlin is trying to align Russia with this legacy of white supremacy and
colonial abuse. Thankfully, he is just a crackpot who certainly doesn't speak for Russia or
Russians. But what he fails to understand is that the brutal excesses of European colonialism
(the slavery, the rape, the inhumane exploitation, the genocides, etc.) of which Russia was
mostly blameless, form the fundamental principles of the white supremacy and white
nationalism he wants to champion and put a Russian veneer on. If he were to succeed, that
would make Russia culpable in some rather barbarous crimes against humanity that Russia
wasn't party to and didn't benefit from.
There is no welfare for sub-Saharan migrants in China and India. Guess what, the
Africans do not hurry to relocate to either China or India; the Africans want to be next to
white people, the whiter, the better Why?
Your stupidity is agonizing. No, Africans do not want to be next to white people. Like
everyone else, they want to go where they can better actualize their potential. That's why
your own ancestors fled their European shitholes for America. Russia is certainly "white."
But many Africans see it as a stepping stone to a better situation in a Western European
country. For many other Africans, the best situation for them is in their own African
countries.
"Russia is wooing South Africa's white farmers" – and who would not?
Once again, you and that other braindead moron Kekistani have failed to establish that
this is an official Russian Federation initiative. It is not.
And what has happened since this so-called story broke? How many disgruntled white South
African farmers were given parcels of land and residency in Russia? Not many, if any:
South Africa's white far-right outcasts are finding friends on Facebook
Schlebusch himself admits that the plan to "establish a Boer colony in Russia
somewhere" was a bit ambitious.
"We left with the idea that there is not really room for a big group of South
Africans," he says, adding, though, that the Russians "went to a lot of trouble to introduce
us to the right people."
@Okechukwu Whole story about
"South African Boers will immigrate to Russia", was comical fake news.
Actual story was that a rich South African husband and wife visited an area in Russia
saying they were interested in buying land in Russia, because they like what they thought is
the more conservative politics of Russia, which they said was more attractive than
Australia/UK for them. Later on interviewed them, it seemed the couple were perhaps not going
to come to Russia because of the difficulty of purchasing land.
However, media created an imaginary story around their visit, saying how thousands of
South Africans want to immigrate to Russia. The reason was that, it is a way to boost local
morale (to imagine civilized and wealthy Boers will come to the country) for the media.
Of course, South African Boers are one of the world's most successful and intelligent
nationalities (even the most successful African in America is one – Elon Musk). South
Africa was a very successful country when Boers were predominant.
Any country would benefit from their immigration. But they will not likely immigrate to
Russia (they prefer UK, Canada and Australia).
Of course, South African Boers are one of the world's most successful and intelligent
nationalities (even the most successful African in America is one – Elon Musk).
Notice that Musk has pretty much abandoned his Boer identity. He doesn't want to be
associated with or linked to what you describe as a "successful and intelligent"
nationality.
South Africa was a very successful country when Boers were predominant.
No, it wasn't a successful country. It was an utter failure that collapsed of its own
absurdities. An apartheid system is by definition a failure. You have to wonder how
intelligent the Boers really were if they could screw things up so royally.
Any country would benefit from their immigration. But they will not likely immigrate to
Russia (they prefer UK, Canada and Australia).
Many South African Boer immigrants are an embarrassment to people like Musk. Which, again,
is why Musk will not associate himself with anything tangentially connected to white South
Africans. He may have even had coaching to get rid of his accent.
South African racism trends on Twitter down under
New Zealanders have sparked a debate on Twitter after complaining about white South
Africans who bring their "racism" down under.
He recently tweeted: "In New Zealand, there's only two types of people we will not
tolerate. 1. Racists 2. White South Africans. Honestly those people are the f*cking worst!
When are we marching and holding peaceful protests against those fuckers! Have you met one?
The worst!"
Of course, not all white South Africans are racists but a significant percentage of them
are. No respectable country is going to want these people as immigrants. Immigration officers
getting a whiff of Afrikaner white supremacy or racism will automatically reject their
applications.
White South African family's refugee bid rejected, accused of boosting case with
'racist propaganda'
A white family from South Africa has had their refugee claim for asylum in Canada
rejected, having been accused of submitting "white-supremacist hate literature" to bolster
their claims of violence by the black majority in their homeland.
As is obvious, agricultural production tends to be highly variable. Blacks haven't reached
the previous peak production levels yet, though the population has already grown
significantly (maybe 50% higher than before taking the land from the white farmers), and
technology has obviously advanced. The 2018 production number was already lower than in 2017
(the 2019 number is not yet a full year, so meaningless), but some five-year moving averages
were better, and then you'd immediately notice that the agriculture still hasn't recovered.
(It's perhaps better than in the noughties.)
So Okechukwu's point that "land reform" was some kind of a success story is probably
premature at best.
@Okechukwu Obviously, the Boers
are a very talented and successful nationality, which are desirable for countries around the
world as immigrants.
Boers arrived in very inhospitable areas of Africa, and created a country which won more
Nobel prizes in science than many European countries.
And moreover, by the 1970s, it looks like:
. No respectable country is going to want these people as immigrants. Immigration
officers
That's not true. They are immigrating in large numbers to UK, Australia, Canada,
Netherlands and USA (where Elon Musk, is perhaps the most successful African immigrant in
America).
They have a high level of human capital and are often working as engineers, doctors, etc.
(the idea they wanted to immigrate to Russia was a joke though).
Here's a great article that details how it's not just the existence of a "smart fraction"
that determines national economic success, but the acceptance of nationalism among the
population and political elite (national unity, purpose, maintenance of the dignity of the
nation-state against competitors). This theory explains the rise of Britain before other
European powers as well as the startling rise of Japan and the stagnation of China, until the
current era that is. I would suggest anyone interested check it out. It's illuminating to say
the least. I also think its implications are far more ominous than either Anatoly or some of
his readers might think in regards to immigration: sure, the smart fraction remains, but the
animating spirit is reduced* due to a failing shared identity in the host population (and
ruling elite), possibly leading to an inability to compete with a future, unified, and
nationalist ** China sometime in the future.
This probably explains the failure of Russia to emerge as a global economic powerhouse,
despite its relatively large population size and decent smart fraction in comparison to a
country like France or Germany; India also. Putin rules Russia in the same way an emperor
leading any multi-cultural entity has to – in no one group's particular interest. This
has the unfortunate side effect of reducing nationalism, the aninmus and identity the smart
fractions needs to invent, invest, and to "go where no man has gone before." India, like
China, has a smart fraction but that country is far less dynamic than China because their
country is also heavily divided by caste and religion. As an aside, South Korean exchange
students I met back in the day were some of the most nationalist people I've ever
encountered; that nation is certainly doing quite well for itself and has several very
competitive companies on the global stage.
I also wonder if this might explain America's sudden less-than-competitive reputation. GM
has been chased out of the EU and Japan because they can't compete. Japan's Sony crushes
their larger competition (America's Microsoft) in the games market. Huawei is racing to first
place in the global smartphone market. Asian train systems are far superior to anything found
in the US. American music is also being surpassed globally in popularity (Eurovision contest
is an example; Kpop is another). American movies are also not as good in terms of quality
anymore now that diversity is all the rage. The animating spirit behind ever greater
narrative and directorial innovation is gone because the demographic doing the innovating
(white males) has been demoralized; it's all consensus by politically correct, ethnic and
gender diverse committee and focus groups now – money, money, money. Many California
tech companies are also unprofitable (Twitter) and may go out of business within the next
decade.
Compare that with China. That country is racing ahead in supercomputers, AI and internet
technology. China will have world-class chip manufacturers within the next 15 years. China
already manufactures much of the best green energy tech like photovoltaic cells and wind
turbines. China will also have a competitive domestic airline manufacturer within the next
decade. Their movie industry is increasingly sophisticated and will one day have global
appeal. Meanwhile, the US isn't much more than a financial middle man with military
domination of fossil fuel resources at this point, or at least in comparison to China.
I think, for the most part, America seems competitive because it is larger, but the
animating spirit is also much less due to ethnic diversity and anti-white male hate, so there
are opportunities to out-compete American companies in limited circumstances, even for small
countries. Having a corrupt, inept ruling class indoctrinated with outdated economic dogmas
and an inefficient system that prevents change – along with a selfish, atomized Leftist
population taught to fear nationalism and hate Europeans – will allow China to
out-compete the United States in nearly every field and to reduce them to a second-rate power
by mid-century. Of course, all of this was obvious to me decades ago but no one listened.
OT: Hungary solved its birthrate issue by promoting Christianity and national identity.
Non-Christian, non-European immigration and a corrupt political class that rejects
nationalism is literally killing Europe by sapping it of its animating spirit.
"While European nations languish with rapidly declining birthrates, Hungary stands out
with rising marriage rates, falling abortions, and its highest birthrate in 20 years,
Breitbart reports. Marriage is up by 43 percent since 2010, while divorce has dropped by 22.5
percent in the same period. This demographic turnaround has not been an accident, but the
fruit of deliberate programs to promote marriage and the family while defending Hungary's
cultural identity and Christian roots."
*It's reduced because nationalism depends upon a shared identity. Civic nationalism is a
poor substitute for ethnic, cultural, and religious nationalism, but the United States will
soon not even be able to muster that. It may end up resembling the Balkans.
** Occasionally, someone will claim to me that China isn't nationalist. That's not true.
Sure, if you define nationalism as something akin to the Third Reich, perhaps China is not
nationalist. But that's not the right comparison. The Chinese people, in my experience, are
very patriotic; many care deeply about their country's position in the world and obsess over
it while others still hold grievances over how China was treated by her rivals back when she
was weak. You even occasionally hear appeals to nationalism from many public leaders. Didn't
Xi just call the Chinese to a "people's war" against Donald Trump's trade policies, or
something to that effect?
@E The
Cavendish Laboratory, when it was run by Ernest Rutherford, produced an enormous amount of
world-shaking research. Every afternoon, most work that could be interrupted or left to go
on, by itself for half an hour or so, was, and the researchers went and had tea together.
(Tea and buns/sandwiches provided by the laboratory.) The one rule that Rutherford insisted
on during tea, was that you sat next to people whose field was different to your own.
@reiner
Tor Hard to take him seriously as an authority on Africa. Obviously, he doesn't live
there. He's Nigerian, probably an Igbo, and he didn't even know that the civil war was a
localized event – he thought it affected the whole nation. Hell, I knew that, and I
have practically zero interest in the country, other than the fact that it is a ticking
timebomb for the entire civilized world.
Plus, he said Mugabe was "brilliant." Someone told Mugabe about Mao's Mao suit, and he
hurried to his tailor to demand that his face be plastered allover his wardrobe.
Pretty telling that even with the advent of GMO, the increased market of China, and a
dearth of food regionally, Zimbabwe is not outproducing the old totals from the early
'80s.
Obviously, the Boers are a very talented and successful nationality, which are desirable
for countries around the world as immigrants.
If they regurgitate racist slogans and catchphrases they're not getting into any
country.
Obviously, the Boers are a very talented and successful nationality, which are desirable
for countries around the world as immigrants.
The Spanish Conquistadors became wildly successful not through genius or some innate
talents, but through the gross and unrelenting exploitation of the Indians. That parallels
the South Africa situation. How successful are white South Africans when they are not able to
exploit other people? If you have virtually free labor to clean your house, take care of your
landscaping, watch your kids and cook your meals, then you can certainly channel your
energies toward becoming successful. If you have virtual slave labor to work many miles
underground digging for gold in inhumane conditions, then you can certainly become wealthy as
a society.
Even the immigrant Boers left SA with a great deal of capital, much like the Iranians that
fled to Los Angeles after the fall of the Shah. The Iranians are even more successful than
the Boers, having bought up most of Beverly Hills. Like the Boers, those Iranians have no
special aptitudes or talents. They just had money, most of it ill-gotten.
Shorn of start-up capital, and in a country where it's expensive to have your grass cut,
where a live-in maid costs more per capita than whites earn in South Africa and where
childcare is equally as expensive, how successful would white South Africans be? They
certainly wouldn't be able to replicate the lifestyles they had in South Africa. They would
just be middle-class and lower middle-class for the most part. Nothing spectacular or
extraordinary.
Boers arrived in very inhospitable areas of Africa, and created a country which won more
Nobel prizes in science than many European countries.
On the contrary, the Boers arrived in the most hospitable part of Africa. South Africa is
in the southern temperate zone, meaning it has a congenial climate just like Europe's, with
four predictable seasons.
And moreover, by the 1970s, it looks like:
So did Lagos:
They have a high level of human capital and are often working as engineers, doctors,
etc.
So are Nigerian immigrants.
the idea they wanted to immigrate to Russia was a joke though
At the time, Anatoly Karlin fell for the story. I was one of the few voices that cautioned
skepticism.
@Dreadilk
That is good, but the original story to which that blog post refers to should also be linked.
It's very field dependent of course, but with biomedicine being such a kraken that swallows
most of the funding, it's very relevant. My field only has the first horseman in comment,
with the last three being irrelevant for what I do, but we also (unfairly) have less money
and less students despite in retrospect our research being highly important for general
prosperity.
"Yet many researchers persist in working in a way almost guaranteed not to deliver
meaningful results. They ride with what I refer to as the four horsemen of the
reproducibility apocalypse: publication bias, low statistical power, P-value hacking and
HARKing (hypothesizing after results are known). My generation and the one before us have
done little to rein these in."
Today in America – men (white men) are being academically shortchanged by the
leftist feminist culture. Male brilliance is the enemy – it is not valued – it
is not given its just due.
In liberal feminist America today – the "teacher's pet" boys are shamed out of being
aggressive. And the real intelligent boys who are a little edgy – get Ritalin. Their
brilliance and self-assurance are drugged out of them.
He's Nigerian, probably an Igbo, and he didn't even know that the civil war was a
localized event – he thought it affected the whole nation.
You're thinking, such as it is, lacks sophistication and nuance. The Nigerian civil war
was actually a global event. Yeah, the entire country wasn't engulfed in flames. So what? The
entirety of Japan and Germany weren't subject to war during WWII either. In both countries,
children and other non-combatants were sent to the countryside because there was no bombing
or fighting happening there. And Vietnam convulsed the United States even though the war was
fought thousands of miles away.
Plus, he said Mugabe was "brilliant."
You don't come from where Mugabe came from and achieve what he achieved without being
absolutely brilliant. Replace Mugabe's genius with your meager intellectual level and nobody
would have ever heard of him.
And by brilliant, I didn't mean the old, doddering Robert Mugabe, I meant this guy:
Pretty telling that even with the advent of GMO, the increased market of China, and a
dearth of food regionally, Zimbabwe is not outproducing the old totals from the early
'80s.
GMO was around during Rhodesia.
The Chinese market is irrelevant to this matter
As the article I posted indicates, Zimbabwe did outproduce Rhodesia in 2017, as impartial
US sources have confirmed. You're assuming that the website linked by Reiner Tor is credible
because you like what it says.
Nevertheless, the most important factor in any business (farming especially) is capital
and credit. It doesn't matter how skilled a farmer is, he is helpless without those things.
These lands that were seized from white farmers did not come with paperwork satisfactory to
banks and other lenders. They were also the subject of controversy, which made financiers
skittish. To make matters worse, Zim was placed under international sanctions. Even if the
sanctions were directed at so-called Mugabe cronies, it still makes the whole of Zimbabwe
toxic to banks and trading partners. So the Zim government had to find workarounds that would
give these farmers access to capital, credit, equipment, seed, etc.
All the things you claim were to Zimbabwe's benefit were actually swamped and overwhelmed
by the factors noted above. It is actually a testament to the skill of the Zim government and
the skill and perseverance of Zim farmers that they were able to overcome these
difficulties.
You're assuming that the website linked by Reiner Tor is credible because you like what
it says.
Your source (which self-contradictorily proclaims "more maize in 2017 than was ever grown
by white farmers" and then calls the number "the highest in two decades"; so which is it?)
uses the exact same link I provided. Actually that's how I found the link. (So of their two
contradictory statements, the second was true: the highest number in two decades.)
They were also the subject of controversy, which made financiers skittish. To make
matters worse, Zim was placed under international sanctions.
There were sanctions against Rhodesia, too. The 1970s were still better than the period
between "land reform" and 2017.
But give credit where it's due: Mnangagwa's agricultural reforms are working, and the
country might catch up to what the white farmers achieved in the 1980s with inferior
technology (there were no GMOs yet, for example) and a much smaller population.
While it maybe true that the native potential of the Chinese research may top out at the
level or South Korea, well endowed research institutions will start to poach Western
researchers just as the U.S. had done for decades. If you are a scientist, you go where there
is money to do the research. As a result, it maybe possible for them to move beyond South
Korea in their percapita numbers.
If only birth rates have stalled. Even TFR is falling, it's now at 1.44, which is nothing
to write home about. This January the number of births was the lowest since 2013:
"If only birth rates have stalled. Even TFR is falling, it's now at 1.44"
Hungary's TFR has risen to around 1.5 in 2018 from around 1.23 in 2011. This reverses a
general downward trend see since at least the 1970s. Granted, 1.5 (1.49) is nothing to brag
about but there has been a noticeable increase in less than a decade. 1.5 is higher than the
average American white Leftist TFR anyway. If Hungary keeps this up, their TFR could be near
break even sometime in the early 2030s; that's not really so bad. The great thing about
limiting democracy, which the Hungarian president has been denounced for, is that it allows
for long-term planning. In most short-time oriented Western countries, a 0.26 increase in the
TFR would be treated as a failure and the effort abandoned quickly, leading back to a
declining TFR once again. Eventually, the Hungarian effort may pay off as long as they stick
with it. Hungary doesn't need a 3.0 TFR, just somewhere around break even along with an
effort to decrease their relatively high death rate.
Hungary also has one of the highest death rates in the world (tied with Zimbabwe and
Burundi) at 28th place, so that probably doesn't help their population size, but that can be
changed as well in time.
@Anon TFR
has been below replacement since 1958, except for the years 1975-77, when it briefly grew
higher.
It's not dramatically different from our neighbors, and neither are the trends. Emigration
of the population to Western Europe means a relatively fast decline, which leads to higher
rates of immigration. For example from Ukraine.
The high death rate is the result of the inverted population pyramid, we have too many old
people dying of age. (Though the relative neglect of healthcare under Orbán and even
previous administrations results in a somewhat higher death rate, which could be fixed. )
Your source (which self-contradictorily proclaims "more maize in 2017 than was ever
grown by white farmers" and then calls the number "the highest in two decades"; so which is
it?) uses the exact same link I provided. Actually that's how I found the link. (So of
their two contradictory statements, the second was true: the highest number in two
decades.)
There's nothing contradictory about the statement given that land reform began in 1980 --
going at a snail's pace and not accomplishing much initially. There were post-land reform
yields that were larger than any harvest under Rhodesia. So technically, the statement is
correct.
This is from the USDA:
Zimbabwe corn production seen soaring in 2017-18
WASHINGTON, D.C., U.S. -- The corn crop in Zimbabwe is forecast to soar more than 300%
from the 2016-17 marketing year crop of 512,000 tonnes, increasing to approximately 2.2
million tonnes in 2017-18, according to a July 26 Global Agricultural Information Network
report from the Foreign Agricultural Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
This is not the largest yield after liberation and land reform, but it's one of the
largest yields in the entire history of the country from Rhodesia through Zimbabwe.
There were sanctions against Rhodesia, too.
Not really. There were some minor sanctions on some consumer items that Rhodesia could
bust via South Africa or Portugal, the occupiers of Mozambique. There were no financial
sanctions. The US wasn't really engaged. Moreover,
The Failure of Sanctions Against Rhodesia
Externally, a number of states even extended their trade with Rhodesia rather than
comply with the UN ban. In addition to South Africa and Portugal, who had an ideological
stake in violating the UN request, France, Iran, Japan and West Germany all increased trade
in 1967 with Rhodesia.
Back when "sanctions" were placed on Rhodesia, no country was as powerful as the United
States is today, including the United States. There was multi-polarity in the world. Today,
if the US places sanctions on a country like it did to Zimbabwe, that country basically
becomes a pariah. Banks won't touch their business and companies won't either. However, back
in the 60's and 70's no one cared about breaking UN and UK sanctions against Rhodesia. Those
were two feckless and impotent entities. But today, every country, every company and every
financial institution on earth is deathly afraid of violating US sanctions. It's why Russian
companies won't do business in Crimea. So your attempt to equate the two situations is
absurd.
The 1970s were still better than the period between "land reform" and 2017.
1980-1990 was better than 1970-1980.
and the country might catch up to what the white farmers achieved in the 1980s with
inferior technology (there were no GMOs yet, for example) and a much smaller
population.
The white farmers sat on their asses for the most part. They didn't do any actual work.
They took advantage of a system akin to slavery or serfdom. This is obviously something the
black farmers can't/won't do. The antebellum South produced a lot of corn too. But their
overall unfair advantage in competition with free labor was one of the triggers of the civil
war.
Rhodesian farmers did not have inferior technology. The big white commercial farms were
broken up into small holdings. The black farmers neither need nor can afford advanced
technology:
This is farming like it was done in biblical times.
Zimbabwe Has Little to Show for $27 Billion Investment
By Brian Latham and Antony Sguazzin
May 22, 2019, 5:00 AM GMT+2
The economy is in its most dire state since 2008, when inflation surged to an
estimated 500 billion percent. Medicines, fuel and foreign currency are in short supply,
prices of basic goods such as bread are surging and the International Monetary Fund has
forecast the first economic contraction in 11 years.
@reiner
Tor Movement of "total fertility rate" isn't a very accurate instrument for individual
years. It's built into its design that it will go up and down in waves – these waves
can be noise to the extent of measuring actual fertility rates (although the waves can be
interesting to know the birthrates and timing), as accuracy the instrument requires perfect
consistency of interyear collective behaviour.
Inversely, "total fertility rate" can be useful for a different purpose than its design,
i.e. its waves can show inconsistency of collective behaviour.
In Russia, for example, the 1990s, there a fall in total fertility rates which created
panic at the time for less knowledgeable politicians and journalist – but we now know
that change of actual fertility rates has been relatively small for women born since the
1950s years.
When people are excited about movements in individual years, its a sign they do not
understand the instrument usually.
–
Hungary is interesting though, as you imply, because has been one of the most consistent
and unchanging fertility rates, when looking at the completed rates, at the below replacement
level.
Hungary is an example where there is "no apocalypse" and everything seems very stable
– it should be not too different for government to manage this.
@Anon
Orban is using financial incentives to try to increase the birth rates.
These policies can be understood as usually a symptom of low fertility countries.
Evidence of effects of government financial incentives on fertility rates (which is what
will determine the final population quantity), implies that it has a very limited impact on
eventual fertility rates, but can more modify timing of births. This is just distorting the
timing. The positive effect really, is to reduce poverty rates.
Hungary's probably quite interesting though, because they've had very low fertility rates
for decades, and at the same time the country is actually probably in its happiest and most
successful epoch now for a century.
Hungary also has a relatively low age of birth, which means it will probably operate their
potential to slow the rate of natural population decline as the age of birth raises in the
next years (as birth ages increase at below replacement levels, the rate of population
decline dramatically falls due to increased interval spacing between generations).
It's not necessarily apocalypse when people have less children than replacement –
this has happened in Hungary for generations. But there are good and bad responses (the bad
response is when politicians feel they have to boost the maintain constant population size,
and that immigration is how they will achieve this – this is actually one way Putin has
been speaking; while the good response is shown by Japan, where instead of immigration, they
talk more intelligently about just increasing automation in areas where the workforce size is
declining).
They certainly wouldn't be able to replicate the lifestyles they had in South Africa
It is true that economic level often does not reflect human capital level of the country
or its leadership.
South Africa was a significantly extractive economy, based on natural resources, which is
similar to the situation in Nigeria.
Wealth of South Africa is not necessarily evidence of Boer achievement, by itself.
However, there are clearly indications of higher human capital level of Boers of South
Africa. South Africa won Nobel prizes in science, had a successful army, modern
infrastructure, etc.
In addition, the success and desirability of South African Boers as immigrants, is famous
in countries like the Australia, UK and USA, as they are often highly educated
professionals.
Another potential indication – in the era when South Africa had Boer leadership, the
country (although unequal between races) did not have the same braindrain problems of today,
or mass crime (crime rates in South Africa achieved their peak in the 1990s, after the end of
the Boer leadership of its country).
So did Lagos
Wealth in Nigeria is primarily from oil, and rich Nigerians quickly move a lot of the
money overseas, into London – and their children flood into the Western boarding
schools.
We can see that children of wealthy Nigerians, can afford to be generally charming,
educated and polite, and they look like they live no differently – for good or for bad
– than the richest European classes. On the other hand, life of ordinary Nigerians,
will be very different, and we can see its economic level is nowhere comparable to even South
Africa in per person terms.
@AnonFromTN The supposedly high
cost of living in Japan is a myth. Occasionally you see oddities like a cantaloupe retailing
for the equivalent of $80 but food is for the most part reasonable. Real estate is expensive
on a per square foot basis but there is no Japanese desire for large American-style living
spaces: my brother rents a 1-bedroom apartment in a Tokyo suburb within walking distance of
the subway and pays ~$500/month, and that is in Japan's most densely-populated and wealthiest
city. More importantly, Japan is–compared to almost every other country on
Earth–very egalitarian and homogeneous. There are no ghettos or bad neighborhoods
filled with thieves and drug addicts like you have in the US or Russia, and thus there are no
hidden costs or premiums you have to pay to live in a civilized part of town. Everything is
civilized.
I understand you have a pathological desire to denigrate all countries that are not
Russia, but please acquaint yourself with reality (as opposed to vapid cliches) before you
make your next proclamation.
There are lots of evidence that cultural decline in western societies is harming science more
than Karlin's numbers are suggesting because these fine results are offspring of post WW2
generation's hunger for knowledge. However more and more professors have found general
decline of mathematical and physics skills among millenial students. Younger generation
doesn't have that old hunger of knowledge as that born in 1940's and 1950's. The grim reality
will march especially when scientists of post WW2 have died out. Our teenagers are not as
smart as we have hoped.
I understand you have a pathological desire to denigrate all countries that are not
Russia
Where exactly did you get that? If that reflects the level of your comprehension, arguing
with you is pointless.
Still, I respond because normal open-minded people read this thread.
I never lived in Japan. My comment is based on the experience of visiting Japan for more
than two weeks. I've seen tomatoes and persimmons priced at $3-5 apiece. Yes, both were much
tastier than what you find in the US, but the prices are ridiculous. What's more, boxed
lunches (which a lot of locals buy, and I also tried for the experience) sold at every train
station for $7 and more, are way overpriced, considering that mostly they consist of rice,
with very little meat/fish and pickled something plant-like (not sure what it is, but
certainly not pickles, or tomatoes, or something else recognizable by a Westerner) that adds
a bit of taste to that rice. The fact that Japanese women wear virtually no jewelry also adds
to the impression that most people live hand-to-mouth (that could be cultural, though).
However, I do not intend to denigrate Japan (or any other country, for that matter). Japan
has a lot of very positive things. First, the people are amazingly polite and helpful (at
least those who speak enough English; many taxi drivers don't, and they tell you so straight
away, and don't take you). People are incredibly organized. At train stations the position of
the first person in line for each type of train (they have several kinds of Shinkansen,
high-speed trains) is marked by feet outlines, and Japanese form lines exactly as prescribed.
Unlike Americans, Russians, most Europeans, Koreans, or Chinese, Japanese don't cross streets
on red. They murmur something disapproving when you do. On many intersections they have
pedestrian crossings not only across streets, but also diagonal, which is very considerate of
them. Japanese trains run amazingly on time (the only other country where trains run strictly
on schedule is Switzerland; a myth about Germans being on time is just that, a myth, although
their public transportation runs much closer to schedule than anybody else's in Europe, not
to mention the US). The food in Japan has real taste (unlike the food in the US), their wine
is surprisingly good (I didn't even know that they make wine). The food in Japanese
restaurants is good and priced more reasonably than fruits and veggies in stores and markets,
but it does not include fruits and veggies.
There are seedier areas in Japanese cities, although never as bad as in the US. However,
most residential areas look sad, with small houses and ugly profusion of power/phone/possibly
other lines on poles in every street. Makes one understand why they go to such lengths to see
something beautiful, like blooming sakura. The crime in Japan seems non-existent, judging by
the behavior of the people.
So, overall Japan is quite nice, it has no fewer selling points than any country. But it
certainly is not as prosperous as some propagandists would like us to believe.
@Frankie
Based on my US experience, I would disagree that it is an issue of smarts. It is an issue of
priorities. Most educated Americans go where the pay is higher, which certainly excludes
research. Not because they are dumber, but because the culture teaches them that they must be
greedier. It is rare to encounter an American undergrad willing to volunteer in the lab. At
my university most volunteers are Chinese, Korean, Indian, etc. undergrads (likely they are
US citizens, but certainly not culturally Americans).
"TFR has been below replacement since 1958, except for the years 1975-77, when it briefly
grew higher."
Which is irrelevant in the context of the comment. Hungary's efforts to increased TFR have
worked as they are now increasing again.
"It's not dramatically different from our neighbors, and neither are the trends."
The TFR of Hungary has increased since 2011 while it has decreased in the United States
and most other Western industrialized nations over that same time period, so the trend is not
the same. It is also not correct to compare the current year Hungarian TFR to neighboring
countries because that doesn't account for the previous trend and reversal. Better measures
are 1) a comparison with the previous trend line in Hungary before the start of the effort to
increase TFR 2) the long-term trend of Hungarian TFR in comparison to other neighboring
countries which have not undertaken similar measures.
@Anon
Movement of "total fertility rate" is not accurate for measuring short-term trends, unless
you expect perfect consistency of collective behaviour across different cohorts. It is part
of its design that it will move up and down in waves, if there are any changing trends in
timing of births.
So small trends of a few years upwards or downwards are often not notable, as it is partly
just natural quivering of the line that is produced by failure of the measuring instrument
itself.
General of other countries (at least Russia), is that financial incentives for
"pro-natality" are unlikely to effect actual fertility rate so much as timing of births. Main
positive effect of the policy is to reduce poverty rate.
Looking at completed fertility rates you can see Hungary has been simply stabilized in the
completed cohorts. The completed cohorts (all we know for sure) have been above 1,75 at
least.
"Well endowed research institutions will start to poach Western researchers just as the U.S.
had done for decades. If you are a scientist, you go where there is money to do the research.
As a result, it maybe possible for them to move beyond South Korea in their percapita
numbers."
True. There will be a reverse brain drain at some point. Peter Woit has complained about
this (scientists patronizing authoritarian regimes), but it won't make any difference in the
end. Intellectuals don't really have the principles they claim they do. If China builds the
world's largest particle accelerator, expect the scientific community to migrate there. For
example, here's Lisa Randall's speech before Chinese company Tencent (Kip Thorne and others
have also gone to this conference):
These kinds of people are more than happy to virtue signal against white, working-class
conservatives but have absolutely no problem also patronizing an authoritarian regime that
for years enforced a one-child policy with the threat of forced abortions. China also has
reeducation camps for dissidents. Aside: Lisa Randall denounced Larry Summers, former Harvard
president, for suggesting in an off-the-cuff comment that maybe gender differences explain
the lopsided difference seen in male to female ratio of physics students, IIRC. That's
actually well-accepted in Chinese culture (and it just so happens to be true, too). None of
that stopped her from giving the speech though, did it?
@AnonFromTN Japan is a small
rocky island largely unsuitable for agriculture, so they do have to import certain things by
boat/plane, and as a result those things are expensive. $7 for a takeaway meal is hardly
unreasonable; portion sizes are relatively small, but so are the Japanese themselves, so it
works out (other industrialized countries could take lessons from Japan here). Buildings are
indeed generally unappealing, partially due to strict earthquake-related building codes and
partially due to the utilitarian Japanese view of buildings (not unreasonable when you live
on an island beset by building-destroying earthquakes and tsunamis).
Prosperity is of course in the eye of the beholder: Japan has few natural resources but in
the human dimension it is probably the wealthiest country in the world. Birth rate is an
issue but I would gladly take that problem (which is also a growing problem in every
industrialized except maybe Israel) if it meant not having to deal with troublesome
unassimilated anti-social religious and ethnic minorities. Put another way, if it were
possible to buy "futures" in a country, Japan would be #1 on my list.
But if the South African whites prefer formerly-Great formerly-Britain, they must not be
paying any attention to the current reality, and the trajectory, of that nascent Islamic
State.
For all its problems, Russia looks to have a better chance at maintaining a relatively
civilized, orderly, safe, predominantly European, somewhat-free society than the UK, merely
twenty years down the road. The UK continues to change for the worse, and fairly quickly at
that.
As for Australia, it is increasingly Indian and Chinese in recent years, but I can see why
the South African whites would prefer Australia over Russia nonetheless, at least for the
near future.
As for Canada, they'd be able to speak English (I'm assuming they know English and not
just Afrikaans) and there certainly is plenty of open land, but it is utterly PC and actively
working towards the marginalization and impoverishment of its own core white population.
@John
Yes, unfortunately, I expect to see some of the brightest, most talented scientists,
engineers, genetic researchers, etc., from the USA and Europe start going to CHINA for
university, internships, research positions, and corporate jobs.
This strong expectation is one of the reason my wife and I have our children learning
Mandarin from a very early age. Preparing them for the world as it is becoming, not as we
would like it to be.
The fact that Japanese women wear virtually no jewelry also adds to the impression that
most people live hand-to-mouth
Makes me like them better.
You know the big commercial campaign to cultivate the false tradition of giving diamond
engagement rings? (equating diamonds with love) Well, the same people tried that in Japan
and, feeling greedy, they even added a month onto the amount of time a guy was supposed to
slave to buy it. But the Japs – God bless them! – didn't bite.
@RadicalCenter There was a joke
in the USSR in the 1980-s that optimists are learning English, pessimists Mandarin, while
realists are learning Kalashnikov automatic rifle. You seem to be a pessimist.
@Anonymous Japan has a lot of
non-rocky parts perfectly suitable for agriculture. You see it riding Shinkansen even between
Tokyo and Hiroshima, not to mention the North and Hokkaido with ridiculously low population
density. It's likely just a tradition of growing rice whenever you can grow something.
They don't seem to have a consistent utilitarian attitude to buildings: a lot of palaces
and temples are beautiful, and virtually all of them have large verdant grounds and
artificial ponds. BTW, those ancient palaces and temples withstood a lot of earthquakes.
Yes, compared to the EU, and especially to the US, Japanese are slender. They are not
necessarily small (there are lots of tall young people), but you don't see bloated grossly
fat people who can't even walk properly, like in the rest of the West.
Still, I am not sure I'd choose Japan as the best future. In my view, too much discipline,
too little thinking outside of the box. Then again, I am a scientist, so I am biased. But so
far Japan avoided the most suicidal moves of Europe and the US: they did not welcome hordes
of totally incompatible savages. That's what they have in common with Russia and Eastern
Europe. Maybe that's why Russian literature is quite popular in Japan for many decades.
Japanese movies and cartoons are also more popular in Russia than in the US or EU.
However, there's also good news – the possibility of science production collapse
due to demographic change may not be as serious as some HBD realists and/or immigration
restrictionists tend to believe. While massive Third World immigration may lower average
IQs, the native smart fractions are still preserved; and it is the quantity of these smart
fractions, not average IQ per se, that plays a much greater role in economic prosperity and
scientific productivity.
The future of the Western world is very dark. The population will become mixed racially
and physically with Third World populations that will not only decrease the national IQ. Dumb
people don't know how to select good politicians, so they will select incompetent demagogues
that will drain the public spending with inefficiencies and corruption, in the same way of
what occurs in Brazil. This will decrease the funding for good research.
@AnonFromTN Unlike the Jew/WASP
dominated worldview prevalent in the west, the modern Japanese certainly do not believe in
'invade and invite' which seems to be the primary driver of the economic engine of the US
[with hardly any local manufacturing left, the munitions industry is what generates real
local growth in many sectors that the gubmint cares about]
@Okechukwu Geopolitics of the
last two or three hundred years have given certain groups of humans HUGE economic advantages
over others. So then naturally well-paid 'fake science' crops up to show that all this is
genetically determined. The fact of the matter is that cruelty, cunning and heartlessness was
-- and is -- at play. A human being with a clear mind can achieve anything -- regardless of
skin, hair or eye colour. Other arguments aim only to keep down the disadvantaged people.
See: https://medium.com/dialogue-and-discourse/homo-implacatus-d0b0cb7f0433
@Pericles
The problem of course is that the globalist elites presume that people everywhere are exactly
the same except for superficial skin color therefore they are completely interchangeable,
just throw open the borders n let them flood in n they will magically become good law-abiding
tax-paying American citizens, or British citizens, or Germans, etc.
Nothing could be further from the truth. If they would spend just a short time studying
Anthropology, or history, they would quickly see how drastically human societies differ, n
how stubborn their own cultural values are. Their mistaken assumptions will end up drowning
the West.
However, there are clearly indications of higher human capital level of Boers of South
Africa. South Africa won Nobel prizes in science, had a successful army, modern
infrastructure, etc.
There's no credible evidence that Boers have a higher human capital level than anyone
else. How many Boers have a higher human capital level than Robert F. Smith, the
African-American billionaire who is paying off student loans at Morehouse College?
Interestingly, were he in South Africa under Apartheid, he would be living in a shack
somewhere and barely eeking out an existence. So whether or not someone is successful depends
on a whole host of factors they may be independent of how smart or capable they actually are.
That also applies to groups and countries.
South Africa was a significantly extractive economy, based on natural resources, which
is similar to the situation in Nigeria.
It's not really a valid comparison. South Africa's gold and diamond mines produced wealth
for about 4 million whites. On the other hand, Nigeria with nearly 200 million people
produces 1.5 million barrels of oil on a good day. Based on current oil prices, and assuming
the proceeds actually trickled down to the people, that amounts to about $0.45 a day for
every Nigerian.
If we look at the distribution of land under the Apartheid-era Bantustan scheme, in which
the 75% black population was crammed into 13% of the worst land, I think it's fair to assume
that the proceeds from South Africa's metals and minerals were distributed along the same
lines.
In addition, the success and desirability of South African Boers as immigrants, is
famous in countries like the Australia, UK and USA, as they are often highly educated
professionals.
I assure you, the US immigration system doesn't unfurl a red carpet for Boers. I suspect,
neither does the UK. I'm not sure about Australia.
Another potential indication – in the era when South Africa had Boer leadership,
the country (although unequal between races) did not have the same braindrain problems of
today, or mass crime (crime rates in South Africa achieved their peak in the 1990s, after
the end of the Boer leadership of its country).
South Africa was a totalitarian police state in which even whites weren't free to say,
write and do the things they wanted to do. That sort of environment doesn't so much cause a
brain drain as it causes brain torpidity. And, of course, as a matter of ideology, and to
maintain white control and privilege, the system was designed to throttle black intellectual
achievement.
Under Apartheid, this guy would not be able to express his genius:
The genius from the townships
His mother dropped out of school to have him when she was 18. He went to school in the
townships, where his family lived in an RDP house. Today, 22-year-old Wandile Mabanga is
writing his master's dissertation in a field of quantum physics so specialised there are only
two people in the world qualified enough to supervise him
Regarding crime, I doubt they were keeping accurate records under Apartheid. There was
state-sponsored terrorism and state-sponsored death squads. Those are crimes, no? Even the
often out of control crime today is a direct by-product of the Apartheid system. Overcrowded
and poverty-stricken townships are going to be breeding grounds for crime.
Wealth in Nigeria is primarily from oil, and rich Nigerians quickly move a lot of the
money overseas, into London – and their children flood into the Western boarding
schools.
The well-off Nigerians you are seeing didn't necessarily make their money in oil, although
some did. There are a lot of wealthy Nigerians in and out of Nigeria who are not involved in
the oil industry.
With a population mean IQ greater than 93 or so, the percentage of people with an IQ greater
than 106 rises to about 19 percent. Smart fraction theory holds that when you get 20 to 30
percent of the population about a 105 IQ or above, you have critical mass to staff various
office and supervisorial positions, as well as jobs like law enforcement management and the
like, such that the dull quotidian work of a civilized society can happen with minimal
corruption, work absenteeism, and incompetence. Anything below that and the fabric of
civilization starts to fall apart, and the 105ers and above try to bail out in some way, like
emigrating out of the country, so the fall off can indeed be dramatic.
Well I belong to the Brahmin community who have lot higher IQ than Ashkenaji Jews.For example
Bengali Kulin Brahmins have won 2 major Nobel(including global phenomenon Rabindranath
Tagore) from Calcutta with population only ~50,000.There was sir Upendranath Brahmachri who
didn't win.So 3 Nobel prize ~50,000 population is best in the world in terms of per
capita.New York which is America's greatest city has 38 Jews Nobel laureates with 1.7
Million.If We had 1.7 Million Kulin Brahmins in Calcutta,then we would have won perhaps 100
Nobel prizes.
Now lets talk about patents.America files ~880 patents per million population.Bengali
Brahmins in USA with less than 10K population file more than 1000 patents every year.Which
means Bengali Kulin Brahmins have IQ> 140,while average of America is only 98.
@Anon
That would be smart and good if Japan were an independent entity. However, Japan remains
occupied more than 70 years after WWII. It tries to save itself in view of impending crash of
the occupying Empire, but its room for maneuver is limited. We'll see how successful it is in
~10 years.
"... The Word documents published in June 2016 by Guccifer 2 also show a "last saved as" user id written in Cyrillic. The Anglicized name is " Felix Edmundovich ", aka "Iron Felix" (the infamous director of an early Soviet spy agency). If you are a Russian cyber spy trying to conduct a covert operation, why do you sign your document with the name of one of the most infamous leaders of Russian intelligence? Robert Mueller wants you to believe that this was just Russian audacity. ..."
"... The phrase "personal beliefs about the competence or incompetence of the Russians" catches something important. Whether it was the Russians or somebody else that did this, whoever did it was pretty sloppy. What this report describes is almost as pathetic when considered a false flag operation as it is as a sabotage operation. So any theory of who stole and published the documents has to explain a capability to access the data combined with blissful obliviousness about handling them. I know of no reason to think the Russian, US, Israeli, or other intelligence communities incapable of such a combination. All of them have brilliant dedicated people but also seemingly endless supplies of mediocre time-servers. ..."
"... Scenario? Shutdown, closing of words with documents being automatically saved? Ok, otherwise there is apparently no precise saving time stamp on Winwords latest version. How much changed since 2016? ..."
"... The Vault7 leak of CIA tools also contained information on how to select any language environment. It's really a standard practice, even for normal criminals. ..."
Russia did not hack the DNC. This is not an opinion. It is a conclusion that flows from one
very specific claim made by the Special Counsel -- i.e., Guccifer 2.0 was a fictional identity
created by Russian Military Intelligence, the GRU. If Guccifer was in fact a creation or
creature of the GRU, then the forensic evidence should show that this entity was operating from
Russia or under the direct control of the GRU. The forensic evidence shows something quite
different -- the meta data in the Guccifer 2.0 documents were manipulated deliberately to plant
Russian fignerprints. This was not an accident nor an oversight due to carelessness.
What is meta data? This is the information recorded when a document is created. This data
includes things such as the date and time the document was created or modified. It tells you
who created the document. It is like the Wizard of Oz, it is the information behind the
curtain.
Special Counsel Robert Mueller's is correct in stating that Guccifer 2.0 was a "fictious
online persona. " He is wrong in attributing that action to Russian Military Intelligence.
While Guccifer 2.0 was a "fictious" entity, the information recorded about when, how and who
created the document show that deliberate choices were made to present the info as if it was
created by someone Russian.
Let us first stipulate and agree that Russia and the United States engage in cyber espionage
and covert action against each other. This has been the case since computers and the internet
came into existence. Within the U.S. Intelligence Community these activities generally are
labeled with the acronym, CNO -- Computer Network Operations. The Russians and the United
States have cadres of cyber "warriors" who sit at computer terminals and engage in operations
commonly known as hacking. Other countries, such as China, Iran and Ukraine do this as
well.
CNOs are classified at the highest level in the United States and normally are handled
within special restricted categories commonly known as SAPs (i.e, Special Access Programs). A
critical element of these kinds of operations is to avoid leaving any fingerprints or clues
that would enable the activity to be traced back to the United States. But this is not unique
to the United States. All professional intelligence services around the world understand and
practice this principle -- leave no evidence behind that proves you were there.
The case implicating Russia in the hack of the DNC and Clinton emails, including those of
her campaign Manager, John Podesta, rests on suspect forensic computer evidence -- is present
in the meta data in the documents posted on line by Guccifer 2.0. According to Disobedient
Media , "the files that Guccifer 2.0 initially pushed to reporters contain Russian
metadata, a Russian stylesheet entry and in some cases embedded Russian error messages."
Why would the Russians make such a mistake, especially in such a high stake operation
(targeting a national election with covert action most certainly is a high stake operation).
Mueller and the U.S. intelligence community want you to believe that the Russians are just
sloppy and careless buffoons. Those ideologically opposed to the Russians readily embrace this
nonsenses. But for those who actually have dealt with Russian civilian and military
intelligence operatives and operations, the Russians are sophisticated and cautious.
But we do not have to rely on our personal beliefs about the competence or incompetence of
the Russians. We simply need to look at the forensic evidence contained in the documents posted
by Guccifer 2.0. We will take Robert Mueller and his investigators at their word:
Beginning in or around June 2016, the Conspirators staged and released tens of thousands
of the stolen emails and documents. They did so using fictitious online personas, including
"DCLeaks" and "Guccifer 2.0." (p. 2-3)
The Conspirators also used the Guccifer 2.0 persona to release additional stolen
documents through a website maintained by an organization ("Organization 1") [aka WIKILEAKS],
that had previously posted documents stolen from U.S. persons, entities, and the U.S.
government. (p. 3)
Between in or around June 2016 and October 2016, the Conspirators used Guccifer 2.0 to
release documents through WordPress that they had stolen from the DCCC and DNC. The
Conspirators, posing as Guccifer 2.0, also shared stolen documents with certain individuals.
(p. 15)
An examination of those documents tells a very different story. While it does not reveal who
or what was Guccifer 2.0, it does undermine Mueller's claim that it was the Russians who did
these dastardly deeds.
One independent forensic computer investigator, who uses the name, "The Forensicator,"
examined the meta data in some of the documents posted by Guccifer 2.0 and
discovered the following :
Guccifer 2.0 published a file on 13 September 2016 that was originally copied on 5 July 2016
at approximately 6:45 PM Eastern time. It was copied and appeared as the "NGP VAN" 7zip
file.
The estimated speed of transfer was 23 MB/s. This means that this initial data transfer
could have been done remotely over the Internet. Instead, it was likely done from a computer
system that had direct access to the data. "By "direct access" we mean that the individual who
was collecting the data either had physical access to the computer where the data was stored,
or the data was copied over a local high-speed network (LAN)."
This initial copying activity was done on a system that used Eastern Daylight Time (EDT)
settings and was likely initially copied to a computer running Linux, because the file last
modified times all reflect the apparent time of the copy, which is a characteristic of the
Linux 'cp' command (using default options).
On September 1, 2016, a subset of the initial large collection of DNC related content (the
so-called NGP/VAN data), was transferred to working directories on a system running Windows.
The .rar files included in the final 7zip file were built from those working directories.
The alleged Russian fingerprints appeared in the first document "leaked" by Guccifer 2.0--
1.doc -- which was a report on Donald Trump . A forensic examination of
the documents shows thatgiven the word processor program used to create the Donald Trump
Document released by Guccifer 2.0, the author consciously and purposefully used formats that
deliberately inserted "Russian fingerprints" into the document. In other words, the meta-data
was purposely altered, and documents were pasted into a 'Russianified' word document with
Russian language settings and style headings.
Here are the key facts:
The meta data shows that Slate_-_Domestic_-_USDA_-_2008-12-20.doc was the template
for creating 1.doc , 2.doc and 3.doc . This template injected "Warren
Flood" as the author value and "GSA" as the company value in those first three Word documents.
This
template also injected the title , the watermark and header/footer fields found in the
final documents (with slight modifications).
The Word documents published in June 2016 by Guccifer 2 also show a "last saved as" user id
written in Cyrillic. The Anglicized name is " Felix Edmundovich ", aka
"Iron Felix" (the infamous director of an early Soviet spy agency). If you are a Russian cyber
spy trying to conduct a covert operation, why do you sign your document with the name of one of
the most infamous leaders of Russian intelligence? Robert Mueller wants you to believe that
this was just Russian audacity.
But the meta data tells a different story. When we examine The Revision Session Identifiers
aka 'RSID's, in the Guccifer document, we see the same Russian style-headings in 1.doc, 2.doc
and 3.doc. The document creation timestamps on docs 1, 2 and 3 also are all identical.
Given that MS word assigns a new random 'RSID' with each save when an element is added or
edited (this function allows one to track changes made to a Word document), the only way to
obtain identical creation timestamps means that someone either directly edited the source
document or that there was one empty document open and that individual documents were
copy-pasted and saved-as (1.doc), then contents deleted and new doc pasted and saved-as
(2.doc), etc. This
process also explains identical style-sheet RSIDs .
The document creation timestamps on docs 1, 2 and 3 also are all identical.
Curious, no doubt. But who of us did not consider Guccifer 2 curious. Put another way,
what experts considered him solid proof for Russian involvement?
Are you suggesting Winword templates were used for the metadata?
As IT nitwit, how can I save three *doc files or their 2016 word equivalent at the same
time? Any way to do that? Windows doesn't seem to have a solution to that.
Again: This is a nitwit user asking a question.
*******
I admittedly am not overly motivated to read the Mueller report. I'll read your contribution
again to figure out what you may suggest in or between the lines.
The phrase "personal beliefs about the competence or incompetence of the Russians" catches
something important. Whether it was the Russians or somebody else that did this, whoever did
it was pretty sloppy. What this report describes is almost as pathetic when considered a
false flag operation as it is as a sabotage operation. So any theory of who stole and
published the documents has to explain a capability to access the data combined with blissful
obliviousness about handling them. I know of no reason to think the Russian, US, Israeli, or
other intelligence communities incapable of such a combination. All of them have brilliant
dedicated people but also seemingly endless supplies of mediocre time-servers.
Equally interesting is the fact that this analysis has come from such a private source.
Surely all the major intelligence agencies have the skill to find the same indicators. And
all have comparatively endless resources to apply to the analysis. But they all seem to not
want to talk about it. For me the most suspicious thing about the handling of the theft was
the FBI's near complete lack of interest in examining the server. I have always assumed that
such indifference reflected that they already had all they needed in order to understand what
happened. Maybe even watched the theft in real time. But this report demonstrates that you
didn't need any special access to blow up the official story. (Note that the official story
may be "true". It is just not proven by the cited evidence.)
Yet, whatever actually happened, nobody seems interested in challenging the narrative that
Russians stole data and routed it through useful idiots to influence the 2016 elections. This
report indicates that a persuasive challenge would not have been hard to produce.
Perhaps the false flag was intentionally clumsy, intended to be detected. Bait for a trap
that no one wants to fall into. But I don't see where that thought leads.
This can be discovered by looking at things called 'rsid's or Revision Session
Identifiers in Guccifer's document. In order to track changes, MS word assigns a new random
'rsid' with each save upon each element added or edited. The rsids for the Russian
style-headings in 1.doc, 2.doc and 3.doc are all the same (styrsid11758497 in the raw
source).
Moreover, the document creation timestamps on 1,2, and 3.docs are all identical too.
This might imply there was one empty document open, with individual documents being
copy-pasted and saved-as (1.doc), then contents deleted and new doc pasted and saved-as
(2.doc), etc. This is the only way to go about obtaining identical creation timestamps short
of direct editing of the source, and would also explain identical style-sheet RSIDs.
Scenario? Shutdown, closing of words with documents being automatically saved? Ok,
otherwise there is apparently no precise saving time stamp on Winwords latest version. How
much changed since 2016?
Empty doc open? What would that change?
But good to see that Winword now integrated some type of automatic saving option, didn't
have it when I gave it up and shifted to Open Office. On the other hand, can I trust it to not confront me with an earlier revision version? I
admittedly asked myself lately. In a 200 page file, mind you.
As someone with a little bit of experience in that area I can assure you that language
metadata artifacts are practically worthless for attribution. You would mention it in a
report, but from it you can only conclude that
either the creator was an amateur and used his own language environment
or actually selected this particular language environment, either by running a - in this
case - Russian copy of Office, or by changing the metadata manually.
or he used his own language environment because he doesn't care, and because he knows that
this information is worthless for any forensics expert.
The Vault7 leak of CIA tools also contained information on how to select any language
environment. It's really a standard practice, even for normal criminals.
Attribution is really hard and usually amounts to a lot of guessing who might be interested
in the target of an attack, correlating information from other campaigns, and is only rarely
based on hard evidence. Big state actors probably can do a little bit better when they have
access to enough network taps. But in the end one bit looks like any other, and properties of
static documents can always be forged and made to look real. Or simply buy a copy of MS
Office in .
The document creation timestamps on docs 1, 2 and 3 also are all identical.
Ok doc creation times. Could one create a WinWord Macro? That does exactly that. ok, why
would one do this? True. Minor detail, I know. But I see we have experts around now.
*******
More generally. Guccifer 2.0 was a bit of an odd occurrence, not least due to US intelligence
considering Guccifer one or zero, if you like.
I think you mean who needs the CIA when you have the Mossad ..don't you? Its the Mossad
that is currently supplying Bolton and Co. with intel on Iran. So induce the folks to
disregard US agencies and rely on Israel.
"The Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday rejected a Democratic proposal to
require congressional approval before the U.S. can take military action against Iran. The
panel voted 13-9 against a proposal blocking the administration from using funding to carry
out a military strike in or against Iran without congressional signoff, according to Sen.
Chris Murphy "
This design of bulk data management demonstrates that they are interested in acquiring
leverage over politicians and everyone else rather than analysis to block terrorist acts.
Could not be clearer.
Our government is out of control, not only are they apparently collecting everything on
each of us, "Most of these terror attacks are done by government guided terrorists, so the
NSA is purposely choosing not to see the terror links until after the attack." -Joel Skousen,
2-09-2018 'World Affairs Brief'.
It is designed to be a blackmail tool, a LOOKBACK after they have something else on you.
It is so massive to keep the employees busy doing nothing in a timely manner. It isn't meant
to me a human run predictive tool, they want "machine learning" to be able to work it out.
Bill Binney is brilliant.
Who better to expose them than Bill Binney, the man who designed the system and he is
doing the right thing by exposing them. I used to think that Pentagon was the largest
building but three times the size and collecting bulk that they cannot even use is foolish. I
cannot accredit them for anything good out of this because there is nothing good except waste
of taxpayers money. There was a time when anything this size would be outdated. They should
strictly be asked to provide accountability but because they don't, there is no ceiling on
their spending.
I write what I write knowing they monitor things praying one day they get a clue. I hide
nothing!! Before God as they say all seeing and all knowing we can hide nothing in dark or in
the light!! Weather they think they are God or not!! They think before all this admission you
can't see hear or feel there tactics!! I notice every thing that tries to interfere with my
devices! Phone computers electronics ect. Let them play the game, let us use same technology
against them and see how it plays out!! Lol sad that don't need to one lil old me vs how many
of them with all technology at their fingertips!!! Wow impressive!! Difference between me and
them is they wanna manipulate and rip people off n control them and I only wish to help
others and not make slaves out of them. If I had the endless funds I would more than pay
people what they are worth and help the less fortunate. I could show how everyone could live
better, happier and healthier lives. They don't want this they fear it cause they want all
power and control!!! Very very pathetic!! Read more Show less Reply 21 22 Loading... View all
10 replies View all 10 replies Hide replies
If Binney is accurate, then they are bright enough to use Artificial Intelligence to turn
the data pile into real intel. Duh. So I think Mr. Binney is allowed to share disinformation.
They are operating a fullt operational battlestar.
I worked in the same building about a year before Snowden was there. The facility in the
movie(Hawaii) looked Hi-Tech in the movie... The place was a fuckin' dump! I laughed when I
saw the movie.. you could of walked in there with 1OO thumbdrives in a bag..no metal detector
or scanners Read more Show less Reply 1 2
If the US is doing this, than 100% sure the Chinese and Russians and Iranians even South
Africans and Arab Nations do just the same. So having an NSA as a stasi is nothing new nor
different from what other nations do. Sure it is illegal...but knowing and safely assuming
more nation collect our data...I don't really worry less or more when owning a hard copy at
NSA. And a back up hard copy on what they own of us all...can be handy...So sure file your
law suit...but I would advise the judges to say that you are right, but that there is higher
reasons for doing so thank you sir...but I am not convinced living with closed eyes against
open eyes...is a weak position to stand on. So either they are all brought down...or we need
a version of our own. I don't think...there is a choice sir.
And sure defame leading people in this field and stating they are as bad as Darth
Vader...well...I think sir...you have a fast opinion with a limit on reaching to the true
facts of what is happening in internet-land. I think I don't really need your opinion when it
is based and outed as simple jokes on people that try and protect our Western World. And sure
crime is using NSA information too and sure people are targetted. We can do something about
that...but if it is wise to stall the NSA in protecting us in overall sense is not really
smart. I think we just want more control over people using this information. So maybe we need
this control, but just make sure it is used for good instead of evil. Well that isn't making
our days different from before this new stasi rised.
Than comment you have on Iran...smuggling dope through various internation
companies...lol...my dear sir they probably got the idea from the Americans using drug money
profits to fund groups in the South Americas trying to bring down foreign governments. They
are not any different from what the US agencies do. So kindof hypocritic hearing that from an
American. Of course they would want a lid on collected data spread, and of course also the
NSA holds infiltrants and people that would misuse power. So sure they keep it as much hidden
and unknown. I think that is negatively explain-able as well as positivly.
An objective conclusion is to be made. So sure..file your law suit. I think you are just
saying what freightened people wish to hear,..and gaining in on profits on it? And you think
that is a nice commercial expertise? Or is this all done for free...I doubt that a seat there
is free of charge sir. What are you funding with it?
NSA Whistleblower William Binney and CIA Whistleblower Ray McGovern at Manhattan Town Hall
DNC/Podesta emails were not hacked by the Russians but were an 87 second download to a thumb
drive by Seth Rich, who had issues because the DNC and Hillary had stolen the Nomination from
Bernie Sanders. The DNC then had to have Seth Rich murdered to sell their "the Russians did
it" diversion to keep everyone from looking at the content of the DNC and Podesta emails.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=4&v=4nPCBeMJpKQsimflyr19574 months
ago George Orwell in 1984 was a prophesy for today
Americans and permanent residents, must realize that we live in a country that the
government supposedly elected, created, funded, to serve and protect the rights of the
citizens and civilians within our border, has become self-supporting and prioritized their
own agendas of self promotion and self preservation. The government no longer represents us.
Nor serve us. We now live under a modern fascist state.
Those at the top are no even elected or can held accountable by the people. Imminent
Domain, Civil forfeiture, unconstitutional spying, suspicion and persecution, blackmail,
threats, and even murder. All state sponsored, and complete immunity from lawful prosecution,
and retribution. And unless we accept that we're partially to blame for letting them get away
with this, we will never effectively bring about justice and change.
It will be status quo, and can only get worse for our posterity. Remember, if every person
in this country were in solidarity in mass focused protest.....boycotting products, refusing
to sustain their economy, didn't go to work and all called in sick, didn't file our taxes,
refused to vote for anyone, flood their spying databases with keywords, and photos, and
phrases, Took a hiatus simultaneously from being a part of their 'machine'....it would send a
shockwave like a tsunami disrupting all their infrastructure, and if in unified cooperation
across the world....that disruption would be global. Recall what India was able to do in
nonviolent civil unrest. It drove the invading British empire out of their country.
William Binney is an absolute hero! It's only through the courageous actions of people
like him, that we will end the subversion of justice and the overwhelming corruption that has
plagued this nation and the world for far too long. Even if all you are capable of is to
engage people in conversations over the internet, it is still a very useful tool. Ridiculing
people as "keyboard worriers" is a humiliation tactic. They know it works so they are trying
many approaches to manage those who would change the world through logic and reason. I
encourage everyone to do everything they can to contribute to the ongoing effort and
accomplishing the enormous task of ending the era of rule by psychopaths. Donate money to
organizations you think would be helpful, vote, attend public meetings and protests, boycott
those companies that contribute to the corruption, there's many ways to get this done. Just
use your head, every little bit helps. If the "q" thing is to be believed, we have them on
the run now so it's time for everyone to pitch in and end this terrible chapter in our
history.
How is he able to display Top Secret/OBCON/NOFORM/etc? Like he stares, all this material
items are in effect today! Don’t worry about the courts-that why the have those Federal
Judges, in every major city, that set behind the closed and sealed doors to stop all these
suits against the Fed’s. One of the reasons that no one has taken in actions, on the
companies involved in these illegal companies are the political problems in the Senate and
the house. If a GI dies, so what, the political system looks to the military as founder, most
could care less-unless there a camera near by. This the type of man is exactly the type we
need to run these type of organization, vis the polices appointee’s!! This was a great
lecture, we could use a few more in several federal level. Thank God for Americans like this.
Read more Show less Reply 1
NSA tracks them, CIA wacks them :0) Maybe someone should start programs to delta overload
their storage capacity so much, they'll need 25 Fort Meades and at least 800 000 employees.
Read more Show less Reply 1
That's great information, but a salmon couldn't swim up the stream you're fighting.
Remember what happened to Frank Olson? He knew too much and "jumped" out of a window. The
game is rigged, and you can't beat Them. The only way to survive is to not make waves, stay
out of trouble, and under the radar, so to speak. Most of us are just small fish, who They
wouldn't be very interested in. There are plenty of big fish to keep Them busy. I'm getting
too old to waste my time fighting a battle fueled by an endless amount of money... money
always wins. If you aren't a big-time drug dealer or a terrorist, they haven't got time to
waste on you. It's fucked up... I know that, but it simply is what it is.
Quote:- "Give certain people power and sooner or later they will use it".......that needs
modifying to "Give certain people power and sooner or later they will ABUSE it". And therein
lies the solution. We must be far more careful to whom we give power. Ask the prospective
candidates for council seats in your area or for national governmental positions just what
they are prepared to do FOR the people, and if you don't like the answer, don't vote them
into power.
This man knows sooooooo much more, like to sit down off camera and man to man talk and I'll bet it would blow our minds
the stuff our sneaky governments do without warrants or anything
They just take what they want and track your moves, listen in on your calls, watching your texts and FB ECT,,, all without
our knowledge or consent, this is not constitutional and it's invading our rights along with our privacy rights my private
life what and where and how I do everything
it's downright unconstitutional and should be taken to the highest court in the land and terminated
Case Dismissed Guaranteed, 4 months ago
Why didn't he point out that Israel spy's on Americans and America spy for them. No direct spying because THAT's
"illegal."
big Cahuna3 months ago (edited)
Laws and jail are only for the poor and ""unconnected"". How else could the crime families, bankers, church, etc. keep
their wealth and power ? The commoners and serfs must be divided, controlled , conquered, brainwashed, taxed, intimidated,
imprisoned, overworked , and killed when beneficial to the kings, queens, bankers, Popes, and billionaires.
How did John Brennan, James Clapper, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Christopher Steele and
other Spygate principals manage to rise to the top of the intelligence bureaucracy?
Because they serve those who dispense such power. That is their job.
And those whom they serve make sure that checky/balancey oversight–say in the form
of chief executive of the United States of America, or an honest Congressman or
journalist–is destroyed if it threatens not to align with those masters or even
questions/reveals these individuals or these structures.
Look at how they've reacted to Donald Trump's trolling both before and while in
office.
They make sure that "the intelligence bureaucracy" reifies that exclusionary principle in
every hire, every action, every policy. Like many bureaucracies and institutions it becomes a
factory for its own viral replication rather than anything that is traditionally considered
"intelligence."
Look at their prime creation of the new millennium: Barack Obama.
I think one has to regard the spies (or "spies and scribes") as one locus of power out of
several; a locus possessing enormous power, but not always possessing the decisive vote.
Recall Julian Assange's remarks to John Pilger, that Hillary was a cogwheel in a system of
gears that includes Wall Street and foreign lobbyists as well as the intelligence
agencies.
Anthropologists like Malinowski have described societies as an interaction between social
institutions possessing complementary functions, and this still applies under unipolar
digital globalism.
Sean
McBride says: Next New Comment May 22, 2019 at 2:54 pm
GMT 100 Words @ababush Who wields
more power in the contemporary world: big tech billionaires like Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates and
Larry Page, or spy agency heads like John Brennan, James Clapper and Robert Ashley?
Billionaires in general can easily purchase the services of armies of current and former
spooks.
Did you notice the deferential attitude adopted by the US Congress towards Mark
Zuckerberg?
How much power does John Brennan now command compared to Jeff Bezos? Read More Replies:
@ababush Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc.
@Sean McBride
Senators (and presidents) are not the real power. The big tech companies potential power is
the datas they collect, as well as some propaganda means. Those companies were established
worldwide with the help and under the supervision of the deep state (CIA, NSA etc). It is
clear for me that the deep state has access to the datas collected by those companies, and
also has personal files on their managers that could be used should they suddenly feel
powerful and independant.
"... Tom Charles Huston testified before the Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, commonly known as the Church Committee, on the 43-page plan he presented to the President Nixon and others on ways to collect information about anti-war and "radical" groups, including burglary, electronic surveillance, and opening of mail. ..."
9/23/1975 Tom Charles Huston Church Committee Testimony
Tom Charles Huston testified before the Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental
Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, commonly known as the Church Committee,
on the 43-page plan he presented to the President Nixon and others on ways to collect
information about anti-war and "radical" groups, including burglary, electronic surveillance,
and opening of mail.
The two British historians, Gerry Docherty and Jim MacGregor, expanded on Quigley's work
and wrote two meticulously researched and documented accounts of their findings:
Anyone with an interest in 20th century history who is unfamiliar with these books owes it
to himself to read them. For some forty years I have had an amateur historian's interest in
WW I and read widely in the standard literature on that topic. Reading Docherty and MacGregor
opened my eyes. Much that seemed inexplicable became clear, seemingly unconnected events
suddenly correlated. WW I is the watershed moment that has defined the twentieth century and
continues to define the twenty-first. It began with the machinations of a cabal. The
devastation they wrought is continued today by their successors.
Jake
says: Next New Comment May 22, 2019 at 3:27 pm
GMT 100 Words This is good writing: "The KGB plotters of 1991 had thought that
post-Communist Russia would be treated by the West like the prodigal son, with a fattened calf
being slaughtered for the welcome feast. To their disappointment, the stupid bastards
discovered that their country was to play the part of the fattened calf at the feast, and they
were turned from unseen rulers into billionaires' bodyguards.
"... As the Pentagon's strategic paper posits, China's overriding foreign policy goal is to squeeze America out of East Asia and force it back to the Hawaiian islands as its forward position in the Pacific. Thus would Hawaii cease to be America's strategic platform for projecting power into Asia and become merely a defensive position. If this strategic retreat were to happen, it would be one of the most significant developments in international relations since the end of World War II. ..."
"... None of your suggestions is likely to happen, absent defeat. America's trump card is the fiat dollar as world currency, defended by the full faith and power of an imperial global military, with its own economic inertia to the domestic economy as well. ..."
"... The most obvious step is to forge a genuine alliance with India. America can't take on China alone (although China's ineluctable demographic decline may make the US' relative decline in fortunes short-lived), and the world's largest democracy, and soon to be most populous nation, is an obvious counterweight to China, despite its still inefficient economy. ..."
"... The US has been trying to reverse this, but our patronizing attitude towards a proud country seeking great-power status has led to modest progress at best, and their defense relationship with Russia is stronger than with us. ..."
"... There is no countervailing force within the USA that is able to tame MIC appetites, which are constantly growing. In a sense the nation is taken hostage with no root for escape via internal political mechanisms (for all practical purposes I would consider neocons that dominate the USA foreign policy to be highly paid lobbyists of MIC.) ..."
"... Overlooked might be Germany's copycat foreign policy posturing too often hidden behind 'humanitarian' language. https://www.swp-berlin.org/en/projects/new-power-new-responsibility/the-paper/ ..."
"... Guess the parallel with the US 'New American Century' is not misplaced. Do you realize that Germany aims to leverage the EU for establishing its position as a 'World Player'. Do realize too that it tends to categorize other countries along the same zero sum power line of reasoning as the US "either with us or against us". ..."
"... This German foreign policy gave birth to the European Neighborhood Policy which exploited the US instigated coup to indenture Ukraine into a dependent NON-member state associated exclusively with the EU excluding normal economic relations with Russia. ..."
"... One of the most malign effects of Israeli and Saudi control of American politicians is the grotesque overemphasis on the Middle East in US foreign policy. Trump's trade fights to one side, it often seems as if we dismiss or ignore much of the rest of the world. This disproportion has been obvious and growing since the end of the last century, but at this point it's pathological. ..."
"... Well, it all depends on goals doesn't it. US foreign policy goals are to increase chaos and create international tension. Why? Because US foreign policy exists to feed military and intel contractors on the one hand and asserting power for the sake of asserting power with no overall strategy other the Great Game. ..."
The Great Power Game is On and China is Winning If America wants to maintain any influence in Asia, it needs to wake
up. By Robert W. Merry •
May 22,
2019
President Donald J. Trump participates in a bilateral meeting with President Xi Jinping at the Great Hall of the People, Thursday,
November 9, 2017, in Beijing, People's Republic of China. (
Official White House Photo
by Shealah Craighead) From across the pond come two geopolitical analyses in two top-quality British publications that lay out
in stark terms the looming struggle between the United States and China. It isn't just a trade war, says The Economist in
a major cover package. "Trade is not the half of it," declares the magazine. "The United States and China are contesting every domain,
from semiconductors to submarines and from blockbuster films to lunar exploration." The days when the two superpowers sought a win-win
world are gone.
For its own cover, The Financial Times ' Philip Stephens produced a piece entitled, "Trade is just an opening shot in a
wider US-China conflict." The subhead: "The current standoff is part of a struggle for global pre-eminence." Writes Stephens: "The
trade narrative is now being subsumed into a much more alarming one. Economics has merged with geopolitics. China, you can hear on
almost every corner in sight of the White House and Congress, is not just a dangerous economic competitor but a looming existential
threat."
Stephens quotes from the so-called National Defense Strategy, entitled "Sharpening the American Military's Competitive Edge,"
released last year by President Donald Trump's Pentagon. In the South China Sea, for example, says the strategic paper, "China has
mounted a rapid military modernization campaign designed to limit U.S. access to the region and provide China a freer hand there."
The broader Chinese goal, warns the Pentagon, is "Indo-Pacific regional hegemony in the near-term and displacement of the United
States to achieve global pre-eminence in the future."
The Economist and Stephens are correct. The trade dispute is merely a small part of a much larger and even more
intense geopolitical rivalry that could ignite what Stephens describes as "an altogether hotter war."
As the Pentagon's strategic paper posits, China's overriding foreign policy goal is to squeeze America out of East Asia and
force it back to the Hawaiian islands as its forward position in the Pacific. Thus would Hawaii cease to be America's strategic platform
for projecting power into Asia and become merely a defensive position. If this strategic retreat were to happen, it would be one
of the most significant developments in international relations since the end of World War II.
America has been projecting significant power into Asia since the 1890s, when President William McKinley acquired Hawaii through
annexation, then seized Guam and the Philippines in the aftermath of the Spanish-American War. For good measure, he cleared the way
for the construction of the Panama Canal and continued his predecessors' robust buildup of the U.S. Navy. President Theodore Roosevelt
then pushed the Canal project to actual construction, accelerated the naval buildup, and sent his Great White Fleet around the world
as a signal that America had arrived on the global scene -- as if anyone could have missed that obvious reality.
With the total victory over Japan in World War II, America emerged as the hegemon of Asia, with colonies, naval bases, carrier
groups, and strategic alliances that made it foolhardy for any nation to even think of challenging our regional dominance. Not even
the Vietnam defeat, as psychologically debilitating as that was, could undercut America's Asian preeminence.
Now China is seeking to position itself to push America back into its own hemisphere. And judging from the language of the National
Defense Strategy, America doesn't intend to be pushed back. This is a clash of wills, with all the makings of an actual military
conflict.
But if China represents the greatest potential threat to America's global position, making an eventual war likely (though not
inevitable), why is Washington not acting like it knows this? Why is it engaging in so many silly military capers that undermine
its ability to focus attention and resources on the China challenge? While the National Defense Strategy paper suggests that U.S.
officials understand the threat, America's actions reveal an incapacity to grapple with this reality in any concentrated fashion.
Here's a general idea of what a U.S. foreign policy under Trump might look like if it was based on a clear recognition of the
China threat:
Iran: Since the end of the Cold War, the sheer folly of Trump's Iran policy has been exceeded only by George W. Bush's
Iraq invasion. Barack Obama bequeathed to his successor a rare gift in the Iran nuclear deal, which provided an opportunity to direct
attention away from Tehran and toward America's position in East Asia. In no way did it serve America's national interest to stir
up tensions with Iran while the far more ominous China threat loomed. A policy based on realism would have seized that opportunity
and used the channels of communication forged through the nuclear deal to establish some kind of accommodation, however wary or tenuous.
Instead, America under Trump has created a crisis where none need exist.
Personnel: While the Iran policy might be difficult to reverse, a reversal is imperative. And that means Trump must fire
National Security Advisor John Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. While their bully boy actions on the global stage seem
to mesh with Trump's own temperament, the president also appears increasingly uncomfortable with the results, particularly with regard
to their maximum pressure on Iran, which has brought America closer than ever to actual hostilities. Whether Trump has the subtlety
of mind to understand just how destructive these men have been to his broad foreign policy goals is an open question. And Trump certainly
deserves plenty of blame for pushing America into a zone of open hostility with Iran. But he can't extricate himself from his own
folly so long as he has Bolton and Pompeo pushing him toward ever more bellicosity in ever more areas of the world. He needs men
around him who appreciate just how wrongheaded American foreign policy has been in the post-Cold War era -- men such as retired Army
Colonel Douglas MacGregor and former Virginia senator Jim Webb. Bolton and Pompeo -- out!
Russia: Of all the developments percolating in the world today, none is more ominous than the growing prospect of an anti-American
alliance involving Russia, China, Turkey, and Iran. Yet such an alliance is in the works, largely as a result of America's inability
to forge a foreign policy that recognizes the legitimate geopolitical interests of other nations. If the United States is to maintain
its position in Asia, this trend must be reversed.
The key is Russia, largely by dint of its geopolitical position in the Eurasian heartland. If China's global rise is to be thwarted,
it must be prevented from gaining dominance over Eurasia. Only Russia can do that. But Russia has no incentive to act because it
feels threatened by the West. NATO has pushed eastward right up to its borders and threatened to incorporate regions that have been
part of Russia's sphere of influence -- and its defense perimeter -- for centuries.
Given the trends that are plainly discernible in the Far East, the West must normalize relations with Russia. That means providing
assurances that NATO expansion is over for good. It means the West recognizing that Georgia, Belarus, and, yes, Ukraine are within
Russia's natural zone of influence. They will never be invited into NATO, and any solution to the Ukraine conundrum will have to
accommodate Russian interests. Further, the West must get over Russia's annexation of the Crimean peninsula. It is a fait accompli
-- and one that any other nation, including America, would have executed in similar circumstances.
Would Russian President Vladimir Putin spurn these overtures and maintain a posture of bellicosity toward the West? We can't be
sure, but that certainly wouldn't be in his interest. And how will we ever know when it's never been tried? We now understand that
allegations of Trump's campaign colluding with Russia were meritless, so it's time to determine the true nature and extent of Putin's
strategic aims. That's impossible so long as America maintains its sanctions and general bellicosity.
NATO: Trump was right during the 2016 presidential campaign when he said that NATO was obsolete. He later dialed back on
that, but any neutral observer can see that the circumstances that spawned NATO as an imperative of Western survival no longer exist.
The Soviet Union is gone, and the 1.3 million Russian and client state troops it placed on Western Europe's doorstep are gone as
well.
So what kind of threat could Russia pose to Europe and the West? The European Union's GDP is more than 12 times that of Russia's,
while Russia's per capita GDP is only a fourth of Europe's. The Russian population is 144.5 million to Europe's 512 million. Does
anyone seriously think that Russia poses a serious threat to Europe or that Europe needs the American big brother for survival, as
in the immediate postwar years? Of course not. This is just a ruse for the maintenance of the status quo -- Europe as subservient
to America, the Russian bear as menacing grizzly, America as protective slayer in the event of an attack.
This is all ridiculous. NATO shouldn't be abolished. It should be reconfigured for the realities of today. It should be European-led,
not American-led. It should pay for its own defense entirely, whatever that might be (and Europe's calculation of that will inform
us as to its true assessment of the Russian threat). America should be its primary ally, but not committed to intervene whenever
a tiny European nation feels threatened. NATO's Article 5, committing all alliance nations to the defense of any other when attacked,
should be scrapped in favor of language that calls for U.S. intervention only in the event of a true threat to Western Civilization
itself.
And while a European-led NATO would find it difficult to pull back from its forward eastern positions after adding so many nations
in the post-Cold War era, it should extend assurances to Russia that it has no intention of acting provocatively -- absent, of course,
any Russian provocations.
The Middle East: The United States should reduce its footprint in the region on a major scale. It should get out of Afghanistan,
with assurances to the Taliban that it will allow that country to go its own way, irrespective of the outcome, so long as it doesn't
pose a threat to the United States or its vital interests. U.S. troops should be removed from Syria, and America should stop supporting
Saudi Arabia's nasty war in Yemen. We should make clear to Israel and the world that the Jewish state is a major U.S. ally and will
be protected whenever it is truly threatened. But we should also emphasize that we won't seek through military means to alter the
regional balance of power based on mere perceptions of potential future threats to countries in the region, even allies. The United
States won't get drawn into regional wars unrelated to its own vital interests.
Far East: Once the other regional decks are cleared, America must turn its attention to Asia. The first question: do we
wish to maintain our current position there, or can we accept China's rise even if it means a U.S. retreat or partial retreat from
the region? If a retreat is deemed acceptable, then America should secure the best terms possible over a long period of tough and
guileful negotiations. But if we decide to maintain regional dominance, then China will have to be isolated and deterred. That will
mean a long period of economic tension and even economic warfare, confrontations over China's extravagant claims of sovereignty in
the South China Sea and elsewhere, strong U.S. alliances with other Asian nations nurtured through deft and measured diplomacy, soaring
technological superiority, and a continual upper hand in any arms race.
In this scenario, can war be averted? History suggests that may not be likely. But either way, America won't remain an Asian power
if it allows itself to be pinned down in multiple nonstrategic spats and adventures around the world. Asia is today's Great Game
and China is winning. That won't be reversed unless America starts playing.
None of your suggestions is likely to happen, absent defeat. America's trump card is the fiat dollar as world currency, defended
by the full faith and power of an imperial global military, with its own economic inertia to the domestic economy as well.
That allows U.S. legal decisions to have extra territorial scope as the real international power, not now irrelevant toothless
international institutions like the UN.
Nice summary, Mr Merry. Even the most die-hard Trumpet can find something to disagree upon with their Dear Leader while supporting
everything else he does, but this clear and succinct outline leaves no where for the Deplorables to hide. Coupled with the China
trade war fiasco, thias is pretty grim.
Of course, come 2020, all will be forgiven by the GOP, and even one criticism with be blasted with a twitter assault.
The most obvious step is to forge a genuine alliance with India. America can't take on China alone (although China's ineluctable
demographic decline may make the US' relative decline in fortunes short-lived), and the world's largest democracy, and soon to
be most populous nation, is an obvious counterweight to China, despite its still inefficient economy.
Unfortunately our support for the treacherous Pakistanis has poisoned our relationship with India. In 1971, Nixon actually
sent a carrier group in the Bay of Bengal to intimidate the Indians into stopping support for the Bangladeshis fighting a war
of independence against the genocidal (West) Pakistan, and the Indians had to call on the Soviets to send nuclear submarines to
deter that threat. Like all ancient nations, Indians have long memories. Ironically, that reckless action was in cahoots with
China.
The US has been trying to reverse this, but our patronizing attitude towards a proud country seeking great-power status
has led to modest progress at best, and their defense relationship with Russia is stronger than with us.
Pragmatic isolationism is a better deal then the current neocon foreign policy. Which Trump is pursuing with the zeal similar
to Obama (who continued all Bush II wars and started two new in Libya and Syria.) Probably this partially can be explained by
his dependence of Adelson and pro-Israeli lobby. But the problem is deeper then Trump: it is the power of MIC and American exceptionalism
( which can be viewed as a form of far right nationalism ) about which Andrew Bacevich have written a lot:
From the mid-1940s onward, the primacy of the United States was assumed as a given. History had rendered a verdict: we --
not the Brits and certainly not the Germans, French, or Russians -- were number one, and, more importantly, were meant to be.
That history's verdict might be subject to revision was literally unimaginable, especially to anyone making a living in or
near Washington, D.C.
If doubts remained on that score, the end of the Cold War removed them. With the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse
of communism, politicians, journalists, and policy intellectuals threw themselves headlong into a competition over who could
explain best just how unprecedented, how complete, and how wondrous was the global preeminence of the United States.
Choose your own favorite post-Cold War paean to American power and privilege. Mine remains Madeleine Albright's justification
for some now-forgotten episode of armed intervention, uttered 20 years ago when American wars were merely occasional (and therefore
required some nominal justification) rather then perpetual (and therefore requiring no justification whatsoever).
"If we have to use force," Secretary of State Albright announced on morning television in February 1998, "it is because
we are America. We are the indispensable nation. We stand tall. We see further into the future."
Back then, it was Albright's claim to American indispensability that stuck in my craw. Yet as a testimony to ruling class
hubris, the assertion of indispensability pales in comparison to Albright's insistence that "we see further into the future."
In fact, from February 1998 down to the present, events have time and again caught Albright's "we" napping. The 9/11 terrorist
attacks and the several unsuccessful wars of choice that followed offer prime examples. But so too did Washington's belated
and inadequate recognition of the developments that actually endanger the wellbeing of 21st-century Americans, namely climate
change, cyber threats, and the ongoing reallocation of global power prompted by the rise of China.
Rather than seeing far into the future, American elites have struggled to discern what might happen next week. More often
than not, they get even that wrong.
Like some idiot savant, Donald Trump understood this. He grasped that the establishment's formula for militarized global
leadership applied to actually existing post-Cold War circumstances was spurring American decline. Certainly other observers,
including contributors to this publication, had for years been making the same argument, but in the halls of power their dissent
counted for nothing.
Yet in 2016, Trump's critique of U.S. policy resonated with many ordinary Americans and formed the basis of his successful
run for the presidency. Unfortunately, once Trump assumed office, that critique did not translate into anything even remotely
approximating a coherent strategy. President Trump's half-baked formula for Making America Great Again -- building "the wall,"
provoking trade wars, and elevating Iran to the status of existential threat -- is, to put it mildly, flawed, if not altogether
irrelevant.
His own manifest incompetence and limited attention span don't help.
There is no countervailing force within the USA that is able to tame MIC appetites, which are constantly growing. In a
sense the nation is taken hostage with no root for escape via internal political mechanisms (for all practical purposes I would
consider neocons that dominate the USA foreign policy to be highly paid lobbyists of MIC.)
In this limited sense the alliance of China, Iran, Russia and Turkey might serve as an external countervailing force which
allows some level of return to sanity, like was the case when the USSR used to exist.
I agree with Bacevich that the dissolution of the USSR corrupted the US elite to the extent that it became reckless and somewhat
suicidal in seeking "Full Spectrum Dominance" (which is an illusive goal in any case taking into account existing arsenals in
China and Russia and the growing distance between EU and the USA.)
Your current foreign policy simply seems to reflect the astonishing degree of violence that permeates your society, when observing
you Americans from a place like Hong Kong or China it's really frightening, I would be more scared to visit the US than Liberia
or Sierra Leone, with those innumerable ( armed ) nutcases roaming your streets, you are by now used to it, and it saddens me,
thinking of how grateful we should be for all you have done in the distant past for so many countries in the world
The blockheads advising know nothing Trump about history and geo-politics don't care a whit about the American people or what
is ten years down the road. These people, Bolton, Pompeo and the joke-Kushner- are ego/power lovers and are doing the opposite
of a sane policy to every part of the globe.
How the hell do you goad and threaten Russia, for example, for no good reason and how do you threaten Russia, which, like the
U.S., with the push of several buttons can turn any city in the world to ashes, in minutes.
The American people are not only dumb as a wall, they don't care about foreign policy and they don't wanna know. The're looking
at celebrities and looking at their smart phones for fun and weirdness. The phones are smarter than them and they pay the price
when clown Trump does things like trade wars and so on.
Yeah, the average American, what prizes they are, as in they look and say,
Is that the actress there on the 'news' oh, what's she wearing is that the 'genius' athlete, what does that smelly guy say
today hey, let's order food delivered so we can watch and tomorrow to the sports bar and
This article forgets to mention why it would be in the American people's interest to be the hegemon of East Asia. I can't think
of any reason myself. Anyone?
Guess the parallel with the US 'New American Century' is not misplaced. Do you realize that Germany aims to leverage the
EU for establishing its position as a 'World Player'. Do realize too that it tends to categorize other countries along the
same zero sum power line of reasoning as the US "either with us or against us".
This German foreign policy gave birth to the European Neighborhood Policy which exploited the US instigated coup to indenture
Ukraine into a dependent NON-member state associated exclusively with the EU excluding normal economic relations with Russia.
I agree with the article, but not the title. The article acknowledges two important points, but leaves out another.
First, it correctly acknowledges that our obsession with Iran is vastly disproportionate to the threat it poses. In fact, we
would do well to scale back our adventurism in the Middle East. If China is winning in the Far East, it is largely because we
have chosen to devote resources elsewhere.
Second, it correctly acknowledges that continued antagonizing of Russia by the West is needless. It is time to normalize relations
with Russia, recognize its legitimate interest in having some buffer against the West, and repatriate Russian nationals who have
recently immigrated to the West.
Third, the article fails to acknowledge that China, like Russia, is also entitled to some sphere of influence. And there is
historic precedence for certain such claims. Those claims are tenuous when it comes to Japan and the Korean peninsula. But there
is little reason why American Navy ships should be sailing right up to the borders of China, just as there is little reason why
Chinese Navy ships should be sailing off the coast of Oregon. We also need to understand that provoking a trade war that slows
the Chinese economy merely enhances the power of President Xi. Trump has given President Xi a massive political gift, and for
no good reason. The trade imbalance is evidence of the strength of our economy, not a sign that we're losing out to China.
One of the most malign effects of Israeli and Saudi control of American politicians is the grotesque overemphasis on the Middle
East in US foreign policy. Trump's trade fights to one side, it often seems as if we dismiss or ignore much of the rest of the
world. This disproportion has been obvious and growing since the end of the last century, but at this point it's pathological.
If we are to compete effectively with China and other global players, if we are to have a balanced and effective foreign policy
in general, we need to remove the Middle East blinders, get Israel and Saudi Arabia off our back, and start seeing the world as
it is, rather than as Israel and Saudi Arabia pay our politicians to see it.
Simple questions: Why should we care? And how does all this soft power benefit the average citizens? And for all the China fears,
they appear to react very rationally and avoid military conflicts.
Ok, it is true Chinese oil buying is probably keeping Iran in a better economic situation but again this seems more of a problem
of Iran hawks not the average citizen. Honestly, I wish the US had more of treasury focused foreign policy and stop worrying about
US power.
Well, it all depends on goals doesn't it. US foreign policy goals are to increase chaos and create international tension.
Why? Because US foreign policy exists to feed military and intel contractors on the one hand and asserting power for the sake
of asserting power with no overall strategy other the Great Game.
Any rational analysis of the past couple of decades forces us to come to that conclusion. The reason why this whole scheme
is unlikely to fail in the short and medium term is US military involvement in 150 countries has brought much of the world under
Washington's control–or at least their ruling elites. The best China can do is provide an alternative to the Empire and live in
some sort of harmony with it because China has not shown any intention of competing militarily with the US. Iran is a key part
of the Silk Road project and that is the strategic reason for the attempt to crush or destroy Iran that is central to the strategy.
The US wants to keep China and Russia out of Europe–that, if you look at policy, seems to be the main contest.
The conflict with Iran has assumed heightened importance because,at 70 years old, John Bolton has to face the possibility that
he might die without having started a war somewhere.
The author misses two other two other components of of a proper China "containment" policy: Immigration and trade policy. The
US should be actively trying to attract immigration of skilled young workers and entrepreneurs (including from China) and encouraging
university graduates from abroad to remain. The US ought to join the TPP in order to increase our leverage in negotiating reductions
in Chinese restrictions on trade and investment.
Why would Russia want to make a deal with the United States, which cannot be trusted to keep its word, or even to act rationally
in pursuit of its own interests?
Generally a good article, but it misses an important point. While China and Russia do have natural spheres of influence, the countries
within those natural spheres hate being there.
Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam are naturally within China's influence, but they don't trust the Chinese at all, and surely don't
want China to dominate their countries. And given they way the Chinese empire treats Tibetan and Uigurs, they have good reason
for that.
Similarly in Eastern Europe, where Poland, Ukraine, and the Baltic States might be in Russian sphere, but they sure don't want
to be. The fact is that NATO did not aggressively seek them out for membership, those small countries begged to join NATO out
of their historical fear of Russia.
While recognizing such spheres of influence, do we want to abandon friendly, democratic countries to a hostile, autocratic
power? The Cold War model of Finland give some hope for a compromise, but it won't be easy to implement outside of Finland.
This article is another vivid illustration of how disoriented and narrow-minded when a typical intelligent and well-meaning American
is talking about China. For examples:
1. The author has no problem acknowledging specific geopolitical interests to accommodate Russia or even Iran, but when he
comes to China, he fails completely to mention any of the legitimate interests China has in East Asia.
2. The author repeats the nonsensical China haters' allegation about China's threat to America, and China's intention to push
American out of East Asia.
3. The author resorts back to a typical zero-sum or even cold-war style mentality when talking about overall China strategy,
without even considering the possibilities that China and America can co-exist in a friendly manner, where all the peaceful competition
between the two countries ultimately translating into net positive results that benefit the people of both countries and the world.
Unfortunately, our so-called "experts" in China are consistently failing Americans badly, because they lack the knowledge and
perspective to think from the other side of the coin.
I scrolled for quite a bit before finding Thaomas' comment about TPP. Leaving it will prove to be one of the Trump's admin's greatest
blunders (which is saying something) and any column about China strategy that omits it is incomplete.
So why exactly should Russia be accommodated and be allowed its sphere of influence and a 'defense perimeter' and not China? I
don't get it. And why should the USA be allowed the fruits of its aggression in the form of an annexed and brutally conquered
Hawaii? why can't Uncle Sam be satisfied with San Diego as a naval base?
The USA has the Monroe Doctrine giving it dominion over the Western Hemisphere, and China holds the Mandate of Heaven granting
it hegemony over everything else. Can't the Dragon and the Eagle get along on that basis??
In terms of geography, China vitally needs Russia in order to close off a corridor through which Muslims will flow to China. Without
that cooperation from Russia, China will be seriously hobbled by unassimilable and hostile migrants in its south. At least symbolically,
this will cripple its superpower claims.
The U.S. would be stupid not to seek an alliance with Russia, given Russia's geographical strengths, which also includes its
proximity to the Arctic and therefore a legal claim to the oil and gas buried there.
Geography is Russia's long-term strength, and not incidentally is a reason why trying militarily to force Putin to surrender
Crimea could easily lead to nuclear war, which might begin with tactical (battlefield) Russian nukes aimed at NATO garrisons in
eastern Europe.
China isn't fated to win its contest with the U.S. if it must depend on Russia in order to become an unquestioned superpower.
We need Russia for strategic security as much as Russia needs us for economic growth.
Nice summary. In my view the US (not Trump) make a big mistake to throw Russia in the arms of China. It's not only its geopolitical
situation that is the problem but the fact the it gives China unlimited access to natural resources. In a generation, if things
goes the way they do now, the only saving grace for the US will be a failure of this partnership. Because if it works, by the
sheer force of gravity it will swallow Europe. But betting on the adversary's failure is not a good strategy.
eh, keeping pressure on Iran keeps Saudi Arabia happy which means they stay in our sphere; as opposed to China's.
Until Venezuala wants to become part of the Oil-for-dollars system or we all drive electric cars and only oil for remote work
and emergency military expeditions then we need the Saudis on our side.
This kind of mentality is the reason why I think the demise of America is necessary to achieve world peace.
Why on God's green earth should America dominate East Asia? Last time I checked, America is NOT part of Asia. We are not even
in the same hemisphere for crying out loud. Why can't we just leave Asia to the Asians?
When was the last time China invaded a country? Never. These are the same people who discovered Africa and America long before
the Europeans, but only wanted to "do business" and trade. They already have 1.3 Billion mouths to feed, the last thing the Chinese
government needs is more mouths to feed.
Meanwhile, when Washington thinks of invasion, all they think of is guns, tanks, battleships. The Chinese are already quietly
invading and conquering the west -- through immigration. All along the East and West coasts, Chinese dominant cities and schools
are popping up everywhere. America really is the stupidest country on earth sometimes. All brawn and no brain. We want to start
wars with everybody in the name of protecting "American interests", while the rest of the world are already conquering us from
within through immigration. Wake up America.
Though Mr. Merry sees things clearly, I can't really see why people like playing these games in the age of nukes.
It's one thing trying to play Kaiser Wilhelm II and dream of containment and conquest when you actually had to send armies
to defeat your enemies, It's another to do so when people can kill a few millions by pressing a button.
Though Mr. Merry sees things clearly, I can't really see why people like playing these games in the age of nukes.
It's one thing trying to play Kaiser Wilhelm II and dream of containment and conquest when you actually had to send armies
to defeat your enemies, It's another to do so when people can kill a few millions by pressing a button.
I would assume that the US is "in" East Asia, to a significant extent, because Japan, South Korea and Taiwan have sought US security
and defense guarantees. The US has not forced itself into the region. Korea has reasons to be concerned about China, due to its
experiences during the Korean War, and Taiwan, which wishes to remain independent of Chinese control, is directly threatened by
China.
As for other allies in the region, Philippine president Duterte's overtures, upon taking office, to China, and his especially
disparaging remarks about the US while making an official visit to China, seem quite puzzling, given China's illegitimate seizing
of Philippine territory in the West Philippine Sea. US relations with the Philippines needs to be reexamined in light of this
development. While Japan, South Korea and Taiwan are first-level allies in the region, the Philippines is not.
"... Since the end of the Cold War, the American government has become increasingly delusional, regarding itself as the Supreme World Hegemon. As a result, local American courts have begun enforcing gigantic financial penalties against foreign countries and their leading corporations, and I suspect that the rest of the world is tiring of this misbehavior. Perhaps such actions can still be taken against the subservient vassal states of Europe, but by most objective measures, the size of China's real economy surpassed that of the US several years ago and is now substantially larger , while also still having a far higher rate of growth. Our totally dishonest mainstream media regularly obscures this reality, but it remains true nonetheless. ..."
"... Provoking a disastrous worldwide confrontation with mighty China by seizing and imprisoning one of its leading technology executives reminds me of a comment I made several years ago about America's behavior under the rule of its current political elites: ..."
"... Normal countries like China naturally assume that other countries like the US will also behave in normal ways, and their dumbfounded shock at Ms. Meng's seizure has surely delayed their effective response. In 1959, Vice President Richard Nixon visited Moscow and famously engaged in a heated "kitchen debate" with Premier Nikita Khrushchev over the relative merits of Communism and Capitalism. What would have been the American reaction if Nixon had been immediately arrested and given a ten year Gulag sentence for "anti-Soviet agitation"? ..."
"... But Bolton's apparent involvement underscores the central role of his longtime patron, multi-billionaire casino-magnate Sheldon Adelson, whose enormous financial influence within Republican political circles has been overwhelmingly focused on pro-Israel policy and hostility towards Iran, Israel's regional rival. ..."
"... Although it is far from clear whether the very elderly Adelson played any direct personal role in Ms. Meng's arrest, he surely must be viewed as the central figure in fostering the political climate that produced the current situation. Perhaps he should not be described as the ultimate puppet-master behind our current clash with China, but any such political puppet-masters who do exist are certainly operating at his immediate beck and call. In very literal terms, I suspect that if Adelson placed a single phone call to the White House, the Trump Administration would order Canada to release Ms. Meng that same day. ..."
As most readers know, I'm not a casual political blogger and I prefer producing lengthy
research articles rather than chasing the headlines of current events. But there are
exceptions to every rule, and the looming danger of a direct worldwide clash with China is
one of them.
Consider the arrest last week of Meng Wanzhou, the CFO of Huawei, the world's largest
telecom equipment manufacturer. While flying from Hong Kong to Mexico, Ms. Meng was changing
planes in the Vancouver International Airport when she was suddenly detained by the Canadian
government on an August US warrant. Although now released on $10 million bail, she still
faces extradition to a New York City courtroom, where she could receive up to thirty years in
federal prison for allegedly having conspired in 2010 to violate America's unilateral
economic trade sanctions against Iran.
Although our mainstream media outlets have certainly covered this important story,
including front page articles in the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal
, I doubt most American readers fully recognize the extraordinary gravity of this
international incident and its potential for altering the course of world history. As one
scholar noted, no event since America's deliberate 1999
bombing of China's embassy in Belgrade , which killed several Chinese diplomats, has so
outraged both the Chinese government and its population. Columbia's Jeffrey Sachs
correctly described it as "almost a US declaration of war on China's business
community."
Such a reaction is hardly surprising. With annual revenue of $100 billion, Huawei ranks as
the world's largest and most advanced telecommunications equipment manufacturer as well as
China's most internationally successful and prestigious company. Ms. Meng is not only a
longtime top executive there, but also the daughter of the company's founder, Ren Zhengfei,
whose enormous entrepreneurial success has established him as a Chinese national hero.
Her seizure on obscure American sanction violation charges while changing planes in a
Canadian airport almost amounts to a kidnapping. One journalist asked how Americans would
react if China had seized Sheryl Sandberg of Facebook for violating Chinese law especially if
Sandberg were also the daughter of Steve Jobs.
Indeed, the closest analogy that comes to my mind is when Prince Mohammed bin Salman of
Saudi Arabia kidnapped the Prime Minister of Lebanon earlier this year and held him hostage.
Later he more successfully did the same with hundreds of his wealthiest Saudi subjects,
extorting something like $100 billion in ransom from their families before finally releasing
them. Then he may have finally over-reached himself when Washington Post columnist
Jamal Khashoggi, a Saudi dissident, was killed and dismembered by a bone-saw at the Saudi
embassy in Turkey.
We should actually be a bit grateful to Prince Mohammed since without him America would
clearly have the most insane government anywhere in the world. As it stands, we're merely
tied for first.
Since the end of the Cold War, the American government has become increasingly delusional,
regarding itself as the Supreme World Hegemon. As a result, local American courts have begun
enforcing gigantic financial penalties against foreign countries and their leading
corporations, and I suspect that the rest of the world is tiring of this misbehavior. Perhaps
such actions can still be taken against the subservient vassal states of Europe, but by most
objective measures, the size of China's real economy surpassed that of the US several years
ago and is now substantially larger ,
while also still having a far higher rate of growth. Our totally dishonest mainstream media
regularly obscures this reality, but it remains true nonetheless.
Provoking a disastrous worldwide confrontation with mighty China by seizing and
imprisoning one of its leading technology executives reminds me of
a comment I made several years ago about America's behavior under the rule of its current
political elites:
Or to apply a far harsher biological metaphor, consider a poor canine infected with the
rabies virus. The virus may have no brain and its body-weight is probably less than
one-millionth that of the host, but once it has seized control of the central nervous
system, the animal, big brain and all, becomes a helpless puppet.
Once friendly Fido runs around foaming at the mouth, barking at the sky, and trying to
bite all the other animals it can reach. Its friends and relatives are saddened by its
plight but stay well clear, hoping to avoid infection before the inevitable happens, and
poor Fido finally collapses dead in a heap.
Normal countries like China naturally assume that other countries like the US will also
behave in normal ways, and their dumbfounded shock at Ms. Meng's seizure has surely delayed
their effective response. In 1959, Vice President Richard Nixon visited Moscow and famously
engaged in a heated "kitchen
debate" with Premier Nikita Khrushchev over the relative merits of Communism and
Capitalism. What would have been the American reaction if Nixon had been immediately arrested
and given a ten year Gulag sentence for "anti-Soviet agitation"?
Since a natural reaction to international hostage-taking is retaliatory international
hostage-taking, the newspapers have reported that top American executives have decided to
forego visits to China until the crisis is resolved. These days, General Motors sells more
cars in China than in the US, and China is also the manufacturing source of nearly all our
iPhones, but Tim Cook, Mary Barra, and their higher-ranking subordinates are unlikely to
visit that country in the immediate future, nor would the top executives of Google, Facebook,
Goldman Sachs, and the leading Hollywood studios be willing to risk indefinite
imprisonment.
Canada had arrested Ms. Meng on American orders, and this morning's newspapers reported
that a former
Canadian diplomat had suddenly been detained in China , presumably as a small
bargaining-chip to encourage Ms. Meng's release. But I very much doubt such measures will
have much effect. Once we forgo traditional international practices and adopt the Law of the
Jungle, it becomes very important to recognize the true lines of power and control, and
Canada is merely acting as an American political puppet in this matter. Would threatening the
puppet rather than the puppet-master be likely to have much effect?
Similarly, nearly all of America's leading technology executives are already quite hostile
to the Trump Administration, and even if it were possible, seizing one of them would hardly
be likely to sway our political leadership. To a lesser extent, the same thing is true about
the overwhelming majority of America's top corporate leaders. They are not the individuals
who call the shots in the current White House.
Indeed, is President Trump himself anything more than a higher-level puppet in this very
dangerous affair? World peace and American national security interests are being sacrificed
in order to harshly enforce the Israel Lobby's international sanctions campaign against Iran,
and we should hardly be surprised that the National Security Adviser John Bolton, one of
America's most extreme pro-Israel zealots,
had personally given the green light to the arrest. Meanwhile, there are credible reports
that Trump himself remained entirely unaware of these plans, and Ms. Meng was seized on the
same day that he was personally meeting on trade issues with Chinese President Xi. Some have
even suggested that the incident was a deliberate slap in Trump's face.
But Bolton's apparent involvement underscores the central role of his longtime patron,
multi-billionaire casino-magnate Sheldon Adelson, whose enormous financial influence within
Republican political circles has been overwhelmingly focused on pro-Israel policy and
hostility towards Iran, Israel's regional rival.
Although it is far from clear whether the very elderly Adelson played any direct personal
role in Ms. Meng's arrest, he surely must be viewed as the central figure in fostering the
political climate that produced the current situation. Perhaps he should not be described as
the ultimate puppet-master behind our current clash with China, but any such political
puppet-masters who do exist are certainly operating at his immediate beck and call. In very
literal terms, I suspect that if Adelson placed a single phone call to the White House, the
Trump Administration would order Canada to release Ms. Meng that same day.
Adelson's fortune of $33 billion ranks him as the 15th
wealthiest man in America, and the bulk of his fortune is based on his ownership of extremely
lucrative gambling casinos in Macau, China . In effect, the Chinese government currently has
its hands around the financial windpipe of the man ultimately responsible for Ms. Meng's
arrest and whose pro-Israel minions largely control American foreign policy. I very much
doubt that they are fully aware of this enormous, untapped source of political leverage.
Over the years, Adelson's Chinese Macau casinos have been involved in all sorts of political
bribery scandals , and I suspect it would be very easy for the Chinese government to find
reasonable grounds for immediately shutting them down, at least on a temporary basis, with
such an action having almost no negative repercussions to Chinese society or the bulk of the
Chinese population. How could the international community possibly complain about the Chinese
government shutting down some of their own local gambling casinos with a long public record
of official bribery and other criminal activity? At worst, other gambling casino magnates
would become reluctant to invest future sums in establishing additional Chinese casinos,
hardly a desperate threat to President Xi's anti-corruption government.
I don't have a background in finance and I haven't bothered trying to guess the precise
impact of a temporary shutdown of Adelson's Chinese casinos, but it wouldn't surprise me if
the resulting drop in the stock price of Las Vegas Sands Corp would reduce
Adelson's personal net worth were by $5-10 billion within 24 hours, surely enough to get his
immediate personal attention. Meanwhile, threats of a permanent shutdown, perhaps extending
to Chinese-influenced Singapore, might lead to the near-total destruction of Adelson's
personal fortune, and similar measures could also be applied as well to the casinos of all
the other fanatically pro-Israel American billionaires, who dominate the remainder of
gambling in Chinese Macau.
The chain of political puppets responsible for Ms. Meng's sudden detention is certainly a
complex and murky one. But the Chinese government already possesses the absolute power of
financial life-or-death over Sheldon Adelson, the man located at the very top of that chain.
If the Chinese leadership recognizes that power and takes effective steps, Ms. Meng will
immediately be put on a plane back home, carrying the deepest sort of international political
apology. And future attacks against Huawei, ZTE, and other Chinese technology companies would
not be repeated.
China actually holds a Royal Flush in this international political poker game. The only
question is whether they will recognize the value of their hand. I hope they do for the sake
of America and the entire world.
"Because they are all ultimately funded via both direct and indirect theft [taxes], and
counterfeiting [via central bank monopolies], all governments are essentially, at their very
cores, 100% corrupt criminal scams which cannot be "reformed","improved", nor "limited" in
scope, simply because of their innate criminal nature."onebornfree
"Taking the State wherever found, striking into its history at any point, one sees no way
to differentiate the activities of its founders, administrators and beneficiaries from those
of a professional-criminal class." Albert J. Nock
"If measured by the standards of natural law and justice, all politicians, of all parties
and virtually without any exception, are guilty, whether directly or indirectly, of murder,
homicide, trespass, invasion, expropriation, theft , fraud, and the fencing of stolen goods
on a massive and ongoing scale. And every new generation of politicians and parties appears
to be worse, and piles even more atrocities and perversions on top of the already existing
mountain, so that one feels almost nostalgic about the past. They all should be hung, or put
in jail to rot, or set to making compensation." Hans Herman Hoppe
"There is only one political party in America, it's the money party and it has two
branches." Gore Vidal
"Politics -- whether local or national -- is always a con game. And the con generally
increases with the scale. The bigger the "we," the bigger the swindle." Bill Bonner
"Fundamentally, the founding fathers of U.S. intelligence were liars. The better you lied
and the more you betrayed, the more likely you would be promoted. . . . Outside of their
duplicity, the only thing they had in common was a desire for absolute power. I did things
that, in looking back on my life, I regret. But I was part of it and loved being in it' "
James Jesus Angleton, head of Agency counterintelligence from 1954-1975
"Why should any self-respecting citizen endorse an institution grounded on thievery? For
that is what one does when one votes. If it be argued that we must let bygones be bygones,
see what can be done toward cleaning up the institution of the State so that it might be
useful in the maintenance of orderly existence, the answer is that it cannot be done; you
cannot clean up a brothel and yet leave the business intact. We have been voting for one
"good government" after another, and what have we got?" Frank Chodorov, Out of Step
(1962)
'Coordinated anti-Trump campaign' on Instagram discovered by data analytics firm Reuters
Researchers have uncovered what they called a "coordinated social media operation"on
Instagram intended to undermine US President Donald Trump, with many identical posts using
hashtags like #ihatetrump and #ImpeachTrump.
Ghost Data, an Italian analytics firm, said the US president has been targeted by fake
profiles created specifically to spread extreme and sometimes even violent anti-Trump
messaging in an organized and coordinated way.
Their study identified a network of 350 anti-Trump Instagram accounts, which used graphic
language to criticize the US president and found that 19 accounts led the way in promoting
the content. Some of the postings could "easily" be regarded as "hate speech," the study
said.
What the team uncovered was a "small operation" that is "very likely part of something
bigger," the head of research at Ghost Data, Andrea Stroppa, told Reuters.
The posts generated from the operation garnered more than 35.2 million interactions, with
3.9 million of them happening within the last two months when the campaign "swelled
dramatically," the researchers said. Interactions for the top 19 accounts are "growing
exponentially," generating nearly 70,000 likes and comments in just the first 10 days of
May.
The accounts posted "similar or identical content" and many of the messages were published
just a few minutes apart, the study noted. More tellingly, the accounts were all "activated
and turned off" on the same day.
In a sense the "intelligence community" is an institualized mafia conducting illegal
operation in foreign states (and recently in the home state too). So the difference in methods is
superficial, but the intelligence community is much better armed, financed and protected
:-).
@ABC 123 You got that dead right ABC 123. The evil group in the shadows that really runs
the government is called "the intelligence community." Some community! More like a giant
Mafia.
M. Whitney says: " .That's the question that will throw open the curtains and shed light
on the suspicious ties between the DNC, the CIA, the FBI and the media, .."
SWAMPgate: You won't believe how ALL the perps are connected as in joined at the
hip!
Excerpt: " ..someone out there cares so much that they've "purged" all Barsoomian court
documents for her Clinton representation in Hamburg vs. Clinton in 1998 and its appeal in
1999 from the DC District and Appeals Court dockets. Someone out there cares so much that the
internet has been "purged" of all information pertaining to Barsoomian. Historically, this
indicates that the individual is a protected CIA operative. Additionally, Lisa Barsoomian has
specialized in opposing Freedom of Information Act requests on behalf of the intelligence
community.
And, although Barsoomian has been involved in hundreds of cases representing the DC Office
of the US Attorney, her email address is Lisa Barsoomian at NIH gov. The NIH stands for
National Institutes of Health. This is a tactic routinely used by the CIA to protect an
operative by using another government organization to shield their activities.
It's a cover, so big deal, right? I mean what does one more attorney with ties to the US
intelligence community really matter?
It deals with Trump and his recent tariffs on Chinese steel and aluminum imports, the
border wall, DACA, everything coming out of California, the Uni-party unrelenting opposition
to President Trump, the Clapper leaks, the Comey leaks, Attorney General Jeff Sessions
recusal and subsequent 14 month nap with occasional forays into the marijuana legalization
mix.
And last but not least Mueller's never-ending investigation into collusion between the
Trump team and the Russians.
Why does Barsoomian, CIA operative, merit any mention? BECAUSE She is Assistant Attorney
General Rod Rosenstein's WIFE! " :
"SWAMPgate: You won't believe how ALL the perps are connected as in joined at the
hip!": http://stateofthenation2012.com/?p=122755#more-122755
The bombing of Dresden remains one of the deadliest and morally most-problematic raids of
World War II. Three factors make the bombing of Dresden unique: 1) a huge firestorm developed
that engulfed much of the city; 2) the firestorm engulfed a population swollen by refugees; and
3) defenses and shelters even for the original Dresden population were minimal.
[1] McKee, Alexander, Dresden 1945: The Devil's Tinderbox , New York: E.P. Dutton, Inc.,
1984, p. 275. The result was a high death toll and the destruction of one of Europe's most
beautiful and cultural cities.
While exact figures of deaths in the Dresden bombings can never be obtained, some
Revisionist historians estimate a death toll at Dresden as high as 250,000 people. Most
establishment historians state that a death toll at Dresden of 250,000 is an absolute
impossibility. For example, Richard Evans states:
Even allowing for the unique circumstances of Dresden, a figure of 250,000 dead would have
meant that 20% to 30% of the population was killed, a figure so grossly out of proportion to
other comparable attacks as to have raised the eyebrows of anyone familiar with the
statistics of bombing raids even if the population had been inflated by an influx of refugees
fleeing the advance of the Red Army.
[5] Evans, Richard J., Lying about Hitler: History, Holocaust, and the David Irving
Trial , New York: Basic Books, 2001, p. 158.
Population of Dresden
Historians generally agree that a large number of German refugees were in Dresden during the
night of February 13-14, 1945. However, the estimate of refugees in Dresden that night varies
widely. This is a major reason for the discrepancies in the death toll estimates in the Dresden
bombings.
Marshall De Bruhl states in his book Firestorm : Allied Airpower and the
Destruction of Dresden :
Nearly every apartment and house [in Dresden] was crammed with relatives or friends from
the east; many other residents had been ordered to take in strangers. There were makeshift
campsites everywhere. Some 200,000 Silesians and East Prussians were living in tents or
shacks in the Grosser Garten. The city's population was more than double its prewar size.
Some estimates have put the number as high as 1.4 million.
Unlike other major German cities, Dresden had an exceptionally low population density, due
to the large proportion of single houses surrounded by gardens. Even the built-up areas did
not have the congestion of Berlin and Munich. However, in February 1945, the open spaces,
gardens, and parks were filled with people.
David Irving states in The Destruction of Dresden :
Silesians represented probably 80% of the displaced people crowding into Dresden on the
night of the triple blow; the city which in peacetime had a population of 630,000 citizens
was by the eve of the air attack so crowded with Silesians, East Prussians and Pomeranians
from the Eastern Front, with Berliners and Rhinelanders from the west, with Allied and
Russian prisoners of war, with evacuated children's settlement, with forced laborers of many
nationalities, that the increased population was now between 1,200,000 and 1,400,000
citizens, of whom, not surprisingly, several hundred thousand had no proper home and of whom
none could seek the protection of an air-raid shelter.
[7] Irving, David, The Destruction of Dresden , New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston,
1964, p. 98.
Frederick Taylor states in his book Dresden: Tuesday, February 13, 1945 that Dresden
had been accepting refugees from the devastated cities of the Ruhr, and from Hamburg and
Berlin, ever since the British bombing campaign began in earnest. By late 1943 Dresden was
already overstretched and finding it hard to accept more outsiders. By the winter of 1944-1945,
hundreds of thousands of German refugees were traveling from the east in an attempt to escape
the Russian army.
[9] Taylor, Frederick, Dresden: Tuesday, February 13, 1945 , New York: HarperCollins,
2004, pp. 134, 227-228.
The German government regarded the acceptance of Germans from the east as an essential duty.
Der Freiheitskampf , the official German organ for Saxony, urged citizens to offer
temporary accommodation:
However, Taylor states that it was general policy in Dresden to have refugees on their way
to the west to continue onwards within 24 hours. Fleeing the Russians was not a valid
justification for seeking and maintaining residence in Dresden. Taylor states that the best
estimate by Götz Bergander, who spent time on fire-watching duties and on refugee-relief
work in Dresden, was that approximately 200,000 nonresidents were in Dresden on the night of
February 13-14, 1945. Many of these refugees would have been living in quarters away from the
targeted center of Dresden.
[11] Ibid. , pp. 229, 232.
(Taylor, Frederick, Dresden: Tuesday, February 13, 1945 , New York: HarperCollins, 2004,
pp. 134, 227-228.)
ORDER IT NOW
The Dresden historian Friedrich Reichert estimates that only 567,000 residents and 100,000
refugees were in Dresden on the night of the bombings. Reichert quotes witnesses who state that
no refugees were billeted in Dresden houses and that no billeting took place in Dresden's parks
or squares. Thus, Reichert estimates that the number of people in Dresden on the night of the
bombings was not much greater than the official figure of Dresden's population before the war.
[12] Evans, Richard J., Lying about Hitler: History, Holocaust, and the David Irving
Trial , New York: Basic Books, 2001, p. 174.
Reichert's estimate of Dresden's population during the bombings is almost certainly too low.
As a RAF memo analyzed it before the attack:
Every household had its large quota of refugees, and many more had arrived in Dresden that
day, so that the pavements were blocked by them, as they struggled onwards or simply sat
exhausted on their suitcases and rucksacks. For these reasons, no one has been able to put a
positive figure to the numbers of the dead, and no doubt no one ever will.
[14] McKee, Alexander, Dresden 1945: The Devil's Tinderbox , New York: E.P. Dutton,
Inc., 1984, p. 177.
The report prepared by the USAF Historical Division Research Studies Institute Air
University states that "there may probably have been about 1,000,000 people in Dresden on the
night of the 13/14 February RAF attack."
[15] http://glossaryhesperado.blogspot.com/2008/04/facts....html. I think the 1 million
population figure cited in this report constitutes a realistic and conservative minimum
estimate of Dresden's population during the Allied bombings of February 13-14, 1945.
Did Only 25,000 People Die?
If the 25,000 death-toll estimate in Dresden is accurate, we are left with the odd result
that Allied air power, employed for textbook purposes to its full measure and with no
restrictions, over an especially vulnerable large city near the end of the war, when Allied air
superiority was absolute and German defenses nearly nonexistent, was less effective than Allied
air power had been in previous more-difficult operations such as Hamburg or Berlin. I think the
extensive ruins left in Dresden suggest a degree of complete destruction not seen before in
Germany.
Dresden also lacked an effective network of air-raid shelters to protect its inhabitants.
Hitler had ordered that over 3,000 air-raid bunkers be built in 80 German towns and cities.
However, not one was built in Dresden because the city was not regarded as being in danger of
air attack. Instead, the civil air defense in Dresden devoted most of its efforts to creating
tunnels between the cellars of the housing blocks so that people could escape from one building
to another. These tunnels exacerbated the effects of the Dresden firestorm by channeling smoke
and fumes from one basement to the next and sucking out the oxygen from a network of
interconnected cellars.
[18] Neitzel, Sönke, "The City under Attack," in Addison, Paul and Crang, Jeremy A.,
(eds.), Firestorm: The Bombing of Dresden, 1945 , Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 2006, pp.
68-69.
The British were fully aware that mass death and destruction could result from the bombing
of Germany's cities. The Directorate of Bombing Operations predicted the following consequences
from Operation Thunderclap:
If we assume that the daytime population of the area attacked is 300,000, we may expect
220,000 casualties. Fifty per cent of these or 110,000 may expect to be killed. It is
suggested that such an attack resulting in so many deaths, the great proportion of which will
be key personnel, cannot help but have a shattering effect on political and civilian morale
all over Germany."
[22] Hastings, Max, Bomber Command , New York: The Dial Press, 1979, pp.
347-348.
A raid that closely resembles that on Dresden was carried out 10 days later on February 23,
1945 at Pforzheim. Since neither Dresden nor Pforzheim had suffered much damage earlier in the
war, the flammability of both cities had been preserved.
[25] Friedrich, Jörg, The Fire: The Bombing of Germany , New York, Columbia
University Press, 2006, p. 94. A perfect firestorm was created in both of these defenseless
cities. These cities also lacked sufficient air-raid shelters for their citizens.
The question is: If more than 30% of the residents of Pforzheim died in one bombing attack,
why would only approximately 2.5% of Dresdeners die in similar raids 10 days earlier? The
second wave of bombers in the Dresden raid appeared over Dresden at the very time that the
maximum number of fire brigades and rescue teams were in the streets of the burning city. This
second wave of bombers compounded the earlier destruction many times, and by design killed the
firemen and rescue workers so that the destruction in Dresden could rage on unchecked.
[28] DeBruhl, Marshall, Firestorm: Allied Airpower and the Destruction of Dresden , New
York: Random House, Inc., 2006, p. 210. See also McKee, Alexander, Dresden 1945: The Devil's
Tinderbox , New York: E.P. Dutton, Inc., 1984, p. 112. The raid on Pforzheim, by
contrast, consisted of only one bombing attack. Also, Pforzheim was a much smaller target, so
that it would have been easier for the people on the ground to escape from the blaze.
The only reason why the death-rate percentage would be higher at Pforzheim versus Dresden is
that a higher percentage of Pforzheim was destroyed in the bombings. Alan Russell estimates
that 83% of Pforzheim's city center was destroyed versus only 59% of Dresden's.
[29] Russell, Alan, "Why Dresden Matters," in Addison, Paul and Crang, Jeremy A., (eds.),
Firestorm: The Bombing of Dresden, 1945 , Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 2006, p. 162. This
would, however, account for only a portion of the percentage difference in the death tolls.
Based on the death toll in the Pforzheim raid, it is reasonable to assume that a minimum of 20%
of Dresdeners died in the British and American attacks on the city. The 2.5% death rate figure
of Dresdeners estimated by establishment historians is an unrealistically low figure.
If a 20% death rate figure times an estimated population in Dresden of 1 million is used,
the death-toll figure in Dresden would be 200,000. If a 25% death-rate figure times an
estimated population of 1.2 million is used, the death toll figure in Dresden would be 300,000.
Thus, death-toll estimates in Dresden of 250,000 people are quite plausible when compared to
the Pforzheim bombing.
How Were the Dead Disposed Of?
Historian Richard Evans asks:
And how was it imaginable that 200,000 bodies could have been recovered from out of the
ruins in less than a month? It would have required a veritable army of people to undertake
such work, and hundreds of sorely needed vehicles to transport the bodies. The effort
actually undertaken to recover bodies was considerable, but there was no evidence that it
reached the levels required to remove this number.
[30] Evans, Richard J., Lying About Hitler: History, Holocaust, and the David Irving
Trial , New York: Basic Books, 2001, p. 158.
Richard Evans does not recognize that the incineration of corpses on the Dresden market
square, the Altmarkt, was not the only means of disposing of bodies at Dresden. A British
sergeant reported on the disposal of bodies at Dresden:
They had to pitchfork shriveled bodies onto trucks and wagons and cart them to shallow
graves on the outskirts of the city. But after two weeks of work the job became too much to
cope with and they found other means to gather up the dead. They burned bodies in a great
heap in the center of the city, but the most effective way, for sanitary reasons, was to take
flamethrowers and burn the dead as they lay in the ruins. They would just turn the
flamethrowers into the houses, burn the dead and then close off the entire area. The whole
city is flattened. They were unable to clean up the dead lying beside roads for several
weeks.
[31] Regan, Dan, Stars and Stripes London edition, Saturday, May 5, 1945, Vol. 5, No.
156.
Historians also differ on whether or not large numbers of bodies in Dresden were so
incinerated in the bombing that they could no longer be recognized as bodies. Frederick Taylor
mentions Walter Weidauer, the high burgomaster of Dresden in the postwar period, as stating
[T]here is no substance to the reports that tens of thousands of victims were so
thoroughly incinerated that no individual traces could be found. Not all were identified, but
-- especially as most victims died of asphyxiation or physical injuries -- the overwhelming
majority of individuals' bodies could at least be distinguished as such."
[32] Taylor, Frederick, Dresden: Tuesday, February 13, 1945 , New York: HarperCollins,
2004, p. 448.
Other historians cite evidence that bodies were incinerated beyond recognition. Alexander
McKee quotes Hildegarde Prasse on what she saw at the Altmarkt after the Dresden bombings:
What I saw at the Altmarkt was cruel. I could not believe my eyes. A few of the men who
had been left over [from the Front] were busy shoveling corpse after corpse on top of the
other. Some were completely carbonized and buried in this pyre, but nevertheless they were
all burnt here because of the danger of an epidemic. In any case, what was left of them was
hardly recognizable. They were buried later in a mass grave on the Dresdner Heide.
[33] McKee, Alexander, Dresden 1945: The Devil's Tinderbox , New York: E.P. Dutton,
Inc., 1984, p. 248.
Marshall De Bruhl cites a report found in an urn by a gravedigger in 1975 written on March
12, 1945, by a young soldier identified only as Gottfried. This report states:
I saw the most painful scene ever .Several persons were near the entrance, others at the
flight of steps and many others further back in the cellar. The shapes suggested human
corpses. The body structure was recognizable and the shape of the skulls, but they had no
clothes. Eyes and hair carbonized but not shrunk. When touched, they disintegrated into
ashes, totally, no skeleton or separate bones.
I recognized a male corpse as that of my father. His arm had been jammed between two
stones, where shreds of his grey suit remained. What sat not far from him was no doubt
mother. The slim build and shape of the head left no doubt. I found a tin and put their ashes
in it. Never had I been so sad, so alone and full of despair. Carrying my treasure and crying
I left the gruesome scene. I was trembling all over and my heart threatened to burst. My
helpers stood there, mute under the impact.
[34] DeBruhl, Marshall, Firestorm: Allied Airpower and the Destruction of Dresden ,
New York: Random House, Inc., 2006, pp. 253-254.
Historians also differ on whether or not bodies are still being recovered in Dresden. For
example, Frederick Taylor states: "Since 1989 -- even with the extensive excavation and
rebuilding that followed the fall of communism in Dresden -- no bodies have been recovered at
all, even though careful archaeological investigations have accompanied the redevelopment."
[37] Taylor, Frederick, Dresden: Tuesday, February 13, 1945 , New York: HarperCollins,
2004, p. 448.
Marshall De Bruhl does not agree with Taylor's statement. De Bruhl notes that numerous other
skeletons of victims were discovered in the ruins of Dresden as rubble was removed or
foundations for new buildings were dug. De Bruhl states:
One particularly poignant discovery was made when the ruins adjacent to the Altmarkt were
being excavated in the 1990s. The workmen found the skeletons of a dozen young women who had
been recruited from the countryside to come into Dresden and help run the trams during the
war. They had taken shelter from the rain of bombs in an ancient vaulted subbasement, where
their remains lay undisturbed for almost 50 years.
[38] DeBruhl, Marshall, Firestorm: Allied Airpower and the Destruction of Dresden ,
New York: Random House, Inc., 2006, p. 254.
Conclusion
The destruction from the Dresden bombings was so massive that exact figures of deaths will
never be obtainable. However, the statement from the Dresden Commission of Historians that
"definitely no more than 25,000" died in the Dresden bombings is probably inaccurate. An
objective analysis of the evidence indicates that almost certainly far more than 25,000 people
died from the bombings of Dresden. Based on a comparison to the Pforzheim bombing and the other
similar bombing attacks, a death toll in Dresden of 250,000 people is easily possible.
Endnotes
[1] McKee, Alexander, Dresden 1945: The Devil's Tinderbox , New York: E.P. Dutton,
Inc., 1984, p. 275.
[2] Evans, Richard J., Lying about Hitler: History, Holocaust, and the David Irving
Trial , New York: Basic Books, 2001, p. 177.
[3] Taylor, Frederick, Dresden: Tuesday, February 13, 1945 , New York:
HarperCollins, 2004, p. 354.
[12] Evans, Richard J., Lying about Hitler: History, Holocaust, and the David Irving
Trial , New York: Basic Books, 2001, p. 174.
[13] Taylor, Frederick, Dresden: Tuesday, February 13, 1945 , New York:
HarperCollins, 2004, pp. 3, 406. See also River, Charles Editors, The Firebombing of
Dresden: The History and Legacy of the Allies' Most Controversial Attack on Germany ,
Introduction, p. 2.
[14] McKee, Alexander, Dresden 1945: The Devil's Tinderbox , New York: E.P. Dutton,
Inc., 1984, p. 177.
[16] Cox, Sebastian, "The Dresden Raids: Why and How," in Addison, Paul and Crang, Jeremy
A., (eds.), Firestorm: The Bombing of Dresden, 1945 , Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 2006, pp.
44, 46.
[17] DeBruhl, Marshall, Firestorm: Allied Airpower and the Destruction of Dresden ,
New York: Random House, Inc., 2006, pp. 204-205.
[18] Neitzel, Sönke, "The City under Attack," in Addison, Paul and Crang, Jeremy A.,
(eds.), Firestorm: The Bombing of Dresden, 1945 , Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 2006, pp.
68-69.
[20] Cox, Sebastian, "The Dresden Raids: Why and How," in Addison, Paul and Crang, Jeremy
A., (eds.), Firestorm: The Bombing of Dresden, 1945 , Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 2006, pp.
52-53.
[21] Davis, Richard G., Carl A. Spaatz and the Air War in Europe , Washington, D.C.:
Center for Air Force History, 1993, p. 557.
[22] Hastings, Max, Bomber Command , New York: The Dial Press, 1979, pp.
347-348.
[23] Cox, Sebastian, "The Dresden Raids: Why and How," in Addison, Paul and Crang, Jeremy
A., (eds.), Firestorm: The Bombing of Dresden, 1945 , Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 2006, p.
57.
[24] Overy, Richard, The Bombers and the Bombed: Allied Air War over Europe,
1940-1945 , New York: Viking Penguin, 2014, p. 314.
[25] Friedrich, Jörg, The Fire: The Bombing of Germany , New York, Columbia
University Press, 2006, p. 94.
[26]Ibid. , p. 91. See also DeBruhl, Marshall, Firestorm: Allied Airpower and
the Destruction of Dresden , New York: Random House, Inc., 2006, p. 255.
[27] Neitzel, Sönke, "The City under Attack," in Addison, Paul and Crang, Jeremy A.,
(eds.), Firestorm: The Bombing of Dresden, 1945 , Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 2006, p. 77.
[28] DeBruhl, Marshall, Firestorm: Allied Airpower and the Destruction of Dresden ,
New York: Random House, Inc., 2006, p. 210. See also McKee, Alexander, Dresden 1945: The
Devil's Tinderbox , New York: E.P. Dutton, Inc., 1984, p. 112.
[29] Russell, Alan, "Why Dresden Matters," in Addison, Paul and Crang, Jeremy A., (eds.),
Firestorm: The Bombing of Dresden, 1945 , Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 2006, p. 162.
[30] Evans, Richard J., Lying About Hitler: History, Holocaust, and the David Irving
Trial , New York: Basic Books, 2001, p. 158.
[31] Regan, Dan, Stars and Stripes London edition, Saturday, May 5, 1945, Vol. 5,
No. 156.
[32] Taylor, Frederick, Dresden: Tuesday, February 13, 1945 , New York:
HarperCollins, 2004, p. 448.
[33] McKee, Alexander, Dresden 1945: The Devil's Tinderbox , New York: E.P. Dutton,
Inc., 1984, p. 248.
[34] DeBruhl, Marshall, Firestorm: Allied Airpower and the Destruction of Dresden ,
New York: Random House, Inc., 2006, pp. 253-254.
[35] Alexander McKee cites estimates of 3,000 degrees Fahrenheit (McKee, Alexander,
Dresden 1945: The Devil's Tinderbox , New York: E.P. Dutton, Inc., 1984, p. 176).
on another thread and added the following comment:
http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-how-hitler-saved-the-allies/#comment-3216306
During the war authorities were often lowering the losses so not to give reasons for
defeatism. People did not know the true scale of losses. It was not in newspaper. Goebbels
decided that playing a victim to the world public opinion would not work anymore but it
only would have negative effect on the spirit of German public. Yet police reports from
Dresden show very high figures. Much, much higher than 25k And these reports are not post
WWII prepared by DDR authorities that liked to talk about American terror bombings in
Vietnam. And then several years ago after the reunification some British and Germans
historians got together, Dresden became a sister city of Coventry, the Brits helped to
rebuild the church in Dresden, the slogans 'never again' were repeated ad nausea and the
number of dead became 25k. It is still way too high to be a sister city of Coventry.
A key element is to look at the war situation when this bombing occurred. Wiki has a great
series of wartime maps, and here is February 1, 1945. The Soviet were closing in on Berlin.
Dresden was not in the Soviet path to Berlin nor in the path of the Allies to the Elbe. So
it wasn't bombed for military reasons. Note that the USA not only firebombed the Germans and
Japanese, the USA firebombed Chinese cities too:
In every case regardless of number of casualties, although I do believe in higher number the
deed was a definition of war crime. Germans were loosing the war anyway -and the bombing had
no strategic significance.
The purpose was to kill as many Germans as possible, by burning and suffocating people.
Not very pleasant death.
Proof of bestiality of English.
The consent factory has permanently put black hats on the Germans, and put white hats on
themselves.
Facts be damned, so does the number really matter?
Even many Jews and other prisoners in cams have died because supply of food to camps become
practically impossible by railways. So they have died of starvation.
This is why Britain is experiencing things like Rotherham. It's all related and karmic.
Dresden is emblematic of the Anglo's betrayal of Europe, and for that reason Britain will
soon be extinguished forever.
I can't say I'm sad about that.
By current standards of international law the fire bombing of cities is a war crime and crime
against humanity unless attack focuses solely on strategic targets and all efforts taken to
minimize civilian casualties. Interesting as well, a major line of thought is that using
nuclear weapons against cities is a war crime since no effort could be taken to minimize
civilian casualties as fully as possible
"AS the day draws on I come across a document which I only half-suspected I might ever
find. In 1961, when I was writing my first book "The Destruction of Dresden", I was
confidentially approached by a German schoolteacher, Hanns Voigt; he said that after the
horrific British air raid, he was put in charge of Dresden's Missing Persons Bureau,
Abteilung Tote – the Deceased Section. He built an immense card index, and he kept a
diary; and he estimated for me that the final death toll in Dresden would have reached
135,000. This was the figure that I, and after me Kurt Vonnegut and others, always used.
Other city officials gave the same kind of estimates. (Later this year I shall post on my
website a full dossier on the Dresden death toll.)
Voigt's estimate was a thorn in the side of both German Governments -- both east and west.
They had always played down, even trivialised, the air raid casualty figures caused by the
British saturation bombing (even as they hyped the numbers killed in the Jewish tragedy).
Only last year a German Government commission consisting of, not just conformist but
kow-towing, line-toeing, bowing-and-scraping historians and Nickeseln, agreed that the death
roll in the two hour man-made 1945 holocaust in Dresden was far lower, "only 25,000" (or, if
possible, even less).
Without doing any in-depth research -- such scholars are far too important for that --
they relied on the police chief's early March 1945 report (which in fact I was the first to
find), because it indicated lower figures than Hanns Voigt's for dead and missing.
In the Deborah Lipstadt Trial, her highly-paid chief expert Professor Richard "Skunky"
Evans (left) vilified Voigt; he implied that Voigt was a liar, he questioned whether the
Missing Persons bureau had ever existed, and he called him a Nazi with an agenda. (Voigt had,
we now know, been given a good post-war position in the Soviet Zone before emigrating legally
to the West, so the "Nazi" allegation seems unlikely.) Aping Evans, Mr Justice Gray accused
me in his 333-page Judgment of falsifying history.
I was not invited to make any submissions to the Dresden Commission. No surprises there.
This afternoon, my quiet patience is rewarded. I have come across this new secret document,
signed by the police chief of Dresden, and decoded by the British some weeks after the
war."
translation:
At 5:55 p.m. on March 24, 1945 -- the day in fact when I turned eight, I remember it
vividly -- the Dresden Polizeipräsident reported in code to SS Oberführer Dr.
Dietrichs:
Re: Missing Persons Situation in Dresden Air Raid Defence region.
The Lord Mayor of Dresden City has established (a) a Central Bureau for Missing Persons
and nine Missing Persons registries; (b) eighty- to one-hundred thousand missing-person
notifications are estimated to have been registered so far; (c) 9,720 missing-person
notifications have been confirmed as fatalities; (d) to date, information on twenty
thousand missing person cases has been given out; (e) accurate statistical data possibly
only later.
"So Voigt was telling the truth.
Even the "hundred thousand" figure for those reported missing must be an under-estimate.
There were over half a million homeless refugees in the streets of Dresden, fleeing the Red
Army siege of Breslau to the East. Whole refugee families must have been engulfed by the
Dresden holocaust, with nobody surviving to report them as "missing".
Another thing seems brutally clear: those listed as "missing" -- in addition to those
bodies formally identified and buried or incinerated by this date -- were never going to
return. To use the words of the telegram I found yesterday (see above) they were dead,
"carbonised," and unidentifiable.
What do these decoded messages tell us about our own lazy and conformist historians, and
about "Skunky" Evans in particular? He, and they, would never have found them. It has taken
me these many years. Go the extra mile. Eventually, as this morning's Welshman said, "You
will be proved right in the end"."
@anon19 The Allies needed to deflect from their barbarity such as Dresden, which is
simply one example, hence their desperate embrace of the fake & impossible 'gas chambers'
and the easily debunked '6,000,000 Jews' & '5,000,000 others' propaganda.
While no survivor has ever reported the actual temperature reached during the Dresden
firestorm,
How could they?
many historians estimate that temperatures reached 1,500° Centigrade (2,732°
Fahrenheit) .
A 'historian' estimating temperature?
Since temperatures in a cremation chamber normally reach only 1,400 degrees to 1,800
degrees Fahrenheit,
How hot an (essentially) open air fire can get and whether or not eg such a fire can melt
steel was and is part of the 9-11 discussion -- on 9-11 it was jet fuel -- at Dresden it was
incendiary bombs -- still it is a little hard to believe even incendiary bombs could result
in open air fires with sustained temperatures vastly higher than what are normally
seen during cremation -- ??
A raid that closely resembles that on Dresden was carried out 10 days later on February
23, 1945 at Pforzheim.
There's more than one way to destroy a German city:
The bombing of Dresden was a war crime because it was UNNECESSARY !!
Absolutely no military reason for it ..records in US Historian office of meetings of the
Soviets, UK and US between Feb 5th to 8th show that they knew the war was over and were
deciding on what 'official date" they would use to declare it.
They burned bodies in a great heap in the center of the city, but the most effective
way, for sanitary reasons, was to take flamethrowers and burn the dead as they lay in the
ruins. They would just turn the flamethrowers into the houses, burn the dead
You mean, an actual Holocaust?
Wasn't the only one, either.
Burning German civilians alive (Japanese also) was official policy of "moral" U.S. and their
allies, the lovely British.
Hamburg, Berlin, Köln, in fact just about any German city of any size. Nearly all were
destroyed by fire by the end of the war. Most people here probably already know this, but
just for the record
Dresden downplaying is one of the only forms of WWII "revisionism" promoted by the
establishment. My impression is the drive towards deflating Dresden began in the mid 2000s,
which is when David Irving began a years-long running section on his website
about Dresden and its death toll
controversy.
Irving wrote the book that brought the incident to worldwide awareness in the 1960s and
partly inspired Kurt Vonnegut to write his breakout novel ( Slaughterhouse Five , as a
commenter mentions above) which had sections that were quasi-autobiographical. Vonnegut was a
U.S. POW in the city on that night, held in the basement of a building whose address was
Schlachtof Fuenf , "No.5 Slaughterhouse St." (The irony was not lost.)
As far as I know, Irving's current estimate is that 100,000 is either the likely figure
itself (most conservative reasonable estimate), or (more likely) the lower bound for the true
death toll. This is according to primary documents he has discovered. The 135,000 figure was
from local official Hanns Voigt, in charge of the missing persons bureau. He was meticulous.
Irving tracked him down in 1961 during research for the original Dresden book.
This afternoon [April 24, 2009], my quiet patience is rewarded. I have come across this
new secret document, signed by the police chief of Dresden, and decoded by the British some
weeks after the war.
At 5:55 p.m. on March 24, 1945 -- the day in fact when I turned eight, I remember it
vividly -- the Dresden Polizeipräsident reported in code to SS Oberführer Dr.
Dietrichs:
Re: Missing Persons Situation in Dresden Air Raid Defence region.
The Lord Mayor of Dresden City has established (a) a Central Bureau for Missing Persons and
nine Missing Persons registries; (b) eighty- to one-hundred thousand missing-person
notifications are estimated to have been registered so far; (c) 9,720 missing-person
notifications have been confirmed as fatalities; (d) to date, information on twenty
thousand missing person cases has been given out; (e) accurate statistical data possibly
only later.
So Voigt was telling the truth.
Even the "hundred thousand" figure for those reported missing must be an under-estimate.
There were over half a million homeless refugees in the streets of Dresden, fleeing the Red
Army siege of Breslau to the East. Whole refugee families must have been engulfed by the
Dresden holocaust, with nobody surviving to report them as "missing".
DESCRIPTION: Pathetic chalked messages on the ruins of survivors seeking information on
missing wives, mothers, family buried in the ruins.
Last pic:
DESCRIPTION: On the following day, March 23, 1962, Mr Irving (aged 27 still) interviewed
Marshal of the RAF Sir Arthur Harris at his home in Oxfordshire, about the Dresden
raids.
Dresden has a special meaning for me.
Ten years after this sadistic event, I became a friend of a fellow Air Force trainee at
Keesler AFB. He had been brought to the US as an orphan from Germany. All of his relatives
had died in the Dresden inferno. He had been sent on an errand outside of the city and was
the only survivor of his whole family. ALL dead except him. No mother. No father. No bother
or sister or grandparent. All dead.
He was a gentle soul, but a basket case mentally. He was a fellow Lutheran and I believe he
wanted to be in heaven with his family. I tried my best to help him. He could not keep track
of anything. He lost his pay records transferring. I bought him soap and other little
necessities he needed to get by. But he did not last very long and was gone, unable to
concentrate and cope. He certainly was a casualty, but uncounted, of this dishonorable,
deplorable sadism.
With a city of 1.2 million with refugees, 25,000 dead would be a mere 2% casualty rate.
Look at that picture again. Where in that picture could one have survived?
I skimmed the article, but I don't think I saw any reference to the autobiographical-fiction
first-hand account written by Kurt Vonnegut in Slaughterhouse-Five:
In Vonnegut's words: "There were too many corpses to bury. So instead the Germans sent in
troops with flamethrowers. All these civilians' remains were burned to ashes."
Thanks for another article to expose another tabu of WWII history.
I want to introduce an important angle here that might not be common to nongerman
readers:
Watching any popular history program in this country, you any time across raping and
plundering Red army soldiers. It is common place.
Try to mention Dresden and anything down that line and you will be taken for a deranged
Neonazi. A lot of the present vilification of Saxony in todays PC german media has to do with
the fact that Saxony has its own culture of war crime remembrance.
Sorry, dum dum. The 'English' were not in charge of the UK government at the time.
Churchill had a Jewish mother, half the House of Lords were officially Jews, the banking
establishment was Jewish, the war profiteers were Jewish, etc.
Did you know that Churchill's Jewish handler, Frederick Lindemann, was the one who
directed Churchill to attack working class neighbourhoods in raids in order to maximize
civilian deaths.
@Wally Good work Wally. You may be impervious to some ideas but are a reliable source to
debunk official lies.
It amazes me how the German people have been so indoctrinated to accept the occupation of
their country by the mass murderers 74 years after the greatest single-incident crime in
human history. Only human beings are capable of that monstrous viciousness. Or may be only
some ?
It is heartening to see and read this article here. Recently I was in a brief back-and-forth
with another commenter about this subject. I quoted from Private Kurt Vonnegut's letter to
his parents thus:
On or about February 14th, the Americans came over, followed by the R.A.F. Their
combined labors killed 250,000 people in 24 hours and destroyed all of Dresden -- possibly
the world's most beautiful city. But not me.
After that we were put to work carrying corpses from Air-Raid shelters; women, children,
old men; dead from concussion, fire or suffocation. Civilians cursed us and threw rocks as
we carried bodies to huge funeral pyres in the city.
-- Kurt Vonnegut, letter to parents, May 29, 1945
The other commenter replied with the standard 25,000 number of dead. My response was that
his number, the "mainstream" accepted one, seems too small, while Vonnegut's seems too
large.
It is interesting to note the reasons why some people would want us to believe such a
ridiculously small number as 25,000 for Dresden.
This article makes my point clear, and it even makes 250,000 sound plausible. I wish to
thank the writer, John Wear, and our publisher here, Ron Unz, for providing it.
"Historians also differ on whether or not large numbers of bodies in Dresden were so
incinerated in the bombing that they could no longer be recognized as bodies. Frederick
Taylor mentions Walter Weidauer, the high burgomaster of Dresden in the postwar period, as
stating
[T]here is no substance to the reports that tens of thousands of victims were so
thoroughly incinerated that no individual traces could be found. Not all were identified, but
-- especially as most victims died of asphyxiation or physical injuries -- the overwhelming
majority of individuals' bodies could at least be distinguished as such."[32]"
Hmmm, isn't the point that you DON'T recognize remains as being human? In other words you
can't distinguish them as such?
If you can't determine they are human remains you won't even realize you are looking at human
remains when you seen them and consequently have no reason to question whether they might be!
And off course you won't report them as such.
Reminds me of an incident with a friend of mine years ago. We were walking down the main
shopping street. Background music was playing along the street. He was a bit of a sound
perfectionist and complained that the drums in the music playing were electronic and not
played by a human. He claimed he could always tell. I called bullshit. I asked him whether he
had ever bothered to check if his opinion was right. Off course he never had. He genuinely
believed he could tell the difference, being a sound freak, so he never bothered to check.
What did happen was that he kept reinforcing his own ingrained belief, "wow, I'm good, I even
can tell the difference in this song"!
Now, he probably was right most of the time. But he certainly wasn't right all of the time
yet he truly believed he was. The fun of confirmation bias.
So it makes complete sense that the high burgomaster would believe, incorrectly, that
there were no indistinguishable corpses. If you know they are a corpse, or what's left of it,
it's distinguishable. Indistinguishable means they are by definition not countable, only
estimable (based on total numbers before and after).
Surprisingly the article does not mention the strafing of the survivors from the firestorm. I
first knew about Dresden when I read the revelations of an eyewitness US POW then in that
city. Many thousands of survivors sought refuge from the heat in the Elbe River but that
became an easy target for the US Mustang fighter-bombers. An unimaginable evil and all the
more shocking by the fact that their countries' (UK/US) civilian populations had been spared
the horrors inflicted on Soviet people.
And that duo were planning to do the same thing to dozens of Soviet cities – but
with atomic bombs for good measure. We have always been ruled by the most despicable
monsters, the true reflection of Western "democracy". Am I unique in saying that, were I a
"Bomber" Harris's pilot, I would refuse to fly the damned plane or, at least, unload the
cargo in a harmless place? I can't understand it Makes one ashamed of belonging to this
species.
On an earlier thread on which the subject came up, commenter Germanicus posted this document:
It is a memo by the Dresden city administration, to the effect that Dresden police records
as of 20.3.1945 state a number 200,000 dead recovered, mostly women and children, projecting
a final death toll of 250,000 to 300,000.
This was before the new and improved number of 25,000 was rolled out. You can rely on
official western historiography to never, ever tell the truth about anything.
If you say the WASPs did a bad thing, you are insane. No more gentle, kind, compassionate,
empathic, anti-imperialistic people ever lived. Why, WASP war is the very antithesis of any
possibility of war crime or genocidal desire.
Dresden downplaying is one of the only forms of WWII "revisionism" promoted by the
establishment. My impression is the drive towards deflating Dresden began in the mid
2000s
I wish we knew more about it beyond speculations how this process was initiated, what
characters were involved on both sides to give the push for it. Then finding the willing
'historians' to do the actual work was not a problem. There are many willing 'historians' out
there.
@jbwilson24 The 'English' lost major control of their government no later than the
Cromwell years. WASP culture is finalized, is made complete, by the Puritan Revolution. WASP
culture was born of the Judaizing heresy Anglo-Saxon Puritanism.
The Anglo-Zionist Empire was born directly from Anglophone Reformation and the resulting
politics, which from the outset acted to inflict at least cultural genocide on all local
British cultures that did not assimilate to the presiding civic form of the Judaizing heresy
of Anglo-Saxon Puritanism.
Anglo-Zionist Empire is WASP Empire, and it did not begin between the 2 World Wars, nor
with Disraeli, nor with the founding of Freemasonry (which featured Jewish funding and
socially and morally directed the British Empire from then on), nor even with the Jewish
financially backed coup by William of Orange. It goes back 100% to Cromwell, whose
antecedents were long and deep in the ethnically 'pure' Anglo-Saxon parts of England.
same thing to dozens of Soviet cities – but with atomic bombs
The atomic bombs were intended to be used on German cities.
Unfortunately for those who designed and built them, the war in Europe ended before the bombs
were ready, and they had to be tested on the Japanese.
I have no idea about the political tilt of this publication and do not care since they are
all nakedly pushing an agenda, including this article near the end. Reminder: Although they
weren't exquisite Baroque buildings, the full-to-the-brim-with-humans Twin Towers in New
York, NY were fire bombed by any other name, resulting in predictable acts of retaliatory
warfare, meeting horrific with horrific.
However, this account of a 91-year-old British survivor of the Dresden bombing is searing.
It sounds like he thinks the war was started by his country. Ugh, the parts about the boiling
reservoir and the explosive tar "escape" routes are horrific-cubed. The photos of this
battle-hardened career military man are telling, too. In addition to the first-person
interview, it cites academic sources.
It's good that fire bombing has been outlawed. But it's too late for these people, mostly
old people and kids holed up in the center of an intricately carved Baroque city while the
men were at war, and many of the women were probably working the munitions factories in the
outer suburbs. So, why bomb the city's architectural jewels, where no war-making tools were
under construction?
Thanks to revisionist historians like John, the horrible truths of WWII are now becoming main
stream. Did the Allies out Hitler Hitler? My answer would be a resounding yes.
@renfroThe bombing of Dresden was a war crime because it was UNNECESSARY !!
That last thing I want to do here is defend what was done to Dresden (it was indefensible)
-- but I think you would have a hard time defining what is 'necessary' during wartime vs what
isn't -- especially when the war isn't over yet, and one of your goals has to be to minimize
your own casualties, even if it means (perhaps unnecessarily) maximizing the enemy's -- as
Patton said: 'The goal of war is not to die for your your country, but to make the other
bastard die for his' -- oder etwas ähnlich.
Years ago I read the following piece and afterward had a brief email exchange with the
author:
The issue she addresses -- the indiscriminate bombing of largely civilian targets (cities)
during WWII vs today's use of 'precision' weapons (which back then did not exist) designed to
minimize "collateral damage" -- is probably familiar to most.
@White Monkey I recently, over the past month, read the book by David Irving on
Dresden.
He recounts that after the war German authorities estimated, from records, missing persons
accounts, and more, that the death toll was 125,000 on that night. I believe this was
compiled into the early 50s to that result. It might have been more, but I doubt it was less.
@Buzz Mohawk The figure of 250,000 is quite believable My dad was a RAF Intelligence
S/Ldr at the time and he always maintained the casualty figure, based on RAF estimates at the
time of the raid, was 250,000.
Should one choose to make it (not that I would ever do that), there is something of a
'Holocaust' connection to the aftermath in Dresden, where corpses were burned on makeshift
pyres -- the immediate purpose was to carbonize the flesh to inhibit the spread of disease
(ie not necessarily to turn a human body into ash and bones, as during cremation) -- but the
truth is, hardly more is possible with such an open air pyre -- there is simply not enough
heat -- the corpses are still recognizably human (there are other examples of this from
around the time the war ended) -- compare to the claims made about eg Treblinka, where
allegedly all traces of hundreds of thousands of murdered Jews were eliminated by doing
something similar -- and this after they were dug up after months (if not longer)
underground.
@crimson2 Yea, but not nearly as many as the number of Jews killed by the Romans:
Earlier "Holocaust" franchises, because the bs undoubtedly goes back further
Talmud: Gittin 57b claims that four billion Jews were killed by the Romans in the city
of Bethar.
Gittin 58a claims that 16 million Jewish children were wrapped in scrolls and
burned alive by he Romans.
Plus the endless Six Million Kvetching from the mid-1800s up to WWII.
A few days after the bombing the Gaulitier of Dresden sent a message to Berlin stating that
they had recovered 240,000 bodies and asked for instructions as to what to do next.
Apparently the reply was to stop counting.
@White Monkey My first knowledge of the Dresden atrocity came when I read Vonnegut's
novel "Slaughterhouse Five" when in college in the '70's. If I recall correctly, seems that
he and other American POW's were spared by hiding in some kind of large refrigerator. I
believe what he encountered there, which included helping to bury the dead, scarred him for
life, but, ironically, made him a better novelist.
This was a color revolution run by consortium of intelligence agencies and the leadership of the Democratic Party, not "wild
goose chase". The key participants perfectly undersood that this is "regime change" operation.
And Russiagate was not about Trump but about profits of military industrial complex and control over US foreign policy. BTW
Trump folded just in three months after inauguration.
This is a very weak article, but some comments are excellent.
Notable quotes:
"... The damage the Democrats (and their allies in the FBI and media) have done to the country is incalculable, but even worse, is the damage they've done to their own party. ..."
"... the Democrats have betrayed the trust of the people who supported their respective campaigns with the implicit understanding that they would work for the progressive reforms that improve the lives of ordinary working people and not behave like hectoring, obstructionist crybabies who refuse to respect the outcome of elections if the winner is not to their liking ..."
"... What we've seen in the last few years is not only unacceptable, it's also degraded our politics and divided the country into rival camps ..."
"... Russiagate has shed light on the cozy relationship between the Democratic party, the Intelligence Agencies, the FBI and the media. ..."
"... Their relentless, but coordinated attacks on the president strongly suggest that there may be an alliance between the various groups of which the American people are completely unaware. This suspicion seems at least partially substantiated by an article that appeared in the World Socialist Web Site titled "The CIA Democrats". ..."
"... CIA ran this whole show. Not Brennan, CIA the institution. Gina Haspel was in London marshaling the foreign intelligence cutouts, and now she's DCI. ..."
"... In this day and age nobody swallows the CIA propaganda "CIA works for the president." Don Gregg stuck that into the Pike Report after he threatened the committees with martial law. So let's stop pretending that CIA rule is man bites dog. Your government is CIA. ..."
"... Far from mourning its failure to depose Trump, the Deep State is celebrating its own prowess in leading him by the nose. The Deep State has learned to stop worrying and love the bombastic orange clown. ..."
"... Lets not pretend Russia-phobia isn't bipartisan. Even Trump went along with it by placing sanctions on Russia for imaginary "meddling". Making RT register as foreign agent. ..."
"... Lets not forget that Trump admin also expelled Russian diplomats and closed their consulate in Seattle over the bogus Skripal attack in Britain. ..."
"... Trump also launched missiles on Syria over the false flag chemical attack staged by the White Helmets (ISIS), that Trump admin. is still funding. Further poking at Russia. ..."
"... The Trump-Russia collusion scandal was the Deep State's attempt at a coup. The Mueller investigation failed to deliver so they now move on to their next coup attempt. ..."
"... In the 2018 mid-terms some 70 percent of Democratic voters, along with a high number of Independents and even Republicans believed that Trump had colluded with Russia. Yet with so many voters basing their voting decisions on fake news and misinformation, once again, the Left doesn't seemed concerned at all. ..."
"... The "Democrats" – one half of the corrupt set of American bootlicking politicians – spent three years screaming and howling and wearing Trump down until now he is governing just like Hillary Clinton would have. Endless pointless winless wars that serve only to spread chaos and enrich defense contractors, continuing subsidies of Wall Street, tax cuts for big time-plutocrats and coming soon nice juicey regressive taxes for you and me! – and of course, more legal immigration and a government-enabled invasion of our southern border by central America because the rich like cheap labor. ..."
"... That Müeller found nothing to corroborate collusion is likely the result of NSA intercepts that would disprove anything his team and the other agencies might fabricate as proof of the charge. There are a couple serious dividing lines in the national security state that have made it difficult for the coup conspirators to succeed; what will be interesting is if they do in fact get away with trying. ..."
"... Bill Clinton's telecommunication act of 1996 did a lot of damage. Clinton was a CFR agent for the parasite. ..."
"... The fourth estate centralized and came under corporate control after 1996. Those who are remotely aware know that the press organs are owned by our favorite in-group which has messianic goals. This in-group, while small in number, has goals amplified by money power. ..."
"... The neoCONs won and have Trump under control and he's hiring Bush-men as fast as he can ..."
"... it looks like Trump will run in 2020 as a WAR President, in Venezuela and/or Iran. The Bush/Trump Crime Family has been born from the ashes of the Bush/Clinton Crime Family. ..."
"... A crime of obstruction would be something like the destruction subpoenaed evidence; such as taking Bleachbit to your e-mails, or smashing your smartphones with hammers ..."
"... They just go from one lie they're more than happy to believe to another – this time its "obstruction" and the media will push that lie too ..."
"... You can legally hire or fire your maid but if your motivation -- intention in either of those acts is to bribe her or threaten her because she knows something about you that could get you in legal trouble. Then it is obstruction. ..."
For the last two and a half years, the Democrats have led the country on a wild goose chase
that has been a complete waste of time and achieved absolutely nothing. The absurd conspiracy
theory that the President of the United States was an agent of the Kremlin has been thoroughly
debunked by the Mueller Report which states that there was neither "coordination" nor
"conspiracy with the Trump campaign and Russia." Even so, congressional Democrats– still
determined to destroy Trump by whatever means possible– have switched from the
"collusion" allegations to vicious attacks on Attorney General William Barr and demands for
Trump's tax returns.
The ease with which the Dems have shifted from their ridiculous claims that Trump was
"Putin's stooge" to this new round of vitriolic accusations and mud-slinging, shows that party
leaders have not only lost touch with reality, but also, that they have no interest in
governing the country. The Democratic party in its current form, is less a political
organization than it is a permanent inquisition led by duplicitous vipers (Adam Schiff, Eric
Swalwell, Jerry Nadler) who feel entitled to use the Justice System to pursue their own petty
political vendetta against a Beltway outsider who had the audacity to win the 2016 presidential
election and whose views on foreign policy do not jibe with those of their elite
paymasters.
The damage the Democrats (and their allies in the FBI and media) have done to the country is
incalculable, but even worse, is the damage they've done to their own party. By focusing
exclusively on Donald Trump and the fictitious Russian boogieman, the Democrats have betrayed
the trust of the people who supported their respective campaigns with the implicit
understanding that they would work for the progressive reforms that improve the lives of
ordinary working people and not behave like hectoring, obstructionist crybabies who refuse to
respect the outcome of elections if the winner is not to their liking.
These are the people who
have been hurt most by the Russiagate fiasco, the people who thought their Democratic
candidates actually wanted to run the country, but soon discovered that those same
representatives would rather spend all of their time chasing Russian ghosts down a rabbit
hole.
Here's an excerpt from an article by Andrew McCarthy that helps to explain what the Russia
probe was really all about:
"Russiagate has always been a political narrative masquerading as a federal investigation.
Its objective, plain and simple, has been twofold: first, to hamstring Donald Trump's
capacity to press the agenda on which he ran .and ultimately, to render him unelectable come
autumn 2020 .
The Russia counterintelligence probe, based on the fraudulent projection of a
Trump-Putin conspiracy, was always a pretext to conduct a criminal investigation despite the
absence of a predicate crime. The criminal investigation, in turn, was always a pretext
for congressional impeachment chatter. And the congressional impeachment chatter is a pretext
for the real agenda: Making Trump an ineffective president now, and an un-reelectable
president 18 months from now.
Indeed, Russiagate "has always been politics", but the quality of our politics has
deteriorated significantly in the last few years, a point that's worth mulling over for a
minute or two. For nearly three years we've seen one party rip up the rulebook and engage in a
full-blown, scorched earth, no-holds-barred blitzkrieg on the president of the United States.
At no time has there been any effort to discuss issues, ideals, policies, or competing visions
of the future. Instead, every ounce of energy has been devoted to inflicting maximum damage on
the man who, many Democrats think, is deserving of whatever horrendous reprisal they direct at
him.
The Democrats have made no secret of their hatred for Trump or their desire to drive him
from office. They have openly supported the dirty tricks, the hyper-ventilating headlines, and
the relentless smear campaigns that have been aimed at him from Day 1. Through Russiagate, the
Dems have tried to frame Trump as a backstabbing traitor who sold out his country to a foreign
power, but now that Mueller has proved that Trump was falsely accused, the Dems have deftly
switched to another line of attack altogether. This isn't how sincere liberals fight to
implement a plan for progressive change. This is how unprincipled mercenaries pursue the
politics of personal destruction. There's a big difference.
This isn't about Trump. Trump could be the worst president in history, and it still wouldn't
excuse the contemptible way he's been treated. Is it ever acceptable to spy on a presidential
campaign, to insert confidential informants who try to entrap campaign assistants to gather
information that can be used to intimidate, blackmail or impeach the president? Is it ever
acceptable to leak classified information to the media as part of a malignant scheme to destroy
a candidate's reputation? Is it ever acceptable to enlist senior-level officials at the FBI,
CIA and NSA to prevent a candidate from being elected or to engage in a stealth campaign of
slanders, smears and innuendo that cast a shadow over the legitimacy of the government?
No, it's not acceptable. Never.
What we've seen in the last few years is not only unacceptable, it's also degraded our
politics and divided the country into rival camps. We've come to expect that every morning will
bring some new crisis centered on Trump's latest tweet followed by hours of incendiary coverage
on the cable news channels, all aimed at throwing more gas on the raging fire that's engulfed
the country. And, of course, no one scandal has consumed more time or been more inflammatory
than the Russia probe. Here's how The Nation's Stephen Cohen sums it up in a recent
article:
"Now in its third year, Russiagate is the worst, most corrosive, and most fraudulent
political scandal in modern American history. these Russiagate allegations continue to
inflict grave damage on fundamental institutions of American democracy. They impugn the
integrity of the presidency and now the office of the attorney general. They degrade the many
Democratic members of Congress who persist in clinging to the allegations and thus the
Democratic Party and Congress. And they have enticed mainstream media into one of the worst
episodes of journalistic malpractice in modern times.
Cohen's piece cuts to the heart of the matter. Russiagate has not only undermined our
"fundamental institutions", it has also impacted our "national security." But I would argue
that the damage caused by the Trump-Russia investigation is even greater than Cohen describes,
mainly because Russiagate has shed light on the cozy relationship between the Democratic party,
the Intelligence Agencies, the FBI and the media. These are the institutions that have waged
war on Trump from the very beginning. Their relentless, but coordinated attacks on the
president strongly suggest that there may be an alliance between the various groups of which
the American people are completely unaware. This suspicion seems at least partially
substantiated by an article that appeared in the World Socialist Web Site titled "The CIA
Democrats". Here's an excerpt:
"An extraordinary number of former intelligence and military operatives from the CIA,
Pentagon, National Security Council and State Department are seeking nomination as Democratic
candidates for Congress in the 2018 midterm elections. The potential influx of
military-intelligence personnel into the legislature has no precedent in US political
history.
If the Democrats capture a majority in the House of Representatives on November 6, as
widely predicted, candidates drawn from the military-intelligence apparatus will comprise as
many as half of the new Democratic members of Congress. They will hold the balance of power
in the lower chamber of Congress." ( "The CIA Democrats" , Patrick
Martin, World Socialist Web Site)
Would anyone be surprised to find out that the CIA was taking a more activist role in
domestic politics; that it's actually grooming its own candidates for elections, that it's
strengthening its influence in the media and its ties with one of the main political parties,
all in an effort to better control electoral outcomes and tighten its grip on power?
No, no one would be surprised at all. And although we don't yet know all the details, there
are signs that the Intel agencies, the FBI, the media and high-ranking Democrats may have been
working secretively for the same objectives, to either sabotage the 2016 presidential election
or gather incriminating information on Trump that could be used at some later date. All of this
coordinated activity hints at the emergence of a one-party political system that is guided by
agents and elites who the American people don't know and never voted for.
In any event, we're going to find out alot more about these illicit connections as the
Justice Department's three separate probes gain pace and reveal how "the FBI used one party's
'opposition research' as the basis to get a warrant from a secret court to spy on the other
party's campaign." That is the crux of the matter. That's the question that will throw open the
curtains and shed light on the suspicious ties between the DNC, the CIA, the FBI and the media,
all of who may have been directly involved in the dodgy plan to depose the president of the
United States.
THE DEMOGANGSTERS ARE THE REAL CRIMINALS; MUELLER WAS AN AGENT OF THE DEEP STATE, BUT STILL
FOUND NO EVIDENCE.
Thanks, Sir. You are so right -- Russiagate is a manufactured scam to get an elected
President out of office, to carry out a coup by using our criminal justice system as a
criminal enterprise. And to cover up the real crimes of the real criminals, the Demogangsters
like Hillary, etc.
Mueller was a member of the Deep State. If there was ANY collusion (whatever statute there
is that outlaws talking to somebody in a foreign country), Mueller would have found it or
invented it.
The fact that he could not shows that the the Demogangsters had no grounds whatsoever to
manufacture this fake "Russiagate" scandal.
In reality, this scandal should be called Demogangstergate.
The DOJ should now investigate the real criminals, the Demogansters. Hillary and Soros are
America's biggest criminals and they belongs in prison for life.
Two minutes – that would let you easily quantify how tired someone is, how badly they
are suffering from the flu, whether they are showing unusual intellectual decline with age,
If I were an employer I might like to learn how my staff's performance declined with
longer working days, with a view to telling them not to work excessive hours. Or with a view
to finding how best to intersperse the working day with breaks – for food, chat,
exercise, or whatever.
I've long wondered why corporations pay large sums to, for instance, management
consultants or lawyers, when much of the work will be done by novices, sobbing from
exhaustion at their desks.
Is it ever acceptable to spy on a presidential campaign ? Is it ever acceptable to leak
classified information to the media as part of a malignant scheme to destroy a candidate's
reputation? Is it ever acceptable to enlist senior-level officials at the FBI, CIA and NSA
to prevent a candidate from being elected ?
No, it's not acceptable. Never.
Sure it is! If you're Anastacio Somoza, and you're running a banana republic which is,
sadly, what we now are.
There's an odd relapse into statist indoctrination in this generally sound argument. The idea
that a rigidly-controlled centralized state party can "enlist senior-level officials at the
FBI, CIA and NSA" is bassackwards. CIA ran this whole show. Not Brennan, CIA the institution.
Gina Haspel was in London marshaling the foreign intelligence cutouts, and now she's DCI. As
for the litany of political interference in the paragraphs, CIA's been doing that for seven
decades now. In this day and age nobody swallows the CIA propaganda "CIA works for the
president." Don Gregg stuck that into the Pike Report after he threatened the committees with
martial law. So let's stop pretending that CIA rule is man bites dog. Your government is CIA.
And outrage over casting a shadow over the 'legitimacy' of government? Pul-leeease.
Legitimacy is a squishy term. Let's stick to the term of art, sovereignty. Sovereignty is
responsibility. One agency, CIA, is chartered with impunity. They do anything they they want
and get away with it. CIA's freedom from responsibility means the USA is not a sovereign
state but a criminal enterprise. Perhaps you want to defend the legitimacy of the criminal
enterprise that's got its hooks in you. Knock yourself out.
This is not to impugn your good faith. We all have to fight our way out of decades of CIA
brainwashing. It's simple. CIA has multiple redundant get-out-of-jail-free cards and secret
books for untrammeled power of the purse. That's the definition of arbitrary rule. The crux
of the matter is CIA runs your country.
Far from mourning its failure to depose Trump, the Deep State is celebrating its own prowess
in leading him by the nose. The Deep State has learned to stop worrying and love the
bombastic orange clown.
If they apologize, it will remove their Russian Trolls decoy, the one placed carefully in the
water to keep the corporate-owned media focused on just this one cluster of minor global
shenanigans, not all of the others, like the Biden's involvement in Ukraine or most of the US
Congress getting rich off of something It's not by building businesses than employ
underemployed US citizens. In addition to their multi six-figure salaries, they're all
getting rich off of placing bets on the rigged stock casino and the global-offshoring /
outsourcing / welfare-rigged-mass-immigration economy.
Lets not pretend Russia-phobia isn't bipartisan. Even Trump went along with it by placing
sanctions on Russia for imaginary "meddling". Making RT register as foreign agent. Its all a
distraction. Might have to actually do some real work if we weren't having this replay of the
red scare. People might start talking about Trumps, as well as most of DC's real owners if
they stop screaming about Putin.
Not everyone went along with it, Tulsi didn't, she even introduced legislation to require
paper ballots in future elections to prevent imaginary "meddling" or hacking, no one in DC is
interested, which either means there is no election meddling, or they don't actually care,
they just wanted to poke at Russia.
Lets not forget that Trump admin also expelled Russian diplomats and closed their
consulate in Seattle over the bogus Skripal attack in Britain.
Trump also launched missiles on Syria over the false flag chemical attack staged by the
White Helmets (ISIS), that Trump admin. is still funding. Further poking at Russia.
But I would argue that the damage caused by the Trump-Russia investigation is even
greater than Cohen describes, mainly because Russiagate has shed light on the cozy
relationship between the Democratic party, the Intelligence Agencies, the FBI and the
media.
nails it. You cannot call this a democracy when a political party, the federal police, the
intelligence agencies and the media all collude to invalidate an election. You can call it a lot of things, but you can't call it democracy.
The Trump-Russia collusion scandal was the Deep State's attempt at a coup. The Mueller
investigation failed to deliver so they now move on to their next coup attempt.
We know that the Left and the Democrats are insincere when they say they are outraged by
Trump colluding with Russia. They aren't. If it is treason to get "dirt" on your political
opponent from Russia then why isn't the Left and Democrats outraged by the DNC, the Clinton
campaign, and Fusion GPS. The Steele dossier which was used to get a FISA warrant to spy on
Carter Page and the Trump campaign came in part from Russian sources. So paid for political
opposition, with Russian sub-sources, was used to go after Trump and interfere in an
election. Yet they aren't the slightest bit bothered by any of this. In the 2018 mid-terms
some 70 percent of Democratic voters, along with a high number of Independents and even
Republicans believed that Trump had colluded with Russia. Yet with so many voters basing
their voting decisions on fake news and misinformation, once again, the Left doesn't seemed
concerned at all.
The Trump-Russia collusion narrative was just a pretext to start an investigation to
hamstring the Trump Presidency. It is the same story all over again. Why did we invade Iraq
in 2003? Was it because of Weapons of Mass Destruction(WMD) and links to Al-Qaeda? No, that
was just the pretext to start the war. The real reasons for the Iraq war and the Russian
Collusion conspiracy can never be stated publically.
The "Democrats" – one half of the corrupt set of American bootlicking politicians
– spent three years screaming and howling and wearing Trump down until now he is
governing just like Hillary Clinton would have. Endless pointless winless wars that serve
only to spread chaos and enrich defense contractors, continuing subsidies of Wall Street, tax
cuts for big time-plutocrats and coming soon nice juicey regressive taxes for you and me!
– and of course, more legal immigration and a government-enabled invasion of our
southern border by central America because the rich like cheap labor.
The "Democrats" do not exist as a coherent ideology, they are a collection of whores who
will do whatever they are paid to do. They have served their purpose in whipping up mindless
hysteria – really, wanting to save trillions by not fighting pointless foreign wars and
spending that on ourselves, that's racism and fascism and Literally Hitler? Really?
So I would say that, operationally, mission accomplished.
CIA ran this whole show. maybe, but I think it was all of the intelligence agencies.. British
M-16, Israeli Mossad, and the Saudi Arabian groups..French, and even the Egyptian.. .. Turkey
too.. they operate the functional parts of government everywhere.
That Müeller found nothing to corroborate collusion is likely the result of NSA
intercepts that would disprove anything his team and the other agencies might fabricate as
proof of the charge. There are a couple serious dividing lines in the national security state
that have made it difficult for the coup conspirators to succeed; what will be interesting is
if they do in fact get away with trying.
The essay's ending – we will: "find out a lot more" "reveal" "throw open the curtain"
"shed light". That's it??? Maybe this a deliberately subtle way of saying: there will be no real consequences; and so
all is lost; banana Republic, soft dictatorship. In fact, if it's merely an opened-up curtain, the result in the MSM will be plaudits for
the actors' patriotism.
The "Democrats" do not exist as a coherent ideology, they are a collection of whores who
will do whatever they are paid to do. They have served their purpose in whipping up
mindless hysteria – really, wanting to save trillions by not fighting pointless
foreign wars and spending that on ourselves, that's racism and fascism and Literally
Hitler? Really?
They think as a group and take their "lifestyle" cues from the likes of Rachel MadCow,
HRC, the Obamas and "their" opinion on foreign policy comes from 3 letter agency people who
"warn" them about treasonous Trump and foreign super villains. They wring their hands and
clutch their pearls over the laws of the land being enforced at the southern border and the
"Muslim ban" but nothing brings out the preemptive smelling salts quicker than Trump's
refusal to adhere to liberal speech codes and middle class fake politeness.
When Trump and his neocon attack dogs threaten war on multiple fronts, drone Muslim
wedding parties and goat herders, aid and abet the KSA and UAE war against Yemen, use
sanctions as a weapon of war against countries that present no threat to America and
prioritize Israel's interests over our own, the liberals breathe a secret sigh of relief and
commend "literally Hitler" for finally acting presidential. All the righteous "concern" about
POC, transfags and other "traditionally" oppressed groups is fake and a way for them to
soothe the cognitive dissonance between their own self-image as "caring" and fair minded
people and the reality that they don't care how many foreigners get killed by DC's foreign
policy or how many of their own countrymen are left to suffer in despair from the fallout of
their livelihoods being offshored.
What they do care about is their own material comfort and the illusion/delusion
that they are good, morally upright people who deserve all the good things life has to offer
because they work hard and are on the "right side of history." They have discovered that
letting Democrat propagandists and liberal celebrities do their thinking for them is a good
way for them to maintain their delusional world view and avoid thinking about the
mind-boggling hypocrisies and double-standards they unquestioningly accept.
Don't get me wrong, there are lots of people on the political right who are just as crazy
(e.g. the dedicated race warriors who take the 'war' part literally) but everyone knows this
and few people take them seriously. It is old news that mainstream Republicans and Democrats
are pretty much in lockstep when it comes to terrible foreign policy the ideological space
between neocons like Bolton and Pompeo and neoliberal Democrats like Clinton and Biden is
slim and right now there is more pushback against them coming from the conservatives
side.
The disconcerting thing about deluded libtards is their unmatched ability to believe their
own bullshit and the global reach this bullshit has via the mainstream media. It is ironic
that the same people who made their "self-identities" as morally pure humanitarians and
protectors of the weak and downtrodden a status marker have turned out to be some of the most
arrogant, vapid and destructive hypocrites around, but it shouldn't be that surprising. In my
experience people who go out of their way to highlight their own do-goodery and moral
superiority sooner or later out themselves as virtue signalling bullshitters and hypocrites
who are just following a trend. If these people had no real influence they would be a minor
annoyance unfortunately they have quite a bit of influence. Not as much as they used to,
hence their panic, but still enough to cause all kinds of trouble.
This Russia collusion scam proved that ... the CIA and the FBI and the Justice dept. are all corrupt as hell and
all of these and more are under zionist control and there is no justice in America, justice
is gone with the wind!
Regarding Cohen's assertion that the MSM was "enticed" into one of the worst journalistic
malpractices of modern times, I am heartily skeptical of the portrayal of the MSM as being
seduced into acting like the whores they are.
You have to love the imaginations of these hoax writers. The CIA doesn't have time on their
various networks and news websites to post any truth. They have so many lies scripted for so
many years in advance the producers would lose it if someone tried to slip in a couple of
minutes of truth.
@C3H8NO5P Agree, see the book The Secret Team, the CIA and its allies in control of
America and the world, by Col. L. Fletcher Prouty, this is the most accurate book ever
written about the chain dogs who guard the world for their zionist masters!
Bill Clinton's telecommunication act of 1996 did a lot of damage. Clinton was a CFR agent for
the parasite.
The fourth estate centralized and came under corporate control after 1996. Those who are
remotely aware know that the press organs are owned by our favorite in-group which has
messianic goals. This in-group, while small in number, has goals amplified by money
power.
The parasite operates on multiple fronts. 1) Own the power to create bank credit as money
2) Collect interest on credit issued 3) Use debt slavery (expanding claims of debts) to make
populations servile 4) Buy out and own the press (see #2) 5) Push a narrative good for your
in-group. (see#4) 6) Messianic religion, where the people become their own god. An Oligarchy
is then sanctioned because after all – we are our own gods.
Meanwhile, false narrative and twisted scripture has created Zionist Christians, who do
the bidding of their masters.
The parasite is an evolutionary construct, with methods honed through the ages. His
weakness is the falsity of his claims, which require a tower of lies to maintain. The other
weakness is money power, which also relies on deception. The founders gave Congress the money
power, hence it was to be under control of the law (and the people), but through deception
the money power transferred to a private money trust in 1913.
A parasite needs fuel from the host, and this fuel is derived as usury from money power.
Funding then allows issuance of narrative and hypnosis (including towering lies) to control
the host.
The construct of secret services being part of control matrix goes back to Bank of England
in 1694 becoming first debt spreading bank, which soon put its population into debts, and
gained control over parliament. British East Indies company had its own mercenary soldiers
and was fore-runner to MI6. In other words, MI6 was patterned on East Indies Company, and MI6
was grandfather to CIA.
It should be no surprise at all that Zionist World Government emanates from London, Wall
Street, and Tel Aviv.
Returning the money power to law, is a simple law change. But, since Congress and
Parliaments are owned, it is an uphill battle.
Say, the Russians and Putin DID mess with our elections.
So, what is the big deal?
We get involved messing with other Nations interior affairs, since the 18th century, if not
earlier.
So, why these "ethical" bastards (dems and some republicans) are crying about?
Plus, WHO holds the license to determine WHO is our friend and WHO is our enemy?
CNN? CNBC? ABC? FOX?
I guess, I 'll come back to the phrase:
It's ALL about Benjamins, baby.
P.S.
And NO:
Hillary and Soros, ARE criminals but The REAL CRIMINALS and TRAITORS of the USA, are Israel
and it supporters.
@Squarebeard Yeah there's totally no race war going on, at all. Only crazy people would
think such a thing. It's not like the entire ruling class is in lockstep regarding laws and
policies that cripple and destroy whites.
They don't allow non whites to attack whites, with little to no accountability, they don't
bring them in by the millions, to swamp whites and "breed us out". They don't churn out
endless anti white propaganda, showing whites as weak, submissive, old, and needing strong
and vibrant non whites to "save" them from their own evil racism. They certainly don't shout
it from their official positions and gloat about how whites are soon to be minorities in
their own lands. They don't push endless race mixing propaganda, that somehow only shows
"white + non white", and rarely ever something like "black + Asian". They don't mock and
belittle whites every chance they get. They don't use "white" as a slur and a synonym for
"uncool, hopeless, nerdy, weak". They don't refuse to allow whites to have racially based
groups and institutions, while actively encouraging non whites to do just that. They don't
give preferential treatment in every walk of life, to non whites at the expense of the better
qualified and more intelligent whites.
They don't institute draconian and repressive "hate crime" laws designed to harshly punish
whites for any "wrong thought" or imagined transgression against a holy and sainted oppressed
non white. They certainly don't let non whites get away with racially targeted attacks
(Rotherham, etc), and force the police to ignore it and prosecute the victims and their
families when they seek justice.
If you don't think there's a race war happening, I can see that. Because really, only one
side is fighting. The other side is too busy pretending it isn't happening, or
enthusiastically groveling at the feet of the non whites, hoping to expiate their evil sin of
whiteness.
Ignoring reality isn't going to spare you from the consequences of ignoring reality. All
you have to do is look around whatever white country you're living in. It's not a secret.
@ABC 123 You got that dead right ABC 123. The evil group in the shadows that really runs
the government is called "the intelligence community." Some community! More like a giant
Mafia.
The CIA needs reform and oversight. It should be divided into pieces that cannot
communicate with each other, but only through oversight that is legally forbidden to ever
become part of or get paid by CIA. I would suggest a section for each continent, or maybe
even each country. Is have these sections in different buildings in different cities in
America.
They should be allowed zero media infiltration in the United States.
If that reform failed, Id build a rival CIA and slowly give it the CIAs current workload,
forcing the current brass into retirement. The new intel agency could be restricted from
hiring any current CIA management, only hiring active spooks.
@mike kThe neoCONs won and have Trump under control and he's hiring Bush-men as fast as
he can. NOTE: Both the new Attorney General and the newly announced Assistant Attorney
General are both Bush-men, and even worse, they're Bush Sr. Bush-men. So it looks like Trump
will run in 2020 as a WAR President, in Venezuela and/or Iran. The Bush/Trump Crime Family
has been born from the ashes of the Bush/Clinton Crime Family.
Thank you for bringing these facts, and the artful assembly of them, to public scrutiny.
The damage the Democrats (and their allies in the FBI and media) have done to the
country is incalculable, but even worse, is the damage they've done to their own party.
We're still discussing these things, and others, on the overall degradation of social
infrastructures, almost as if they are unrelated, but, these breakdowns have startling
similarities, and even superficial inspection suggests a pattern and affiliation between the
key controlling interests.
Is it " The FBI ", or an elite controlling faction, having hijacked the FBI?
Is it " The Democratic Party ", or an elite controlling faction, having hijacked the
Democratic Party?
Regardless, it will be the reputation/credibility of the entire FBI and Democratic Party,
which takes the hit, not the specific agent-provokateurs , in fact, " The Media
", will never get around to figuring it out, and airing them out, let alone, drawing
similarities between these agent-provokateurs and those agent-provokateurs
Oh and BTW, just who, precisely, is " The Media "?
And while the discussion about the " The Democrats " is liberal, the discussion
about " The Republicans Party ", is a bit on the conservative side.
But ultimately, what's the difference? Both these parties are dedicated to the 0.1% socio-economic elite , and their
traditional hanger-ons/henchmen.
In fact, much of the artificial delineations of people, are controlled by the same
people!
They are effectively different " brandings " of bullshit-artistry , to baffle
the minds of the 99%, and the first grift is that there is actually choice
between two meaningfully different options.
Made US tech a liability for everyone outside the US
Failed coup in Venezuela
Moron Whitney seems to think political parties matter. Why do the lower classes think any
difference exists between the scum that rules over them? Only the slow minded see a
difference between the republicans and the democrats. Trump supporters openly want a police
state with a giant military and more and more cops, so the Russian thing was a great
diversion. Obama supporters pretended they don't want the same, but voted for it anyway also
promoting fear, obedience and the Russian thing.
This is a classic case of Betteridge's Law of Headlines: "an adage that states: 'Any headline
that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no.'"
@Peter Akuleyev It's obvious you haven't read the report Peter. Exactly what crimes did
Trump commit.? And don't repeat what every ignorant liberal moron has been chanting for the
last 3 years, "obstruction of justice"
Please note, a crime must be committed before any suspect, victim, witness anyone
obstructs justice also known as obstruction of the investigation of the alleged crime that
may or may not have been committed. The FBI investigated and investigated and investigated
Trump and found nothing to investigate.
Since he was plotting away in New York and the District of Columbia, you might want to
read the pertinent laws regarding obstruction of justice. No crime, no obstruction.
The demo's need to chill like you know man.not going to make 2020 because the carpet is ready
for a woman.madam president erect ek se.soft power.in like a banana out like a pineapple.
They need to go to prison for attempting to undemocratically overturn an election using an
invented narrative.
The press as well as the individuals associated with the special interest groups and
government who were involved in this effort must face severe consequences. We'll be waiting
until that happens, and we will not forget.
That's what they've created with this. A simmering nation awaiting justice.
@renfro So what's your point? The prosecutor "ultimately concludes one isn't guilty of
crime X" actually proves Alden's point: a prosecutor would have to identify "crime X". Since
"crime X" was fabricated, there was nothing to be guilty of, and since Trump knew that, there
could be no obstruction.
As for Mueller's report, it was a political document. All of the hearsay about what Trump
was thinking about means jackshit. Thinking about doing something isn't a crime – yet.
All of the bogus "conspiracy to commit " trials, when no illegal action was taken, are
Stalinist show trials – just like the Democrats and never Trumpers were hoping Mueller
could produce for them.
You can obstruct justice even if a prosecutor ultimately finds you were not guilty of
committing the crime that was the focus of the underlying investigation
Yes, but you still must commit a crime of obstruction. A crime of obstruction would be
something like the destruction subpoenaed evidence; such as taking Bleachbit to your e-mails,
or smashing your smartphones with hammers. However, the firing James Comey is completely
legal and allowed by the Executive. A prosecutor cannot event a crime of obstruction when the
action was perfectly legal. This is in effect what the Democrats and the Left are arguing
for, the invention of new crimes to impeach Trump.
Excellent article. I'm glad I read it.
Secret intelligence gathering agencies with huge budgets "to keep us safe" are a problem.
Always have been, always will be. Trump should be given credit for causing all this to be
brought to light.
The Democrats Just Led the Country on a Three Year-Long Wild Goose Chase. Will They
Apologize?
Of course not. They just go from one lie they're more than happy to believe to another – this time
its "obstruction" and the media will push that lie too
However, the firing James Comey is completely legal and allowed by the Executive. A
prosecutor cannot event a crime of obstruction when the action was perfectly legal
Wrong again ..its obvious none of you know how to find the legal cites on the elements of
obstruction. Whether Trump can 'legally' fire someone or not is immaterial .the court (and the
law) looks at the INTENT behind the act. Period.
You can legally hire or fire your maid but if your motivation -- intention in either
of those acts is to bribe her or threaten her because she knows something about you that
could get you in legal trouble. Then it is obstruction.
"... What he said is, 'I Donald Trump am going to be a champion of the working class I know you are working longer hours for lower wages, seeing your jobs going to China, can't afford childcare, can't afford to send your kids to college. I Donald Trump alone can solve these problems.' What you have is a guy who utilized the media, manipulated the media very well. He is an entertainer, he is a professional at that. But I will tell you that I think there needs to be a profound change in the way the Democratic Party does business. It is not good enough to have a liberal elite. I come from the white working class and I am deeply humiliated that the Democratic Party cannot talk to the people where I came from." ..."
"... when the Clinton team first learned that Wikileaks was going to release damaging Democratic National Party emails in June 2016, they "brought in outside consultants to plot a PR strategy for handling the news of the hack the story would advance a narrative that benefited the Clinton campaign and the Democrats: The Russians were interfering in the US election, presumably to assist Trump." ..."
"... After losing the election, Team Clinton doubled down on this PR strategy. As described in the book Shattered (p. 395) the day after the election campaign managers assembled the communication team "to engineer the case that the election wasn't entirely on the up and up . they went over the script they would pitch to the press and the public. Already, Russian hacking was the centerpiece of the argument." ..."
"... A progressive team produced a very different analysis titled Autopsy: The Democratic Party in Crisis . They did this because "the (Democratic) party's national leadership has shown scant interest in addressing many of the key factors that led to electoral disaster." The report analyzes why the party turnout was less than expected and why traditional Democratic Party supporters are declining. ..."
"... Since the 2016 election there has been little public discussion of the process whereby Hillary Clinton became the Democratic Party nominee. It's apparent she was pre-ordained by the Democratic Party elite. As exposed in the DNC emails, there was bias and violations of the party obligations at the highest levels. On top of that, it should now be clear that the pundits, pollsters and election experts were out of touch, made poor predictions and decisions. ..."
"... The 2016 election is highly relevant today. Already we see the same pattern of establishment bias and "horse race" journalism which focuses on fund-raising, polls and elite-biased "electability" instead of dealing with real issues, who has solutions, who has appeal to which groups. ..."
"... The establishment bias for Biden is matched by the bias against Democratic Party candidates who directly challenge Wall Street and US foreign policy. On Wall Street, that would be Bernie Sanders. On foreign policy, that is Tulsi Gabbard. With a military background Tulsi Gabbard has broad appeal, an inclusive message and a uniquely sharp critique of US "regime change" foreign policy. ..."
"... Blaming an outside power is a good way to prevent self analysis and positive change. It's gone on far too long. ..."
An
honest and accurate analysis of the 2016 election is not just an academic exercise. It is very
relevant to the current election campaign. Yet over the past two years, Russiagate has
dominated media and political debate and largely replaced a serious analysis of the factors
leading to Trump's victory. The public has been flooded with the various elements of the story
that Russia intervened and Trump colluded with them. The latter accusation was negated by the
Mueller Report but elements of the Democratic Party and media refuse to move on. Now it's the
lofty but vague accusations of "obstruction of justice" along with renewed dirt digging. To
some it is a "constitutional crisis", but to many it looks like more partisan fighting.
Russiagate has distracted from pressing issues
Russiagate has distracted attention and energy away from crucial and pressing issues such as
income inequality, the housing and homeless crisis, inadequate healthcare, militarized police,
over-priced college education, impossible student loans and deteriorating infrastructure. The
tax structure was changed to benefit wealthy individuals and corporations with little
opposition. The Trump administration has undermined environmental laws, civil rights, national
parks and women's equality while directing ever
more money to military contractors. Working class Americans are struggling with rising
living costs, low wages, student debt, and racism. They constitute the bulk of the military
which is spread all over the world, sustaining continuing occupations in war zones including
Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and parts of Africa. While all this has been going on, the Democratic
establishment and much of the media have been focused on Russiagate, the Mueller Report, and
related issues.
Immediately after the 2016 Election
In the immediate wake of the 2016 election there was some forthright analysis. Bernie
Sanders
said , "What Trump did very effectively is tap the angst and the anger and the hurt and
pain that millions of working class people are feeling. What he said is, 'I Donald Trump am
going to be a champion of the working class I know you are working longer hours for lower
wages, seeing your jobs going to China, can't afford childcare, can't afford to send your kids
to college. I Donald Trump alone can solve these problems.' What you have is a guy who utilized
the media, manipulated the media very well. He is an entertainer, he is a professional at that.
But I will tell you that I think there needs to be a profound change in the way the Democratic
Party does business. It is not good enough to have a liberal elite. I come from the white
working class and I am deeply humiliated that the Democratic Party cannot talk to the people
where I came from."
Days after the election, the Washington Post published an op-ed titled "
Hillary Clinton Lost. Bernie Sanders could have won. We chose the wrong candidate ." The
author analyzed the results saying , "Donald Trump's stunning victory is less surprising
when we remember a simple fact: Hillary Clinton is a deeply unpopular politician." The
writer analyzed why Sanders would have prevailed against Trump and predicted "there will be
years of recriminations."
Russiagate replaced Recrimination
But instead of analysis, the media and Democrats have emphasized foreign interference. There
is an element of self-interest in this narrative. As reported in "Russian Roulette" (p127),
when the Clinton team first learned that Wikileaks was going to release damaging Democratic
National Party emails in June 2016, they "brought in outside consultants to plot a PR
strategy for handling the news of the hack the story would advance a narrative that benefited
the Clinton campaign and the Democrats: The Russians were interfering in the US election,
presumably to assist Trump."
After losing the election, Team Clinton doubled down on this PR strategy. As described in
the book Shattered (p. 395) the day after the election campaign managers assembled the
communication team "to engineer the case that the election wasn't entirely on the up and up
. they went over the script they would pitch to the press and the public. Already, Russian
hacking was the centerpiece of the argument."
This narrative has been remarkably effective in supplanting critical review of the
election.
One Year After the Election
The Center for American Progress (CAP) was founded by John Podesta and is closely aligned
with the Democratic Party. In November 2017 they produced an analysis titled "
Voter Trends in 2016: A Final Examination ". Interestingly, there is not a single reference
to Russia. Key conclusions are that "it is critical for Democrats to attract more support from
the white non-college-educated voting bloc" and "Democrats must go beyond the 'identity
politics' versus 'economic populism' debate to create a genuine cross-racial, cross-class
coalition " It suggests that Wall Street has the same interests as Main Street and the working
class.
A progressive team produced a very different analysis titled Autopsy: The Democratic Party in
Crisis . They did this because "the (Democratic) party's national leadership has shown scant interest in addressing many of
the key factors that led to electoral disaster." The report analyzes why the party turnout was less than expected and why
traditional Democratic Party supporters are declining. It includes recommendations to end the party's undemocratic
practices, expand voting rights and counter voter suppression. The report contains details and specific recommendations lacking
in the CAP report. It includes an overall analysis which says "The Democratic Party should disentangle itself – ideologically
and financially – from Wall Street, the military-industrial complex and other corporate interests that put profits ahead of
public needs."
Two Years After the Election
In October 2018, the progressive team produced a follow-up report titled "
Autopsy: One Year Later ". It says, "The Democratic Party has implemented modest reforms,
but corporate power continues to dominate the party."
In a recent phone interview, the editor of that report, Norman Solomon, said it appears some
in the Democratic Party establishment would rather lose the next election to Republicans than
give up control of the party.
What really happened in 2016?
Beyond the initial critiques and "Autopsy" research, there has been little discussion,
debate or lessons learned about the 2016 election. Politics has been dominated by
Russiagate.
Why did so many working class voters switch from Obama to Trump? A major reason is because
Hillary Clinton is associated with Wall Street and the economic policies of her husband
President Bill Clinton. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), promoted by Bill
Clinton, resulted in huge decline in manufacturing jobs in
swing states such as Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Of course, this would influence their
thinking and votes. Hillary Clinton's support for the Trans Pacific Partnership was another
indication of her policies.
What about the low turnout from the African American community? Again, the lack of
enthusiasm is rooted in objective reality. Hillary Clinton is associated with "welfare reform"
promoted by her husband. According to this study from
the University of Michigan, "As of the beginning of 2011, about 1.46 million U.S. households
with about 2.8 million children were surviving on $2 or less in income per person per day in a
given month The prevalence of extreme poverty rose sharply between 1996 and 2011. This growth
has been concentrated among those groups that were most affected by the 1996 welfare
reform. "
Over the past several decades there has been a huge increase in prison
incarceration due to increasingly strict punishments and mandatory prison sentences. Since
the poor and working class have been the primary victims of welfare and criminal justice
"reforms" initiated or sustained through the Clinton presidency, it's understandable why they
were not keen on Hillary Clinton. The notion that low turnout was due to African Americans
being unduly influenced by Russian Facebook posts is seen as "bigoted paternalism" by blogger Teodrose
Fikremanian who says, "The corporate recorders at the NY Times would have us believe that
the reason African-Americans did not uniformly vote for Hillary Clinton and the Democrats is
because they were too dimwitted to think for themselves and were subsequently manipulated by
foreign agents. This yellow press drivel is nothing more than propaganda that could have been
written by George Wallace."
How Clinton became the Nominee
Since the 2016 election there has been little public discussion of the process whereby
Hillary Clinton became the Democratic Party nominee. It's apparent she was pre-ordained by the
Democratic Party elite. As exposed in the DNC emails, there was bias and violations of the
party obligations at the highest levels. On top of that, it should now be clear that the
pundits, pollsters and election experts were out of touch, made poor predictions and
decisions.
Bernie Sanders would have been a much stronger candidate. He would have won the same party
loyalists who voted for Clinton. His message attacking Wall Street would have resonated with
significant sections of the working class and poor who were unenthusiastic (to say the least)
about Clinton. An indication is that in critical swing states such as Wisconsin and
Michigan Bernie
Sanders beat Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary race.
Clinton had no response for Trump's attacks on multinational trade agreements and his false
promises of serving the working class. Sanders would have had vastly more appeal to working
class and minorities. His primary campaign showed his huge appeal to youth and third party
voters. In short, it's likely that Sanders would have trounced Trump. Where is the
accountability for how Clinton ended up as the Democratic Party candidate?
The Relevance of 2016 to 2020
The 2016 election is highly relevant today. Already we see the same pattern of establishment
bias and "horse race" journalism which focuses on fund-raising, polls and elite-biased
"electability" instead of dealing with real issues, who has solutions, who has appeal to which
groups.
Mainstream media and pundits are already promoting Joe Biden. Syndicated columnist EJ
Dionne, a Democratic establishment favorite, is indicative. In his article "
Can Biden be the helmsman who gets us past the storm? " Dionne speaks of the "strength he
(Biden) brings" and the "comfort he creates". In the same vein, Andrew Sullivan pushes Biden in
his article "
Why Joe Biden Might be the Best to Beat Trump ". Sullivan thinks that Biden has appeal in
the working class because he joked about claims he is too 'hands on'. But while Biden may be
tight with AFL-CIO leadership, he is closely associated with highly unpopular neoliberal trade
deals which have resulted in manufacturing decline.
The establishment bias for Biden is matched by the bias against Democratic Party candidates
who directly challenge Wall Street and US foreign policy. On Wall Street, that would be Bernie
Sanders. On foreign policy, that is Tulsi Gabbard. With a military background Tulsi Gabbard has
broad appeal, an inclusive message and a uniquely sharp critique of US "regime change" foreign
policy. She calls
out media pundits like Fareed Zakaria for goading Trump to invade Venezuela. In contrast
with Rachel Maddow taunting
John Bolton and Mike Pompeo to be MORE aggressive, Tulsi Gabbard has been
denouncing Trump's collusion with Saudi Arabia and Israel's Netanyahu, saying it's not in
US interests. Gabbard's anti-interventionist anti-occupation perspective has significant
support from US troops. A
recent poll indicates that military families want complete withdrawal from Afghanistan and
Syria. It seems conservatives have become more anti-war than liberals.
This points to another important yet under-discussed lesson from 2016: a factor in Trump's
victory was that he campaigned as an anti-war candidate against the hawkish Hillary Clinton. As
pointed out
here, "Donald Trump won more votes from communities with high military casualties than
from similar communities which suffered fewer casualties."
Russiagate has distracted most Democrats from analyzing how they lost in 2016. It has given
them the dubious belief that it was because of foreign interference. They have failed to
analyze or take stock of the consequences of DNC bias, the preference for Wall Street over
working class concerns, and the failure to challenge the military industrial complex and
foreign policy based on 'regime change' interventions.
There needs to be more analysis and lessons learned from the 2016 election to avoid a repeat
of that disaster. As indicated in the
Autopsy , there needs to be a transparent and fair campaign for nominee based on more than
establishment and Wall Street favoritism. There also needs to be consideration of which
candidates reach beyond the partisan divide and can energize and advance the interests of the
majority of Americans rather than the elite. The most crucial issues and especially US military
and foreign policy need to be seriously debated.
Blaming an outside power is a good way to prevent self analysis and positive change. It's
gone on far too long.
Rick Sterling is an investigative journalist who grew up in Canada but currently lives in
the San Francisco Bay Area of California. He can be reached at [email protected] . Read other articles by Rick .
I found the first of these statements as "chilling" as the second:
"Schumer thus greeted Assange's April 11 arrest by tweeting his "hope [that] he will soon
be held to account for his meddling in our elections on behalf of Putin and the Russian
government," while, in a truly chilling statement, Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West
Virginia declared that "[i]t will be really good to get him back on United States soil [so]
we can get the facts and the truth from him."
Daniel Lazare's recent work on Assange indicated via chronological sequencing it's much
more likely Guccifer 2.0 was the phony he was suspected to be at the time, let alone
Assange's denial it was not the Russians, nor any State operation, plus as we have discussed
pointing toward Seth Rich (an insider-as-leak interpretation subsequently buttressed by
William Binney et al.)
In short, there is and has been ample information to suspend leaping to the hysterical tar
and feather him approach mouthed by Schumer, spittle presumably flying out of his mouth at
the time.
It is disgusting to see supposed leaders in the government advocating guilty until proved
innocent in this lynch-mob manner in a country with supposedly an advanced system of justice.
It reminds me of the Rosenberg case and the McCarthy era and the Salem witch trials before
that.
"The MIC is embedded in our society to such a degree that it cannot be dislodged, and
also that it could be said to be concerned, exclusively, with self-preservation and
expansion, like a giant, malignant virus."
The system has evolved to be very good at defending itself – while leaving the
country, "in reality so poorly defended".
Thanks again CJH for all the chuckles. It is time all 'real' people acknowledged that
The NYT is the " Propagandist of Record ".
Nothing more. And it's been like that for quite a while. While it would be logical to
identify the systemic bend, and blindness that it has, it is probably against the law, like
all discussions about [redacted]
A pattern that has played out consistently for over 2000 years, and can be seen for what
it is in reviewing the Pale (of Settlements) and the conditions for those not included in the
[redacted]. But really, it's beyond the pale, isn't it. People, slowly but surely, are
building immunity to the perception management programs, even with the wildly amplified
volume and frequency , we see the early adapters adapting, and opting for the red
pill .
Just a co-incidence that while the psychotic ' leaders ' of a small colonial '
government ' squatting on expropriated land, committing escalating genocidal programs
against the indigenous population, and actively conflating it with anti-[redacted], while the
co-affiliates resident in the empire's other nation-states keep quiet, there seems to be an
epidemic of anti-[redacted]?!
" It's a trick, and we use it a lot. " he, he, aren't we so clever!
This ruse is coming to an end soon
and all of those people working in the desert somewhere, writing stuff online, are going to
have to get real jobs.
The best sentence was the one expressing the Establishment's collective faux shock that
anything other than Russian spybots could be responsible for the serfs' rejection of the "two
centrist parties" that have sponged up lobbyist money for 3 decades, cashing in on the
globalist-Neoliberal economy, as rents rose and wages fell. The serfs have to love that. How
could they not embrace it? Only spybots beaming up doom-and-gloom messages from halfway
around the globe could persuade the thick-headed serfs that the part-time / churn / gig
economy is anything but nirvana.
"A sacred, national mission," is how Theresa May described the idea and for once, I totally
agree with this tragic, sad woman.
I would take it further: don't just build a holocaust shrine in Westminster, make our
parliament into a Holocaust monument. We don't really need a House of Commons; as things stand,
we better get direct orders from our true rulers in Tel Aviv.
As to their "cleverness", there was a time when UK politicians were known for their
slippery qualities and subtlety, but those days are long gone. What we have now is
barefaced lies, relying purely on repetition and monolithic corporate media ownership. They
are not winning arguments because they are clever, I have never seen such transparently
obvious bullshit before.
'Clever is as clever does' – once said with a snort – is a compliment too far
for the deeply corrupted, vulgar, mediocre nobodies who comprise the self-styled 'elites'. In
this group 'cleverness' simply means the lies they are paid to say repeated loudly and often.
And because they have the reins on power, the non-compliant are punished by thugs.
On a serious note, only a rabid Israel-firster and loyalist to Clintons could ignore the
excellent report of the patriotic Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS); the
report explains why Clinton/DNC emails were never hacked but "leaked."
True to the spirit of the DNC activists, the "progressives" and "liberals" are indifferent to
the death of the young DNC operative Seth Rich.
The centerpiece accusation of Kremlin "interference" in the 2016 presidential election
was the charge that Russia hacked Democratic National Committee emails and gave them to
WikiLeaks to embarrass Secretary Hillary Clinton and help Mr. Trump win.
In 2017, Senate Intelligence Committee Chair asked Comey whether he ever had "access to
the actual hardware that was hacked." Comey answered, "In the case of the DNC we did not
have access to the devices themselves. We got relevant forensic information from a private
party "
we [VIPS] know for sure that the person had to have direct access to the DNC
computers or servers in order to copy the emails. The apparent lack of evidence from the
most likely source, NSA, regarding a hack may help explain the FBI's curious preference for
forensic data from CrowdStrike.
Why the allegedly intelligent A. Schiff has never questioned the conclusions of a private
CrowdStrike led by a Russophobic Jewish emigre from Moscow? For an honest person with a
degree in law, Schiff should have been demanding an FBI investigation of the server in
question. Instead, Adam has been at the forefront of the putsch against POTUS . So
much for the "J.D. from Harvard Law School."
By the way, your attempts to impress the readers with your admiration for Harvard are
funny.
It seems as if British Jewish pressure groups have achieved their goal: anti-Semitism is now
a mass movement in the UK. The rabid Zionist
Algemeiner reports that "Antisemitism and virulent Israel-hatred were rife on Saturday at a
pro-Palestinian demonstration in London."
The Jewish press seems to be upset by a pro-Palestinian march that assembled at the offices
of the BBC, not too far from a synagogue. I guess that the rationale is simple: once London is
dotted with synagogues, human rights enthusiasts will be pushed out of the city. They will have
to gather somewhere out of the green belt.
Jewish outlets complain that participants brandished 'antisemitic badges and placards,' such
as "Israel provokes anti-Semitism." I am puzzled. Is this really an anti-Semitic statement? If
anything, it is an attempt to identify the cause of anti-Semitism.
Jewish outlets are also upset by images of the Star of David crossed with a swastika. To
start with, those who equate Israel with Nazi Germany actually contemplate the memory of the
Holocaust and are by no means 'deniers.' I guess that the time is ripe for Zionists and
supporters of Israel to accept that in consideration of the ongoing Israeli racist crime in
Palestine, the Star of David has become a symbol of evil in the eyes of many.
The Jewish press is upset by the slogan "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free"
that calls for Israel's destruction. I would actually expect Jews who seem to be upset by the
Hitlerian concept of an 'Aryans-only state' to accept that the concept of a 'Jews-only state'
is equally disturbing.' They should support Israel becoming 'a state of its citizens' and
accept that sooner or later this state will evolve into Palestine, from the river to the
sea.
The Jewish press is totally irritated by Jewish Voice for Labour's Secretary Glyn Secker,
who claimed that pro-Israel Labour officials were a "fifth column" in the party and asked,
"What on earth are Jews doing in the gutter with these rats?" I would remind my readers that
Jewish Voice for Labour (JVL) is itself a Jewish racist exclusive
political body that wouldn't accept non-Jews into its ranks. I have wondered more than once how
it is possible that the anti-racist Jeremy Corbyn is willing to be associated with such a body.
However, in his statement (if quoted correctly by the Jewish press), secretary Glyn Secker
actually expresses the most disturbing tribal supremacist view. He looks down at a bunch of
labour MPs whom he labels 'rats' and call for his Jewish brethren to disassociate from these
low creatures. Glyn, in practice, sustains the Jew/Goy binary divide. He should actually
receive the Kosher weekly award rather than be abused by the Zionist league.
But we can be reassured. Campaign Against Antisemitism has already confirmed that they are
"reviewing the evidence that we gathered today. Where crimes have been committed, we will work
with the authorities to ensure that there are arrests and prosecutions."
ORDER IT NOW
The facts on the ground are undeniable. The more Jewish bodies campaign against
anti-Semitism the more opposition to Jewish politics is detected. The relentless Zionist
campaign against Corbyn didn't hurt him, as he is still leading in most
national election polls . Branding Nigel Farage as an
anti-Semite didn't touch the man whose party is
polling higher than the Tories and Labour combined in the coming European Parliament
election. One way to look at it is to argue that Brits are not moved by the Jewish
anti-Semitism hysteria. Another way to look at it is to conclude that Brits are actually
grossly disturbed by the anti-Semitism frenzy. Being hated by the Zionist lobby has become a
badge of honour, an entry ticket to Britain's political premiership.
The facts on the ground are undeniable. The more Jewish bodies campaign against
anti-Semitism the more opposition to Jewish politics is detected. The relentless Zionist
campaign against Corbyn didn't hurt him, as he is still leading in most national election
polls.
In contrast to the 1960's Israel is starting to look unfashionable. Young people feel
embarrassed to be associated with Jewish activism and Zionism.
Being unfashionable is a very serious state of affairs. Many failing businesses will
testify to this. You do all the tried and tested stuff, and it just doesn't work.
@Grace
Poole Why is a Jewish only state disturbing? It is surrounded by 32 Apartheid muslim only
countries.
Could I move to Iran?
If Israel becomes a theocracy not a democracy, who cares. Look at the neighborhood.
If not Jewish only then what a Jihad state like the rest of the Arab world?
Give Israel the razor blade.
All you dog noses who claim the Jews made a banquet from the holocaust. Just look at the meal
the Arabs made from those original 750,000 refugees created by the State of Israel founding
war.
Cry me a river. They have an entire UN agency devoted to their every need, and status to 3rd
and 4th generation children of the originals not living in the country, who have citizenship
else where, How does that add up to the 5 million diaspora pals.
It is all such a game to see Israel go down mostly thru jealously that the Jews came from the
ashes of near by extension to create the best country over there.
I would pay each one of the Pals 2 million to move to Jordan from the West Bank, and Gaza
to the Sinai with joint ownership with Egypt. But that is a good idea and would solve the
problem. No one wants to solve the problem they just want to see the Jews go down. Gilad
licks his lips over it.
@Fran
Taubman "There's always kind of a calming feeling I tell folks when I think of the
Holocaust, and the tragedy of the Holocaust, and the fact that it was my ancestors --
Palestinians -- who lost their land and some lost their lives, their livelihood, their human
dignity, their existence in many ways, have been wiped out, and some people's passports,"
said Tlaib.
"And just all of it was in the name of trying to create a safe haven for Jews, post-the
Holocaust, post-the tragedy and the horrific persecution of Jews across the world at that
time. And I love the fact that it was my ancestors that provided that, right, in many ways.
But they did it in a way that took their human dignity away and it was forced on them."
Because Jews hold the establishment of Israel to be a prerequisite for the destruction of
all other nations in a final world war, which the Jews seem intent on instigating with Islam.
Zohar Shemot 32a.
After which Israel is slated to be the only remaining national power (everyone else being
destroyed).
Do not forget your books. We don't.
Why is a non-Jewish European-only State disturbing to you and other Jews?
You have your own state but refuse the same to others. You are not Europeans (Brits,
Germans, etc) as these were originally ethnic-racial categories before you interfered. Yet
you claim them your yourselves as well, and in doing so deny everyone else an exclusive
identity.
Jews only allow themselves an exclusive identity, because your "god" (the writing of Jews)
only gave Judea a nation. Correct?
Asking moronic questions at this point, which everyone knows the answer to, is insulting.
You people are not innocent, are not dumb, and you know precisely why people are hostile to
your mass genocidal, supremacist tribe.
I would pay each one of the Pals 2 million to move to Jordan from the West Bank, and
Gaza to the Sinai with joint ownership with Egypt. But that is a good idea and would solve
the problem.
At a cost of $9 trillion. Who is going to pay?
Realistically, offer $100,000 per person, or $450 billion total. Double that to include
the diaspora Pals, and close the refugee camps. If the resettlement took place over a decade,
it would cost $90 billion a year, which could come from the US Defense budget. The latter
could be wound down over the same decade, as it would no longer be needed to fight wars on
behalf of Israel. Israel would get land and peace; Palestinians would be well compensated;
and the USA would be relieved of its duty as a Middle-Eastern warmonger. Everybody wins.
What's not to like?
However, to gain approval for the plan in the USA, it would be necessary to show that the
expenditure is both worthwhile and an improvement over the status quo . This would
mean explaining what the status quo actually is; and how and why it has come about.
Unfortunately, this information is so inflammatory that it can never be publicly
discussed.
I don't think this is true. A few years back, Daniel Finkelstein of the (London) Times
characterised British anti-semitism as "background noise".
The pro-Palestinian demonstrations are the "exception that proves the rule". Their support
has two cores: radical Muslims, and political activists on the Left. Neither is a mass
movement.
The British Left tends to support people who have the most "victim points". Rightly or
wrongly, they believe that Palestinians have a lot of victim points and, as the Holocaust
moves from living memory into history, that Israelis and diaspora Jews have very few.
Furthermore, the Left particularly seeks ogres who are white and Western. Paradoxically,
they dislike Israel because Israelis are similar to Britons, not because they are different.
In contrast, massacres by Saddam Hussein, ISIS, or Rwandans never attracted much opprobrium
from the Left. The idea of holding people to a lower moral standard, the less they look or
sound like oneself, is obviously racist; but it is followed by people who genuinely believe
that they are the least racist people on earth.
@nicholas
nicola I hope the collective Ummah looks at:
Somalia
All of Africa
China
Myamar
All of Arabia
Slave labor in Libya
Women's rights in the Islamic world
Genital mutilation
beheadings
The entire muslim population in Israel has quadrupled since 1948. I guess the slaughtering
of Muslims is not going so well.
You are deranged and delusional.
Jews demand their own exclusive state (subsidized by goyim), the privilege to cleanse
their sacred (and expanding) Jews-Only territory of native gentiles, and the right to travel
(and live) among the goyim as they see fit.
And don't you dare complain about these privileges. That's anti-Semitism!
And then there's the matter of speech.
Jews not only enjoy top tier access to the MSM (since they've conspired to buy up most of
it for the undisclosed purpose of advancing pan-Zionist hegemony) but they actively and
openly form teams, lobbies and NGOs to limit the right and opportunity of others to speak
freely and assemble lawfully for the purpose of expressing their own political
grievances.
Resistance and resentment to the entrenched double-standards that favor Jews, and
state-sponsored lawlessness that empowers Israel, is routinely decried as anti-Jewish
'bigotry'. It is also mislabeled as 'anti-Semitism'. This keeps the opposition weak and
off-balance.
How very clever. How very diabolical.
Why not call 'anti-Semitism what it is?
So-called 'anti-Semitism' is simply anti-Jewishness (or counter-Jewisness). It is merely
an attitude.
Depending upon the circumstances, this attitude might be right or it may be wrong. But
'anti-Semitism' is all about Jews, their behavior, and their impact on non-Jews. Why not
focus on this inescapable fact?
And since 'anti-Semitism' is not about 'Semites' at all, the very term itself is something
of a canard.
On the other hand, organized Jewry is truly powerful. Sometimes it does real damage.
Sometimes it does real harm. Sometimes it destroys. Why can't we talk about it openly?
Calling morally-grounded opposition to the real damage and real harm done by Jews
'anti-Semitism' is a calculated libel.
On the other hand, identifying and castigating organized Jewry for its various sins is
vital, courageous, and healthy. So do the right thing.
When I was much younger and in Graduate School I hosted three British students who were on a
summer sabbatical at the medical college I was attending.
There was no particular reason that the Jews in America came up over beers, many beers
(Texans and the British like beer equally well). But they told me that there was and
expression among common British about Jews, and, no it's not that the only good Jew is a dead
Jew.
It was that "antisemitism is when one hates the Jews more than is absolutely
necessary".
"Jewish outlets complain that participants brandished 'antisemitic badges and placards,' such
as "Israel provokes anti-Semitism." I am puzzled. Is this really an anti-Semitic statement?
If anything, it is an attempt to identify the cause of anti-Semitism."
Yep, absolutely true.
It's not their religion about which folks object. It's not their race, if you want to call
it a race.
IT'S THEIR
BEHAVIOR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Wrong. At the time, Haj Amin al-Husseini, the grand mufti of Jerusalem, was a supporter
and ally of Hitler. When the two met, al-Husseini told Hitler that they shared the same
enemies: "the English, the Jews, and the Communists." The two went on to scheme about how
best to set upon and destroy the Jews of the Middle East. What's more, the Arabs regularly
massacred Jews in Mandatory Palestine.
Lies are the lifeblood of anti-Semitism, and there's a purpose to Tlaib's false history.
It serves to bolster the lie that the Jews waged war on a friendly and welcoming people,
stole their land, and condemned them to ruin. Anti-Semitism depends on lies because its
very motive is to hide the truth of one's own failings and lay blame on the Jews. The
history of anti-Semitism is, in a sense, a history of wicked fabrications: From Jewish
deicide, to the blood libel, to the claims of Jewish sorcery, to The Protocols of the
Elders of Zion, to the idea that Jews were tipped off about 9/11, to the claim that Jews
push the U.S. into wars, to the outrage over Jews supposedly buying politicians, to lies
about Israel's founding.
Tlaib and Omar are exemplars of this tradition, peddlers of anti-Semitic folktales. In
addition to spouting revisionist history, Tlaib has accused America's Israel-supporters of
dual loyalty. Omar has done that and more, claiming that Israel has hypnotized the world
into not seeing the evil it perpetrates, and stating that America's pro-Israel policies are
simply purchased by those who support the Jewish state.
It is a very powerful and accurate expression to say that Israel is "unfashionable" –
it is also true that most young people today feel no connection to the holocaust – when
Rashida uses the word "comforting" to refer to her people's sacrifice for the Jews, I feel
that the customary Zionist response to call these expressions "canards" will also be seen as
an unfashionable response. Thank God for brave people like Tlaid and Omar who express
distaste for the unfashionable and vulgar behavior of Israel and Zionists. Omar and Tlaib
have already emboldened millions of others who share their ambivalence and horror, when they
read about the Israel colonist settlers and their brutality to the Palestinians they displace
.
It is surrounded by 32 Apartheid muslim only countries.
Not so. Lebanon, Syria, and even Egypt have Christian minorities that have been protected
over the years. Jordan has a few, but not many. Iraq, prior to Israel's proxy war on Saddam
had plenty of Christians, including Tariq Aziz, one of Saddam's ministers.. Palestine has/had
Christians that were killed by Israelis in the same way Muslims were.
Could I move to Iran?
I don't know, I'm not in charge of the Iranian immigration policy. Why not ask the Jews
who are members of the Majles? You know, the legislative body with seats reserved for Jews
and other minorities.
Like most Zionists, you seem to ignore the part where T.E. Lawrence got the go ahead from
the British government to promise Arabs, which included Palestine, freedom from the Ottomans
and self rule, in exchange for a revolt against them. That promise was never kept. The
philo-Semite mass murderer Churchill is alleged to have organized Lawrence's
assassination. http://www.criminalelement.com/the-murder-of-lawrence-of-arabia-tony-hays/
@FB Yeah brother that
POS was called out during his confirmation hearings during baby bush's presidency. Larry Flint had offered a Million dollars to
anyone who had proof of republican sexual exploits. He was quickly fingered by someone who attended those clubs. He was forced
to accept a temporary position and quietly resigned after a few months so as to avoid facing questions.
Someone said they saw him proposition a teenage girl outside one of the swinger clubs he frequented.
@SeekerofthePresence
Thank you your comment is very much appreciated. But I'm definitely not a spokesman for moral truth, just the truth. I just watch
in amazement from Mexico at what the US government has become. A den of the most vile people ever assembled in the world far worse
than the people that demanded the crucification of Jesus Christ. We just went through a serious political conversion, but the
people had to hit the streets for it to succeed. I just don't think the American people feel they are in a do or die situation,
and they couldn't more wrong.
U.S. Foreign Policy used to have only two instruments in
dealing with rest of the world, namely carrots and sticks. Since the fall of Soviet Union and
certainly after 9/11, only sticks remain. Now the World including the so-called allies are
getting tired of the threats and start ignoring the Empire, hence the diminishing
effectiveness, paving the way for polymorphic World. This transition is fraught with dangers as
pointed out by the Author.
Lovely post by Ret. Col. Douglas Macgregor on the end of empire:
"John Bolton is the problem"
"Trump's national security adviser is getting dangerous particularly to the president's
ideals"
Douglas Macgregor https://spectator.us/john-bolton-problem/
Could also be titled, "How to Exhaust an Empire."
Sun Tzu warned of the same demise in the "Art of War."
Didn't they used to teach that book at West Point?
@El Dato
And also the 90 minute Trump-Putin phone call, where Venezuela was the main subject
From the way I understand Trump's comments afterward, it seems the military option is off
the table the two presidents agreed that humanitarian aid is the priority
This is great news I have to give Trump credit here Justin Raimondo presciently opined a
week ago that Trump may have been giving the 'walrus' just enough rope on Venezuela to hang
himself
I have to wonder what Vlad whispered in carrot top's ear
When we take a close look at the American Government and it's elected officials, we can only
come to one conclusion. The US is a thriving criminal enterprise that uses force to get what
they want. The military's role is that of enforcers and the US President is no different than
a Mafia Don. In no other time in US history has Government and Organized Criminal Gangs been
so indistinguishable. George H.W. Bush with his New World Order announcements, his CIA drug
dealing operations and military invasion of Panama to steal the drug cartel's money deposited
in that county's banks, came close. Bill Clinton working with George H.W. Bush protecting
drug shipments smuggled into Mena, AK, the cover up of murdered witnesses and numerous sexual
assault allegations also came pretty close.
But when George W. Bush, Dick Chaney, Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld came into power,
that was a Mafia if there was ever one. That group of criminals stole more money and murdered
more people than any criminal organization in history. They even conned the American people
into believing some rag-heads in Afghanistan hiding in caves did it. It was the first time
since Pancho Villa that anyone attacked the US on its own soil. Not only did they steal all
the gold stored in bank vaults located in the Twin Towers, but they put money on the stock
market. In true gangster fashion the next move was to retaliate against the Muslim Mafia who
was fingered by Mayer Lanski (Benjamin Nuttenyahoo) and their own paid snitches (MSM). It was
time to hit mattresses and send their enforcers to get payback so the Purple Gang (Israel)
can take over their territory.
There is a big difference between the US Government and the Mafia when it comes to war,
the Mafia adheres to a strict code of ethics, they do not target their enemies families.
In 2016 the American people elected a true gangster from New York city. A known con man, a
swindler, a tax evader and known associate of the criminal underground. A man with numerous
court cases and 23 accusations of sexual assault. A man who was screwing a porn star while
his wife was given birth. A man who's mentor was Roy Cohen a mob attorney and practicing
homosexual who died of AIDS. A man that surrounded himself with the most perverted group of
people in New York such as: Roger Stone a well known swinger and gay pride participant. Paul
Manafort a convicted criminal and swinger who attended the same clubs as Stone along with
their wives. They liked to watch their wives get screwed by other men. Lets not forget John
Bolton who was exposed by Larry Flint for also being a swinger. His ex-wife accused him of
forcing her to perform sex acts with multiple men at the same clubs the other 2 cuckolds
attended. A Russian agent once commented that the best place to find government people to
blackmail was the New York swingers scene.
Jeffery Epstein tops the list of perverted friends of Donald Trump. Epstein is the worst
kind of perverted human being. The predator pedophile that uses his money to lure young girls
into his sick world. Epstein holds the key to uncovering the nation wide pedophile ring that
include some of the most famous people in the US. This is Trump's Mafia, a Mafia not like the
Gambinos or Luchesis. A Mafia full of Perverts, Criminals, Pedophiles and Cuckolds. These are
just a few of the people in Trump's circle of friends. If these are your leaders, what does
that say about the American people!
My dad used to tell me tell me who you hang around with, and I'll tell you who you are!
Every single person in DC government is compromised! And this incompetent Mafia of Perverts
want you to believe that Madurro is a corrupt leader and Iran is a threat to the US!
"... Historians will study this period when there was a convergence in the objectives of the US intelligence agencies, the leaders of the Hillary Clinton wing of the Democratic Party, the majority of Republican politicians and the anti-Trump media. That common objective was stopping any entente between Moscow and Washington. ..."
"... Each group had its own motive. The intelligence community and elements in the Pentagon feared a rapprochement between Trump and Putin would deprive them of a 'presentable' enemy once ISIS's military power was destroyed. The Clinton camp was keen to ascribe an unexpected defeat to a cause other than the candidate and her inept campaign; Moscow's alleged hacking of Democratic Party emails fitted the bill. And the neocons, who 'promoted the Iraq war, detest Putin and consider Israel's security non-negotiable' ( 8 ), hated Trump's neo-isolationist instincts. ..."
"... This is why the Democratic Party data hack, which the US intelligence services allege is the work of the Russians, obsesses the party, and the press. It strikes two targets: delegitimising Trump's election and stopping his promotion of a thaw with Russia. Has Washington's aggrieved reaction to a foreign power's interference in a state's domestic affairs, and its elections, struck no one as odd? Why do just a handful of people point out that, not long ago, Angela Merkel's phone was tapped not by the Kremlin but by the Obama administration? ..."
"... Now the Times is in the vanguard of those preparing psychologically for conflict with Russia. There is almost no remaining resistance to its line. On the right, as the Wall Street Journal called for the US to arm Ukraine on 3 August, Vice-President Mike Pence spoke on a visit to Estonia about 'the spectre of [Russian] aggression', encouraged Georgia to join NATO, and paid tribute to Montenegro, NATO's newest member. ..."
"... At this stage, it doesn't matter any more what Trump thinks. He is no longer able to get his way on the issue. Moscow has noted this and is drawing its own conclusions. ..."
Trump was after a good deal from Russia. A new partnership would have reversed deteriorating relations between the powers by encouraging
their alliance against ISIS and recognising the importance of Ukraine to Russia's security. Current US paranoia about everything
Kremlin-related has encouraged amnesia about what President Barack Obama said in 2016, after the annexation of the Crimea and Russia's
direct intervention in Syria. He too put the danger posed by President Vladimir Putin into perspective: the interventions in Ukraine
and the Middle East were, Obama said, improvised 'in response to a client state that was about to slip out of his grasp' (
5 ).
Obama went on: 'The Russians can't change us or significantly weaken us. They are a smaller country, they are a weaker country,
their economy doesn't produce anything that anybody wants to buy, except oil and gas and arms.' What he feared most about Putin was
the sympathy he inspired in Trump and his supporters: '37% of Republican voters approve of Putin, the former head of the KGB. Ronald
Reagan would roll over in his grave' ( 6 ).
By January 2017, Reagan's eternal rest was no longer threatened. 'Presidents come and go but the policy never changes,' Putin
concluded ( 7 ). Historians will study
this period when there was a convergence in the objectives of the US intelligence agencies, the leaders of the Hillary Clinton wing
of the Democratic Party, the majority of Republican politicians and the anti-Trump media. That common objective was stopping any
entente between Moscow and Washington.
Each group had its own motive. The intelligence community and elements in the Pentagon feared a rapprochement between Trump
and Putin would deprive them of a 'presentable' enemy once ISIS's military power was destroyed. The Clinton camp was keen to ascribe
an unexpected defeat to a cause other than the candidate and her inept campaign; Moscow's alleged hacking of Democratic Party emails
fitted the bill. And the neocons, who 'promoted the Iraq war, detest Putin and consider Israel's security non-negotiable' (
8 ), hated Trump's neo-isolationist instincts.
The media, especially the New York Times and Washington Post, eagerly sought a new Watergate scandal and knew their
middle-class, urban, educated readers loathe Trump for his vulgarity, affection for the far right, violence and lack of culture (
9 ). So they were searching for any information
or rumour that could cause his removal or force a resignation. As in Agatha Christie's Murder on the Orient Express, everyone
had his particular motive for striking the same victim.
The intrigue developed quickly as these four areas have fairly porous boundaries. The understanding between Republican hawks such
as John McCain, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and the military-industrial complex was a given. The architects
of recent US imperial adventures, especially Iraq, had not enjoyed the 2016 campaign or Trump's jibes about their expertise. During
the campaign, some 50 intellectuals and officials announced that, despite being Republicans, they would not support Trump because
he 'would put at risk our country's national security and wellbeing.' Some went so far as to vote for Clinton (
10 ).
Ambitions of a 'deep state'?
The press feared that Trump's incompetence would threaten the US-dominated international order. It had no problem with military
crusades, especially when emblazoned with grand humanitarian, internationalist or progressive principles. According to the press
criteria, Putin and his predilection for rightwing nationalists were obvious culprits. But so were Saudi Arabia or Israel, though
that did not prevent the Saudis being able to count on the ferociously anti-Russian Wall Street Journal, or Israel enjoying
the support of almost all US media, despite having a far-right element in its government.
Just over a week before Trump took office, journalist Glenn Greenwald, who broke the Edward Snowden story that revealed the mass
surveillance programmes run by the National Security Agency, warned of the direction of travel. He observed that the US media had
become the intelligence services' 'most valuable instrument, much of which reflexively reveres, serves, believes, and sides with
hidden intelligence officials.' This at a time when 'Democrats, still reeling from their unexpected and traumatic election loss as
well as a systemic collapse of their party, seemingly divorced further and further from reason with each passing day, are willing
-- eager -- to embrace any claim, cheer any tactic, align with any villain, regardless of how unsupported, tawdry and damaging
those behaviours might be' ( 11 ).
The anti-Russian coalition hadn't then achieved all its objectives, but Greenwald already discerned the ambitions of a 'deep state'.
'There really is, at this point,' he said 'obvious open warfare between this unelected but very powerful faction that resides in
Washington and sees presidents come and go, on the one hand, and the person that the American democracy elected to be the president
on the other.' One suspicion, fed by the intelligence services, galvanised all Trump's enemies: Moscow had compromising secrets about
Trump -- financial, electoral, sexual -- capable of paralysing him should a crisis between the two countries occur (
12 ).
Covert opposition to Trump
The suspicion of such a murky understanding, summed up by the pro-Clinton economist Paul Krugman as a 'Trump-Putin ticket', has
transformed the anti-Russian activity into a domestic political weapon against a president increasingly hated outside the ultraconservative
bloc. It is no longer unusual to hear leftwing activists turn FBI or CIA apologists, since these agencies became a home for a covert
opposition to Trump and the source of many leaks.
This is why the Democratic Party data hack, which the US intelligence services allege is the work of the Russians, obsesses
the party, and the press. It strikes two targets: delegitimising Trump's election and stopping his promotion of a thaw with Russia.
Has Washington's aggrieved reaction to a foreign power's interference in a state's domestic affairs, and its elections, struck no
one as odd? Why do just a handful of people point out that, not long ago, Angela Merkel's phone was tapped not by the Kremlin but
by the Obama administration?
The silence was once broken when the Republican representative for North Carolina, Tom Tillis, questioned former CIA director
James Clapper in January: 'The United States has been involved in one way or another in 81 different elections since World War II.
That doesn't include coups or the regime changes, some tangible evidence where we have tried to affect an outcome to our purpose.
Russia has done it some 36 times.' This perspective rarely disturbs the New York Times 's fulminations against Moscow's trickery.
The Times also failed to inform younger readers that Russia's president Boris Yeltsin, who picked Putin as his successor
in 1999, had been re-elected in 1996, though seriously ill and often drunk, in a fraudulent election conducted with the assistance
of US advisers and the overt support of President Bill Clinton. The Times hailed the result as 'a victory for Russian democracy'
and declared that 'the forces of democracy and reform won a vital but not definitive victory in Russia yesterday For the first time
in history, a free Russia has freely chosen its leader.'
Now the Times is in the vanguard of those preparing psychologically for conflict with Russia. There is almost no remaining
resistance to its line. On the right, as the Wall Street Journal called for the US to arm Ukraine on 3 August, Vice-President
Mike Pence spoke on a visit to Estonia about 'the spectre of [Russian] aggression', encouraged Georgia to join NATO, and paid tribute
to Montenegro, NATO's newest member.
No longer getting his way
But the Times, far from worrying about these provocative gestures coinciding with heightened tensions between great powers
(trade sanctions against Russia, Moscow's expulsion of US diplomats), poured oil on the fire. On 2 August it praised the reaffirmation
of 'America's commitment to defend democratic nations against those countries that would undermine them' and regretted that Mike
Pence's views 'aren't as eagerly embraced and celebrated by the man he works for back in the White House.'
At this stage, it doesn't
matter any more what Trump thinks. He is no longer able to get his way on the issue. Moscow has noted this and is drawing its own
conclusions.
maybe Trump finally has his hands untied to start doing the things he promised
I really hope so .
But I fear he is an unfocused egomaniac, without overarching philosophy or principles,
blown by the winds and susceptible to any path that seems interesting to him at the present
time or that massages his ego.
A couple of years ago I happened to be
reading the World War II memoirs of Sisley Huddleston, an American journalist living in France. Although
long since forgotten, Huddleston had spent decades as one of our most prominent foreign correspondents, and
dozens of his major articles
had appeared in
The Atlantic Monthly
,
The New Republic
,
and
Harpers
, while he had authored some nineteen books. Given such eminence, his personal
relationships reached far into elite circles, with one of his oldest and closest friends being William
Bullitt, the American ambassador to France, who had previously opened our first Soviet embassy under FDR.
Huddleston's credibility seemed
impeccable, which is why I was so shocked at his firsthand account of wartime Vichy, totally contrary to
what I had absorbed from my introductory history textbooks. While I had always had the impression that
Petain's collaborationist regime possessed little legitimacy, this was not at all the case. Near unanimous
majorities of both houses of the duly-elected French parliament had voted the elderly field marshal into
office despite his own deep personal misgivings, regarding him as France's only hope of a unifying national
savior following the country's crushing 1940 defeat at Hitler's hands.
Although Huddleston's sympathies were
hardly with the Germans, he noted the scrupulous correctness they exhibited following their overwhelming
victory, policies that continued throughout the early years of the Occupation. And although he had on a
couple of occasions performed minor services for the nascent Resistance movement, when the 1944 Normandy
landings and the subsequent German withdrawal suddenly opened the doors of power to the anti-Petain forces,
they engaged in an orgy of ideological bloodletting probably without precedent in French history, far
surpassing the infamous Reign of Terror of the French Revolution, with perhaps 100,000 or more civilians
being summarily butchered on the basis of little or no evidence, often just to settle personal scores. Some
of the worst of the bloodshed came at the hands of the Communist exiles of the Spanish Civil War, who had
found shelter in France after their defeat and now eagerly took an opportunity to turn the tables and
massacre the same sort of "bourgeois" class-enemies who had defeated them in that previous conflict just a
few years earlier.
As I sought to weigh Huddleston's
testimony against the traditional narrative of wartime France I had always fully accepted, most of the
factors seemed to point in his favor. After all, his journalistic credentials were impeccable and as a very
well-connected direct observer of the events he reported, his statements surely counted for a great deal.
Meanwhile, it appeared that most of the standard narrative dominating our history books had been constructed
a generation or so later by writers living on the other side of the Atlantic ocean, whose conclusions may
have been substantially influenced by the black-and-white ideological framework that had become rigidly
enshrined at elite American universities.
However, I couldn't help noticing one
huge, gaping flaw in Huddleston's account, an error so serious that it cast grave doubts upon his entire
credibility as a journalist. Towards the beginning of his book, he devotes a page or so to casually
mentioning that in the early months of 1940, the French and British were preparing to launch an attack
against the neutral Soviet Union, using their bases in Syria and Iraq for a strategic bombing offensive
meant to destroy Stalin's Baku oil fields of the Caucasus, one of the world's leading sources of that vital
commodity.
Obviously, all military organizations
produce a wealth of hypothetical contingency plans covering all possible situations and opponents, but
Huddleston had somehow misunderstood such possibilities or rumors as outright fact. According to him, the
Allied bombing of the Soviet Union had been scheduled to begin March 15th, but was initially delayed and
rescheduled for various political reasons. Then a few weeks later, the German panzer divisions swept through
the Ardennes forest, surrounded the French armies, and captured Paris, aborting the planned Allied
bombardment of Russia.
Given that the USSR played the leading
role in Germany's eventual defeat, an early Allied attack upon the Soviet homeland would surely have changed
the outcome of the war. Although Huddleston's bizarre fantasies had somehow gotten the best of him, he was
hardly incorrect in exclaiming "What a narrow escape!"
The notion that the Allies were
preparing to launch a major bombing offensive against the Soviet Union just a few months after the outbreak
of World War II was obviously absurd, so ridiculous a notion that not a hint of that long-debunked rumor had
ever gotten into the standard history texts I had read on the European conflict. But for Huddleston to have
still clung to such nonsensical beliefs even several years after the end of the war raised large questions
about his gullibility or even his sanity. I wondered whether I could trust even a single word he said about
anything else.
However, not long afterward I encountered
quite a surprise in a 2017 article published in
The National Interest
, an eminently respectable
periodical. The short piece carried the descriptive headline
"In the Early Days of World War II, Britain and France Planned to Bomb Russia."
The contents absolutely
flabbergasted me, and with Huddleston's credibility now fully established -- and the credibility of my standard
history textbooks equally demolished -- I went ahead and substantially drew upon his account for my long
article
"American Pravda: Post-War France and Post-War Germany."
I hardly regard myself as a specialist
on the history of World War II, but I initially felt deeply embarrassed to have spent my entire life
completely ignorant of that crucial early turning-point in the huge conflict. However, once I had carefully
read that
National Interest
article, my shame quickly dissipated, for the it was obvious that the
author, Michael Peck, along with his editors and readers had been equally unaware of those long-buried
facts. Indeed, the article had originally run in 2015, but was republished a couple of years later due to
enormous reader demand. As near as I can tell, that single 1100 word essay constituted the first and only
time the momentous events described had received significant public attention in the seventy years since the
end of the war.
Peck's discussion greatly fleshed out
Huddleston's brief, offhand remarks. The French and British high commands had prepared their enormous bomber
offensive,
Operation Pike
, in hopes of destroying Russia's oil resources, and their unmarked
reconnaissance flights had already overflown Baku, photographing the locations of the intended targets. The
Allies were convinced that the best strategy for defeating Germany was to eliminate its sources of oil and
other vital raw materials, and with Russia being Hitler's leading supplier, they decided that destroying the
Soviet oil fields seemed a logical strategy.
However, Peck emphasized the severe
errors in this reasoning. In actual fact, only a small fraction of Hitler's oil came from Russia, so the
true impact of even an entirely successful campaign would have been low. And although the Allied commanders
were convinced that weeks of continuous bombardment -- apparently representing the world's largest
strategic-bombing campaign to that date -- would quickly eliminate all Soviet oil production, later events in
the war suggested that those projections were wildly optimistic, with vastly larger and more powerful aerial
attacks generally inflicting far less permanent destruction than expected. So the damage to the Soviets
would probably not have been great, and the resulting full military alliance between Hitler and Stalin would
surely have reversed the outcome of the war. This was reflected in the original 2015 title of the same
article
"Operation Pike: How a Crazy Plan to Bomb Russia Almost Lost World War II."
But although hindsight allows us to
recognize the disastrous consequences of that ill-fated bombing plan, we should not be overly harsh upon the
political leaders and strategists of the time. Military technology was in tremendous flux, and facts that
seemed obvious by 1943 or 1944 were far less clear at the beginning of the conflict. Based upon their World
War I experience, most analysts believed that neither the Germans nor the Allies had any hope of achieving
an early breakthrough on the Western front, while the Soviets were suspected of being a feeble military
power, perhaps constituting the "soft underbelly" of the German war machine.
Also, some of the most far-reaching
political consequences of an Allied attack upon the Soviet Union would have been totally unknown to the
French and British leaders then considering it. Although they were certainly aware of the powerful Communist
movements in their own countries, all closely aligned with the USSR, only many years later did it become
clear that the top leadership of the Roosevelt Administration was honeycombed by numerous agents fully loyal
to Stalin, with the final proof awaiting the release of the Venona Decrypts in the 1990s. So if the Allied
forces had suddenly gone to war against the Soviets, the total hostility of those influential individuals
would have greatly reduced any future prospects of substantial American military assistance, let alone
eventual intervention in the European conflict.
Thus, if the Germans had for any reason
delayed their 1940 assault on France for a few weeks, the pending Allied attack would have brought the
Soviets into the war on the other side, ensuring their defeat. It seems undeniable that Hitler's fortuitous
action inadvertently saved the Allies from the disastrous consequences of their foolish plans.
Although exploring the dramatic
implications of the 1940 outbreak of an Allied-Soviet war may be an intriguing instance of alternative
history, as an intellectual exercise it has little relevance to our present-day world. Far more important is
what the account reveals about the reliability of the standard historical narrative that most of us have
always accepted as real.
The first matter to explore was whether
the evidence for the planned Allied attack on the Soviets was actually as strong as was suggested by the
National Interest
article. The underlying information came from
Operation Pike
, published in
2000 by Patrick R. Osborn in an academic series entitled
Contributions in Military Studies
, so I
recently ordered the book and read it to evaluate the remarkable claims being made.
Although rather dry, the 300 page
monograph meticulously documents its case, with the overwhelming bulk of the material being drawn from
official archives and other government records. There seems not the slightest doubt about the reality of the
events being described, and the Allied leaders even made extensive diplomatic efforts to enlist Turkey and
Iran in their planned attack against the Soviet Union.
While the primary Allied motive was to
eliminate the flow of necessary raw materials to Germany, there were broader goals as well. Forced
collectivization of Soviet agriculture during the 1930s had led to the widespread slaughter of farm animals,
which were then replaced by tractors requiring gasoline. The Allied leadership believed that if they
succeeded in eliminating the Soviet oil supply, the resulting fuel shortage would lead to a collapse in
agricultural production, probably producing a famine that might sweep the Communist regime from power. The
Allies had always been intensely hostile to the Soviets, and the planned operation was actually named for a
certain Col. Pike, a British officer who had died at Bolshevik hands in the Caucuses during a previous
military intervention twenty years earlier.
This anti-Soviet planning rapidly
accelerated after Stalin's brutal attack upon tiny Finland in late 1939. The unexpectedly fierce Finnish
resistance led the Western powers to expel the USSR from the League of Nations as a blatant aggressor, and
inspired widespread demands for military intervention among both the political elites and the general
public, with serious proposals being considered to send several Allied divisions to Scandinavia to fight the
Russians on behalf of the Finns. Indeed, during much of this period Allied hostility seems to have been far
greater towards the Soviets than towards Germany, despite the nominal state of war against the latter, with
French sentiments being particularly strong. As one British elected official remarked, "One has the
impression that France is at war with Russia and merely on very unfriendly terms with Germany."
The Allies intended to use Polish exile
forces in their ground combat against the Soviets, perhaps even sparking a Polish uprising against the hated
Communist occupiers of their homeland. Osborn notes that if word of this plan had leaked to Stalin, that
might explain why it was at this time that he signed the official orders directing the NKVD to immediately
execute the 15,000 Polish officers and police whom he already held as POWs, an incident eventually known as
the Katyn Forest Massacre, which ranks as one of the world's worst wartime atrocities.
All of these military plans and
internal discussions by the British and French were kept entirely secret at the time, and their archives
remained sealed to historians for many decades. But in the opening of his fascinating account, Osborn
explains that after the victorious German armies moved towards Paris in 1940, the French government
attempted to destroy or evacuate all its secret diplomatic files, and a trainload of this very sensitive
material was captured by German forces 100 miles from Paris, including the complete record of the plans to
attack the USSR. In hopes of scoring an international propaganda coup, Germany soon published these crucial
documents, providing both English translations and facsimile copies of the originals. Although it is unclear
whether these disclosures received any significant Western media coverage at the time, Stalin surely became
aware of this detailed confirmation of the information he had already gotten in bits and pieces from his
network of well-placed Communist spies, and it must have deepened his distrust of the West. The story would
also have quickly become known to all well-informed observers, explaining why Huddleston was so confident in
casually mentioning the planned Allied attack in his 1952 memoirs.
After Hitler's
Barbarossa
invasion of the USSR in June 1941 suddenly brought the Soviets into the war on the Allied side, these
highly-embarrassing facts would have naturally dropped into obscurity. But it seems quite astonishing that
such "politically correct" amnesia became so deeply entrenched within the academic research community that
virtually all traces of the remarkable story disappeared for the six decades that preceded the publication
of Osborn's book. More English-language books may have been published on World War II during those years
than on any other subject, yet it seems possible that those many tens of millions of pages contained not a
single paragraph describing the momentous Allied plans to attack Russia in the early days of the war,
perhaps even leaving Huddleston's brief, offhand remarks in 1952 as the most comprehensive account. Osborn
himself notes the "precious little attention" given this matter by scholars of the Second World War, citing
a 1973 academic journal article as one of the very few notable exceptions. We should be seriously concerned
that events of such monumental importance spent more than two generations almost totally excluded from our
historical records.
ORDER IT NOW
Moreover, even the release of Osborn's
massively-documented academic study in 2000 seems to have been almost completely ignored by World War II
historians. Consider, for example,
Absolute War
published in 2007 by acclaimed military historian
Chris Bellamy, an 800 page work whose glowing cover-blurbs characterize it as the "authoritative" account of
the role of Soviet Russia in the Second World War. The detailed 25 page index contains no listing for "Baku"
and the only glancing reference to the indisputable Allied preparations to attack the USSR in early 1940 is
a single obscure sentence appearing 15 months and 150 pages later in the aftermath of
Barbarossa
:
"But on 23 June the NKGB reported that the Chief of the British Air Staff, Sir Charles Portal, had suggested
cabling the commands in India and the Middle East ordering them to stop planning to bomb the Baku oilfields,
which, it had been feared, might be used to supply the Germans." Osborn's revelations seem to have vanished
without a trace until they were finally noticed and publicized 15 years later in
The National Interest
.
While it is quite easy to understand
why historians avoided the subject for the first couple of decades following the end of the Second World
War, once a generation or two had passed, one might reasonably expect to see some reassertion of scholarly
objectivity.
Operation Pike
was of the greatest possible importance to the course of the war, so
how could it have been almost totally ignored by virtually every writer on the subject? Allied preparations
in early 1940 to unleash the largest strategic bombing offensive in world history against the Soviet Union
hardly seems the sort of boring, obscure detail that would be quickly forgotten.
Even if the first generation of war
chroniclers carefully excluded it from their narratives to avoid ideological embarrassment, they must surely
have been aware of the facts given German publication of the documents. And although their younger
successors had seen no mention of it in the books they studied, one would expect that their mentors had
occasionally whispered to them about some of the "hidden wartime secrets" left out of the standard
narrative. Moreover, Osborn notes that discussion of the facts did very occasionally appear in professional
academic journals, and one might assume that a single such instance would have spread like wildfire within
the entire academic community. Yet even after Osborn's massively documented volume appeared in a respectable
academic series, the silence remained absolutely deafening. The case of
Operation Pike
demonstrates
that we must exercise extreme caution in accepting the accuracy and completeness of what we have been told.
Such conclusions have obvious
consequences. My website tends to attract a large number of commenters, of widely varying quality. One of
them, an immigrant from Soviet Armenia calling himself "Avery" seems quite knowledgeable and level-headed,
though intensely hostile to Turks and Turkey. A couple of years ago, one of my articles on World War II
provoked
an intriguing comment
from him:
During the Battle of Stalingrad,
Turkey, which was officially neutral but was secretly cooperating with Nazi Germany, had assembled a huge
invasion force at the border of USSR (Armenia SSR). If Germans had won at Stalingrad, Turks were going to
invade, race to Baku and link up with the German forces there, coming down from Stalingrad to grab the
oilfields.
When Paulus's army was surrounded and annihilated, Turks quickly left the border for their barracks.
Stalin never forgot the Turk treachery
and never forgave.
When Germany surrendered, Stalin
assembled huge armies in Armenia SSR and Georgia SSR. The plan was to invade and throw the Turks out of
East Turkey/West Armenia.
The detonation of two American atomic
bombs convinced Stalin to stand down. Some believe US detonated the two bombs not to force Japan's
surrender, but as a message to Stalin.
When questioned, he admitted he was
unaware of any reference in a Western source,
but added
:
It was common knowledge in Armenia
SSR, where I am originally from.
WW2 war vets, old timers, discussed it all the time ..seeing more Red Army troops and military hardware
assembling near the borders of Armenia SSR and Georgia SSR than they'd ever seen before. Then, they were
all gone .
Under normal circumstances, weighing the
universal silence of all Western historians against the informal claims of an anonymous commenter who was
relying upon the stories he'd heard from old veterans would hardly be a difficult choice. But I wonder
The official documents discussed by
Osborn demonstrate that the British made considerable efforts to enlist Turkish forces in their planned
attack upon the USSR, with the Turks going back and forth on the matter until Britain finally abandoned the
project following the Fall of France. But if the Turks had strongly considered such a military adventure in
1940, it seems quite plausible that they would have been far more eager to do so 1942, given the huge losses
the Soviets had already suffered at German hands, and with a very formidable German army approaching the
Caucasus.
Soon after the war, Turkey became one of
America's most crucial Cold War allies against the Soviets, given a central role in the establishment of the
Truman Doctrine and the creation of NATO. Any hint that the same Turkish government had come very close to
joining Hitler's Axis and attacking Russia as a Nazi ally just a few years earlier would have been extremely
damaging to US interests. Such facts would have been scrupulously excluded from all our histories of the
war.
Until a couple of weeks ago, I still
probably would have leaned towards favoring the united front of all Western historians against the causal
remarks of a single anonymous commenter on my website. But after reading Osborn's book, I now think the
anonymous commenter is more likely correct. This is a rather sad personal verdict upon the current
credibility of our historical profession.
These important considerations become
particularly relevant when we attempt to understand the circumstances surrounding
Operation Barbarossa
,
Germany's 1941 attack upon the Soviet Union, which constituted the central turning point of the war. Both at
the time and during the half-century which followed, Western historians uniformly claimed that the surprise
assault had caught an overly-trusting Stalin completely unaware, with Hitler's motive being his dream of
creating the huge German land-empire that he had hinted at in the pages of
Mein Kampf
, published
sixteen years earlier.
But in 1990 a former Soviet military
intelligence officer who had defected to the West and was living in Britain dropped a major bombshell.
Writing under the pen-name Viktor Suvorov, he had already published a number of highly-regarded books on the
armed forces of the USSR, but in
Icebreaker
he now claimed that his extensive past research in the
Soviet archives had revealed that by 1941 Stalin had amassed enormous offensive military forces and
positioned them all along the border, preparing to attack and easily overwhelm the greatly outnumbered and
outgunned forces of the
Wehrmacht
, quickly conquering all of Europe.
As I summarized the Suvorov Hypothesis
in
an article
last year:
And so, just as in our traditional
narrative, we see that in the weeks and months leading up to Barbarossa, the most powerful offensive
military force in the history of the world was quietly assembled in secret along the German-Russian
border, preparing for the order that would unleash their surprise attack. The enemy's unprepared airforce
was to be destroyed on the ground in the first days of the battle, and enormous tank columns would begin
deep penetration thrusts, surrounding and trapping the opposing forces, achieving a classic
blitzkrieg
victory, and ensuring the rapid occupation of vast territories. But the forces preparing
this unprecedented war of conquest were Stalin's, and his military juggernaut would surely have seized
all of Europe, probably soon followed by the remainder of the Eurasian landmass.
Then at almost the last moment,
Hitler suddenly realized the strategic trap into which he had fallen, and ordered his heavily outnumbered
and outgunned troops into a desperate surprise attack of their own on the assembling Soviets,
fortuitously catching them at the very point at which their own final preparations for sudden attack had
left them most vulnerable, and thereby snatching a major initial victory from the jaws of certain defeat.
Huge stockpiles of Soviet ammunition and weaponry had been positioned close to the border to supply the
army of invasion into Germany, and these quickly fell into German hands, providing an important addition
to their own woefully inadequate resources.
Although almost totally ignored in the
English-language world, Suvorov's seminal book soon became an unprecedented bestseller in Russia, Germany,
and many other parts of the world, and together with several follow-up volumes, his five million copies in
print established him as the most widely-read military historian in the history of the world. Meanwhile, the
English-language media and academic communities scrupulously maintained their complete blackout of the
ongoing worldwide debate, with no publishing house even willing to produce an English edition of Suvorov's
books until an editor at the prestigious Naval Academy Press finally broke the embargo nearly two decades
later. Such near-total censorship of the massive planned Soviet attack in 1941 seems quite similar to the
near-total censorship of the undeniable reality of the massive planned Allied attack on the Soviets in the
preceding year.
Although the Suvorov Hypothesis has
inspired decades of fierce academic debate and been the subject of international conferences, it has been
scrupulously ignored by our Anglophone authors, who have made no serious attempt to defend their traditional
narrative and refute the vast accumulation of persuasive evidence upon which it is based. This leads me to
believe that Suvorov's analysis is probably correct.
A decade ago, a solitary writer first
drew my attention to Suvorov's ground-breaking research, and as an emigrant Russian Slav living in the West,
he was hardly favorable to the German dictator. But he closed his review with a remarkable statement:
Therefore, if any of us is free to
write, publish, and read this today, it follows that in some not inconsequential part our gratitude for
this must go to Hitler. And if someone wants to arrest me for saying what I have just said, I make no
secret of where I live.
For almost thirty years, our
English-language media has almost entirely suppressed any serious discussion of the Suvorov Hypothesis, and
this is hardly the only important aspect of Soviet history that has remained hidden from public scrutiny.
Indeed, on some crucial matters, the falsehoods and distortions have greatly increased rather than
diminished over the decades. No example is more obvious than in the ongoing attempts to conceal the enormous
role played by Jews in the Bolshevik Revolution and worldwide Communism generally. As
I wrote last year
:
In the early years of the Bolshevik
Revolution, almost no one questioned the overwhelming role of Jews in that event, nor their similar
preponderance in the ultimately unsuccessful Bolshevik takeovers in Hungary and parts of Germany. For
example, former British Minister
Winston Churchill in 1920
denounced the "terrorist Jews" who had seized control of Russia and other
parts of Europe, noting that "the majority of the leading figures are Jews" and stating that "In the
Soviet institutions the predominance of Jews is even more astonishing," while lamenting the horrors these
Jews had inflicted upon the suffering Germans and Hungarians.
Similarly, journalist Robert Wilton,
former Russia correspondent of the
Times of London
, provided a very detailed summary of the
enormous Jewish role in his 1918 book
Russia's Agony
and 1920 book
The Last Days of the
Romanovs
, although one of the most explicit chapters of the latter
was apparently excluded from the English language edition
. Not long afterward, the facts regarding
the enormous financial support provided to the Bolsheviks by international Jewish bankers such as Schiff
and Aschberg were widely reported in the mainstream media.
Jews and Communism were just as
strongly tied together in America, and for years
the largest circulation Communist newspaper in our country was published in Yiddish
. When they were
finally released, the Venona Decrypts demonstrated that even as late as the 1930s and 1940s, a remarkable
fraction of America's Communist spies came from that ethnic background.
A personal anecdote tends to confirm
these dry historical records. During the early 2000s I once had lunch with an elderly and very eminent
computer scientist, with whom I'd become a little friendly. While talking about this and that, he
happened to mention that both his parents had been zealous Communists, and given his obvious Irish name,
I expressed my surprise, saying that I'd thought almost all the Communists of that era were Jewish. He
said that was indeed the case, but although his mother had such an ethnic background, his father did not,
which made him a very rare exception in their political circles. As a consequence, the Party had always
sought to place him in as prominent a public role as possible just to prove that not all Communists were
Jews, and although he obeyed Party discipline, he was always irritated at being used as such a "token."
However, once Communism sharply fell
out of favor in 1950s America, nearly all of the leading "Red Baiters" such as Sen. Joseph McCarthy went
to enormous lengths to obscure the ethnic dimension of the movement they were combatting. Indeed, many
years later
Richard Nixon casually spoke in private
of the difficulty he and other anti-Communist investigators
had faced in trying to focus on Gentile targets since nearly all of the suspected Soviet spies were
Jewish, and when this tape became public, his alleged anti-Semitism provoked a media firestorm even
though his remarks were obviously implying the exact opposite.
This last point is an important one,
since once the historical record has been sufficiently whitewashed or rewritten, any lingering strands of
the original reality that survive are often perceived as bizarre delusions or denounced as "conspiracy
theories." Indeed, even today the ever-amusing pages of Wikipedia provides an entire 3,500 word article
attacking the notion of
"Jewish Bolshevism"
as an "antisemitic canard."
In
a subsequent article
, I summarized several of the numerous sources describing this obvious reality:
Meanwhile, all historians know
perfectly well that the Bolshevik leaders were overwhelmingly Jewish, with three of the five
revolutionaries Lenin named as his plausible successors coming from that background. Although only around
4% of Russia's population was Jewish, a few years ago Vladimir Putin stated that
Jews constituted perhaps 80-85% of the early Soviet government
, an estimate fully consistent with the
contemporaneous claims of
Winston Churchill
,
Times of London
correspondent
Robert Wilton
, and the officers of
Alexander Solzhenitsyn
,
Yuri Slezkine
, and
others
have all painted a very similar picture. And prior to World War II, Jews remained enormously
over-represented in the Communist leadership, especially dominating the Gulag administration and the top
ranks of the dreaded NKVD.
Perhaps the most utterly explosive and
totally suppressed aspect of the close relationship between Jews and Communism regards the claims that Jacob
Schiff and other top international Jewish bankers were among the leading financial backers of the Bolshevik
Revolution. I spent nearly all of my life regarding these vague rumors as such obvious absurdities that they
merely demonstrated the lunatic anti-Semitism infesting the nether-regions of Far Right anti-Communist
movements, thereby fully confirming the theme of Richard Hofstadter's famous book
The Paranoid Style in
American Politics
. Indeed, the Schiff accusations were so totally ridiculous that they were never even
once mentioned in the hundred-odd books on the history of the Bolshevik Revolution and Soviet Communism that
I read during the 1970s and 1980s.
Therefore, it came as an enormous shock
when I discovered that the claims were not only probably correct, but had been almost universally accepted
as true throughout the first half of the twentieth century.
Potent international financial
interests were at work in favour of the immediate recognition of the Bolshevists. Those influences had
been largely responsible for the Anglo-American proposal in January to call Bolshevist representatives to
Paris at the beginning of the Peace Conference -- a proposal which had failed after having been
transformed into a suggestion for a Conference with the Bolshevists at Prinkipo. The well-known American
Jewish banker, Mr. Jacob Schiff, was known to be anxious to secure recognition for the Bolshevists
the prime movers were Jacob Schiff,
Warburg, and other international financiers, who wished above all to bolster up the Jewish Bolshevists in
order to secure a field for German and Jewish exploitation of Russia.
Schiff's own family later confirmed this
widely-accepted history. The February 3, 1949
Knickerbocker
column of the
New York
Journal-American
, then one of the city's leading newspapers, reported the account: "Today it is
estimated by Jacob's grandson, John Schiff, that the old man sank about 20,000,000 dollars for the final
triumph of Bolshevism in Russia." The present-day value of the figure quoted is probably some $2 billion, a
very substantial sum.
Despite this enormous volume of
convincing evidence, for the next half-century or more, Schiff's name almost entirely vanished from all
mainstream texts on Soviet Communism. As
I wrote
last year:
ORDER IT NOW
In 1999, Harvard University
published the English edition of
The Black Book of Communism
, whose six co-authors devoted 850
pages to documenting the horrors inflicted upon the world by that defunct system, which had produced a
total death toll they reckoned at 100 million. I have never read that book and I have often heard that
the alleged body-count has been widely disputed. But for me the most remarkable detail is that when I
examine the 35 page index, I see a vast profusion of entries for totally obscure individuals whose names
are surely unknown to all but the most erudite specialist. But there is no entry for Jacob Schiff, the
world-famous Jewish banker who apparently financed the creation of the whole system in the first place.
Nor one for Olaf Aschberg, the powerful Jewish banker in Sweden,
who played such an important role
in providing the Bolsheviks a financial life-line during the early
years of their threatened regime, and even founded
the first Soviet international bank
.
Perhaps the extreme caution and timorous
silence exhibited by nearly all Western historians on these sensitive elements of World War II and the
Bolshevik Revolution should not entirely surprise us given the professional and personal risks they might
face if they strayed from orthodoxy.
Consider the very telling example of
David Irving. During the first half of his professional career, his string of widely-translated best-sellers
and his millions of books in print probably established him as the most internationally successful British
historian of the last one hundred years, with his remarkable archival research frequently revolutionizing
our understanding of the European conflict and the political forces behind it. But as he repeatedly
demonstrated his lack of regard for official orthodoxy, he attracted many powerful enemies, who eventually
ruined his reputation, drove him into personal bankruptcy, and even arranged his imprisonment. Over the last
quarter-century, he has increasingly become an un-person, with
the few occasional mentions of his name in the media
invoked in the same talismanic manner as references
to Lucifer or Beelzebub.
If a historian of such towering stature
and success could be brought so low, what ordinary academic scholar would dare risk a similar fate? Voltaire
famously observed that shooting an admiral every now and then is an excellent way to encourage the others.
The destruction of Irving's stellar
career came at the hands of Jewish activists, who were outraged at his balanced treatment of Hitler and his
ongoing commitment to investigating many of the widely-accepted wartime myths, which he hoped to replace
with what he called "real history."
In the introduction
to his new edition of
Hitler's War
, he recounts how a journalist for
Time
magazine was having dinner with him in New York in 1988 and remarked "Before coming over I read
the clippings files on you. Until
Hitler's War
you couldn't put a foot wrong, you were the darling of
the media; after it, they heaped slime on you."
As Irving was certainly aware, the
unreasonably harsh vilification of enemy leaders during wartime is hardly an uncommon occurrence. Although
it has largely been forgotten today, during much of the First World War and for years afterward, Germany's
reigning monarch, Kaiser Wilhelm, was widely portrayed in the Allied countries as a bloodthirsty monster,
one of the most evil men who had ever lived. This vilification came despite Wilhelm having been the beloved
eldest grandchild of Britain's own Queen Victoria, who according to some accounts died in his arms.
Moreover, although Allied propaganda
routinely portrayed Wilhelm as a relentless warmonger, he had actually avoided involving Germany in a single
major military conflict during the first twenty-five years of his reign, while most of the other leading
world powers had fought one or more wars during that same period. Indeed,
I recently discovered
that only a year before the Guns of August began firing,
The New York Times
had published a lengthy profile marking the first quarter-century of his reign and lauded him as one of the
world's foremost peacemakers:
Now he is acclaimed everywhere as
the greatest factor for peace that our time can show. It was he, we hear, who again and again threw the
weight of his dominating personality, backed by the greatest military organisation in the world – an
organisation built up by himself – into the balance for peace wherever war clouds gathered over Europe.
'('William II, King of Prussia and German Emperor, Kaiser 25 years a ruler, hailed as chief peacemaker,'
New York Times
, 8 June, 1913)
That brief excerpt from the
Times
encomium points to another matter than I have never seen mentioned. I devoted much of the 2000s to
digitizing and making available the complete archives of hundreds of America's leading publications of the
last 150 years, and when I occasionally glanced at the contents, I gradually noticed something odd. Although
the English-language world today invariably refers to Germany's wartime ruler as "Kaiser Wilhelm," that was
only rarely the case prior to the outbreak of war, when he was generally known as "Emperor William." The
latter nomenclature is hardly surprising since we always speak of "Frederick the Great" rather than
"Friedrich der Grosse."
But it is obviously much easier to
mobilize millions of citizens to die in muddy trenches to defeat a monstrously alien "Kaiser" than "Good
Emperor William," first cousin to the British and Russian monarchs. The NGram viewer in Google Books
shows the timing of the change quite clearly
, with the Anglophone practice shifting as Britain became
increasingly hostile toward Germany, especially after the outbreak of war. But "Emperor William" was only
permanently eclipsed by "Kaiser Wilhelm" after Germany once again became a likely enemy in the years
immediately preceding World War II.
Actual publications of the period also
reveal numerous discordant facts about the First World War, matters certainly known to academic specialists
but which rarely receive much coverage in our standard textbooks, being relegated to a casual sentence or
two if even that. For example, despite its considerable military successes, Germany launched
a major peace effort
in late 1916 to end the stalemated war by
negotiations
and thereby avert oceans of additional bloodshed. However, this proposal was fiercely
rejected by the Allied powers and their advocates
in the pages of the world's leading periodicals
since they remained firmly committed to an ultimate
military victory.
War fever was certainly still very
strong that same year in Britain, the leading Allied power. When prominent peace-advocates such as Bertrand
Russell and Lord Loreborn urged a negotiated end to the fighting, and were strongly backed by the editor of
the influential London
Economist
, they were harshly vilified and the latter was forced to resign
his position. E.D. Morel, another committed peace advocate, was imprisoned for his activism under such harsh
conditions that it permanently broke his health and led to his death at age 51 a few years after his
release.
As an excellent antidote to our severely
distorted understanding of both wartime sentiments and the domestic European politics that had produced the
conflict, I would strongly recommend the text of
Present Day Europe
by Lothrop Stoddard, then one of America's most influential public
intellectuals. Written prior to America's own entry into the conflict, the work provides the sort of
remarkable scholarly detachment which would soon became almost impossible.
Although the demonic portrayal of the
German Kaiser was already being replaced by a more balanced treatment within a few years of the Armistice
and had disappeared after a generation, no such similar process has occurred in the case of his World War II
successor. Indeed, Adolf Hitler and the Nazis seem to loom far larger in our cultural and ideological
landscape today than they even did in the immediate aftermath of the war, with their visibility growing even
as they become more distant in time, a strange violation of the normal laws of perspective. I suspect that
the casual dinner-table conversations on World War II issues that I used to enjoy with my Harvard College
classmates during the early 1980s would be completely impossible today.
To some extent, the transformation of
"the Good War" into a secular religion, with its designated monsters and martyrs may be analogous to what
occurred during the final decay of the Soviet Union, when the obvious failure of its economic system forced
the government to increasingly turn to endless celebrations of its victory in the Great Patriotic War as the
primary source of its legitimacy. The real wages of ordinary American workers have been
stagnant for fifty years
and most adults
have less than $500 in available savings
, so this widespread impoverishment may be forcing our own
leaders into adopting a similar strategy.
But I think that a far greater factor
has been the astonishing growth of Jewish power in America, which was already quite substantial even four or
five decades ago but has now become absolutely overwhelming, whether in foreign policy, finance, or the
media, with our 2% minority exercising unprecedented control over most aspects of our society and political
system. Only a fraction of American Jews hold traditional religious beliefs, so the twin worship of the
State of Israel and the Holocaust has served to fill that void, with the individuals and events of World War
II constituting many of the central elements of the
mythos
that serves to unify the Jewish
community. And as an obvious consequence, no historical figure ranks higher in the demonology of this
secular religion than the storied Fuhrer and his Nazi regime.
However, beliefs based upon religious
dogma often sharply diverge from empirical reality. Pagan Druids may worship a particular sacred oak tree
and claim that it contains the soul of their tutelary dryad; but if an arborist taps the tree, its sap may
seem like that of any other.
Our current official doctrine portrays
Adolf Hitler's Nazi Germany as one of the cruelest and most relentlessly aggressive regimes in the history
of the world, but at the time these salient facts apparently escaped the leaders of the nations with which
it was at war.
Operation Pike
provides an enormous wealth of archival material regarding the secret
internal discussions of the British and French governmental and military leadership, and all of it tends to
suggest that they regarded their German adversary as a perfectly normal country, and perhaps occasionally
regretted that they had somehow gotten themselves involved a major war over what amounted to a small Polish
border dispute.
Although our standard histories would
never admit this, the actual path toward war appears to have been quite different than most Americans
believe. Extensive documentary evidence from knowledgeable Polish, American, and British officials
demonstrates that
pressure from Washington
was the key factor behind the outbreak of the European conflict. Indeed,
leading American journalists and public intellectuals of the day such as John T. Flynn and Harry Elmer
Barnes had publicly
declared
that they feared Franklin Roosevelt was seeking to foment a major European war in hopes that it
would rescue him from the apparent economic failure of his New Deal reforms and perhaps even provide him an
excuse to run for an unprecedented third term. Since this is exactly what ultimately transpired, such
accusations would hardly seem totally unreasonable.
And in an ironic contrast with FDR's
domestic failures, Hitler's own economic successes had been enormous, a striking comparison since the two
leaders had come to power within a few weeks of each other in early 1933. As iconoclastic leftist Alexander
Cockburn
once noted
in a 2004
Counterpunch
column:
When [Hitler] came to power in 1933
unemployment stood at 40 per cent. Economic recovery came without the stimulus of arms spending There
were vast public works such as the autobahns. He paid little attention to the deficit or to the protests
of the bankers about his policies. Interest rates were kept low and though wages were pegged, family
income increased by reason of full employment. By 1936 unemployment had sunk to one per cent. German
military spending remained low until 1939.
Not just Bush but Howard Dean and the
Democrats could learn a few lessons in economic policy from that early, Keynesian Hitler.
By resurrecting a prosperous Germany
while nearly all other countries remained mired in the worldwide Great Depression, Hitler drew glowing
accolades from individuals all across the ideological spectrum. After an extended 1936 visit, David Lloyd
George, Britain's former wartime prime minister,
fulsomely praised the chancellor
as "the George Washington of Germany," a national hero of the greatest
stature. Over the years, I've seen plausible claims here and there that during the 1930s Hitler was widely
acknowledged as the world's most popular and successful national leader, and the fact that he was selected
as
Time Magazine'
s Man of the Year for 1938 tends to support this belief.
Only International Jewry had remained
intensely hostile to Hitler, outraged over his successful efforts to dislodge Germany's 1% Jewish population
from the stranglehold they had gained over German media and finance, and instead run the country in the best
interests of the 99% German majority. A striking recent parallel has been the enormous hostility that
Vladimir Putin incurred after he ousted the handful of Jewish Oligarchs who had seized control of Russian
society and impoverished the bulk of the population. Putin has attempted to mitigate this difficulty by
allying himself with certain Jewish elements, and Hitler seems to have done the same by endorsing
the Nazi-Zionist economic partnership
, which lay the basis for the creation of the State of Israel and
thereby brought on board the small, but growing Jewish Zionist faction.
In the wake of the 9/11 Attacks, the
Jewish Neocons stampeded America towards the disastrous Iraq War and the resulting destruction of the Middle
East, with the talking heads on our television sets endlessly claiming that "Saddam Hussein is another
Hitler." Since then, we have regularly heard the same tag-line repeated in various modified versions, being
told that "Muammar Gaddafi is another Hitler" or "Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is another Hitler" or "Vladimir Putin
is another Hitler" or even "Hugo Chavez is another Hitler." For the last couple of years, our American media
has been relentlessly filled with the claim that "Donald Trump is another Hitler."
During the early 2000s, I obviously
recognized that Iraq's ruler was a harsh tyrant, but snickered at the absurd media propaganda, knowing
perfectly well that Saddam Hussein was no Adolf Hitler. But with the steady growth of the Internet and the
availability of the millions of pages of periodicals provided by my digitization project, I've been quite
surprised to gradually also discover that Adolf Hitler was no Adolf Hitler.
It might not be entirely correct to
claim that the story of World War II was that Franklin Roosevelt sought to escape his domestic difficulties
by orchestrating a major European war against the prosperous, peace-loving Nazi Germany of Adolf Hitler. But
I do think that picture is probably somewhat closer to the actual historical reality than the inverted image
more commonly found in our textbooks.
It might well be that Trump treatment of 9/11 as unsolved investigation was one of the red flag for establishment
(and personally Brennan) which led to launching of Russiagate.
Notable quotes:
"... But why was Brennan so anti-Syria and anti-Ukraine? What personal motives did he have? ..."
"... Can someone please explain what it was about Donald Trump at the time that this all began, that Brennan would set all of this in motion? ..."
"... For one thing, Trump, early in his campaign stated that he had suspicions regarding official explanations of 9/11. ..."
But why was Brennan so anti-Syria and anti-Ukraine? What personal motives did he have? Why
target two regimes esp hated by Jews?
It seems he's like McCain. A mean nasty son of a bitch who likes to play world politics.
It's his bullying nature. But he has no vision or compass. Like a dog, he will hunt and maul
anything that is approved by the Power. And that Power is Jewish.
Dogs love to hunt but only get to hunt what the master orders it to. If the master orders
the dog to love rabbits and hunt raccoon, it will do just that. If the master orders it to
love raccoon and hunt rabbits, it will do that. In the end, the dog doesn't care what it
hunts as long as it's given a chance to hunt something.
Same with these goy cuck dogs. Their lives feel fulfilled only in Big Power bully mode.
They need to beat up on something. But they have no vision or compass, no agency. They look
over their shoulders to the Power to tell them what to love(Israel and Saudis) and what to
hate(Iran and Syria and Russia).
Dogs growl at dogs, not at their masters. When Trump came around, Brennan didn't see him
as the new master but as a bad dog(or even wolf) displeasing his master, the Jews. Like
McCain, a very loyal dog. Also, a dog feels jealousy that the master may take to a new dog
over him.
I have to think that the pyramid goes higher still Brennan working for Hillary and Hillary
working for the combined plutocratic imperialist elite that make up the core of the Clinton
Foundation's billions these scumbags will never be touched for buying Killary, but maybe
Killary will end up in an orange jumpsuit, right beside her gopher Brennan
And maybe Trump finally has his hands untied to start doing the things he promised time
will tell
But evidence of wrongdoing is not proof that Comey was the ringleader, he was just the
hapless sad sack who was left holding the bag. The truth is, Comey was just a reluctant
follower. The real architect of the Trump-Russia treachery was the boss-man at the nation's
premier intelligence agency, the CIA.
suspect you are correct
Brennan seems like the real evil, Comey just a doofus
@R Boyd
"Can someone please explain what it was about Donald Trump at the time that this all began,
that Brennan would set all of this in motion?"
He was not truly compromised thus controlled by the spooks. So they were trying to achieve
that, and it appears based on Trump's behavior, that they did achieve that
@FB Trump
is totally responsible for the assault on Venezuela. Trump hired these thugs, Trump agreed to
the strategy, Trump gives the command. Trump is a f ING disaster, a thug and a Mafia scubag.
@Z-man Lets
make it clear. Wars are also existential mater for US generals. As a mater of fact for all
generals around the world. Generals simply love wars.
"The agents and officials who conducted this seditious attack on the presidency never thought
they'd be held accountable for their crimes. But they were wrong, and now their day of
reckoning is fast approaching. The main players in this palace coup are about to be exposed,
criminally charged and prosecuted. Some of them will probably wind up in jail."
I would really like to believe that this will happen, but the Big Kuhunas behind this, the
Clintons and Obama, who pulled the strings of the stooges like Brennan and Comey, are
completely untouchable. They own the media, the entertainment industry, the education
establishment, much of our legal-judicial system, not to mention, currently, the House of
Representatives. All of theses would align in hysterical opposition to any attempt to hold
any of these people accountable and tamp down any public suppo0rt for such an heroic
undertaking.
In this case he looks like Bill Clinton impersonalization ;-) That's probably how Adelson controls Bolton ;-)
Notable quotes:
"... Larry Flint had offered a Million dollars to anyone who had proof of republican sexual exploits. He was quickly fingered by someone who attended those clubs. He was forced to accept a temporary position and quietly resigned after a few months so as to avoid facing questions. ..."
@FB Yeah brother,
that POS was called out during his confirmation hearings during baby Bush's presidency. Larry Flint had offered a Million
dollars to anyone who had proof of republican sexual exploits. He was quickly fingered by someone who attended those clubs. He
was forced to accept a temporary position and quietly resigned after a few months so as to avoid facing questions.
Someone said they saw him proposition a teenage girl outside one of the swinger clubs he frequented.
It is all really simple: if the Ukrainians will give passports to Russian citizens, and
we in Russia will be handing out passports to the Ukrainians, then sooner or later will will
reach the expected result: everybody will have the same citizenship. This is something which
we have to welcome.
Vladimir Putin
It appears that the Kremlin is very slowly changing its approach to the Ukrainian issue and
is now relying more on unilateral actions. The first two measures taken by the Russians are
maybe not "too little too late", but certainly "just the bare minimum and at that, rather
late". Still, I can only salute the Kremlin's newly found determination. Specifically, the
Kremlin has banned the export of energy products to the Ukraine (special exemptions can still
be granted on a case by case basis) and the Russians have decided to distribute Russian
passports to the people of Novorussia. Good.
Zelenskii's reaction to this decision came as the first clear sign that the poor man has no
idea what he is doing and no plan as to how to deal with the Russians. He decided to crack a
joke, (which he is reportedly good at), and declare that the Ukrainian passport was much better
than the Russian one and that the Ukraine will start delivering Ukrainian passports to Russian
citizens. Putin immediately replied with one of his typical comebacks declaring that he
supports Zelenskii and that he looks forward to the day when Russians and Ukrainians will have
the same citizenship again. Zelenskii had nothing to say to that :-)
Zelenskii finally finds something common to Russia and the Ukraine
I have been thinking long about this "a lot in common" between Ukraine and Russia. The
reality is that today, after the annexation of the Crimea and the aggression in the Donbas,
of the "common" things we have only one thing left – this is the state border. And
control of every inch on the Ukrainian side, must be returned by Russia. Only then will we be
able to continue the search for [things in] "common"
Vladimir Zelenskii
Well, almost. He did eventually make a Facebook post in which he declared that all that
Russia and the Ukraine had in common was a border. This instantly made him the object of jokes
and memes, since all Russians or Ukrainians know that Russia and the Ukraine have many old
bonds which even 5 years of a vicious civil war and 5 years of hysterically anti-Russian
propaganda could not sever. They range from having close relatives in the other country, to
numerous trade and commercial transactions, to a common language. The closest thing to a real
Ukrainian language would be the Surzhik which is roughly 50/50 in terms of vocabulary and whose
pronunciation is closer to the south Russian one than to the Zapadenskii regional dialect
spoken in the western Ukraine and which is used (and currently imposed) by the Ukronazi junta
in Kiev.
In this case he looks like Bill Clinton impersonalization ;-) That's probably how Adelson controls Bolton ;-)
Notable quotes:
"... Larry Flint had offered a Million dollars to anyone who had proof of republican sexual exploits. He was quickly fingered by someone who attended those clubs. He was forced to accept a temporary position and quietly resigned after a few months so as to avoid facing questions. ..."
@FB Yeah brother,
that POS was called out during his confirmation hearings during baby Bush's presidency. Larry Flint had offered a Million
dollars to anyone who had proof of republican sexual exploits. He was quickly fingered by someone who attended those clubs. He
was forced to accept a temporary position and quietly resigned after a few months so as to avoid facing questions.
Someone said they saw him proposition a teenage girl outside one of the swinger clubs he frequented.
This was clearly an attempt to entrap Trump in connections to Russia and fuel anti-Russian hysteria and defense spending. Both goals
were accomplished under Trump without much resistance. Still Russiagate persists. Why?
Notable quotes:
"... 05/03/16 Email from DNC contractor Ali Chalupa states she connected Michael Isikoff of Yahoo News "to the Ukrainians" DNC https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/3962 ..."
"... 05/15/16 Crowdstrike claims it investigated DNC hacking and that Russians were responsible; FBI still denied access to server to confirm Crowdstrike https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-national-committee/ ..."
03/06/16 Former Hillary State Dept. representative George Papadopoulos learns he will join Trump campaign as a low-level
foreign policy adviser DOJ
https://www.justice.gov/file/1007346/download
"... In both cases # Assange had announced the release before allegedly getting material from # Guccifer2 (aka GRU). There might be other sources other than # G2 . # MuellerReport pic.twitter.com/bPN7NHpM9N ..."
"... Good Lord, @ Birgittaj , not you as well? That timeline is rubbish. Ask yourself, how could # Assange tell UK TV on 12 June # WikiLeaks already had possession of # DNCLeaks if # Mueller says "source" # Guccifer2 didn't send anything to WL until 14 July? http://www. itv.com/news/update/20 16-06-12/assange-on-peston-on-sunday-more-clinton-leaks-to-come/ # SaySorry pic.twitter.com/B0WRAjv15G ..."
"... LINDSEY GRAHAM FORGOT TO MENTION THAT SPEAKER PAUL RYAN SHUT DOWN # HouseIntelInvestigations into # Awan # Guccifer2 and # ClintonEmails . ..."
"... Always assumed that # Guccifer2 was either a DNC construction (as it was so badly done) or a NSA construction ..."
"... Says VIPs analyzed the @ wikileaks docs; via metadata discovered it had to be a thumb drive download. 2 years ago VIPs said # Guccifer2 docs had that character. ? Mr. President -- Listen to Bill Binney. Russiagate is a Worse Hoax than You Thought https:// youtu.be/-9TyASfZV0c # RussiaGate ..."
In April 2016, the #GRU hacked into the computers
of the @DCCC &
@DNC & stole 100s of
1000s of docs. In mid-June 2016 the GRU began disseminating stolen materials through the
fictitious online personas " #DCLeaks " and " #Guccifer2
.0." and then through @WikiLeaks . - #MuellerReport
This is an interesting thread. Also note that Mueller has already released portions of
logs of communications between #WikiLeaks and #Guccifer2
, a contact first reported by @KevinCollier using logs I provided.
pic.twitter.com/lVjeq9nTA2
4:04 PM - 4 May 2019
The @DNC , etc docs
that #Guccifer2 .0 provided to @wikileaks prove that Hillary promoted
Trump because she thought she could beat him (mistake) and the @DNC rigged the primary so Hillary would win the
nomination (mistake). All of this is talked about in the #MuellerReport .
Michael Holloway - Schroedinger's Cyclist 12:25 PM - 13 Mar 2019
Always assumed that #Guccifer2 was either a
DNC construction (as it was so badly done) or a NSA construction (or 2 working together); in
both cases designed to implicate Russia in a DNC 'hack' ...while @CraigMurrayOrg has stated he
received the DNC files in Wash DC from a leaker.
Michael Holloway - Schroedinger's Cyclist 12:17 PM - 13 Mar 2019
Says VIPs analyzed the @wikileaks docs; via metadata discovered it had to be a thumb drive download. 2
years ago VIPs said #Guccifer2 docs had that
character. ? Mr. President -- Listen to Bill Binney. Russiagate is a Worse Hoax than You
Thought https:// youtu.be/-9TyASfZV0c#RussiaGate
Did you read any of the dos that were leaked by #Guccifer2 .0, #DCLeaks , or
@Wikeleaks ? If
not, let me hip you to something. Corrupt Dems in the @DCCC and the @DNC , as well as crooked @HillaryClinton , are the main
reasons Trump is in the White House. Dems blew it. Face the truth.
#BlackWomenForBernie2020 3:17 PM - 14 Mar 2019
*cough* Former Speaker Paul Ryan closed down HOUSE INTEL INVESTIGATIONS. Including
#AWAN
and #GUCCIFER2
"... Chalupa's meetings with DNC and Ukrainian officials would continue. On April 26, 2016, investigative reporter Michael Isikoff published a story on Yahoo News about Manafort's business dealings with Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska. It was later learned from a DNC email leaked by Wikileaks that Chalupa had been working with Isikoff -- the same journalist Christopher Steele leaked to in September 2016. Manafort would later be indicted for Foreign Agents Registration Act violations that occurred during the Obama administration. Perkins Coie ..."
The Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee both occupied a unique position. They had the most to gain but they
also had the most to lose. And they stood willing and ready to do whatever was necessary to win. Hillary Clinton's campaign manager,
Robby Mook, is credited with being the first to raise the specter of candidate Donald Trump's alleged collusion with Russia.
The entire Clinton campaign willfully promoted the narrative of Russia–Trump collusion despite the uncomfortable fact that they
were the ones who had engaged the services of Fusion GPS and Christopher Steele through their law firm Perkins Coie. Information
flowed from the campaign -- sometimes through Perkins Coie, other times through affiliates -- ultimately making its way into the
media and sometimes to the FBI. Information from the Clinton campaign may also have ended up in the Steele dossier.
Jennifer Palmieri, the communications director for the Clinton campaign, in tandem with Jake Sullivan, the senior policy adviser
to the campaign,
took the lead in briefing the press on the Trump–Russia collusion story.
Palmieri helped promote the Russia-collusion narrative.
Another example of this behavior can be seen from an instance when Perkins Coie lawyer Michael Sussmann
leaked information from Steele and Fusion GPS to Franklin Foer of Slate magazine. This event is described in the House Intelligence
Committee's final report on
Russian active measures
, in footnote 43 on page 57. Foer then published the article
"Was a Trump Server Communicating With Russia? " on Oct. 31, 2016. The article concerns allegations regarding a server in the
Trump Tower.
The Slate article managed to attract the immediate attention of Clinton, who posted a
tweet on the same day the article was
published:
"Computer scientists have apparently uncovered a covert server linking the Trump Organization to a Russian-based bank."
Attached to her tweet was a
statement from Sullivan:
"This could be the most direct link yet between Donald Trump and Moscow. Computer scientists have apparently uncovered a covert
server linking the Trump Organization to a Russian-based bank.
"This secret hotline may be the key to unlocking the mystery of Trump's ties to Russia. It certainly seems the Trump Organization
felt it had something to hide, given that it apparently took steps to conceal the link when it was discovered by journalists."
These statements, which were later proven to be incorrect, are all the more disturbing with the hindsight knowledge that it was
a senior Clinton/DNC lawyer who helped plant the story. And given the prepared statement by Sullivan, the Clinton campaign knew this.
This type of behavior would be engaged in repeatedly -- damning leaks leading to media stories, followed by ready attacks from
the Clinton campaign.
Alexandra Chalupa is a Ukrainian-American operative who was consulting for the Democratic National Committee. Chalupa
met with top officials in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington in an effort to expose ties between Trump, Paul Manafort, and Russia.
Chalupa began investigating
Manafort in 2014. In late 2015, Chalupa expanded her opposition research on Manafort to include Trump's ties to Russia. In January
2016, Chalupa shared her information with a senior DNC official.
Chalupa's meetings with DNC and Ukrainian officials would continue. On April 26, 2016, investigative reporter Michael Isikoff
published a story
on Yahoo News about Manafort's business dealings with Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska. It was later learned from a DNC email leaked
by Wikileaks that Chalupa had been working with Isikoff
-- the same journalist Christopher Steele
leaked to
in September 2016. Manafort would later be indicted for Foreign Agents Registration Act violations that occurred during the Obama
administration. Perkins Coie
International law firm Perkins Coie served as the legal arm for both the Clinton campaign and the DNC. Ties to Perkins Coie extended
beyond the DNC into the Obama White House.
Bob Bauer, a partner at the law firm and founder of its political law practice, served as
White House counsel to President Barack Obama throughout
2010 and 2011. Bauer was also
general counsel to Obama's campaign organization, Obama for America, in 2008 and 2012.
Perkins Coie partners Marc Elias and Michael Sussmann each played critical roles and were the ones who hired Fusion GPS and Steele.
Sussmann
personally handled the alleged hack of the DNC server. He also transmitted information, likely from Steele and Fusion GPS, to
James Baker, then-chief counsel at the FBI, and to several members of the press.
According to a
letter
dated Oct. 24, 2017, written by Matthew Gehringer, general counsel at Perkins Coie, the firm was approached by Fusion GPS founder
Glenn Simpson in early March 2016 regarding the possibility of hiring Fusion GPS to continue opposition research into the Trump campaign.
Simpson's overtures were successful, and in April 2016, Perkins Coie
hired
Fusion GPS on behalf of the DNC.
Sometime in April or May 2016, Fusion GPS
hired Christopher Steele. During
this same period, Fusion also reportedly
hired Nellie Ohr, the wife of Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr. Steele would complete his first memo on June 20, 2016,
and send it to Fusion via enciphered mail.
Perkins Coie appears to have also been acting as a conduit between the DNC and the FBI.
Documents suggest that Sussmann was feeding information to FBI general counsel James Baker and at least one journalist ahead
of the FBI's application for a FISA warrant on the Trump campaign.
The information provided by Sussmann may have been used by the FBI as "corroborating information."
Jeff Carlson is a regular contributor to The Epoch Times. He also runs the website
TheMarketsWork.com and can be followed on Twitter @themarketswork.
The Obama administration provided a simultaneous layer of protection and facilitation for the entire effort. One example is provided
by Section
2.3 of Executive Order 12333 , also known as Obama's
data-sharing
order . With the passage of the order, agencies and individuals were able to ask the NSA for access to specific surveillance
simply by claiming the intercepts contained relevant information that was useful to a particular mission.
Section 2.3 had been expected to be finalized by early to mid-2016. Instead, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper didn't
sign off on Section 2.3 until Dec. 15, 2016. The order was finalized when Attorney General Loretta Lynch signed it on Jan. 3, 2017.
The reason for the delay could relate to the fact that while the executive order made it easier to share intelligence between
agencies, it also limited certain types of information from going to the White House.
An example of this was provided by Evelyn Farkas during a March 2, 2017,
MSNBC interview , where she detailed how the Obama administration
gathered and disseminated intelligence on the Trump team:
"I was urging my former colleagues and, frankly speaking, the people on the Hill 'Get as much information as you can. Get as
much intelligence as you can before President Obama leaves the administration.'
"The Trump folks, if they found out how we knew what we knew about the Trump staff's dealing with Russians, [they] would try
to compromise those sources and methods, meaning we would no longer have access to that intelligence. That's why you have the
leaking."
Many of the Obama administration's efforts appear to have been structural in nature, such as establishing new procedures or creating
impediments to oversight that enabled much of the surveillance abuse to occur.
DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz was appointed by Obama in 2011. From the very start, he found his duties throttled by the
attorney general's office. According to congressional
testimony by Horowitz:
"We got access to information up to 2010 in all of these categories. No law changed in 2010. No policy changed. It was simply
a decision by the General Counsel's Office in 2010 that they viewed, now, the law differently. And as a result, they weren't going
to give us that information."
These new restrictions were
put in place by Attorney General Eric Holder and Deputy Attorney General James Cole.
On Aug. 5, 2014, Horowitz and other inspectors general sent a
letter to Congress asking for unimpeded access to all records. Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates responded on July 20, 2015,
with a 58-page
memorandum . The memo specifically denied the inspector general access to any information collected under Title III -- including
intercepted communications and national security letters.
The New York Times recently
disclosed that national security letters were used in the surveillance of the Trump campaign.
At other times, the Obama administration's efforts were more direct. The
Intelligence Community assessment was released
internally on Jan. 5, 2017. On this same day, Obama held an undisclosed White House meeting to discuss the dossier with national
security adviser Susan Rice, FBI Director James Comey, and Yates. Rice would later send herself an email
documenting
the meeting.
The following day, Brennan, Clapper, and Comey attached a written summary of the Steele dossier to the classified briefing they
gave Obama. Comey then met with President-elect Trump to inform him of the dossier. This meeting took place just hours after Comey,
Brennan, and Clapper formally briefed Obama on both the Intelligence Community assessment and the Steele dossier.
Comey would only inform Trump of the "salacious" details contained within the dossier. He later
explained on CNN in an April 2018 interview
why:
"Because that was the part that the leaders of the Intelligence Community agreed he needed to be told about."
Shortly after Comey's meeting with Trump, both the Trump–Comey meeting and the existence of the dossier were leaked to CNN. The
significance of the meeting was material, as Comey
noted in
a Jan. 7 memo he wrote:
"Media like CNN had them and were looking for a news hook. I said it was important that we not give them the excuse to write
that the FBI has the material."
The media had widely dismissed the dossier as unsubstantiated and, therefore, unreportable. It was only after learning that Comey
briefed Trump that
CNN reported
on the dossier. It was later
revealed that DNI James Clapper personally leaked Comey's meeting with Trump to CNN.
The Obama administration also directly participated in a series of
intelligence unmaskings
, the process whereby a U.S. citizen's identity is revealed from collected surveillance. U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Samantha
Power reportedly engaged in hundreds of unmasking requests. Rice has admitted to doing the same.
The Obama administration engaged in the ultimately successful effort to oust Trump's newly appointed national security adviser,
Gen. Michael Flynn. Yates, along with Mary McCord, head of the DOJ's National Security Division,
led that effort
.
Executive Order 13762
President Barack Obama issued a last-minute executive order on Jan. 13, 2017, that altered the line of succession within the DOJ.
The action was not done in consultation with the incoming Trump administration.
Acting Attorney General Sally Yates was fired on Jan. 30, 2017, by a newly inaugurated President Trump for refusing to uphold
the president's executive order limiting travel from certain terror-prone countries. Yates was initially supposed to serve in her
position until Jeff Sessions was confirmed as attorney general.
Obama's executive order placed the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia next in line behind the department's senior leadership.
The attorney at the time was Channing Phillips.
Phillips was first hired by former Attorney General Eric Holder in 1994 for a position in the D.C. U.S. attorney's office. Phillips,
after serving as a senior adviser to Holder, stayed on after he was replaced by Attorney General Loretta Lynch.
It appears the Obama administration was hoping the Russia investigation would default to Channing in the event Sessions was forced
to recuse himself from the investigation. Sessions, whose confirmation hearings began three days before the order, was already coming
under intense scrutiny.
The implementation of the order may also tie into Yates's efforts to remove Gen. Michael Flynn over his call with the Russian
ambassador.
Trump ignored the succession order, as he is legally allowed to do, and instead appointed Dana Boente, the U.S. attorney for the
Eastern District of Virginia, as acting attorney general on Jan. 30, 2017, the same day Yates was fired.
Trump issued a new executive order on Feb. 9, 2017, the same day Sessions was sworn in, reversing Obama's prior order.
On March 10, 2017, Trump fired 46 Obama-era U.S. attorneys, including Preet Bharara, the U.S. attorney in Manhattan. These firings
appear to have been unexpected.
Jeff Carlson is a regular contributor to The Epoch Times. He also runs the website TheMarketsWork.com and can be followed
on Twitter @themarketswork.
"... Is this how Judge Chutkan got steered the Awan and Fusion GPS cases too? ..."
"... Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-FL, has a brother, Steven, who works as a U.S. Attorney in the Prosecutors' Office in the District of Columbia. She is former campaign chairman for the DNC and the Hillary Clinton Campaign for President. Wasserman Schultz is also the one who gave her passwords to Imran Awan. ..."
"... Is that how the Butina, Awan, and Fusion GPS cases got "assigned" to Judge Chutkan? ..."
"... Mariia worked for Susan Rice at American University (AU). Their offices were next to each other. Ambassador Rice was President Barack Obama's National Security Advisor from 2013 to 2017. Rice's job at American University was to review NSA and FBI surveillance data, then organize it, for the benefit of the Hillary Clinton for President Campaign. ..."
"... Butina is jailed in the William Truesdale Adult Detention Center in Alexandria, Virginia. ..."
"... At her Judicial Nomination hearing, Chutkan was asked about her lack of experience in criminal law. She had none. Nor did Chutkan have trial experience. ..."
"... According to the federal court's system of records, Judge Chutkan has never tried a criminal case. Or any case? ..."
"... Fusion GPS: Judge Chutkan's second cover-up. ..."
How can paperwork be timestamped when the court is closed? <img src="https://static1.squarespace.com/static/598a66006b8f5b013edc46c1/t/5c5d6731f9619a074c095377/1549625145085/Butina+case+filed+on+a+Saturday+.png"
alt="Butina case filed on a Saturday .png" />
Court-shopping is rigging the system to get one's legal case steered to the judge most likely to rule in one's favor.
It is only illegal if caught.
And if the opposing party objects to it.
Is this how Judge Chutkan got steered the Awan and Fusion GPS cases too?
Is that cause for a reversal?
How does the Justice Department keep on getting away with it?
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-FL, has a brother, Steven, who works as a U.S. Attorney in the Prosecutors' Office in the District
of Columbia. She is former campaign chairman for the DNC and the Hillary Clinton Campaign for President. Wasserman Schultz
is also the one who gave her passwords to Imran Awan.
Is that how the Butina, Awan, and Fusion GPS cases got "assigned" to Judge Chutkan?
What does this say about the rest of the D.C. District Court?
What are they doing to rein in Judge Chutkan's judicial misconduct?
Supporting it?
The First Cover-up <img src="https://static1.squarespace.com/static/598a66006b8f5b013edc46c1/t/5c596674ec212d81d6ba512e/1549362810444/Butina+black+silouette+GQ.jpg"
alt="Butina black silouette GQ.jpg" />
Mariia Butina (above), the Russian spy?
Judge Chutkan can extend Mariia Butina's solitary confinement and gag order with a five-year sentence Tuesday.
With good behavior, Mariia is eligible for a sentence reduction of up to 54 days a year. Miss Butina plead guilty to being a Russian
spy at a court hearing on Dec. 13th. The 56-page transcript of this hearing which including her guilt plea is linked here:
Unless the gag order is extended, Mariia the has the opportunity to tell her story. Will the Judge deny that opportunity for five
years? The court is waiting for new evidence less than a week before Butina's sentencing. It is the names and pictures of Mariia's
former classmates at American University (AU).
How many other student spies are in those pictures and names?
Judge Chutkan has to allow the defense an opportunity to view all available evidence. To deny it would nullify the plea agreement.
The Judge has no obligation, however, to disclose the new evidence to the public. The Judge can claim "national security", blowing
the cover for CIA operatives, as the reason for "sealing" it.
Will that new evidence uncover the identities of other Butina student co-conspirators? Will Butina's attorney, Robert Driscoll,
have time to prepare a proper defense before Tuesday? He has yet to ask for an extention of time in order to review the pending new
evidence. The court is still waiting for it.
The public may never know it. <img src="https://static1.squarespace.com/static/598a66006b8f5b013edc46c1/t/5c58f73653450a06427aaa79/1549334336013/Butina+two+guns+photo+black+over+shoulder.png"
alt="Butina two guns photo black over shoulder.png" />
Mariia Butina (above)
Miss Butina was arrested on July 15th, a Sunday.
Two days after the arrest, Presidents Donald J. Trump and Vladimir Putin of Russia, were to meet in Helsinki, Finland. Was the
arrest timed to disrupt the agenda of this meeting? The FBI served its second warrant at Mariia's apartment on July 15th. They left
with a hard drive with two terabytes of data, according to Prosecutor Erik M. Kenerson. Two terabytes is equal to:
34,000 hours of music or
80 days or videos or
620,000 photos or
1,000 hours of movies
In April, according to Bob Driscoll, Butina's defense attorney:
15 FBI agents searched Mariia's apartment for evidence
The FBI left with a hard drive containing over 7,000 pages of documents and unspecified personal items
Later in the day, Butina testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee
<img src="https://static1.squarespace.com/static/598a66006b8f5b013edc46c1/t/5c596f04f4e1fc454224142a/1549365004326/Butina+best+black+in+four.png"
alt="Butina best black in four.png" />
Mariia Butina
Mariia worked for Susan Rice at American University (AU). Their offices were next to each other. Ambassador Rice was President
Barack Obama's National Security Advisor from 2013 to 2017. Rice's job at American University was to review NSA and FBI surveillance
data, then organize it, for the benefit of the Hillary Clinton for President Campaign.
A Russian Orthodox Priest and Valery Butina, Mariia's father, are approved visitors. <img src="https://static1.squarespace.com/static/598a66006b8f5b013edc46c1/t/5c597e43c830252ca2c30a7c/1549368907334/Butina+Fathe+Valery+South+Dakota.png"
alt="Butina Fathe Valery South Dakota.png" />
Father and daughter, Valery and Mariia Butina (above)
Butina complained about her cell being cold. It took five months for the prison to turn up the heat. And Mariia's parents and
sister live in Siberia.
Neither the Judge nor the Prosecutor can find guidelines on which to base Butina's sentence. No one has ever plead guilty to the
crime Mariia is pleading guilty to. In fact, never the Judge nor the Prosecutor have a copy of last year's federal sentencing guidelines.
Details are in the plea agreement, Page 44, imaged here: <img src="https://static1.squarespace.com/static/598a66006b8f5b013edc46c1/t/5c59856d24a694b928af4f2d/1549370741218/Butina+Judge+says+no+sentencing+guidelines+exist.png"
alt="Butina Judge says no sentencing guidelines exist.png" />
The Judge asked her the correct spelling of her first name. It is Mariia with two "i's". <img src="https://static1.squarespace.com/static/598a66006b8f5b013edc46c1/t/5c58f7cc7817f72a8e7eacee/1549334482363/Butina+spelling+of+Mariia+with+two+I%27s+page+12.png"
alt="Butina spelling of Mariia with two I's page 12.png" /> <img src="https://static1.squarespace.com/static/598a66006b8f5b013edc46c1/t/5c5972108165f5a37e3fa095/1549365785501/Butina+orange+hunting+cap.png"
alt="Butina orange hunting cap.png" />
Mariia Butina (above)
Chutkan has been a U.S. Federal District Judge in the District of Columbia in Washington, D.C. since June 5th, 2014. To get her
appointed, President Barack Obama created or "packed" the D.C. Court with a "new position". At her Judicial Nomination
hearing, Chutkan was asked about her lack of experience in criminal law. She had none. Nor did Chutkan have trial experience.
Butina's lawyer, Robert Driscoll, has no criminal law experience either. Neither does anyone in his law firm.
https://www.mcglinchey.com/robert-driscoll/ <img src="https://static1.squarespace.com/static/598a66006b8f5b013edc46c1/t/5c5977a671c10b30f3889b1f/1549367217044/Driscoll+Roberrt+photo+on+Fox.png"
alt="Driscoll Roberrt photo on Fox.png" />
Robert Driscoll (above)
Yet, Judge Chutkan has ruled that Driscoll has provided "competent" legal defense for Mariia. After all, Mariia said so herself
at her pre-sentencing hearing on Dec. 13th. Chutkan issued a "gag order" on Butina's case because of Driscoll's repeated appearances
for a national cable network, Fox. Driscoll caused it. Butina was punished for it. Chutkan even assigned an "Advisory Attorney",
Mr. A.J. Williams, to monitor whether or not Butina has been violating the gag order since Dec. 13th.
Williams is a Federal Public Defender assigned to the District of Columbia since 1990. According to Valery Butina, Mariia's father,
Driscoll's fees reached $463,000 in July. "But the lawyer did not abandon the case . . . and has been actually working for free since
then", said Mariia's father.
Butina's father said that Driscoll "helped the family" set up a fund to pay legal fees. None of it goes to the Butina family.
Who monitors an attorney's escrow account anyway? How was Driscoll assigned the case? The same scheduler who assigned Judge Chutkan
the Fusion GPS and Imran Awan cases too?
Fusion GPS: Judge Chutkan's second cover-up. Judge Tanya Chutkan was also assigned the case involving Fusion GPS. Fusion
was paid to write the Russian dossier. Two of them.
Paid by the Russians through a Cleveland law firm.
Admitted to in sworn testimony before Congress. The details are linked here:
Chutkan ruled that the checks be "sealed", never to be made public.
Chutkan's Third Cover-up
Judge Chutkan was also assigned the case of Imran Awan, another D.C. scandal. He was the "Pakistani mystery man". For 14 years, he headed the Spy Ring in Congress for 40 members of Congress. Who knew?
In 14 years, how much intellectual property, patents, weapons, and pay-for-play deals were rinsed through Pakistan and sold to
N. Korea, Iran, China, and Russia?
Awan plead guilty to bank fraud. His six-month sentence was reduced to three months of "supervised" probation by Judge Chutkan.
"He suffered enough", said the Judge. Awan lives in Pakistan nine months out of the year. Awan received immunity from prosecution
without having to testify against anyone.
Exactly how did Awan suffer? He was paid $160,000 working three months out of the year to manage Congresses' computer systems.
Judges with lifetime appointments never have to explain anything. <img src="https://static1.squarespace.com/static/598a66006b8f5b013edc46c1/t/5c5983274192024193ecfeb3/1549370162865/Chutkan+grumpy+self.png"
alt="Chutkan grumpy self.png" />
According to Pacer, the official record of the federal courts, nothing on Butina's release and plea agreement was filed yesterday.
<img src="https://static1.squarespace.com/static/598a66006b8f5b013edc46c1/t/5c5d87bbec212d5e97169fbd/1549633474179/Butina+docket+8+a.m.+Feb.+8th.png"
alt="Butina docket 8 a.m. Feb. 8th.png" /> <img src="https://static1.squarespace.com/static/598a66006b8f5b013edc46c1/t/5c5d730771c10bfe031cc1f5/1549628173885/Butina+case+update+Feb+8th.png"
alt="Butina case update Feb 8th.png" />
Bob Driscoll, Butina's attorney, said yesterday that she should be home in Russia in six weeks.
The plea hearing remains on schedule for Tuesday.
The gag order has been lifted.
Mariia remains in prison at the William Truesdale Detention Center in Alexandria, Virginia, according to the Russian Orthodox
Church. She is no longer in an isolation cell.
In 2014, lawyers for Kamala Harris argued in court that if minimum-custody inmates were
released early, the state of California would "lose an important labor pool." These inmates
included firefighters, who are paid
$1 an hour to confront some of the deadliest blazes in California history. Harris later
argued that she was
unawareher own office argued in favor of keeping parolees in jail so they could
serve as the state's on-call cheap labor.
A breakthrough profile in the New York Times referred to Harris as a "top cop" prosecutor
who, according to critics, "failed to take on prosecutorial misconduct." The profile noted in
2015 her office was called out for "defending convictions obtained by local prosecutors who
inserted a false confession into the transcript of a police interrogation, lied under oath, and
withheld crucial evidence from the defense."
Police crimes were largely ignored by Harris. Oakland police officer Miguel Masso shot and
killed Alan Blueford in 2012. Multiple witnesses said Blueford had no weapon, did not pose a
threat to the officer, and was running away from the officer.
The Justice For Alan Blueford Coalition wrote a letter to Harris and demanded she do her job
by bringing charges against Masso. Supporters engaged
in civil disobedience in 2014, after she refused to meet with them. They were arrested (and
police even swept up their legal observer in the arrests).
Harris' book "Smart On Crime," published in 2009, was a testament to a deeply capitalist,
dystopian political ideology shared by even the most "progressive" Democrats.
The public is often referred to as "consumers" (examples: "consumers of safety," "consumer
education"). They are urged to support a crime policy which relentlessly focuses on violent
crime, "and the prosecution of violent criminals."
"The opportunity before us encourages transformation and empowerment of communities: rather
than people feeling like helpless victims of crimes, they can become educated consumers of
safety."
Harris characterizes policing as a "service" and suggests:
[W]e can find and are finding more effective ways to reduce the sheer volume of nonviolent
crime and recidivism, so that those nonviolent offenders don't escalate their behavior and
become so enmeshed in the crime cycle that we end up having to pay attention to them -- and
frankly pay for them -- for the rest of their lives. The money we save can be used to put
more police officers on the street, solve more crimes, attack more high-tech and
identity-theft crimes with better technology, and provide services to victims. [emphasis
added]
In 2010, Harris pushed a heavy-handed truancy initiative that went into effect in 2011. This
anti-truancy bill -- SB 1317 -- made it so that parents of truant children who miss more than
10 percent of their classes can be
charged with a misdemeanor and given a $2,000 fine or a year in prison "if, after being
offered state support and counseling, their kids still fail to improve their attendance."
This wasn't Harris' first dance with anti-truancy measures, by any means. In 2009, Harris
wrote in the San Francisco Chronicle that she had already prosecuted 20 parents for truancy,
thereby introducing, or reintroducing, children and their families to a criminal justice system
that is already stacked against them.
During her 2010 campaign, Harris touted
a record of what she described as tough, affirmative crime prevention. Her official
campaign page bragged that her felony conviction rate surpassed the years before -- "from
52 percent in 2003 to 67 percent in 2006, the highest in a decade."
Harris played a role in the wider United States drug war, increasing convictions for drug
dealers from 56 percent to 74 percent in just three years.
Despite forming the first Mortgage and Investment Fraud Unit in the San Francisco District
Attorney's Office, Harris refused to go after "foreclosure king" Steven Mnuchin,
a decision she defended as recently as January. Mnuchin, who oversaw some 36,000
foreclosures between 2009 to 2015,
violated numerous state foreclosure laws, and yet Harris refused to concede that his record
should keep him from serving as President Donald Trump's Treasury Secretary.
Harris' record with police departments and the California prison industry is not simply a
result of her job as attorney general. She played a key role in expanding the horizon of state
violence.
Now, rather than diversifying the ranks of state actors responsible for oppression, it is
critical to force Senator Kamala Harris to reckon with her neoliberal record, regardless of how
her "K-Hive" may respond to such efforts.
Israel and its friends in Washington and New York never miss the opportunity to exploit the
news cycle to tighten the screws a bit more, rendering any criticism of the Jewish state
unacceptable or even illegal. Israel's Ambassador to the United Nations Danny Danon has been
persistently
demanding that what he describes as anti-Semitic speech be criminalized. Danon declared
that "The time for talking and having a conversation is over. What Israel and the Jewish
community around the world demand is action – and now."
How exactly Danon would enforce his definition of acceptable speech is not clear, but the
demands to eliminate any negative commentary regarding the holocaust or on Israel and/or the
behavior of diaspora Jews have been promoted for some time, resulting in laws in Europe that
inflict harsh punish on those who dare to speak out. The latest incident in the campaign to
eliminate the First Amendment in America took place oddly enough on the pages of the New
York Times , which, in its international edition, ran a cartoon by a Portuguese cartoonist
showing a dog with the face of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on a leash leading a
caricature of Donald Trump wearing a yarmulke and a blind man's glasses. The Netanyahu-dog had
a tag on its collar featuring a Star of David.
There are several ways to interpret the cartoon. It is, of course, an insult to dogs to have
them depicted in such a fashion as to suggest that they might behave like the monstrous Israeli
Prime Minister. No dog would sink so low. One
observer , commenting from a dog's point of view, noted that "We canines share that saying
that 'the eyes are the window to the soul.' Look into our eyes and you'll see love and trust.
Look into Netanyahu's eyes you see cunning and deceit so why stick his head on our body?"
On the other hand, one might see in the cartoon a serious message, that Netanyahu has been
able to "wag the dog" with an ignorant and impulsive United States president who is so desirous
of pandering to Jews both in Israel and in the U.S. that he is blind to his obligation to do
what is best for the American people. Trump, who is the first president within memory not to
own a dog, would rather stroke the head of the disgusting casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson
than an intelligent and loyal Labrador retriever.
This is nothing new. In communist country Czechoslovakia 1948-1989 media every day wrote,
several times and they repeated it in TV about "with USSR all the time and never otherwise"
And any criticism od the state and the Party was crime.
The editorial cartoon was well within the usual and acceptable traditions of political
comment. It depicted with the usual license for caricature a political figure being led down
the garden path by another, and mocking him for it. What's the big deal?
Trump has not built a wall.
We have more immigrants coming in than at any time in American history.
We experienced a record number of opioid deaths in 2018 and the drugs still flow freely.
Trump is attempting to force the US into multiple wars that are of no benefit to us.
Trump bumped stocks.
Trump is allowing all of his supporters (many of them now former supporters) to be banned
from the internet.
Trump is allowing his supporters to be arrested and imprisoned for supporting him.
Trump is escalating tensions with Russia for no reason.
Trump has not pulled out of NATO.
Trump's replacement of NAFTA is the same thing as NAFTA.
Meanwhile, he has done more for Israel than any president ever in history.
Trump ended the Iran deal.
Trump attacked Assad over fake gassings.
Trump stopped aid to Palestine.
Trump hired John Bolton as his national security advisor.
Trump turned the US ambassador to the UN into a second Israeli ambassador to the UN.
Trump closed off all official communications and diplomatic relations with Palestine.
Trump sent $38 billion in US taxpayer money to Israel.
Trump made a $110 billion dollar arms deal with Saudi Arabia.
Trump moved the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Israel.
Trump refuses to pull troops out of Syria.
Trump somehow transferred the Syrian Golan Heights to Israel.
Trump is now apparently planning a war with Iran.
Would those knee-jerk critics have considered the political cartoon less outrageous or
offensive if The Master was not blind and the head of the dog on the leash had the features
of Donald Trump instead?
Actually the cartoon is somewhat misleading, IMO. It's unjustifiably generous to the orange
clown, because what the orange clown does, he does knowingly and willingly, not because he's
ignorant and impressionable. IOW, orange clown is evil, not blind.
@JoaoAlfaiate Correct.
I just posted this over on Facebook: Game over. The U.S. will now base its foreign policy,
not on national interests, but on the interests of Israel and its cabal in the United States.
This was an inevitable progression when you equate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism and
then appoint a high government official to punish countries on that basis. And, one might
add, the First Amendment is also under attack by the same folks to make illegal even the
mildest criticism of Israel here at home. Will this ever end?
Over the past few years, Israel's ongoing military occupation of Palestinian territory and
repeated invasions of the Gaza strip have triggered a fierce backlash against Israeli
policies virtually everywhere in the world -- except the United States.
Since you desire to know what crimes hillary committed, here is a list. I have a Top Secret
with a BI/Final. I handled TS Documents, and attended schools for other documents how to safe
guard etc. So I know what I am speaking about. Here Goes
1. She did not have ANYONE sign off on her personal computer as required by law.
http://freebeacon.com/polit...
2., In a thread from June 2011, Hillary exchanges e-mails with Jake Sullivan, then her deputy
chief of staff and now her campaign foreign-policy adviser, in which she impatiently waits
for a set of talking points. When Sullivan tells her that the source is having trouble with
the secure fax, Hillary then orders Sullivan to have the data stripped of its markings and
sent through a non-secure channel.
http://hotair.com/archives/...
Under 18 USC 793 subsection F, the information does not have to be classified to count as a
violation. The intelligence source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity citing the
sensitivity of the ongoing probe, said the subsection requires the "lawful possession" of
national defense information by a security clearance holder who "through gross negligence,"
such as the use of an unsecure computer network, permits the material to be removed or
abstracted from its proper, secure location.
Subsection F also requires the clearance holder "to make prompt report of such loss, theft,
abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer. "A failure to do so "shall be fined
under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."
18 USC 793: Continue
d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with
any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative,
blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense,
or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to
believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign
nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered,
or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated,
delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully
retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United
States entitled to receive it; or
(e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document,
writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan,
map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information
relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could
be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation,
willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or
transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated,
delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully
retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States
entitled to receive it; or
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document,
writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan,
map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national
defense,
(1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody
or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or
destroyed, or
(2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of
custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or
destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction
to his superior officer --
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
4. A former FBI agent, who is not involved in the case, said the inconsistent release of
emails, with new documents coming to light from outside accounts, such as that of adviser
Sidney Blumenthal, could constitute obstruction. In addition, Clinton's March statement that
there was no classified material on her private server has proven false, after more than 400
emails containing classified information were documented.
5. One of Clinton's primary defenses is that the emails containing classified information,
did not carry classification markings, but a leading national security defense attorney says
that is no excuse under the law. "The fact that something's not marked or that the person may
not know that it was classified would not be relevant at all in a prosecution under the
Espionage Act,"
https://www.law.cornell.edu... attorney Edward MacMahon Jr.
6. Of her private email account, Hillary Clinton said: "What I did was allowed by the State
Department, but it wasn't the best choice"That's dubious. Clinton has made this claim
repeatedly, but a State Department policy on the books when she was secretary said routine
work-related email use should be conducted on official systems.
But according to national security legal experts, security clearance holders are required to
speak up when classified information is not in secure channels.
"Everybody who has a security clearance has an individual obligation to protect the
information," said national security attorney Edward MacMahon Jr., who represented former CIA
officer Jeffrey Sterling in the high-profile leak investigation regarding a New York Times
reporter. "Just because somebody sends it to you you can't just turn a blind eye and pretend
it never happened and pretend it's unclassified information."
These rules, known as the Code of Federal Regulations, apply to U.S. government employees
with security clearances and state there is an obligation to report any possible breach by
both the sender and the receiver of the information. The rules state: "Any person who has
knowledge that classified information has been or may have been lost, possibly compromised or
disclosed to an unauthorized person shall immediately report the circumstances to an official
designated for this purpose."
"It is the Department's general policy that normal day-to-day operations be conducted on an
authorized [Automated Information System], which has the proper level of security control to
provide nonrepudiation, authentication and encryption, to ensure confidentiality, integrity,
and availability of the resident information," State's Foreign Affairs Manual states.
http://www.state.gov/m/a/di...
7.Clinton has violated at least two laws:
A. 18 USC Sec. 1924, which outlaws the unauthorized removal and storage of classified
information. Penalties can include fines and imprisonment for up to one year
B. 18 USC Sec. 793, this law covers national defense information and people who misuse it to
injure the United States or benefit a foreign power. Those convicted of violating this law
face fines and up to 10 years in prison.
9. U.S. Code 18, Section 1001, which pertains to "materially false" statements given either
in writing, orally or through a third party. Violations also include pressuring a third party
to conspire in a cover-up. Each felony violation is subject to five years in prison.
10. Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys,
or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding,
map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of
any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public
officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
three years, or both.
Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or
other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies,
or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three
years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office
under the United States. Asused in this subsection, the term "office" does not include the
office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.
Yes, it explicitly states "shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any
office under the United States."
Multiculturalism means that you confer political privileges on many an individual whose
illiberal practices run counter to, even undermine, the American political tradition.
Radical leaders across the U.S. quite seriously consider Illegal immigrants as candidates
for the vote -- and for every other financial benefit that comes from the work of American
citizens.
The rights of all able-bodied idle individuals to an income derived from labor not their
own: That, too, is a debate that has arisen in democracy, where the demos rules like a
despot.
But then moral degeneracy is inherent in raw democracy. The best political thinkers,
including America's constitution-makers, warned a long time ago that mass, egalitarian society
would thus degenerate.
What Bernie Sanders prescribes for the country -- unconditional voting -- is but an
extension of "mass franchise," which was feared by the greatest thinkers on Democracy. Prime
Minister George Canning of Britain, for instance.
Canning, whose thought is distilled in Russell Kirk's magnificent exegesis, "The
Conservative Mind," thought that "the franchise should be accorded to persons and classes
insofar as they possess the qualifications for right judgment and are worthy members of their
particular corporations."
By "corporations," Canning (1770-1827) meant something quite different to our contemporary,
community-killing multinationals.
"Corporations," in the nomenclature of the times, meant very plainly in "the spirit of
cooperation, based upon the idea of a neighborhood. [C]ities, parishes, townships, professions,
and trades are all the corporate bodies that constitute the state."
To the extent that an individual citizen is a decent member of these " little
platoons " (Edmund Burke's iridescent term), he may be considered, as Canning saw it, for
political participation.
"If voting becomes a universal and arbitrary right," cautioned Canning, "citizens become
mere political atoms, rather than members of venerable corporations; and in time this anonymous
mass of voters will degenerate into pure democracy," which, in reality is "the enthronement of
demagoguery and mediocrity." ("The Conservative Mind," p. 131.)
That's us. Demagoguery and mediocrity are king in contemporary democracies, where the
organic, enduring, merit-based communities extolled by Canning, no longer exists and are no
longer valued.
This is the point at which America finds itself and against which William Lecky, another
brilliant British political philosopher and politician, argued.
The author of "Democracy and Liberty" (1896) predicted that "the continual degradation of
the suffrage" through "mass franchise" would end in "a new despotism."
Then as today, radical, nascent egalitarians, who championed the universal vote abhorred by
Lecky, attacked "institution after institution," harbored "systematic hostility" toward "owners
of landed property" and private property and insisted that "representative institutions" and
the franchise be extended to all irrespective of "circumstance and character."
The franchise should be granted by whom? You're forgetting the 800 pound gorilla and where he
sits when he enters the room. Franchises and every other grant are granted by those who have
the power to grant them.
Canning's "organic, enduring, merit-based communities" will emerge, in ghastly form, as
the solipsistic constituencies of identity politics. Why do people like Omar laugh at America
and Americans? "Here's a people so stupid as to clasp the adder to its breast. You're
clasping? I'm biting."
Bernie is utopian. Utopians do terrible things if and when they have the power to do them.
But you can't fault him for insincerity.
The younger Tsarnaev who hid out near my home town was doing what his older brother told
him to do assuming that the bombing wasn't a false flag. Not an excuse. Only to say the kid
had no political convictions and probably wouldn't bother to vote if he could.
Sanders is just a wine and cheese socialist, totally an armchair theorist. He has no
background in actually doing anything besides being involved in politics which has provided a
living for him. It's doubtful he could run a couple of Walmarts. This is his last go-around
and he's out to see how much in contributions he can garner. Pushing the edge, theoretically
of course, keeps him in the conversation. He's worthless but such is the state of politics
where characters like him, Biden, and the rest of the Dem lineup could be taken seriously.
Just one big clown show.
@Jim
Bob Lassiter Yes, but, his wife could steal money from a collapsing college to serve her
daughter. Corruption must run in the family as Bernie has been conspicuously silent on this
subject. He must feel the Burn!
"... We absolutely have won most of those little wars it's just that majority of the population doesn't have the same definition of victory that our Neocon masters do. As long as we leave a county in ruins so it's development is set back for decades and there are multiple factions fighting for power, the Neocons cobble together a wonderful democratic election and call it a victory. ..."
"... Stay as long as it takes to make sure no major faction is strong enough to set nationwide policy, bomb everything that's required for a 20th Century society, then leave. If one faction plays nice by scraping and bowing to the US, fine, let them have a bit of electricity and running water. Otherwise, leave the factions to fight one another in the rubble and enjoying their new found freedom and democracy. ..."
"... Considering all the oil Venezuela has, they're just begging for some freedom and democracy. ..."
Sure. Let's invade Venezuela. Another jolly little war. It's full of commies and has a sea of oil. The only thing those Cuban-loving
Venezuelans lack are weapons of mass destruction.
This week, leading US neocons openly threatened that if the CIA's latest attempts to stage a coup to overthrow Venezuela's Maduro
government failed, Washington might send in the Marines.
Well, the coup was a big fiasco and the Venezuelan army didn't overthrow President Maduro. The CIA also failed to overthrow governments
in Moscow, Tehran and Damascus. Its only 'success' to date has been in overthrowing Ukraine's pro-Moscow government and putting a
bunch of corrupt clowns in its place at a cost near $10 billion.
The US has not waged a major successful war since World War II – unless you count invading Grenada, Panama and Haiti, or bombing
the hell out of Iraq, Syria, Somalia and Libya. That's a sobering thought given the Pentagon's recent announcement that it is cutting
back on little colonial wars (aka 'the war on terror') to get ready for real big wars against Russia and China, or even North Korea.
Venezuela is in a huge economic mess thanks to the crackpot economic policies of the Chavez and Maduro governments – and US economic
sabotage. But my first law of international affairs is: 'Every nation has the absolute god-given right to mismanage its own affairs
and elect its own crooks or idiots.'
Now, however, the administration's frenzied neocons want to start a war against Venezuela, a large, developed nation of 32.7 million,
at the same time we are threatening war against Iran, interfering all around Africa, and confronting Russia, China and perhaps North
Korea. Large parts of the Mideast and Afghanistan lie in ruins thanks to our 'liberation' campaigns.
Invading Venezuela would not be much of a problem for the US military: half the population hates the current government and might
welcome the Americans. Venezuela's military has only limited combat value. Right-wing regimes in neighboring Colombia and Brazil
might join the invasion.
But what then? Recall Iraq. The US punched through the feeble Iraqi Army whose strength had been wildly exaggerated by the media.
Once US and British forces settled in to occupation duties, guerilla forces made their life difficult and bloody. Iraqi resistance
continues today, sixteen years later. The same would likely happen in Venezuela.
There is deep anti-American sentiment in Latin America that existed long before Col. Chavez. Recall, for example, the large anti-American
riots that greeted Vice President Nixon's visit to Caracas in 1958.
'Yankees Go Home' is a rallying cry for much of Latin America. Blundering into Venezuela, another nation about which the Trump
administration knows or understands little, would stir up a hornet's next. Their ham-handed efforts to punish Cuba and whip up the
far right Cuban-American vote in Florida would galvanize anti-American anger across Latin America. Beware the ghost of Fidel.
ORDER IT NOW
Talks over Venezuela are underway between Washington and Moscow. Neither country has any major interest in Venezuela. Moscow is
stirring the pot there to retaliate for growing US involvement in Russia's backyard and Syria. Both the US and Russia should get
the hell out of Venezuela and mind their own business.
Instead, we hear crazy proposals to send 5,000 mercenaries to overthrow the Maduro regime. How well did the wide-scale use of
US-financed mercenaries work in Iraq and Afghanistan? A complete flop. The only thing they did competently was wash dishes at our
bases, murder civilians, and play junior Rambos.
For those who don't like the American Raj, a US invasion of Venezuela would mark a step forward in the crumbling of the empire.
More aimless imperial over-reach, more lack of strategy, more enemies generated.
The big winner would, of course, be the Pentagon and military industrial complex. More billions spent on a nation most Americans
could not find on a map if their lives depended on it, more orders for 'counter-insurgency' weapons, more military promotions, and
cheers from Fox News and wrestling fans.
Worst of all, the US could end up feeding and caring for wrecked Venezuela. How did we do with storm-ravaged Puerto Rico? It's
still in semi-ruin. Few want Venezuela's thick, heavy oil these days.
Venezuela could turn out to be a big, fat Tar Baby.
The "crackpot economic policies" of Chavez and Madero increased the health of the people through access to medical care, improved
housing, brought the literacy rate to one of the highest in Latin Americs, added years to average lifespan among other things
by emphasizing that the country's resources should improve the lives of Venezuela's citizens. This was accomplished by selling
resources in the capitalistic market -crackpot I grant you. The American sanctions and the seizure of Venezuelan assets are all
illegal under American law and Constitution given the treaties we have signed, but then if you want to know what those laws mean
all you have to do is ask any Native American tribe.
Who would pay Eric Prince's 5000 Blackwater hired assassins? Would the cash come from the pirate booty war chest or would the
citizens of America be stuck with the tab, once again?
@Walter Duranty Something
seems different. With Russian and Chinese intelligence help, the Guaido coup was a laughable joke. It made the US look like bozos.
I think Venezuela and allies tipped their hand there, and it is a strong one. I fear the US may be walking into a trap
It is interesting but several Pentagon/military officers are saying the Pentagon is not enthusiastic about invading Venezuela.
It is a rugged, jungle cloaked, country that is quite large and an American effort may end up being like the one in Vietnam.
I wonder how many are aware that Venezuela owns a majority of the oil company Citgo?
I wonder how many Americans know that for many years during Winter Citgo gave free heating oil to a large number of low income
households in the US northeast? while our own government was cutting back on low income heating oil subsidies.
We absolutely have won most of those little wars it's just that majority of the population doesn't have the same definition
of victory that our Neocon masters do. As long as we leave a county in ruins so it's development is set back for decades and there
are multiple factions fighting for power, the Neocons cobble together a wonderful democratic election and call it a victory.Stay as long as it takes to make sure no major faction is strong enough to set nationwide policy, bomb everything that's required
for a 20th Century society, then leave. If one faction plays nice by scraping and bowing to the US, fine, let them have a bit
of electricity and running water. Otherwise, leave the factions to fight one another in the rubble and enjoying their new found
freedom and democracy.Considering all the oil Venezuela has, they're just begging for some freedom and democracy.
It may be true that neither the US or Russia 'has any major interest in Venezuela', and that Putin may be 'stirring the pot'.
The real danger is, and globally the evidence points to this, an eventual clash between the major nuclear powers (world war).
It is ominous if Washington is getting for 'ready for real big wars against Russia and China, or even North Korea.' https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/
"... US global power is built on several significant facts. These include: the US victory in World War II, its subsequent advanced economy and dominant military position throughout five continents. ..."
"... The US advanced its dominance through a series of alliances in Europe via NATO; Asia via its hegemonic relationship with Japan, South Korea, Philippines and Taiwan as well as Australia and New Zealand in Oceana; Latin America via traditional client regimes; Africa via neo-colonial rulers imposed following independence. ..."
"... The most significant advance of US global power took place with the demise and disintegration of the USSR, the client states in Eastern Europe, as well as the transformation of China and Indo-China to capitalism during the 1980's. ..."
US global power in the Trump period reflects the continuities and changes which are
unfolding rapidly and deeply throughout the world and which are affecting the position of
Washington.
Assessing the dynamics of US global power is a complex problem which requires examining
multiple dimensions.
We will proceed by:
Conceptualizing the principles which dictate empire building,
specifically the power bases and the dynamic changes in relations and structures which shape
the present and future position of the US. Identifying the spheres of influence and power and
their growth and decline. Examining the regions of conflict and contestation. The major and
secondary rivalries. The stable and shifting relations between existing and rising power
centers. The internal dynamics shaping the relative strength of competing centers of global
power. The instability of the regimes and states seeking to retain and expand global power.
Conceptualization of Global Power
US global power is built on several significant facts. These include: the US victory in
World War II, its subsequent advanced economy and dominant military position throughout five
continents.
The US advanced its dominance through a series of alliances in Europe via NATO; Asia via its
hegemonic relationship with Japan, South Korea, Philippines and Taiwan as well as Australia and
New Zealand in Oceana; Latin America via traditional client regimes; Africa via neo-colonial
rulers imposed following independence.
US global power was built around encircling the USSR and China, undermining their economies
and defeating their allies militarily via regional wars.
Post WWII global economic and military superiority created subordinated allies and
established US global power, but it created the bases for gradual shifts in relations of
dominance.
US global power was formidable but subject to economic and military changes over time and in
space.
US Spheres of Power: Then and Now
US global power exploited opportunities but also suffered military setbacks early on,
particularly in Korea, Indo-China and Cuba. The US spheres of power were clearly in place in
Western Europe and Latin America but was contested in Eastern Europe and Asia.
The most significant advance of US global power took place with the demise and
disintegration of the USSR, the client states in Eastern Europe, as well as the transformation
of China and Indo-China to capitalism during the 1980's.
US ideologues declared the coming of a unipolar empire free of restraints and challenges to
its global and regional power. The US turned to conquering peripheral adversaries. Washington
destroyed Yugoslavia and then Iraq – fragmenting them into mini-states. Wall Street
promoted a multitude of multi-national corporations to invade China and Indo-China who reaped
billions of profits exploiting cheap labor.
The believers of the enduring rule of US global power envisioned a century of US imperial
rule.
In reality this was a short-sighted vision of a brief interlude.
The End of Unipolarity: New Rivalries and Global and Regional Centers of Power: An
Overview
US global power led Washington into 'overreach', in several crucial areas: it launched a
series of costly prolonged wars, specifically in Iraq and Afghanistan, which had three negative
consequences: the destruction of the Iraq armed forces and economy led to the rise of the
Islamic State which overtook most of the country; the occupation in Afghanistan which led to
the emergence of the Taliban and an ongoing twenty year war which cost hundreds of billions of
dollars and several thousand wounded and dead US soldiers; as a result the majority of the US
public turned negative toward wars and empire building
The US pillage and dominance of Russia ended, when President Putin replaced Yeltsin's vassal
state. Russia rebuilt its industry, science, technology and military power. Russia's population
recovered its living standards.
With Russian independence and advanced military weaponry, the US lost its unipolar military
power. Nevertheless, Washington financed a coup which virtually annexed two thirds of the
Ukraine. The US incorporated the fragmented Yugoslavian 'statelets' into NATO. Russia countered
by annexing the Crimea and secured a mini-state adjacent Georgia.
China converted the economic invasion of US multi-national corporations into learning
experiences for building its national economy and export platforms which contributed which led
to its becoming an economic competitor and rival to the US.
US global empire building suffered important setbacks in Latin America resulting
from the the so-called Washington Consensus. The imposition of neo-liberal policies
privatized and plundered their economies, impoverished the working and middle class, and
provoked a series of popular uprising and the rise of radical social movements and center-left
governments.
The US empire lost spheres of influence in some regions (China, Russia, Latin America,
Middle East) though it retained influence among elites in contested regions and even launched
new imperial wars in contested terrain. Most notably the US attacked independent regimes in
Libya, Syria, Venezuela, Somalia and Sudan via armed proxies.
The change from a unipolar to a multi polar world and the gradual emergence of regional
rivals led US global strategists to rethink their strategy. The Trump regime's aggressive
policies set the stage for political division within the regime and among allies.
The Obama – Trump Convergence and Differences on Empire Building
By the second decade of the 21 st century several new global power alignments
emerged: China had become the main economic competitor for world power and Russia was the major
military challenger to US military supremacy at the regional level. The US replaced the former
European colonial empire in Africa. Washington's sphere of influence extended especially in
North and Sub Sahara Africa: Kenya, Libya, Somalia and Ethiopia. Trump gained leverage in the
Middle East namely in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, and Jordan.
Israel retained its peculiar role, converting the US as its sphere of influence.
But the US faced regional rivals for sphere of influence in Lebanon, Syria, Iran, Iraq and
Algeria.
In South Asia US faced competition for spheres of influence from China, India, Afghanistan
and Pakistan.
In Latin America sharp and abrupt shifts in spheres of influence were the norm. US influence
declined between 2000 – 2015 and recovered from 2015 to the present.
Imperial Power Alignments Under President Trump
President Trump faced complex global, regional and local political and economic
challenges.
Trump followed and deepened many of the policies launched by the Obama- Hillary Clinton
policies with regard to other countries and regions . However Trump also radicalized and/or
reversed policies of his predecessors. He combined flattery and aggression at the same
time.
At no time did Trump recognize the limits of US global power. Like the previous three
presidents he persisted in the belief that the transitory period of a unipolar global empire
could be re-imposed.
Toward Russia, a global competitor, Trump adopted a policy of 'rollback'. Trump imposed
economic sanctions, with the strategic 'hope' that by impoverishing Russia, degrading its
financial and industrial sectors that he could force a regime change which would convert Moscow
into a vassal state.
At the beginning of his Presidential campaign Trump flirted with the notion of a business
accommodation with Putin. However, Trump's ultra-belligerent appointments and domestic
opposition soon turned him toward a highly militarized strategy, rejecting military –
including nuclear – agreements, in favor of military escalation.
Toward China, Trump faced a dynamic and advancing technological competitor. Trump resorted
to a 'trade war' that went far beyond 'trade' to encompass a war against Beijing's economic
structure and social relations. The Trump regime-imposed sanctions and threatened a total
boycott of Chinese exports.
ORDER IT NOW
Trump and his economic team demanded China privatize and denationalize its entire state
backed industry. They demanded the power to unilaterally decide when violations of US rules
occurred and to be able to re-introduce sanctions without consultations. Trump demanded all
Chinese technological agreements, economic sectors and innovations were subject and open to US
business interests. In other words, Trump demanded the end of Chinese sovereignty and the
reversal of the structural base for its global power. The US was not interested in mere 'trade'
– it wanted a return to imperial rule over a colonized China.
The Trump regime rejected negotiations and recognition of a shared power relation: it viewed
its global rivals as potential clients.
Inevitably the Trump regime's strategy would never reach any enduring agreements on any
substantial issues under negotiations. China has a successful strategy for global power built
on a 6 trillion-dollar world-wide Road and Belt (R and B) development policy, which links 60
countries and several regions. R and B is building seaports, rail and air systems linking
industries financed by development banks.
In contrast, the US banks exploits industry, speculates and operates within closed financial
circuits. The US spends trillions on wars, coups, sanctions and other parasitical activities
which have nothing to do with economic competitiveness.
The Trump regime's 'allies' in the Middle East namely Saudi Arabia and Israel, are parasitic
allies who buy protection and provoke costly wars.
Europe complains about China's increase in industrial exports and overlook imports of
consumer goods. Yet the EU plans to resist Trump's sanctions which lead to a blind alley of
stagnation!
Conclusion
The most recent period of the peak of US global power, the decade between 1989-99 contained
the seeds of its decline and the current resort to trade wars, sanctions and nuclear
threats.
The structure of US global power changed over the past seven decades. The US global empire
building began with the US command over the rebuilding of Western European economies and the
displacement of England, France, Portugal and Belgium from Asia and Africa.
The Empire spread and penetrated South America via US multi-national corporations. However,
US empire building was not a linear process as witness its unsuccessful confrontation with
national liberation movements in Korea, Indo China, Southern Africa (Angola, Congo, etc.) and
the Caribbean (Cuba). By the early 1960's the US had displaced its European rivals and
successfully incorporated them as subordinate allies.
Washington's main rivals for spheres of influence was Communist China and the USSR with
their allies among client state and overseas revolutionaries.
The US empire builders' successes led to the transformation of their Communist and
nationalist rivals into emergent capitalist competitors.
In a word US dominance led to the construction of capitalist rivals, especially China and
Russia.
Subsequently, following US military defeats and prolonged wars, regional powers proliferated
in the Middle East, North Africa, South Asia and Latin America. Regional blocs competed with US
clients for power.
The diversification of power centers led to new and costly wars. Washington lost exclusive
control of markets, resources and alliances. Competition reduced the spheres of US power.
In the face of these constraints on US global power the Trump regime envisioned a strategy
to recover US dominance – ignoring the limited capacity and structure of US political ,
economic and class relations.
China absorbed US technology and went on to create new advances without following each
previous stage.
Russia's recovered from its losses and sanctions and secured alternative trade relations to
counter the new challenges to the US global empire. Trump's regime launched a 'permanent trade
war' without stable allies. Moreover, he failed to undermine China's global infrastructure
network; Europe demanded and secured autonomy to enter into trade deals with China, Iran and
Russia.
Trump has pressured many regional powers who have ignored his threats.
The US still remains a global power. But unlike the past, the US lacks the industrial base
to 'make America strong'. Industry is subordinated to finance; technological innovations are
not linked to skilled labor to increase productivity.
Trump relies on sanctions and they have failed to undermine regional influentials. Sanctions
may temporarily reduce access to US markets' but we have observed that new trade partners take
their place.
Trump has gained client regimes in Latin America, but the gains are precarious and subject
to reversal.
Under the Trump regime, big business and bankers have increased prices in the stock market
and even the rate of growth of the GDP, but he confronts severe domestic political instability,
and high levels of turmoil among the branches of government. In pursuit of loyalty over
competence, Trump's appointments have led to the ascendancy of cabinet officials who seek to
wield unilateral power which the US no longer possesses.
Elliot Abrams can massacre a quarter-million Central Americans with impunity, but he has
failed to impose US power over Venezuela and Cuba. Pompeo can threaten North Kore, Iran and
China but these countries fortify alliances with US rivals and competitors. Bolton can advance
the interests of Israel but their conversations take place in a telephone booth – it
lacks resonance with any major powers.
Trump has won a presidential election, he has secured concessions from some countries but he
has alienated regional and diplomatic allies. Trump claims he is making America strong, but he
has undermined lucrative strategic multi-lateral trade agreements.
US 'Global Power' does not prosper with bully-tactics. Projections of power alone, have
failed – they require recognition of realistic economic limitations and the losses from
regional wars.
This is a fine synopsis but it leaves out the most fundamental of issues.
The American People don't want to be an Empire, .never asked to be an Empire and despise,
to the core, our ruling elites who defrauded us into becoming one.
We do live in an Empire now, to our chagrin, but it is (in truth) a malevolent empire .an
Empire of Fraud, Belligerence .. and Heinous
F#cking Debt .
Show me one American, anywhere, who is happy about it .
Our ruling elites have "lied" us into multiple wars of "never ending" criminal aggression
..wars which have all but exterminated the solvency of the nation and reaped untold carnage
and misery on tens of millions of people who never attacked us (and never intended to).
This "War Fraud", foisted upon us , has been a catastrophic disaster for our country and
the world.
A "mind -bending, catastrophic, . disaster".
Every single belligerent "oligarch" , "plutocrat" and "establishment elite", who conspired
to defraud us into these "illegal wars", should be rounded up and thrown in federal prison
Every single penny of their assets should be seized to pay down the cost of wars they lied us
into.
This is , hands down, the most meaningful step we could take, as a nation.
Not only would it change the direction of the world, almost overnight, but it would lay
the groundwork for the United States to rebuild itself.
Once we make "Accountability for War Fraud" our nations highest priority, we can repair
and rebuild.
If we don't, we won't and(tragically) might never be able to.
Neuroticism is characterized by "feeling negative feelings strongly," with the opposite of
Neuroticism being "Emotional Stability." Such "Negative Feelings" include sadness, anger and
jealousy. But females score particularly strongly on "anxiety" -- possibly because, in
prehistory, the children of anxious, protective mothers were less likely to get seriously
injured. But the key point is that the stereotype is correct.
And people are also correct to think that women -- that is, those who, on average, score
higher in Neuroticism -- will be less able to cope in the brutal world of power-politics.
Successful politicians -- the ones who get into their country's legislature but don't make
it to the very top -- score significantly lower than the general public in Neuroticism,
according to research published in the leading psychology journal Personality and Individual
Differences . [ The personalities of
politicians: A big five survey of American legislators , by Richard Hanania ,
2017]
And this research reveals something very interesting indeed. These "successful politicians,"
while being more emotionally stable than most voters, score higher in the personality
traits Extraversion ("feeling positive feelings strongly"), Conscientiousness ("rule-following
and impulse control") and Agreeableness ("altruism and empathy").
But this does not tend to be true of those who reach the very top of politics -- and
especially not of those who are perceived as great, world-changing statesmen. They tend to be
highly intelligent but above average on quite the opposite personality traits –
psychopathology and Narcissism [ Creativity and psychopathology , by F. Post British
Journal of Psychiatry, 1994]. However, high Agreeableness, Conscientiousness and
Extraversion are true of successful politicians in general.
In much the same way, run-of-the-mill scientists are above average in Agreeableness and
Conscientiousness but genius
scientists combine being relatively low in these traits with stratospheric
intelligence. This gives them creativity, drive and fearless to be original. [ At Our Wits'
End , by Edward Dutton and Michael Woodley of Menie, 2018, Ch. 6]
This is important, because these are typically female traits: women score higher than
men in Agreeableness, Consciousness and Extraversion. This means that, in general, we would
expect the relatively few females who do reach high political office to be fairly atypical
women: low in mental instability and certainly moderately low in altruism, empathy or both --
think
Margaret Thatcher , who according to Keith Patching in his 2006 book Leadership,
Character and Strategy, was organizing her impending Bar Finals from her hospital bed
having just had twins; or even Theresa May. Neither of these British Prime Ministers have (or
had) neither of whom have particularly "feminine" personalities, though they may reflect (or
have reflected) very pronounced Conscientiousness, a trait associated with social conservatism.
[
Resolving the "Conscientiousness Paradox" , by Scott A. McGreal, Psychology
Today , July 27, 2015]
But, sometimes, a female politician's typically anxiety will apparently be " compensated " for
i.e. overwhelmed by her having massively high Agreeableness and Conscientiousness. This likely
occurred in the case of Jacinda Ardern, who suffers from
intense anxiety to the point of having being hospitalized.
This will become a problem in a time of crisis when, as happened with Ardern, such a
politician will become over-emotional. This, combined with very high empathy, would seem to
partly explain Ardern's self-identification with New Zealand's Muslims to the extent of donning
a head scarf and breaking down in public.
But it also explains why females, on average, tend to be more left-wing than males and more
open to refugees. They feel empathy and even sadness for the plight of the refugees more
strongly than do men [ Young
women are more left wing than men, study reveals, by Rosalind Shorrocks, The
Conversation, May 3, 2018
This means that there will be a tendency for females to push politics Leftwards and make it
more about empathy and other such "feelings." It also means that, in a serious crisis, they may
well even empathize with the enemy.
In that gay men are generally feminized males, this problem help would to explain why people
are skeptical of the suitability of homosexual men for supposedly "masculine" professions (such
as politics) [ The
extreme male brain theory of autism, by Simon Baron-Cohen, Trends in Cognitive
Sciences, 2002], sometimes including political office. [ The Hidden Psychology
of Voting, by Zaria Gorvett, BBC News , May 6, 2015]
What about Science and Technology? Are they suited for that? Maybe science could use a little
more wisdom and conscientiousness.
J Robert Oppenheimer, the genius Physics professor, was known to be "temperamental" and
not suited for high stress assignment. So, along with several other genius's, some who came
over from Germany, he presided over the making of the A-bomb. Hallelujah just kidding.
There's an excellent book that covers J Robert Oppenheimer and the making of the A-bomb
called "American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J Robert Oppenheimer".
The guy was totally volatile and emotionally unstable. While in school he left a knife in an
apple on his teacher's desk that he did not like.
After the bomb was dropped on JAPAN, in a documentary much later, he is shown with tears
in his eyes quoting the Bhagavad Gita: "Now I am become death, destroyer of worlds".
A couple decades or so later there were interviews of some of these guys who were part of
the project and they were crying. They had the GENIUS to build such a monstrosity, but seemed
to have failed to understand the impact it would make on the world; breaking down in tears
when talking about it. They had no clue or ability of Foreknowledge. What would have happened
if more women were on the team? Would we all be annihilated by now? Or maybe no a-bomb would
have been made? Who knows .
Interesting. And I appreciate the citations to sources. But I find that interpretation of
psychiatric traits is a bit like reading tea leaves: there is a temptation to cherry-pick
one's preferred quotes and conclusions. For me, this article would have been stronger if it
had followed a recognized authority's path through the Big Five personality traits.
It seems rather unfair to pick a moron like Jacinda Ardern to represent all female
politicians. And even though when it comes to foreign policy, I'll take a Tulsi Gabbard over
any male politician like Rubio, Graham, Schumer, Pence, Trump, Pompeo, Bolton any day, I will
have to say, in general, you're right, the crop of female politicians we've seen today do not
inspire confidence in women as politicians, not just in the US but Merkel, May yikes. But
women had been good heads of states in the past, like Margaret Thatcher and Queen Victoria.
But they were the exceptions rather than the rule.
Also agree that gays make for bad politicians. Even though their moral degeneracy and
drama queen antics make politics look like a natural fit, their extreme narcissism means they
will always get sidetracked and can't stay focused. The only thing any gay man cares about is
his gayness. Plus no one outside the western world will ever give them an ounce of respect.
Picture Buttplug showing up in a muslim country as POTUS, with his husband! Either they'll
get stoned to death which will get us into war or the US will be the laughing stock of the
world. And then of course he'd have to go bomb some country just to prove his manhood,
getting us into more unnecessary wars. No gays for politics, ever.
There has been a very successful effort to paint Oppenheimer as a secular saint. But
Princeton's John Archibald Wheeler stated that he never trusted Oppenheimer. So what? Because
JAW was notorious for otherwise saying nice things about almost everyone else, especially his
academic rivals. Also JAW happily and productively worked on the US H-bomb project which was
embargoed by Oppenheimer and his many disciples.
I agree with the point made above, that, in our nuclear age, behavior in a crisis is the most
important personality trait. I think that men's crisis-calmness can suffer from macho/ego,
and with women, from anxiety and panic. Democratic candidate Amy K reportedly throws things
when angry, and to me, this is disqualifying. Assuming no nuclear destruction, the analysis
is this: We have devolved into a gigantic banana republic/soft dictatorship; whose
personality constellation is best suited to politics in a banana republic?
No female leader of any country, ever, has been particularly good, except one.
And that one was only because she was fortunate enough to be the PM of the UK at the same
time as Ronald Reagan was President of the US. He was handholding every single decision of
hers. Reagan was effectively running two countries (the #1 and #4 largest GDPs in the world
at that time). At least she was smart enough to let him tell her exactly what to do.
Given this dataset, no, women are not suitable for very high political office.
Is Ardern still wearing that hijab in order to cynically manipulate her insipid voters?
Anyway
I have come to realize that women, on the whole, tend to be poorly suited to many
traditionally male-doninated activities. Politics, for sure. Very few good, dependable female
politicians come to mind. But the list at my immediate recall that are emotional, vapid,
destructive slobs -- Angela Merkel, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, Eva Perón,
Michelle Bachelet, Isabel Allende Bussi, Annie Lööf, Anne Hidalgo, Ursula von der
Leyen, Maxine Waters, Nancy Pelosi, Rashida Tlaïb, Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, et al --
seems practically limitless. Not only is the fairer sex not adept at political leadership,
but they are ill-suited to even vote rationally. The weakness of Anglo-American men's resolve
against the suffragettes was the beginning of the end.
Preeminent excellence seems to elude the grasp of women in a number of other careers. For
whatever reason, there are few women writers of prose fiction that can equal the heights men
have reached in that field. This despite the fact that the contemporary literary industry is
overwhelmingly dominated by women. True, there are the rare instances of female literary
transcendence in the guise of a Clarice Lispector, Hilda Hilst, Okamoto Kanoko, Murasaki
Shikibu, Unica Zürn, and so on. But they tend to be the exceptions that prove the rule.
(On the other hand, women seem naturally gifted at lyric expression, with great female poets
existing since at least Sappho.)
Orchestral conducting, too, is a field wherein women cannot produce an equal or better of,
say, a Furtwängler, Mengelberg, or Beecham. There are plenty of them around today -- all
lousy. (To be fair, though, nearly all living conductors today -- male or female --
are lousy.)
I'm a university degree holding woman, of the traditional type with XX chromosomes, and since
I was a teen some forty years ago, I've thought that men are better suited for politics. Not
that a few women can't do it successfully (Thatcher and British Queens for examples) but that
it's a profession far more suited to men, being as many are more naturally mentally strong,
steady and rational, and not as given to bursts of emotion and utopian fancies as women can
often be. In fact, I'd be delighted if only U.S. born citizen male property owners over the
age of 25 were allowed to vote. How's that for being a Dissident?
The jobs reports are fabrications and that the jobs that do exist are lowly paid domestic
service jobs such as waitresses and bartenders and health care and social assistance. What has
kept the American economy going is the expansion of consumer debt, not higher pay from higher
productivity. The reported low unemployment rate is obtained by not counting discouraged workers
who have given up on finding a job.
I was listening while driving to rightwing talk radio. It is BS just like NPR. It was about
the great Trump economy compared to the terrible Obama one. The US hasn't had a great economy
since jobs offshoring began in the 1990s, and with robotics about to launch Americans are
unlikely ever again to experience a good economy.
The latest jobs report released today claims 236,000 new private sector jobs. Where are the
jobs, if they in fact exist?
Manufacturing, that is making things, produced a mere 4,000 jobs.
The jobs are in domestic services. There are 54,800 jobs in "administrative and waste
services." This category includes things such as employment services, temporary help
services, and building services such as janitor services.
"Health care and social assistance" accounts for 52,600 jobs. This category includes
things such as ambulatory health care services and individual and family services.
There are a few other jobs scattered about. Warehousing and storage had 5,400 new
jobs.
Real estate rental and leasing hired 7,800.
Legal services laid off 700 people.
Architectural and engineering services lost 1,700 jobs.
There were 6,800 new managers.
The new jobs are not high value-added, high productivity jobs that provide middle class
incomes.
In the 21st century the US economy has only served those who own stocks. The liquidity that
the Federal Reserve has pumped into the economy has driven up stock prices, and the Trump tax
cut has left corporations with more money for stock buybacks and dividend payments. The
institute on Taxation and Economic Policy reports that 60 Fortune 500 companies paid no taxes
on $79 billion in income, instead receiving a rebate of $4.3 billion. https://itep.org/notadime/
The sign of a good economy is when companies are reinvesting their profits and borrowed
money in new plant and equipment to meet rising demand. Instead, US companies are spending more
on buybacks and dividends than the total of their profits. In other words, the companies are
going into debt in order to drive up their share prices by purchasing their own shares. The
executives and shareholders are looting their own companies, leaving the companies less
capitalized and deeper in debt. https://systemicdisorder.wordpress.com/2016/10/26/work-harder-for-speculators/
Meanwhile, for the American people the Trump regime's budget for 2020 delivers $845 billion
in cuts to Medicare, $1.5 trillion in cuts to Medicaid, and $84 billion in cuts to Social
Security disability benefits.
History is repeating itself: Let them eat cake. After me the deluge.
I'm surprised Italy that gets much coverage, given that it is not really a major European
power anymore. The EU is controlled by France and Germany and the UK is the strongest ally of
the US, though that came under question during the Obama years. I don't buy the argument that
a lot of dysfunctional politics is the reason (so a lot to write about). You can say that
about many countries.
Israel arguably gets some amount of 'undue' coverage given its size and location, but
it's not nearly as predominant as "ZOG"-types probably assume to be the case.
Naïve analysis, it's not so much how often Israel is being mentioned but under
what conditions . The coverage the NYT gives it is massively favourable compared to a
counter-factual if Israel had been a White christian-majority country trying to keep itself
that way by instituting a White christian-only immigration policy etc. Judaism is an ethnic
religion after all. It also continues to define it as a democracy despite being a de facto
apartheid state etc. How often it is mentioned is not a debunking of the NYT's special
treatment of Israel.
Australia is probably a better candidate for that title. The UK sat out Vietnam, and the
US turned a blind eye to IRA fundraising for decades.
It also continues to define it as a democracy despite being a de facto apartheid state
etc
Apartheid was democratically enacted. That most people couldn't vote doesn't make it any
less democratic. Democracy is not the same as universal suffrage.
In the corporate media, Russia is routinely described as a dictatorship because there is
no change in party governance. By that standard, South Africa post-1994 is also a
dictatorship.
Whites were never the majority in South Africa, only in the cities (most of which carry
Western names, some rebadged with convoluted local names post-1994). The goal of apartheid
was to keep blacks in rural areas.
Jews have been the supermajority in Israel since the ethnic cleansing in the 1948 war. The
apartheid comparison only makes sense wrt to the West Bank and the Golan Heights. In the West
Bank, Jews are a minority that overrides the self-determination of the Arab majority. In the
Golan, IIRC its 50-50, where the Druze Arabs could become Israeli citizens but don't do so
out of support for Assad.
The South African parliament had no black MPs (1948-1994), the Knesset has had Arab MPs
for the entirety of its existence.
@mark green
Over the same time period, "Holocaust" gets 5,168 and "anti-Semitic" gets 2,187. If we add
those to the total (which seems like quite a stretch), it bumps Israel up a couple of spots,
still behind Mexico.
I suspect the high ranking for Russia is due to the NYT coverage of the Russia-gate hoax.
Otherwise, who in Manhattan cares about Russia? (Okay, maybe in Brooklyn).
As for Israel, well, you know Probably ranks #1 if you do the list on a per capita
basis.
This story would be more important if the NYT hadn't fallen into the Prog-Left black hole,
where if you don't agree with their Party Line nothing in that paper makes any sense. And no
intellectual illumination can escape.
As another has pointed out, a per capita analysis would shift Israel comfortably to the top.
Sure, population is in a sense already factored into the question of what makes a country
newsworthy, but every other country above Israel on the list has a far larger population,
even Canada, which is also one of only two US border countries, of course. And all the
Mid-East countries not far below Israel interest NYT readers primarily because of wars and
enmities fomented by the 'Pow-ah Brokers' within their readership, if you get my drift. Much
larger, wealthier and religiously more important Saudi Arabia is way down the list because
they were comfortably sidelined with Judeo-Muslim values decades ago. (Right, Anthony and
Huma?) I'd say the list substantially strengthens the case of us 'ZOG types', not weakens it.
@216Apartheid was democratically enacted. That most people couldn't vote doesn't make it any
less democratic. Democracy is not the same as universal suffrage.
Kind of depends on how you define democracy, doesn't it?
Ancient Athens is routinely classified as a democracy despite perhaps at most 30% of the
adult population having the franchise.
Democracy is rule by the demos, so who you include and exclude from the demos is pretty
important.
Jews have been the supermajority in Israel since the ethnic cleansing
But that makes it worse, not better, than the South African Apartheid. Most people surely
would choose to be oppressed (while living standards would keep slightly improving and their
population and ethnic majority in the area growing) over being booted out with a few
suitcases and without compensation for their possessions (including land, houses,
animals).
Over the weekend, more than 5,000 delegates from across the world met in Beijing for The
Second Belt and Road Forum For International Cooperation. The conference provided an
opportunity for public and private investors to learn more about Xi Jinping's "signature
infrastructure project" that is reshaping trade relations across Europe, Asia, Latin America
and Africa. According to journalist Pepe Escobar, "The BRI is now supported by no less than 126
states and territories, plus a host of international organizations" and will involve "six major
connectivity corridors spanning Eurasia." The massive development project is "one of the
largest infrastructure and investment projects in history, .including 65% of the world's
population and 40% of the global gross domestic product as of 2017." (Wikipedia) The
improvements to road, rail and sea routes will vastly increase connectivity, lower shipping
costs, boost productivity, and enhance widespread prosperity. The BRI is China's attempt to
replace the crumbling post-WW2 "liberal" order with a system that respects the rights of
sovereign nations, rejects unilateralism, and relies on market-based principles to effect a
more equitable distribution of wealth. The Belt and Road Initiative is China's blueprint for a
New World Order. It is the face of 21st century capitalism.
The prestigious event in Beijing was barely covered by the western media which sees the
project as a looming threat to US plans to pivot to Asia and become the dominant player in the
most prosperous and populous region in the world. Growing international support for the
Chinese roadmap suggests that Washington's hegemonic ambitions are likely to be short-circuited
by an aggressive development agenda that eclipses anything the US is currently doing or plans
to do in the foreseeable future.
The Chinese plan will funnel trillions of dollars into state of the art transportation
projects that draw the continents closer together in a webbing of high-speed rail and energy
pipelines (Russia). Far-flung locations in Central Asia will be modernized while standards of
living will steadily rise. By creating an integrated economic space, in which low tariffs and
the free flow of capital help to promote investment, the BRI initiative will produce the
world's biggest free trade zone, a common market in which business is transacted in Chinese or
EU currency. There will be no need to trade in USD's despite the dollar's historic role as
the world's reserve currency. The shift in currencies will inevitably increase the flow of
dollars back to the United States increasing the already-ginormous $22 trillion dollar National
Debt while precipitating an excruciating period of adjustment.
Chinese and Russian leaders are taking steps to "harmonize" their two economic initiatives,
the Belt and Road and the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). This will be a challenging task as
the expansion of infrastructure implies compatibility between leaders, mutual security
guarantees, new rules and regulations for the common economic space, and supranational
political structures to oversee trade, tariffs, foreign investment and immigration. Despite the
hurtles, both Putin and Xi appear to be fully committed to their vision of economic integration
which they see as based on the "unconditional adherence to the primacy of national sovereignty
and the central role of the United Nations."
It comes at no surprise that US powerbrokers see Putin's plan as a significant threat to
their regional ambitions, in fact, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton admitted as much
in 2012 when she said, "It's going to be called a customs union, it will be called the Eurasian
Union and all of that, but let's make no mistake about it. We know what the goal is and we are
trying to figure out effective ways to slow down or prevent it." Washington opposes any free
trade project in which it is excluded or cannot control. Both the EEU and the BRI fall into
that category.
The United States continues to demonize countries that simply want to use the market to
improve the lives of their people and increase their prospects for prosperity. Washington's
hostile approach is both misguided and counterproductive. Competition should be seen as a way
to improve productivity and lower costs, not as a threat to over-bloated, inefficient
industries that have outlived their usefulness. Here's an excerpt from an article that Putin
wrote in 2011. It helps to show that Putin is not the scheming tyrant he is made out to be in
the western media, but a free market capitalist who enthusiastically supports
globalization:
"For the first time in the history of humanity, the world is becoming truly global, in
both politics and economics. A central part of this globalization is the growing importance
of the Asia-Pacific region as compared to the EuroAtlantic world in the global economy.
Asia's rise is lifting with it the economies of countries outside Asia that have managed to
latch onto the "Asian economic engine" .The US has also effectively hitched itself to this
"engine", creating an economic and financial network with China and other countries in the
region
The "supercontinent" of Eurasia is home to two-thirds of the world's population and
produces over 60 percent of its economic output. Because of the dramatic opening of China and
the former Soviet Union to the world, almost all the countries in Eurasia are becoming more
economically, politically, and culturally interdependent.
There is huge potential for development in infrastructure, in spite of some formidable
bottlenecks. A unified and homogeneous common power market stretching from Lisbon to Hanoi
via Vladivostok is not necessary, because electric power markets do not function in that way.
But the creation of infrastructure that could support a number of regional and sub-regional
common markets would do much for the economic development of Greater Eurasia." (Russian
newspaper, Izvestia, 2011)
Keep in mind, the article was written back in 2011 long before Xi had even conjured up his
grand pan-Asia infrastructure scheme. Putin was already a committed capitalist looking for ways
to put the Soviet era behind him and skillfully use the markets to build his nation's power and
prosperity. Regrettably, he has been blocked at every turn. Washington does not want others to
effectively use the markets. Washington wants to threaten, bully, sanction and harass its
competitors so that outcomes can be controlled and more of the world's wealth can be skimmed
off the top by the noncompetitive, monopolistic corporate behemoths that diktat foreign policy
to their political underlings (in congress and the White House) and who see rivals as blood
enemies that must be ground into dust.
Is it any wonder why Russia and China have emerged as Washington's biggest enemies? It has
nothing to do with the fictitious claims of election meddling or so-called "hostile behavior"
in the South China Sea. That's nonsense. Washington is terrified that the Russo-Chinese
economic integration plan will replace the US-dominated "liberal" world order, that cutting
edge infrastructure will create an Asia-Europe super-continent that no longer trades in dollars
or recirculates profits into US debt instruments. They are afraid that an expansive free
trade zone that extends from Lisbon to Vladivostok will inevitably lead to new institutions for
lending, oversight and governance. They are afraid that a revamped 21st century capitalism will
result in more ferocious competition for their clunker corporations, less opportunity for
unilateralism and meddling, and a rules-based system where the playing field is painstakingly
kept level. That's what scares Washington.
The Belt and Road Initiative and the Eurasian Economic Union represent the changing of the
guard. The US-backed 'neoliberal' model of globalisation is being rejected everywhere, from the
streets of Paris, to Brexit, to the rise of
From comments: "Fuck Mueller, fuck Napolitano, fuck Schiff, Nadler, et al, and the swamp they
inhabit."
Notable quotes:
"... The Barr argument goes thus way: In order for a person to obstruct justice, there must be some justice to obstruct. Hence, if the alleged obstructer did not commit the underlying crime being investigated, then his so-called obstruction did not impair justice; it just impaired a fruitless investigation... ..."
The Barr argument goes thus way: In order for a person to obstruct justice, there must be
some justice to obstruct. Hence, if the alleged obstructer did not commit the underlying crime
being investigated, then his so-called obstruction did not impair justice; it just impaired a
fruitless investigation...
Police come to my house and ask to check inside to make sure I'm not doing anything
illegal.
I ask them for a warrant, and bar them from entering as they have no proof I've doing
anything illegal.
They then launch an investigation, to see whether it was obstruction of justice for me to
stop them for investigating me for nothing (remember, there is no evidence.)
They conclude, through their investigation, that I committed no crime as there was, once
again, no evidence but are unsure whether me not allowing them into my house to investigate
the non-event that they surmised from no evidence was illegal.
What happened to reasonable suspicion or probable cause? It would indeed be a violation of
rights for Government agencies to investigate someone for domestic terrorism under no
evidence or suspicion. Why then are those same agencies allowed to investigate political
opponents under the same premise?
You are completely disingenuous here.
We know from Mueller's report that Russian intelligence agents engaged in sophisticated
cyber warfare against the United States, and we did very little to resist them
Paying 160k for Facebook ads constitutes 'sophisticated cyber warfare'?
Did then-President Barack Obama know what the Russians were up to?
I once again find it hard that Obama should have been kept in the loop of Facebook
advertising, but I suppose the Neoliberal World Order requires all machinations to be
submitted to the Deep State to ensure consistency on what is broadcast via the media.
The fact is Mueller did not find any supposed Russian collusion, so you contradict
yourself trying to make a point about Flynn.
I would have thought that through a legal career that you would atleast have a modicum of
respect for the law, perhaps even the rule of law, but that is clearly not the case. As
evidenced by this line:
The U.S. is planted thick with laws intended to preserve human freedom by keeping the
government honest. When the government breaks its own laws and gets away with it, it
undermines the personal liberty of us all.
What undermines personal liberty is creating a system that incentivizes ignoring
principals such as reasonable cause. Giving the Government enforcers the right to arbitrarily
harass people and then penalising them for resisting. Police kicking in doors and arresting
those who resist their searches to ensure, withouth any proof mind you, that nothing illegal
is going on is the future of such a dangerous precedent.
I'm not a fan of Trump. He is patently a con man who has sold a lot of people a bill of
goods. He is also in many ways simply not competent in doing his job, as is evidenced by his
failure to control his own DOJ.
But, man, you've lost your mind.
In addition to everything else, you've lost sight of the fact that as head of the unitary
executive, of which DOJ is a part, Trump himself is the chief prosecutor. He is different
from you and me. It would be within his power and right and indeed his duty to stop an
investigation of circumstances in which the knew no crime had been committed, or any
investigation he did not believe was in the public interest, whoever the suspect might have
been, and whatever anybody else thought about it. In this case the suspect was him and he
knew he had committed no crime.
@Rational "Foreigners have a right to freedom of speech too, and that is not illegal."
Agreed. The First Amendment and what "Freedom Watcher" used to defend as a "natural right" of
free speech speech also means that Americans may read and hear what those foreigners write
and say.
I and others have been reading carefully and commenting on the columns of St. Mueller's
altar boy since November 2017. Mr. Napolitano had fully emerged as a Russophobic
Establishment tool by February 22, 2018, in a column entitled "Mueller in Hot Pursuit." It
may remain the worst in the shameful series because its target is not just President Trump or
Russia, but people like you and me. One of my comments in that thread:
******
Well, shucks. No Russophobic dirk to look for this week in the folds of his robe -- Mr.
Napolitano is finally full on, swinging the Establishment sword at "the Kremlin" and "its
indicted spies." And he's doing it to scare the American people.
"It is a felony for foreign nationals to participate in American federal elections, and it
is a felony for any Americans knowingly to assist them." No citation of the statute(s), or of
the particular acts among all "Judge" has mentioned within the scope of the subject
indictment. He is endorsing the notion that, under the Constitution he pretends to cherish, a
non-US citizen and any American "assistant" can be criminally convicted for "phony web posts"
or "aggressively revealing embarrassing data about Clinton," i.e., publishing anything deemed
relevant to a federal election on the internet. If you suggested after Sunday School there in
Nebraska that your friend check out those documents at Wikileaks, then will Mr. Mueller come
for you? Well, that depends:
"The other reason for the indictment is to smoke out any American collaborators. He has
identified American collaborators, but not by proper name, and the Department of Justice has
said -- not in the indictment, in which case it would be bound by what it says, but in a
press statement, which binds no one -- that the American collaborators were unwitting dupes
of the Russians. My guess is that Mueller's American targets are under electronic and visual
surveillance and that he is listening to their (premature) sighs of relief."
So don't worry, Big Brother most likely still loves you, or at least won't send you to
your room. As long as you were only an "unwitting dupe," and have stopped playing with the
bad kids.
Until Mr. Mueller could get here on his white horse, "the Russians ran unchecked through
our computer systems and the American marketplaces of ideas." You see, kids, the First
Amendment is no longer prophylactic, something to prevent government from violating your
natural rights to speak, hear, and think. Instead, things such as what I'm doing right now
are like food stamps, political privileges redeemable only at Uncle Sam's Club.
I hope there's no gentlemen's agreement that precludes some of the other writers published
on this website from confronting Mr. Napolitano on this vile column.
********
Anyone who accepts the notion that her pure, American mind needs to be protected from
Russian (or any other) foreign contamination has been successfully brainwashed.
If Trump would just appoint this asshole as a Traffic Court Judge in Washington DC he would
flip flop in a New York minute. I don't know what kind of drug Nappy is on but they sure have
screwed up what few brain cells he had left. Either that or he's been banging Mad Maxine and
her ignorance has rubbed off on him.
The writer is most clearly a paid shill for the Hillary Billary Obama Stay out of Jail
Cartel. He is a hard worker because he like them are what used to be called "Over Achievers".
You know they work long hours because they are really a little short on the IQ end things.
But with the Judge he goes one step further and gives free Sexual Favors just because he
enjoys it soooo much! Not the real kind of sex but some kind of visual self humiliating
spectacle for the Governing Board of the Hillary Billary Obama Stay out of Jail Cartel to
watch and read as he does his Public Demonstration of Unconditional Love for them. Not my
choice of entertainment and in fact I suggest it's Pornographic. Remember, you will know
Pornography when you see it or read it and I think this Article by the Former Judge is
Pornographic. Not that I want censorship, least of all on the Unz Review but perhaps a
warning disclaimer for the reader so those under the age of say 62 are notified it could turn
their stomach. Those of us 62 and older have seen enough horseshit to recognize the Former
Judge Sycophant for what he is and know not to pay any attention to the man behind the
screen. Anyhow its just another long winded article about nothing.
I did like comment indicating whether or not there is obstruction if there is no crime and
that is the core issue isn't it. We used to call this Made Up Shit.
@Macon Richardson Thank you, unfortunately Mr Napolitano writes as if he wishes to work
for CNN or Washington Post, as many other commentors have noticed, which is somewhat jarring
to see when Unz carries many other writers that have faithfully dissected the 'Russian
narrative' excellently. He seems to be in the grip of delusion if he fully believes what he
writes, and I fail to see how someone with a history in the legal field could be this
ignorant to the truth.
Well, not the House it turns out. Barr has learned not to talk to Democrats. I wonder if
he knew what he was getting into.
The House FullOfShiff creatures -- er, sorry Democrats were planning to use teams of
lawyers to question Barr. I.e., sweat him until they got a process crime, or some such. Just
as vampires recognize other vampires, lawyers know not to let themselves be grilled by teams
of Congressional lawyers.
That's what defense counsel and the Fifth Amendment are for.
@Tusk This is one of the biggest reasons people hate lawyers. Because the profession is
stuffed to the gills with legalistic pieces of shit. We'll leave aside how, if you let them
proliferate, and write your laws, you wind up with a legal system designed to provide them
with work from here to eternity, because there are so many laws that you're always breaking
at least one at any given moment, and they're written for lawyers, not human beings, so you
have no idea what they are or how to obey them.
Instead, we can just look at the type of shit the Injustice Department has been up to in
the last few years. We'll leave aside how they let the Clinton Crime family skate when they
had them dead to rights on acts that would have gotten any ordinary American thrown into
jail.
And just as you say, these people can, with a straight face, call it justice to charge
someone with "obstruction of justice" for "obstructing" "justice" when "justice" was actually
"injustice" and in pursuit of no genuine underlying crime. And then happily go on TV and harp
on how this is all perfectly legit and above board and by the book.
THEN THE BOOK IS A WORTHLESS PIECE OF SHIT, YOU WORTHLESS PIECE OF SHIT, AND IT'S A
WORTHLESS PIECE OF SHIT BECAUSE SOME WORTHLESS PIECE OF SHIT LIKE YOU WROTE IT.
There are still a few boomers who don't know that the FBI is led, top to bottom, by
fucking lawyers. They think of the FBI as cops, so the shit-stink of "lawyer" hasn't quite
totally covered them yet.
The obstruction theory the judge criticizes obscures the real issue: using an obstruction
investigation to hide numerous apparent 18 U.S.C. 242 violations on the part of federal
officials from being scrutinized by the President and his duly-appointed and -confirmed
Attorney General. But harping on Barr's theory serves to distract from looking at law
enforcement malfeasance. Under the judge's theory, a President has to sit on his hands as his
own Executive Branch officials conspire to remove him from office unlawfully or risk handing
them any easy obstruction charge. Who needs elections at that point?
FBI opens investigation into a crime that never happened to cover up spying on political
opponent. Cant find a way to use CIA / FBI fabricated "evidence" to indict. Therefore
obstruction.
"... Former American spies have been complaining for years that capturing the keystrokes of all people in America 24/7 produces information overload -- too much data to sift through when searching for those trying to harm our way of life. ..."
But the American intelligence community should have known. It captures all the fiber optic
communications of all people in America. This mass suspicionless surveillance is unlawful and
unconstitutional, but the leadership of our 60,000-person strong domestic spying apparatus has
persuaded every president since George H.W. Bush that all this spying keeps America safe. We
now know that it doesn't. It didn't find a single Russian spy bent on influencing the
election.
Former American spies have been complaining for years that capturing the keystrokes of
all people in America 24/7 produces information overload -- too much data to sift through when
searching for those trying to harm our way of life.
We know from Mueller's report that Russian intelligence agents engaged in sophisticated
cyber warfare against the United States, and we did very little to resist them
Paying $160K for Facebook ads constitutes 'sophisticated cyber warfare'?
The Lawyers Committee for 9/11 Inquiry, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, along with
9/11 victim family members have filed a joint federal lawsuit against the US Department of
Justice and the FBI for their failure to perform a congressionally mandated assessment of any
evidence known to the FBI that was not considered by the 9/11 Commission related to any factors
that contributed in any manner to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
David Meiswinkle, Mick Harrison, Barbara Honegger and Richard Gage provide a broad overview
of both the lawsuit and the filing of a grand jury petition; the seven counts of relevant
evidence included in the complaint which also cites the destruction by the FBI of evidence
related to the "High Fivers"; the Executive Director and Commissioners of the 9/11 Review
Commission along with its twelve staff members; next steps in the legal process and what a
successful outcome would look like.
See Criticism of Holocaust denial - Wikipedia, While
the person might be wrong is prison sentence justified in such a a case? Will it backfire with more
anti-Semitism, taking into account the prominent role of Jewish financial oligarchs such as Soros in establishment of neoliberalism
dominance in the USA and Europe.
No matter what are the actual numbers this was a huge tragedy. Here's an interesting viewpoint. The following is a copy of an
article written by Spanish writer Sebastian Vilar Rodriguez and published in a Spanish newspaper. It doesn't take much imagination
to extrapolate the message to the rest of Europe - and possibly to the rest of the world.
I walked down the streets in Barcelona and suddenly discovered a terrible truth - Europe died in Auschwitz . . . We killed six
million Jews and replaced them with 20 million Muslims. In Auschwitz we burned a group of people who represented culture, thought,
creativity, talent. We destroyed the chosen people, truly chosen, because they produced great and wonderful people who made great
contributions to the world, and thus changed the world.
The contribution of today's Jewish people is felt in all areas of life: science, art, international trade, and above all, as the
conscience of the world. Look at any donors' board at any symphony, art museum, theatre, art gallery, science centre, etc. You will
see many, many, Jewish surnames. These are the people who were burned. Of the 6,000,000 who died, how many would have grown up to be
gifted musicians, doctors, artists, philanthropists?
And under the pretence of tolerance, and because we wanted to prove to ourselves that we were cured of the diseases of racism
and bigotry, Europe opened our gates to 20 million Muslims, who brought us stupidity and ignorance, religious extremism and lack of
tolerance, crime and poverty, due to an unwillingness to work and support their families with pride.
Notable quotes:
"... Alain Finkielkraut recently stated : "Soral is the most dangerous and ominous character of the public scene." To understand the significance of these words, you have to know who is Alain Finkielkraut, and who is Alain Soral. ..."
"... Finkielkraut is one of our French neoconservatives. Formerly a Trotskyite, he is now a nationalist. He embodies what Soral calls National-Zionism, that new ideology massively promoted by Jewish "intellectuals" and media pundits who, after calling for the abolition of borders and drowning Europe in mass immigration, now tell the French people to turn to Israel as a model for dealing with Muslims. ..."
"... Alain Soral is indeed the most dangerous person for the National-Zionists. And the French elite of the media-finance-political complex are justifiably worried about the "soralisation des esprits", an expression that has surfaced in recent weeks, as Soral's name is heard here and there among the Yellow Vests. So the National-Zionists couldn't hide their joy when learning from the national press agency (AFP) on April 15 that Soral was sentenced to one year in prison with an arrest warrant " pour contestation de l'existence de la Shoah" ("for denying the existence of the Holocaust"), ..."
Alain Finkielkraut recently stated : "Soral is the most dangerous and
ominous character of the public scene." To understand the significance of these words, you have
to know who is Alain Finkielkraut, and who is Alain Soral.
Finkielkraut is one of our French neoconservatives. Formerly a Trotskyite, he is now a
nationalist. He embodies what Soral calls National-Zionism, that new ideology massively
promoted by Jewish "intellectuals" and media pundits who, after calling for the abolition of
borders and drowning Europe in mass immigration, now tell the French people to turn to Israel
as a model for dealing with Muslims.
Finky, as we like to call him, also embodies the arrogance of ethnocentric Jews who get an
undeserved ubiquity on television complaining about anti-Semitism and the next Holocaust. It is
true that, when Finkielkraut shows up in a Yellow Vest gathering, he will be called "Sale
sioniste!" which, as everyone is supposed to know, means "Sale juif!" which in turn
is a potential holocaust. And so, whenever Finkielkraut gets insulted in the street, which
happens, it is national news, and the President himself has to make the
standard declaration : "The anti-Semitic insults he has been subjected to are the absolute
negation of who we are and what makes us a great nation. We will not tolerate them." That is
the kind of important person Finkielkraut is. Oh! and Finkielkraut has been elected in the
prestigious Académie Française among those we call "the Immortals", although it
is unclear under what pretext. Like Bernard-Henri Lévy, Finkielkraut does write books
that are more and more heavily promoted but less and less read.
Alain Soral is indeed the most dangerous person for the National-Zionists. And the French
elite of the media-finance-political complex are justifiably worried about the "soralisation
des esprits", an expression that has surfaced in recent weeks, as Soral's name is heard
here and there among the Yellow Vests. So the National-Zionists couldn't hide their joy when
learning from the national press agency (AFP) on April 15 that Soral was sentenced to one year
in prison with an arrest warrant " pour contestation de l'existence de la Shoah" ("for
denying the existence of the Holocaust"), an expression which only makes sense, I believe, if
the Holocaust is God.
Listen here to Soral's own analysis of his sentence, with English subtitles.
Sanctions are the foreign policy equivalent of obstruction of justice traps. Sanctions
are initiated in the hope the sanctioned country then commits some actionable trepidation, a
Casus belli. They say the first casualty of war is the truth but that casualty comes way
before war starts and continues long after war ends.
"... Trump *escalated* US-Iran and US-Venezuela conflicts and intensified the sabre rattling towards both countries, according to all analysts. For the first time a POTUS openly said direct US invasion to Venezuela "is on the table" and his Adelson bought appointment for USNSA Bolton publicly showed in a notebook the writing "5000 troops to Colombia" openly suggesting a direct invasion was imminent. For the first time the White House asked the Pentagon to draw up options for military strikes against Iran. ..."
"... Trump's administration declared a whole branch of the Iran armed forces (IRGC) as a terrorist organisation. This is an escalation and according to most analysts, considered an act of war. ..."
"... Trump administration heavily increased sanctions to Iran, Russia and Venezuela and in the latter case even instigated a failed uprising and coup d'etat, going as far as to declare a virtual political Venezuelan nobody the "official" president of the country, which is in itself unbelievable and has no historic precedent. Another act of war actually. ..."
"... Trump administration also escalated the tensions with China, ordered the arrest and de facto kidnapping of Chinese corporate executives and openly used the US legal apparatus to attack and hinder a foreign corporation. ..."
"... Trump has been, objectively, the most neocon Israel-firster POTUS in US history. ..."
"... Friendly reminder that voting for Republicans and expecting US Jewish lobby/Corporate America promoted policies such as open borders and US imperialist interventions to stop is moronic beyond belief. Republicans are the most pro corporate pro US Jewish lobby of the two parties by far. At least there is talk and critique about how the Israel Lobby owns the USG in the Dem party. Nothing of the sort going on in the GOP. ..."
The U.S. missile strike on Shayrat Airbase on 7 April 2017 was the first time the U.S.
became a deliberate, direct combatant against the Syrian government and marked the start of
a series of deliberate direct military actions by U.S. forces against the Syrian government
and its allies in May -- June 2017 and February 2018.
Trump *escalated* the war from covert support to insurgents to direct intervention and
official *invasion* in Syria. This is the equivalent of going from financing and supporting a
faction in a so called proxy war in say Vietnam to leading the US to go full Iraq WMD and
become a warring and invading faction in the conflict. Again, this is an escalation.
The number of boots on the ground vs Obama's is data you just took out of your bottom.
Sources for your cheap PR shilling? You don't have any because this statement of yours is a
blatant lie.
Trump *escalated* US-Iran and US-Venezuela conflicts and intensified the sabre rattling
towards both countries, according to all analysts. For the first time a POTUS openly said
direct US invasion to Venezuela "is on the table" and his Adelson bought appointment for
USNSA Bolton publicly showed in a notebook the writing "5000 troops to Colombia" openly
suggesting a direct invasion was imminent. For the first time the White House asked the
Pentagon to draw up options for military strikes against Iran.
Trump's administration declared a whole branch of the Iran armed forces (IRGC) as a
terrorist organisation. This is an escalation and according to most analysts, considered an
act of war.
Trump's administration ended the Iran deal without any objective reasons, ie Obama's
effort to deescalate the Israel firsters driven Iran-US conflict
Trump administration heavily increased sanctions to Iran, Russia and Venezuela and in
the latter case even instigated a failed uprising and coup d'etat, going as far as to declare
a virtual political Venezuelan nobody the "official" president of the country, which is in
itself unbelievable and has no historic precedent. Another act of war actually.
Trump administration declared Golan Heights part of Israel brought US embassy to
Jerusalem, increasing the tensions and animosity towards the US in the ME.
Trump administration will declare Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organisation, increasing
the animosity from Arab countries in the ME to unbelievable levels. This includes non Arab
country Turkey also, a traditional ally until neocon Trump took power.
Trump administration also escalated the tensions with China, ordered the arrest and de
facto kidnapping of Chinese corporate executives and openly used the US legal apparatus to
attack and hinder a foreign corporation.
Trump has been, objectively, the most neocon Israel-firster POTUS in US history.
Friendly reminder that voting for Republicans and expecting US Jewish lobby/Corporate
America promoted policies such as open borders and US imperialist interventions to stop is
moronic beyond belief. Republicans are the most pro corporate pro US Jewish lobby of the two
parties by far. At least there is talk and critique about how the Israel Lobby owns the USG
in the Dem party. Nothing of the sort going on in the GOP.
Immigration restrictionism is a traditional pro working class, leftist policy.
Non intervention and "pacifist" policies the same. How many GOP supporters were against
the Vietnam and Iraq war? Not many yeah.
Trump has dropped more bombs and missiles on Middle Eastern countries in a comparable
period of time than any modern U.S. President. Presidents Bush, Obama and now [2017] Trump
have dropped nearly 200,000 bombs and missiles on Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Pakistan,
Yemen and Somalia. Trump's rate of bombing eclipses both Bush and Obama; and Trump is on a
pace to drop over 100,000 [180,000 to be precise] bombs and missiles on Middle Eastern
countries during his first term of office -- which would equal the number of bombs and
missiles dropped by Obama during his entire eight-year presidency.
Here's more perspective:
The United States Government, under the Trump administration, reportedly drops a bomb
every 12 minutes, which means that 121 bombs are dropped in a day, and 44,096 bombs per year.
The Pentagon's data show that during George W. Bush's eight years he averaged 24 bombs
dropped per day, that is, 8,750 per year. Over the course of Obama's time in office, his
military dropped 34 bombs per day, 12,500 per year. This shows that even though American
presidents are all war criminals, Trump is the most vicious of them all.
Yes, Trump is dropping almost FOUR TIMES MORE BOMBS than Barack Obama and over FIVE TIMES
MORE BOMBS than G.W. Bush -- which included military invasions of two countries.
We also know that Trump expanded America's wars in Afghanistan and Syria (and, no, he is
NOT bringing U.S. troops home from Syria) and is ramping up America's war machine against
Venezuela, Iran, China and Russia. And this does not even take into account the way Trump has
given Benjamin Netanyahu's raunchy racist regime the green light to expand its wars against
the Palestinians, Lebanon, Syria and Iran or the U.S./Israeli proxy war (with Saudi Arabia
taking the lead) in Yemen.
Then there is Somalia:
In the age of Donald Trump, wasn't that [the Battle of Mogadishu -- Black Hawk Down] a
million presidencies ago? Honestly, can you even tell me anymore what in the world it was all
about? I couldn't have, not without looking it up again. A warlord, starvation, U.S.
intervention, 18 dead American soldiers (and hundreds of dead Somalis, but that hardly
mattered) in a country that was shattering. President Clinton did, however, pull out those
troops and end the disastrous mission -- and that was that, right? I mean, lessons learned.
Somalia? Africa? What in the world did it all have to do with us? So Washington washed its
hands of the whole thing.
And now, on a planet of outrageous tweets and murderously angry white men, you probably
didn't even notice, but more than two years into the era of Donald Trump, a quarter-century
after that incident, American airstrikes in yep, Somalia, are precipitously on the rise.
Last year's 47 strikes, aimed at the leaders and fighters of al-Shabaab, an Islamist
terror outfit, more than tripled the ones carried out by the Obama administration in 2016
(themselves a modest increase from previous years). And in 2019, they're already on pace to
double again, while Somali civilians -- not that anyone (other than Somali civilians) notices
or cares -- are dying in significant and rising numbers.
And with 500 troops back on the ground there and Pentagon estimates that they will remain
for at least another seven years, the U.S. military is increasingly Somalia-bound, Congress
hasn't uttered a peep on the subject, and few in this country are paying the slightest
attention.
So consider this a simple fact of the never-ending Global War on Terror (as it was once
called): the U.S. military just can't get enough of Somalia. And if that isn't off the
charts, what is? Maybe it's even worth a future book (with a very small print run) called not
Black Hawk Down II but U.S. Down Forever and a Day.
And now that I've started on the subject (if you still happen to be reading), when it
comes to the U.S. military, it's not faintly just Somalia. It's all of Africa.
After all, this country's military uniquely has a continent-wide Africa Command (aka
AFRICOM), founded in 2007. As Nick Turse has often written for TomDispatch, that command now
has its troops, thousands of them, its planes, and other equipment spread across the
continent, north to south, east to west -- air bases, drone bases, garrisons, outposts,
staging areas, you name it. Meanwhile, AFRICOM's outgoing commanding general, Thomas
Waldhauser, only recently told Congress why it's bound to be a forever outfit -- because,
shades of the Cold War, the Ruskies are coming! ("Russia is also a growing challenge and has
taken a more militaristic approach in Africa.")
And honestly, 600-odd words in, this wasn't meant to be a piece about either Somalia or
Africa. It was meant to be about those U.S. wars being off the charts, about how the Pentagon
now feeds eternally at the terror trough, al-Shabaab being only a tiny part of the slop it
regularly digests.
And, while America's wars are way up, according to Gallup, church attendance in America is
way down:
As Christian and Jewish Americans prepare to celebrate Easter and Passover, respectively,
Gallup finds the percentage of Americans who report belonging to a church, synagogue or
mosque at an all-time low, averaging 50% in 2018.
U.S. church membership was 70% or higher from 1937 through 1976, falling modestly to an
average of 68% in the 1970s through the 1990s. The past 20 years have seen an acceleration in
the drop-off, with a 20-percentage-point decline since 1999 and more than half of that change
occurring since the start of the current decade.
Most interesting is this Gallup observation:
Although the United States is one of the more religious countries, particularly among
Western nations, it is far less religious than it used to be. Barely three-quarters of
Americans now identify with a religion and only about half claim membership in a church,
synagogue or mosque.
The rate of U.S. church membership has declined sharply in the past two decades after
being relatively stable in the six decades before that. A sharp increase in the proportion of
the population with no religious affiliation, a decline in church membership among those who
do have a religious preference, and low levels of church membership among millennials are all
contributing to the accelerating trend.
Obviously, America's Jewish and Muslim populations pale compared to its Christian
population. The vast decline of attendance to religious services, therefore, primarily means
church attendance. Notice, also, that this steep decline commenced at the beginning of this
century (2000) -- when G.W. Bush became President of the United States.
I tried to warn readers -- and listeners to my nationwide radio talk show -- that due to
his insatiable war fever, G.W. Bush was going to forever warp the perception in people's
minds of Christianity. And, sadly, I was absolutely right. After eight years of the
warmongering G.W. Bush in the White House, millions of Americans came to associate
Christianity with wars of aggression. As a result, the exodus out of America's churches began
in earnest.
Enter Donald Trump.
As noted above, Trump has expanded Bush's war fever exponentially. But Trump has done more
than that: He has aggressively put the United States smack dab in the middle of Israel's
wars. It could even be argued that Donald Trump has turned the U.S. military into a proxy
army for the Israel Defense Forces (IDF).
Don't get me wrong: I am very cognizant of the fact that G.W. Bush's "war on terror" was
nothing more than a proxy war for Israel. But the Israeli connection was covert and
completely covered up. Not anymore. Donald Trump is unabashedly and explicitly partnering the
mission of the U.S. military with that of the IDF. No wonder Benjamin Netanyahu promises to
name a community in the Israel-seized, Israel-occupied Golan Heights after Donald Trump.
(Trumplinka would fit Netanyahu's concentration-style occupation nicely.)
So, not only are millions of Americans now associating Christianity with G.W. Bush's wars
of aggression, they are associating Christianity with Donald Trump's wars of aggression for
the racist apartheid State of Israel. The result: the steepest decline in church attendance
and church affiliation in U.S. history.
The longer evangelical Christians continue to support Donald Trump's radical pro-Israel,
pro-war agenda, the deeper America will plunge into an anti-Christian country.
The good news is that all over America, people are waking up to the Israel deception.
Support for the erroneous doctrine of dispensational eschatology is in a giant free fall; the
myth of Zionist Israel being a resurrected Old Testament Israel is being repeatedly exposed;
the attempts by Israel's toadies to characterize people whose eyes are open to the truth of
Zionism as being "anti-Semitic" is losing more and more credibility by the day; and more and
more people are becoming aware of the utter wickedness of the Zionist government in Israel.
Plus, more and more people are beginning to understand the plight of the persecuted people
(including Christian people) in the Israeli-occupied territories of Palestine.
Ron, maybe your shipmates on the USS LIBERTY didn't die in vain after all.
From an historical perspective, overextended wars are the downfall of any empire; from a
financial perspective, warfarism is the precursor to an economically depressed middle class;
and from a Scriptural/spiritual perspective, God cannot and will not bless a warmongering
nation.
Let's be clear: God is not building a "Greater Israel." God is not building a third Jewish
temple. God is not speaking through phony prophets who are attributing some sort of divine
calling to Trump's pro-Israel warmongering. God is not blessing America because we are
blessing Zionist Israel. Just the opposite: The more America aligns itself with Israel's
belligerence, bullying and bombing of innocent people, the more God will deliver us over to
becoming an antichrist country. After all, one cannot idolize and partner with antichrists
without becoming one himself.
Burning down the house. Driving like a madman on the road to nowhere has put the nation on a
path to its own demise. Our foreign policy is a disaster that does nothing to promote
democracy anywhere in the world. Our military has provided nothing but instability in the
world since the end of world war 2. Ask yourself, why are we involved in so many useless wars
that don't make the world a better place?
Don't you feel like we are being used by war hawks who see every skirmish as a threat to our
national security? Why can't we cut out all the military BS and just trade with with nations
that want to trade, and ignore those who want to kill each other. Let them figure it out on
their own. Social Capitalism is the only policy we should be supporting.
"All statements of Trump do not count. All Trump statements are results from stress of
torture by Democrats, and deep state."
When this president stated during the campaign,
that christians don't have to forgive their enemies, I rolled my eyes stated he wrong, and
understood well he doesn't know what christianity means and supported him anyway
that he supported same sex marriage, I rolled my eyes, rebuffed the the silliness of his
comments and understood, he is not a conservative and beyond that he doesn't know what
christianity means
when it was uncovered that he had in fact had relations outside of marriage, I rolled my
eyes, and understood that alone could be a disqualifying factor in light of the competition
and supported him anyway
when some of the most respected departments of government leaders said he colluded with
Russians, based on the evidence, I said "poppycock" and supported him anyway
when media swirled with tales of Russian bath houses and carousings abounded, I thought
nonsense and supported hum anyway
when the rumors of underage girls and same sex parties and orgies seped into the main, I
rolled my eyes and supported him anyway . . .
when he spouted off about Charlottesville prematurely, I supported him anyway . . .
when became clear he actually advocated torture, I choked, spat and supported him anyway,
afterall he's not schooled in international relations and the consequences for our service
personnel, much less apparently the basics of tortures effectiveness, especially in large
scale strategies such as the US is engaged in
when it came to light he was completely ignorant of how our criminal justice system gets
it wrong as exampled by the Cen 5 case, I supported him anyway . . .
I supported him in spite of his comments about the poor and people like me who supported
him
There's a long list of tolerance is support of this president based on his advocacy
regarding turning the attention to the US welfare . . .
And when he actually agreed that the Russians had sabotaged the US elections and even
engaged in murder in the states of our European allies -- I knew, that in all liklihood the
turn inward was dead.
Here' a man who beat all the odds because of stalwart support of people like me, who
repeatedly bit the sides of our cheeks in the understanding that the returns would exceed the
price only to discover that the man who beat the odds doesn't seem to have a spine to stand
on ideologically which were the foundations of my advocacy: national security, less reckless
spending, holding business and financial organizations accountable for misbehavior, investing
in the US citizen, restructuring our trade deals to benefit the US, not merely shooting up
tarrifs that would in turn be priced to the citizens the supposed tarrifs were intended to
protect, tax cuts that actually gave middle americans less, no evidence of a draw down in our
careless ME behaviors, i even gave him some room to deal with israel as perhaps a new way
forward -- it's a new way alright – no pretense of acting as honest brokers –
that's new, Immigration is worse and by worse he might as well be serving tea and crumpets at
the border welcoming illegals . . .
If the man you elected to turn the corner actually becomes the vehicle for of what you
elected him to reject and change, eventually one has to acknowledge that fact. he beat the
deep state, he just either had not the courage, the integrity, or the ability, perhaps all
three to withstand the victory and do the work. Of course he had opposition and not much of
it very fair and nearly all of it damaging to the country. But he had support to stand
against it -- he chose an easier path.
And while I support him still, I have no intention of pretending that he is fulfilling the
mandate for which he was elected. I would be lying to myself and doing a disservice to
him.
I have not changed, I knew he was a situational leader, I knew what that meant, but I
voted for a particular agenda, he left the reservation on his own accord and the "deep
state", the establishment", the democrats, the liberals, the libertarians, can only be held
to blame for so much --
But several weeks ago, on top of a complete failure to ensure US order security, the armed
forces paid homage to Mexicans on US territory by relinquishing their weapons and
surrendering -- and given the tenure thus far -- - it devastatingly fitting that this
occurred under this admin.
And in the midst of all this, he is pandering to those engaged in same sex behavior --
– deep state my eye . . .
the path of least resistance. I cling to the belief that having voting for any of the
other candidates -- matters would have been far worse.
I make no apologies for being a conservative and Christian and holding a loyalty to the
US.
I reject your whine, it had legs and even some salience still, but at this stage, very
little.
Now he is bed with Sen. Rubio, Sen. Cruz and others on mucking around in SA -- I can only
consider your comments as an attempt at humor.
The JEW/WASP ruling class of the American Empire is using the US military as muscle to fight
wars on behalf of Israel and to keep the dollar-based global financial system operating to
their benefit.
Republican Party politician whores are led by the Jew-controlled Neo-Conservative foreign
policy faction and the Democrat Party is led by the Jew-controlled Humanitarian
Interventionist Harpy foreign policy faction.
Debt-based fiat currency systems must always expand or they implode.
Empires must expand or they implode.
The JEW/WASP ruling class of the American Empire is stuck with a federal funds rate of
2.50 percent or so when the normal level is 6 percent.
Yellen was talking about 4 percent being the new normal level, but she was off by 1.5
percent.
Tucker Carlson is another charlatan who still refuse to hold the Jewish mafia servant, Trump,
responsible for the massacre in Venezuela. He is trying to please both sides to collect his
$$$.
He is complicit in Trumps' crimes against Venezuelan people. Trump is a terrorist and mass
murderer who tried to assassinate Maduro few months ago unsuccessfully. This does not dilute
the fact that TRUMP IS AN ASSASSIN. All these criminals must be arrested and put on trial to
be executed, if not possible then people must assassinate these scums who have no shame to
starve millions of people to death by violating international laws to grab their land and
resources. The world cannot wait. Their complicit, like Tucker Carlson, should be exposed all
over the world. We are fed up with these criminals who received $$$$$ for their lies,
continue to help the criminals at the Pentagon and WH.
Those criminals who spread the lies that Venezuela is Maduro's fault. Carlson and other
CHARLATANS refuse to see the role of the US criminals against Venezuelan people for over 20
years, attacking the population, country's infrastructure well being, economic system and
engaging in assassination , staging riot using their traitor pawns in the country to topple a
legitimate government in order to steal Venezuela's RESOURCES where pays for the liars like
Carlson's salary to spread his propaganda. The US criminals who have assassinated many
leaders to bring down the governments around the world should be assassinated themselves
along with their propagandists.
You criminals have been exposed all over the world and soon should go into your graves,
one by one. These criminals including trump and Carlson, hold Chavez responsible for the
chaos in the country and now Maduro, but ignore the US criminals acts even assassination of
the leaders.
Carlson should stop supporting the Jewish mafia illiterate and mass murderer Trump and
shut up on blaming Maduro, a victim of US brutality and its complicit media like Carlson.
Isn't it the supreme irony that the "racists" in American politics are the real
humanitarians while the so-called "humanitarians" like Sen. Marco Rubio and Bill Kristol
are less adverse to bloodshed and destructive wars in which hundreds of thousands of people
die than the "racists"?
There is nothing ironic about your simple statement of fact. The humanitarians you mention
are about as much interested in human rights as John Wayne Gacy. There is gold in them there
hills, and their "friends" no longer control that gold. So we must go to war.
Rubio is running neck and neck in my mind as one of the most disgusting political whores
of all time.
"... As much as Trump has proven to be a disaster with his appointments of Bolton/Pompeo/E Abrams, things could still be worse. We could have wound up with Little Marco, the John McCain of his generation. All praise to Tucker for having the guts to go against the grain. ..."
"... The answer here is simple. When the President of of the US stated that he believed Russia under the instructions of Pres. Putin attempted to sabotage the democratic process, and from the mouths many of our leadership -- was successful he made a major power on the world stage a targeted enemy of the US. When that same president accused Pres. Putin of plotting the same in Europe and ordered the murders inside those sovereign states -- ..."
"... He essentially stated that our global strategic interests include challenging the Russian influence anywhere and everywhere on the planet as they are active enemies of the US and our European allies. What ever democratic global strategic ambitions previous to the least election were stifled until that moment. ..."
"... Sanctions and blockades are acts of war. Try doing it to Washington or one of its vassals, and watch the guns come out. ..."
"... Historically, sanctions are not an alternative to war; they are a prelude to it. Sanctions are how Uncle Scam generally softens up foreign countries in preparation for an invasion or some sort of 'régime-change' operation. ..."
"... All of this is smoke in mirrors. The real story is that Washington is headed for default on it's 22 trillion dollar debt and the Beltway Elites are losing it. They are desperate to start a conflict anywhere, but especially with an oil rich nation like Venezuela or Iran install their own puppets and keep this petro-dollar scam running a little while longer. ..."
"... Syria, Iraq and Libya were not destroyed for oil. Oil provided cover for the real reason. In fact, oil companies opposed war for oil. It doesn't benefit the US or those companies. Those three countries were and are Israel's primary enemies and neighbors and that is why they were destroyed. Only if you stick your head in the sand and ignore the enormous power of Israel and their Jewish supporters which is constantly on full display constantly can someone not see that. ..."
"... Venezuela has one of the highest murder rates in the world. I'm pretty sure there are still lots of guns around. They're not using rocks to kill one another. The U.S. military richly deserves to get itself trapped in a Gaza type situation of house to house fighting in the favellas above Caracas. ..."
"... Trump is a Trojan horse under zionist control who had 5 draft deferments but now is the zionists war lord sending Americans to fight and die in the mideast for Israel just like obama and bush jr. , same bullshit different puppet! ..."
"... America is Oceania , war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength and I would add to what Orwell said, war in the zio/US is perpetual for our zionist overlords. ..."
"... Imperialists always see themselves as spreading good things to people who will benefit from them. And imperialists necessarily always dilute their own culture. ..."
"... If the imperialist culture is already rootless cosmopolitan, it will see no downside to the above. If the Elites of a culture have become cosmopolitans divorced from any meaningful contact with their own people (i.e. those of their own blood and history), then they will lead their people into ever more cultural pollution and perversion. ..."
"... Remember. The choice was between Trump and Clinton. Not Trump and Jesus. ..."
"... The funny thing is, the Alt-Right or the 2.0 movement is united to a man on opposing the Trump administration's military interventions in Syria, Iran and Venezuela, but has failed at articulating its own ardent opposition to imperialism and its commitment to humanity and international peace. No one in American politics is more opposed to destructive regime change wars. ..."
"... I'm not sure what "Alt-Right" or "2.0 movement" really means in the current shills-vs-people wars but all the best and the brightest in our ranks are clearly against the globalists. ..."
Venezuela illustrates why a 3.0 movement is necessary.
The funny thing is, the Alt-Right or the 2.0 movement is united to a man on opposing the
Trump administration's military interventions in Syria, Iran and Venezuela, but has failed at
articulating its own ardent opposition to imperialism and its commitment to humanity and
international peace. No one in American politics is more opposed to destructive regime change
wars.
The Trump administration's interventions in Syria and Venezuela are victimizing mainly poor
brown people in Third World countries. And yet, the Alt-Right or the 2.0 movement is extremely
animated and stirred up in a rage at the neocons who are currently running Blompf's foreign
policy. Similarly, it has cheered on the peace talks between North Korea and South Korea.
Isn't it the supreme irony that the "racists" in American politics are the real
humanitarians
while the so-called "humanitarians" like Sen. Marco Rubio and Bill Kristol are less adverse
to bloodshed and destructive wars in which hundreds of thousands of people die than the
"racists"?
It is ironic. There is also the issue of economic-based US interventionism, particularly in
the oil-gifted nations mentioned. It's their oil. Since the US economy is oil-dependent --
and since fracking is a short-lived "miracle" of unprofitable companies that have already
extracted the easy pickings -- it is the role of US leaders to make sure that we can buy oil
from nations like Venezuela, keeping relations as good as possible for those means. But US
leaders have no business telling them who should rule their country, much less stirring up
trouble that can end up in bloodshed.
There's a comment on here about US forces and the Kurds in Syria, helping themselves to
oil, while Syrians wait in long lines for gas in a country that is an oil fountain. I have no
idea whether or not it is true, and since the US press would rather gossip than report, we'll
probably never know. But since oil prices have gone up recently in the USA, it might be true,
especially since politicians always want to pacify the serfs facing other unaffordable
expenses, like rent. If true you can see how that would make the people in an oil-rich
country mad.
Isn't it the supreme irony that the "racists" in American politics are the real
humanitarians while the so-called "humanitarians" like Sen. Marco Rubio and Bill Kristol
are less adverse to bloodshed and destructive wars in which hundreds of thousands of people
die than the "racists"?
There is nothing ironic about your simple statement of fact. The humanitarians you mention
are about as much interested in human rights as John Wayne Gacy. There is gold in them there
hills, and their "friends" no longer control that gold. So we must go to war.
Rubio is running neck and neck in my mind as one of the most disgusting political whores
of all time.
As much as Trump has proven to be a disaster with his appointments of Bolton/Pompeo/E Abrams,
things could still be worse. We could have wound up with Little Marco, the John McCain of his
generation. All praise to Tucker for having the guts to go against the grain.
How is that working out now?
Those are rocks those guys are throwing..right?
Why not let THEM do the fighting and keep the guys from Ohio and Alabama here?
The funny thing is, the Alt-Right or the 2.0 movement is united to a man on opposing the
Trump administration's military interventions in Syria, Iran and Venezuela
What Trump administration military intervention? Number of Boots on the ground:
Syria -- Reduced vs. Obama, at most a few thousand
Iran -- ZERO
Venezuela -- Again ZERO
It is quite amazing that Trump Derangement Syndrome [TDS] can take ZERO troops and falsely
portray that as military intervention. In the real, non-deranged world -- Rational thought
shows ZERO troops as the absence of military intervention.
Trying to use non-military sanctions to convince nations to behave better is indeed the
exact opposite of military intervention. If the NeoConDem Hillary Clinton was President. Would the U.S. have boots on the ground in
Iran And Venezuela?
Why is the Trump Derangement Syndrome [TDS] crowd so willing to go to war for Hillary
while misrepresenting TRUMP's non-intervention?
Those who pathologicially hate Trump are simply not rational.
The answer here is simple.
When the President of of the US stated that he believed Russia under the instructions of
Pres. Putin attempted to sabotage the democratic process, and from the mouths many of our
leadership -- was successful he made a major power on the world stage a targeted enemy of the
US. When that same president accused Pres. Putin of plotting the same in Europe and ordered
the murders inside those sovereign states --
He essentially stated that our global strategic interests include challenging the Russian
influence anywhere and everywhere on the planet as they are active enemies of the US and our
European allies. What ever democratic global strategic ambitions previous to the least
election were stifled until that moment.
Until that moment foreign policy could have been shifted, but after that moment
Don't forget the genocide in Yemen. Wanting to exclude Yemenis from the USA means you're an
evil racist, but turning a blind eye to mass murder is A-OK.
Gold, Black Gold and Pirates : all about wealth and people getting in the way of the 21st
Century Privateers who will stop at nothing including overthrowing governments in Syria,
Libya, Iraq and elsewhere.
@A123Historically, sanctions are not an alternative to war; they are a prelude to it.
Sanctions are how Uncle Scam generally softens up foreign countries in preparation for an
invasion or some sort of 'régime-change' operation.
I appreciate the fact that Team Trump has not actually sent in the tanks yet, whereas
Hellary probably would have by now. Believe me, that is probably one of the very few good
arguments in favor of Trump at this point. But if we want to make sure that he never does
attack, then now is the time to make some noise– before the war starts.
All of this is smoke in mirrors. The real story is that Washington is headed for default on
it's 22 trillion dollar debt and the Beltway Elites are losing it. They are desperate to
start a conflict anywhere, but especially with an oil rich nation like Venezuela or Iran
install their own puppets and keep this petro-dollar scam running a little while longer.
If we weren't on the brink of economic collapse I could never see the Washington Elites
risking it all with a game of nuclear chicken with Russia and China over Ukraine and
Taiwan.
This commentator lost me when he decided Guaido was as socialist as Maduro. Nope. He would
not have US backing were that the case.
I checked out Telesur on Youtube on April 30 – its continued functioning was one sign
the coup attempt had failed. The comments section was full of Guaido supporters ranting about
how much they hated Chavistas and socialists and some were asking where Maduro was, probably
trying to sustain the myth that he had fled.
"When was the last time we successfully meddled in the political life of another country" The
answer to that, Tucker, depends on who you ask. While Syria, Iraq and Libya were "failures"
because we were told we would bring peace and prosperity to those countries, that was not the
goal of the architects of those wars, neither was it oil. The primary goal was to pacify
these countries and neuter them so they would not stand up to their neighbor and enemy
Israel. And if they had to be destroyed to accomplish that, that's fine. Minus Egypt, those
three countries were Israel's primary enemies in the three Arab-Israeli wars. Venezuela is
not "another" war for oil, but it might be the first.
Syria, Iraq and Libya were not destroyed for oil. Oil provided cover for the
real reason. In fact, oil companies opposed war for oil. It doesn't benefit the US or those
companies. Those three countries were and are Israel's primary enemies and neighbors and that
is why they were destroyed. Only if you stick your head in the sand and ignore the enormous
power of Israel and their Jewish supporters which is constantly on full display constantly
can someone not see that.
@EliteCommInc.
The russians are not the ennemies of the europeans , the russians are europeans , the yankees
are nor european .
If the yankees were the allies of the europeans , why they should need hundreds of
military occupation bases in Europe ? why they should impose on europeans self defeating
trade sanctions against Russia ? , strange " allies " .
@conatus
you are late conatus , the russians are building in Venezuela a factory of Kalasnikov rifles
, and Maduro is traing a militia of two million men , to help the army .
@conatusVenezuela has one of the highest murder rates in the world. I'm pretty sure there are still
lots of guns around. They're not using rocks to kill one another.
The U.S. military richly deserves to get itself trapped in a Gaza type situation of house
to house fighting in the favellas above Caracas.
@War
for Blair Mountain{If JFK were alive ..and POTUS in 2019 he would give the order to
overthrow the Maduro Goverment .}
JFK was alive way back then, when he gave the order to overthrow Castro and the result was
the Bay of Pigs disaster. And – for better or worse – Cubans are still running
their own country, not some foreign installed puppet.
'The order to overthrow Maduro' today would have the same disasterous end.
It should be obvious by now, that despite all the hardships, majority of Venezuelans don't
want a foreign installed puppet.
Carlson is right on Venezuela but was wrong on 911 truthers which he said back in September
2017, that 911 truthers were nuts! 911 which was done by Israel and the zionist controlled
deep state lead to the destruction of the mideast for Israel and the zionist NWO!
Trump is a Trojan horse under zionist control who had 5 draft deferments but now is the
zionists war lord sending Americans to fight and die in the mideast for Israel just like
obama and bush jr. , same bullshit different puppet!
America is Oceania , war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength and I would
add to what Orwell said, war in the zio/US is perpetual for our zionist overlords.
One more thing, if Venezuela did not have oil the zio/US would not give a damn about
it!
Imperialists always see themselves as spreading good things to people who will benefit from
them. And imperialists necessarily always dilute their own culture.
If the imperialist culture is already rootless cosmopolitan, it will see no downside to
the above. If the Elites of a culture have become cosmopolitans divorced from any meaningful
contact with their own people (i.e. those of their own blood and history), then they will
lead their people into ever more cultural pollution and perversion.
Jews are a people who fit the opening sentence of the preceding paragraph. The WASP Elites
fit the second sentence.
If "no one is more opposed to destructive regime-change wars than the Alt-Right", it means
that the Alt-Right are traditional conservatives, paleo-(as opposed to neo)conservatives.
Real conservatives have always opposed getting into foreign wars that posed no threat to the
U.S. They opposed Wilson lying us into WW1, Roosevelt lying us into WW2. When the
neo-conservatives (American Jews loyal to Israel) got Washington under their thumb, we
started our decades of disastrous regime-change wars based on lies, starting with the
invasion of Iraq. Those neocon mf ers are still in charge.
An Alt Right 2.0 concept that is compassionate with the damage done by US war and economic
exploitation against the poorest people of the world who are mostly brown people is an
interesting concept.
But I think it will ultimately fail, since so many of the white people who make up the Alt
Right are angry with minorities and see them as a lower race. And these white people are more
interested in playing the victim card anyways.
@A123
You speak truth and cite facts, these loons go bananas.
Thank God they have no real power.
Hopefully they don't even own a hamster . probably would make the little fella read Mien
Kempf.
Because a hamster reading is just as cogent and linear as their arguments.
They are frustrated they cannot find a way to blame the Jews! for Maduro being a greedy
murdering sweathog who lets zoo animals starve while he looks like animated male
cellulite.
Funny- in their prostrations to dictators ( these retards actually defend and admire
Jong-Un) they conveniently have omitted Putin is cutting Russia from the WWW- the
Internet.
They will have a Russia intranet.
Pointing out to the obtuse daily commenters that under the tyrants that practically
fellate- they would be arrested and tortured for their Unz hissy fits and word diarrhea
Nationwide radio talk show? Wow! What's the station name, number and air time?
If you listen to people with actual media shows, they don't call people TROLL just because
they have a different opinion. They don't engage in female hysterical ranting because someone
has a different idea about the mechanics of the world.
Who are your sponsors? I can't imagine you would not want the free publicity .
I agree, there is irony in labels, in trying to tell who is more disposed towards 'bloodshed
and destructive wars in which hundreds of thousands of people die'. Why do we fight? It is
for power. Power (manifested as interest) has been present in every conflict of the past
– no exception. It is the underlying motivation for war. Other cultural factors might
change, but not power. Interest cuts across all apparently unifying principles: family, kin,
nation, religion, ideology, politics – everything. We unite with the enemies of our
principles, because that is what serves our interest. It is power, not any of the above
concepts, that is the cause of war. And that is what is leading the world to nuclear
Armageddon. https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/
@TKK
My sponsors are truth and America first. All Zionist hucksters are on my hit list. Again, I
suggest you and yours consider "making aliyah". https://www.nbn.org.il/
Number of Boots on the ground:
-- Syria -- Reduced vs. Obama, at most a few thousand
-- Iran -- ZERO
-- Venezuela -- Again ZERO
We will see in the future. Trump has to stir the pot. The foaming at the mouth media and his political opposition, in
both parties, need something to blather on about. Jus like rasslin'. Remember. The choice was between Trump and Clinton. Not Trump and Jesus.
@TKK
Oh, I see a point there, and it's an interesting one – openly Christian presidents
discredit their Christianity by engaging in non-righteous wars. After contemplating the
point, I don't think the foreign policy of W or Trump is anywhere close to being the primary
factor in the decline in church attendance. After all, the Catholic Church and other
denominations are mired in myriad sex scandals, the internet pulls people from God with
private depravity, science offers compelling hows if not whys, entertainment options abound,
and so on. Nonetheless, an orthodox and faithful Christian president committed to peace and
not fighting for oil or foreign interests would be a thing to behold. With caveats relating
to perceived sanity, that person would get my vote.
"The russians are not the ennemies of the europeans , the russians are europeans , the
yankees are nor european . "
These comments don't make any sense to me based on what I wrote. My comments have no
bearing on whether the Russians are an actual threat or not. I see them as competitors with
whom there are some places to come to some agreements. They doesn't mean I truth them.
Furthermore, my comments have no bearing on the territorial nature of Russian ethos.
That's not the point. Europeans have been at each other since there were Europeans. From the
Vikings and before to Serbia and Georgian conflicts. But none of that has anything to do with
my comments.
You might want to read them for what they do say as opposed to what you would like them to
say.
Jul 26, 2017 CIA director hints US is working to topple Venezuela's elected government
CIA Director Mike Pompeo indirectly admitted that the US is pushing for a new government
in Venezuela, in collaboration with Colombia and Mexico.
Feb 22, 2019 An Ocean of Lies on Venezuela: Abby Martin & UN Rapporteur Expose
Coup
On the eve of another US war for oil, Abby Martin debunks the most repeated myths about
Venezuela and uncovers how US sanctions are crimes against humanity with UN investigator and
human rights Rapporteur Alfred De Zayas.
"After all, the Catholic Church and other denominations are mired in myriad sex scandals . .
."
Not even to the tune of 4%, and I am being generous. The liberals have managed to make the
Church look a den of NAMBLA worshipers -- hardly. In the west the Churches are under pressure
from the same sex practitioners to reject scriptural teachings on the behavior, but elsewhere
around the world, Catholic institutions, such as in Africa -- reject the notion.
@TKK
Thanks. Ignoring mindless trolls is a necessary skill for the site.
____
Given the end of the Mueller exoneration, both Trump and Putin are looking to strengthen
ties. Thus it is:
-- Unlikely that Putin is heavily committed to helping Maduro. The numbers are too small
for that. Also, what would Putin do with Maduro? The last thing Putin needs is a spoiler to
the developing detente.
-- Much more likely the troops have a straightforward purpose. Brazilian
military/aerospace technology would jump ahead 20 years if they could grab an intact S-300
system. Russia doesn't want a competitor in that market, so they have a deep interest in
reclaiming or destroying S-300 equipment as Maduro goes down.
@EliteCommInc.
You are certainly right. I have no doubt that the vast majority of priests are good men
innocent of these charges, and that there are more public school sex scandals (by both raw
numbers and percentage) then similar Church scandals. The scandals do have public currency
and legs, though, and are one reason often cited as to why the pews are empty. I am at fault
for helping to keep this ruinous perception alive with my online rhetoric, and thank you for
pointing it out.
' It's the oil ' canard has always been the excuse cultivated for suckers, and boy
do suckers fall for it.
US oil companies have not received the big oil deals in countries where the US, at the
behest of "that shitty little country", have interfered militarily. However, Russia, China,
& to a limited degree, a few European companies have.
@PeterMX
Bibi's biggest enemy, his main prize, has always been Iran. He is afraid that, if Trump
refuses to do his bidding now, it may well be too late in an election year. One way or
another Bolton and Pompeo are going to convince their token boss to green light a massive
bombing campaign, especially if Iran attempts to shut down the Straits of Hormuz. It will
happen this year if Trump fails to come to his senses.
@Scalper
In the first place, your bizarre partisan rant is a little out of place. There aren't too
many QAnons here at Unz, and there are probably a fair number of regulars here who wouldn't
even identify as Republicans or 'conservatives' (whatever that term means today).
Secondly, some of your talking points aren't even accurate:
Trump administration will declare Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organisation,
increasing the animosity from Arab countries in the ME to unbelievable levels. This
includes non Arab country Turkey also, a traditional ally until neocon Trump took
power.
If Trump were truly to declare the Brotherhood to be a terrorist organization, a lot of
Arab rulers would actually thank him. You see, the Brotherhood is actually illegal in
most Arab countries today, precisely because it has a history of collaborating with foreign
intelligence services such as MI6, the CIA and Mossad. More recently, it was strongly
associated with failed régime-change projects in countries like Egypt and Syria; so
with a few exceptions (like Qatar), the Brotherhood is not well liked by Arab rulers.
Immigration restrictionism is a traditional pro working class, leftist policy.
Traditionally leftist? Sure up until the Hart-Celler Act of 1965! The sad fact is,
we don't an anti-immigration party in the US at all today. Neither the Republicans nor the
Democrats have any interest whatsoever in halting–or even just slowing
down–immigration.
@PeterMX
It's obvious that FOX is giving Tucker a lot of latitude. They continued to support him when
advertisers left, and when accusations of racism emerged from a radio interview he'd done
years ago with a shock jock. They dare not fire him as he has the largest and most fervent
base of supporters on cable news. But Tucker knows that there is one big issue, the Elephant
in the room, of which he dare not speak. It's that shitty little country calling the shots,
whose name begins with an I.
@Anonymous
I think there may be more alt-righters opposed to foreign wars and exploitative 'free' trade
treaties than you assume. Most of the alt-righters I know oppose the current régime's
"invade the world, invite the world" policies (to borrow a phrase from our own Steve Sailer).
But unlike the anti-imperialist left (with whom they often do ally), they usually argue
against such policies based on popular self-interest rather than abstract universal morality.
They usually choose to argue that being a mighty world empire has worked to the
detriment of the majority of people in America; that the whole thing is just a scam to
enrich and empower a small, corrupt élite.
what goes unremarked here and elsewhere is the ethnic composition of Venezuela. From a few
searches, Whites are only about one-third of V.
The Tipping Point for chaos is clear. Brazil is half White, Argentina is near 100 % White,
ditto Chile.
(Argentina ca. 1900 exterminated a large number its "Indigenous." )
The most stable of Latin America is Costa Rica, which is apparently about three quarters
White.
Meanwhile the jewyorktimes reports the narco-traffickers in the Maduro administration.
Hopeless. Any Brown or Black Country is doomed. Brazil works cuz Whites know how to
control the 45% mulattos and 5 % Blacks. For now anyway. Mexico is a narco-state with the
only 9% Whites able to control the half breeds and Indigenous thru co-option. Wait for Mexico
to blow up.
The funny thing is, the Alt-Right or the 2.0 movement is united to a man on opposing the
Trump administration's military interventions in Syria, Iran and Venezuela, but has failed
at articulating its own ardent opposition to imperialism and its commitment to humanity and
international peace. No one in American politics is more opposed to destructive regime
change wars.
That's an amazing point. I'm not sure what "Alt-Right" or "2.0 movement" really means in the current
shills-vs-people wars but all the best and the brightest in our ranks are clearly against the
globalists.
@Avery
The Deep state/CIA did the Bay of Pigs. JFK was not informed about it before it happened. JFK
was fighting the CIA and deep state throughout his presidency. He wanted to shatter the CIA
into a million pieces. Read "JFK and the Unspeakable" by James W. Douglass. His peace speech
on June 10, 1963 was too much for our deep state. That speech was the biggest triggers that
set the motion for his assassination.
Whatever anyone thinks about the Alt-Right it did expose a lot of things about our current
era, our history, our politics, and power paradigms that once seen can not be unseen.
And what are you going to do about it? What can anyone really do, honestly?
Not too much at least in America. Eastern Europe still has a good chance.
In America, the trajectory and machinations of power have been set for a long time and
revolutionary romanticism tends to work better for the Left than the Right. A quick look at
the data easily reveals this.
So what do you do when you realize how so much of everything that's presented as real and
true isn't real or true? And there are so many truly bad human beings with major power over
our culture, politics, and society?
Well, when has that not been the case in human history? At some point, acknowledging all
the black pills is sort of like accepting your human limits, your finitude, your genetics,
the unanswered mysteries of existence, the nothingness of Earth in the grand scheme, and just
basic gravity.
You could become a courageous online revolutionary and eventually trigger some unstable
person to get things shut down and deplatformed.
Or you could organize with socially and psychologically healthy and mature adults who try
to prioritize attainable and realistic goals and gain some moralizing victories that can
buffer against the demoralizing defeats.
Luckily, out of the winter of our discontent have emerged many healthy tendrils of new
growth.
@Republic
Tucker's viewpoints are those of the unbought wing of the conservative movement. Those, led
by the likes of Pat Buchanan, who question our slavish alegiance to that Satanic/anti Christ
creation in Palestine. They won't put it in those terms, but I do. (Wry grin)
"Once the Mueller report is put to bed, and it will be soon, this committee is going to look long and hard at how all of this
started," Graham said. "We're going to look at the FISA warrant process. Did Russia provide Christopher Steele the information about
Trump, that turned out to be garbage, that was used to get a warrant on an American citizen and if so, how did the system fail? Was
there a real effort between Papadopoulos and anybody in Russia to use the Clinton e-mails stolen by the Russians, or is that thought
planted in his mind? I don't know, but we're going to look."
Obama launched and coordinated the color revolution against Trump. He appointed Hillary as the Secreaty of Sate. He is a
CIA-connected neocon scoundrel
Notable quotes:
"... Projection: Obama escalated the war on Russia with regime change in Ukraine in 2014. Is he ******* kidding here? ..."
"... Another projection. Clinton rigged the primary against Sanders. Obama tried to overthrow Trump. ..."
"... And they DID reject it soundly. Clinton is the same scummy NEOLIBERAL warmonger that Obama was. After 8 years of Citigroup, & other banksters that filled his cabinet as well as Obama's war crimes, accelerating wars in the Middle East, the American people finally realized what they do not want . ..."
"... I hope he lives with that REJECTION the rest of his miserable life! ..."
"... It is difficult to understand Obama's complaints about Hillary Clinton's "scripted, soulless" campaign strategy, when he seemed to allow himself to be manipulated by her all along, ever since he worked out the deal to have her as his Secretary of State in 2008. ..."
"... Obama really allowed Clinton a lot of free reign, when she was Secretary of State too, something most other presidents would not have done. Maybe he knew something about her penchant for rage and revenge and didn't want to end up in her body bag count? ..."
"... Hillary was certainly very ill-suited for the diplomatic job as U.S. Secretary of State, and that was so well demonstrated during her first year of office ..."
New York Times White House correspondent Peter Baker has published an updated edition of his
book "Obama: The Call of History", and it includes several embarrassing details about President
Obama's reaction to Donald Trump's historic electoral triumph, as well as Obama's complaints
about Hillary Clinton's "scripted, soulless" campaign strategy.
According to the Daily Mail, which published some of the excerpts on Friday, Obama
interpreted Trump's victory as a "personal insult", and whined to his aides and family that the
loss "stings" and that the American people had "turned on him" while bashing Clinton for
"bringing her many troubles on herself."
As Baker wrote, as Obama saw it, the "real blame" for Clinton's loss "lay squarely with
Clinton" - despite her many well-documented attempts to make every conceivable excuse, from
blaming Bernie Sanders and his misogynistic "Bernie Bros" to misogynistic Trump supporters.
But as Obama vented, nobody forced Clinton to take money from Goldman Sachs, or set up an
illicit private email server at her house in Chappaqua.
In a stinging passage Baker writes: 'To Obama and his team, however, the real blame lay
squarely with Clinton.
'She was the one who could not translate his strong record and healthy economy into a
winning message.
'Never mind that Trump essentially ran the same playbook against Clinton that Obama did
eight years earlier, portraying her as a corrupt exemplar of the status quo.
'She brought many of her troubles on herself. No one forced her to underestimate the
danger in the Midwest states of Wisconsin and Michigan.
'No one forced her to set up a private email server that would come back to haunt her.
'No one forced her to take hundreds of thousands of dollars from Goldman Sachs and other
pillars of Wall Street for speeches.
'No one forced her to run a scripted, soulless campaign that tested eighty-five slogans
before coming up with 'Stronger Together'.
Feeling secure in Clinton's impending victory, Obama and his top aide Valerie Jarrett
retreated to the White House movie theater to watch the Marvel Movie Dr. Strange. Michelle
Obama went to bed early that night, but later in the evening, as results from Florida started
coming in, Obama checked the results, and was suddenly struck by a sinking feeling.
He watched in abject horror as Trump won Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania - formerly
Democratic strongholds.
In the weeks after Trump's victory, Obama vacillated from philosophical contemplation to
rage, and complained to his speech writer Ben Rhodes that he was about to hand the nuclear
codes over to a "cartoon character" and a "huckster straight out of Huckleberry Finn".
Obama tried to keep his cool in the weeks afterwards and texted his speechwriter Ben
Rhodes: 'There are more stars in the sky than sand on the earth'.
But soon he was unable to contain his rage which escalated after he met Trump in the Oval
Office.
Baker writes that despite being cordial in public he afterwards summoned Rhodes who told
him that Trump 'peddles in b*******'
Rhodes said: 'That character has always been part of the American story. You can see it
right back to some of the characters in Huckleberry Finn'.
Obama replied: 'Maybe that's the best we can hope for'.
As the weeks went by Obama went through 'multiple emotional stages', at times being
philosophical and other times he 'flashed anger'.
He also showed a rare self-doubt and wondered if 'maybe this is what people want', Baker
writes.
Obama told one aide: 'I've got the economy set up well for him. No facts. No consequences.
They can just have a cartoon'.
Of particular interest considering the Mueller report's findings, which have been endlessly
relitigated since the redacted report was released last month, Baker explains Obama's decision
not to come out harder against Russia during the campaign, after US intelligence warned about
the Kremlin's attempts to 'interfere' in the US election.
As Baker tells it, Obama's "don't-do-stupid-shit" instincts made him reluctant to bash
Russia over the meddling, as did his confidence that Clinton would surely prevail. As Obama saw
it, if he made a big deal about Russian interference, Trump would simply complain to his voters
that the whole election was rigged.
Baker's book also gives new insight into why Obama was so hesitant about criticizing
Russia for meddling in the 2016 election before vote took place.
Obama was led by his 'cautious don't-do-stupid-s**t instincts' and feared that a forceful
response would make Russia 'escalate' its operation.
Then there was the question of how Trump would react and Obama admitted that 'if I speak
out more, he'll just say it's rigged'.
Obama wrongly assumed that Clinton would win the election and Obama said in one meeting
that Russian President Vladimir Putin 'backed the wrong horse'.
When it came time to meet his successor and start planning the transition, Obama was
cordial. But he never could get past the unshakeable feeling that the American people had
rejected his legacy.
Hmmm, first the NYT reports the story about the CIA's Papadopoulos "honey pot" spy, which
they've been sitting on for two years while insisting the Trump campaign wasn't spied upon.
They had to get the story out now, ahead of Horowitz' report. And now they're essentially
giving permission to take out the knives against the Clintons to save the Obamas. The next
few weeks or even years are going to be fun.
Obama simply can't see himself clearly. He had no real talent for the job. He was the
first black president, and everybody cut him slack because of that. His speeches to 'folks',
delivered in a phony southern preacher accent were disingenuous at best. He compromimsed too
far, until his programs didn't even make sense. He lived at an intellectual level, not even
realizing now that the world does not run on theories or philosophies. It runs on
actions.
His biggest error was indulging his a soft spot for Islam. As a complete social order that
is religious, moral, financial, governmental and miltary, Islam has more in common with
Marxism than Christianity.
Obama failed to understand that America has been set by history squarely against the
Islamic social order. This is not about religion, it's about the correct way to run the
world. We have the better way, the more successful way and it's going to stay that way.
That is why the people actually want Trump. Trump is deliberately not an intellectual, and
focuses on direct uncompromsing action. And he tells you what he's doing a couple of times a
day.
"Baker's book also gives new insight into why Obama was so hesitant about criticizing
Russia for meddling in the 2016 election before vote took place.
BECAUSE HE KNEW IT NEVER HAPPENED.
Obama was led by his 'cautious don't-do-stupid-s**t instincts' and feared that a forceful
response would make Russia 'escalate' its operation.
Projection: Obama escalated the war on Russia with regime change in Ukraine in 2014. Is he
******* kidding here?
Then there was the question of how Trump would react and Obama admitted that 'if I speak
out more, he'll just say it's rigged'.
Another projection. Clinton rigged the primary against Sanders. Obama tried to overthrow
Trump.
Obama wrongly assumed that Clinton would win the election and Obama said in one meeting
that Russian President Vladimir Putin 'backed the wrong horse'.
No way he could believe that ****
"When it came time to meet his successor and start planning the transition, Obama was
cordial. But he never could get past the unshakeable feeling that the American people had
rejected his legacy."
And they DID reject it soundly. Clinton is the same scummy NEOLIBERAL warmonger that Obama
was. After 8 years of Citigroup, & other banksters that filled his cabinet as well as
Obama's war crimes, accelerating wars in the Middle East, the American people finally
realized what they do not want .
I hope he lives with that REJECTION the rest of his miserable life!
LibertarianRevolutionary
Another book of lies to feed the sheeple. Author thinks we're all just plain stupid, and the people at the head of the
demoncrat party are just 'good folks'.
He–Mene Mox Mox
It is difficult to understand Obama's complaints about Hillary Clinton's "scripted, soulless" campaign strategy, when
he seemed to allow himself to be manipulated by her all along, ever since he worked out the deal to have her as his Secretary
of State in 2008.
It was reported 11 years ago that Obama was pressured to give Hillary an important paying job in his administration,
because of her 2008 presidential campaign owed $8.7 million in unpaid debts. Didn't he have a strong enough character to know
otherwise and resist her, or was he politically owing to her in someway? Obama really allowed Clinton a lot of free
reign, when she was Secretary of State too, something most other presidents would not have done. Maybe he knew something
about her penchant for rage and revenge and didn't want to end up in her body bag count?
Hillary was certainly very ill-suited for the diplomatic job as U.S. Secretary of State, and that was so well
demonstrated during her first year of office in August 2009, when she opened up on an African-Congolese Boy's question
to her: See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJEMX_iuCXE ...
Obama should have fired Hillary right then and there for that outburst......but didn't have the strong character to do it.
"... That report is going to be a bombshell. It is going to open up the investigation on a very high note, and there are going to be criminal referrals in it. ..."
"... The FISA court abuse is the center of this entire abuse of governmental power, and the chief judge in that court has already ruled that the FBI broke the law and that the people at the head of the justice department, Sally Yates, John Carlin, the assistant attorney general for national security all knew about it and lied to the FISA court about it... ..."
"... He [Rogers] discovered the illegal spying. He went personally to the FISA court and briefed the Chief Judge and worked with her for months to uncover the people who did it. The FISA court has already told the Justice Department who lied to that court and that has been given to [Attorney General] Bill Barr already. ..."
It is about the rule of law and privacy. The Obama administration for more than four years
before the 2016 election allowed four contractors working for the FBI to illegally surveil
American citizens -- illegally. The FISA court has already found that. There is the Horowitz
report coming out in May or possibly early June. There's another report that everyone has
forgotten about involving James Comey alone. That will be out in two weeks. That report is
going to be a bombshell. It is going to open up the investigation on a very high note, and
there are going to be criminal referrals in it.
The FISA court abuse is the center of this entire abuse of governmental power, and the chief
judge in that court has already ruled that the FBI broke the law and that the people at the
head of the justice department, Sally Yates, John Carlin, the assistant attorney general for
national security all knew about it and lied to the FISA court about it...
There's a hero in this story and it is not a lawyer. There is a hero. His name is Admiral
Mike Rogers. He was the head of the National Security Agency.
He [Rogers] discovered the illegal spying. He went personally to the FISA court and briefed
the Chief Judge and worked with her for months to uncover the people who did it. The FISA court
has already told the Justice Department who lied to that court and that has been given to
[Attorney General] Bill Barr already.
To repeat the mantra of US as the world's leading harbinger of regime change, mass murder
and war crimes would be to belabor the point.
The question that goes begging is where are the people, of whom, for whom and by whom the
government is supposed to be? Where are the voices of reason and sanity? When will the
enforced silence in the face of the frank colonization and stranglehold of our country by the
Anglozionists be broken once and for all, the feeble but courageous proclamations of Ilhan
Omar notwithstanding?
Also let us ask ourselves this: if African Americans (12% of the US population) or Latin
Americans (18% of the population, 30% combined total) were to have a similar stranglehold on
our foreign policy, would we simply fold our hands and say or do nothing as we are doing with
the AngloZionist takeover of our country?
Is there any other group of people anywhere else that has been rendered as impotent --
stripped of their balls, moral eunuchs really -- accepting widespread abuses of their rights,
their humanity and self-determination by Israel Firsters in such bizarre and total silence?
Wake up America!
Even the Daily Mail's readership is starting to have doubts about the press feed "Maduro's
plane waiting on the tarmac -- talked out of it by Putin story" repeated word for word.
If half the Daily Mail's readers see this as BS -- and see Guaido as a US Regime Change
guy, then the Empire really is in trouble.
And as for a US invasion of Venezuela, it's not going to happen since it would mess up the
all important planned attack on Iran.
What’s so hard to understand? Mike Pompeo……is former head of the CIA.
This is another fucked up CIA op. There are two Israeli factions in the CIA according to
former people that I know who use to work at the CIA in some capacity.
Just add the lying Ziomedia and they will continue this nonsense to a dimwitted American
public who are too busy playing with their phones. The American Empire has been done for a
long time. They have been raped monetarily, socially, and politically by their wonderful ally
Israel.
Trump is nothing but puppet for Israel and basically Jared the Magic Jew is calling the
shots.
I believe that if the USA , a country with many talents , offered a real economic
collaboration , and some respect , to Venezuela , Cuba , and Latinamerica in general , real
alliances could prosper for the common good . But the USA is mistreating latinamerican
friends like Argentina ‘s Macri , the IMF is bleeding again Argentina with usury so
that in the next elections this year the peronists may win and befriend China instead of the
USA . The USA is constantly threatening militarily , economically , insulting , whatever
country that dares not to obbey the USA 100% , what provokes resentment .
It is very worrying the lack of shape , of class , of manners , of the US nomenklatura ,
too old , fats , weirdos , simpletons , low political abilities . Querulant elderly picking
up too many useless fights around the world what is not good for the USA . A pity .
Those who consider Trump to be the puppet of the deep state should explain to himself why are
the mainstream media so 24/7 mad adTrump. Why is the whole establishment in America and in
the whole West so anti-Trump. He has broken all their plans for world domination and creation
of the one world government. He broke TAP and TPP, he has not signed the Paris climate
accord, he is against free trade and the WTO, he is against all UN institutions, he is the
first american president ever who rebeled against the Federal Reserve, he ist the frst who is
really fighting the mas immigration, he is deregulating the american job market, he is
resisting a coup of the deep state, he is apointing the new judges who ar pro constitution,
he is actually desolving the Obamacare and so much more. But he is not the king he has not
the loyal Republican party yet which he is not chosen and he must make the deals to go any
further and in that sense he still needs the help of Neocons in some degree. It would be much
easier when american pople would be a lot more politicaly active and halped him in the way
por example to put the presure on the Rpublican party operatives on the local and national
level, or to be much more active in expousing the woter fraud and so on. American simply
expect that the vote alone can do the job. But the system is so broken that the real
revolution is needed. Otherwise the country would go broke and be dessolved. American must
also put the pressure on the secret owners of everything of importance especially banks and
media whose ownership is seecret, and this secrecy must be remuved because on the ownership
level the most crime occur.
Trump wants Colombia and Brasil to attack Venezuela . Has he thougt that if there is a big
war in South America she will end up like the middle East ,and there will be millions and
millions of refugees emigrating to the USA ?
“Cadres determined everything”. They determined everything for later USSR and
later USA. This constant concentration of imbeciles, liars, traitors and scumbags at the very
top is disturbing sign for humanity. With people of such caliber consistently moving to the
top positions over time leaves little optimism for humanity fate.
“Does that dialog look credible to you? I sure hope not!” Put it in the New York
Times, on CNN or some other mainstream outlet and apparently 90% of our low IQ population
will believe it. Many believe the Russia Stole the US Election Conspiracy Theory, Trump and
Putin are golf buddies, and Trump was awarded with beautiful Russian prostitutes. I think it
was Hitler who, commenting on Germany’s enemies said, “the bigger the lie, the
more believable it is to common people because they themselves would never think of telling
such an outrageous lie”. That’s a paraphrase, not word for word. With liars like
Adam Schiff, Bolton and Pompeo, much of the US population believes much of what these
criminals say.
The oil fields around Deir Ezzor are occupied by Kurdish terrorists working for Israel.
They are surrounded by Iraq and Syria, with Russia and Hezbollah providing reserves and air
support. Syria is afraid to take it back even though their people wait days in line for
gasoline, all while the Kurds and the US steal the oil and booby trap the oil
infrastructure.
@Milisic
Radomir Being anti Trump is just theatre, not because of his actions but because what he
represents ie nationalism.
I don’t believe Trump was always part the deep state. I believe they coerced him
into doing the neocons bidding by using the Mueller report. Though, he was always in Isreals
camp from the beginning.
“Check out this interesting news snippet: Eric Prince wants Blackwater to send 5,000
mercenaries to Venezuela (does anybody know why and how these clowns came up with the 5,000
figure)…”
That’s simple for anyone with an inkling of how Washington works. The first axiom is
that it is just a huge market – everything is for sale, usually to the highest
bidder.
So my guess is that Prince estimated that the budget he could get would be just about
enough to fund 5,000 mercenaries. Of course he wouldn’t be going himself, as they might
all be killed by the angry Venezuelans. But he would still have the money in his bank.
Indeed, he might make out “like a bandit” if all the mercenaries got killed, so
he wouldn’t have to pay them.
“Venezuela is one of the world’s largest exporters of oil and has the
world’s largest proven oil reserves at an estimated 296.5 billion barrels (20% of
global reserves) as of 2012.” Wikipedia
@Anon
It’s simple enough to understand. In his book “How the World Works”, Noam
Chomsky explained.
“One document to look at if you want to understand your country is Policy Planning
Study 23, written by Kennan for the State Department planning staff in 1948. Here’s
some of what it says.
“‘We have about 50% of the world’s wealth but only 6.3% of its
population… In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment.
Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit
us to maintain this position of disparity… To do so, we will have to dispense with all
sentimentality and daydreaming; and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on
our immediate national objectives… We should cease to talk about vague and…
unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards and
democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power
concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better’”.
In the same book, Chomsky writes,
‘Along the same lines, in a briefing for US ambassadors to Latin American countries
in 1950, Kennan observed that a major concern of US foreign policy must be “the
protection of our [i.e. Latin America’s] raw materials”. We must therefore combat
a dangerous heresy which, US intelligence reported, was spreading through Latin America:
“the idea that the government has direct responsibility for the welfare of the
people”.
‘US planners call that idea Communism, whatever the actual political views of the
people advocating it. They can be church-based self-help groups or whatever, but if they
support this heresy, they’re Communists’.
This also completely explains why there is so little resistance among US citizens to their
government’s systematic, deliberate, massive, unforgivable crimes against humanity.
Namely they (US citizens) believe that they gain materially by those crimes. (Most of them
may be wrong about that, but that’s not important right now).
Consider Kennan’s first sentence:
“We have about 50% of the world’s wealth but only 6.3% of its
population…”
Today the US population, while rapidly increasing, is less than 4% of world population.
Yet resource consumption is still far, far greater than for any other country.
To learn more try searching online for (e.g.) “us population resource consumption
percent global”. Here are two of the first hits that query will bring up:
Venezuela is a sea of tricky cross currents though which the Saker has not done a good job
navigating. He imposes a narrative on events that is too simple.
Start with a difficult topic: the legitimacy of Nicolas Maduro. A timeline is helpful:
2012: Hugo Chavez dies.
2013: Elections are held for the office of President. Maduro wins with 50.61% of the vote,
beating Enrique Capriles who comes in at 49.1%.
April 2015: Elections are held to select deputies to Venezuela’s legislative body, the
National Assembly. In these elections a coalition of opposition parties, the MUD (Mesa de
Unidad Democrcatica), wins 56.3 % of the vote and 112 of 167 seats, the first electoral
defeat of the Chavistas (the “Bolivarian Revolution”) in 16 years.
May 2015: In a lame duck session of the National Assembly, the Chavistas – at that
moment still in the majority –- pass a law that removes all sitting members of
Venezuela’s supreme court (called the TSJ, Tribunal Supremo de Justicia), and puts in
place a new set of judges, every one of whom is a Maduro partisan. The TSJ soon becomes a
polit-bureau ratifying Maduro’s decrees and nullifying every measure of the National
Assembly.
May 2018: A presidential election is established by decree, without the authority of the
National Assembly as stipulated in the Constitution of 1999. Every aspect of this election is
irregular, false, manipulated or controlled, including a significant detail: no opposition
candidates are allowed to run, including Leopoldo Lopez (in jail or under house arrest) and
Enrique Capriles (banned from participation in politics).
The Saker says: “…yes, both Chavez and Maduro have made mistakes. But this is
not about Chavez or Maduro, this is about the rule of law inside and outside
Venezuela.”
The Saker is just saying words here. The absence of the rule of law is precisely the
problem.
The Saker dismisses Maduro’s opponents as “puppets” of the Empire.
Leopoldo Lopez is a puppet? He chose to remain in Venezuela and share the difficulties of
life there, a decision not coming cheap. Until yesterday he was in jail or under house
arrest. Before being sent to jail, a car he was riding in was riddled with bullets. In March
of 2006, a bodyguard of his was shot and killed. One might not agree with Lopez, but he is a
man of conviction and courage.
Or consider Juan Guaido: he did NOT select himself. He was chosen by the National Assembly
(based on authority granted to it by the Constitution of 1999). In the fractured political
landscape of Venezuela the National Assembly is now the only body to have received its
mandate via an election in which real alternatives existed and honest vote counting occurred.
The selection of Guaido represents an attempt to start from a point as legally valid as
possible, and from there by peaceful means guide Venezuelan political life back to legality.
What is at issue is the rule of law.
The Saker lets abhorrence of the Neocon regime in Washington distort his judgment. Yes,
the Neocons are brutal, stupid and dangerous, but their assessment of the Maduro regime in
Caracas is accurate. Sorry if this assertion is found to be offensive. Chavez, Maduro,
Cabello and their gang narco-traficantes have not “made mistakes,” they have
destroyed a country.
(Is it necessary to argue this point? Hundreds of thousands of people do not walk –
WALK – out of a country unless desperate. The currency is deep into hyper-inflation,
meaning, there is no currency. PDVSA — before the Bolivarian Revolution a well-run
state-owned operation producing 3 to 3.5 million barrels of oil per day — now produces
under one million barrels a day. The grid is in a state of collapse. These and many more
disasters were NOT visited upon the Venezuelan people by the gringos or by anybody else: they
were visited upon the Venezuelan people by a corrupt, incompetent government operating behind
the facade of a phony revolution.)
The Maduro regime in Caracas and the Neocon regime in Washington are equally repellent,
and in fact similar. Both are mafia type organizations. Why grant legitimacy to the little
mafia in Caracas. All this does is allow the big mafia in Washington to parade around as
champions of “rights,” “democracy” and “freedom,” which
words, when said by the Neocons, induce nausea.
Among the people in the Venezuelan drama the most attractive are the opposition leaders on
the ground: Leopoldo Lopez, Enrique Capriles, Maria Corina Machado, and many others,
including Juan Guaido. They have been jailed, banned, threatened, shot at, roughed up and
harassed, yet they stay at home and in the game. Their flaws are balanced by a great virtue:
courage. I don’t think that any of them would make a good puppet.
One last point: pay attention to Ivan Duque, the current president of Colombia. He is an
intelligent, thoughtful, close to the situation and has a big stake in what happens. (A
million refugees from Venezuela are in his country.) If there is a good outcome to this
drama, he will probably be part of it.
Pompeo is filthy fucking cockroach…….Just like the filthy cockroach JFK who
gave Latin America Death Squads and the Alliance for Progress….and the Cuban Missile
Crisis…
@joeshittheragman
That’s mostly because 1899 was about the time when the USA had overrun the whole of
North America (apart from the frozen north and the poverty-stricken south, which it
considered stealing but decided to leave).
Having grabbed all the resources (natural, human, etc.) available in their own continent,
they started looking avidly abroad for more plunder. China, for instance. South America.
Japan… the Middle East…
{The Empire only appears to be strong. In reality it is weak, confused, clueless and, most
importantly, run by a sad gang of incompetent thugs who think that they can scare everybody
into submission in spite of not having won a single significant war since 1945. The inability
to break the will of the people of Venezuela is only the latest symptom of this mind-boggling
weakness.}
A fairly accurate assessment.
However, The Empire still has immense capacity to cause death and destruction all over the
world. It may not have enough warrior-troops to send boots to Venezuela (thank God), but it
has a LOT of hardware to cause mass deaths remotely and from above without setting foot on
somebody’s land.
And the weaker and more impotent The Empire becomes as time goes by, the more irrational
and dangerous it will become, consumed with rage at the realization of its inability to
longer being able to run/control the globe.
Hopefully there will be some cooler heads where it counts in US civilian&military
leadership, before the irrational rage spills over and we all get nuked – by accident
or by design.
@Realist
A lot of intelligent, educated British people tend to read the Daily Mail, because –
incredible to relate – it is perhaps the closest organ remaining to an old-fashioned
newspaper with actual news.
I know, I know, it’s horribly bad. But all the others are worse. Even “Private
Eye” now regurgitates government propaganda.
@Anonymous
“The US cut the supply of debt to Venezuela…”
Does anything about that statement strike you as really, really weird? Why would anyone
running an independent nation with plenty of natural resources and intelligent, hardworking
people want any foreign debt?
(Except for the tiny handful of bought-and-paid-for traitors who negotiate those deals and
then retire and go and live in Florida).
@A123
1. Even if Maduro were “massacring his own people” that would be absolutely no
concern of the USA.
2. Even if it did concern the USA, the UN Charter absolutely forbids the USA to interfere
in the internal or external affairs of Venezuela. Under any circumstances whatsoever –
unless ordered to do so by the UN Security Council (won’t happen) or if Venezuela wages
war against the USA (certainly won’t happen).
3. Maduro has not been “massacring his own people”.
Empire is an illusion, because it is built on the need for power, and power is ephemeral. It
has been present in every conflict of the past. It is the underlying motivation for war.
Other cultural factors might change, but not power. As a result every civilization/nation
eventually gets the war it is trying to avoid: utter defeat. But emperors and their advisers
delude themselves, thinking they can avoid that fateful war, that it can be limited in scale
or even won. History always proves them wrong. https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/
@Digital
Samizdat Tucker asked – apparently genuinely mystified – why the Democrats
are just as keen as the administration to attack Venezuela.
That too is very, very simple.
They don’t care about laws.
They don’t care about treaties.
They don’t care about the UN Charter.
They don’t care about the Nuremberg Principles.
They don’t care about the US Constitution.
They don’t care about the teachings of Jesus Christ.
They don’t care about the Ten Commandments.
They don’t care about democracy.
They don’t care about freedom.
They don’t care about the Venezuelan people. (Sorry, let me rephrase that. They
don’t give a flying fuck about the Venezuelan people).
They don’t care about ordinary human decency.
All they care about is their entitlement to go on plundering all the world’s
resources – which they consider to be their legitimate property – and to kill
anyone who gets in their way.
@Chris
Bridges Chris, there seems to be an important typo in your comment. I have fixed it for
you.
“There is not one particle of “patriotism”, dignity, or pride in any of
Guaido’s supporters. Miami is full of this human garbage. Having shit in their own nest
they flee with their stolen, narcotics-traficking millions to the hated imperialist
USA.”
April 13, 2019 US Military Attack on Venezuela Mulled by Top Trump Advisors and Latin
American Officials at Private DC Meeting
Away from the public eye, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) think
tank hosted a top-level, off-the-record meeting to explore US military options against
Venezuela.
The US is in the end-stage Empire State…..and this is what make the US Empire so
dangerous at this point in time….The US Empire will start lashing out in its final
death throes……
If anyone is interested in the CIA regime changes , read the book The Secret Team, the cia
and its allies in control of the world, by the late Col. L. Fletcher Prouty, it can be had on
amazon, or possibly on line, and see his videos of youtube.
The CIA is satan incarnate and the chain dogs of the zionists who rule America!
I don’t think the Deep State can give up.
They give up, Venezuela starts selling whatever oil it can produce for anything but dollars
– euros, gold, maybe yuan or even roubles. And then who’s next?
Why, you think, all the pressure on Iran? Big oil producer, outside the petro-dollar
nexus.
That’s unpardonable to the Deep State. It can’t be allowed.
They’ll keep fighting and plotting until the threats to the petro-dollar are removed.
@Thulean
Friend Either the Deep State finally found footage of Rabbi Trump on epstein’s
rapegirl island, or the incident with the kushnercopter–w/ ivanka aboard–having
to immediately land upon takeoff due to a “malfunction” deballed him for good.
By God I wish I was paid by the Government. Anytime someone posts words with a whiff of
truth, they are framed as a secret agent. Do I get a decoder ring, too?
Trump is not a Machiavellian mastermind. Neither he nor Pompeo caused Madero to turn
Venezuela into his own ATM to the detriment of the masses. (The elite are AOK)
Furthermore, they MUST take a position. Sweat hog Maduro is crushing protestors with
tanks. If the US can somehow benefit from his repellent actions, we should.
Most of you revere Putin, notwithstanding your complete lack of understand that any
postings- like these!- would result in some dead eyed thugs banging on your door at 3AM. Do
you believe Putin wrings his hands over plucking meat from a dead carcass?
THAT’S history. THAT’S politics. A steely eyed focus on your own
country’s bottom line. I know its troubling to digest that the world is not FortNite.
Slink back to your safe space and make some play dough balls.
You mean the thousands frantically attempting to cross over into Columbia?
In unfree societies, people can’t leave, so your point undermines another one from
the Establishment narrative, namely that Venezuela is a society dominated by a dictator, and
yearning to be free.
@Thulean
Friend The NYT cartoon showing a blind, yarmulked Trump being led by Nuttinyahoo should
have put Kushner's face on the seeing-eye dog instead.
"... Does anybody know where the video of Malia Zimmerman interviewing Rod Wheeler can be found. My memory is that Zimmerman said her own independent source confirmed that the FBI knew Seth Rich had contacted WikiLeaks. But after the controversy exploded the video disappeared from YouTube and the Internet. ..."
"... Particularly as it seems likely that Rich wanted money, it would seem quite possible that negotiations with Assange started some time prior to the exfiltration of the material, which looks as though it happened in late May 2016; ..."
"... It would also be possible that Rich was not identified until very late in the day – indeed, his identification could even have followed the calling in of the laptops on June 10. ..."
"... Since Craig Murray received in person the DNC and Podesta files from an "intermediary" in the woods adjoining American University in Washington D.C., establishing the date or dates of Murray's trip could help establish the timeframe proposed above. ..."
"... I personally find it very hard to believe the Arkancide theory. But very easy to believe that the DNC leaks were from an annoyed Bernie supporter like Rich. After all, the content of the leaks showed that there really was a lot of finky poo going on at the DNC with the Clinton campaign to be unfair to Bernie. ..."
The Judge then proceeds to give Folkenflik and NPR an ass whooping:
Evaluating the August 1 Report as a whole, the Court finds because of material additions and
misleading juxtapositions, an objectively reasonable reader could conclude the report
mischaracterized Plaintiff's role in the Seth Rich investigation and "thereby cast more
suspicion on [Plaintiff's] actions than an accurate account would have warranted."24 Turner, 38
S.W. 3d at 119 ("But by omitting key facts and falsely juxtaposing others, the broadcast's
misleading account cast more suspicion on Turner's conduct than a substantially true account
would have done. Thus, it was both false and defamatory."). The August 1 Report as a whole is
reasonably capable of a defamatory meaning because it goes "beyond merely reporting materially
true facts." White, 909 F.2d at 521. . . .
Folkenflik implied Plaintiff fabricated the story about Seth Rich and WikiLeaks. The Court
agrees, especially when read in context with the rest of the statements contained in the August
1 Report. . . .
The Court finds the August 1 Report, as a whole, can be reasonably understood as stating the
meaning Plaintiff proposes and is capable of defamatory meaning. . . .
The Court finds Folkenflik's statements in the Mediaite Interview, as a whole, can be
reasonably understood as stating the meaning Plaintiff proposes and are capable of defamatory
meaning.
The August 7 Report contains three alleged defamatory statements: (1) Fox News had a "role"
in "concocting a baseless story" on the death of Seth Rich; (2) Fox was involved in a
"journalistic scandal" over the story; and (3) Fox "concocted" the story "in order to help
President Trump." Unlike the other reports discussed above, Plaintiff is not mentioned in the
August 7 Report. According to the Complaint, the August 7 Report, "[r]ead together with the
[August 1 Report], the overall tenor and context of Folkenlik's messages was that Butowsky
lied, was dishonest, and aided, abetted and actively participated in a fraudulent journalistic
scandal." Docket Entry # 1 at 36, n. 12.
According to Plaintiff, the overall "gist" is that Fox News and Plaintiff worked together,
each playing a "role," to "concoct" a "baseless story" that resulted in a journalistic
"scandal." Docket Entry # 32 at 24. At this stage of the proceedings, accepting the allegations
in the Complaint as true, the Court finds the August 7 Report can be reasonably understood as
stating the meaning Plaintiff proposes.
. . . .According to Plaintiff, Folkenflik's statement, explicitly or by implication, accuses
him of engaging in "activities" that caused harm to the Rich Family and that Plaintiff lacked
empathy and understanding that his actions "affected" the Riches. The Court finds the August 16
Report, considered as a whole, can be reasonably understood as stating the meaning Plaintiff
proposes and is capable of defamatory meaning .
. . . . Plaintiff asserts the word "player" carries a very heavy negative connotation and
"highlights Folkenflik's malicious agenda and extreme bias." Docket Entry # 32 at 26. The Court
finds the September 15 Report, as a whole, can be reasonably understood as stating the meaning
Plaintiff proposes and is capable of defamatory meaning.
In sum, the Court finds Plaintiff has alleged the gist of the reports can be reasonably
understood as stating the meaning Plaintiff proposes. Because the reports are "reasonably
capable" of communicating the meaning Plaintiff proposes, the next question is whether that
meaning is "reasonably capable" of defaming Plaintiff. Tatum, 554 S.W.3d at 637. The Court
concludes it is, as discussed further below on actual malice.28
Boys and girls, this is a Shaquille O'Neal equivalent of a slam dunk. I am sure that the NPR
lawyers will continue to try to escape this judgment. Odds are they will fail. When that
happens, they will be ready to sit down and negotiate a settlement to make this case go
away.
Folkenflick is a hack. A partisan hack. Karma is a bitch and Folkenflik is likely to get
bitch slapped in a big way. Instead of reporting the story straight up, he opted for a
propaganda hit job. He is unworthy of the title, journalist.
Seth Rich's parents sued FOX over Zimmerman's report (which was later retracted) but the suit
was dismissed in its entirety. Wheeler's suit against FOX, Butowsky and Zimmerman (who he
claimed misquoted him about the Rich-Wikileaks link) was also dismissed mainly because of the
other interview he gave to local FOX5 DC in which he also claimed a Rich-Wikileaks link.
I wonder what evidence Wheeler gathered on his own to make him initially suggest a link
between Seth Rich and Wikileaks - and a DC coverup of his murder - only to eventually
backpedal? Does anyone know? Zimmerman's [retracted] report said "multiple sources" linked
Rich to Wikileaks.
Does anybody know where the video of Malia Zimmerman interviewing Rod Wheeler can be found.
My memory is that Zimmerman said her own independent source confirmed that the FBI knew Seth
Rich had contacted WikiLeaks. But after the controversy exploded the video disappeared from
YouTube and the Internet.
Are the actual court documents online? If so please provide a link. Also if you come across
the video of the interview with Wheeler, please share it. By the way, you got a shoutout in
NJ's largest newspaper from Star Ledger columnist Paul Mulshine recently.
Thank you for this and your previous work. So lucid that even an outsider can follow it.
What with this and a few other bits and pieces seems the swamp went a bit mad in 2016. Or
is it always like this and the 2016 upheaval just left a few more loose threads hanging than
normal?
Regarding Sean Hannity, can't stand watching him because he has a knack for memorizing
talking points and then robotically repeat them word for word. For example, he always refers
to the Steele dossier as the 'dirty fake Russian dossier from Vladimir Putin'.
He's trying to make Trump sound like the victim of Russia which is clever but not honest.
The only link to Russia is that one of Steele's alleged sources was Russian while others were
likely Ukrainian. If he wants to attribute a conspiracy to it, definitely the DNC, elements
in the U.K. govt HRC, and definitely Ukraine had a preference for HRC.
That is fascinating, and heartening. I was aware of the case that Butowsky had brought
against CNN, the NYT and the lawyers for the Rich family, not of that he bought against David
Folkenflik and his NPR colleagues.
If indeed as many of us suspected the FBI knew that Rich had contacted Assange, this leads
one back naturally to some matters concerned with the timeline of the identification of the
DNC leaks, and Rich's role in them, which have been puzzling me.
In affairs like this, it is very easy to connect dots and form a pattern which looks
plausible but turns out completely wrong. With the proviso that I may be doing precisely
that, let me set out some dots and ways they might be fitted together.
1. It has long seemed to me that it would have been very much easier to identify materials
coming in to Assange and WikiLeaks rather than materials coming out of the DNC. If in fact
this was how the exfiltration was originally identified, then it would be quite likely that
GCHQ and/or MI6 would have been centrally involved. (This of course does not mean that the
NSA and employees of the CIA or indeed FBI were not also involved: a lot of people would have
had strong reasons to collude, and indeed increasingly indeed have come to seem to have been
living more or less in each other's pockets);
2. Particularly as it seems likely that Rich wanted money, it would seem quite possible that
negotiations with Assange started some time prior to the exfiltration of the material, which
looks as though it happened in late May 2016;
3. If one assumes that Rich was aware of the intense surveillance on WikiLeaks, one would
think it likely that he would have contacted Assange in a manner designed to ensure that his
identity was protected, in so far as this was feasible. This could possibly have involved not
making it known, at the outset, to Assange, although presumably it would have had to be
revealed at some relatively early point. One would further tend to assume that it would have
been a priority to set up channels of communication which, as far as could be managed, were
secure. Doing so could have involved the use of intermediaries, and measures to disguise the
identity of Rich.
4. Quite clearly, if indeed there was a serious effort to maintain secrecy, it was
penetrated. But it would be possible that the penetration was gradual and piecemeal. At the
outset, it might not even have been clear whether what was at issue was a leak or a hack. It
would not be surprising if intense effort had gone into identifying past hacking attempts,
unsuccessful and successful. And indeed, it would seem eminently possible that attempts were
identified that could have been instigated by Russian intelligence agencies. These, however,
would also have involved elaborate measures to conceal responsibility – not crude
fabrications that would only take in 'retards', like the 'Guccifer 2.0' materials.
5. It would also be possible that Rich was not identified until very late in the day –
indeed, his identification could even have followed the calling in of the laptops on June
10.
Such a reconstruction could account for the fact that both the claims by Alperovitch and the
former GCHQ person Matt Tait, and the 'Guccifer 2.0' farrago, show every sign of having been
concocted in panic haste, as also do the early memoranda in the dossier attributed to Steele.
If those involved had not known what was actually going on until late in the day, that might
have added to the difficulties of planning stories to cover it up. It might also help explain
the bizarre inconsistencies and improbabilities in the claims about the investigation carried
out by Alperovitch and CrowdStrike.
6. Of course, an alternative possibility is that Rich was either too naive to anticipate that
he would be identified, or did not think it would matter. It would hardly have been so very
surprising if he had not contemplated the possibility that the result of his involvement
would be his murder, and part of the point of the negotiations about money could have been to
ensure that he could afford to disregard any employment consequences.
Be all that may, it does seem to me that it would be helpful, in relation to fitting other
events into a coherent timeline, to have some idea as to the earliest and latest dates at
which the exfiltration could have been identified, and the earliest and latest dates at which
Rich could have been identified as the figure responsible.
Since Craig Murray received in person the DNC and Podesta files from an "intermediary" in the
woods adjoining American University in Washington D.C., establishing the date or dates of
Murray's trip could help establish the timeframe proposed above.
"Murray said he retrieved the package from a source during a clandestine meeting in a
wooded area near American University, in northwest D.C. He said the individual he met with
was not the original person who obtained the information but an intermediary.'"
If Rich did the leak, that doesn't mean he was killed for it. They are separate events, each
with their own possibilities.
I personally find it very hard to believe the Arkancide theory. But very easy to believe
that the DNC leaks were from an annoyed Bernie supporter like Rich. After all, the content of
the leaks showed that there really was a lot of finky poo going on at the DNC with the
Clinton campaign to be unfair to Bernie.
Detained for "Wrong-Think": Canadian Border Guards Seize Books from Monika Schaefer
Upon returning from the United States of America on 24 April 2019, I was detained by the
Canadian Border Guards in the Calgary airport for three hours.
Three Border Guards spent those hours perusing through my possessions, especially the
books that I was carrying in my small suitcase. They were looking for "hate
propaganda".
The five books which they seized from me for further inspection are the following:
Government by Deception by Jan Lamprecht
Mystery Babylon: New World Unveiled Vol 1 by Eli James & Clay Douglas
The Great Inpersonation -- The Mask of Edom by Pastor Eli James
The Commission by Richard Barrett
Bungled: "Denying the Holocaust" by Germar Rudolf
No surprise here.
These Border Guards were looking for "hate propaganda". Setting aside for the moment the
meaninglessness of that term, how is it that single copies of books in my personal
possession are deemed harmful or dangerous to anyone? What I choose to read is my business
and no one else's. It is not as though I were importing commercial quantities of books. We
seem to have reached the stage where we are being dictated what to think, let alone what to
say. This is Wrong-Think in George Orwell's world of 1984.
The infatuation with AI makes people overlook three AI's built-in glitches. AI is software.
Software bugs. Software doesn't autocorrect bugs. Men correct bugs. A bugging self-driving
car leads its passengers to death. A man driving a car can steer away from death. Humans love
to behave in erratic ways, it is just impossible to program AI to respond to all possible
erratic human behaviour. Therefore, instead of adapting AI to humans, humans will be forced
to adapt to AI, and relinquish a lot of their liberty as humans. Humans have moral qualms
(not everybody is Hillary Clinton), AI being strictly utilitarian, will necessarily be
"psychopathic".
In short AI is the promise of communism raised by several orders of magnitude. Welcome
to the "Brave New World".
@Vojkan
You've raised some interesting objections, Vojkan. But here are a few quibbles:
1) AI is software. Software bugs. Software doesn't autocorrect bugs. Men correct bugs. A
bugging self-driving car leads its passengers to death. A man driving a car can steer away
from death.
Learn to code! Seriously, until and unless the AI devices acquire actual power over their
human masters (as in The Matrix ), this is not as big a problem as you think. You
simply test the device over and over and over until the bugs are discovered and worked out --
in other words, we just keep on doing what we've always done with software: alpha, beta,
etc.
2) Humans love to behave in erratic ways, it is just impossible to program AI to respond
to all possible erratic human behaviour. Therefore, instead of adapting AI to humans,
humans will be forced to adapt to AI, and relinquish a lot of their liberty as humans.
There's probably some truth to that. This reminds me of the old Marshall McCluhan saying
that "the medium is the message," and that we were all going to adapt our mode of cognition
(somewhat) to the TV or the internet, or whatever. Yeah, to some extent that has happened.
But to some extent, that probably happened way back when people first began domesticating
horses and riding them. Human beings are 'programmed', as it were, to adapt to their
environments to some extent, and to condition their reactions on the actions of other
things/creatures in their environment.
However, I think you may be underestimating the potential to create interfaces that allow
AI to interact with a human in much more complex ways, such as how another human would
interact with human: sublte visual cues, pheromones, etc. That, in fact, was the essence of
the old Turing Test, which is still the Holy Grail of AI:
3) Humans have moral qualms (not everybody is Hillary Clinton), AI being strictly
utilitarian, will necessarily be "psychopathic".
I don't see why AI devices can't have some moral principles -- or at least moral biases --
programmed into them. Isaac Asimov didn't think this was impossible either:
You simply test the device over and over and over until the bugs are discovered and
worked out -- in other words, we just keep on doing what we've always done with software:
alpha, beta, etc.
Some bugs stay dormant for decades. I've seen one up close.
What's new with AI is the amount of damage a faulty software multiplied many times over
can do. My experience was pretty horrible (I was one of the two humans overseeing the system,
but it was a pretty horrifying experience), but if the system was fully autonomous, it'd have
driven my employer bankrupt.
Now I'm not against using AI in any form whatsoever; I also think that it's inevitable
anyway. I'd support AI driving cars or flying planes, because they are likely safer than
humans, though it's of course changing a manageable risk for a very small probability tail
risk. But I'm pretty worried about AI in general.
economic welfare cannot be adequately measured unless the personal distribution of income is
known. And no income measurement undertakes to estimate the reverse side of income, that is,
the intensity and unpleasantness of effort going into the earning of income. The welfare of a
nation can, therefore, scarcely be inferred from a measurement of national income as defined
above.
"... Joe is a hypocrite, like all pols Joe has a double standards problem. Joe loves Nazis when they suit his agenda, so much so that he'll send them free weapons, train and fund them, just like the Israeli govt. ..."
"... Biden was 2nd in command in the administration that cost the party over 1000 elected seats, 13 governorships and 14 state legislatures. He was 2nd in command of the administration that led the country to Donald Trump's doorstep. ..."
"... All the Fox news loving right wingers here should love Joe, he not much different than Bush, Clinton, Obama, Trump or Ted Cruz. All members of the uniparty. All love "open borders" because they're all capitalists/globalists, and capitalists love cheap labor. ..."
Joe is a hypocrite, like all pols Joe has a double standards problem. Joe loves Nazis when
they suit his agenda, so much so that he'll send them free weapons, train and fund them, just
like the Israeli govt.
Joe Biden Rails against Neo-Nazis in Charlottesville after Supporting Them in Ukraine
Biden was 2nd in command in the administration that cost the party over 1000 elected
seats, 13 governorships and 14 state legislatures. He was 2nd in command of the
administration that led the country to Donald Trump's doorstep.
All the online polls I've seen have Bernie or Tulsi winning. Joe is a loser. Which is
probably why the Dems will rig the election and pick Joe. Trump wins. The establishment would
rather Joe lose to Trump than have Bernie or Tulsi beat him.
US govt. already spends more $$$ on college education than countries that provide "free" college,
same thing with health care, only with shittier results.
All the Fox news loving right wingers here should love Joe, he not much different than
Bush, Clinton, Obama, Trump or Ted Cruz. All members of the uniparty. All love "open borders"
because they're all capitalists/globalists, and capitalists love cheap labor.
Biden voted for NAFTA and pushed the TPP
Opposes single-payer healthcare
Opposes cannabis legalization
Supports the death penalty
Wrote the 1994 crime bill
Voted for DOMA
Voted for NAFTA
Voted for Iraq War
Voted for PATRIOT Act
Voted to repeal Glass-Steagall
Voted to make it harder to eliminate student debt
@redmudhooch
Grifters Joe Biden and Virginia Governor Terry McCauliffe work on behalf of the special
interests that own America ..
So Who What are these SPECIAL INTERESTS?
Answer:ADL AIPAC .ISRAEL CORPORATE OLIGARCHS The aforementioned Special Interests want to
violently exterminate .THE HISTORIC NATIVE BORN WHITE AMERICAN WORKING CLASS MAJORITY ..
IT'S A RACE WAR ..ADL AIPAC ISRAEL And CLASS WARFARE(Corporate Oligarchs) .
Befitting of his status as a former VP and the leader in most national polls, Biden managed
to beat out Bernie Sander's day-one haul of $5.9 million, despite the still-simmering
controversy over 'gropegate' and the backlash over his treatment of Anita Hill, a young black
female lawyer who accused Supreme Court nominee (now Justice) Clarence Thomas of sexual
harassment. Hill rejected a personal apology from Biden earlier this week, even as Biden
clarified during an interview on ABC's "the View" that he wasn't apologizing for his personal
behavior, but rather for the treatment she was subjected to during a hearing of the Senate
Judiciary Committee, which he led at the time.
Biden's day-one haul also beat out the $6.1 million raised by Texas Congressman Beto
O'Rourke during his first day, though recent polls show that enthusiasm for O'Rourke among
Democrats has waned as South Bend mayor Pete Buttigieg has benefited from a media blitz of
fawning coverage.
After all the manipulated outrage, the electoral choices will most likely still be between
about whom it can essentially be said "meet the old boss, same as the old boss." Underneath
the thin layers of standard rhetorical ******** the same strings connect the puppets to the
puppet masters.
In case anyone is wondering what kind of thug Kolomoisky (Hunter biden's sponsor at
burisma), here is a run down of the murder of Russians in Odessa on 2 May 2014 and
kolomosky's close involvement.
What I read was "Biden is a typical American politician." All the career politicians
depend on big checks from the rich and corporate elites who greatly appreciate their services
rendered. America is pay to play. It has been for a long time.
Your whole tirade was triggered by a reference to CrowdStrike.
Interesting observation -- and appears to be true.
needless defiant
The word choice is quite revealing here. His objection has nothing to do with truth. He
views you as " defying " the officially-endorsed narrative; committing the
unpardonable crime of unauthorized noticing .
All that the notorious "17 intelligence agencies" canard ever amounted to was the heads of
the 3 major inteligence agencies lining up and chanting "We believe Alperovitch!" in unison.
Kind of ironic that the entire "Russian hackers" trope was based on the unsupported claim of
an actual Russian hacker.
Regardless of how the Trump administration is working out, the simple fact that no US law
enforcement agency ever examined the DNC's servers -- and that the officially-promoted media
narrative skips over this fact, and minimizes the role of Alperovitch and CrowdStrike,
demonstrates the extent of the deception involved in that narrative.
"The firm's CTO and co-founder, Dmitri Alperovitch, is a senior fellow at the Atlantic
Council, a think tank with openly anti-Russian sentiments that is funded by Ukrainian
billionaire (((Victor Pinchuk))), who also happened to donate at least $10 million to the
Clinton Foundation."
CrowdStrike was pretty tight with Obama as well as Hillary.
"CrowdStrike Inc. today announced that Steven Chabinsky, CrowdStrike's general counsel and
chief risk officer, has been appointed by the President to the Commission on Enhancing
National Cybersecurity."
Crowdstrike has never made a profit, and does not disclose sales figures, but seems to
have little difficulty in raising venture capital, and somehow reached a (private) valuation
of $1B in 2017 -- and $3B a year later:
It's also interesting to note that the metadata for the Guccifer 2.0 files is not
consistent with a "hack" over the interwebz from Romania -- since it was transferred at 23
MB/s:
that's thumb drive or LAN -- an internal leak, not a "hack."
CrowdStrike's role in the Russia conspiracy theory hacking/ meddling/ colluding
allegations was minimized in favor of the even more authoritative-sounding "37 intelligence
agencies" claim, but a large part of their usual role seems to to serve as a sort of "SPLC"
for hacking attributions. Just as the SPLC provides the appearance of an "independent,"
"authoritative" source to designate so-called "hate groups" and "hate crimes," much of
CrowdStrike's role is not really to provide any sort of relevant technical expertise or
investigation, but to serve as an outside "expert" to provides the "correct" claims to form
the basis of a desired media narrative.
See also the "Syrian Observatory for Human Rights," the "White Helmets," Rita Katz's "SITE
Intelligence," etc
There is also the question of Russiagate. It goes without saying that Trump would covet an
opportunity to settle scores with the Democratic Party over that witch hunt, which, in cahoots
with the mainstream media, stalked the US leader and his administration for two painstaking
years. And even now, after the release of the Mueller Report, the Democrats refuse to throw in
the towel and are plotting to
interrogate the interrogator himself, Robert Mueller. This is where Julian Assange might
help halt the madness, although that is not to suggest, of course, that he is necessarily
predisposed to such an opportunity. Yet he may find himself with no choice in the matter.
Before continuing with that line of discussion, there are some rather strange things about the
Assange case that need mentioning.
For those who may have forgotten, and it seems that many have, Rich, 27, was the Director of
Voter Expansion Data at the Democratic National Committee (DNC) at the time of his death. In
other words, he would have been in the loop to view emails showing foul play inside of the DNC.
What kind of foul play? Well, for starters, deliberate efforts to marginalize Bernie Sanders in
favor of Hillary Clinton, who responded to the arrest of Julian Assange with her trademark
cackle before remarking, "The bottom line is that he has to answer for what he has done, at
least as it has been charged." For Hillary Clinton that means wrecking her chances at the White
House.
Incidentally, it was at this time in history, in July 2016 during the release of the
incriminating DNC emails, when the perennial bogeyman Russia was
wheeled out as not only the source of the emails, but the kingmaker in the US election as
well.
At this point, it is important to emphasize that there is no proof to suggest that Rich had
anything to with leaking the DNC emails to WikiLeaks. In fact, to merely suggest such a thing
has been given the 'conspiracy theory' stamp of disapproval by the establishment. Yet that has
not stopped the flow of mysteries. For example, Rod Wheeler, a private investigator hired by
the Rich family to investigate the death of their son, said he had sources at the FBI who
"absolutely" confirmed that there was evidence on Rich's laptop that indicates he was
communicating with WikiLeaks prior to his death. However, just days after divulging this
explosive information, Wheeler backtracked on his statement,
calling his on-air comments a "miscommunication."
For what it is worth, Snopes has called the claims that
Rich leaked the emails as "false."
Yet, there remains the circumstantial evidence, namely Rich's untimely death, as well as its
uncanny timing. There also remains the question of his supervisory position inside of the DNC,
and the assertion that the DNC emails were not discovered by hackers, but rather a leaker. In
other words, an internal source at the DNC. Whether or not Mr. Rich was that source remains
questionable, however, Julian Assange not only referred to Seth Rich during an interview, he
offered a $20,000 reward for information leading to the arrest of his killer or
killers.
"Whistle-blowers go to significant efforts to get us material and often very significant
risks," Assange said
in an interview with a Dutch television station. "There's a 27-year-old who works for the
DNC, who was shot in the back, murdered, just two weeks ago, for unknown reasons as he was
walking down the street in Washington."
When pressed for more information, he said, "I'm suggesting that our sources take risks and
they become concerned to see things occurring like that."
On the basis of that comment, Assange could potentially be called to testify as a witness
should the authorities decide to reopen the case of Seth Rich's murder.
This leads us to the million-dollar question: were the DNC computers hacked by the Russians
or was the data leaked by an internal source at the organization and forwarded to WikiLeaks?
The answer to that question would not only settle the 'Russian meddling' mystery once and for
all, it would determine how the DNC/Clinton emails were compromised.
Many people are of the opinion it was not the Russians.
William Binney, a former National Security Agency official-turned-whistleblower and member
of Veterans Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), co-authored
a report (entitled, "Why the DNC was not hacked by the Russians") that says the
WikiLeaks dump was the result of a leak by "a person with physical access to the DNC's computer
system."
"The NSA had an opportunity to make it clear that there was irrefutable proof of Russian
meddling, particularly with regard to the DNC hack, when it signed on to the January 2017
'Intelligence Community Assessment,'" Binney wrote.
Instead, the NSA could only say it has "moderate confidence," which means, in intelligence
speak, "we have no hard evidence," the pair concluded.
Meanwhile, there remains the question as to how any conclusion could have been made when the
DNC refused to hand over the compromised computer servers to the FBI.
"We'd always prefer to have access hands-on ourselves if that's possible," former FBI head
James Comey
told lawmakers in October 2017. He added that he didn't know why the DNC refused the FBI,
which was forced to rely on data provided by CrowdStrike, a private security firm hired by the
DNC.
Following the release of the Mueller Report, which failed to find any proof that Trump
colluded with the Russians, there remains a glaring yet unproven accusation that needs
addressed: that is the allegation that the Russians somehow fixed the election in Trump's
favor.
Although the mainstream media may be ignoring Binney's findings, that doesn't mean everyone
is. In October 2017, Binney paid a visit to CIA headquarters, at the invitation of Donald
Trump, where he met with then agency director Mike Pompeo, as cited
by The Intercept.
Any guesses whose name was brought up in the course of the meeting between Binney and
Pompeo? Yes, that of Seth Rich. Again, whether or not that proves to be significant remains an
open question.
But make no mistake. Donald Trump would like nothing more than to remove the ugly footnote
that the Democrats have tacked to his presidency that says the Russians "succeeded beyond their
wildest dreams," to
quote former intelligence chief James Clapper, by stealing the White House from Hillary
Clinton. In other words, Trump does not deserve to be president, the Democrats continue to
chant mindlessly. And even after the Mueller Report talk of impeachment continues to hang in
the air. The only way to confront the insanity is to have Mr. Assange testify in the United
States, possibly as the result of a plea bargain, about his knowledge of Russiagate.
In fact, such an arrangement had been made before. In January 2017, Assange's lawyer Adam
Waldman "negotiated with the Justice Department on a possible deal to get the WikiLeaks founder
limited immunity and safe passage out of a London embassy to talk with U.S. officials,"
according to a
report by The Hill.
Among other things, Assange would have been expected to "provide technical information to
the U.S. ruling out certain suspects in the release of hacked DNC emails key to the Russia case
"
But the negotiations hit a snag and –
according to a source cited by John Solomon of The Hill – James Comey told Assange's
lawyer to "stand down" on the offer.
Now, considering that many of the 'old Obama guard' – like James Comey, the fired FBI
director, and Department of Justice official Bruce Ohr – are no longer steering the
investigation, there remains the possibility that the Trump administration will be willing to
hear what WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has to say about the greatest witch hunt in the
history of US politics . Assange's testimony, should it happen, may even help solve the mystery
of the Seth Rich murder.
In other words, don't believe that Russiagate has concluded. Indeed, it may have only just
begun.
Or, if the British keep holding onto him, it might be the Deep Estate and the
Obola/Clinton cabals want to keep Assange on ice so that he won't put the kabosh on the
Russia Gate narrative.
The real Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy right within the bowels of the US
Government.
And we have this from August 2017:
Republican California Representative Dana Rohrabacher met with WikiLeaks Founder Julian
Assange at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London this week.
According
to Rohrabacher, Assange "reaffirmed his aggressive denial that the Russians had anything to
do with the hacking of the DNC during the election," in the meeting, adding, "He has given
us a lot of information. He said there's more to come. We don't have the entire picture
yet."
Rohrabacher further claimed that the information he received would have "an
earth-shattering political impact."
I believe its been determined that the DNC emails were leaked, not hacked by Russians.
According to different reports the emails were downloaded to a thumbdrive as a fantastic
speed, much to fast for it to be a hack.
I was running one of the largest Bernie Groups and I was Bernie or Bust. I really believe
that Seth Reich did leak the info to Julian Assange and he was killed as a hero. DWS who is a
criminal was definitely involved and I wouldn't doubt about Mossad's involvement. Mossad is
very sneaky and professional in killing. All we need is DNC Fraud Lawsuit. But even Becks
were threatened and the case didn't go anywhere.
Trump is just extremely selfish and he used Wikileaks in his campaign by defending him.
But he doesn't give a damn about Julian Assange.
I agree. I'm ******* tired of dumbasses trying to paint Trump as a swamp-drainer when he
has already proven he's a swamp creature himself, surrounded by zios and neocons.
The neocons are bad, but it is the failure on the border, with hundreds of thousands of
visa overstays, and legal immigration increases of third world refugees, h1bs, and h2bs that
most egregious of the Trump administration.
"This leads us to the million-dollar question: were the DNC computers hacked by the
Russians or was the data leaked by an internal source at the organization and forwarded to
WikiLeaks? The answer to that question would not only settle the 'Russian meddling' mystery
once and for all, it would determine how the DNC/Clinton emails were compromised."
This author is off his nut
This is exactly why Julian is being shut down. Unable to see even his lawyers, being
denied medical treatment and likely being tortured.
This is why Comey sabotaged the deal..
Russia hack = IRAQI WMD. The elite are determined to manufacture public consent for war on
Russia.
They know Julian would not only destroy this narrative but that he would create a mass
back lash for all of US who knew Russiagate was ******** in the first place.
Trump is a Zionist stooge is arming and funding the NEONAZI THUGS in Ukraine right along
with Israhsll.
He has ZERO intention of doing what the author suggest. This is pure fantasy with
absolutely ZERO to back it up.
Bolton? NSA? Do you mean NSC? Everything we hear about Bolton lately is ideological
labeling as a so-called Neocon, more ambiguous bullshit, or tainting him by association with
Israelis. Funny how everybody just forgot what Bolton did at the UN, when Bush shoehorned him
in there without congressional consent. Bolton personally constipated the drafting of the
Summit Outcome Document to remove awkward mentions of the magic word impunity. The old perv
put up 700 amendments to obstruct the process.
Now, who cares that much about impunity? And why would it be such a big deal, unless you
had impunity in municipal law but the whole world was committed to ending impunity? Cause if
you think about it, that's what the whole world has been doing for 70 years, codifying the
Pre-CIA Nuremberg Principles as international criminal law and developing state
responsibility for internationally wrongful acts as customary and then conventional
international law. Who doesn't want that?
CIA. Impunity is CIA's vital interest. They go to war to keep it all the time.
@DESERT FOX
Wisely, DESERT FOX recalled Colonel Fletcher Prouty, and wrote: " the CIA is the zionist
chain dogs that rule America!"
Dear DESERT FOX,
As you know, for some very dramatic time, Attorney Garrison held Clay Shaw's
feet-to-the-fire while demonstrating the latter businessman's connection to the Israeli
company, Permindex.
So naturally, a reasonable & respectful question arises, for which there is likely no
available & conclusive determination.
Are CIA, Mossad, and M16 joined as one (1) ruling and globally unaccountable
"(Western) Zionist chain dog" link? Tough one, D.F., but am confident you can intelligently
handle it. Thanks & salud!
@ChuckOrloski
From what I have read, MI6 is under zionist control and is the template for the CIA and the
Mossad and is the controller of both the CIA and the Mossad and all three are under zionist
control.
Another good book is The Committee of 300 by Dr. John Coleman a former officer in MI6 and
his videos on youtube.
The new narrative is that of an embattled president trying against the odds to do the
right thing
the new narrative is they got him, Watergate 2.0
*if* that is correct the changes to expect are
– media going easier on him
– corporate dems going easier on him (while smirking a lot)
– more war
– more corporate donors as they might prefer a controlled Trump to a Sanders
– they might throw him a symbolic bone on immigration to help him win in 2020
– more corporate donors as they might prefer a controlled Trump to a Sanders
– they might throw him a symbolic bone on immigration to help him win in 2020
The Deep State will never allow an uncontrolled candidate to win.
I see that there are mainly two opposing explanations:
a) Donald Trump really wanted to break with the neocons, but he is under such enormous
pressure that he had to give in to them (at least temporarily, maybe, according to that
interpretation, there is still hope)
b) Donald Trump wanted to behave this way from the start, and if there is a conspiracy, he
is a part of it. He just said some things about not involving the US in conflicts that are
not in its interest because that was popular in order to get elected, but he never had any
intentions of going through with it.
I think there are problems with both explanations.
The main problem with a):
Even if Trump had to make concessions because he was under such enormous pressure, it is
hardly plausible that there really was a need to surround himself with neocons to such a
degree and go much further with neoconservative policies in some areas than many mainstream
Republicans would probably have gone.
The main problem with b):
If Trump really belongs to the inner circle, it does not seem very plausible that
intelligence services and establishment politicians would go to such lengths constructing a
conspiracy theory (setting up meetings of Papadopoulos with Mifsud and Downer, the Steele
dossier, campaign surveillance), which is not only a lot of effort, but also lays bare some
elements of the "deep state" they would normally prefer to keep hidden.
How one might attempt to save a):
While the neocons are generally very influential in the US, they normally operate in the
background. They don't have full control over lawmakers. However, some members of Congress
are very close to neocons, and many of them (in both parties) were among the strictest
anti-Trumpers. The most concrete danger of impeachment for Trump was that some Republicans
closely connected with neocons would unite with Democrats against him. Appointing lots of
neocons and increasing their influence might have been the best option of placating these
neoconservative Republican anti-Trumpers (or even to make these Republican neocons stop being
anti-Trumpers).
How one might attempt to save b):
While the whole Russiagate conspiracy theory is somewhat risky for the (overt and deep)
establishment, it is also a great distraction. Furthermore, I think Russiagate was not
primarily directed against Trump, but more against Russia and in favor of increasing military
spending from which many in the establishment profit. Generally, Democrats used to be
somewhat less hawkish than Republicans, and since they already hate Trump fervently (but
mostly didn't care much about Russia), Russiagate was a great opportunity for making
Democrats even more ardent supporters of the new cold war, the intelligence services, and the
security state. One could hardly invent such an efficient means for making Democrats hate
Russia and support the surveillance state except by associating their boogeyman with Russia.
Many Republicans would go along with the new cold war, anyway, winning over Democrats for the
CIA, anti-Russian hatred and military spending was particularly valuable.
So, I think both a) and b) are probably partially true.
I don't think Trump was really a part of an inner circle. As someone from the outside,
some of the bipartisan neoconservative dogmas were probably alien to him. There are some
leaks (e.g. in the book by Bob Woodward) that show that Trump questioned the large number of
expensive military bases around the world. He probably looked at it from a business
perspective, and it seems hard to justify such enormous expenses. Furthermore, he had some
ideas about the rivalry with China, and the idea of alienating and antagonizing Russia,
China, and some medium-sized countries (and to some degree even Western Europe, though it
mostly still follows the US) all at once, which pushes them into closer collaboration
probably seems odd to someone from the outside who has not been surrounded by people from
neoconservative think tanks for most of his life. On the other hand, I don't think there were
any deep convictions behind the things Trump said in his campaign. He just said things that
a) seemed to be popular and b) he probably mostly agreed with himself, but when it became
clear to him that it was more convenient for him to do something very different from what he
had said during the campaign, he hardly hesitated.
I think that for the (both overt and deep) establishment someone "naïve" from the
outside was seen as a threat. On the other hand, they probably also understood that Trump
hardly has strong convictions and therefore would give in relatively easily under pressure.
So, the Russiagate conspiracy theory was probably a good idea from the perspective of the
(overt and deep) establishment for bringing Trump into line.
Then, I would also distinguish some things. Trump probably was very pro-Israeli from the
start. But being pro-Israeli does not have to mean being anti-Russian, after all the Israeli
and Russian government have relatively good relations, even though their interests diverge in
many areas.
"Your analysis fails to account for the fact that Trump essentially ran as a third party
candidate."
Deep state sleeper agent Trump ran as an "outsider" opposed to everything that deep state
agent Hillary Clinton stood for. His candidacy was a carefully calculated bait and switch
fraud which leveraged his non-career-politician status.
"His original agenda of sealing up the border and ending Bush-Obama regime change ran
counter to both parties."
Since his campaign strategy was to present himself as an outsider, of course he had to
pretend to take positions that ran counter to both parties. It's now painfully obvious that
his "original agenda" was nothing but disingenuous BS.
"There's been no one more hostile to Trump since Jan. 2017 than Paul Ryan and Mitch
McConnell, both Republicans."
Talk is cheap.
"As Darren Beattie said, McConnell's tactic with Trump all along has been to block him
on everything except for federal judges. And McConnell's winning."
Everything, or just the things that Trump pretends to want but doesn't really want? Funny
that nobody's been able to deter him from his war crimes and his provocations and his
apparent drive to start WW3.
"Now you'll probably say, it's all theater, they're all in on it together, wake up &
smell the coffee."
How will smelling coffee change the fact that it is all political theater?
"I don't believe it."
LOL! You think Trump is honest? Seriously?
"Trump could have run as a Jeb Bush Republican and done just fine, but he didn't."
Or so you barely assert; and so you barely assert without explaining how Jeb Bush lost the
primary to Trump.
"He took a huge risk saying the stuff he did, and won."
He won because agent Obama, agent Clinton and their deep state handlers helped him win. Or
do you think it was just a coincidence that Obama attacked the Syrian army at Deir Ezzor in
Sept. 2016, for example, which greatly escalated tensions with Russia just as the election
was coming into the home stretch?
To understand what the Deep State will and will not tolerate answer these questions.
What do both parties agree on? If they appear to disagree, look to see if anything changes
when one party has the power to cause change or does the party in power make excuses to avoid
change? Those things that the populus is against but never change or get worse are what the
Deep State wants
The Deep State wants a constant state of tension with 'hostile' countries (Iran, Russia,
Venezuela, China, Syria and others). This scares the crap out of ignorant Americans and
allows unjustifiable spending on war matériel.
The Deep State wants a steady supply of cheap foreign labor to provide wealth to the
supporters of the Deep State.
The Deep State wants our financial institutions to never fail (FED 2009) even at the
expense of 90% of Americans. The Deep State wants financial institutions to provide financial
products to the wealthy which cripples the vast majority of Americans.
The silly internecine squabbles within the Deep State are a ruse to misdirect the public
from important issues like constant war, legal and illegal immigrants taking jobs from
Americans and the increased transfer of wealth for the 90% to the supper weathy.
There will never be a wall and illegal immigration will continue to be a problem.
All the investigations into Trump, the DNC, Hillary and all the rest will never come to
justice.
The wealth transfer will not stop
Until Americans realize these diversions for what they are and put an end to it through
what ever means necessary
it was successful as Trump was likely forced to turn his back on his better angels and
subsequently hired Pompeo, Bolton and Abrams.
Oh plezzze .you sound like you've been drugged.
Trump never had any better angels as any reporter and journalist whoever interviewed or
investigated him would tell you.
And come on! .You know damn well Adelson sent Bolton and you should also know damn well
why the Orange Boy staffed his adm with Zio Jews. .no one in NY except Jews would associate
with Trump.
i think some of the conspiracy was about controlling Trump's foreign policy going forward but
i also think some of it was people like Brennan worried CIA collusion with Saudi funded
jihadist groups since 9/11 (and possibly before) might come out.
Trump biggest regret is going to be that he ever ran for President. Impeached or not
impeached all his dirty laundry is going to be exposed. Even if he secured a second term
there is no statute of limitations on what he could be prosecuted for .so the minute he steps
down from the WH he's going to have to spend everything he's got on lawyers fighting the
charges the SDNY is going to bring against him.
David Cay Johnston: What Is Trump Hiding in His Tax Returns?
The Pulitzer Prize–winning investigative reporter explains what's likely in Trump's
returns.
By Jon WienerTwitter
David Cay Johnston is a Pulitzer Prize–winning investigative reporter who previously
worked at The New York Times. He's the founder and editor of DCReport.org.
Jon Wiener: The chair of the House Ways and Means Committee formally requested six years
of Trump's personal and business tax returns earlier this month. Trump, of course, refused to
comply, and said the law is "100 percent" on his side. Does the IRS have to hand over Trump's
tax returns to the chair of the House Ways and Means Committee?
David Cay Johnston: If they follow the law, they absolutely have to hand them over. Under
a 1924 anti-corruption law that was passed because of Teapot Dome, a Harding-administration
scandal, Congress can look at anybody's tax return at any time. In the 85-year history of
this law, the IRS has always responded appropriately to the request and turned over
everything that was requested.
[Hide MORE]
JW: What are the exceptions to this law?
DCJ: There aren't any. It says, "Congress shall provide upon written request." That's it.
Well, they have a written request, it's a specific request, and therefore they shall provide.
The statement by Donald Trump that the law is 100 percent on his side is just classic
Trumpian lying: Take something that is true, and state the exact opposite.
JW: Does the IRS commissioner have any alternative to handing over Trump's tax returns?
What happens if he doesn't comply?
DCJ: There's another section of the tax code which says that any federal employee dealing
with any aspects of the tax code who either does not comply, or who fails to act -- covering
both sins of omission and commission -- "shall be removed from office, and is subject to
prosecution and upon conviction, five years in prison and a $10,000 fine."
JW: Who enforces this law? It's not just up to Attorney General William Barr -- is that
right?
DCJ: That's correct. First of all, a US Attorney's office could enforce the action,
although that seems unlikely in this administration. But the next administration, if it
chooses, could go back, and even if the IRS commissioner has left, prosecute him for failure
to turn over the documents. Of course, Congress can hold the commissioner in contempt, and
Congress can also go to federal court to enforce its orders. It can. And has in the distant
past even tried people itself.
JW: The IRS commissioner is a man named Charles Rettig, and he's a Trump appointee. Tell
us a little about Charles Rettig.
DCJ: At DCReport we call him "Donald Trump's man at the IRS." Almost every IRS
commissioner has been a tax lawyer, but Charles Rettig is not like most of those other tax
lawyers. He isn't in the business of tax planning. He's in the business of representing tax
cheats who get caught, and his specialty is keeping them from being indicted. As we put it,
"He's one of the foxes who is not just in charge of the hen house. He's in a position to
redesign the hen house."
JW: Trump's personal lawyer last week urged the Treasury Department not to hand over
Trump's tax returns. He said that to comply with their request would turn the IRS into a
political weapon of the radical Democrats. Is that a good legal argument?
DCJ: No. It may be a good political argument with Trump's base, but as a legal matter, if
my students at Syracuse Law were to bring that up, I would have to work hard not to laugh at
them -- because it's a ridiculous argument. There is no limit in Section 6103 that says you
can only ask for a tax return if you're a Republican, or if you hew to certain political
views. It simply says, "Upon written request, the return shall be provided." It could not be
more clear.
JW: The boss of the IRS commissioner is the treasury secretary, Steve Mnuchin. He said
sort of the opposite of what Trump's personal lawyer said. He said, "Our intent is to follow
the law." How do you explain the difference between the legal positions of Trump's personal
lawyer and Trump's treasury secretary?
DCJ: This is exactly what got me onto this story. I noticed that Trump, his lawyers, and
the acting White House chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, were making these wild, reckless,
lawless statements. But Mnuchin, the Treasury secretary, and Rettig, the IRS commissioner,
both made nuanced statements, and carefully avoided refusing to comply, and instead said,
"We're trying to understand how to comply with law. It is our intent to comply with the law,
but we need more time to learn what the law says." It should take you literally about 10
seconds to learn what the law says. That's when I thought, "What's going on here?" It's what
got me on to the section of the tax code that says, in effect, that any federal employee who
interferes, obstructs, or fails to act, is subject to removal, prosecution, and fine. I think
what Mnuchin is trying to do here is thread a needle. He wants to continue to show his
loyalty to Trump. Not to our Constitution, as his oath of office requires, but to Trump. He's
trying to evade the law that says there must be compliance with the request, without going to
jail.
JW: The New York Times news story on this reported that "The fight over Mr. Trump's tax
returns is expected to turn into a protracted legal battle that will likely make its way to
the Supreme Court." Do you think that's right, and does the Republican majority on the court
have a way to rule in Trump's favor?
DCJ: It may lead to a protracted fight. It's also possible that this will get fast-tracked
and get right to our Supreme Court. As someone who reads Supreme Court decisions, I don't
particularly care for the jurisprudence of John Roberts, the Chief Justice of the United
States, but nothing in his opinions suggests that he would sell the soul and the integrity of
the court to favor Donald Trump. Every indication is that he would uphold the law. I would
not be surprised if you got a 7-2 or 9-0 decision from the Supreme Court that the IRS has to
turn over the documents.
JW: The really interesting question is, what do you think is in Trump's tax returns? Why
do you think he's trying so hard to keep them secret?
DCJ: There are at least three reasons here. Number one, Trump's tax returns will show that
he is not anywhere near as wealthy as he claimed. Remember during the campaign he kept saying
he was worth more than $10 billion. But after he became president, he signed under oath his
financial disclosure statement, and 90 percent of his wealth vanished. Even that statement,
which I've analyzed, overstates his wealth. There's never been a scintilla of verifiable
evidence that Trump is a billionaire. And I'm the guy who revealed, back in 1990 when he said
he was worth $3 billion, that he wasn't a billionaire. We eventually found that he had
negative net worth of about $295 million -- minus $295 million.
Secondly, Donald Trump is a tax cheat. He had two civil trials for income tax fraud, one
by the State of New York and the other by the City of New York. In both cases he lost. In one
of those trials, his own long-time tax attorney and accountant, Jack Mitnick, testified
against him. Mitnick was shown the filed tax return, which was a photocopy, and testified,
"That's my signature on the return, but neither I nor my firm prepared that tax return."
That's as good a badge of fraud as you're ever going to find. It indicates that Donald Trump
took the tax return that was prepared, changed it, and then with a photocopy machine put the
signature of Jack Mitnick on it. Donald Trump is also a confessed sales tax cheat. Mayor Ed
Koch of New York said he should have served 15 days in jail for his crime. Trump has a long
history of hiding records from auditors, cheating governments, using two sets of numbers. So
his tax returns are highly likely to show tax cheating.
Finally, the returns may well establish how much money he has been getting from Russians,
Saudis, people from the Emirates, and elsewhere. They may show whether he has been engaged in
money laundering for these people through real estate transactions and other actions that
make no business sense, but, when closely examined, show exactly what we see when there's
money laundering. I think the record is pretty clear that he has been doing that.
JW: A technical question: Where do you report payments from Russian oligarchs on your tax
return?
DCJ: Trump has over 500 business entities, and the tax return is the beginning point for
an audit. You then would examine the books and records that are behind it. Now, Trump has a
long history of destroying or claiming he destroyed business records to thwart auditors. This
happened particularly with the City of New York when he tried to cheat the city out of about
$2.9 million. But there may actually be transactions reported right in the tax return that
would tell you where money came from–because it may list entities to which he is
obligated, or is in partnership with, or received money from, or shared profits with. The
request by Chairman Neal of the House Ways and Means Committee was very targeted. It cited
six specific Trump businesses -- out of over 500 businesses. That suggests to me that they
know what they were looking for .
JW: What do you think the political effect would be if voters learned from Trump's tax
return that he has been a tax cheat? As I recall, this was a huge issue in the final downfall
of Richard Nixon.
DCJ: That's right. This was a big scandal in 1974. Nixon was pardoned, so nothing happened
to him, but his tax lawyer went to prison. By the way, the very law that exposed Nixon as a
tax cheat is the same law that the Trump people are now trying to resist. I frankly think
that among people who are strong Trump supporters, this will have little impact. The impact
that would matter is on people on the margin. People who have been with Trump but are uneasy
with him because of all of his other behavior. And if he has committed federal tax crimes,
then he has committed New York State tax crimes, because New York State tax law hews very
closely to federal law. ".
how do you explain his hiring so many Deep State denizens Bolton, Pompeo et al.?
I would suggest, they have "great guy" Epstein dirt on Trump. Seems so obvious to me, the
entire swamp is either bought or blackmailed with this kind of dirt.
If the masses would find out about this kind of dirt, there was probably a violent purge
taking place, a lynching of the entire swamp.
Btw, you are right, Us political circus works like WWE.
@TomSchmidt
Social Security is not an entitlement. You pay into it, and receive a benefit. Social
Security was established as a Trust. There are legal requirements on those who manage a trust
– the trustees. Social Security has been mismanaged intentionally. There are people
receiving benefits who are not entitled to them. The US Government has raided the fund by
making it part of general revenue, instead of the Trust that it is supposed to be.
The "problems" of Social Security are a side show distraction to keep the focus away from the
real problem: the politicians and their Wall Street paymasters.
bruce wilder:
"Reading the post and comments, I can help but feel the entire agenda is about feeling
good about one's own political fecklessness. The abject moral and economic failures of
left-neoliberalism / lesser evilism Democratic Party politics are staring at you.
likbez , April 24, 2019 10:04 pm
@pgl, April 23, 2019 7:35 am
Get prepared because these clowns get paid by the word
I wish ;-). Than I would hang in forums all day long like some of the commenters here.
or maybe they weren't eager for World War 3 with Russia over Syria or the Ukraine?
I voted for Trump after previously voting for Ralph Nader. And Obama proved beyond a doubt
that Nader was right. Meanwhile Trump has done exactly what I hoped he would do; he has shown
that our entire election system is rigged by the CIA (obviously not very thoroughly
rigged).
Like or hate Trump, only a traitor would not be concerned that the CIA is giving marching
order to the media and colluding to derail candidates it does not approve of.
Unless a "democrat" stands up who is willing to talk about unconstitutional wars,
unconstitutional bailouts, unconstitutional surveillance and unconstitutional rigging of the
two major parties, Trump is far better because he is forcing the public to see how corrupt DC
is.
We have been in a constitutional crisis since at least the 1990's. Of course if you are
too weak and stupid to handle any of that discussion, just bury your head and pretend that
"racism" is the only reason Trump won.
And
Brian 04.21.19 at 2:43 pm
I think the real question is not whether Trump is successful or not. That question is a
red herring in American politics today. The real question is whether or not the Democratic
"leadership" can allow nomination of a candidate that the Democrat rank and file want.
Bernie Sanders should have won the nomination last time. But the superdelegate system
gives a literal handful of mandarins the ability to fake the primary process. (I say that as
someone who has significant issues with some of Sanders positions.)
Trump won because Hillary was a horrific candidate. Voters stayed home, disgusted. Trump
won because the Obama administration didn't deliver hope nor change. He delivered a
government of the corporate criminal bankers for them. Middle and working class America got
screwed. Black people got screwed worst. Trump won because the utter corruption at the heart
of the DNC was exposed for all to see in the emails. Trump win because of the Obama
administration making a trade deal top secret classified and trying to force a vote through
congress. Not seeing any point in voting, Democrats didnt.
All the evidence since shows the DNC leadership didn't learn anything. They are just as
contemptuous of voters, just as manipulative with their window dressing as ever. The
Democratic party is the party of endless war even more than the Republicans. It's a party
that stopped every effort by Trump to wind down or end war posture with Russia and North
Korea. There's now 2 parties in Netanyahu's pocket implementing Likuds insane middle east
ideas.
Put some solar energy and LGBTQ butter on it with a side of women's rights bullshit and
it's "Democrat".
But the politicians are just as venal. The legislature just as wildly right wing war
mongering.
The 1960's is long over. The Democratic party hasn't seen a new idea since and has
converted to govern to the right of Nixon. Way to Nixon's right. The Democratic party is the
tool of the Uber-ization of not just America, but the whole world. Flour and break the law to
pauperize the working class, and suck money to a few in the SF Bay Area. That's policy
now.
You can see it already. Sanders is ahead. But Buttigieg is being anointed. He's the
perfect candidate. He's gay! He's out of the closet! And he's a corporate tool who can talk
smoothly without speaking a clear word. Best of all, he has ZERO foreign policy experience or
positions. So he'll be putty in the hands of the corporations that want endless war for
profits. Wall Street wants him. And the street owns the Democratic party. Will he give a
flying f*@k about the middle and working class? Will he be anything but another neo-liberal
who can be differentiated from a neo-conservative only by mild difference in racism? (Overt
vs.covert)
At least Buttigieg isn't Beto O'Rourke, the most completely empty skin in Congress.
There's that.
All the evidence I see is no. The Democrat "leadership" don't understand. I predict a
Trump win, or else a squeaker election that barely scrapes by with a win.
No matter what, the idiot Democrats won't get it. Pelosi will do her best to cast the
Republicans anti-tax anti-government (federal) government culture war in concrete with
balanced budget horse manure. The Democrats will continue to force a new cold war on Russia.
They will keep backing companies that steal from the middle and working class. (Yes, Uber and
Lyft are massive theft operations. They implemented taxi service without licenses. Those
licenses cost a lot of money to those who bought them. They put the public at risk causing
multiple deaths and assaults from unlicensed taxi drivers.)
Trump's appeal is that he at least talks a game of "f*@k you". Domestically it's all lies
on all sides. He lies to everyone. But at least he doesn't lie smoothly like the "good
Democrat" candidates do.
IMHO crookedtimber.org blog is a forum for a bunch of "soft neoliberals" and neocons like
this one, so this is a pretty remarkable development.
What a joke. Trump is a Zionist. The "deep state" is Zionist. The trillionaires are Zionists.
Trump moved the US embassy to Jerusalem. Continues the illegal wars in Syria and Yemen.
Unilaterally declares the Golan Heights to be Israeli territory.
Kushner is Genie Energy. Cheney, et al. Stealing Syrian national wealth.
Trump is a tool.
Those who supported Trump are fools. Those who thought Mueller would find impeachable
offenses are fools. We are all either fools or tools.
@Wallbanger Of
course, Trump is pro-Zionist, and he hardly needed any pressure for this. Kushner is a close
friend of Netanyahu, and we don't know anything about conflicts between Trump and Kushner.
But I think the Russiagate conspiracy theory still may have served important foreign policy
goals.
I think it is important to distinguish between Israeli foreign policy and US neocon foreign
policy, even though they are close allies. At least superficially, these are two rather
different things, and to me, it is an open question to what degree these differences are only
superficial.
US neocons follow the doctrine of „full spectrum dominance". This leads them to having
military bases all over the world, stoking up conflicts, and destabilizing countries that have
or want good relations with rivals like China and Russia. The idea that such „full
spectrum dominance" will be used for the benefit of Israel certainly goes a long way for
explaining why neocons think it is worth the price – after all, many US neocons are
Jewish Zionists, and many of their lower-rank supporters are Christian Zionists. But their goal
of „full spectrum dominance" goes beyond matters related to Israel, it leads to conflicts
and tensions all over the world, Israel is just one of the motivating factors.
Israeli foreign policy is very different. It does not share the US' hostility towards other
great powers. Israel has good relations with Russia and China. It refused to follow the US and
the EU in sanctioning Russia, Netanyahu meets Putin regularly, and, like Trump with the Golan
recognition, Putin also gave Netanyahu a present a short time before the elections (retrieving
remains of an Israeli soldier who was missing since 1982 from Syria). Of course, Russia and
Israel supported different sides in Syria, but they still seem to take into account each
other's interest to some degree. Israel also has good relations and a strong economic
partnership with China and participates in the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative. The general
principle seems to be that whenever there is a conflict and rivalry, Israel wants to have good
relations and influence on both sides. There are some exceptions, in the Sunni-Shia conflict,
Israel only has behind-the-scenes influence on the Sunni-Wahhabi side, but that is probably one
of the reasons why good relations with Russia, which has closer contacts with Iran, are
important to Israel. In the case of the conflict in Ukraine (which is quite relevant for Israel
because many Israeli citizens are from Russia or Ukraine), Israel remained neutral and has
strong connections to both sides. Such a policy of keeping good relations with as many powerful
nations as possible obviously seems smart for a smaller (albeit in many respects very strong)
country in a difficult part of the world.
Of course, the Israeli government is very much aware that there could hardly ever be a
powerful country where Israel is as influential as it is in the US. Israel has some significant
influence in Western Europe and Russia, criticizing Israel can be risky, and overall, these
countries have rather pro-Israeli policies (as does, as far as I know, China). But they will
never be as extremely pro-Israeli as the US. There are many votes in the UN were there is just
Israel and the US on one side (sometimes together with some tiny micronations that depend on
the US). Therefore, it is in Israel's interest that the US tries at all cost to gain influence
relative to other great powers that are less extremely pro-Israeli. Thus, US neocons who drive
the US towards a costly „full spectrum dominance" policy are unequivocally positive and
worthy of support from the perspective of the Israeli government. But for Israeli foreign
policy itself, due to risk management considerations, the priorities are different. The
best-case scenario for them is that a) Israeli influence in the US remains strong and b) the US
can achieve and maintain „full-spectrum dominance" for a long time. But they also know
that this best-case scenario is far from assured, and therefore, they also consider good
relations between Israel and potentially powerful countries like China and Russia
important.
I think Trump's foreign policy ideas (before any pressure was applied to him) was quite
close to the Israeli ideas (rather than the positions of the US neocons). Unlike Israel, he had
some ideas about confronting China (mainly on trade), and certainly, he wanted pro-Israeli
policies, but it seems he also wanted to have a general policy of „getting along" with
relatively important countries rather than pursuing „full-spectrum dominance" wherever
possible and stoking up proxy conflicts at every occasion. On the whole, it seems Trump wanted
a US foreign policy that is closer to the Israeli one than to the one of US neocons. If Israel
can „get along" with Russia, why shouldn't the US? The Israeli and international press
does not scream „treason" every time Netanyahu and Putin meet (which they do quite
often).
This idea of a normalization of US-Russian relations is what led to such strong opposition
from US neocons. I think they all knew that it would never be in doubt that Trump's policies
would be pro-Israeli. But that was not enough for them. According to them, the US, unlike
Israel, has to have a strongly anti-Russian stance.
I think there are two plausible explanations, one that does involve Israel and one that does
not. They may both be partially be true (probably, for some US neocons, it is more the one,
while for others, it is more the other).
The first explanation is that US neocons who strongly identify with Israel, as I argued
above, recognize that Israel should have good relations with Russia and China because of risk
management considerations, but at the same time, Israel wants to have the US to have as much
power as possible because it will never have as much influence in Russia and China as it has in
the US. The Russia hysteria has helped increasing military spending (and Democrats going along
with this), which may increase the chances of "full spectrum dominance" – and this
dominance will, among other things, be used on behalf of Israel. In that case, it may have been
a kind of misunderstanding. Trump may have thought that for neocons, it would be enough if he
is pro-Israeli and anti-Iranian and has normal, non-hostile relations with Russia, as Israel
has – ignoring that the roles Israel and the US should play according to the neocons are
very different.
But I am not so sure if Israel would really have minded much if the US had normalized its
relations with Russia. Netanyahu hardly ever was hostile towards Trump, he knew he was a
reliable ally. Some may even think it weakens the ability of the US to support Israel if it
gets entangled in conflicts and confrontations all over the world. So, I suppose that for many
true Israel-firsters, Trump was hardly seen as a problem (as long as he is pro-Israeli and
anti-Iranian, and there had hardly been any doubt that he is).
There also do not seem to be strong indications about Israeli involvement in
Russiagate/Spygate. Some Israelis seem to have been involved in the entrapment of Papadopoulos,
but it was not necessarily the Israeli government as a whole that was behind this (they may
just have been needed because Israeli energy policy is one of the main specializations of
Papadopoulos), and I think there are at least as strong indications of an Israeli involvement
on the pro-Trump side.
Russiagate/Spygate mainly seems to be an affair of US and British intelligence services, not
so much of Israel. Certainly, in the US, many neocons were strongly involved, but it may not
have so much to do with Israel. While support of Israel is one of the reasons why some neocons
passionately pursue „full-spectrum dominance", for many of them, this has probably become
a goal in itself, even in cases in which it is not needed for Israel – partially for
ideological reasons, partially because many of them profit from increased military
spending.
The right ((neocons)), on the other hand, see Trump as a quisling to rally the hated white
men into dying for greater Israel. The perfect Commander and Chief of the Janissaries for
Zion.
i agree that initially it was always a possibility he was a neocon plant i.e. neocons
couldn't get a war in Syria so decided to put up a candidate who'd promise stuff on trade and
immigration to get into office but then ignore it all afterwards and just do neocon stuff
but
1) if so he didn't need to say the anti-war stuff
and
2) neocons like Kristol hated him and did everything they could to stop him.
You might call them the Alan Dershowitz wing of the Jewish supremacists. I see that mug on
Tucker Carlson defending Trump, and he's positively beaming.
right but he'd be beaming like that even more if he knew Trump was originally isolationist
but now is compromised and compliant.
too early to tell for sure but my take is if neocons and the media now start going easier on
him i think that will prove they got him and want to keep him in office.
(nb it doesn't change anything if he was always a shill or he wasn't but they got him
– the end result is the same)
1) if so he didn't need to say the anti-war stuff
and
the only reason I was duped into voting for Dubya his first term, was because I was appalled
at Clinton's flouting of international law when he bombed Serbia, and Dubya said specifically
said he wasn't a "nation builder". Boy oh boy was I chumped by that one.
And we were all chumped by Obama, the Nobel Peace Prize winner, and serial war pig.
But what choice do we have but to at least vote for the peace candidate, and then
wait until, on cue, we're all betrayed once again by the Jewish supremacist deepstate.
So far, Trump hasn't started any new wars. So as Mr. Giraldi says, "one hopes"
if neocons and the media now start going easier on him
then we're toast
it seems the only metric we have for determining whether or not a person is rotten to the
core, or not, is whether the media likes them, or not.
If the media likes them, then they're as rotten as they come.
If the media hates them, (Ron Paul, Julian Assange
others..)
then there is likely at least something redeeming about them.
The main reason for (pathetically) clinging to some tiny, gossamer wisp of hope for Trump,
is that ((they)) continue to be unhinged in their hysterical enmity for all things Trump.
But considering that he's basically giving them everything they want, (sans an all out war
on Iran), it seems the main reason they still hate his guts, is because the despised rubes in
flyover country still like him. And I suppose because of a few good judges and justices.
But as long as Bubba continues to proudly wear the hat, they're going to hate Donald Trump
with a seething malevolence.
And I have to confess to getting great satisfaction by seeing these rats going apoplectic
over Trump.
a guilty secret of mine is that everyday that this sick, twisted bitch
@Rurik the
other potentially relevant thing about Trump imo is he made some comments on 9/11 at the time
about how strong the twin towers were (i forget the exact details) which could be construed as
walking the edge of disbelief.
this may be related to Brennan in particular having such a hysterical reaction to Trump's
candidacy.
it seems the only metric we have for determining whether or not a person is rotten to the
core, or not, is whether the media likes them, or not.
I would contend, this is not a reliable indicator. If they really dislike someone, they will
simply not report anything at all. It would be a declared and enforced taboo to report.
Negative publicity is also publicity, and the guys behind the curtain know this.
But what choice do we have but to at least vote for the peace candidate, and then wait
until, on cue, we're all betrayed once again by the Jewish supremacist deepstate.
It won't change anything, but you won't feel betrayed.
To think that any indictments will come of this is naïve, and an understatement of the
power of the deep state. The only thing that keeps Trump alive is his usefulness to Netanyahu,
also known as Benji the NutnYahoo.
For anyone of a social democratic (or lefter) persuasion, and/or see war as something that
should only be used as an absolute last resort (due to it invariably being a moral horror),
then the Democrats have indeed been the lesser of two evils, and Republican-lite.
Take Obama for instance. He ran a cleverly ambiguous campaign where he sounded to many as
being progessive and left, a breath of fresh air, something finally that would put a stop to
limitless capitalism and unwind the Bush era. But in fact he's a 'centrist', which really means
thoroughly neoliberal. He's prepared to file some of the sharp edges off capitalism, but he
neither promised nor offered a genuine alternative to a lightly regulated free market.
I mean, look at his most famous legacy: the health care reforms. This is a thoroughly
market-based solution that leaves the marketplace largely as it was. Nationalization was
nowhere in sight. And the policy was based on one his elecotoral opponent enacted when he was
governing Massachusetts! It is literally the case that voting in Democrats at the national
level gets you the policy of Republican presidential candidates.
Also, he's quite happy to unilaterally blow up stuff, including innocent people, in other
countries, in order to crush his enemies and to look good domestically. We have no problems in
calling this 'evil' when our enemies do anything like this.
Brian 04.21.19 at 2:43 pm (no link)
I think the real question is not whether Trump is successful or not. That question is a red
herring in American politics today. The real question is whether or not the Democratic
"leadership" can allow nomination of a candidate that the Democrat rank and file want. Bernie
Sanders should have won the nomination last time. But the superdelegate system gives a
literal handful of mandarins the ability to fake the primary process. (I say that as someone
who has significant issues with some of Sanders positions.)
Trump won because Hillary was a horrific candidate. Voters stayed home, disgusted. Trump
won because the Obama administration didn't deliver hope nor change. He delivered a
government of the corporate criminal bankers for them. Middle and working class America got
screwed. Black people got screwed worst. Trump won because the utter corruption at the heart
of the DNC was exposed for all to see in the emails. Trump win because of the Obama
administration making a trade deal top secret classified and trying to force a vote through
congress. Not seeing any point in voting, Democrats didnt.
All the evidence since shows the DNC leadership didn't learn anything. They are just as
contemptuous of voters, just as manipulative with their window dressing as ever. The
Democratic party is the party of endless war even more than the Republicans. It's a party
that stopped every effort by Trump to wind down or end war posture with Russia and North
Korea. There's now 2 parties in Netanyahu's pocket implementing Likuds insane middle east
ideas.
Put some solar energy and LGBTQ butter on it with a side of women's rights bullshit and
it's "Democrat". But the politicians are just as venal. The legislature just as wildly right
wing war mongering.
The 1960's is long over. The Democratic party hasn't seen a new idea since and has
converted to govern to the right of Nixon. Way to Nixon's right. The Democratic party is the
tool of the Uber-ization of not just America, but the whole world. Flour and break the law to
pauperize the working class, and suck money to a few in the SF Bay Area. That's policy
now.
You can see it already. Sanders is ahead. But Buttigieg is being anointed. He's the
perfect candidate. He's gay! He's out of the closet! And he's a corporate tool who can talk
smoothly without speaking a clear word. Best of all, he has ZERO foreign policy experience or
positions. So he'll be putty in the hands of the corporations that want endless war for
profits. Wall Street wants him. And the street owns the Democratic party. Will he give a
flying f*@k about the middle and working class? Will he be anything but another neo-liberal
who can be differentiated from a neo-conservative only by mild difference in racism? (Overt
vs.covert)
At least Buttigieg isn't Beto O'Rourke, the most completely empty skin in Congress.
There's that.
All the evidence I see is no. The Democrat "leadership" don't understand. I predict a
Trump win, or else a squeaker election that barely scrapes by with a win.
No matter what, the idiot Democrats won't get it. Pelosi will do her best to cast the
Republicans anti-tax anti-government (federal) government culture war in concrete with
balanced budget horse manure. The Democrats will continue to force a new cold war on Russia.
They will keep backing companies that steal from the middle and working class. (Yes, Uber and
Lyft are massive theft operations. They implemented taxi service without licenses. Those
licenses cost a lot of money to those who bought them. They put the public at risk causing
multiple deaths and assaults from unlicensed taxi drivers.)
Trump's appeal is that he at least talks a game of "f*@k you". Domestically it's all lies
on all sides. He lies to everyone. But at least he doesn't lie smoothly like the "good
Democrat" candidates do.
Understand this if nothing else, Khalifa Haftar is a terrorist hand puppet of the CIA. He
is a thief, a liar, a thug, and a traitor to Libya. He threatens legitimate Libyans daily and
uses the NSA listening equipment (brought into Libya in 2011) to target any Libya who speaks
his name. Khalifa Haftar would not ever be supported by Russia. This lie has been perpetrated
in the mainstream for years. Now they have stepped up their game and have stated that Russian
mercenaries are in Libya supporting Haftar at the behest of the leader of Russia. Nothing
could be farther from the truth.
The Great Tribes have confirmed to me everything that I have written.
Libya has lost their country to terrorist thugs, their infrastructure has been destroyed,
their wealth has been stolen and continues to be stolen. They have had one million Libyans
killed....
It is the assets and geographical location that they would own. The ruination, destruction
and death of Libya and her people are just acceptable collateral damage to achieve their evil
agenda.
@Wizard of Oz
CIA and State Dept. want(ed) regime change in Syria but couldn't get public support for an
invasion so they covertly supported Isis against Assad instead (mostly using Saudi as a
proxy).
They don't want it to come out.
(of course it may go back further than that nb Brennan was CIA chief in Saudi in the run
up to 9/11)
@Wizard of Oz
Jihadist groups were used to fight the Russians in Afghanistan, destroy Libya and Syria, and
are currently employed to destabilize Iran. They are the primary instrument of the Oded Yinon
plan. Unless you consider the United States to be the primary instrument, and the jihadist
groups merely a tool.
Israel has subverted the United States, turning it into its poodle, it's slush fund, and
it's mercenary military force.
For five thousand years the Jews, in their unique geopolitical condition as an internally
cohesive yet dispersed ethnic group, have worked within their host nations and, by virtue of
their talent, achieved prosperity and power. Then, in a repeating and easily predictable
pattern, as a consequence of the power they achieve, arrogantly abuse the local majority,
repeatedly provoking the historically-recorded reaction in its various forms: enslavement,
expulsion, and attempted annihilation in Egypt; annihilation and dispersion by the Romans in
Old Israel; in Spain and Portugal, the demand on pain of death to convert to Christianity;
suppression by law throughout Europe during the Middle Ages; destruction of the Jewish Khazar
Empire by the Russ in 979; and near annihilation by the Nazis in the last century.
There's a pattern here. People don't just wake up one day and say "We hate the Jews, let's
kill them." There's a reason, a logical reason. Essentially, in the diaspora, the Jews exist
in a condition of tribal competition with the local majority culture. That competition
inevitably progresses to tribal conflict -- that is, war against the Jews. The pattern is
logical and predictable: fueled by tribal ambition, enabled by tribal economic success that
leads eventually to Jewish tribal overreach, which then results in a hostile majority-culture
pushback. The Jews scream "Anti-Semitism" but the reality is that the particular case of
Jews-vs-"The Other" tribalism with its Jewish exceptionalism and supremacism, inevitably
leads to a showdown over power where the majority culture has political and numerical
advantages.
The time is rapidly approaching when the 310 million non-Jewish Americans will realize
that they've been made the tools of the Jews and the US society looted. Then the pattern of
five thousand years will repeat itself yet again.
Trump biggest regret is going to be that he ever ran for President. Impeached or not
impeached all his dirty laundry is going to be exposed. Even if he secured a second term
there is no statute of limitations on what he could be prosecuted for .so the minute he steps
down from the WH he's going to have to spend everything he's got on lawyers fighting the
charges the SDNY is going to bring against him.
David Cay Johnston: What Is Trump Hiding in His Tax Returns?
The Pulitzer Prize–winning investigative reporter explains what's likely in Trump's
returns.
By Jon WienerTwitter
David Cay Johnston is a Pulitzer Prize–winning investigative reporter who previously
worked at The New York Times. He's the founder and editor of DCReport.org.
Jon Wiener: The chair of the House Ways and Means Committee formally requested six years
of Trump's personal and business tax returns earlier this month. Trump, of course, refused to
comply, and said the law is "100 percent" on his side. Does the IRS have to hand over Trump's
tax returns to the chair of the House Ways and Means Committee?
David Cay Johnston: If they follow the law, they absolutely have to hand them over. Under
a 1924 anti-corruption law that was passed because of Teapot Dome, a Harding-administration
scandal, Congress can look at anybody's tax return at any time. In the 85-year history of
this law, the IRS has always responded appropriately to the request and turned over
everything that was requested.
@renfro How
does Trump tax return look on a balance with the treasonous, anti-Constitutional behavior of
Brennan, Comey, Clinton, Obama, Clapper and the presstituting chorus of "liberal" media?
Since the tsardom of Dick Cheney, the US Constitution had become quaint. Moreover, the
"democracy on the march" and other "humanitarian interventions" initiated by the ultimate
coward Bush the lesser and by the ultimate hypocrite and narcissist Obama, have destroyed
completely the value of diplomacy and international law with regard to the ZUSA foreign
policy.
Your obsession with the petty problem of Trump's taxes does not allow you to take a notice
of Brennan's great achievements in Ukraine: the successful regime-change in Kiev and
initiation of the civil war with the pro-federalists in eastern Ukraine. Currently, the US
Congress and the US citizenry at large have been tasting the unpalatable medicine developed
by the CIA during the decades of smothering the weaker countries with "appropriate" regime
changes.
The treasonous Russiagate -- up to Comey's willful inactivity towards Clinton's server
(and Comey's rejection of Assange' plea that the DoJ wanted at that time) -- is a direct
consequence of the perfidious autocratic rule established years ago by the five-deferment
Cheney.
The rot has got deep into the system.
Many people I talk to seem to think American foreign policy has something to do with
democracy, human rights, national security, or maybe terrorism or freedom, or niceness, or
something. It is a curious belief, Washington being interested in all of them. Other people
are simply puzzled, seeing no pattern in America's international behavior. Really, the
explanation is simple.
MARCH 13, 2019 'Imperialism on Trial' tour comes to Northern Ireland on March 19th and
21st
Next week, the Imperialism on Trial tour comes to Belfast, Northern Ireland, and will
include an impressive line-up of speakers, including two former British Ambassadors, a former
British soldier, an Irish Republican writer, and a veteran CIA analyst – each
presenting their own analysis of world events, and interrogating the role played at home and
abroad – by western powers.
A President is a prisoner of the White House like a Pope is a prisoner of the Vatican.
It would take a reformer of the highest order to cleanse and straighten both of these
institutions. Unfortunately, contemporary effeminate western society does not produce such
men. Trump is the personification of the egotist and blowhard- he is self-assured and not
reflective. He is sharp and clever but certainly no major intellect. His spontaneity , which
is one enduring trait of his, is cancelled out by his buffoonish gaffes. He has no real
lasting principles since his worldview lacks any transcendent or spiritual dimension. Men
like Trump, notwithstanding their overbearing and dictatorial persona, are easily manipulated
by sycophants and courtiers. The latter never confront- they grovel and burrow their way into
positions of influence, or perhaps use subtle methods of blackmail.
But Trump was, and is, still better than Hillary or any other of the Tweedle-Dem front
runners. As Americans , we are ill served by the mediocrity and mendacity of our political so
called "elites," who are the laughing stock of history.
@Sean "Trump
owes the Russians nothing, he was their way to stop Clinton."
-- Sean, you seem as taking really seriously the $4.700 spent by Russians on the Google
ads as well as the indictment of Russian "hackers and trolls" (the alleged army of Kremlin)
in absentia. Why then Mueller backed off (in panic) from the indicted' readiness to show up
in court?
You may have some special grievances against Russia and Russians, but why such obvious
depreciation of your intelligence by repeating after Adam Schiff?
FROM : Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
VIPS Fault Mueller Probe, Criticize Refusal to Interview Assange
" In that Memorandum we described the results of our own independent, agenda-free
forensic investigation led by two former Technical Directors of the NSA, who avoid squishy
"assessments," preferring to base their findings on fundamental principles of science and the
scientific method . Our findings remain unchallenged; they reveal gaping holes in
CrowdStrike's conclusions."
[ ]
"We recall that you were apprised of that Memorandum's key findings because you ordered
then-CIA Director Mike Pompeo to talk to William Binney, one of our two former NSA
Technical Directors and one of the principal authors of that Memorandum . On October 24,
2017, Pompeo began an hour-long meeting with Binney by explaining the genesis of the odd
invitation to CIA Headquarters: " You are here because the president told me that if I
really wanted to know about Russian hacking I needed to talk to you ."
"On the chance Pompeo has given you no report on his meeting with Binney, we can tell you
that Binney, a plain-spoken, widely respected scientist, began by telling Pompeo that his
(CIA) people were lying to him about Russian hacking and that he (Binney) could prove it
. Pompeo reacted with disbelief, but then talked of following up with the FBI and NSA. We
have no sign, though, that he followed through. And there is good reason to believe that
Pompeo himself may have been reluctant to follow up with his subordinates in the
Directorate of Digital Innovation created by CIA Director John Brennan in 2015. CIA malware
and hacking tools are built by the Engineering Development Group, part of that relatively new
Directorate. "
[ ]
William Binney , former Technical Director, World Geopolitical & Military
Analysis, NSA; co-founder, SIGINT Automation Research Center (ret.)
Bogdan Dzakovic , former Team Leader of Federal Air Marshals and Red Team, FAA
Security (ret.) (associate VIPS)
Philip Giraldi , CIA, Operations Officer (ret.)
Mike Gravel , former Adjutant, top secret control officer, Communications
Intelligence Service; special agent of the Counter Intelligence Corps and former United
States Senator
James George Jatras , former U.S. diplomat and former foreign policy adviser to
Senate leadership (Associate VIPS)
Larry Johnson , former CIA Intelligence Officer & former State Department
Counter-Terrorism Official, (ret.)
Michael S. Kearns , Captain, USAF (ret.); ex-Master SERE Instructor for Strategic
Reconnaissance Operations (NSA/DIA) and Special Mission Units (JSOC)
John Kiriakou , former CIA Counterterrorism Officer and former Senior Investigator,
Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Karen Kwiatkowski , former Lt. Col., US Air Force (ret.), at Office of Secretary of
Defense watching the manufacture of lies on Iraq, 2001-2003
Clement J. Laniewski , LTC, U.S. Army (ret.)
Linda Lewis , WMD preparedness policy analyst, USDA (ret.)
Edward Loomis , NSA Cryptologic Computer Scientist (ret.)
David MacMichael , former Senior Estimates Officer, National Intelligence Council
(ret.)
Ray McGovern , former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA presidential
briefer (ret.)
Elizabeth Murray , former Deputy National Intelligence Officer for the Near East
& CIA political analyst (ret.)
Todd E. Pierce , MAJ, US Army Judge Advocate (ret.)
Peter Van Buren ,U.S. Department of State, Foreign Service Officer (ret.)
(associate VIPS)
Robert Wing , U.S. Department of State, Foreign Service Officer (former) (associate
VIPS)
Ann Wright , U.S. Army Reserve Colonel (ret) and former U.S. Diplomat who resigned
in 2003 in opposition to the Iraq War
FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
"Recent forensic examination of the Wikileaks DNC files shows they were created on 23, 25
and 26 May 2016. (On June 12, Julian Assange announced he had them; WikiLeaks published them
on July 22.) We recently discovered that the files reveal a FAT (File Allocation Table)
system property. This shows that the data had been transferred to an external storage
device, such as a thumb drive, before WikiLeaks posted them ."
"FAT is a simple file system named for its method of organization, the File Allocation
Table. It is used for storage only and is not related to internet transfers like hacking.
Were WikiLeaks to have received the DNC files via a hack, the last modified times on the
files would be a random mixture of odd-and even-ending numbe rs."
"Why is that important? The evidence lies in the "last modified" time stamps on the
Wikileaks files. When a file is stored under the FAT file system the software rounds the
time to the nearest even-numbered second. Every single one of the time stamps in the DNC
files on WikiLeaks' site ends in an even number. "
"We have examined 500 DNC email files stored on the Wikileaks site. All 500 files end
in an even number -- 2, 4, 6, 8 or 0 . If those files had been hacked over the Internet,
there would be an equal probability of the time stamp ending in an odd number . The
random probability that FAT was not used is 1 chance in 2 to the 500th power .
Thus, these data show that the DNC emails posted by WikiLeaks went through a storage
device, like a thumb drive, and were physically moved before Wikileaks posted the emails on
the World Wide Web ."
"This finding alone is enough to raise reasonable doubts, for example, about Mueller's
indictment of 12 Russian intelligence officers for hacking the DNC emails given to WikiLeaks.
A defense attorney could easily use the forensics to argue that someone copied the DNC files
to a storage device like a USB thumb drive and got them physically to WikiLeaks -- not
electronically via a hack."
Role of NSA
"For more than two years, we strongly suspected that the DNC emails were copied/leaked in
that way, not hacked."
[ ]
For the steering group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity:
William Binney, former NSA Technical Director for World Geopolitical & Military
Analysis; Co-founder of NSA's Signals Intelligence Automation Research Center (ret.)
Richard H. Black, Senator of Virginia, 13th District; Colonel US Army (ret.); Former
Chief, Criminal Law Division, Office of the Judge Advocate General, the Pentagon (associate
VIPS)
Bogdan Dzakovic, former Team Leader of Federal Air Marshals and Red Team, FAA Security
(ret.) (associate VIPS)
Philip Giraldi, CIA, Operations Officer (ret.)
Mike Gravel, former Adjutant, top secret control officer, Communications Intelligence
Service; special agent of the Counter Intelligence Corps and former United States Senator
James George Jatras, former U.S. diplomat and former foreign policy adviser to Senate
leadership (Associate VIPS)
Larry C. Johnson, former CIA and State Department Counter Terrorism officer
John Kiriakou, former CIA Counterterrorism Officer and former senior investigator, Senate
Foreign Relations Committee
Karen Kwiatkowski, former Lt. Col., US Air Force (ret.), at Office of Secretary of Defense
watching the manufacture of lies on Iraq, 2001-2003
Edward Loomis, Cryptologic Computer Scientist, former Technical Director at NSA (ret.)
David MacMichael, Ph.D., former senior estimates officer, National Intelligence Council
(ret.)
Ray McGovern, former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA analyst; CIA
Presidential briefer (ret.)
Elizabeth Murray, former Deputy National Intelligence Officer for the Near East, National
Intelligence Council & CIA political analyst (ret.)
Todd E. Pierce, MAJ, US Army Judge Advocate (ret.)
Peter Van Buren, US Department of State, Foreign Service Officer (ret.) (associate
VIPS)
Sarah G. Wilton, CDR, USNR, (ret.); Defense Intelligence Agency (ret.)
Kirk Wiebe, former Senior Analyst, SIGINT Automation Research Center, NSA
Ann Wright, retired U.S. Army reserve colonel and former U.S. diplomat who resigned in
2003 in opposition to the Iraq War
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) is made up of former intelligence
officers, diplomats, military officers and congressional staffers. The organization, founded
in 2002, was among the first critics of Washington's justifications for launching a war
against Iraq. VIPS advocates a US foreign and national security policy based on genuine
national interests rather than contrived threats promoted for largely political reasons. An
archive of VIPS memoranda is available at Consortiumnews.com.
says: April 23, 2019 at
6:15 pm GMT 100 Words What a joke. Trump is a Zionist. The "deep state" is Zionist. The
trillionaires are Zionists.
Trump moved the US embassy to Jerusalem. Continues the illegal wars in Syria and Yemen.
Unilaterally declares the Golan Heights to be Israeli territory.
Kushner is Genie Energy. Cheney, et al. Stealing Syrian national wealth.
Trump is a tool.
Those who supported Trump are fools. Those who thought Mueller would find impeachable
offenses are fools. We are all either fools or tools.
@Wallbanger
Of course, Trump is pro-Zionist, and he hardly needed any pressure for this. Kushner is a
close friend of Netanyahu, and we don't know anything about conflicts between Trump and
Kushner.
But I think the Russiagate conspiracy theory still may have served important foreign
policy goals.
I think it is important to distinguish between Israeli foreign policy and US neocon
foreign policy, even though they are close allies. At least superficially, these are two
rather different things, and to me, it is an open question to what degree these differences
are only superficial.
US neocons follow the doctrine of „full spectrum dominance". This leads them to
having military bases all over the world, stoking up conflicts, and destabilizing countries
that have or want good relations with rivals like China and Russia. The idea that such
„full spectrum dominance" will be used for the benefit of Israel certainly goes a long
way for explaining why neocons think it is worth the price – after all, many US neocons
are Jewish Zionists, and many of their lower-rank supporters are Christian Zionists. But
their goal of „full spectrum dominance" goes beyond matters related to Israel, it leads
to conflicts and tensions all over the world, Israel is just one of the motivating
factors.
Israeli foreign policy is very different. It does not share the US' hostility towards
other great powers. Israel has good relations with Russia and China. It refused to follow the
US and the EU in sanctioning Russia, Netanyahu meets Putin regularly, and, like Trump with
the Golan recognition, Putin also gave Netanyahu a present a short time before the elections
(retrieving remains of an Israeli soldier who was missing since 1982 from Syria). Of course,
Russia and Israel supported different sides in Syria, but they still seem to take into
account each other's interest to some degree. Israel also has good relations and a strong
economic partnership with China and participates in the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative. The
general principle seems to be that whenever there is a conflict and rivalry, Israel wants to
have good relations and influence on both sides. There are some exceptions, in the Sunni-Shia
conflict, Israel only has behind-the-scenes influence on the Sunni-Wahhabi side, but that is
probably one of the reasons why good relations with Russia, which has closer contacts with
Iran, are important to Israel. In the case of the conflict in Ukraine (which is quite
relevant for Israel because many Israeli citizens are from Russia or Ukraine), Israel
remained neutral and has strong connections to both sides. Such a policy of keeping good
relations with as many powerful nations as possible obviously seems smart for a smaller
(albeit in many respects very strong) country in a difficult part of the world.
Of course, the Israeli government is very much aware that there could hardly ever be a
powerful country where Israel is as influential as it is in the US. Israel has some
significant influence in Western Europe and Russia, criticizing Israel can be risky, and
overall, these countries have rather pro-Israeli policies (as does, as far as I know, China).
But they will never be as extremely pro-Israeli as the US. There are many votes in the UN
were there is just Israel and the US on one side (sometimes together with some tiny
micronations that depend on the US). Therefore, it is in Israel's interest that the US tries
at all cost to gain influence relative to other great powers that are less extremely
pro-Israeli. Thus, US neocons who drive the US towards a costly „full spectrum
dominance" policy are unequivocally positive and worthy of support from the perspective of
the Israeli government. But for Israeli foreign policy itself, due to risk management
considerations, the priorities are different. The best-case scenario for them is that a)
Israeli influence in the US remains strong and b) the US can achieve and maintain
„full-spectrum dominance" for a long time. But they also know that this best-case
scenario is far from assured, and therefore, they also consider good relations between Israel
and potentially powerful countries like China and Russia important.
I think Trump's foreign policy ideas (before any pressure was applied to him) was quite
close to the Israeli ideas (rather than the positions of the US neocons). Unlike Israel, he
had some ideas about confronting China (mainly on trade), and certainly, he wanted
pro-Israeli policies, but it seems he also wanted to have a general policy of „getting
along" with relatively important countries rather than pursuing „full-spectrum
dominance" wherever possible and stoking up proxy conflicts at every occasion. On the whole,
it seems Trump wanted a US foreign policy that is closer to the Israeli one than to the one
of US neocons. If Israel can „get along" with Russia, why shouldn't the US? The Israeli
and international press does not scream „treason" every time Netanyahu and Putin meet
(which they do quite often).
This idea of a normalization of US-Russian relations is what led to such strong opposition
from US neocons. I think they all knew that it would never be in doubt that Trump's policies
would be pro-Israeli. But that was not enough for them. According to them, the US, unlike
Israel, has to have a strongly anti-Russian stance.
I think there are two plausible explanations, one that does involve Israel and one that
does not. They may both be partially be true (probably, for some US neocons, it is more the
one, while for others, it is more the other).
The first explanation is that US neocons who strongly identify with Israel, as I argued
above, recognize that Israel should have good relations with Russia and China because of risk
management considerations, but at the same time, Israel wants to have the US to have as much
power as possible because it will never have as much influence in Russia and China as it has
in the US. The Russia hysteria has helped increasing military spending (and Democrats going
along with this), which may increase the chances of "full spectrum dominance" – and
this dominance will, among other things, be used on behalf of Israel. In that case, it may
have been a kind of misunderstanding. Trump may have thought that for neocons, it would be
enough if he is pro-Israeli and anti-Iranian and has normal, non-hostile relations with
Russia, as Israel has – ignoring that the roles Israel and the US should play according
to the neocons are very different.
But I am not so sure if Israel would really have minded much if the US had normalized its
relations with Russia. Netanyahu hardly ever was hostile towards Trump, he knew he was a
reliable ally. Some may even think it weakens the ability of the US to support Israel if it
gets entangled in conflicts and confrontations all over the world. So, I suppose that for
many true Israel-firsters, Trump was hardly seen as a problem (as long as he is pro-Israeli
and anti-Iranian, and there had hardly been any doubt that he is). There also do not seem to
be strong indications about Israeli involvement in Russiagate/Spygate. Some Israelis seem to
have been involved in the entrapment of Papadopoulos, but it was not necessarily the Israeli
government as a whole that was behind this (they may just have been needed because Israeli
energy policy is one of the main specializations of Papadopoulos), and I think there are at
least as strong indications of an Israeli involvement on the pro-Trump side.
Russiagate/Spygate mainly seems to be an affair of US and British intelligence services, not
so much of Israel. Certainly, in the US, many neocons were strongly involved, but it may not
have so much to do with Israel. While support of Israel is one of the reasons why some
neocons passionately pursue „full-spectrum dominance", for many of them, this has
probably become a goal in itself, even in cases in which it is not needed for Israel –
partially for ideological reasons, partially because many of them profit from increased
military spending.
The right ((neocons)), on the other hand, see Trump as a quisling to rally the hated
white men into dying for greater Israel. The perfect Commander and Chief of the Janissaries
for Zion.
i agree that initially it was always a possibility he was a neocon plant i.e. neocons
couldn't get a war in Syria so decided to put up a candidate who'd promise stuff on trade and
immigration to get into office but then ignore it all afterwards and just do neocon stuff
but
1) if so he didn't need to say the anti-war stuff
and
2) neocons like Kristol hated him and did everything they could to stop him.
You might call them the Alan Dershowitz wing of the Jewish supremacists. I see that mug
on Tucker Carlson defending Trump, and he's positively beaming.
right but he'd be beaming like that even more if he knew Trump was originally isolationist
but now is compromised and compliant.
too early to tell for sure but my take is if neocons and the media now start going easier
on him i think that will prove they got him and want to keep him in office.
(nb it doesn't change anything if he was always a shill or he wasn't but they got him
– the end result is the same)
1) if so he didn't need to say the anti-war stuff
and
the only reason I was duped into voting for Dubya his first term, was because I was
appalled at Clinton's flouting of international law when he bombed Serbia, and Dubya said
specifically said he wasn't a "nation builder". Boy oh boy was I chumped by that one.
And we were all chumped by Obama, the Nobel Peace Prize winner, and serial war pig.
But what choice do we have but to at least vote for the peace candidate, and then
wait until, on cue, we're all betrayed once again by the Jewish supremacist deepstate.
So far, Trump hasn't started any new wars. So as Mr. Giraldi says, "one hopes"
if neocons and the media now start going easier on him
then we're toast
it seems the only metric we have for determining whether or not a person is rotten to the
core, or not, is whether the media likes them, or not.
If the media likes them, then they're as rotten as they come.
If the media hates them, (Ron Paul, Julian Assange
others..)
then there is likely at least something redeeming about them.
The main reason for (pathetically) clinging to some tiny, gossamer wisp of hope for Trump,
is that ((they)) continue to be unhinged in their hysterical enmity for all things Trump.
But considering that he's basically giving them everything they want, (sans an all out war
on Iran), it seems the main reason they still hate his guts, is because the despised rubes in
flyover country still like him. And I suppose because of a few good judges and justices.
But as long as Bubba continues to proudly wear the hat, they're going to hate Donald Trump
with a seething malevolence.
And I have to confess to getting great satisfaction by seeing these rats going apoplectic
over Trump.
a guilty secret of mine is that everyday that this sick, twisted bitch
@Rurik the
other potentially relevant thing about Trump imo is he made some comments on 9/11 at the time
about how strong the twin towers were (i forget the exact details) which could be construed
as walking the edge of disbelief.
this may be related to Brennan in particular having such a hysterical reaction to Trump's
candidacy.
it seems the only metric we have for determining whether or not a person is rotten to
the core, or not, is whether the media likes them, or not.
I would contend, this is not a reliable indicator. If they really dislike someone, they
will simply not report anything at all. It would be a declared and enforced taboo to
report.
Negative publicity is also publicity, and the guys behind the curtain know this.
But what choice do we have but to at least vote for the peace candidate, and then wait
until, on cue, we're all betrayed once again by the Jewish supremacist deepstate.
It won't change anything, but you won't feel betrayed.
One of the reasons I voted for DJT was because I wanted to know if the unelected elites (who
control the Deep State) would ever voluntarily surrender the reigns of power in DC without
bloodshed. Now I unequivocally know the answer to that question. There is no democracy, there
is no Republic and any Constitutional Rights us American citizens have left hang by a thread
(think 1st and 2nd Amendments).
At this point Trump is either a hostage of the Deep State or he has joined them.
This is a good article but it misses a key person, probably the most important, in this whole
sorry mess -- Mike Pence.
I strongly suspect Pence has been pulling a soft coup on Trump since Day 1. Pence is the
biggest Ziocon there is, we had our first hint during his VP debate in 2016 with Tim Kaine
when he said he would go to war with Russia over Syria. Trump countered him in the next
debate. I believe that the NYT op-ed, purportedly by a "senior WH official" that said Trump
was a buffoon but there are "adults" in charge of foreign policy at the WH, was written by
Pence, at least in part. The word "lodestar" was a dead giveaway, and he is the only one who
could not be fired. It is clear that the Pence admin is now running our foreign policy. He
has been making speeches everywhere to gather support against all "our" enemies – Iran,
Ukraine, NKorea, China, Venezuela, Syria.
A while back Trump was furious that Pence had hired (((Jon Lerner))), a Never Trumper and
personal advisor to Nikki Haley at the UN as his personal advisor. Not sure if Pence dump him
in the end but the fact that he even hired him in the first place should tell you who Pence
is. Not since LBJ has there been a VP this involved in foreign policy. Pence is toxic. You
can tell Pompeo and Bolton report to him. Wouldn't surprise me if he worked with Rosenstein
to bring in Mueller. Pence 's wife despises Trump. She probably only agreed to let Pence be
VP because he and his handlers promised her Trump will be impeached so he'd be president.
Of course, Trump is not completely innocent. He is an unprincipled idiot megalomaniac and
is easily manipulated. What he's doing with immigration shows you who he really is, a total
liar. Kushner the treasonous rat SIL is about to unleash a mass Chindian importation
immigration plan that'll piss off all of Trump's base
Looks like tail wags the dog -- CIA controls the US foreign policy and in the last elections
also played active role in promoting Hillary. A the level of top brass we have
several people mentioned by Giraldi who are probably as dangerous as Allen Dulles was. Brennan
is one example.
The parade of rogues that Philip describes is really
alarming. Each with agenda that directly harms
the USA as a country promoting the interest of military-industrial complex and neocon
faction within the government...
Notable quotes:
"... Indeed, one can start with Tenet if one wants to create a roster of recent CIA Directors who have lied to permit the White House to engage in a war crime. Tenet and his staff knew better than anyone that the case against Saddam did not hold water, but President George W. Bush wanted his war and, by gum, he was going to get it if the CIA had any say in the matter. ..."
"... Back then as now, international Islamic terrorism was the name of the game. It kept the money flowing to the national security establishment in the false belief that America was somehow being made "safe." But today the terror narrative has been somewhat supplanted by Russia, which is headed by a contemporary Saddam Hussein in the form of Vladimir Putin. If one believes the media and a majority of congressmen, evil manifest lurks in the gilded halls of the Kremlin. Russia has recently been sanctioned (again) for crimes that are more alleged than demonstrated and President Putin has been selected by the Establishment as the wedge issue that will be used to end President Donald Trump's defiance of the Deep State and all that pertains to it. The intelligence community at its top level would appear to be fully on board with that effort. ..."
"... Remarkably, he also said that there is only "minimal evidence" that Russia is even fighting ISIS. The statement is astonishing as Moscow has most definitely been seriously and directly engaged in support of the Syrian Arab Army. Is it possible that the head of the CIA is unaware of that? It just might be that Pompeo is disparaging the effort because the Russians and Syrians have also been fighting against the U.S. backed "moderate rebels." That the moderate rebels are hardly moderate has been known for years and they are also renowned for their ineffectiveness combined with a tendency to defect to more radical groups taking their U.S. provided weapons with them, a combination of factors which led to their being denied any further American support by a presidential decision that was revealed in the press two weeks ago. ..."
"... Pompeo's predecessor John Brennan is, however, my favorite Agency leader in the category of totally bereft of his senses. ..."
"... Brennan is certainly loyal to his cause, whatever that might be. At the same Aspen meeting attended by Pompeo, he told Wolf Blitzer that if Trump were to fire special counsel Robert Mueller government officials should "refuse to carry out" his orders. In other words, they should begin a coup, admittedly non-violent (one presumes), but nevertheless including federal employees uniting to shut the government down. ..."
"... And finally, there is Michael Morell, also a former Acting Director, who was closely tied to the Hillary Clinton campaign, apparently driven by ambition to become Director in her administration. Morell currently provides commentary for CBS television and is a frequent guest on the Charlie Rose show. Morell considerably raised the ante on Brennan's pre-electoral speculation that there had been some Russian recruitment of Trump people. He observed in August that Putin, a wily ex-career intelligence officer, "trained to identify vulnerabilities in an individual and to exploit them [did exactly that] early in the primaries. Mr. Putin played upon Mr. Trump's vulnerabilities In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation." ..."
"... Nothing new. In the '50s CIA was making foreign wars and cultivating chaos at home, and blaming all of it on Russia. In the '80s CIA was cultivating anti-nuke groups to undermine Reagan, and blaming it on Russia. CIA has been the primary wellspring of evil for a long time. ..."
"... Yes you read that right and they are going to the rotten core of this coup against the United States by presenting a report stating that the DNC was "Leaked" not hacked. The real hacking came from President Obama's weaponizing of our intelligence agencies against Russia. ..."
"... The CIA is the USA's secret army, it is not comparable to a real intelligence organization like the British MI5. The CIA is more like WWII SOE, designed to set fire to Europe, Churchill's words. ..."
"... As has been the case for decades the Deep State allows Presidents and legislators to make minor decisions in our government as long as those decisions do not in any way interfere with the Deep State's goals of total world hegemony and increase in overwhelming power and wealth. Those who make the important decisions in this country are not elected. The elected 'officials' are sycophants of the Deep State. ..."
"... The term is appropriated from the use to describe the mutually loyal corps of Ataturkians in the Turkish military and intelligence services who were united in service to uphold the ideal of Ataturkian secular modernisation. The term implies no public accountability or publicity unnecessary to its purposes. ..."
"... The CIA's source, its birth, is from British secret service. Brit spying. And Brit secret service, long before the official founding of MI5, did exactly the kinds of things you note the CIA has done. ..."
"... The Mossad is another direct fruit of Brit secret service, as is the Saudi General Intelligence Presidency. ..."
"... While there can be no doubt about the crackpots in high positions of the most powerful bureaucracies, it seems to me that the CIA loonies are merely shock troops for an even worse bunch of evil psychos, the bankster mafiosi. ..."
"... I am a retired CIA operations officer (something none of the men mentioned by Giraldi are – Brennan was a failed wanna be, couldn't cut it as an ops officer). He is spot on in his comments. The majority of people in the CIA, the ones who do the heavy lifting, are patriotic Americans who are proud of serving their country. I am sure that most voted for Trump as they all know too well the truth about the Clintons and Obama. ..."
"... Giraldi is not the only one to notice the upward progress of the most incompetent yes-men in the Agency. A close look at most of them reveals a track record of little or no operational success balanced by excellent sucking up skills. These characters quickly figured out how to get ahead and doing your job in the field is not it. Of course, most are ego maniacs so they are totally oblivious to their own uselessness. ..."
"... How "Russiagate" began: After the primaries, both Hillary and Donald faced divided political parties even though they had won the nomination. These divisions were worse than the normal situation after contested primaries. On the Democratic side, Hillay had just subverted the will of the voters of her party, who seemed to favor Bernie Sanders over her. Hillay had won with corrupt collusion and rigging amongst the DNC, the higher ranks of the Democratic Party, and major media such as the NYT and CNN. ..."
"... Then, a leak of emails from the DNC HQ publicized her interference in the democratic processes of the Democratic Party. This threatened to ene the Hillary for President campaign right then and there. If the majority of Democrats who'd favored Bernie refused to support Hillary because of her corruption and collusion in denying democracy within the party, she was a sure loser in the fall election. The Hillary camp then immediately started blaming Russia for the exposure of her corruption and rigging of the Democratic process. And that's how "Russiagate" began. ..."
"... Take that bunch of mediocre thinkers, and then make most of them obsessed with their own career advancement above all else. The most dangerous place for a career-obsessed individual is outside the group consensus. ..."
"... So, for instance, Trump should veto the act of war known as the recent sanctions bill. Who cares if it gets overridden? Then he goes back to the voters, who are clearly sick of endless war and who for obvious reasons don't want a nuclear war, and he says this is where I stand. Support me by electing Fill-In-The-Blank to Congress. With the nuclear Doomsday Clock pushing ever closer to midnight, he might just win that fight over the big money and media opposition he's sure to face. ..."
"... Not only has Trump failed to even try to fight the Deep State, but he's also failing to set himself up for success in the next elections. ..."
"... What we are seeing now is The Donald's role in the serial Zionist THEATER. Think deeper about the motive behind Mr. Giraldi's choice to use the Orwellian word "Groupthink" in characterizing the CIA zeitgeist? In the classic work "1984," one observes Big Brother as the catalyst in control of the proles' thought pattern & subsequent action. ..."
"... To rise & FALL as a POTUS is a matter of theater and the American proles are entertained by the political for either 4 or 8 years and the Zionists get their next Chosen actor/actress dramatically sworn in on a bible. ..."
Long ago, when I was a spear carrying middle ranker at CIA, a colleague took me aside and said
that he had something to tell me "as a friend," that was very important. He told me that his wife
had worked for years in the Agency's Administrative Directorate, as it was then called, where she
had noticed that some new officers coming out of the Career Trainee program had red tags on their
personnel files. She eventually learned from her boss that the tags represented assessments that
those officers had exceptional potential as senior managers. He added, however, that the reverse
appeared to be true in practice as they were generally speaking serial failures as they ascended
the bureaucratic ladder, even though their careers continued to be onward and upward on paper. My
friend's wife concluded, not unreasonably, that only genuine a-holes had what it took to get promoted
to the most senior ranks.
I was admittedly skeptical but some recent activity by former and current Directors and Acting
Directors of CIA has me wondering if something like my friend's wife's observation about senior management
might indeed be true. But it would have to be something other than tagging files, as many of the
directors and their deputies did not come up through the ranks and there seems to be a similar strain
of lunacy at other U.S. government intelligence agencies. It might be time to check the water supply
in the Washington area as there is very definitely something in the kool-aid that is producing odd
behavior.
Now I should pause for a moment and accept that the role of intelligence services is to identify
potential threats before they become active, so a certain level of acute paranoia goes with the job.
But at the same time, one would expect a level of professionalism which would mandate accuracy rather
than emotion in assessments coupled with an eschewing of any involvement in the politics of foreign
and national security policy formulation. The enthusiasm with which a number of senior CIA personnel
have waded into the Trump swamp and have staked out positions that contradict genuine national interests
suggests that little has been learned since CIA Director George Tenet sat behind Secretary of State
Colin Powell in the UN and nodded sagaciously as Saddam Hussein's high crimes and misdemeanors were
falsely enumerated.
Indeed, one can start with Tenet if one wants to create a roster of recent CIA Directors who
have lied to permit the White House to engage in a war crime. Tenet and his staff knew better than
anyone that the case against Saddam did not hold water, but President George W. Bush wanted his war
and, by gum, he was going to get it if the CIA had any say in the matter.
Back then as now, international Islamic terrorism was the name of the game. It kept the money
flowing to the national security establishment in the false belief that America was somehow being
made "safe." But today the terror narrative has been somewhat supplanted by Russia, which is headed
by a contemporary Saddam Hussein in the form of Vladimir Putin. If one believes the media and a majority
of congressmen, evil manifest lurks in the gilded halls of the Kremlin. Russia has recently been
sanctioned (again) for crimes that are more alleged than demonstrated and President Putin has been
selected by the Establishment as the wedge issue that will be used to end President Donald Trump's
defiance of the Deep State and all that pertains to it. The intelligence community at its top level
would appear to be fully on board with that effort.
The most recent inexplicable comments come from the current CIA Director Mike Pompeo, speaking
at the Aspen Institute Security Forum. He began by asserting that Russia had interfered in the U.S.
election
before saying that the logic behind Russia's Middle Eastern strategy is to stay in place in Syria
so Moscow can "stick it to America." He didn't define the "it" so one must assume that "it" stands
for any utensil available, ranging from cruise missiles to dinner forks. He then elaborated, somewhat
obscurely, that "I think they find anyplace that they can make our lives more difficult, I think
they find that something that's useful."
Remarkably, he also said that there is only "minimal evidence" that Russia is even fighting
ISIS. The statement is astonishing as Moscow has most definitely been seriously and directly engaged
in support of the Syrian Arab Army. Is it possible that the head of the CIA is unaware of that? It
just might be that Pompeo is disparaging the effort because the Russians and Syrians have also been
fighting against the U.S. backed "moderate rebels." That the moderate rebels are hardly moderate
has been known for years and they are also renowned for their ineffectiveness combined with a tendency
to defect to more radical groups taking their U.S. provided weapons with them, a combination of factors
which led to their being denied any further American support by a presidential decision that was
revealed in the press two weeks ago.
Pompeo's predecessor John Brennan is, however, my favorite Agency leader in the category of
totally bereft of his senses. In testimony before the House Intelligence Committee back in May,
he suggested that some Trump associates might have been recruited by the Russian intelligence service.
He testified that
"I encountered and am aware of information and intelligence that revealed contacts and interactions
between Russian officials and US persons involved in the Trump campaign that I was concerned about
because of known Russian efforts to suborn such individuals. It raised questions in my mind whether
or not Russia was able to gain the co-operation of those individuals."
In his testimony, Brennan apparently forgot to mention that the CIA is not supposed to keep tabs
on American citizens. Nor did he explain how he had come upon the information in the first place
as it had been handed over by foreign intelligence services, including the British, Dutch and Estonians,
and at least some of it had been sought or possibly inspired by Brennan unofficially in the first
place. Brennan then used that information to request an FBI investigation into a possible Russian
operation directed against potential key advisers if Trump were to somehow get nominated and elected,
which admittedly was a longshot at the time. That is how Russiagate started.
Brennan is certainly loyal to his cause, whatever that might be. At the same Aspen meeting
attended by Pompeo, he
told Wolf Blitzer that if Trump were to fire special counsel Robert Mueller government officials
should "refuse to carry out" his orders. In other words, they should begin a coup, admittedly non-violent
(one presumes), but nevertheless including federal employees uniting to shut the government down.
A lesser known former CIA senior official is
John McLaughlin,
who briefly served as acting Director in 2004. McLaughlin was particularly outraged by Trump's recent
speech to the Boy Scouts, which he described as having the feel "of a third world authoritarian's
youth rally." He added that "It gave me the creeps it was like watching the late Venezuelan [President
Hugo] Chavez."
And finally, there is Michael Morell, also a former Acting Director, who was closely tied
to the Hillary Clinton campaign, apparently driven by ambition to become Director in her administration.
Morell currently provides commentary for CBS television and is a frequent guest on the Charlie Rose
show. Morell considerably raised the ante on Brennan's pre-electoral speculation that there had been
some Russian recruitment of Trump people.
He observed in August that Putin, a wily ex-career intelligence officer, "trained to identify
vulnerabilities in an individual and to exploit them [did exactly that] early in the primaries. Mr.
Putin played upon Mr. Trump's vulnerabilities In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr.
Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation."
I and others noted at the time that Putin and Trump had never met, not even through proxies, while
we also wondered how one could be both unwitting and a recruited agent as intelligence recruitment
implies control and taking direction. Morell was non-plussed, unflinching and just a tad sanctimonious
in affirming that his own intelligence training (as an analyst who never recruited a spy in his life)
meant that "[I] call it as I see it."
One could also cite Michael Hayden and James Clapper, though the latter was not CIA They all
basically hew to the same line about Russia, often in more-or-less the same words, even though no
actual evidence has been produced to support their claims. That unanimity of thinking is what is
peculiar while academics like Stephen Cohen, Stephen Walt, Andrew Bacevich, and John Mearsheimer,
who have studied Russia in some depth and understand the country and its leadership far better than
a senior CIA officer, detect considerable nuance in what is taking place. They all believe that the
hardline policies current in Washington are based on an eagerness to go with the flow on the comforting
inside-the- beltway narrative that paints Russia as a threat to vital interests. That unanimity of
viewpoint should surprise no one as this is more of less the same government with many of the same
people that led the U.S. into Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. They all have a vested interested in the
health and well-being of a fully funded national security state.
And the other groupthink that seems to prevail among the senior managers except Pompeo is that
they all hate Donald Trump and have done so since long before he won the election. That is somewhat
odd, but it perhaps reflects a fear that Trump would interfere with the richly rewarding establishment
politics that had enabled their careers. But it does not necessarily reflect the viewpoint of CIA
employees. Though it is admittedly unscientific analysis on my part, I know a lot of former and some
current CIA employees but do not know a single one who voted for Hillary Clinton. Nearly all voted
for Trump.
Beyond that exhibition of tunnel vision and sheer ignorance, the involvement of former senior
intelligence officials in politics is itself deplorable and is perhaps symptomatic of the breakdown
in the comfortable bipartisan national security consensus that has characterized the past fifty years.
Once upon time former CIA officers would retire to the Blue Ridge mountains and raise Labradors,
but we are now into something much more dangerous if the intelligence community, which has been responsible
for most of the recent leaks, begins to feel free to assert itself from behind the scenes. As Senator
Chuck Schumer
recently warned "Let me tell you: You take on the intelligence community -- they have six ways
from Sunday at getting back at you."
In jumping this fascist nihilist shark, the groupthinkers have closed themselves off from the
logical conclusion to their viewpoint, which is final annihilation.
Brennan, Morell, and Pompeo should better find ways to justify their salaries: the U.S. has
suffered the greatest breach in cybersecurity on their watch:
" an enormous breach of the United States Security Apparatus by as many as 80 Democrat members
of Congress (past and present). We rail on about the Russians and Trump, but t he media avoids
providing nightly updates about these 5 spies that have compromised Congress ."
"In total, Imran's firm was employed by 31 Democrats in Congress, some of whom held extremely
sensitive positions on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the House
Committee on Foreign Affair s."
Nothing new. In the '50s CIA was making foreign wars and cultivating chaos at home, and
blaming all of it on Russia. In the '80s CIA was cultivating anti-nuke groups to undermine Reagan,
and blaming it on Russia. CIA has been the primary wellspring of evil for a long time.
And back to reality we have VIPS Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.
Yes you read that right and they are going to the rotten core of this coup against the
United States by presenting a report stating that the DNC was "Leaked" not hacked. The real hacking
came from President Obama's weaponizing of our intelligence agencies against Russia.
That is war, World War Three and it would seem now that Congress is marching that way, but
the report below hold the key to fighting back.
One of the VIPS is William Binney fomer NSA Technical Director, an important expert. leading
the group is Ray McGovern with some whit and grace, well yes how about some sanity, to which humor
is important to the insight and to stay in the sights of what is clever thievery and worse. Much
worse,
and there is a twinkle in the eye when realize that it is straight forward.
And Congress could stop it tout sweet, but well old habits but they have taken an Oath of Office,
so, so what, yeah they did go after Bernie, so will you challenge your elected officials, either
do their sworn duty or resign, for what this sanctions bill against Russia and Iran is a declaration
of war, not only against Russia and Iran, but a declaration of war against the United States.
for there is no reason to do this against Russia when indeed there are great opportunities to
get along, but war is the insanity as it is sedition and treason. Tell them that,
I wonder if groupthink exists.
In any organisation people know quite well why the organisation exists, what the threats are to
its existence.
If they think about this, I wonder.
The CIA is the USA's secret army, it is not comparable to a real intelligence organization like
the British MI5.
The CIA is more like WWII SOE, designed to set fire to Europe, Churchill's words.
If indeed Trump changes USA foreign policy, no longer trying to control the world, the CIA is
obsolete, as obsolete as NATO.
" but President George W. Bush wanted his war and, by gum, he was going to get it if the CIA
had any say in the matter."
Not to defend the CIA, but didn't Rumsfeld, doubt the enthusiasm of the CIA for providing the
slanted, bogus, "sexed up" intelligence the Executive required to make its "destroy Iraq now"
case ? So Rumsfeld therefore set up an independent intelligence agency within the Defence Dept
to provide/create the required "intelligence" ?
I think they find anyplace that they can make our lives more difficult, I think they find
that something that's useful."
Yeah, because that's what resource-constrained countries with limited ability to tap the global
capital markets do. Methinks Mr. Pompeo is projecting his and the neocons' fantasies on the Russians.
As has been the case for decades the Deep State allows Presidents and legislators to make minor
decisions in our government as long as those decisions do not in any way interfere with the Deep
State's goals of total world hegemony and increase in overwhelming power and wealth. Those who
make the important decisions in this country are not elected. The elected 'officials' are sycophants
of the Deep State.
Being resistant to jargon and catch phrases it is only slowly that I have accepted that "Deep
State" is not entirely pretentious waffle when used to describe aspects of the US. However I may
not be your only reader PG who would appreciate a clear explanatory description of the American
Deep State and how it works.
Here are some suggested parameters.
The term is appropriated from the use to describe the mutually loyal corps of Ataturkians in
the Turkish military and intelligence services who were united in service to uphold the ideal
of Ataturkian secular modernisation. The term implies no public accountability or publicity unnecessary
to its purposes.
And its origins imply that it is not just one in a number of major influences ln government or
those who vote for it.
So one has to acknowledge that in the US the Deep State has to be different in the important
respect that levers of power are observably wielded by lobbies for the aged, gun owners and sellers,
Israel, Wall Street, bio fuels, sugar and other ag, pharmaceuticals, oil and gas, the arms industry,
Disney and other Hollywood and media, health insurers and the medical profession, and I could
go on.
These are all relevant to legal events like votes on impeachment or to hold up appointments.
The CIA and FBI together completely united (and note how disunited 9/11 showed them to be) wouldn't
remotely approach the old Turkish Deep State's ability to stage a coup. Are all of the putative
elements of the Deep State together today as powerful as J.Edgar Hoover with his dirt files on
everyone? (A contrast and compare exercise of today's presumed Deep State configuration and modus
operandi with the simpler Hoover days might shine some light on who does what and how today. And
how effectively).
To avoid lack of focus can a convincing account of the US Deep State be best given in terms
of a plausible scenario for
getting rid of Trump as President and/or
maintaining the lunacy and hubris which has the US wasting its substance on totally unnecessary
antagonistic relations with China and Russia and interference in the ME?
I would read such accounts with great interest. (Handwavers need not apply).
Of course the US Deep State must hate Russia. First, Jews have a very long history of hating Russia and Russians. That never changed. The
USSR was not Russia; the USSR was Marxism replacing Russia. Jews tended to love that. Rich Jews
from across the world, from the US and the UK of most interest to us, sent money to support the
Bolshevik Revolution.
Russia managed to survive the USSR and is slowly coming back around to Russian common sense
from the Christian perspective. Neither Jews nor their WASP BFFs can ever forgive that. They want
Russia to act now to commit cultural and genetic suicide, like Western Europe and the entire Anglosphere
are doing.
@polistraThe CIA's source, its birth, is from British secret service. Brit spying. And Brit secret service,
long before the official founding of MI5, did exactly the kinds of things you note the CIA has
done.
The Mossad is another direct fruit of Brit secret service, as is the Saudi General Intelligence
Presidency.
While there can be no doubt about the crackpots in high positions of the most powerful bureaucracies,
it seems to me that the CIA loonies are merely shock troops for an even worse bunch of evil psychos,
the bankster mafiosi.
But doing so would mean a voluntary end to playing the role of Sauron, determined to find and
wear the One Ring to Rule Them All. The average Elite WASP, and his Jewish BFF, definitely would
prefer to destroy the world, at least outside their gated compounds of endless luxury, than to
step down from that level of global domination.
@Wizard
of Oz Wiz – Here is an article I did on the Deep State two years ago. It was one of the first
in the US media looking at the issue. It would have to be updated now in light of Trump, but much
of what it states is still more-or-less correct.
But we need to make certain that your use of the word 'mafiosi' does not lead anyone to assume
that group has more than a handful of Italians. Jews, WASPs, and continental Germanics each will
outnumber Italians by at least 30 to 1.
I am a retired CIA operations officer (something none of the men mentioned by Giraldi are –
Brennan was a failed wanna be, couldn't cut it as an ops officer). He is spot on in his comments.
The majority of people in the CIA, the ones who do the heavy lifting, are patriotic Americans
who are proud of serving their country. I am sure that most voted for Trump as they all know too
well the truth about the Clintons and Obama.
Giraldi is not the only one to notice the upward progress of the most incompetent yes-men in the
Agency. A close look at most of them reveals a track record of little or no operational success
balanced by excellent sucking up skills. These characters quickly figured out how to get ahead
and doing your job in the field is not it. Of course, most are ego maniacs so they are totally
oblivious to their own uselessness.
Well before he was elected I had a letter delivered to President Trump in which I outlined in
detail what would happen to him if he did not immediately purge the CIA of these assholes. I know
that at least some people on his staff read it but, of course, my advice was ignored. Trump has
paid dearly for not listening to an ordinary CIA guy who wanted to give him a reality brief on
those vicious snakes.
Historical facts teach humanity that Anglo-Saxon group of Nations was built on slavery, thuggery
and theft of other peace loving Civilizations.
We Slavs are the New "niggers", hate is the glue that holds you "toGether".
People of color have been successfully conditioned and practice it as well.
Time will tell how well it holds when balloon bursts and 99% gets called to serve as cannon fodder.
Terrorizing UNARMED and WEAKER is not true test of "superiority" and "exceptionalism".
Tiny, extremely tiny minority of Anglo-Saxons and Satraps understand this.
How "Russiagate" began: After the primaries, both Hillary and Donald faced divided political parties even though they
had won the nomination. These divisions were worse than the normal situation after contested primaries.
On the Democratic side, Hillay had just subverted the will of the voters of her party, who seemed
to favor Bernie Sanders over her. Hillay had won with corrupt collusion and rigging amongst the
DNC, the higher ranks of the Democratic Party, and major media such as the NYT and CNN.
Then, a leak of emails from the DNC HQ publicized her interference in the democratic processes
of the Democratic Party. This threatened to ene the Hillary for President campaign right then
and there. If the majority of Democrats who'd favored Bernie refused to support Hillary because
of her corruption and collusion in denying democracy within the party, she was a sure loser in
the fall election. The Hillary camp then immediately started blaming Russia for the exposure of her corruption
and rigging of the Democratic process. And that's how "Russiagate" began.
It probably does as do group psychoses and group fantasies.. Anyone who's ever served in a beuaracracy
knows that groupthink exists.
Take a bunch of mediocre minds. And, they do exist, as Garrison Keiler once famously made a
joke out of with his line Welcome to Lake Woebegone, where all the children are above average.
Take that bunch of mediocre thinkers, and then make most of them obsessed with their own career
advancement above all else. The most dangerous place for a career-obsessed individual is outside
the group consensus. If everyone is wrong, then there is safety in the group. After all, if they
are wrong, so was everyone else in the organization. Thus they are immune to attack and censure
for being wrong. But if someone takes a position outside of the group consensus, that can be a
career-ending move if they are wrong, as now everyone else will be in the I-told-U-So camp. And
even if they are correct, they will still be hated and shunned just for being the person who pointed
out to the group that they are wrong.
So, you take your typical average mind, and not only do they not have any great insights of
their own, but they tend to stick to the group out of sheer survival and then when you take a
mass of these mediocre minds you have 'groupthink'.
If only Trump would really clean the swamp - particularly the neo-cons and other traitors and
globalists. One can dream ....
What we've learned from Trump is that 'Draining the Swamp' will
take more than an individual. It will take a political movement.
One sees this on the fringes of politics. Someone gets the idea of running for President, and
they point out all that is wrong. But, they focus only on their own campaign, their own goal,
and they thus gloss over the fact that they'll be outnumbered and powerless even if they win.
Seen this often on the Left. The most recent example is Bernie Sanders. Likewise, had Bernie
been elected President, he too would face an entrenched establishment and media with only a small
fraction of the Congress supporting him.
Change has to be built from the bottom up. There are no shortcuts. Electing a Trump, or a Nader
or a Bernie does not lead to real change. Step one is to build the political movement such that
it has real voting block power and which has already won voting majorities in the legislature
before the movement achieves the election of a President.
What Trump has needed to be doing for this first two years is to form clear divisions that
he could then take to his voters in the mid-term elections. He's needed to lay out his own agenda.
So what if he loses votes in Congress? He then takes that agenda back to the voters in 2018 with
a nationwide slate of Congressional candidates who support that agenda and runs a midterm campaign
asking the voters to help him drain that swamp.
So, for instance, Trump should veto the act of war known as the recent sanctions bill. Who
cares if it gets overridden? Then he goes back to the voters, who are clearly sick of endless
war and who for obvious reasons don't want a nuclear war, and he says this is where I stand. Support
me by electing Fill-In-The-Blank to Congress. With the nuclear Doomsday Clock pushing ever closer
to midnight, he might just win that fight over the big money and media opposition he's sure to
face.
Not only has Trump failed to even try to fight the Deep State, but he's also failing to set
himself up for success in the next elections.
It is a serious error to consider President Trump "naive."
What we are seeing now is The Donald's role in the serial Zionist THEATER. Think deeper about the motive behind Mr. Giraldi's choice to use the Orwellian word "Groupthink"
in characterizing the CIA zeitgeist? In the classic work "1984," one observes Big Brother as the catalyst in control of the proles'
thought pattern & subsequent action.
To rise & FALL as a POTUS is a matter of theater and the American proles are entertained by
the political for either 4 or 8 years and the Zionists get their next Chosen actor/actress dramatically
sworn in on a bible.
Mr. Trump is neither naive nor stupid. Sheldon Adelson would not donate $millioms to any POTUS
wannabe who could not effectively lead the American Groupthink tradition. Subsequently, the political
horror show is brought to you in the understandable form of the perpetually elusive Deep State
which gets annual Academy Award.
"... One might reasonably ask if America in its seemingly enduring role as the world's most feared bully will ever cease and desist, but the more practical question might be "When will the psychopathic trio of John Bolton, Mike Pompeo and Elliott Abrams be fired so the United States can begin to behave like a normal nation?" ..."
"... This hatred of all things Trump has been manifested in the neoconservative "Nevertrump" forces led by Bill Kristol and by the "Trump Derangement Syndrome" prominent on the political left, regularly exhibited by Rachel Maddow. ..."
"... Whether the Mueller report is definitive very much depends on the people they chose to interview and the questions they chose to ask, which is something that will no doubt be discussed for the next year if not longer. Beyond declaring that the Trump team did not collude with Russia, it cast little light on the possible Deep State role in attempting to vilify Trump and his associates. ..."
"... The media has scarcely reported how Michael Horowitz, the Inspector General of the Department of Justice (DOJ), has been looking into the activities of the principal promoters of the Russiagate fraud. Horowitz, whose report is expected in about a month, has already revealed that he intends to make criminal referrals as a result of his investigation. ..."
"... The first phase of the illegal investigation of the Trump associates involved initiating wiretaps without any probable cause. This eventually involved six government intelligence and law enforcement agencies that formed a de facto task force headed by the CIA's Director John Brennan. Also reportedly involved were the FBI's James Comey, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Department of Homeland Security Director Jeh Johnson, and Admiral Michael Rogers who headed the National Security Agency. ..."
"... The British support of the operation was coordinated by the then-director of GCHQ Robert Hannigan who has since been forced to resign. Brennan is, unfortunately still around and has not been charged with perjury and other crimes. In May 2017, after he departed government, he testified before Congress with what sounds a lot like a final unsourced, uncorroborated attempt to smear the new administration ..."
"... The Deep State wants a constant state of tension with 'hostile' countries (Iran, Russia, Venezuela, China, Syria and others). This scares the crap out of ignorant Americans and allows unjustifiable spending on war matériel. ..."
"... The Deep State wants a steady supply of cheap foreign labor to provide wealth to the supporters of the Deep State. ..."
"... You know damn well Adelson sent Bolton and you should also know damn well why the Orange Boy staffed his adm with Zionists. No one in NY except Zionists would associate with Trump. ..."
The real "deplorable" in today's United States is the continuation of a foreign policy based
on endless aggression to maintain Washington's military dominance in parts of the world where
Americans have no conceivable interest. Many voters backed Donald J. Trump because he committed
himself to changing all that, but, unfortunately, he has reneged on his promise, instead
heightening tension with major powers Russia and China while also threatening Iran and
Venezuela on an almost daily basis. Now Cuba is in the crosshairs because it is allegedly
assisting Venezuela. One might reasonably ask if America in its seemingly enduring role as the
world's most feared bully will ever cease and desist, but the more practical question might be
"When will the psychopathic trio of John Bolton, Mike Pompeo and Elliott Abrams be fired so the
United States can begin to behave like a normal nation?"
Trump, to be sure, is the heart of the problem as he has consistently made bad, overly
belligerent decisions when better and less abrasive options were available, something that
should not necessarily always be blamed on his poor choice of advisers. But one also should not
discount the likelihood that the dysfunction in Trump is in part comprehensible, stemming from
his belief that he has numerous powerful enemies who have been out do destroy him since before
he was nominated as the GOP's presidential candidate. This hatred of all things Trump has been
manifested in the neoconservative "Nevertrump" forces led by Bill Kristol and by the "Trump
Derangement Syndrome" prominent on the political left, regularly exhibited by Rachel
Maddow.
And then there is the Deep State, which also worked with the Democratic Party and President
Barack Obama to destroy the Trump presidency even before it began. One can define Deep State in
a number of ways, ranging from a "soft" version which accepts that there is an Establishment
that has certain self-serving objectives that it works collectively to promote to something
harder, an actual infrastructure that meets together and connives to remove individuals and
sabotage policies that it objects to. The Deep State in either version includes senior
government officials, business leaders and, perhaps most importantly, the managed media, which
promotes a corrupted version of "good governance" that in turn influences the public.
Whether the Mueller report is definitive very much depends on the people they chose to
interview and the questions they chose to ask, which is something that will no doubt be
discussed for the next year if not longer. Beyond declaring that the Trump team did not collude
with Russia, it cast little light on the possible Deep State role in attempting to vilify Trump
and his associates. The investigation of that aspect of the 2016 campaign and the possible
prosecutions of former senior government officials that might be a consequence of the
investigation will likely be entertaining conspiracy theorists well into 2020. Since Russiagate
has already been used and discarded the new inquiry might well be dubbed Trumpgate.
The media has scarcely reported how Michael Horowitz, the Inspector General of the
Department of Justice (DOJ), has been
looking into the activities of the principal promoters of the Russiagate fraud. Horowitz,
whose report is expected in about a month, has already revealed that he intends to make
criminal referrals as a result of his investigation. While the report will only cover
malfeasance in the Department of Justice, which includes the FBI, the names of intelligence
officers involved will no doubt also surface. It is expected that there will be charges leading
to many prosecutions and one can hope for jail time for those individuals who corruptly
betrayed their oath to the United States Constitution to pursue a political vendetta.
A review of what is already known about the plot against Trump is revealing and no doubt
much more will be learned if and when investigators go through emails and phone records. The
first phase of the illegal investigation of the Trump associates involved initiating wiretaps
without any probable cause.
This eventually involved six government intelligence and law enforcement agencies that
formed a de facto task force headed by the CIA's Director John Brennan. Also reportedly
involved were the FBI's James Comey, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, Attorney
General Loretta Lynch, Department of Homeland Security Director Jeh Johnson, and Admiral
Michael Rogers who headed the National Security Agency.
Brennan was the key to the operation because the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
(FISA) court refused to approve several requests by the FBI to initiate taps on Trump
associates and Trump Tower as there was no probable cause to do so but the British and other
European intelligence services were legally able to intercept communications linked to American
sources. Brennan was able to use his connections with those foreign intelligence agencies,
primarily the British GCHQ, to make it look like the concerns about Trump were coming from
friendly and allied countries and therefore had to be responded to as part of routine
intelligence sharing. As a result, Paul Manafort, Carter Page, Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner
and Gen. Michael Flynn were all wiretapped. And likely there were others. This all happened
during the primaries and after Trump became the GOP nominee.
In other words, to make the wiretaps appear to be legitimate, GCHQ and others were quietly
and off-the-record approached by Brennan and associates over their fears of what a Trump
presidency might mean. The British responded by initiating wiretaps that were then used by
Brennan to justify further investigation of Trump's associates. It was all neatly done and
constituted completely illegal spying on American citizens by the U.S. government.
The British support of the operation was coordinated by the then-director of GCHQ Robert
Hannigan who has since been forced to resign. Brennan is, unfortunately still around and has
not been charged with perjury and other crimes. In May 2017, after he departed government, he
testified before
Congress with what sounds a lot like a final unsourced, uncorroborated attempt to smear the
new administration :
"I encountered and am aware of information and intelligence that revealed contacts and
interactions between Russian officials and U.S. persons involved in the Trump campaign that I
was concerned about because of known Russian efforts to suborn such individuals. It raised
questions in my mind whether or not Russia was able to gain the co-operation of those
individuals."
Brennan's claimed "concerns" turned out to be incorrect. Meanwhile, other interested parties
were involved in the so-called Steele Dossier on Trump himself. The dossier, paid
for initially by Republicans trying to stop Trump, was later funded by $12 million from the
Hillary campaign. It was commissioned by the law firm Perkins Coie, which was working for the
Democratic National Committee (DNC). The objective was to assess any possible Trump involvement
with Russia. The work itself was sub-contracted to Fusion GPS, which in turn sub-contracted the
actual investigation to British spy Christopher Steele who headed a business intelligence firm
called Orbis.
Steele left MI-6 in 2009 and had not visited Russia since 1993. The report, intended to dig
up dirt on Trump, was largely prepared using impossible to corroborate second-hand information
and would have never surfaced but for the surprise result of the 2016 election. Christopher
Steele gave a copy to a retired of British Diplomat Sir Andrew Wood who in turn handed it to
Trump critic Senator John McCain who then passed it on to the FBI. President Barack Obama
presumably also saw it and, according to Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, "If it weren't for
President Obama, we might not have done the intelligence community assessment that we did that
set off a whole sequence of events which are still unfolding today, notably, special counsel
Mueller's investigation."
The report was leaked to the media in January 2017 to coincide with Trump's inauguration.
Hilary Clinton denied any prior knowledge despite the fact that her campaign had paid for it.
Pressure from the Democrats and other constituencies devastated by the Trump victory used the
Steele report to provide leverage for what became the Mueller investigation.
So, was there a broad ranging conspiracy against Donald Trump orchestrated by many of the
most senior officials and politicians in Washington? Undeniably yes. What Trump has amounted to
as a leader and role model is beside the point as what evolved was undeniably a bureaucratic
coup directed against a legally elected president of the United States and to a certain extent
it was successful as Trump was likely forced to turn his back on his better angels and
subsequently hired Pompeo, Bolton and Abrams. One can only hope that investigators dig deep
into what is Washington insiders have been up to so Trumpgate will prove more interesting and
informative than was Russiagate. And one also has to hope that enough highest-level heads will
roll to make any interference by the Deep State in future elections unthinkable. One hopes.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest,
a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a
more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is
councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its
email is [email protected].
The President is part of the Deep State. To understand what the Deep State will and will not tolerate answer these questions.
What do both parties agree on? If they appear to disagree, look to see if anything changes
when one party has the power to cause change or does the party in power make excuses to avoid
change? Those things that the populus is against but never change or get worse are what the
Deep State wants
The Deep State wants a constant state of tension with 'hostile' countries (Iran, Russia,
Venezuela, China, Syria and others). This scares the crap out of ignorant Americans and
allows unjustifiable spending on war matériel.
The Deep State wants a steady supply of cheap foreign labor to provide wealth to the
supporters of the Deep State.
The Deep State wants our financial institutions to never fail (FED 2009) even at the
expense of 90% of Americans. The Deep State wants financial institutions to provide financial
products to the wealthy which cripples the vast majority of Americans.
The silly internecine squabbles within the Deep State are a ruse to misdirect the public
from important issues like constant war, legal and illegal immigrants taking jobs from
Americans and the increased transfer of wealth for the 90% to the supper weathy.
There will never be a wall and illegal immigration will continue to be a problem. All the investigations into Trump, the DNC, Hillary and all the rest will never come to
justice. The wealth transfer will not stop
Until Americans realize these diversions for what they are and put an end to it through
what ever means necessary
it was successful as Trump was likely forced to turn his back on his better angels and
subsequently hired Pompeo, Bolton and Abrams.
Oh plezzze .you sound like you've been drugged.
Trump never had any better angels as any reporter and journalist whoever interviewed or
investigated him would tell you.
And come on! .You know damn well Adelson sent Bolton and you should also know damn well
why the Orange Boy staffed his adm with Zionists. No one in NY except Zionists would associate
with Trump.
i think some of the conspiracy was about controlling Trump's foreign policy going forward but
i also think some of it was people like Brennan worried CIA collusion with Saudi funded
jihadist groups since 9/11 (and possibly before) might come out.
"... North Stream is a problem as the goal is to economically weaken Russia, tie the EU to the USA via energy supplies and support
our new client state -- Ukraine. ..."
"... But this is also related to attempts to prevent/weaken the alliance of Russia and China. As geopolitical consequences of this
alliance for the USA-led neoliberal empire are very bad ..."
Best bet is for Russia to want to trade with the US and Europe. The gas pipeline will not be enough leverage on Germany
as it provides 9% of their needs.
Yes. And that's against the USA interests (or more correctly the US-led neoliberal empire interests). North Stream is a
problem as the goal is to economically weaken Russia, tie the EU to the USA via energy supplies and support our new client state
-- Ukraine.
As you know, nothing was proven yet in Russiagate (and DNC hacks looks more and more like a false flag operation, especially
this Guccifer 2.0 personality ), but sanctions were already imposed. And when the US government speaks "Russia" in most cases
they mean "China+Russia" ;-). Russia is just a weaker link in this alliance and, as such, it is attacked first. Russiagate is
just yet another pretext after MH17, Magnitsky and such.
To me the current Anti-Russian hysteria is mainly a smokescreen to hide attempt to cement cracks in the façade of the USA neoliberal
society that Trump election revealed (including apparent legitimization of ruling neoliberal elite represented by Hillary).
And a desperate attempt to unite the society using (false) war propaganda which requires demonization of the "enemy of the
people" and neo-McCarthyism.
But this is also related to attempts to prevent/weaken the alliance of Russia and China. As geopolitical consequences of
this alliance for the USA-led neoliberal empire are very bad (for example, military alliance means the end of the USA global
military domination; energy alliance means that is now impossible to impose a blockade on China energy supplies from Middle East
even if Iran is occupied)
In this sense the recent descent into a prolonged fit of vintage Cold War jingoistic paranoia is quite understandable. While,
at the same time, totally abhorrent. My feeling is that unless Russia folds, which is unlikely, the side effects/externalities
of this posture can be very bad for the USA. In any case, the alliance of Russia and China which Obama administration policies
forged spells troubles to the global neoliberal empire dominated by the USA.
Trump rejection of existing forms of neoliberal globalization is one sign that this process already started and some politicians
already are trying to catch the wind and adapt to a "new brave world" by using preemptive adjustments.
Which is why all this Trump-Putin summit hysteria is about.
Neither hard, nor soft neoliberals want any adjustments. They are ready to fight for the US-led neoliberal empire till the
last American (excluding, of course, themselves and their families)
http://www.unz.com/article/the-cia-takeover-of-america-in-the-1960s-is-the-story-of-our-times/
Email This Page to Someone
Remember My
Information
=>
◄
►
◄
►
▲
▼
Remove from Library
B
Show
Comment
Next New Comment
Next
New Reply
Read More
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc.
More...
This Commenter
This Thread
Hide Thread
Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They
are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My
Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Email Comment
Ignore
Commenter
Follow Commenter
Add to
Library
Bookmark
Toggle
All
ToC
▲
▼
Search Text
Case
Sensitive
Exact Words
Include Comments
List of Bookmarks
" 'We're all puppets,' the suspect
[Sirhan Sirhan] replied, with more truth than he could have understood at that moment."
– Lisa Pease, quoting from the LAPD
questioning of Sirhan
ORDER IT NOW
When Senator Robert Kennedy was
assassinated on June 5, 1968, the American public fell into an hypnotic trance in which they have remained
ever since. The overwhelming majority accepted what was presented by government authorities as an open and
shut case that a young Palestinian American, Sirhan Sirhan, had murdered RFK because of his support for
Israel, a false accusation whose ramifications echo down the years. That this was patently untrue and was
contradicted by overwhelming evidence made no difference.
Sirhan did not kill Robert Kennedy, yet
he remains in jail to this very day. Robert Kennedy, Jr., who was 14 years old at the time of his father's
death, has visited Sirhan in prison, claims he is innocent, and believes there was another gunman. Paul
Schrade, an aide to the senator and the first person shot that night, also says Sirhan didn't do it. Both
have plenty of evidence. And they are not alone.
There is a vast body of documented
evidence to prove this, an indisputably logical case marshalled by serious writers and researchers. Lisa
Pease is the latest. It is a reason why a group of 60 prominent Americans has recently called for a
reopening of, not just this case, but those of JFK, MLK, and Malcom X. The blood of these men cries out for
the revelation of the truth that the United States national security state and its media accomplices have
fought so mightily to keep hidden for so many years.
That they have worked so hard at this
reveals how dangerous the truth about these assassinations still is to this secret government that wages
propaganda war against the American people and real wars around the world. It is a government of Democrats,
Republicans, and their intelligence allies working together today to confuse the American people and provoke
Russia in a most dangerous game that could lead to nuclear war, a possibility that so frightened JFK and RFK
after the Cuban Missile Crisis that they devoted themselves to ending the Cold War, reconciling with the
Soviet Union, abolishing nuclear weapons, reining in of the power of the CIA, and withdrawing from Vietnam.
That is why they were killed.
The web of deceit surrounding the now
officially debunked Democratic led Russia-gate propaganda operation that has strengthened Trump to
double-down on his anti-Russia operations (a Democratic goal) is an example of the perfidious and
sophisticated mutuality of this game of mass mind-control.
The killing of the Kennedys and today's
new Cold War and war against terror are two ends of a linked intelligence operation.
Moreover, more than any other
assassination of the 1960s, it is the killing of Bobby Kennedy that has remained shrouded in the most
ignorance.
It is one of the greatest propaganda
success stories of American history.
In her exhaustive new examination of the
case,
A Lie Too Big To Fail
, Lisa Pease puts it succinctly at the conclusion of her unravelling of
the official lies that have mesmerized the public:
The assassination of the top four
leaders of the political left in the five year period – President John Kennedy in 1963, Malcolm X in 1965,
and Martin Luther King, Jr. and Senator Robert Kennedy in 1968 – represented nothing less than a slow-motion
coup on the political scene.
If anyone wishes to understand what has
happened to the United States since this coup, and thus to its countless victims at home and throughout the
world, one must understand these assassinations and how the alleged assassins were manipulated by the coup
organizers and how the public was hoodwinked in a mind-control operation on a vast scale. It is not ancient
history, for the forces that killed these leaders rule the U.S. today, and their ruthlessness has
subsequently informed the actions of almost all political leaders in the years since. A bullet to the head
when you seriously talk about peace and justice is a not so gentle reminder to toe the line or else.
"But the way the CIA took over America
in the 1960s is
the
story of our time," writes Pease, "and too few recognize this. We can't fix a
problem we can't even acknowledge exists." Nothing could be truer.
Lisa Pease has long recognized the
problem, and for the past twenty-five years, she has devoted herself to shedding light on the CIA's
culpability, particularly in the Robert Kennedy case. Few people possess the grit and grace to spend so much
of their lives walking this path of truth. The extent of her research is dazzling, so dazzling in its
voluminous detail that a reviewer can only touch on it here and there. She has written a book that is
daunting in its comprehensiveness. It demands focused attention and perseverance, for it runs to over 500
pages with more than 800 footnotes. This book will remain a touchstone for future research on the RFK
assassination, whether one agrees or disagrees with all of her detailed findings and speculations. For this
book is so vast and meticulous in its examination of all aspects of the case that one can surely find areas
that one might question or disagree with.
Nevertheless, Pease fundamentally proves
that Sirhan did not shoot RFK and that there was a conspiracy organized and carried out by shadowy
intelligence forces that did so. These same forces worked with the Los Angeles Police Department, federal,
state, and judicial elements to make sure Sirhan was quickly accused of being the lone assassin and
dispatched to prison after a show trial. And the mass media carried out its assigned role of affirming the
government's case to shield the real killers and to make sure the cover-up was successful.
No doubt others will investigate this
case further. Yet I think no more research is really needed, for as with these other assassinations,
additional analyses will only result in pseudo-debates about minutiae. Such debates will only serve to
prolong the hallucinatory grip the perpetrators of these crimes have on a day of reckoning, suggesting as
they would that we do not really know what happened. This is an old tactic meant to delay forevermore such a
day of reckoning.
The facts are clear for all to see if
they have the will to truth. All that is now needed is a public tribunal, which is planned for later this
year, in which the fundamental, clear-cut facts of these cases are presented to the American public. In the
case of Robert Kennedy's assassination as with the others, a little knowledge goes a long way, and only
those who are closed to basic logic and evidence will refuse to see that government forces conspired to kill
these men and did so because all were seeking peace and justice that was then, and is now, a threat to the
war-making forces of wealth and power that control the American government.
Pease writes:
Anyone who has looked closely and
honestly at the evidence has realized that more than one person was involved in Robert Kennedy's death. So
why can't reporters see this? Why can't the media explain this? Because the media and the government are two
sides of the same coin, and those who challenge the government's version of history, as numerous reporters
have found out, all too often lose status and sometimes whole careers. Kristina Borjesson published an
anthology of such stories in her book
Into the Buzzsaw,
in which journalists describe how they lost
their careers when each of them expressed a truth that the
government did not want exposed.
Lisa Pease discloses such truths. I am
reporting on her work. Therefore, the mainstream media, except for an extraordinary reporter or two, such as
Tom Jackman of
The Washington
Post
, will likely ignore both of us, but the publication where
you are reading this is on the side of truth, and in the disclosure of truth lies our hope.
Since more than one person was involved
in the killing of RFK, there was – ipso facto – a conspiracy. This is not theory but fact. The fact of a
conspiracy. For more than fifty years, mainstream reporters have been cowed by this word "conspiracy,"
thanks to the CIA. Many others have been intelligence assets posing as journalists, regurgitating the lies.
This is a fact.
The official story is that after giving
his victory speech for winning the 1968 Democratic California Primary, Kennedy, as he was walking through a
crowded hotel pantry, was shot by Sirhan Sirhan, who was standing to his left between 3-6 feet away.
Sirhan's revolver held eight bullets, and as he was shooting, he was tackled by a group of large men who
subdued him. All witnesses place Sirhan in front of Kennedy and all claim he was firing a gun.
Fact: As the autopsy definitively
showed, RFK was shot from the rear at point blank range, three bullets entering his body, with the fatal
headshot coming upward at a 45-degree angle from 1-3 inches behind his right ear. Not one bullet from
Sirhan's gun hit the Senator. In addition, an
audio recording
shows that many more bullets than the eight in Sirhan's gun were fired in the hotel
pantry that night. It was impossible for Sirhan to have killed RFK.
Let me repeat: More than one gunman,
contrary to the government's claims, equals a conspiracy. So why lie about that?
What is amazing is that the obvious
conclusion to such simple syllogistic logic (Sirhan in front, bullets in the back, therefore ) that a child
could understand has been dismissed by the authorities for fifty-one years. The fact that the government
authorities – the LAPD, the Sheriff's Office, the District Attorney, federal and state government officials,
the FBI, the CIA – have from the start so assiduously done all in their power to pin the blame on "a lone
assassin," Sirhan, proves they are part of a coordinated cover-up, which in turn suggests their involvement
in the crime.
The fact that Robert Kennedy was shot
from the back and not the front where Sirhan was standing immediately brings to mind the Zapruder film that
shows that JFK was killed from the front right and not from the 6
th
floor rear where Oswald was
allegedly shooting from. That unexpected film evidence was hidden from the public for many years, but when
it was finally seen, the case for a government conspiracy was solidified.
While no such video evidence has
surfaced in the RFK case, the LAPD made sure that no photographic evidence contradicting the official lies
would be seen. As Lisa Pease writes:
Less than two months after the
assassination, the LAPD took the extraordinary step of burning some 2,400 photos from the case in Los
Angeles County General's medical waste incinerator. Why destroy thousands of photos in an incinerator if
there was nothing to hide? The LAPD kept
hundreds
of innocuous crowd scene photos that showed no girl
in a polka dot dress or no suspicious activities or individuals. Why were
those
photos preserved?
Perhaps because those photos had nothing in them that warranted their destruction.
While "perhaps" is a mild word, the
cover-up of "the girl in the polka dot dress" needs no perhaps. Dozens of people reported seeing a
suspicious, curvaceous girl in a white dress with black polka dots with Sirhan in the pantry and other
places. She was seen with various other men as well. The evidence for her involvement in the assassination
is overwhelming, and yet the LAPD did all in its power to deny this by browbeating witnesses and by allowing
her to escape.
Sandra Serrano, a Kennedy campaign
worker and a courageous witness, was bullied by the CIA-connected police interrogator Sergeant Enrique
"Hank" Hernandez. She had been sitting outside on a metal fire escape getting some air when the polka dot
dress girl, accompanied by a man, ran out and down the stairs, shouting, "We've shot him, we've shot him."
When Serrano asked whom did they shoot, the girl replied, "We've shot Senator Kennedy." Then she and her
companion, both of whom Serrano had earlier seen ascending the stairs with Sirhan, disappeared into the
night. A little over an hour after the shooting Serrano was interviewed on live television by NBC's Sander
Vanocur where she recounted this. And there were others who saw and heard this girl say the same thing as
she and her companion fled the crime scene. Nevertheless, the LAPD, led by Lieutenant Manuel Pena, also CIA
affiliated, who was brought out of retirement to run the investigation dubbed "Special Unit Senator," worked
with Hernandez and others to dismiss the girl as of no consequence.
Lisa Pease covers all this and much
more. She shows how Sirhan was obviously hypnotized, how the trial was a farce, how the police destroyed
evidence from the door frames in the pantry that proved more than the eight bullets in Sirhan's gun were
fired, how Officer DeWayne Wolfer manipulated the ballistic evidence, etc. Through years of digging into
court records, archives, transcripts, the public library, and doing countless interviews, she proves without
a doubt that Sirhan did not kill Kennedy and that the assassination and the cover-up were part of a very
sophisticated intelligence operation involving many parts and players. She shows how no matter what route
Kennedy took in the hotel that night, the killers had all exits covered and that he would not be allowed to
leave alive.
While some of her more speculative
points – e.g. that Robert Maheu (Howard Hughes/CIA) was "the most credible high-level suspect for the
planner of Robert Kennedy's assassination," that Kennedy was shot twice in the head from behind, etc. are
open to debate, they do not detract from her fundamentally powerful case that RFK, like his brother John,
was assassinated by a CIA-run operation intended to silence their voices of courageous resistance to an
expanding secret government dedicated to war, murder, and human exploitation. The U.S. government of today.
When Bobby Kennedy was entering the
kitchen pantry, he was escorted by a security guard named Thane Eugene Cesar, a man long suspected of being
the assassin. Cesar was carrying a gun that he drew but denied firing, despite witnesses' claims to the
contrary. Conveniently, the police never examined the gun. He has long been suspected of being CIA
affiliated, and now Pease says she has found evidence to confirm that. She writes, "It's hard to overstate
the significance of finding a current or future CIA contract agent holding Kennedy's right arm at the moment
of the shooting."
Yes, it is. As she rightly claims,
the CIA takeover of America in the 1960s is the story of our time. And our time is now. None of this is
ancient history. That is so crucial to grasp.
For those who think that learning the truth about the
1960s assassinations is an exercise in futility reserved for those who are living in the past, they need to
think again.
Our descent into endless war and massive media propaganda to support it is part of a
long-term project that began with the elimination of JFK, Malcom X, MLK, and Robert Kennedy. They were
killed for reasons, and those reasons still exist, even if they don't physically, but only in spirit. Their
killers roam the land because they have become far more deeply part of the institutional structure of
government and the media.
Pease says:
It was horrible that Robert Kennedy was
taken from us far too soon. It is horrible that one man has borne the guilt for an operation he neither
planned nor willingly participated in. It's horrible the conspiracy was so obvious that bullets had to be
lost and switched to hide it. And it's horrible that the mainstream media has never dared to tell the people
of this country that the government lied to us about what they really found when they looked into this case.
Until the media can deal with the truth of the Robert Kennedy assassination, and until the people can be
made aware of the CIA's role in slanting the truth on topics of great importance, America's very survival is
in jeopardy .We've come perilously close to losing democracy itself because of fake, CIA-sponsored stories
about our history. Should America ever become a dictatorship, the epitaph of our democracy must include the
role the mainstream media, by bowing to the National Security state, played in killing it.
By writing
A Lie Too Big To Fail,
Lisa Pease has done her valiant part in refuting the lie that is now failing. Now it is up to all of us to
spread the word of truth by focusing on the fundamental facts so we can finally take back our country from
the CIA.
Then we can say with RFK and his favorite poet Aeschylus:
And even in our sleep, pain which cannot
forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, until in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom through
the awful grace of God.
While it clear anti-Seminissm to hate Jews as the ethnic groups, it is quite different about
Zionism -- Jewish nationalism with the elements of supremacist ideology that puts Israel as the
central symbol of "jeweshnessh"
In the eyes of Spokoiny, the three types of contemporary anti-Semitism, be it Left, Right
or Islamic ("which is not only fascistic but outright genocidal," according to Spokoiny) are
in fact one by nature: "there's just one type of anti-Semitism that simply dresses its ugly
persona in different ideological garments." So it isn't just the Jews that should be
reunited; the Goyim, or shall we say the rest humanity, aren't diverse either, their
oppositions to Jewish politics, Israel or Zionism are only a matter of "different ideological
garments."
In Spokoiny's universe, the Jews are hated for being Jews. It is not that some oppose
Israel for being racist, expansionist and genocidal. It is not because some may be upset that
the Israeli Lobby dominates Western foreign affairs in the open. It is not because American
and British boys and girls are sent to fight and die in Zio-con wars, it is not because some
have noticed that it was a bunch of prominent Jewish intellectuals who have managed to
reshape the Western ethos by means of so-called progressive ideologies. It is not because the
media seems to be biased in favour of a criminal state, which happens to be a Jewish one. In
Spokoiny, reasoning and self-reflection are pushed aside. In his universe some just hate Jews
blindly, irrationally and for no reason.
But Spokoiny may as well be right. There is a common element in the Left-wing, Right-wing,
Christian and Islamic opposition to Jewish politics, culture and ideology: opposition to
choseness is how Bernard Lazare described it in his 1894 Zionist text Antisemitism:
Its History and Causes . There is a shared common ground that unites all those so-called
'anti-Semites.' The alleged 'enemies of the Jews' are people who want the Jewish past to be
subject to scrutiny like all other historical chapters, Israeli barbarism to be curtailed,
Wall Street to be restricted, Palestine to be free. They want globalisation to be halted,
immoral interventionism to die out. The so-called 'anti-Semites' actually follow the Zionist
promise, they want Jews to finally assimilate and become 'people like all other people.' The
so-called 'enemies of the Jews' are upholding the most enlightened rational universalist
ethical positions. They treat Jews as ordinary people and expect their state and institutions
to subscribe to ethical standards.
Spokoiny hates Alain Soral, the French intellectual who was sentenced this week to one
year in prison by a French court for "negationisme" (history revisionism).
In the eyes of French Jewish institutes and Spokoiny, Soral is the ultimate enemy. He has
managed to present a unifying message that appeals to the Left, the Right and Muslim
immigrants. Soral calls for a universal reconciliation, between them all under a French
nationalist egalitarian ethos. The French Jewish institutions see Soral's call as a vile
anti-Semitic message as it doesn't seem to accommodate Jewish exceptionalism. However, some
Jews have joined Soral's movement. But they clearly demoted themselves to French patriots.
They left chosenism behind, they see themselves primarily as French.
"We in the Jewish community need to believe him (Soral)." Spokoiny writes, "We need to
stop participating in the divide-and-conquer game of those who hate us." In other words,
Spokoiny wants to see Jews as one monolithic identity. One that sticks together and exercises
its power. If Spokoiny or anyone else thinks that such politics may eradicate anti-Semitism,
he or she must be either naïve or just stupid . What Jews need to do is to self-reflect,
to ask themselves why anti-Semitism is rising again. Jews must identify their own role in
this emerging reality. Rather than constantly blaming their so called 'haters,' Jews may want
to repeat the early Zionist exercise and ask what is exactly in Jewish culture, identity and
politics that makes Jewish history into a chain of disasters.
The conclusion of Chapter
1 of Jewish History, Jewish Religion by Israel Shahak:
There are two choices which face Israeli-Jewish society. It can become a fully closed
and warlike ghetto, a Jewish Sparta, supported by the labour of Arab helots, kept in
existence by its influence on the US political establishment and by threats to use its
nuclear power, or it can try to become an open society. The second choice is dependent on
an honest examination of its Jewish past, on the admission that Jewish chauvinism and
exclusivism exist, and on an honest examination of the attitudes of Judaism towards the
non-Jews.
The second choice would require Jews to 'demote themselves' to mere humanity. There
seems to be no hope of that.
Jews do seem to be incapable or completely unwilling to self-reflect on their behavior
and its effects. Instead, they pathologize the goyim saying its somehow inherent.
Zionism is despised all over the political spectrum. So called anti-semitism is not just
some far right nazi ideology. Leftists, muslims, blacks etc. are all seeing Jewish behavior
as a real threat.
The hostility and destructive, subversive behavior to western culture and institutions
is despised by the right. The left hates the racist and hostile murderous behavior to the
Palestinians. Both hate the zio-con wars.
Jews are not in a good situation. However, most of them are completely unwilling to
change their behavior. In fact, they seem to be pushing even harder and faster. It is not
looking like there is going to be a good outcome for the Jews at the rate they're currently
going.
' what is exactly in Jewish culture, identity and politics that makes Jewish history
into a chain of disasters '
One wonders to what extent exactly this characterization is accurate. Even if it is true
to some extent, can't the history of all peoples be characterized as a 'chain of
disasters'?
Take the Jews of any particular region: the Ukraine, say. Okay, fine -- they suffered
the pogroms associated with Khmelnitsky's uprising and the Holocaust. Some would add the
pogroms of late Tsarist Russia, but here's an unpleasant fact: those weren't all that big a
deal
Meantime, what about the gentiles? Well, first off, I don't think anyone did well
out of Khmelnitsky's uprising: gentiles were being slaughtered in job lots as well. Then
there were the artificial famines of Stalin's regime, which were inflicted primarily --
exclusively? -- on the Christian peasantry. The Nazis weren't nice to Ukrainian gentiles
either. There was the holocaust of the Mongol invasions.
Etc. Things are tough all over. We could engage in the same compare and contrast for
Spanish Jews and gentiles, French Jews and gentiles, German Jews and gentiles, and so on.
Some evils were inflicted mostly on the Jews, some mainly on the gentiles, some
indifferently on both.
Even if one could establish that Jews have come in for more than their fair share
of abuse, it's obviously a wild distortion of the past to see Jews alone as victims. The
Thirty Years War was catastrophic for German gentiles as well as German Jews. 75% of the
German gentile civilians trapped in Konigsberg when it fell to the Russians wound up being
murdered, starved to death, or otherwise done in. Was it better to be a Jew or a gentile
then?
Jews don't have a monopoly on victimhood, and to assume otherwise is to indulge in a
pernicious fantasy. We wind up agreeing that Jews are uniquely entitled to misbehave,
because they alone have been abused. Neither end of that proposition is valid.
"Anti-semite" has lost its sting, because every justified criticism of the Zionist Israeli
government is declared to be anti-semitism. The word is so overused and misapplied as to be
useless. Indeed, to be declared "anti-semite" by the Israel Lobby is to be declared a
person of high moral conscience.
"... Sadly, Brennan's propaganda coup only works on what the Bell Curve crowd up there would call the dumbest and most technologically helpless 1.2σ. Here is how people with half a brain interpret the latest CIA whoppers. ..."
"... Convincing Americans in Russia's influence or Russia collusion with Trump was only a tool that would create pressure on Trump that together with the fear of paralysis of his administration and impeachment would push Trump into the corner from which the only thing he could do was to worsen relations with Russia. What American people believe or not is really secondary. With firing of Gen. Flynn Trump acted exactly as they wanted him to act. This was the beginning of downward slope. ..."
"... Anyway, the mission was accomplished and the relations with Russia are worse now than during Obama administration. Trump can concentrate on Iran in which he will be supported by all sides and factions including the media. Even Larry David will approve not only the zionist harpies like Pam Geller, Rita Katz and Ilana Mercer. ..."
"... The only part that is absurd is that Russia posed a bona fide threat to the US. I'm fine with the idea that he ruined Brennen's plans in Syria. But thats just ego we shouldn't have been there anyway. ..."
"... No one really cares about Ukraine. And the European/Russian trade zone? No one cares. The Eurozone has its hands full with Greece and the rest of the old EU. I have a feeling they have already gone way too far and are more likely to shrink than expand in any meaningful way ..."
"... " ..factions within the state whose interests do not coincide with those of the American people." ..."
"... All the more powerfully put because of its recognisably comical. understatement. Thank you Mr Whitney. Brilliant article that would be all over the mainstream media were the US MSM an instrument of American rather than globalist interests. ..."
"... A sad story, how the USA always was a police state, where the two percent rich manipulated the 98% poor, to stay rich. When there were insurrections federal troops restored order. Also FDR put down strikes with troops. ..."
"... The elephant in the room is Israel and the neocons , this is the force that controls America and Americas foreign policy , Brennan and the 17 intel agencies are puppets of the mossad and Israel, that is the brutal fact of the matter. ..."
"... "The absence of evidence suggests that Russia hacking narrative is a sloppy and unprofessional disinformation campaign that was hastily slapped together by over confident Intelligence officials who believed that saturating the public airwaves with one absurd story after another would achieve the desired result " ..."
"... But it DID achieve the desired result! Trump folded under the pressure, and went full out neoliberal. Starting with his missile attack on Syria, he is now OK with spending trillions fighting pointless endless foreign wars on the other side of the world. ..."
"... I think maybe half the US population does believe the Russian hacking thing, but that's not really the issue. I think that the pre-Syrian attack media blitz was more a statement of brute power to Trump: WE are in charge here, and WE can take you down and impeach you, and facts don't matter! ..."
"... Sometimes propaganda is about persuading people. And sometimes, I think, it is about intimidating them. ..."
"... The Brit secret service, in effect, created and trained not merely the CIA but also the Mossad and Saudi Arabia's General Intelligence Presidency. All four are defined by endless lies, endless acts of utterly amoral savagery. All 4 are at least as bad as the KGB ever was, and that means as bad as Hell itself. ..."
"... Traditional triumphalist American narrative history, as taught in schools up through the 60s or so, portrayed America as "wart-free." Since then, with Zinn's book playing a major role, it has increasingly been portrayed as "warts-only," which is of course at least equally flawed. I would say more so. ..."
"... Anyway, the mission was accomplished and the relations with Russia are worse now than during Obama administration. ..."
"... That pre-9/11 "cooperation" nearly destroyed Russia. Nobody in Russia (except, perhaps, for Pussy Riot) wants a return to the Yeltsin era. ..."
"... The CIA is the world largest criminal and terrorist organization. With Brennan the worst has come to the worst. The whole Russian meddling affair was initiated by the Obama/Clinton gang in cooperation with 95 percent of the media. Nothing will come out of it. ..."
"... [The key figures who had primary influence on both Trump's and Bush's Iran policies held views close to those of Israel's right-wing Likud Party. The main conduit for the Likudist line in the Trump White House is Jared Kushner, the president's son-in-law, primary foreign policy advisor, and longtime friend and supporter of Netanyahu. Kushner's parents are also long-time supporters of Israeli settlements on the occupied West Bank. ..."
"... Another figure to whom the Trump White House has turned is John Bolton, undersecretary of state and a key policymaker on Iran in the Bush administration. Although Bolton was not appointed Trump's secretary of state, as he'd hoped, he suddenly reemerged as a player on Iran policy thanks to his relationship with Kushner. Politico reports that Bolton met with Kushner a few days before the final policy statement was released and urged a complete withdrawal from the deal in favor of his own plan for containing Iran. ..."
"... Putin's dream of Greater Europe is the death knell for the unipolar world order. It means the economic center of the world will shift to Central Asia where abundant resources and cheap labor of the east will be linked to the technological advances and the Capital the of the west eliminating the need to trade in dollars or recycle profits into US debt. The US economy will slip into irreversible decline, and the global hegemon will steadily lose its grip on power. That's why it is imperative for the US prevail in Ukraine– a critical land bridge connecting the two continents– and to topple Assad in Syria in order to control vital resources and pipeline corridors. Washington must be in a position where it can continue to force its trading partners to denominate their resources in dollars and recycle the proceeds into US Treasuries if it is to maintain its global primacy. The main problem is that Russia is blocking Uncle Sam's path to success which is roiling the political establishment in Washington. ..."
"... Second, Zakharova confirms that the western media is not an independent news gathering organization, but a propaganda organ for the foreign policy establishment who dictates what they can and can't say. ..."
"... Such a truthful portrait of reality ! The ruling elite is indeed massively corrupt, compromised, and controlled by dark forces. And the police state is already here. For most people, so far, in the form of massive collection of personal data and increasing number of mandatory regulations. But just one or two big false-flags away from progressing into something much worse. ..."
"... Clearly the CIA was making war on Syria. Is secret coercive covert action against sovereign nations Ok? Is it legal? When was the CIA designated a war making entity – what part of the constitution OK's that? Isn't the congress obliged by constitutional law to declare war? (These are NOT six month actions – they go on and on.) ..."
"... Syria is only one of many nations that the CIA is attacking – how many countries are we attacking with drones? Where is congress? ..."
"... Close the CIA – give the spying to the 16 other agencies. ..."
Sadly, Brennan's propaganda coup only works on what the Bell Curve crowd up there would call
the dumbest and most technologically helpless 1.2σ. Here is how people with half a
brain interpret the latest CIA whoppers.
Again Mike Whitney does not get it. Though in the first part of the article I thought he
would. He was almost getting there. The objective was to push new administration into the
corner from which it could not improve relations with Russia as Trump indicated that he
wanted to during the campaign.
Convincing Americans in Russia's influence or Russia collusion
with Trump was only a tool that would create pressure on Trump that together with the fear of
paralysis of his administration and impeachment would push Trump into the corner from which
the only thing he could do was to worsen relations with Russia. What American people believe
or not is really secondary. With firing of Gen. Flynn Trump acted exactly as they wanted him
to act. This was the beginning of downward slope.
Anyway, the mission was accomplished and the relations with Russia are worse now than
during Obama administration. Trump can concentrate on Iran in which he will be supported by
all sides and factions including the media. Even Larry David will approve not only the
zionist harpies like Pam Geller, Rita Katz and Ilana Mercer.
The only part that is absurd is that Russia posed a bona fide threat to the US. I'm fine
with the idea that he ruined Brennen's plans in Syria. But thats just ego we shouldn't have
been there anyway.
No one really cares about Ukraine. And the European/Russian trade zone? No one cares. The
Eurozone has its hands full with Greece and the rest of the old EU. I have a feeling they
have already gone way too far and are more likely to shrink than expand in any meaningful
way
The one thing I am not positive about. If the elite really believe that Russia is a
threat, then Americans have done psych ops on themselves.
The US was only interested in Ukraine because it was there. Next in line on a map. The
rather shocking disinterest in investing money -- on both sides -- is inexplicable if it was
really important. Most of it would be a waste -- but still. The US stupidly spent $5 billion
on something -- getting duped by politicians and got theoretical regime change, but it was
hell to pry even $1 billion for real economic aid.
" ..factions within the state whose interests do not coincide with those of the American
people."
All the more powerfully put because of its recognisably comical. understatement. Thank you Mr Whitney. Brilliant article that would be all over the mainstream media were
the US MSM an instrument of American rather than globalist interests.
I am reading Howard Zinn, A Peoples History of the USA, 1492 to the Present.
A sad story, how the USA always was a police state, where the two percent rich manipulated
the 98% poor, to stay rich.
When there were insurrections federal troops restored order.
Also FDR put down strikes with troops.
You should be aware that Zinn's book is not, IMO, an honest attempt at writing history. It
is conscious propaganda intended to make Americans believe exactly what you are taking from
it.
The elephant in the room is Israel and the neocons , this is the force that controls America
and Americas foreign policy , Brennan and the 17 intel agencies are puppets of the mossad and
Israel, that is the brutal fact of the matter.
Until that fact changes Americans will continue to fight and die for Israel.
"The absence of evidence suggests that Russia hacking narrative is a sloppy and
unprofessional disinformation campaign that was hastily slapped together by over confident
Intelligence officials who believed that saturating the public airwaves with one absurd story
after another would achieve the desired result "
But it DID achieve the desired result! Trump folded under the pressure, and went full out
neoliberal. Starting with his missile attack on Syria, he is now OK with spending trillions
fighting pointless endless foreign wars on the other side of the world.
I think maybe half the US population does believe the Russian hacking thing, but that's
not really the issue. I think that the pre-Syrian attack media blitz was more a statement of
brute power to Trump: WE are in charge here, and WE can take you down and impeach you, and
facts don't matter!
Sometimes propaganda is about persuading people. And sometimes, I think, it is about
intimidating them.
Whitney is another author who declares the "Russians did it" narrative a psyop. He then
devotes entire columns to the psyop, "naww Russia didn't do it". There could be plenty to write about – recent laws that do undercut liberty, but no,
the Washington Post needs fake opposition to its fake news so you have guys like Whitney in
the less-mainstream fake news media.
So Brennan wanted revenge? Well that's simple enough to understand, without being too
stupid. But Whitney's whopper of a lie is what you're supposed to unquestionably believe. The
US has "rival political parties". Did you miss it?
The US is doing nothing more than acting as the British Empire 2.0. WASP culture was born of a Judaizing heresy: Anglo-Saxon Puritanism. That meant that the
WASP Elites of every are pro-Jewish, especially in order to wage war, physical and/or
cultural, against the vast majority of white Christians they rule.
By the early 19th century, The Brit Empire's Elites also had a strong, and growing, dose
of pro-Arabic/pro-Islamic philoSemitism. Most of that group became ardently pro-Sunni, and
most of the pro-Sunni ones eventually coalescing around promotion of the House of Saud, which
means being pro-Wahhabi and permanently desirous of killing or enslaving virtually all Shiite
Mohammedans.
So, by the time of Victoria's high reign, the Brit WASP Elites were a strange brew of
hardcoree pro-Jewish and hardcore pro-Arabic/islamic. The US foreign policy of today is an
attempt to put those two together and force it on everyone and make it work.
The Brit secret service, in effect, created and trained not merely the CIA but also the
Mossad and Saudi Arabia's General Intelligence Presidency. All four are defined by endless
lies, endless acts of utterly amoral savagery. All 4 are at least as bad as the KGB ever was,
and that means as bad as Hell itself.
Fair enough. I didn't know that about the foreword. If accurate, that's a reasonable
approach for a book.
Here's the problem.
Back when O. Cromwell was the dictator of England, he retained an artist to paint him. The
custom of the time was for artists to "clean up" their subjects, in a primitive form of
photoshopping.
OC being a religious fanatic, he informed the artist he wished to be portrayed as God had
made him, "warts and all." (Ollie had a bunch of unattractive facial warts.) Or the artist
wouldn't be paid.
Traditional triumphalist American narrative history, as taught in schools up through the
60s or so, portrayed America as "wart-free." Since then, with Zinn's book playing a major
role, it has increasingly been portrayed as "warts-only," which is of course at least equally
flawed. I would say more so.
All I am asking is that American (and other) history be written "warts and all." The
triumphalist version is true, largely, and so is the Zinn version. Gone With the Wind
and Roots both portray certain aspects of the pre-war south fairly accurately..
America has been, and is, both evil and good. As is/was true of every human institution
and government in history. Personally, I believe America, net/net, has been one of the
greatest forces for human good ever. But nobody will realize that if only the negative side
of American history is taught.
"There must be something really dirty in Russigate that hasn't yet come out to generate
this level of panic."
You continue to claim what you cannot prove.
But then you are a Jews First Zionist.
Russia-Gate Jumps the Shark
Russia-gate has jumped the shark with laughable new claims about a tiny number of
"Russia-linked" social media ads, but the US mainstream media is determined to keep a
straight face
Most of that group became ardently pro-Sunni, and most of the pro-Sunni ones eventually
coalescing around promotion of the House of Saud, which means being pro-Wahhabi and
permanently desirous of killing or enslaving virtually all Shiite Mohammedans.
Thanks for the laugh. During the 19th century, the Sauds were toothless, dirt-poor hicks
from the deep desert of zero importance on the world stage.
The Brits were not Saudi proponents, in fact promoting the Husseins of Hejaz, the guys
Lawrence of Arabia worked with. The Husseins, the Sharifs of Mecca and rulers of Hejaz, were
the hereditary enemies of the Sauds of Nejd.
After WWI, the Brits installed Husseins as rulers of both Transjordan and Iraq, which with
the Hejaz meant the Sauds were pretty much surrounded. The Sauds conquered the Hejaz in 1924,
despite lukewarm British support for the Hejaz.
Nobody in the world cared much about the Saudis one way or another until massive oil
fields were discovered, by Americans not Brits, starting in 1938. There was no reason they
should. Prior to that Saudi prominence in world affairs was about equal to that of Chad
today, and for much the same reason. Chad (and Saudi Arabia) had nothing anybody else
wanted.
'Putin stopped talking about the "Lisbon to Vladivostok" free trade area long ago" --
Michael Kenney
Putin was simply trying to sell Russia's application for EU membership with the
catch-phrase "Lisbon to Vladivostok". He continued that until the issue was triply mooted (1)
by implosion of EU growth and boosterism, (2) by NATO's aggressive stance, in effect taken by
NATO in Ukraine events and in the Baltics, and, (3) Russia's alliance with China.
It is surely still true that Russians think of themselves, categorically, as Europeans.
OTOH, we can easily imagine that Russians in Vladivostok look at things differently than do
Russians in St. Petersburg. Then again, Vladivostok only goes back about a century and a
half.
Anyway, the mission was accomplished and the relations with Russia are worse now than
during Obama administration.
I generally agree with your comment, but that part strikes me as a bit of an exaggeration.
While relations with Russia certainly haven't improved, how have they really worsened? The
second round of sanctions that Trump reluctantly approved have yet to be implemented by
Europe, which was the goal. And apart from that, what of substance has changed?
It's not surprising that 57 percent of the American people believe in Russian meddling.
Didn't two-thirds of the same crowd believe that Saddam was behind 9/11, too? The American
public is being brainwashed 24 hours a day all year long.
The CIA is the world largest criminal and terrorist organization. With Brennan the worst
has come to the worst. The whole Russian meddling affair was initiated by the Obama/Clinton
gang in cooperation with 95 percent of the media. Nothing will come out of it.
This disinformation campaign might be the prelude to an upcoming war.
Right now, the US is run by jerks and idiots. Watch the video.
Only dumb people does not know that TRUMP IS NETANYAHU'S PUPPET.
The fifth column zionist jews are running the albino stooge and foreign policy in the
Middle East to expand Israel's interest against American interest that is TREASON. One of
these FIFTH COLUMNISTS is Jared Kushner. He should be arrested.
[The key figures who had primary influence on both Trump's and Bush's Iran policies held
views close to those of Israel's right-wing Likud Party. The main conduit for the Likudist
line in the Trump White House is Jared Kushner, the president's son-in-law, primary foreign
policy advisor, and longtime friend and supporter of Netanyahu. Kushner's parents are also
long-time supporters of Israeli settlements on the occupied West Bank.
Another figure to whom the Trump White House has turned is John Bolton, undersecretary of
state and a key policymaker on Iran in the Bush administration. Although Bolton was not
appointed Trump's secretary of state, as he'd hoped, he suddenly reemerged as a player on
Iran policy thanks to his relationship with Kushner. Politico reports that Bolton met with
Kushner a few days before the final policy statement was released and urged a complete
withdrawal from the deal in favor of his own plan for containing Iran.
Bolton spoke with Trump by phone on Thursday about the paragraph in the deal that vowed it
would be "terminated" if there was any renegotiation, according to Politico. He was calling
Trump from Las Vegas, where he'd been meeting with casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, the third
major figure behind Trump's shift towards Israeli issues. Adelson is a Likud supporter who
has long been a close friend of Netanyahu's and has used his Israeli tabloid newspaper Israel
Hayomto support Netanyahu's campaigns. He was Trump's main campaign contributor in 2016,
donating $100 million. Adelson's real interest has been in supporting Israel's interests in
Washington -- especially with regard to Iran.]
Putin's dream of Greater Europe is the death knell for the unipolar world order. It
means the economic center of the world will shift to Central Asia where abundant resources
and cheap labor of the east will be linked to the technological advances and the Capital
the of the west eliminating the need to trade in dollars or recycle profits into US
debt. The US economy will slip into irreversible decline, and the global hegemon will
steadily lose its grip on power. That's why it is imperative for the US prevail in
Ukraine– a critical land bridge connecting the two continents– and to topple
Assad in Syria in order to control vital resources and pipeline corridors. Washington
must be in a position where it can continue to force its trading partners to denominate
their resources in dollars and recycle the proceeds into US Treasuries if it is to maintain
its global primacy. The main problem is that Russia is blocking Uncle Sam's path to
success which is roiling the political establishment in Washington.
American dominance is very much tied to the dollar's role as the world's reserve currency,
and the rest of the world no longer want to fund this bankrupt, warlike state –
particularly the Chinese.
First, it confirms that the US did not want to see the jihadist extremists
defeated by Russia. These mainly-Sunni militias served as Washington's proxy-army
conducting an ambitious regime change operation which coincided with US strategic
ambitions.
The CIA run US/Israeli/ISIS alliance.
Second, Zakharova confirms that the western media is not an independent news
gathering organization, but a propaganda organ for the foreign policy establishment who
dictates what they can and can't say.
They are given the political line and they broadcast it.
The loosening of rules governing the dissemination of domestic propaganda coupled with
the extraordinary advances in surveillance technology, create the perfect conditions for
the full implementation of an American police state. But what is more concerning, is
that the primary levers of state power are no longer controlled by elected officials but by
factions within the state whose interests do not coincide with those of the American
people. That can only lead to trouble.
At some point Americans are going to get a "War on Domestic Terror" cheered along by the
media. More or less the arrest and incarceration of any opposition following the Soviet
Bolshevik model.
On the plus side, everyone now knows that the Anglo-US media from the NY Times to the
Economist, from WaPo to the Gruniard, and from the BBC to CNN, the CBC and Weinstein's
Hollywood are a worthless bunch of depraved lying bastards.
Such a truthful portrait of reality ! The ruling elite is indeed massively corrupt,
compromised, and controlled by dark forces. And the police state is already here. For most
people, so far, in the form of massive collection of personal data and increasing number of
mandatory regulations. But just one or two big false-flags away from progressing into
something much worse.
The thing is, no matter how thick the mental cages are, and how carefully they are
maintained by the daily massive injections of "certified" truth (via MSM), along with
neutralizing or compromising of "troublemakers", the presence of multiple alternative sources
in the age of Internet makes people to slip out of these cages one by one, and as the last
events show – with acceleration.
It means that there's a fast approaching tipping point after which it'd be impossible for
those in power both to keep a nice "civilized" face and to control the "cage-free"
population. So, no matter how the next war will be called, it will be the war against the
free Internet and free people. That's probably why N. Korean leader has no fear to start
one.
All government secrecy is a curse on mankind. Trump is releasing the JFK murder files to the public. Kudos! Let us hope he will follow up with a full 9/11 investigation.
The objective was to push new administration into the corner from which it could not
improve relations with Russia as Trump indicated that he wanted to during the campaign.
Good point. That was probably one of the objectives (and from the point of view of the
deep-state, perhaps the most important objective) of the "Russia hacked our democracy"
narrative, in addition to the general deligitimization of the Trump administration.
And, keep in mind, Washington's Sunni proxies were not a division of the Pentagon; they
were entirely a CIA confection: CIA recruited, CIA-armed, CIA-funded and
CIA-trained.
Clearly the CIA was making war on Syria. Is secret coercive covert action against sovereign
nations Ok? Is it legal? When was the CIA designated a war making entity – what part of the constitution OK's
that? Isn't the congress obliged by constitutional law to declare war? (These are NOT six
month actions – they go on and on.)
Are committees of six congressman and six senators, who meet in secret, just avoiding the
grave constitutional questions of war? We the People cannot even interrogate these
politicians. (These politicians make big money in the secrecy swamp when they leave
office.)
Syria is only one of many nations that the CIA is attacking – how many countries are
we attacking with drones? Where is congress?
Spying is one thing – covert action is another – covert is wrong – it
goes against world order. Every year after 9/11 they say things are worse – give them
more money more power and they will make things safe. That is BS!
9/11 has opened the flood gates to the US government attacking at will, the various
peoples of this Earth. That is NOT our prerogative.
We are being exceptionally arrogant.
Close the CIA – give the spying to the 16 other agencies.
"... Nevertheless, while it appeared to the Clinton partisans in the Obama White House, in the DoJ, the CIA, the FBI and overseas in the UK, that the e-mail case had been quashed sufficiently to preserve the likelihood of Clinton's accession, they had enough reservations to exploit a garbage pail of political dirt to take out an "insurance policy." ..."
Who is taking the over/under on whether Barr will actually investigate the origins of the attempted entrapment of Trump in Russia
collusion and the roles played by key players in US law enforcement and intelligence agencies as well as the Brits & Aussie government
agencies therein?
I'm willing to bet that it will all be swept under the rug and that Clapper, Brennan, Comey, Lynch & Rice will not be testifying
to any grand jury. Barr has received multiple criminal & conspiracy referrals from Rep. Devin Nunes. However, Trump himself disregarded
Nunes recommendation to declassify several documents & communications including the FISA application on Carter Page. The question
is does Trump want to get to the bottom of the conspiracy? So far all he's done is tweet. IMO, Barr is the epitome of a Swamp
Rat.
"Let your plans be dark and as impenetrable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt." – Sun Tzu
I have a feeling that President Trump will declassify and release the relevant documents in a manner that they will have maximum
effect. It is stunning that the entirety of federal law enforcement, intelligence, and State department embraced and fortified
Russian misinformation in their jihad against Trump.
This must never happen again. At least the operation was run by political hacks, former analysts who fancied themselves as
operators. Their ham- fisted prints are over this shit storm. Thank you God for Comey, Brennan, and Clapper -- the three stooges
of espionage.
I suppose that it's possible that AG Barr's DoJ will mount a serious investigation into the many tentacles ongoing governmental
debacle that began with the Lynch DoJ providing political direction and cover for Comey's FBI to lie down on the Clinton e-mail
investigation. Which came first, the cover up, or the capitulation, is not completely clear. Perhaps it was a hand in glove affair.
Suffice it to say that by any standard of competence, it was a faux effort.
In my opinion, what was not done should constitute the elements of an obstruction violation. It would be a difficult charge
to argue before a jury. Was the level of incompetence such that a reasonable person could not believe that it could not exist
in the FBI, that there had to be malicious intent?
Nevertheless, while it appeared to the Clinton partisans in the Obama White House, in the DoJ, the CIA, the FBI and overseas
in the UK, that the e-mail case had been quashed sufficiently to preserve the likelihood of Clinton's accession, they had enough
reservations to exploit a garbage pail of political dirt to take out an "insurance policy."
Once again the question, could they possibly have been so incompetent. "What the heck" appears to have been the launching pad;
Clinton's going to win anyway, Trump will be crushed under the unmaskings, leaks, and innuendo; and no one will ever find out.
But Trump wins, and the unwholesome political cabal is now stuck with an investigation of an incoming President whom they had
tried to frag on the skimpiest evidentiary grounds imaginable. And worse, he appears to be sensing there is something rotten in
the state of Denmark, and Cardinal Jim Comey is a shitty liar, and now he's out, and what is going to happen to this garbage scow
they've launched, now with Comey gone. How do they kill this thing? Worse, how do they kill the political riot this thing has
caused. They can't; they double down; they take out another insurance policy - Jim Comey's good bud, Bob Mueller with a posse
of partisan attorneys, many vets of the Obama DoJ, a couple of squads of FBI Agents, including two who were prominent in the e
mail case and the Steele inquiry, and a set up akin to a shadow DoJ. What could go wrong? They would hound the bastard out of
office.
Which returns us to the question of whether Barr will mount a serious investigation into the political scandal of the last
100 years, at least. I suppose it is possible, but right now I'm not optimistic. For one thing Barr appeared at the big press
conference with Rod Rosenstein. Rod Rosenstein is at minimum a critical witness. There is every reason to suspect that Comey,
McCabe, Mueller, and Rosenstein conferred before Comey's leak to the NYT via a lawyer friend in furtherance of Mueller's appointment.
Going side by side with Rosenstein at this juncture doesn't augur well.
On the other hand, the continuing lunatic behavior of the demented left may give Barr no other choice but to sort the mess
out once and for all for the good of the country. We'll see.
The biggest take I got out of the Mueller report is that Trump is a sleazy character and that is not what I want from the president,
the Face of America to the rest of the world. Whether the Deep State went after Trump in an organized fashion is just noise in
my ears. To me that is just normal political infighting the same as Trump and other Republicans went after Obama for being an
illegitimate President as a non-citizen.
Sorry, but it IS NOT "normal political infighting" for the cabal to have sought and still to seek the overthrow of of the legitimate
head of state and government.
"... John Pilger, among few others, has already stressed how a plan to destroy WikiLeaks and Julian Assange was laid out as far back as 2008 – at the tail end of the Cheney regime – concocted by the Pentagon's shady Cyber Counter-Intelligence Assessments Branch. ..."
"... But it was only in 2017, in the Trump era, that the Deep State went totally ballistic; that's when WikiLeaks published the Vault 7 files – detailing the CIA's vast hacking/cyber espionage repertoire. ..."
"... This was the CIA as a Naked Emperor like never before – including the dodgy overseeing ops of the Center for Cyber Intelligence, an ultra-secret NSA counterpart. ..."
"... The monolithic narrative by the Deep State faction aligned with the Clinton machine was that "the Russians" hacked the DNC servers. Assange was always adamant; that was not the work of a state actor – and he could prove it technically. ..."
"... The DoJ wanted a deal – and they did make an offer to WikiLeaks. But then FBI director James Comey killed it. The question is why. ..."
"... Some theoretically sound reconstructions of Comey's move are available. But the key fact is Comey already knew – via his close connections to the top of the DNC – that this was not a hack; it was a leak. ..."
"... Ambassador Craig Murray has stressed, over and over again (see here ) how the DNC/Podesta files published by WikiLeaks came from two different US sources; one from within the DNC and the other from within US intel. ..."
"... he release by WikiLeaks in April 2017 of the malware mechanisms inbuilt in "Grasshopper" and the "Marble Framework" were indeed a bombshell. This is how the CIA inserts foreign language strings in source code to disguise them as originating from Russia, from Iran, or from China. The inestimable Ray McGovern, a VIPS member, stressed how Marble Framework "destroys this story about Russian hacking." ..."
"... No wonder then CIA director Mike Pompeo accused WikiLeaks of being a "non-state hostile intelligence agency" ..."
"... Joshua Schulte, the alleged leaker of Vault 7, has not faced a US court yet. There's no question he will be offered a deal by the USG if he aggress to testify against Julian Assange. ..."
"... George Galloway has a guest who explains it all https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VvPFMyPvHM&t=8s ..."
"... Escobar is brain dead if he can't figure out that Trumpenstein is totally on board with destroying Assange. As if bringing on pukes like PompAss, BoltON, and Abrams doesn't scream it. ..."
The Made-by-FBI indictment of
Julian Assange does look like a dead man walking. No evidence. No documents. No surefire
testimony. Just a crossfire of conditionals...
But never underestimate the legalese contortionism of US government (USG) functionaries. As
much as Assange may not be characterized as a journalist and publisher, the thrust of the
affidavit is to accuse him of conspiring to commit espionage.
In fact the charge is not even that Assange hacked a USG computer and obtained classified
information; it's that he may have discussed it with Chelsea Manning and may have had the
intention to go for a hack. Orwellian-style thought crime charges don't get any better than
that. Now the only thing missing is an AI software to detect them.
Assange legal adviser Geoffrey Robertson – who also happens to represent another
stellar political prisoner, Brazil's Lula – cut
straight to the chase (at 19:22 minutes);
"The justice he is facing is justice, or injustice, in America I would hope the British
judges would have enough belief in freedom of information to throw out the extradition
request."
That's far from a done deal. Thus the inevitable consequence; Assange's legal team is
getting ready to prove, no holds barred, in a British court, that this USG indictment for
conspiracy to commit computer hacking is just an hors d'oeuvre for subsequent espionage
charges, in case Assange is extradited to US soil.
All about Vault 7
John Pilger, among few others, has already stressed how a plan to
destroy WikiLeaks and Julian Assange was laid out as far back as 2008 – at the tail end
of the Cheney regime – concocted by the Pentagon's shady Cyber Counter-Intelligence
Assessments Branch.
It was all about criminalizing WikiLeaks and personally smearing Assange, using "shock
troops enlisted in the media -- those who are meant to keep the record straight and tell us the
truth."
This plan remains more than active – considering how Assange's arrest has been covered
by the bulk of US/UK mainstream media.
By 2012, already in the Obama era, WikiLeaks detailed the astonishing "scale of the US Grand
Jury Investigation" of itself. The USG always denied such a grand jury existed.
"The US Government has stood up and coordinated a joint interagency criminal investigation
of Wikileaks comprised of a partnership between the Department of Defense (DOD) including:
CENTCOM; SOUTHCOM; the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA); Defense Information Systems Agency
(DISA); Headquarters Department of the Army (HQDA); US Army Criminal Investigation Division
(CID) for USFI (US Forces Iraq) and 1st Armored Division (AD); US Army Computer Crimes
Investigative Unit (CCIU); 2nd Army (US Army Cyber Command); Within that or in addition,
three military intelligence investigations were conducted. Department of Justice (DOJ) Grand
Jury and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Department of State (DOS) and Diplomatic
Security Service (DSS). In addition, Wikileaks has been investigated by the Office of the
Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), Office of the National CounterIntelligence
Executive (ONCIX), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA); the House Oversight Committee; the
National Security Staff Interagency Committee, and the PIAB (President's Intelligence
Advisory Board)."
But it was only in 2017, in the Trump era, that the Deep State went totally ballistic;
that's when WikiLeaks published the Vault 7 files – detailing the CIA's vast
hacking/cyber espionage repertoire.
This was the CIA as a Naked Emperor like never before – including the dodgy
overseeing ops of the Center for Cyber Intelligence, an ultra-secret NSA counterpart.
WikiLeaks got Vault 7 in early 2017. At the time WikiLeaks had already published the DNC
files – which the unimpeachable Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
systematically proved was a leak, not a hack.
The monolithic narrative by the Deep State faction aligned with the Clinton machine was
that "the Russians" hacked the DNC servers. Assange was always adamant; that was not the work
of a state actor – and he could prove it technically.
There was some movement towards a deal, brokered by one of Assange's lawyers; WikiLeaks
would not publish the most damning Vault 7 information in exchange for Assange's safe passage
to be interviewed by the US Department of Justice (DoJ).
The DoJ wanted a deal – and they did make an offer to WikiLeaks. But then FBI
director James Comey killed it. The question is why.
It's a leak, not a hack
Some theoretically sound
reconstructions of Comey's move are available. But the key fact is Comey already knew
– via his close connections to the top of the DNC – that this was not a hack; it
was a leak.
Ambassador Craig Murray has stressed, over and over again (see
here ) how the DNC/Podesta files published by WikiLeaks came from two different US sources;
one from within the DNC and the other from within US intel.
There was nothing for Comey to "investigate". Or there would have, if Comey had ordered the
FBI to examine the DNC servers. So why talk to Julian Assange?
T he release by WikiLeaks in April 2017 of the malware mechanisms inbuilt in
"Grasshopper" and the "Marble Framework" were indeed a bombshell. This is how the CIA inserts
foreign language strings in source code to disguise them as originating from Russia, from Iran,
or from China. The inestimable Ray McGovern, a VIPS member, stressed how Marble Framework
"destroys this story about Russian hacking."
No wonder then CIA director Mike Pompeo accused WikiLeaks of being a "non-state hostile
intelligence agency", usually manipulated by Russia.
Joshua Schulte, the alleged leaker of Vault 7,
has not faced a US court yet. There's no question he will be offered a deal by the USG if he
aggress to testify against Julian Assange.
It's a long and winding road, to be traversed in at least two years, if Julian Assange is
ever to be extradited to the US. Two things for the moment are already crystal clear. The USG
is obsessed to shut down WikiLeaks once and for all. And because of that, Julian Assange will
never get a fair trial in the "so-called 'Espionage Court'" of the Eastern District of
Virginia, as
detailed by former CIA counterterrorism officer and whistleblower John Kiriakou.
Meanwhile, the non-stop demonization of Julian Assange will proceed unabated, faithful to
guidelines established over a decade ago. Assange is even accused of being a US intel op, and
WikiLeaks a splinter Deep State deep cover op.
Maybe President Trump will maneuver the hegemonic Deep State into having Assange testify
against the corruption of the DNC; or maybe Trump caved in completely to "hostile intelligence
agency" Pompeo and his CIA gang baying for blood. It's all ultra-high-stakes shadow play
– and the show has not even begun.
Not to mention the Pentagram has silenced 100,000 whistleblower complaints by
Intimidation, threats, money or accidents over 5 years . A Whistleblower only does this when
know there is something seriously wrong. Just Imagine how many knew something was wrong but
looked the other way.
Maybe President Trump will maneuver the hegemonic Deep State into having Assange testify
against the corruption of the DNC; or maybe Trump caved in completely to "hostile
intelligence agency" Pompeo and his CIA gang baying for blood.
Escobar is brain dead if he can't figure out that Trumpenstein is totally on board with
destroying Assange. As if bringing on pukes like PompAss, BoltON, and Abrams doesn't scream it.
assange and wikileaks are the real criminals despite being crimeless. the **** is a
sanctioned criminal, allowed to be criminal with the system because the rest of the
sanctioned criminals would be exposed if she was investigated.
this is not the rule of laws. this is the law of rulers.
"... Today, it seems, the best description of the FBI's main activity is corporate enforcer for the white-collar mafia known as Wall Street. There is an analogy to organized crime, where the most powerful mobsters settled disputes between other gangs of criminals. Similarly, if a criminal gang is robbed by one of its own members, the mafia would go after the guilty party; the FBI plays this role for Wall Street institutions targeted by con artists and fraudsters. Compare and contrast a pharmaceutical company making opiates which is targeted by thieves vs. a black market drug cartel targeted by thieves. In one case, the FBI investigates; in the other, a violent vendetta ensues (such as street murders in Mexico). ..."
"... The FBI executives are rewarded for this service with lucrative post-retirement careers within corporate America – Louis Freeh went to credit card fraudster, MBNA, Richard Mueller to a corporate Washington law firm, WilmerHale, and Comey, before Obama picked him as Director, worked for Lockheed Martin and HSBC (cleaning up after their $2 billion drug cartel marketing scandal) after leaving the FBI in 2005. ..."
"... Some say they have a key role to play in national security and terrorism – but their record on the 2001 anthrax attacks is incredibly shady and suspicious. The final suspect, Bruce Ivins, is clearly innocent of the crime, just as their previous suspect, Steven Hatfill was. Ivins, if still alive, could have won a similar multi-million dollar defamation lawsuit against the FBI. All honest bioweapons experts know this to be true – the perpetrators of those anthrax letters are still at large, and may very well have had close associations with the Bush Administration itself. ..."
"... Comey's actions over the past year are certainly highly questionable, as well. Neglecting to investigate the Clinton Foundation ties to Saudi Arabia and other foreign governments and corporations, particularly things like State Department approval of various arms deals in which bribes may have been paid, is as much a dereliction of duty as neglecting to investigate Trump ties to Russian business interests – but then, Trump has a record of shady business dealings dating back to the 1970s, of strange bankruptcies and bailouts and government sales that the FBI never looked at either. ..."
I made the mistake of listening to NPR last week to find out what Conventional Wisdom had to say
about Trump firing Comey, on the assumption that their standardized Mister-Rogers-on-Nyquil voice
tones would rein in the hysteria pitch a little. And on the surface, it did-the NPR host and guests
weren't directly shrieking "the world is ending! We're all gonna die SHEEPLE!" the way they were
on CNN. But in a sense they were screaming "fire!", if you know how to distinguish the very minute
pitch level differences in the standard NPR Nyquil voice.
The host of the daytime NPR program asked his guests how serious, and how "unprecedented" Trump's
decision to fire his FBI chief was. The guests answers were strange: they spoke about "rule of law"
and "violating the Constitution" but then switched to Trump "violating norms"-and back again, interchanging
"norms" and "laws" as if they're synonyms. One of the guests admitted that Trump firing Comey was
100% legal, but that didn't seem to matter in this talk about Trump having abandoned rule-of-law
for a Putinist dictatorship. These guys wouldn't pass a high school civics class, but there they
were, garbling it all up. What mattered was the proper sense of panic and outrage-I'm not sure anyone
really cared about the actual legality of the thing, or the legal, political or "normative" history
of the FBI.
For starters, the FBI hardly belongs in the same set with concepts like "constitutional" or "
rule of law." That's because the FBI was never established by a law. US Lawmakers refused to approve
an FBI bureau over a century ago when it was first proposed by Teddy Roosevelt. So he ignored Congress,
and went ahead and set it up by presidential fiat. That's one thing the civil liberties crowd hates
discussing - how centralized US political power is in the executive branch, a feature in the constitutional
system put there by the holy Founders.
In the late 1970s, at the tail end of our brief Glasnost, there was a lot of talk in Washington
about finally creating a
legal charter for the FBI -70 years after its founding. A lot of serious ink was spilled trying
to transform the FBI from an extralegal secret police agency to something legal and defined. If you
want to play archeologist to America's recent history, you can find this in the New York Times' archives,
articles with headlines like
"Draft of Charter for F.B.I. Limits Inquiry Methods" :
The Carter Administration will soon send to Congress the first governing charter for the Federal
Bureau of Investigation. The proposed charter imposes extensive but not absolute restrictions
on the bureau's employment of controversial investigative techniques, .including the use of informers,
undercover agents and covert criminal activity.
The charter also specifies the duties and powers of the bureau, setting precise standards and
procedures for the initiation ,and conduct of investigations. It specifically requires the F.B.I.
to observe constitutional rights and establishes safeguards against unchecked harassment, break‐ins
and other abuses.
followed by the inevitable lament, like this editorial from the Christian Science Monitor a year
later, "Don't Forget the
FBI Charter". Which of course we did forget-that was Reagan's purpose and value for the post-Glasnost
reaction: forgetting. As historian Athan Theoharis
wrote , "After 1981, Congress never seriously considered again any of the FBI charter proposals."
The origins of the FBI have been obscured both because of its dubious legality and because of
its original political purpose-to help the president battle the all-powerful American capitalists.
It wasn't that Teddy Roosevelt was a radical leftist-he was a Progressive Republican, which sounds
like an oxymoron today but which was mainstream and ascendant politics in his time. Roosevelt was
probably the first president since Andrew Jackson to try to smash concentrated wealth-power, or at
least some of it. He could be brutally anti-labor, but so were the powerful capitalists he fought,
and all the structures of government power. He met little opposition pursuing his imperial Social
Darwinist ambitions outside America's borders-but he had a much harder time fighting the powerful
capitalists at home against Roosevelt's most honorable political obsession: preserving forests, parks
and public lands from greedy capitalists. An early FBI memo to Hoover about the FBI's origins explains,
"Roosevelt, in his characteristic dynamic fashion, asserted that the plunderers of the public
domain would be prosecuted and brought to justice."
According to New York Times reporter Tim Wiener's Enemies: A History of the FBI , it
was the Oregon land fraud scandal of 1905-6 that put the idea of an FBI in TR's hyperactive mind.
The scandal involved leading Oregon politicians helping railroad tycoon Edward Harriman illegally
sell off pristine Oregon forest lands to timber interests, and it ended with an Oregon senator and
the state's only two House representatives criminally charged and put on trial-along with dozens
of other Oregonians. Basically, they were raping the state's public lands and forests like colonists
stripping a foreign country-and that stuck in TR's craw.
TR wanted his attorney general-Charles Bonaparte (yes, he really was a descendant of that
Bonaparte)-to make a full report to on the rampant land fraud scams that the robber barons were
running to despoil the American West, and which threatened TR's vision of land and forest conservation
and parks. Bonaparte created an investigative team from the US Secret Service, but TR thought their
report was a "whitewash" and proposed a new separate federal investigative service within Bonaparte's
Department of Justice that would report only to the Attorney General.
Until then, the US government had to rely on private contractors like the notorious, dreaded Pinkerton
Agency, who were great at strikebreaking, clubbing workers and shooting organizers, but not so good
at taking down down robber barons, who happened to also be important clients for the private detective
agencies.
In early 1908, Attorney General Bonaparte wrote to Congress asking for the legal authority (and
budget funds) to create a "permanent detective force" under the DOJ. Congress rebelled, denouncing
it as a plan to create an American okhrana . Democrat Joseph Sherley wrote that "spying
on men and prying into what would ordinarily be considered their private affairs" went against "American
ideas of government"; Rep. George Waldo, a New York Republican, said the proposed FBI was a "great
blow to freedom and to free institutions if there should arise in this country any such great central
secret-service bureau as there is in Russia."
So Congress's response was the opposite, banning Bonaparte's DOJ from spending any funds at all
on a proposed FBI. Another Congressman wrote another provision into the budget bill banning the DOJ
from hiring Secret Service employees for any sort of FBI type agency. So Bonaparte waited until Congress
took its summer recess, set aside some DOJ funds, recruited some Secret Service agents, and created
a new federal detective bureau with 34 agents. This was how the FBI was born. Congress wasn't notified
until the end of 1908, in a few lines in a standard report - "oh yeah, forgot to tell you-the executive
branch went ahead and created an American okhrana because, well, the ol' joke about dogs
licking their balls. Happy New Year!"
The sordid history of America's extralegal secret police-initially named the Bureau of Investigation,
changed to the FBI ("Federal") in the 30's, is mostly a history of xenophobic panic-mongering, illegal
domestic spying, mass roundups and plans for mass-roundups, false entrapment schemes, and planting
what Russians call "kompromat"- compromising information about a target's sex life-to blackmail or
destroy American political figures that the FBI didn't like.
The first political victim of J Edgar Hoover's kompromat was Louis Post, the assistant secretary
of labor under Woodrow Wilson. Post's crime was releasing over 1,000 alleged Reds from detention
facilities near the end of the FBI's Red Scare crackdown, when they jailed and deported untold thousands
on suspicion of being Communists. The FBI's mass purge began with popular media support in 1919,
but by the middle of 1920, some (not the FBI) were starting to get a little queasy. A legal challenge
to the FBI's mass purges and exiles in Boston ended with a federal judge denouncing the FBI. After
that ruling, assistant secretary Louis Post, a 71-year-old well-meaning progressive, reviewed the
cases against the last 1500 detainees that the FBI wanted to deport, and found that there was absolutely
nothing on at least 75 percent of the cases. Post's review threatened to undo thousands more FBI
persecutions of alleged Moscow-controlled radicals.
So one of the FBI's most ambitious young agents, J Edgar Hoover, collected kompromat on Post and
his alleged associations with other alleged Moscow-controlled leftists, and gave the file to the
Republican-controlled House of Representatives-which promptly announced it would hold hearings to
investigate Post as a left subversive. The House tried to impeach Post, but ultimately he defended
himself. Post's lawyer compared his political persecutors to the okhrana (Russia, again!):
"We in America have sunk to the level of the government of Russia under the Czarist regime," describing
the FBI's smear campaign as "even lower in some of their methods than the old Russian officials."
Under Harding, the FBI had a new chief, William Burns, who made headlines blaming the terror bombing
attack on Wall Street of 1920 that killed 34 people on a Kremlin-run conspiracy. The FBI claimed
it had a highly reliable inside source who told them that Lenin sent $30,000 to the Soviets' diplomatic
mission in New York, which was distributed to four local Communist agents who arranged the Wall Street
bombing. The source claimed to have personally spoken with Lenin, who boasted that the bombing was
so successful he'd ordered up more.
The only problem was that the FBI's reliable source, a Jewish-Polish petty criminal named Wolf
Lindenfeld, turned out to be a bullshitter-nicknamed "Windy Linde"-who thought his fake confession
about Lenin funding the bombing campaign would get him out of Poland's jails and set up in a comfortable
new life in New York.
By 1923, the FBI had thoroughly destroyed America's communist and radical labor movements-allowing
it to focus on its other favorite pastime: spying on and destroying political opponents. The FBI
spied on US Senators who supported opening diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union: Idaho's William
Borah, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee; Thomas Walsh of the Judiciary Committee, and
Burton K Wheeler, the prairie Populist senator from Montana, who visited the Soviet Union and pushed
for diplomatic relations. Harding's corrupt Attorney General Dougherty denounced Sen. Wheeler as
"the Communist leader in the Senate" and "no more a Democrat than Stalin, his comrade in Moscow."
Dougherty accused Sen. Wheeler of being part of a conspiracy "to capture, by deceit and design, as
many members of the Senate as possible and to spread through Washington and the cloakrooms of Congress
a poison gas as deadly as that which sapped and destroyed brave soldiers in the last war."
Hoover, now a top FBI official, quietly fed kompromat to journalists he cultivated, particularly
an AP reporter named Richard Whitney, who published a popular book in 1924, "Reds In America" alleging
Kremlin agents "had an all-pervasive influence over American institutions; they had infiltrated every
corner of American life." Whitney named Charlie Chaplin as a Kremlin agent, along with Felix Frankfurter
and members of the Senate pushing for recognition of the Soviet Union. That killed any hope for diplomatic
recognition for the next decade.
Then the first Harding scandals broke-Teapot Dome, Veterans Affairs, bribery at the highest rungs.
When Senators Wheeler and Walsh opened bribery investigations, the FBI sent agents to the senators'
home state to drum up false bribery charges against Sen. Wheeler. The charges were clearly fake,
and a jury dismissed the charges. But Attorney General Dougherty was indicted for fraud and forced
to resign, as was his FBI chief Burns-but not Burns' underling Hoover, who stayed in the shadows.
"We want no Gestapo or Secret Police. FBI is tending in that direction. They are dabbling in
sex-life scandals and plain blackmail This must stop."
With the Cold War, the FBI became obsessed with homosexuals as America's Fifth Column under Moscow's
control. Homosexuals, the FBI believed, were susceptible to Kremlin kompromat-so the FBI collected
and disseminated its own kompromat on alleged American homosexuals, supposedly to protect America
from the Kremlin. In the early 1950s, Hoover launched the Sex Deviates Program to spy on American
homosexuals and purge them from public life. The FBI built up 300,000 pages of files on suspected
homosexuals and contacted their employers, local law enforcement and universities to "to drive homosexuals
from every institution of government, higher learning, and law enforcement in the nation," according
to Tim Weiner's book Enemies. No one but the FBI knows exactly how many Americans' lives and careers
were destroyed by the FBI's Sex Deviants Program but Hoover-who never married, lived with his mother
until he was 40, and traveled everywhere with his
"friend" Clyde Tolson .
In the 1952 election, Hoover was so committed to helping the Republicans and Eisenhower win that
he compiled and disseminated a 19-page kompromat file alleging that his Democratic Party rival Adlai
Stevenson was gay. The FBI's file on Stevenson was kept in the Sex Deviants Program section-it included
libelous gossip, claiming that Stevenson was one of Illinois' "best known homosexuals" who went by
the name "Adeline" in gay cruising circles.
In the 1960s, Hoover and his FBI chiefs collected kompromat on the sex lives of JFK and Martin
Luther King. Hoover presented some of his kompromat on JFK to Bobby Kennedy, in a concern-trollish
way claiming to "warn" him that the president was opening himself up to blackmail. It was really
a way for Hoover to let the despised Kennedy brothers know he could destroy them, should they try
to Comey him out of his FBI office. Hoover's kompromat on MLK's sex life was a particular obsession
of his-he now believed that African-Americans, not homosexuals, posed the greatest threat to become
a Kremlin Fifth Column. The FBI wiretapped MLK's private life, collecting tapes of his affairs with
other women, which a top FBI official then mailed to Martin Luther King's wife, along with a note
urging King to commit suicide.
FBI letter anonymously mailed to Martin Luther King Jr's wife, along with kompromat sex tapes
After JFK was murdered, when Bobby Kennedy ran for the Senate in 1964, he recounted another disturbing
FBI/kompromat story that President Johnson shared with him on the campaign trail. LBJ told Bobby
about a stack of kompromat files - FBI reports "detailing the sexual debauchery of members of the
Senate and House who consorted with prostitutes." LBJ asked RFK if the kompromat should be leaked
selectively to destroy Republicans before the 1964 elections. Kennedy recalled,
"He told me he had spent all night sitting up and reading the files of the FBI on all these
people. And Lyndon talks about that information and material so freely. Lyndon talks about everybody,
you see, with everybody. And of course that's dangerous."
Kennedy had seen some of the same FBI kompromat files as attorney general, but he was totally
opposed to releasing such unsubstantiated kompromat-such as, say, the Trump piss files-because doing
so would "destroy the confidence that people in the United States had in their government and really
make us a laughingstock around the world."
Imagine that.
Which brings me to the big analogy every hack threw around last week, calling Trump firing Comey
"Nixonian." Actually, what Trump did was more like the very opposite of Nixon, who badly wanted to
fire Hoover in 1971-2, but was too afraid of the kompromat Hoover might've had on him to make the
move. Nixon fell out with his old friend and onetime mentor J Edgar Hoover in 1971, when the ailing
old FBI chief refused to get sucked in to the Daniel Ellsberg/Pentagon Papers investigation, especially
after the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the New York Times. Part of the reason Nixon created his
Plumbers team of black bag burglars was because Hoover had become a bit skittish in his last year
on this planet-and that drove Nixon crazy.
Nixon called his chief of staff Haldeman:
Nixon: I talked to Hoover last night and Hoover is not going after this case [Ellsberg] as
strong as I would like. There's something dragging him.
Haldeman: You don't have the feeling the FBI is really pursuing this?
Nixon: Yeah, particularly the conspiracy side. I want to go after everyone. I'm not so interested
in Ellsberg, but we have to go after everybody who's a member of this conspiracy.
Hoover's ambitious deputies in the FBI were smelling blood, angling to replace him. His number
3, Bill Sullivan (who sent MLK the sex tapes and suicide note) was especially keen to get rid of
Hoover and take his place. So as J Edgar was stonewalling the Daniel Ellsberg investigation, Sullivan
showed up in a Department of Justice office with two suitcases packed full of transcripts and summaries
of illegal wiretaps that Kissinger and Nixon had ordered on their own staff and on American journalists.
The taps were ordered in Nixon's first months in the White House in 1969, to plug up the barrage
of leaks, the likes of which no one had ever seen before. Sullivan took the leaks from J Edgar's
possession and told the DOJ official that they needed to be hidden from Hoover, who planned to use
them as kompromat to blackmail Nixon.
Nixon decided he was going to fire J Edgar the next day. This was in September, 1971. But the
next day came, and Nixon got scared. So he tried to convince his attorney general John Mitchell to
fire Hoover for him, but Mitchell said only the President could fire J Edgar Hoover. So Nixon met
him for breakfast, and, well, he just didn't have the guts. Over breakfast, Hoover flattered Nixon
and told him there was nothing more in the world he wanted than to see Nixon re-elected. Nixon caved;
the next day, J Edgar Hoover unceremoniously fired his number 3 Bill Sullivan, locking him out of
the building and out of his office so that he couldn't take anything with him. Sullivan was done.
The lesson here, I suppose, is that if an FBI director doesn't want to be fired, it's best to
keep your kompromat a little closer to your chest, as a gun to hold to your boss's head. Comey's
crew already released the piss tapes kompromat on Trump-the damage was done. What was left to hold
back Trump from firing Comey? "Laws"? The FBI isn't even legal. "Norms" would be the real reason.
Which pretty much sums up everything Trump has been doing so far. We've learned the past two decades
that we're hardly a nation of laws, at least not when it comes to the plutocratic ruling class. What
does bind them are "norms"-and while those norms may mean everything to the ruling class, it's an
open question how much these norms mean to a lot of Americans outside that club.
The USA doesn't have a legal basis either, it is a revolting crown colony of the British Empire.
Treason and heresy all the way down. Maybe the British need to burn Washington DC again?
Wondered how Comey thought he could get away with his conviction and pardon of Sec Clinton.
Seems like part of the culture of FBI is a "above and beyond" the law mentality.
Back in the early 1970s a high school friend moved to Alabama because his father was transferred
by his employer.
My friend sent a post card describing among other things the fact that Alabama had done away
with the requirement of a math class to graduate high school, and substituted a required class
called "The Evils of Communism" complete with a text-book written by J. Edgar Hoover; Masters
of Deceit.
In Dallas,Texas my 1959 Civics class had to read the same book. We all were given paperback
copies of it to take home and read. It was required reading enacted by Texas legislature.
So I'd guess you weren't fooled by any of those commie plots of the sixties, like the campaigns
for civil rights or against the Vietnamese war.
I can't really brag, I didn't stop worrying about the Red Menace until 1970 or so, that's when
I started running into returning vets who mostly had no patience for that stuff.
We've learned the past two decades that we're hardly a nation of laws, at least not when
it comes to the plutocratic ruling class. What does bind them are "norms"
Or as David Broder put it (re Bill Clinton): he came in and trashed the place and it wasn't
his place.
It was David Broder's place. Of course the media play a key role with all that kompromat since
they are the ones needed to convey it to the public. The tragedy is that even many of the sensible
in their ranks such as Bill Moyers have been sucked into the kompromat due to their hysteria over
Trump. Ames is surely on point in this great article. The mistake was allowing secret police agencies
like the FBI and CIA to be created in the first place.
Sorry, my initial reaction was that people who don't know the difference between "rein" and
"reign" are not to be trusted to provide reliable information. Recognizing that as petty, I kept
reading, and presently found the statement that Congress was not informed of the founding of the
FBI until a century after the fact, which seems implausible. If in fact the author meant the end
of 1908 it was quite an achievement to write 2008.
Interesting to the extent it may be true, but with few sources, no footnotes, and little evidence
of critical editing who knows what that may be?
Who he is is irrelevant. I don't take things on faith because "the Pope said" or because Mark
Ames said. People who expect their information to be taken seriously should substantiate it.
So anything the FBI does to get rid of him must by definition be ok! Besides, surely our civic-minded
IC would never use their power on the Good Guys™!
Ah yes, the voice of "caution." And such attention to the lack of footnotes, in this day when
the curious can so easily cut and paste a bit of salient text into a search engine and pull up
a feast of parse-able writings and video, from which they can "judiciously assess" claims and
statements. If they care to spend the time, which is in such short supply among those who are
struggling to keep up with the horrors and revelations people of good will confront every blinking
day
Classic impeachment indeed. All from the height of "academic rigor" and "caution." Especially
the "apologetic" bit about "reign" vs "rein." Typos destroy credibility, don't they? And the coup
de grass (sic), the unrebuttable "plausibility" claim.
One wonders at the nature of the author's curriculum vitae. One also marvels at the yawning
gulf between the Very Serious Stuff I was taught in grade and high school civics and history,
back in the late '50s and the '60s, about the Fundamental Nature Of Our Great Nation and its founding
fathers and the Beautiful Documents they wrote, on the one hand, and what we mopes learn, through
a drip-drip-drip process punctuated occasionally by Major Revelations, about the real nature of
the Empire and our fellow creatures
PS: My earliest memory of television viewing was a day at a friend's house - his middle-class
parents had the first "set" in the neighborhood, I think an RCA, in a massive sideboard cabinet
where the picture tube pointed up and you viewed the "content" in a mirror mounted to the underside
of the lid. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5onSwx7_Cn0
The family was watching a hearing of Joe McCarthy's kangaroo court, complete with announcements
of the latest number in the "list of known Communists in the State Department" and how Commyanism
was spreading like an unstoppable epidemic mortal disease through the Great US Body Politic and
its Heroic Institutions of Democracy. I was maybe 6 years old, but that grainy black and white
"reality TV" content had me asking "WTF?" at a very early age. And I'd say it's on the commentor
to show that the "2008" claim is wrong, by something other than "implausible" as drive-by impeachment.
Given the content of the original post, and what people paying attention to all this stuff have
a pretty good idea is the general contours of a vast corruption and manipulation.
Interesting article on the history of the FBI, although the post-Hoover era doesn't get any
treatment. The Church Committee hearings on the CIA and FBI, after the exposure of notably
Operation CHAOS (early
60s to early 70s) by the CIA and
COINTELPRO(late 1950s to
early 1970s) by the FBI, didn't really get to the bottom of the issue although some reforms
were initiated.
Today, it seems, the best description of the FBI's main activity is corporate enforcer for
the white-collar mafia known as Wall Street. There is an analogy to organized crime, where the
most powerful mobsters settled disputes between other gangs of criminals. Similarly, if a criminal
gang is robbed by one of its own members, the mafia would go after the guilty party; the FBI plays
this role for Wall Street institutions targeted by con artists and fraudsters. Compare and contrast
a pharmaceutical company making opiates which is targeted by thieves vs. a black market drug cartel
targeted by thieves. In one case, the FBI investigates; in the other, a violent vendetta ensues
(such as street murders in Mexico).
The FBI executives are rewarded for this service with lucrative post-retirement careers within
corporate America – Louis Freeh went to credit card fraudster, MBNA, Richard Mueller to a corporate
Washington law firm, WilmerHale, and Comey, before Obama picked him as Director, worked for Lockheed
Martin and HSBC (cleaning up after their $2 billion drug cartel marketing scandal) after leaving
the FBI in 2005.
Maybe this is legitimate, but this only applies to their protection of the interests of large
corporations – as the 2008 economic collapse and aftermath showed, they don't prosecute corporate
executives who rip off poor people and middle-class homeowners. Banks who rob people, they aren't
investigated or prosecuted; that's just for people who rob banks.
When it comes to political issues and national security, however, the FBI has such a terrible
record on so many issues over the years that anything they claim has to be taken with a grain
or two of salt. Consider domestic political activity: from the McCarthyite 'Red Scare' of the
1950s to COINTELPRO in the 1960s and 1970s to targeting of environmental groups in the 1980s and
1990s to targeting anti-war protesters under GW Bush to their obsession with domestic mass surveillance
under Obama, it's not a record that should inspire any confidence.
Some say they have a key role to play in national security and terrorism – but their record
on the 2001 anthrax attacks is incredibly shady and suspicious. The final suspect, Bruce Ivins,
is clearly innocent of the crime, just as their previous suspect, Steven Hatfill was. Ivins, if
still alive, could have won a similar multi-million dollar defamation lawsuit against the FBI.
All honest bioweapons experts know this to be true – the perpetrators of those anthrax letters
are still at large, and may very well have had close associations with the Bush Administration
itself.
As far as terrorist activities? Many of their low-level agents did seem concerned about the
Saudis and bin Laden in the late 1990s and pre-9/11 – but Saudi investigations were considered
politically problematic due to "geostrategic relationships with our Saudi allies" – hence people
like John O'Neil and Coleen Rowley were sidelined and ignored, with disastrous consequences. The
Saudi intelligence agency role in 9/11 was buried for over a decade, as well. Since 9/11, most
of the FBI investigations seem to have involved recruiting mentally disabled young Islamic men
in sting operations in which the FBI provides everything needed. You could probably get any number
of mentally ill homeless people across the U.S., regardless of race or religion, to play this
role.
Comey's actions over the past year are certainly highly questionable, as well. Neglecting to
investigate the Clinton Foundation ties to Saudi Arabia and other foreign governments and corporations,
particularly things like State Department approval of various arms deals in which bribes may have
been paid, is as much a dereliction of duty as neglecting to investigate Trump ties to Russian
business interests – but then, Trump has a record of shady business dealings dating back to the
1970s, of strange bankruptcies and bailouts and government sales that the FBI never looked at
either.
Ultimately, this is because FBI executives are paid off not to investigate Wall Street criminality,
nor shady U.S. government activity, with lucrative positions as corporate board members and so
on after their 'retirements'. I don't doubt that many of their junior members mean well and are
dedicated to their jobs – but the fish rots from the head down.
As far as terrorist activities? Many of their low-level agents did seem concerned about
the Saudis and bin Laden in the late 1990s and pre-9/11 – but Saudi investigations were considered
politically problematic due to "geostrategic relationships with our Saudi allies" – hence people
like John O'Neil and Coleen Rowley were sidelined and ignored, with disastrous consequences.
The Clinton Administration had other priorities. You know, I think I'll let ex-FBI Director
Freeh explain what happened when the FBI tried to get the Saudis to cooperate with their investigation
into the bombing of the Khobar Towers.
"That September, Crown Prince Abdullah and his entourage took over the entire 143-room Hay-Adams
Hotel, just across from Lafayette Park from the White House, for six days. The visit, I figured,
was pretty much our last chance. Again, we prepared talking points for the president. Again,
I contacted Prince Bandar and asked him to soften up the crown prince for the moment when Clinton,
-- or Al Gore I didn't care who -- would raise the matter and start to exert the necessary pressure."
"The story that came back to me, from "usually reliable sources," as they say in Washington,
was that Bill Clinton briefly raised the subject only to tell the Crown Prince that he certainly
understood the Saudis; reluctance to cooperate. Then, according to my sources, he hit Abdullah
up for a contribution to the still-to-be-built Clinton presidential library. Gore, who was
supposed to press hardest of all in his meeting with the crown Prince, barely mentioned the
matter, I was told." -Louis J. Freeh, My FBI (2005)
In my defense I picked the book up to see if there was any dirt on the DNC's electoral funding
scandal in 1996. I'm actually glad I did. The best part of the book is when Freeh recounts running
into a veteran of the Lincoln Brigade and listens to how Hoover's FBI ruined his life despite
having broken no laws. As if a little thing like laws mattered to Hoover. The commies were after
our precious bodily fluids!
I'm not sure there are many functioning norms left within the national political leadership.
Seemed to me Gingrich started blowing those up and it just got worse from there. McConnell not
allowing Garland to be considered comes to mind
Thanks to Mark Ames now we know what Pres. Trump meant when he tweeted about his tapes with
AG Comey. Not some taped conversation between Pres. Trump & AG Comey but bunch of kompromat tapes
that AG Comey has provided Pres. Trump that might not make departing AG Comey looked so clean.
Assange actually undermined the key pre-condition of the Deep state existence -- secrecy.
Notable quotes:
"... Robert Mueller, who helped the Bush administration deceive the world about WMD in Iraq, has claimed that the GRU was the source of WikiLeaks' 2016 drops, and claimed in his report that WikiLeaks deceived its audience by implying that its source was the murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich. ..."
"... The smear is that Assange knew his source was actually the Russian government, and he implied it was Seth Rich to throw people off the scent. Mueller asserted that something happened, and it's interpreted as hard fact instead of assertion. There's no evidence for any of this, and there's no reason to go believing the WMD guy on faith about a narrative which incriminates yet another government which refuses to obey the dictates of the US empire. ..."
"... HItchen's Razor: "what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." ..."
I'm just going to toss this one here at the end because I'm seeing it go around a lot in the
wake of the Mueller report.
Robert Mueller, who helped the Bush administration deceive the world about WMD in Iraq, has
claimed that the GRU was the source of WikiLeaks' 2016 drops, and claimed in his report that
WikiLeaks deceived its audience by implying that its source was the murdered DNC staffer Seth
Rich.
This claim is unsubstantiated because, as we discussed in Smear 4, the public has not seen a
shred of evidence proving who was or was not WikiLeaks' source, so there's no way to know there
was any deception happening there. We've never seen any hard proof, nor indeed anything besides
official narrative, connecting the Russian government to Guccifer 2.0 and Guccifer 2.0 to
WikiLeaks, and Daniel Lazare for Consortium News documents that there are in fact some
major
plot holes in Mueller's timeline. Longtime Assange friend and WikiLeaks ally Craig Murray
maintains that he knows the
source of the DNC Leaks and Podesta Emails were two different Americans, not Russians, and
hints that one of them was a DNC insider. There is exactly as much publicly available evidence
for Murray's claim as there is for Mueller's.
Mainstream media has been blaring day after day for years that it is an absolute known fact
that the Russian government was WikiLeaks' source, and the only reason people scoff and roll
their eyes at anyone who makes the indisputably factual claim that we've seen no evidence for
this is because
the illusory truth effect causes the human brain to mistake repetition for fact.
The smear is that Assange knew his source was actually the Russian government, and he
implied it was Seth Rich to throw people off the scent. Mueller asserted that something
happened, and it's interpreted as hard fact instead of assertion. There's no evidence for any
of this, and there's no reason to go believing the WMD guy on faith about a narrative which
incriminates yet another government which refuses to obey the dictates of the US
empire.
And I guess that's it for now. Again, this article is an ongoing project, so I'll be
updating it and adding to it regularly as new information comes in and new smears need
refutation. If I missed something or got something wrong, or even if you spotted a typo, please
email me at [email protected] and let
me know. I'm trying to create the best possible tool for people to refute Assange smears, so
I'll keep sharpening this baby to make sure it cuts like a razor. Thanks for reading, and
thanks to everyone who helped! Phew! That was long.
We don't have to like Julian Assange, but the release of the "Collateral Damage" video
alone is enough to justify defending Assange and the freedom of the press.
She really didn't debunk the thing about Seth Rich very well. Basically just said that
whatever Mueller said wasn't true, which doesn't go very far for me. He definitely did imply
that he got at least some of his info from Rich so if there is some sort of proof of that, it
needs to be supplied; otherwise Mueller's story is the only one.
I have recently seen a political cartoon with Dotard then saying: "I love Wikileaks" + " I
will throw her in jail" and now saying: "I know nothing about Wikileaks" + "I will throw him
in jail"
It summed up perfectly that swine's lack of integrity.
It's so simple. Assange and Wikileaks exposed Hillary, Podesta, and the entire DNC to be
lying, deceiving, hypocritical, disingenuous, elitist bastards. His crimes are miniscule
compared to that, and all who attempt to condemn Assange only show us that they are members
of that foul group.
Excellent thorough content. And Kim Schmitz pointed out they'll drag things on for as long
as possible and try to add additional things as they go. Such a bunch of sad, pathetic
control freaks. Covering up their own failures, crimes and short comings with a highly
publicized distraction putting the screws to a single journalist.
“ Ty Clevenger has FOIAed information from NSA asking for any data that involved
both Seth Rich and also Julian Assange .
And they responded by saying we’ve got 15 files , 32 pages , but they’re all
classified in accordance with executive order 13526 covering classification, and therefore
you can’t have them.
That says that NSA has records of communications between Seth Rich and Julian Assange. I
mean, that’s the only business that NSA is in — copying communications between
people and devices.”
Assange and Snowden are freedom fighters, exposing the duplicitous, corrupt, and criminals
to the entire world.
The hundreds of millions of mindless zombies are so brainwashed by the fake news industry,
that if Assange and Snowden are not spies, they are criminal in some capacity.
I have liberal, conservative, and libertarian leaning friends, and virtually every one of
them believe Assange and Snowden are traitors to America, got innocent people killed, are
rapists, or too cowardly to stand trial in the USA.
What has happened to common sense and some necessary cynicism?
Why even bother arguing with these people. Assange gave up his liberty to reveal the
truth, and the American public said in essence "so what." No one except the leakers and
whistle-blowers faced any punishment, and I can't think of a single national politician who
even talks about doing anything about the misconduct that was revealed. Yeah, a small
percentage of the population is outraged at what was revealed, but the vast majority
literally don't give a ****.
Hehe... I guess you will find out how wrong you are in 2020 :-) His release of Hillary's
emails gave Trump 2016... and him turning his back on Assange took away his chances in
2020
Most regular readers on ZH know but this is an echo chamber for "Always Trumpers" so there
won't be many commenters on this article. Rather than defend his DOJ's extradition attempts
with implausible theories they'll be chattering back and forth about the Mueller Report.
Agreed. It's amazing to me that people who claim to be believers of the MAGA message don't
see the harm associated with the arrest of Assange, and all of the other uniparty **** Trump
is perpetuating. A man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest.
Yeah and yet.... everyone seemed to credit Hillary's loss to the release of her emails on
wikileaks... Hmm that narrative that seems to be trying to minimize the impact on Trumps
chances in 2020 really breaks down in the face of that fact doesn't it?? Trump has no hope...
just stop... get behind a republican that has a chance... Trump doesn't... he lost half of
his base... get over it...
"... Do you know, by the way, speaking of meddling, that Biden went to Moscow and told Putin not to return to the presidency in 2012? ..."
"... One recent Democratic presidential candidate was taped asserting "we should not have held the election unless we could determine the outcome" in another foreign country. ..."
"... If Russia did not meddle significantly in the US election, the political class may have had to ponder that possibly the Russians believed that the decline of the US in the world stage did not merit the effort. ..."
"... To paraphrase the late Leona Helmsley, "Democracy is for little people", not for the meddling-in-foreign-democracies policymakers of the Bos-Wash corridor. ..."
STEPHEN COHEN: Well, just stay for one minute on Russia, because the China thing is
worth talking about too. But he says, almost alone, for the first time–how long has it
been since we had a president really pursue detente? It's been a very long time. Obama called
it a reset, but it was fraudulent. It was basically saying to the Russians, "Give us
everything, and we aren't going to give you anything." It was doomed from the beginning. Plus,
they wagered that Putin wouldn't return to the presidency. Do you know, by the way, speaking of
meddling, that Biden went to Moscow and told Putin not to return to the presidency in 2012?
PAUL JAY : No.
STEPHEN COHEN : Wrap your head around that a minute. The vice president of the United
States goes to Moscow and tells Putin, who's now prime minister because he termed out, but he
could return, "We don't think you should return to the presidency." So you know what I'm
wondering, I'm wondering whether Biden's calling up Putin today and asking Putin whether Biden
should get into the presidential race here. I mean, what the hell? What the hell? And we talk
about meddling? So the point about Trump, to finish this, is for the first time in many, many
years, a presidential candidate, one that I didn't vote for and didn't care for, had said it's
necessary to cooperate with Russia.
Perhaps the assumption of Russia meddling in our election is a simple case of
projection.
As has been documented, the USA has frequently meddled in other countries' elections or
election outcomes (Iran, Russia, Chile, Central America).
One recent Democratic presidential candidate was taped asserting "we should not have held
the election unless we could determine the outcome" in another foreign country.
If Russia did not meddle significantly in the US election, the political class may have
had to ponder that possibly the Russians believed that the decline of the US in the world
stage did not merit the effort.
To paraphrase the late Leona Helmsley, "Democracy is for little people", not for the
meddling-in-foreign-democracies policymakers of the Bos-Wash corridor.
Originally from: The 'Guccifer 2.0' Gaps in Mueller's Full Report April 18, 2019 •
12 Commentsave
Like Team Mueller's indictment last July of Russian agents, the full report reveals questions about Wikileaks' role that
much of the media has been ignoring, writes Daniel Lazare.
The five pages that the special prosecutor's report devotes to WikiLeaks are essentially lifted from Mueller's
indictment last July of 12 members of the Russian military
intelligence agency known as the GRU. It charges that after hacking the Democratic National Committee, the GRU used a specially-created
online persona known as Guccifer 2.0 to transfer a gigabyte's worth of stolen emails to WikiLeaks just as the 2016 Democratic
National Convention was approaching. Four days after opening the encrypted file, the indictment says, "Organization 1 [i.e. WikiLeaks]
released over 20,000 emails and other documents stolen from the DNC network by the Conspirators [i.e. the GRU]."
Attorney General William Barr holding press conference on full Mueller report, April 18, 2019. (YouTube)
Mueller's report says the same thing, but with the added twist that Assange then tried to cover up the GRU's role by
suggesting that murdered Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich may have been the source and by telling a congressman
that the DNC email heist was an "inside job" and that he had "physical proof" that the material was not from Russian.
All of which is manna from heaven for corporate news outlets eager to pile on Assange, now behind bars in London. An April 11,
2019, New York Timesnews analysis ,
for instance, declared that "[c]ourt documents have revealed that it was Russian intelligence – using the Guccifer persona – that
provided Mr. Assange thousands of emails hacked from the Democratic National Committee," while another Timesarticle published shortly after
his arrest accuses the WikiLeaks founder of "promoting a false cover story about the source of the leaks."
But there's a problem: it ain't necessarily so. The official story that the GRU is the source doesn't hold water, as a timeline
from mid-2016 shows. Here are the key events based on the GRU indictment and the Mueller report:
June 12: Assange
tells
Britain's ITV that another round of Democratic Party disclosures is on the way: "We have upcoming leaks in relation to Hillary Clinton,
which is great. WikiLeaks is having a very big year." June 14: The Democratic National Committee
accuses Russia of hacking its computers. June 15: Guccifer 2.0 claims credit for the hack. "The main part of the papers, thousands
of files and mails, I gave to WikiLeaks ," he
brags . "They will publish them soon."
June 22: WikiLeaks tells Guccifer via email: "Send any new material here for us to review and it will have a much higher impact
than what you are doing." July 6: WikiLeaks sends Guccifer another email: "if you have anything hillary related we want it
in the next tweo [ sic ] days prefable [ sic ] because the DNC [Democratic National Convention] is approaching and
she will solidify bernie supporters behind her after."Replies Guccifer: "ok . . . i " July 14: Guccifer sends WikiLeaks an
encrypted file titled "wk dnc link1.txt.gpg." July 18: WikiLeaks confirms it has opened "the 1Gb or so archive" and will release
documents "this week." July 22: WikiLeaks
releases more than 20,000 DNC emails and 8,000 other attachments.
According to Mueller and obsequious news outlets like the Times , the sequence is clear: Guccifer sends archive, WikiLeaks
receives archive, WikiLeaks accesses archive, WikiLeaks publishes archive. Donald Trump may not have colluded with
Russia, but Julian Assange plainly did. [Attorney General Will Barr, significantly calling WikiLeaks a publisher, said at
his Thursday press conference: " Under applicable law, publication of these types of materials would not be criminal unless the publisher
also participated in the underlying hacking conspiracy."]
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein announcing in 2018 the grand jury indictment of 12 GRU agents. (Wikimedia Commons)
Avoiding Questions
The narrative raises questions that the press studiously avoids. Why, for instance, would Assange announce on June 12 that a big
disclosure is on the way before hearing from the supposed source? Was there a prior communication that Mueller has not disclosed?
What about the reference to "new material" on June 22 – does that mean Assange already had other material in hand? After opening
the Guccifer file on July 18, why would he publish it just four days later? Would that give WikiLeaks enough time to review some
28,000 documents to insure they're genuine?
Honor Bob Parry's legacy by
donating
to our Spring Fund Drive.
"If a single one of those emails had been shown to be maliciously altered," blogger Mark F. McCarty
observes , "Wikileaks' reputation would have been in tatters." There's also the question that an investigator known as Adam Carter
poses in Disobedient
Media : why would Guccifer brag about giving WikiLeaks "thousands of files" that he wouldn't send for another month?
The narrative doesn't make sense – a fact that is crucially important now that Assange is fighting for his freedom in the U.K.
New Yorker staff writer Raffi Khatchadourian sounded
a rare note of caution last summer when he warned that little about Guccifer 2.0 adds up. While claiming to be the source for
some of WikiLeaks ' most explosive emails, the material he released on his own had proved mostly worthless – 20 documents
that he "said were from the DNC but which were almost surely not," as Khatchadourian puts it, a purported Hillary Clinton dossier
that "was nothing of the sort," screenshots of emails so blurry as to be "unreadable," and so forth.
John Podesta: Target of a phishing expedition. (Voice of America via Wikimedia Commons)
While insisting that "our source is not the Russian
government and it is not a state party, Assange told Khatchadourian that the source was not Guccifer either. "We received quite a
lot of submissions of material that was already published in the rest of the press, and people seemingly submitted the Guccifer archives,"
he said somewhat cryptically. "We didn't publish them. They were already published." When Khatchadourian asked why he didn't put
the material out regardless, he replied that "the material from Guccifer 2.0 – or on WordPress – we didn't have the resources to
independently verify."
No Time for Vetting
So four days was indeed too short a time to subject the Guccifer file to proper vetting. Of course, Mueller no doubt regards this
as more "dissembling," as his report describes it. Yet WikiLeaks has never been caught in a lie for the simple reason that honesty
and credibility are all-important for a group that promises to protect anonymous leakers who supply it with official secrets. (See
"Inside WikiLeaks : Working with the Publisher that Changed the World,"
Consortium News , July 19, 2018.) Mueller, by contrast, has a rich history of mendacity going back to his days as FBI
director when he sought to cover up
the Saudi role
in 9/11 and assured Congress on the eve
of the 2003 invasion that Iraqi weapons of mass destruction pose "a clear threat to our national security."
Mueller with President George W. Bush on July 5, 2001, as he is being appointed FBI director. (White House)
So if the Mueller narrative doesn't hold up, the charge of dissembling doesn't either. Indeed , as ex-federal prosecutor Andrew
C. McCarthy
observes in The National Review , the fact that the feds have charged Assange with unauthorized access to a government
computer rather than conspiring with the Kremlin could be a sign that Team Mueller is less than confident it can prove collusion
beyond a reasonable doubt. As he puts it, the GRU indictment "was more like a press release than a charging instrument" because the
special prosecutor knew that the chances were
zero that Russian intelligence agents would surrender to a U.S. court.
Indeed, when Mueller charged 13 employees and three companies owned by Russian businessman Yevgeny Prigozhin with interfering
in the 2016 election, he clearly didn't expect them to surrender either. Thus , his team seemed taken aback when one of the alleged
" troll farms
" showed up in Washington asking to be heard. The prosecution's initial response, as McCarthy
put it , was to seek
a delay "on the astonishing ground that the defendant has not been properly served – notwithstanding that the defendant has shown
up in court and asked to be arraigned." When that didn't work, prosecutors tried to limit Concord's access to some 3.2 million pieces
of evidence on the grounds that the documents are too "
sensitive " for Russian eyes to see. If they are again unsuccessful, they may have no choice but to drop the charges entirely,
resulting in yet another " public relations
disaster " for the Russia-gate investigation.
None of which bodes well for Mueller or the news organizations that worship at his shrine. After blowing the Russia-gate story
all these years, why does the Times continue to slander the one news organization that tells the truth?
Daniel Lazare is the author of "The Frozen Republic: How the Constitution Is Paralyzing Democracy" (Harcourt Brace, 1996) and
other books about American politics. He has written for a wide variety of publications from The Nation to Le Monde Diplomatique
and blogs about the Constitution and related matters at D aniellazare.com .
The military offensive against Tripoli is more political than in fact a military offensive
to overwhelm the enemy. Of course battles are fought but just the fact that heavy weapons
(tanks, artillery etc...) were not used in the first few weeks could indicate that the attack
was somehow aiming to be fast, to aim fo tribal allegiance shifts or just to make a point.
Only in the past week or so we have seen tanks and air strikes taking place, which seems an
escalation of the conflict.
Haftar's LNA has won this war, though many battles will be fought ahead, the LNA has
brought a very united support from Egypt, KSA and UAE and with that it brings France, Russia
and now the US in supporting it, either as opportunistic, individual agenda or simply to
speed up the peaceful process.
The fact is the GNA is becoming seriously isolated, very few support besides Turkey, Qatar
and Italy, all the indication that there is a good chance for Tripoli to saved from
destruction in a mix of military/political solution in weeks to come. Key tribal vocal and on
the ground support, like Zittan's, will be crucial for this peace process.
Then Misrata will be a totally different animal, here Muslin Brotherhood/al Qaeda and ISIS
are packed and strong, support from Turkey and Qatar is abundant, there is no peaceful
solution for Misrata, only annihilation of the filthy terrorists, like in Idlib in Syria.
Trump is supporting Haftar because he is STILL a CIA asset and to keep Russia's hands off
Libya. Haftar is also friends with the Egyptian Zionist Sissy and likewise, MbinSaw.
So now, there's only one smart thing for Putin to do; support THE OTHER SIDE. If he
doesn't do this, the U.S. has a CIA stooge ruling Libya, who is friends with all its allies
including the most lunatic state of the 3 -- Israel, though all three are ruled by despot
nutjobs.
Putin should at worst remain neutral or support the other side to mess with Trump's
geo-engineering.
Now that Putin and Kim will be holding a summit soon; it would be nice to see Putin f...ck
up U.S. plans in Libya too!
It's about putting up roadblocks to the Empire's geopolitical grab. That's the way you
balance power. If ever war breaks out, you want to have as many allies, friendly air space
and allied ports as possible. It doesn't mean a World War will happen again, but it could,
and geostrategy is good INSURANCE. The U.S. will never be Russia's natural ally, not even
close, therefore Putin better play it smart always planning for the worst while hoping for
the best.
Alas, I'm not sure what Putin's thinking lately allowing the lunatic state to attack
Iranian military assets in Syria! Too many Zionist oligarchs in Putin's sphere. One day Putin
will utter Caesar's last words: Et tu, Brute? Because you sure as hell can't trust a Zionist
when it comes to securing your own power!
But only the LNA and GNA are mentioned. I thought there were 3 governments in Libya - one
west, one east, and one pushed by the UN. Wikipedia's Libyan Civil War entry adds the
National Salvation Army to the LNA and GNA. But the NSA may no longer play a part with the
militias rising to the fore. And do the militias support the UN-backed GNA? From what I've
read the militias are working together against "one-man rule" of Haftar.
Libya is a broken country, Haftar brings stability, the end of the militias, Islamists and
slavery. Haftar has already won that is why the US are now supporting him.
Russia has had a long standing dialogue with Haftar. Haftar will probably gain some sort
of independence by balancing these conflicting powers (Russia and US). The US will get oil at
the price they want (need) but I expect that Russia will gain most from Haftar coming out on
top.
Haftar was part of the revolution that brought Gadaffi to power - I doubt that he is a CIA
poodle.
Haftar was part of the revolution that brought Gadaffi to power - I doubt that he is a CIA
poodle.
Posted by: ADKC | Apr 19, 2019 5:30:50 PM
Hogwash. You left out the part where Haftar joined the revolution that deposed and
murdered Gaddafi after returning to Libya from Langley! Haftar is a ruthless power-lusting
butcher and not trustworthy at all!
Yes he was part of the forces that overthrew Gaddafi and also connected to the CIA - I
didn't mean to suggest otherwise. I would very much prefer Gaddafi to still be in power -
Libyans almost certainly feel the same (the vast majority felt the same when the uprising
happened).
But Haftar has won and the alternative to Haftar is criminal gangs and Islamist militias.
So what choice is there really? Haftar brings a much greater likelihood of peace and
stability. But, he won't be bringing back the life that Libyans had when Gaddafi was in
charge.
It appears that he instigated his war in 2015 without the agreement/support of US &
CIA and this may well indicate that he is his own person - but this might just be a
smokescreen. Regardless, what real choice is there for ordinary Libyans - continuing war,
chaos and conflict or accepting that Haftar has won?
But Haftar has won and the alternative to Haftar is criminal gangs and Islamist
militias. So what choice is there really?
Wrong. It's not an either Haftar or terrorists situation, dynamic whatever. This falsehood
is UAE, SAUDI bullshet propaganda. Wahhabism is trying to take over Libya and Sudan! Wherever
the Saudis are involved trouble follows lest you forget Syria and Yemen!
Haftar is bad for Libya PERIOD. More proof is that before Trump called Haftar to offer his
support, he spoke with UEA's MBZ. It all stinks! Leave Libya alone -- hands off! All foreign
influence out! That's the best option.
financial matters , Apr 19, 2019 7:08:35 PM |
link
Nice to see Russia and the US on the same side actually fighting real terrorism. This is a
win against the deep state.
The US doesn't care what murderous thug is in charge.
Posted by: BraveNewWorld | Apr 19, 2019 3:22:46 PM | 9
My first thought was -- now they are telling us?
Of course, HRC put it nicely in a debate with Trump: "you will never see me singing
praises for a dictator or strongmen who does no love America." Qaddafi, RIP, did not love
America, so he had to go once an opportunity emerged. Maduro does not love America. Sisi may
have a kind word now and then etc.
I'm not quite sure why I loathe Assange. I've never actually met the man. I just have this
weird, amorphous feeling that he's a horrible, disgusting, extremist person who is working for
the Russians and is probably a Nazi. It feels kind of like that feeling I had, back in the
Winter of 2003, that Saddam Hussein had nuclear weapons, which he was going to give to those Al
Qaeda terrorists who were bayonetting little babies in their incubators, or the feeling I still
have, despite all evidence to the contrary, that Trump is a Russian intelligence asset who peed
on Barack Obama's bed, and who is going to set fire to the Capitol building, declare himself
American Hitler, and start rounding up and murdering the Jews.
I don't know where these feelings come from. If you challenged me, I probably couldn't
really support them with any, like, actual facts or anything, at least not in any kind of
rational way. Being an introspective sort of person, I do sometimes wonder if maybe my feelings
are the result of all the propaganda and relentless psychological and emotional conditioning
that the ruling classes and the corporate media have subjected me to since the day I was born,
and that influential people in my social circle have repeated, over and over again, in such a
manner as to make it clear that contradicting their views would be extremely unwelcome, and
might negatively impact my social status, and my prospects for professional advancement.
Take my loathing of Assange, for example. I feel like I can't even write a column condemning
his arrest and extradition without gratuitously mocking or insulting the man. When I try to, I
feel this sudden fear of being denounced as a "Trump-loving Putin-Nazi," and a
"Kremlin-sponsored rape apologist," and unfriended by all my Facebook friends. Worse, I get
this sickening feeling that unless I qualify my unqualified support for freedom of press, and
transparency, and so on, with some sort of vicious, vindictive remark about the state of
Assange's body odor, and how he's probably got cooties, or has pooped his pants, or some other
childish and sadistic taunt, I can kiss any chance I might have had of getting published in a
respectable publication goodbye.
But I'm probably just being paranoid, right? Distinguished, highbrow newspapers and
magazines like
The Atlantic ,
The Guardian ,
The Washington Post , The
New York Times , Vox ,
Vice ,
Daily Mail , and others of that caliber, are not just propaganda organs whose primary
purpose is to reinforce the official narratives of the ruling classes. No, they publish a broad
range of opposing views. The Guardian, for example, just got Owen Jones to write
a full-throated defense of Assange on that grounds that he's probably a Nazi rapist who
should be locked up in a Swedish prison, not in an American prison! The Guardian,
remember, is the same publication that printed
a completely fabricated story accusing Assange of secretly meeting with Paul Manafort and
some alleged "Russians," among a deluge of other such Russiagate nonsense, and that has been
demonizing Jeremy
Corbyn as an anti-Semite for several years.
Plus, according to NPR's Bob Garfield (who is
lustfully "looking forward to Assange's day in court"), and other liberal lexicologists, Julian
Assange is not even a real journalist, so we have no choice but to mock and humiliate him, and
accuse him of rape and espionage oh, and speaking of which, did you hear the one about how
his
cat was spying on the Ecuadorean diplomats ?
But seriously now, all joking aside, it's always instructive (if a bit sickening) to watch
as the mandarins of the corporate media disseminate an official narrative and millions of
people robotically repeat it as if it were their own opinions. This process is particularly
nauseating to watch when the narrative involves the stigmatization, delegitimization, and
humiliation of an official enemy of the ruling classes. Typically, this enemy is a foreign
enemy, like Saddam, Gaddafi, Assad, Milošević, Osama bin Laden, Putin, or whoever.
But sometimes the enemy is one of "us" a traitor, a Judas, a quisling, a snitch, like Trump,
Corbyn, or Julian Assange.
Logic, facts, and actual evidence have little to nothing to do with this process. The goal
of the media and other propagandists is not to deceive or mislead the masses. Their goal is to
evoke the pent-up rage and hatred simmering within the masses and channel it toward the
official enemy. It is not necessary for the demonization of the official enemy to be remotely
believable, or stand up to any kind of serious scrutiny. No one sincerely believes that Donald
Trump is a Russian Intelligence asset, or that Jeremy Corbyn is an anti-Semite, or that Julian
Assange has been arrested for jumping bail, or raping anyone, or for helping Chelsea Manning
"hack" a password.
The demonization of the empire's enemies is not a deception it is a loyalty test. It is a
ritual in which the masses (who, let's face it, are de facto slaves) are ordered to display
their fealty to their masters, and their hatred of their masters' enemies....
... ... ...
C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and political satirist
based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play
Publishing (USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is
published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant Paperbacks. He can be reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org .
MEMORANDUM FOR: The President FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPs) SUBJECT: The Fly in the Mueller Ointment
Mr. President:
The song has ended but the melody lingers on. The expected release Thursday of the redacted text of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's
"Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election" will nudge the American people a tad closer
to the truth on so-called "Russiagate."
But judging by Attorney General William Barr's 4-page summary, the Mueller report will leave unscathed the central-but-unproven
allegation that the Russian government hacked into the DNC and Podesta emails, gave them to WikiLeaks to publish, and helped you
win the election. The thrust will be the same; namely, even if there is a lack of evidence that you colluded with Russian President
Vladimir Putin, you have him to thank for becoming president. And that melody will linger on for the rest of your presidency, unless
you seize the moment.
Mueller has accepted that central-but-unproven allegation as gospel truth, apparently in the lack of any disinterested, independent
forensic work. Following the odd example of his erstwhile colleague, former FBI Director James Comey, Mueller apparently has relied
for forensics on a discredited, DNC-hired firm named CrowdStrike, whose credibility is on a par with "pee-tape dossier" compiler
Christopher Steele. Like Steele, CrowdStrike was hired and paid by the DNC (through a cutout).
We brought the lack of independent forensics to the attention of Attorney General William Barr on March 13 in a
Memorandum entitled "Mueller's
Forensic-Free Findings", but received no reply or acknowledgment. In that Memorandum we described the results of our own independent,
agenda-free forensic investigation led by two former Technical Directors of the NSA, who avoid squishy "assessments," preferring
to base their findings on fundamental principles of science and the scientific method. Our findings remain unchallenged; they reveal
gaping holes in CrowdStrike's conclusions.
We do not know if Barr shared our March 13 Memorandum with you. As for taking a public position on the forensics issue, we suspect
he is being circumspect in choosing his battles carefully, perhaps deferring until later a rigorous examination of the dubious technical
work upon which Mueller seems to have relied.
Barr's Notification to Congress
As you know, the big attention-getter came on March 24 when Attorney General William Barr included in his four-page summary a
quote from Mueller's report: "The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with
the Russian government in its election interference activities." Understandably, that grabbed headlines – the more so, since most
Americans had been convinced earlier by the media that the opposite was true.
There remains, however, a huge fly in the ointment. Barr's summary makes it clear that Mueller accepts as a given – an evidence-impoverished
given – that the Russian government interfered in the election on two tracks:
Track 1 involves what Barr, echoing Mueller, claims "a Russian organization, the Internet Research Agency (IRA)"
did in using social media "to sow social discord, eventually with the aim of interfering with the election." A careful look at this
allegation shows it to be without merit, despite Herculean efforts by the NY Times, for example, to put lipstick on this particular
pig. After some rudimentary research, award winning investigative reporter Gareth Porter promptly put that pig out of its misery
and
brought home the bacon. We do not believe "Track 1" merits further commentary.
Track 2 does need informed commentary, since it is more technical and – to most Americans – arcane. In Barr's words:
"The Special Counsel found that Russian government actors successfully hacked into computers and obtained emails from persons affiliated
with the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party organizations, and publicly disseminated those materials through various intermediaries,
including WikiLeaks. Based on these activities, the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian military
officers for conspiring to hack into computers in the United States for purposes of influencing the election."
We are eager to see if Mueller's report contains more persuasive forensic evidence than that which VIPS has already debunked.
In Barr's summary, the only mention of forensics refers to "forensic accountants" – a far cry from the kind of forensic investigators
needed to provide convincing proof of "hacking" by the Russian government.
But They Were Indicted!
Circular reasoning is not likely to work for very long, even with a U.S. populace used to being brainwashed by the media. Many
Americans had mistakenly assumed that Mueller's indictment of Russians – whether they be posting on FaceBook or acting like intelligence
officers – was proof of guilt. But, as lawyers regularly point out, "one can easily indict a ham sandwich" – easier still these days,
if it comes with Russian dressing.
Chances have now increased that the gullible folks who had been assured that Mueller would find collusion between you and Putin
may now be a bit more circumspect – skeptical even – regarding the rest of the story-line of the "Russian hack," and that will be
even more likely among those with some technical background. Such specialists will have a field day, IF – and it is a capital "IF"
– by some miracle, word of VIPs' forensic findings gets into the media this time around.
The evidence-impoverished, misleadingly labeled "Intelligence Community Assessment" of January 6, 2017 had one saving grace. The
authors noted: "The nature of cyberspace makes attribution of cyber operations difficult but not impossible. Every kind of cyber
operation – malicious or not – leaves a trail." Forensic investigators can follow a trail of metadata and other technical properties.
VIPs has done that.
A "High-Class Entity?"
If, as we strongly suspect, Mueller is relying for forensics solely on CrowdStrike, the discredited firm hired by the DNC in the
spring of 2016, he is acting more in the mold of Inspector Clouseau than the crackerjack investigator he is reputed to be. It simply
does not suffice for Mueller's former colleague James Comey to tell Congress that CrowdStrike is a "high-class entity." It is nothing
of the sort and, in addition to its documented incompetence, it is riddled with conflicts of interest. Comey needs to explain why
he kept the FBI away from the DNC computers after they were said to have been "hacked."
And former National Intelligence Director James Clapper needs to explain his
claim last November
that "the forensic evidence was overwhelming about what the Russians had done." What forensic evidence? From CrowdStrike? We at VIPs,
in contrast, are finding more and more forensic evidence that the DNC emails were leaked, not hacked by the Russians or anyone else
– and that "Guccifer 2.0" is an out-and-out fraud. Yes, we can prove that from forensics too.
But the Talking Heads Say
Again, if Mueller's incomplete investigation is allowed to assume the status of Holy Writ, most Americans will continue to believe
that – whether you colluded the Russians or not – Putin came through for you big time. In short, absent President Putin's help, you
would not be president.
Far too many Americans will still believe this because of the mainstream-media fodder – half-cooked by intelligence leaks – that
they have been fed for two and a half years. The media have been playing the central role in the effort of the MICIMATT (the
Military-Industrial-Congressional-Intelligence-Media-Academia-Think-Tank) complex to stymie any improvement in relations with Russia.
We in VIPs have repeatedly demonstrated that the core charges of Russian interference in the 2016 election are built on a house of
cards. But, despite our record of accuracy on this issue – not to mention our pre-Iraq-war warnings about the fraudulent intelligence
served up by our former colleagues – we have gotten no play in mainstream media.
Most of us have chalked up decades in the intelligence business and many have extensive academic and government experience focusing
on Russia. We consider the issue of "Russian interference" of overriding significance not only because that the allegation is mischievously
bogus and easily disproven. More important, it has brought tension with nuclear-armed Russia to the kind of dangerous fever pitch
not seen since the Cuban missile crisis in 1962, when the Russian provocation was real – authentic, not synthetic.
Sober minds resolved that crisis more than a half-century ago, and we all got to live another day. These days sober minds seem
few and far between and a great deal is at stake. On the intelligence/forensics side, we have proved that the evidence adduced to
"prove" that the Russians hacked into the DNC and Podesta emails and gave them to WikiLeaks is spurious. For example, we have examined
metadata from one key document attributed to Russian hacking and shown that it was synthetically tainted with "Russian fingerprints."
Who Left the Bread Crumbs?
So, if it wasn't the Russians, who left the "Russian" bread-crumb "fingerprints?" We do not know for sure; on this question we
cannot draw a conclusion based on the principles of science – at least not yet. We suspect, however, that cyber warriors closer to
home were responsible for inserting the "telltale signs" necessary to attribute "hacks" to Russia. We tacked on our more speculative
views regarding this intriguing issue onto the end of our May 24, 2017
Memorandum to you
entitled "Intelligence Veterans Challenge Russia Hack Evidence"
We recall that you were apprised of that Memorandum's key findings because you ordered then-CIA Director Mike Pompeo to talk to
William Binney, one of our two former NSA Technical Directors and one of the principal authors of that Memorandum. On October 24,
2017, Pompeo began an hour-long meeting with Binney by explaining the genesis of the odd invitation to CIA Headquarters: "You are
here because the president told me that if I really wanted to know about Russian hacking I needed to talk to you."
On the chance Pompeo has given you no report on his meeting with Binney, we can tell you that Binney, a plainspoken, widely respected
scientist, began by telling Pompeo that his (CIA) people were lying to him about Russian hacking and that he (Binney) could prove
it. Pompeo reacted with disbelief, but then talked of following up with the FBI and NSA. We have no sign, though, that he followed
through. And there is good reason to believe that Pompeo himself may have been reluctant to follow up with his subordinates in the
Directorate of Digital Innovation created by CIA Director John Brennan in 2015. CIA malware and hacking tools are built by the Engineering
Development Group, part of that relatively new Directorate.
' Obfuscation'
A leak from within the CIA, published on March 31, 2017 by WikiLeaks as part of the so-called "Vault 7" disclosures, exposed a
cyber tool called "Marble," which was used during 2016 for"obfuscation" (CIA's word). This tool can be used to conduct a forensic
attribution double game (aka a false-flag operation); it included test samples in Arabic, Chinese, Farsi, Korean, and Russian. Washington
Post reporter Ellen Nakashima, to her credit, immediately penned an informative article on the Marble cyber-tool, under the caching
(and accurate) headline "WikiLeaks' latest release of CIA cyber-tools could blow the cover on agency hacking operations." That was
apparently before Nakashima "got the memo." Mainstream media have otherwise avoided like the plague any mention of Marble.
Mr. President, we do not know if CIA's Marble, or tools like it, played some kind of role in the campaign to blame Russia for
hacking the DNC. Nor do we know how candid the denizens of CIA's Directorate of Digital Innovation have been with the White House
– or with former Director Pompeo – on this touchy issue. Since it is still quite relevant, we will repeat below a paragraph included
in our July 2017 Memorandum to you under the subheading"Putin and the Technology:"
We also do not know if you have discussed cyber issues in any detail with President Putin. In his interview with NBC's Megyn
Kelly, he seemed quite willing – perhaps even eager – to address issues related to the kind of cyber tools revealed in the Vault
7 disclosures, if only to indicate he has been briefed on them. Putin pointed out that today's technology enables hacking to be "masked
and camouflaged to an extent that no one can understand the origin" [of the hack] And, vice versa, it is possible to set up any entity
or any individual that everyone will think that they are the exact source of that attack. Hackers may be anywhere," he said. "There
may be hackers, by the way, in the United States who very craftily and professionally passed the buck to Russia. Can't you imagine
such a scenario? I can."
As we told Attorney General Barr five weeks ago, we consider Mueller's findings fundamentally flawed on the forensics side and
ipso facto incomplete. We also criticized Mueller for failing to interview willing witnesses with direct knowledge, like WikiLeaks'
Julian Assange.
Political Enemies & Mainstream Media (Forgive the Redundancy)
You may be unaware that in March 2017 lawyers for Assange and the Justice Department (acting on behalf of the CIA) reportedly
were very close to an agreement under which Assange would agree to discuss "technical evidence ruling out certain parties" in the
leak of the DNC emails" and agree to redact some classified CIA information, in exchange for limited immunity. According to the investigative
reporter John Solomon of The Hill, Sen. Mark Warner, D,VA, Vice Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, learned of the
incipient deal and told then-FBI Director Comey, who ordered an abrupt
"stand down"
and an end to the discussions with Assange.
Why did Comey and Warner put the kibosh on receiving "technical evidence ruling out certain parties [read Russia]? We won't insult
you with the obvious answer. Assange is now in prison, to the delight of so many – including Mrs. Clinton who has said Assange must
now "answer for what he has done."
But is it too late to follow up somehow on Assange's offer? Might he or his associates be still willing to provide "technical
evidence" showing, at least, who was not the culprit?
You, Mr. President, could cause that to happen. You would have to buck strong resistance at every turn, and there all manner of
ways that those with vested interests and a lot of practice in sabotage can try to thwart you – with the full cooperation of most
media pundits. By now, you know all too well how that works.
But you are the president. And there may be no better time than now to face them down, show the spurious nature of the concocted
"evidence" attempting to put you in "Putin's pocket," and – not least – lift the cloud that has prevented you from pursuing a more
decent relationship with Russia.
For the Steering Group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
William Binney , former Technical Director, World Geopolitical & Military Analysis, NSA; co-founder, SIGINT Automation Research
Center (ret.)
Bogdan Dzakovic , former Team Leader of Federal Air Marshals and Red Team, FAA Security (ret.) (associate VIPS)Philip
Giraldi, CIA, Operations Officer (ret.)
Mike Gravel, former Adjutant, top secret control officer, Communications Intelligence Service; special agent of the Counter
Intelligence Corps and former United States Senator
James George Jatras , former U.S. diplomat and former foreign policy adviser to Senate leadership (Associate VIPs)
Larry Johnson , former CIA Intelligence Officer & former State Department Counter-Terrorism Official, (ret.)
Michael S. Kearns, Captain, USAF (ret.); ex-Master SERE Instructor for Strategic Reconnaissance Operations (NSA/DIA) and Special
Mission Units (JSOC)
John Kiriakou, former CIA Counterterrorism Officer and former Senior Investigator, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Karen Kwiatkowski , former Lt. Col., US Air Force (ret.), at Office of Secretary of Defense watching the manufacture of lies
on Iraq, 2001-2003
Clement J. Laniewski , LTC, US Army (ret.)
Linda Lewis, WMD preparedness policy analyst, USDA (ret.)
Edward Loomis, NSA Cryptologic Computer Scientist (ret.)
David MacMichael, former Senior Estimates Officer, National Intelligence Council (ret.)
Ray McGovern, former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA presidential briefer (ret.)
Elizabeth Murray, former Deputy National Intelligence Officer for the Near East & CIA political analyst (ret.)
Todd E. Pierce, MAJ, US Army Judge Advocate (ret.)
Peter Van Buren, U.S. Department of State, Foreign Service Officer (ret.) (associate VIPS)
Robert Wing, U.S. Department of State, Foreign Service Officer (former) (associate VIPS)
Ann Wright, U.S. Army Reserve Colonel (ret) and former U.S. Diplomat who resigned in 2003 in opposition to the Iraq War
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) is made up of former intelligence officers, diplomats, military officers
and congressional staffers. The organization, founded in 2002, was among the first critics of Washington's justifications for launching
a war against Iraq. VIPS advocates a US foreign and national security policy based on genuine national interests rather than contrived
threats promoted for largely political reasons. An archive of VIPS memoranda is available at
Consortiumnews.com . Reprinted from
Consortium News with permission.
Read more by Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
It is unclear what danger WikiLeaks represents naw, as it probably was infiltrated. But
publishing of Podesta emails and DNC files was really damaging to the Dems during 2016
elections.
Notable quotes:
"... "We have two foreign policies. We tell people what to do. And if they do it, we reward them. We give them a lot of money. If they don't, they're in for big trouble, they're liable to get bombed; we invade them, and there will be a coup," Dr. Paul said. ..."
"... "We find that Moreno, the president of Ecuador, did not do badly. He's been playing footsies with us, and gaining some money and he delivered, you know, after he became president – it's shame because the previous president the one that allowed or at least would at least Assange could be 'protected' to some degree," he stated. ..."
"... "The IMF has already delivered $4.2 billion to [Ecuador], and there's another six billion dollars in the pipeline for that," he said. ..."
Dr. Paul, the founder of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity, made the remarks
on Monday while discussing the violent arrest of Assange by UK Metropolitan Police last week at
the Ecuadorian embassy in London, after the Moreno government cancelled his asylum.
The Australian whistleblower was arrested on behalf of the US on Thursday at the Ecuadorean
embassy in London, where he had been granted asylum since 2012.
Assange, 47, is wanted by the US government for publishing classified documents related to
the Iraq and Afghanistan wars that were leaked by American whistleblower Chelsea Manning.
Assange spent seven years at the Ecuadorian embassy before his arrest.
"We have two foreign policies. We tell people what to do. And if they do it, we reward them.
We give them a lot of money. If they don't, they're in for big trouble, they're liable to get
bombed; we invade them, and there will be a coup," Dr. Paul said.
"We find that Moreno, the president of Ecuador, did not do badly. He's been playing
footsies with us, and gaining some money and he delivered, you know, after he became president
– it's shame because the previous president the one that allowed or at least would at
least Assange could be 'protected' to some degree," he stated.
"But he (Moreno) evidently is out form and now of course he has delivered him. And this
might not be even all of that. This probably is official tool of ours to provide these funds,"
the analyst noted.
"The IMF has already delivered $4.2 billion to [Ecuador], and there's another six billion
dollars in the pipeline for that," he said.
Moreno on Sunday accused Assange of trying to use Ecuador's embassy in London as a "center
for spying," and said that the decision to strip the whistleblower of his political asylum
followed "violations" of that status.
In an interview with The Guardian , Moreno defended his decision on the Assange
case.
"It is unfortunate that, from our territory and with the permission of authorities of the
previous government, facilities have been provided within the Ecuadoran Embassy in London to
interfere in processes of other states," the president said.
Highly recommenced to listen. Judge Napolitano is an interesting speaker (start at 41 min)
As CIA in the USA government organizational chart stands above the Presidential Office Hillary is really untouchable, unless the
Presidential Office is also occupied by CIA-democrat like Obama.
Notable quotes:
"... She absolutely thinks she is untouchable ..."
"... Every corrupt person was praised and given more power!!! Hillary sat back and knew of all the raping that bill was doing to kids teenagers young ladies boys young men and she never blinked an eye!!! If a simple tax paying citizen was to pull the bullshit that Hillary has pulled in front of Howdy that citizen would be see the lights day until Jesus came and took us home to Heaven!! ..."
"... Hillary Clinton actually says in this video that half of Trump supporters are "deplorable". That is equivalent to roughly 25% of the American population! That constitutes a very strong statement from someone who wants to be president of The United States. ..."
Congress is a waste of tax money, they have no power, so obvious! Criminal leaders just lie to them, knowing they can't do
a thing and most of them are paid off anyway, they don't want to do anything! Elections are rigged, so they don't have to worry
about, "we the poor, lowly people!" We are not even in the equation!
Why is this pathological liar Hillary still running around free ?? Isn't lying to Congress a felony ??? If this lowlife is
simply above the law lets change the laws !
Prosecute everyone of them that knew and allowed even the smallest bit of knowledge and make every one of them ineligible for
their pensions. They do not deserve those pensions, they stole them, treasonous acts against your government does not make you
eligable..they do not deserve it!!
Not only a habitual serial liar but a career Criminal! Hillary and Bill have been involved in illegal manners for over 40 years!
Hillary stated it best last year during the time of the election!. " If Donald Trump becomes president, WE WILL ALL HANG!" She
finally told the truth!
She absolutely thinks she is untouchable because not one person has been brave enough and bold enough to take her
down the Clinton's have been corrupt and evil from child good and they were taught from NWO that they will never be taken down
go child rob steel kill do everything in the power we Give you both and bring me all glory!!! We will let you control the United
States as long as you want!!!
All the connected deaths that embrace the Clinton's and not single piece of evidence is kept found
or stored that it doesn't come up missing so they sit back and allow these foreign governments to take over major areas and promote
child sex trafficking who're houses with kids being sold to any man with air in his lungs!
Every corrupt person was praised and
given more power!!! Hillary sat back and knew of all the raping that bill was doing to kids teenagers young ladies boys young
men and she never blinked an eye!!! If a simple tax paying citizen was to pull the bullshit that Hillary has pulled in front of
Howdy that citizen would be see the lights day until Jesus came and took us home to Heaven!!
She gas lied straight face looked him dead in the eyes and laughed at the bengahzi deaths that She is on record having him
killed she laughed and she didn't Give a f*** about killing him and leaving his remains behind but my question is why hasn't she
been arrested booked finger printed and mugshot took with a huge bond or mot and put behind bars until you beat the f******truth
out if her??? I would get the death penalty she wouldn't and hasn't gotten a contempt of court for not complying with mr. Gowdy
Hillary Clinton actually says in this video that half of Trump supporters are "deplorable". That is equivalent to roughly 25%
of the American population! That constitutes a very strong statement from someone who wants to be president of The United States.
To say that 80 million people are "deplorable" IS TRULY DEPLORABLE!!! After hearing this I can't really understand WHY she got
even a single vote!
This is a fantastic mosaic of the state of Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation. It is absolutely clear that she is an
habitual liar, corrupt to the extreme and has absolutely no credibility.
I'd love to see Mr Gowdy take the gloves off and take
her down. She must be removed from the public as she is a menace. She is the mother of deplorable.
It is possible, now that Assange has been arrested, that the American charge against him is
relatively minor only in order to encourage the UK to extradite him. Once he is in American
custody those charges may well change.
btw Trump suddenly dropping any love for Wikileaks after enthusiastically stating his
approval of them over 100 times during the last election is going to cause a lot of damage to
his chances of being reelected.
Wikileaks is probably already putting him under the microscope, and there are all the
Wikileaks fans to contend with as well.
Bad move Donald, you just sacrificed a bishop to no advantage and placed yourself in
danger of checkmate. More people are starting to see your 'veracity' as the facade it is.
We had been inflicted with "Russogate" ad nauseam for the better part of two years and
nothing, absolutely nothing, came of it. But no mention of the Zio-gate where the dog and its
tail reciprocally meddle in each others' election(s) overwhelmingly in favor of Zio-tail
interests. The silence of this issue in the MSM is deafening.
Actually smart Northern European men enabled the very Internet you are using to spread
kosher propaganda.
1. Gottfried Leibniz/German – binary number system.
2. George Boole/English – Boolean logic.
3. Konrad Kuze/German – electronic computer.
4. Donald Davies/Welsh – packet switching.
5. Clifford Cocks/English – public key encryption years before Rivest , Shamir, and
Adleman.
6. Edsger Dijkstra/Dutch – Dijkstra's algorithm and programming.
7. Tim Berners-Lee/English – HTML and http.
8. Håkon Wium Lie/Norwegian – Cascading Style Sheets (CSS).
9. Linus Torvalds/Finn – Linux on which many web servers run. Klaus Knopper/German
– Knoppix Linux variant.
10. Frank Codd/English – relational database model.
11. Michael Widenius/Swede – MySQL on which many web applications run.
12. Kristen Nygaard & Ole-Johan Dahl/Norwegians – object-oriented programming and
Simula programming language.
13. Guido van Rossum/Dutch – Python programming language.
14. Lennart Augustsson/Swede – Haskell programming language.
15. Bjarne Stroustrup/Dane – C++ programming language.
17 Geoffrey Hinton/English – artificial intelligence.
18. Jürgen Dethloff and Helmut Göttrup/Germans – chip card used in mobile
phones plus credit and debit cards.
19. Karlheinz Brandenburg/German – MP3 format.
"... "Market capitalism is not a religion. Market capitalism is a tool, like a staple gun or a toaster," Carlson said. "Any economic system that weakens and destroys families isn't worth having." Does this observation make Tucker a socialist? Hardly. As is often the case, TAC founding editor Patrick J. Buchanan was more than a decade ahead of the curve. ..."
"... To me, the country comes before the economy; and the economy exists for the people ..."
"... I believe in free markets, but I do not worship them. In the proper hierarchy of things, it is the market that must be harnessed to work for man -- and not the other way around. ..."
"... Free markets can be corrosive of other values or priorities that are important to authentic conservatives: family, faith, and community. We see major corporations promoting social and cultural liberalism, social media monopolies -- all privately owned -- de-platforming conservatives and suppressing their ideas, big business and big government working hand in hand against religion and tradition. ..."
"... "In states such as Ohio, West Virginia, and Kentucky, countless children are growing up with parents in jail, incapacitated, or underground," writes J.D. Vance in Meyer's publication. "Yes, they live in a country with a higher GDP than a generation ago, and they're undoubtedly able to buy cheaper consumer goods, but to paraphrase Reagan: Are they better off than they were 20 years ago?" ..."
"... The periodic electoral successes conservatives have enjoyed since the 1980s have caused us to lose sight of an important question: what is it that we are trying to conserve? The search for answers is finally ready for primetime. ..."
Capitalist Tool Electoral successes have caused conservatives to lose sight of an important question: what is it that
we are trying to conserve? By TAC Staff
• April 16, 2019
Credit:
Gage Skidmore | Flickr Editor's Note: This editorial was published in the March/April issue of the magazine.
Bernie Sanders. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Tucker Carlson. If one of those names on a list of examples of ascendant socialism strikes
you as out of place, you may have missed weeks of debate on the Right over a reasonable comment made by the popular Fox News host.
"Market capitalism is not a religion. Market capitalism is a tool, like a staple gun or a toaster," Carlson said. "Any economic
system that weakens and destroys families isn't worth having." Does this observation make Tucker a socialist? Hardly. As is often
the case, TAC founding editor Patrick J. Buchanan was more than a decade ahead of the curve.
"To me, the country comes before the economy; and the economy exists for the people," Buchanan said in a 1998 speech to the Chicago
Council on Foreign Relations. "I believe in free markets, but I do not worship them. In the proper hierarchy of things, it is the
market that must be harnessed to work for man -- and not the other way around."
In practice, conservatives often have worshiped free markets. As John Zmirak argued in these pages in 2003, the need to come up
with a universal ideology that could compete with Marxism led some Cold War conservatives to lose the plot. The early neoconservatives
and their forebears, he writes, "brought with them vast talents, literary learning, and serious moral concern for universal issues
of human rights. But they also carried a strong tendency towards pure abstraction, towards viewing national questions purely in ideological
terms."
The end result was they often "defended America bravely during the Cold War -- but they did so not as our homeland, as the particular
place where a people and their treasured institutions took root, but rather as the (almost accidental) spot where certain ideas had
taken hold."
Similarly, the "fusionist" conception of conservatism propounded by National Review senior editor Frank Meyer sought to
use libertarian means to achieve traditionalist ends. Some conservatives have misconstrued that as a decree that libertarian means
will necessarily achieve traditionalist ends.
We know that to not be the case. Free markets can be corrosive of other values or priorities that are important to authentic conservatives:
family, faith, and community. We see major corporations promoting social and cultural liberalism, social media monopolies -- all
privately owned -- de-platforming conservatives and suppressing their ideas, big business and big government working hand in hand
against religion and tradition.
"In states such as Ohio, West Virginia, and Kentucky, countless children are growing up with parents in jail, incapacitated,
or underground," writes J.D. Vance in Meyer's publication. "Yes, they live in a country with a higher GDP than a generation ago,
and they're undoubtedly able to buy cheaper consumer goods, but to paraphrase Reagan: Are they better off than they were 20 years
ago?"
Among conservatives, there has been a course correction. Since the election of Donald Trump, a Republican president who divides
conservatives, more people on the Right speak of the United States as a homeland rather than a mere abstraction. The global economy
and mass immigration are being subjected to cost-benefit analysis, as champions of the marketplace should have it. There is more
of a willingness to contest the idea that what's good for General Motors is good for conservatives -- or America.
Maybe conservatives will overcorrect, putting too much faith in government, even at the local level, at the expense of free markets.
But fusionists once understood that liberty and virtue, individualism and tradition, are to some extent in tension. Efforts to manage
that balance are necessary but will not always produce a perfect synthesis, a straight line from low marginal tax rates to intact
families.
The periodic electoral successes conservatives have enjoyed since the 1980s have caused us to lose sight of an important question:
what is it that we are trying to conserve? The search for answers is finally ready for primetime.
Look on the bright side, Trump's overt pandering to Israel has disgusted the Europeans so
much that Macron is at the lowest point in his popularity as Rothschild's puppet, and there
is rising support for the AfD in Germany.
The NYT reported that 40% of Germans now think it's right to blame Jews for Israel's
policy in the Mideast, German youth couldn't care less about the holocaust, and Merkel is
pivoting to Russia.
It is now (America + Israel) vs. (the rest of the world led by Russia, China, Iran, Syria,
with increasing pivot from Germany and India)
Even the rest of the Five Eyes a.k.a. America's lap dogs are casting a wary eye towards
this unholy alliance, and avoid outright support for Israel. Netanyahu has let his new found
power, i.e. America's muscles, gone to his head. He's digging a grave for himself, turning
Israel more and more into a pariah state with each passing day.
I'm guessing chess is not Trump's strong suit, nor any of the Israel Firsters (incl. Pence
& Pompeo) hanging around him. They're all letting their new found power go to their
collective heads. Things are going to backfire on them sooner or later.
@wayfarer
"Trump panders to his base at the Republican Jewish Coalition."
The trouble is, the Republican Jewish Coalition was never his base. These people were the
biggest Trump haters until he got elected. Now they're just holding their noses to buy power
through him.
Meanwhile, the real Trump's base could care less about Israel, and are frankly disgusted
with his foreign policy and complete failure on immigration.
So newly reelected Israeli monster-in-chief Benjamin Netanyahu
has boasted , with a grin, that America's President Donald J. Trump followed through on his
proposal to declare the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) a terrorist group. Bibi was
smiling because the timing of the move, one day before the Israeli election, strongly suggests
it was done to assist him against what had become a very strong opposition challenge. That
Trump likely colluded with Netanyahu to blatantly interfere in the election has apparently
bothered no one in Israel or in the tame American media.
The gift from Washington came on top of recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan
Heights, threatening members of the International Criminal Court if they try to prosecute
Israel for war crimes, moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, removing the word "occupation"
from the State Department's assessments of human rights infringements on the West Bank,
eliminating relief funding for Palestinian refugees, leaving the U.N. Human Rights Council
because it was too critical of Israel, and looking the other way as Israel declared itself a
state only for Jews. Washington also ignored the bombing of hospitals, schools and water
treatment infrastructure in Gaza while Israeli army snipers were shooting unarmed demonstrators
demanding their freedom.
The labeling of the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist group is particularly disturbing as
it means that the United States military by virtue of the Authorization to Use Military Force
(AUMF) now has a mandate to attack the IRGC wherever it appears, including in Syria or even in
the waterway the Straits of Hormuz, where the guard has regular patrols in small boats. It is a
de facto declaration of war and it comes on top of a number of deliberate provocations
directed against Iran starting with the withdrawal from the nuclear agreement Joint
Comprehensive Plan Of Action (JCPOA) one year ago, which led to the unilateral imposition of
harsh sanctions directed against the Iranian economy to bring about a popular uprising as well
as regularly repeated false claims that Iran is the leading "state sponsor of terrorism." Next
month, the U.S. will begin enforcing a unilaterally declared worldwide sanction on any and all
Iranian oil sales.
Netanyahu pledged to annex Israeli settlements on the largely Palestinian West Bank if
elected, which is undoubtedly a move cleared in advance with the Trump team of foreign policy
sociopaths as it de facto puts an end to any delusional speculation over a possible
two-state negotiated solution for the Israel-Palestine conflict. It will also lead to a massive
upsurge in violence as the Palestinians object, which is neither a concern for the White House
or Netanyahu, as they are assuming that it can be suppressed by overwhelming force directed
against an almost completely unarmed civilian population.
And Trump will no doubt expect Bibi to return the favor when he is running for reelection in
2020 by encouraging American Jews who care about Israel to support the Republicans. Trump is
focused on his own electability and is absolutely shameless about his betrayal of actual
American interests in the Middle East, possibly because he has no inkling of the actual damage
that he is doing.
His speech last week before the casino multi-billionaire Sheldon Adelson-hosted Jewish
Republican Coalition Annual Leadership Meeting in Las Vegas was a disgusting pander to a group
that includes many key players who have little or no concern for what happens to the United
States as long as Israel flourishes. The only good news that came out of the meeting was that
Adelson himself appears to be "gravely ill."
Trump at times appeared to be speaking to what he thought was a group of Israelis,
referring to "your prime minister" when mentioning Benjamin Netanyahu and several times
describing Israel as "yours," suggesting that deep down he understands that many American Jews
are more loyal to Israel than to the United States. At another point, Trump declared that "The
Democrats have even allowed the terrible scourge of anti-Semitism to take root
in their party and their country," apparently part of a White House plan to keep playing that
card to turn American Jews and their political donations in a Republican direction before
elections in 2020.
Trump also told the Republican Coalition audience how he came to a decision on recognizing
Israel's sovereignty over the Golan Heights. He described how
"he'd been speaking to his son-in-law and senior adviser, Jared Kushner, as well as U.S.
ambassador to Israel David Friedman and his Israel adviser, Jason Greenblatt, over the phone
about an unrelated issue when he suddenly brought up the Golan Heights." Trump shared how "I
said, 'Fellows, do me a favor. Give me a little history, quick. Want to go fast. I got a lot of
things I'm working on: China, North Korea. Give me a quickie.' After the advisers filled him
in, Trump said he asked Friedman: 'David, what do you think about me recognizing Israel and the
Golan Heights?' Friedman, apparently surprised by the suggestion, reacted like a 'wonderful,
beautiful baby,' Trump said, and asked if he would 'really do that.' 'Yeah, I think I'm doing
it right now. Let's write something up,' Trump said he responded, prompting applause and cheers
from his audience in Las Vegas. 'We make fast decisions and we make good decisions.'"
Putting the Trump story about the Golan Heights in some kind of context is not really
that difficult. He wanted an answer to please Netanyahu and he went to three Orthodox Jews who
support the illegal Israeli settlements and have also individually contributed financially to
their growth so he was expecting the response that he got. That he was establishing a
precedent by his moves on Jerusalem and the Golan apparently did not occur to him as his
administration prides itself on having a foreign policy vision that extends no longer than the
beginning of next week, which is why he hired Mike Pompeo, John Bolton and Elliott Abrams. And
then there is always the doleful Stephen Miller lurking in the background as well as the three
musketeers of Kushner, Greenblatt and Friedman for really serious questions relating to why
acceding to the wishes of parasite state Israel should continue to be the apparent number one
priority of the government of the United States.
Donald Trump neither poses nor answers the question why he feels compelled to fulfill all
of the campaign pledges he made to the Jewish community, which by and large did not vote for
him, while failing to carry out the promises made to those who actually did support him .
The absurd Jewish Republican Coalition narrative about how Trump gave Israel the Golan Heights
should have resulted in a flood of opprobrium in the U.S. media about his profound ignorance
and fundamental hypocrisy, but there was largely silence.
The nonsense going on in Las Vegas in front of a lot of fat cats who regard the United
States as little more than a cash cow that they control as well as in the White House itself
unfortunately has real world consequences. America is being led by the nose by a
well-entrenched and powerful group of Israeli loyalists and this will not end well. The
U.S. doesn't even have a Middle Eastern foreign policy anymore – it has a "to do" list
handed by Netanyahu to whomever is president. The fact that the current man in charge in
Washington is either so ignorant or so deluded as to allow the process to escalate until the
U.S. is drawn into yet more catastrophic wars is beyond regrettable. U.S. foreign policy should
not depend on the perceptions of Kushner and company. It should be based on real, tangible
American interests, not those of Israel. Someone should explain that to the president.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National
Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation that seeks a more interests-based
U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is councilforthenationalinterest.org, address
is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected].
The gift from Washington came on top of recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan
Heights, threatening members of the International Criminal Court if they try to prosecute
Israel for war crimes
It reminds me of the following agreements concluded during the Bush era:
US Bilateral Exemption Agreements
"The Bush Administration is actively opposed to the International Criminal Court. Its
insistence on placing all Americans above international law risks undermining the ICC in its
earliest and most fragile years. Currently, the State Department is pushing individual
countries to conclude bilateral agreements with the US, exempting all Americans (and even
some non-nationals) from accountability for genocide, crimes against humanity, and war
crimes . These proposed agreements, in the form requested by the US government, are
illegal under the Rome Statute and are not required by US law.
· The European Union has concluded that "Entering into US agreements – as
presently drafted would be inconsistent with ICC States Parties' obligations with regard to
the ICC Statute and may be inconsistent with other international agreements."
To bring the US proposal back within the legal scope of Article 98(2), the EU would
require four modifications:
· No impunity: A guarantee that the US would investigate and potentially prosecute
the accused in its domestic courts.
· No reciprocity: Nationals of ICC States Parties must be excluded from
coverage.
· No universal scope: These agreements can only cover persons officially sent on
government business by a State.
· Ratification: The agreement must be approved according to the constitutional
procedures of each individual state.
Soon after WWII, U.S. statesman Dean Acheson warned that creating Israel on land already
inhabited by Palestinians would "imperil" both American and all Western interests in the
region. Despite warnings such as this one, President Truman supported establishing a Jewish
state on land primarily inhabited by Muslims and Christians.
Few Americans today are aware that U.S. support enabled the creation of modern Israel.
Even fewer know that U.S. politicians pushed this policy over the forceful objections of top
diplomatic and military experts.
As this work demonstrates, these politicians were bombarded by a massive pro-Israel
lobbying effort that ranged from well-funded and very public Zionist organizations to an
"elitist secret society" whose members included Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis.
Against Our Better Judgment brings together meticulously sourced evidence to illuminate a
reality that differs starkly from the prevailing narrative. It provides a clear view of the
history that is key to understanding one of the most critically important political issues of
our day.
Interview with Scholar and Journalist, Mark Bruzonsky. Mark Bruzonsky, a Jewish, American
Scholar and Journalist, has been a key member behind the scenes of the Israeli Palestinian
peace initiative in the 1980s, meeting with Former Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and with
Palestinian officials. In this exclusive interview with Press TV's Autograph, Mr. Bruzonsky
talks about the challenges and missed opportunities he witnessed first-hand, and how Zionist
groups infiltrated American politics, US institutions and organizations. He goes further to
explain the specific time and day Obama sold out to the AIPAC lobby, and how President Obama
would never dare oppose the stronghold of the Zionist, Israeli Lobby in the US.
One of my biggest concerns about the 2016 Sanders campaign was that, at least at the
beginning, it was too easily forced to apologize for attacks on supposed "allies of
progressives" in the Democratic ecosystem -- because "unity."
The prime example of that occurred when Sanders accused the Planned Parenthood Action Fund
-- not Planned Parenthood the health care organization, Planned Parenthood AF, the highly
Clintonist political action committee, which had early-endorsed Clinton despite Sanders'
excellent record on women's issues -- of being "part of the establishment."
He was immediately accused by the rest of the establishment, falsely, of attacking Planned
Parenthood clinics. And he backed down, unwisely in my view. (For more on that episode, read
the first few
paragraphs of this piece .)
Well, the highly Clintonist, highly corporate establishment is at it again, in the form of
the corrupt
Center for American Progress (CAP) and its online publication ThinkProgress . (For more
on their corruption, see also
here and here .)
ThinkProgress published a video critical of Sanders, as Lee Fang (who also delves into
their corruption) explains here:
In response to that video Sanders sent CAP a letter
, saying in part:
Center for American Progress leader Neera Tanden repeatedly calls for unity while
simultaneously maligning my staff and supporters and belittling progressive ideas. I worry
that the corporate money CAP is receiving is inordinately and inappropriately influencing the
role it is playing in the progressive movement . (emphasis mine)
Team Sanders then went a whole lot further than that in a public fundraising letter, parts
of which are reproduced below. Note the expansion of the "corporate money" point from the CAP
letter, and also the directness (emphasis mine throughout):
"We are under attack"
Sisters, Brothers, and Friends –
Just like that, our campaign is under attack from the corporate establishment .
This week, an organization that is the epitome of the political establishment --
the Center for American Progress (CAP) -- unleashed and promoted an online attack video
against Bernie.
And behind the scenes on the day Bernie introduced his Medicare for All bill, they held a
conference call with reporters attacking the bill.
That is the Center for American Progress' real goal. Trying to stop Medicare for All
and our progressive agenda .
CAP's leadership has been pretty upfront about their disdain for Bernie -- and for all of
us. They see our political revolution as a threat to their privilege and influence
.
The Center for American Progress is an organization whose massive annual budget is
bankrolled by billionaires and corporate executives that profit from finance,
pharmaceutical companies, fossil fuels, and sending American jobs overseas.
Last year alone, they took funding from financial giants like Bank of America and
Blackstone, whose CEO was chair of Trump's business council and is a leading
Republican donor.
Before that, they cashed checks from companies like BlueCross Blue Shield, Pfizer,
WalMart , and defense contractors like General Dynamics and BAE Systems .
They also took hundreds of thousands of dollars from the fossil fuel pumping United
Arab Emirates while the country was bombing innocent civilians in Yemen – a war
Bernie has led the fight to end.
The Center for American Progress has deep connections to the economic and political
elites who have done so much damage to working families in every zip code. And what we
must do today is send a message that we are prepared to fight back against those who are
working day and night to defeat our movement .
In solidarity,
Team Bernie
That's powerful stuff, no-holds-barred truth-telling. Note the many bells it
rings:
"corporate establishment" "epitome of the political establishment" "real goal stop
Medicare for All and our progressive agenda" "threat to their privilege and influence" "massive
annual budget is bankrolled by billionaires" "deep connections to the economic and political
elites who have done so much damage to working families" "working day and night to defeat our
movement"
The letter also names a few of the companies and countries that bankroll CAP -- Walmart,
Bank of America, Blue Cross, Blackstone, the UAE. He could have listed a great many more. There
are countless stories emerging from former ThinkProgress writers about CAP leadership
squelching aggressive reporting because their reports were negatively affecting CAP
fundraising. Read this twitter thread by former
ThinkProgress reporter Zaid Jilani to see some of those. There are others as well
.
Bernie Sanders is not backing down this time. Unlike 2016, this will be a battle with the
enemy named out loud and its deeds detailed. Looks like the fight, the one our country has been
avoiding for years, is finally on.
I commented about this on another thread to the effect that this is the beginning of a
"Night of the Long Knives" quality power struggle in the Democrat Party.
Glad to see the Sanders campaign being proactive about the dirty dealing that is being used to
try and stop them.
Now for Sanders to start framing the struggle as being between "Their" Democrat Party and "Our"
Democrat Party. Sanders really needs to pull off what Trump managed to do in the Republican
Party; a hostile takeover.
Exactly right. Unlike Trump, however, Bernie will have to do it with the entire corporate
and political establishments against him. And not even a "left" Fox News in his corner. It will
truly be us against (all of) them.
If any democrat wants to be real, they have to attack other democrats, because the democrats
suck.
As a political party, they are so pathetic, they lost to donald trump.
The republicans are vile , and mornic.that is how they appeal to their base ..
So if anything is to be done to try and break the stalemate, it must be the debate of ideas.
Not the battle of personalities , we have now.
The republicans have no real ideas, just worn out tropes. The democratic leadership, go around
"saying", they are progressives ( pelosi interview),but really they are as tired in their way
of thinking as the republicans .
Both groups are not worth a thing.
when pelosi pointed out AOC had a group of five she was being dismissive saying she was
steering a bigger ship democrats of all stripes. even the republicans who won seats as
democrats . but really her and her band of good for nothing democrats, doesn't count for
anything near the five new democrats who are out spoken, and have the good character to be on
the right side of history..
I for one, would vote for anyone who battles the democratic blob of a machine. and anyone who
doesn't have a problem with the democratic party, is un-electable.
Pelosi needs to go.
So sanders should fight the democratic corporatists in the senate, if he is trying to be real.
It is about time he needs that "audacity of hope" thingy.
Bernie is definitely in it to win this time. Last night he crushed it on Fox News. He had
the Fox Town Hall audience cheering and applauding. Yes, Fox News.
It's exactly what both sides of the broken political duopoly feared. Trump's tweet on the
subject bears testament to the latter . The pre #BernieFoxTownHall agita from
pearl-clutching Dem cultists online serves as evidence of the former .
Sanders is staying away from some issues, such as Assange arrest and Venezuela, which has
caused some complaints from the Left. Personally, I think he is being tactical and smart in
that he is attempting to reach the largest portion of the electorate. I doubt that he or his
staff is ignorant on these type issues, but he is set on a goal and does not want to let issues
that might divert his direction toward that goal. Or am I being unduly naïve? I am pretty
skeptical of all politicians, but his consistent history gives me some confidence that he will
be straight on these issues if elected/.
Saying something about two radically different people doesn't logically lead to the same
thing. Obama was great at giving speeches, was a historic candidate and did try to (in a vague
way) make it sound as if he wanted to change the system. He didn't. He pretended to want to
re-negotiate NAFTA, but when the Canadians freaked a bit, his campaign assured them that it was
just talk, cause it was. It was obvious before he took office, to anyone paying attention, that
Obama was a neoliberal that wouldn't change much of anything. But Obama in 2008 is not Bernie
then or now. Obama in 2008 is Beto or mayor Pete now. Empty platitudes, totally cut off from
the struggles of working people, paid to not structurally change what needs to structurally
change by people that benefit from the system as is. Obama was just much better at being that
empty slate than the 2020 version of him. I can almost smell the mayor Pete book deal though,
and I am sure he can too.
Thanks for this comment. I tried to read yesterday's New York piece
on the Democrats' Folksiest Heartland Hope, but between that
mcPhoto at the top, and the conversational, we're-all-in-this
together tone of the writer, stopped after a couple of paras.
The #resistance are all so tired; do they not realize that?
Regarding Mister Obama's speeches, to me they reeked of
hollowness. He had the gestures and cadences down, though.
I think you are not being unduly naive. Watch some of Bernie's videos from the 80ies. He is
very clear eyed about what he's dealing with – and has always said the same thing. He is
being realistic, tactical and smart – raising powerful issues where there is clear daily
pain for the common person that can bring a powerful response – is anyone really
surprised about the Fox audience reaction? (Im only surprised they didnt stack the room with
fakes who would boo him ).
The foreign policy issues are not so clear cut for the common working class person (please
understand that!) and would muddle the message. He finally sees an opening and he is going for
it. He knows what he's doing.
The other thing about Fox is that the owner Murdochs are amoral and apolitical. They go
where the money is. Totally neoliberal. That is all they care about. They know the money train
is coming to a very complex junction and are setting up to go with the money, whether corporate
or little people's.
I think this touches on what could be the most important aspect of a Sanders presidency
– it's not so much the policies (they are important), but the people that would be
brought into government. This letter is an indication that the usual suspects will not be
running the show. In that regard, it could be similar to Reagan's time in office, except way,
way better.
Just got another email from Bernie's campaign. Here it is:
Subject: A serious threat to our campaign
The New York Times has an article today with the headline "'Stop Sanders' Democrats
Are Agonizing Over His Momentum."
"From canapé-filled fund-raisers on the coasts to the cloakrooms of Washington,
mainstream Democrats are increasingly worried " the article begins.
"The Bernie question comes up in every fundraising meeting I do," said one fundraiser.
"It has gone from being a low hum to a rumble," said an operative.
"He did us a disservice in the last election," said another.
"You can see him reading the headlines now," Mr. [David] Brock mused: "'Rich people don't
like me.'"
Mr. Brock -- who smeared Anita Hill and who led an effort to stop our political revolution
four years ago -- is almost correct. They don't just hate Bernie Sanders. They hate everything
our political revolution embodies. They hate Medicare for All, the Green New Deal, breaking up
big banks, free public college for all.
That is why, in the next 48 hours, we are launching a fundraising drive that I hope will
send an unmistakable message to the political establishment about the strength of our political
revolution.
That's why I'm asking you today:
[Link to donation site] Make a $27 contribution to our campaign as part of our emergency
48-hour fundraising drive to fight back against the "anti-Sanders" campaign being hatched by
the financial elite of this country. [End link]
They may have "canapé-filled fundraisers." We have each other.
Well, just moments after reading the NYT article in question, which is quite a doozy, this
popped up in my in box:
"The New York Times has an article today with the headline "'Stop Sanders' Democrats Are
Agonizing Over His Momentum."
"From canapé-filled fund-raisers on the coasts to the cloakrooms of Washington,
mainstream Democrats are increasingly worried " the article begins.
"The Bernie question comes up in every fundraising meeting I do," said one fundraiser.
"It has gone from being a low hum to a rumble," said an operative.
"He did us a disservice in the last election," said another.
"You can see him reading the headlines now," Mr. [David] Brock mused: "'Rich people don't like
me.'"
Mr. Brock -- who smeared Anita Hill and who led an effort to stop our political revolution four
years ago -- is almost correct. They don't just hate Bernie Sanders. They hate everything our
political revolution embodies. They hate Medicare for All, the Green New Deal, breaking up big
banks, free public college for all.
That is why, in the next 48 hours, we are launching a fundraising drive that I hope will send
an unmistakable message to the political establishment about the strength of our political
revolution.
That's why I'm asking you today:
Make a contribution to our campaign as part of our emergency 48-hour fundraising drive to fight
back against the "anti-Sanders" campaign being hatched by the financial elite of this
country.
They may have "canapé-filled fundraisers." We have each other.
In solidarity,
Faiz Shakir
Campaign Manager
Forgetting nothing, learning nothing. One of the true, primal joys of Bernie's 2016 campaign
was hitting the donate button every time the dollar dems dumped on him.
Likewise. I'm giving every time they dump on him, and again every time he hits back. At this
pace, $27 may get to be too expensive. A good problem to have I'd say.
@The
Alarmist Trump doesn't strike me as someone with principles or opinions of his own. He
will say and do whatever his base of "deplorables" likes to hear and whatever helps him get
what he wants.
To understand how such total control is done, one has to look at the role of banking serfdom,
led by the FED and the central bankers, and media brainwash, run by Hollywood and mainstream
media.
In terms of banking, here is a great explanation, including The City of London that owns
UK:
Prof. Werner brilliantly explains how the banking system and financial sector really
work.
402,668 views
The workings of the monetary system have been a mystery throughout globalisation, which is
why we have had so many financial crises.
The central banks were charged with bringing financial stability, but they didn't
understand it either, so they didn't stand a chance.
The BIS is just as bad and Richard Werner points out the Basel regulations are based on
the assumption that banks are financial intermediaries, but they are not.
The central banks know a bit, but obviously not enough.
Financial stability is a lot easier than it looks when you know what you are doing.
Richard Werner was in Japan in the 1980s when it went from a very stable economy and
turned into a debt fuelled monster. He worked out what happened and had all the clues
necessary to point him in the right direction.
The three types of bank lending:
1) Into business and industry – gives a good return in GDP and doesn't lead to
inflation
2) To consumers – leads to consumer price inflation
3) Into real estate and financial speculation – leads to asset price inflation and
gives a poor return in GDP and shows up in the graph of debt-to-GDP
Bank credit has been used for all the wrong things during globalisation and the bankers
have just been inflating asset prices, not creating real wealth as measured by GDP and this
has caused nearly all the financial crises.
1929 and 2008 stick out like sore thumbs when you know where to look, but the FED
didn't.
i) If gentiles are so smart, why are Jews, whom gentiles outnumber 40:1 across the
combined Western World, able to control everything?
If you're so smart, then what makes you think it has much to do with smarts? Violence may
trump intelligence in the likely event you haven't figured that out.
@jacques
sheete Please do not try to teach dishonest person about honesty. Dishonest person know
about honesty. He only did figure out that being dishonest is more rewarding than being
honest.
@Thomm Posing
a question without giving it a thought first will backfire. The same question could be asked
of Whites in the Western world: if they are so smart, why are >99% of them totally
controlled by <1%? It is that <1% that is the dog wagged by the Zio-tail.
Even people on the fringe of the Jewish Israeli society, the Russian Israelis, were all for
Jewish nationalism and against socialism and Arabs. This is really silly. They are hardly
considered Jews, to begin with. The Ministry of Interior plans to check them for DNA and
whether they are Jewish at all.
The Russians are weak economically, and their participation in the national discourse is
minimal. There is not a single Russian on the national Israeli TV channels.
They have a party of their own, the party of Mr Lieberman. However, the main demands of Mr
Lieberman are (1) to bring the death penalty upon Arabs, (2) to bomb and invade Gaza, and (3)
to make Mr Lieberman the Minister of Defence. And the Russian Israelis voted for him – or
for Mr Netanyahu – anyway.
Israelis of Oriental origins who inhabit poor peripheral towns are similar to Russians. They
also vote for Netanyahu and for his nationalist right-wing party, Likud. They are proud they
vote against the Ashkenazi Blue-and-White Party, though all leaders of Likud are Ashkenazi
Jews.
Is there a chance to change things in Israel, with such a Parliament? Well, yes. A military
defeat can change minds, like it did in many countries many times. Otherwise, it is hard to
imagine what would cause Netanyahu to change his course in view of the US support, Saudi
friendship, Syrian weakness, and good election results. He is not for resolving conflicts, he
is for managing conflict, and he is doing that well.
Russia's Putin plays ball with Bibi, too. Perhaps he does not like Bibi's relentless attacks
on Syria, perhaps his heart goes for Palestinians, but he is a cautious statesman, and he does
not want to antagonise the man who can mobilise American Jews into an action against Russia.
There are enough American Jews against Russia and against Putin as things are; Putin does not
need more. Besides, the Israeli opposition is not keen on Putin; they are lining up with the US
Democrats and with Brussels Europeans. They called for direct intervention in Syria on the side
of 'moderate rebels', while Netanyahu had kept Israel out of Syrian War and did not obstruct
Putin's Syrian campaign.
Will Netanyahu annex the whole of the West Bank, as he said during the election campaign?
Probably not; as nothing will be obtained by such an act but making apartheid visible. Instead,
he is likely to annex every place where Jews live in the West Bank, turning the territory of
Palestine into a slug-eaten cabbage leaf. He also may annex Area C, a bigger part of
Palestinian territory presently under Israeli military control and Palestinian civilian
administration. The Jewish settlers demand it, for, they say, Palestinians damage the
contiguity of the Jewish settlements.
The Jewish religious parties came out stronger in the new parliament. They also enjoy a very
high natural growth with families of 5 to 8 children average. They are not eager to compete on
the labour market, and prefer to be paid for studying Talmud and having kids. While it may
annoy some Israelis, in my view, it is an internal issue of little interest or importance for
anybody outside the Jewish milieu.
Is there a possible solution for the conflict? It is definitely not the Deal of the Century
of Mr Jared Kushner, some yet undefined arrangement usually done with smoke and mirrors.
Probably One Democratic State, where Jews and non-Jews are equal, is the only possible
solution, as the place is too small to divide but large enough to share.
Please note that unz.com used be forum of stalwart Trump supporters. Times change.
Notable quotes:
"... This will at least wake up those morons at places like Breitbart that Trump is nothing more than a neocon swine. I mean how much more evidence do they need to see that he is invite the world, invade the world. ..."
"... One doesn't have to be stupid to support Trump but it helps. The same can be said for his prominent enemies though. To unconditionally and faithfully support Trump, Hillary Clinton, or Nancy Pelosi, one would have to be stupid or totally controlled by one's emotions. ..."
"... You and I are voting right now just by publicly engaging in politics. Voting on election day is worth it in the same way posting comments online is worth it. ..."
"... Wouldn't a smart person recognize that falling for a grifter who cares not about Heritage America and who dances to Bibi's tune is never a good option? ..."
"... Yes. But during the election, Trump was the least bad option who sometimes seemed like a good option. That's still true today. ..."
This will at least wake up those morons at places like Breitbart that Trump is nothing more
than a neocon swine. I mean how much more evidence do they need to see that he is invite the
world, invade the world.
On top of that mass censorship being unleashed under Trump, how can anyone still be conned
into supporting him.
@Colin
Wright For one, its not reposing any confidence, faith, and trust in DJT. He is a
charlatan who appeals to low IQ whites.
Why do so many intelligent people delude themselves into rationalizing their support and
vote for Trump upon the basis of the lesser of two evils loser mindset?
Look at the labor participation numbers. Worse under Trump than under the Kenyan
mulatto.
Look at the rate the debt is increasing. Look at the total increase in the debt since the
serial adulterer took office.
Look at the surge in immigration under this congenital prevaricator.
One doesn't
have to be stupid to support Trump but it helps. The same can be said for his prominent
enemies though. To unconditionally and faithfully support Trump, Hillary Clinton, or Nancy
Pelosi, one would have to be stupid or totally controlled by one's emotions.
That being said, a smart person could still support Trump. A smart person could recognize
Trump finishing his term as the least bad option. In 2020, this same smart person might
recognize that, amazingly, a Trump second term had become the least bad option. People can
scream and throw around insults or they can present an alternative to Trump.
Wouldn't a smart person recognize that his vote does not matter?
Wouldn't a smart person recognize that Stalin's maxim, "its not who votes that counts, its
who counts the votes" controls?
Wouldn't a smart person recognize that falling for a grifter who cares not about Heritage
America and who dances to Bibi's tune is never a good option?
@Liberty MikeWouldn't
a smart person recognize that his vote does not matter?
You and I are voting right now just by publicly engaging in politics. Voting on election
day is worth it in the same way posting comments online is worth it.
Wouldn't a smart person recognize that falling for a grifter who cares not about Heritage
America and who dances to Bibi's tune is never a good option?
Yes. But during the election, Trump was the least bad option who sometimes seemed like a good
option. That's still true today.
"... Assange accomplished more in 2010 alone than any of his preening media antagonists will in their entire lifetime, combined. Your feelings about him as a person do not matter. He could be the scummiest human on the face of Earth, and it would not detract from the fact that he has brought revelatory information to public that would otherwise have been concealed. He has shone light on some of the most powerful political factions not just in the US, but around the world. This will remain true regardless of whether Trump capitulates to the 'Deep State' and goes along with this utterly chilling, free speech-undermining prosecution. ..."
"... My support was based on the fact that Assange had devised a novel way to hold powerful figures to account, whose nefarious conduct would otherwise go unexamined but for the methods he pioneered. ..."
The nine-year gap – long after Manning had been charged, found guilty, and released from prison – suggests that there is something
ulterior going on here. The offenses outlined in the indictment are on extraordinarily weak legal footing. Part of the criminal 'conspiracy,'
prosecutors allege, is that Assange sought to protect Manning as a source and encouraged her to provide government records in the
public interest.
This is standard journalistic practice.
And it is now being criminalized by the Trump DoJ, while liberals celebrate from the sidelines – eager to join hands with the
likes of Mike Pompeo and Lindsey Graham. You could not get a more sinister confluence of political fraudsters.
They – meaning most Democrats – will never get over their grudge against Assange for having dared to expose the corruption of
America's ruling party in 2016, which they believed help deprive their beloved Hillary of her rightful ascension to the presidential
throne. Once again, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard is among the few exceptions.
The DNC and Podesta email releases, now distilled reductively into the term 'Russian interference,' contained multitudinous newsworthy
revelations, as evidenced by the fact that virtually the entire US media reported on them. (Here, feel free to refresh your memory
on this as well.) But for no reason other than pure partisan score-settling, elite liberals are willing to toss aside any consideration
for the dire First Amendment implications of Assange's arrest and cry out with joy that this man they regard as innately evil has
finally been ensnared by the punitive might of the American carceral state.
Trump supporters and Trump himself also look downright foolish. It takes about two seconds to Google all the instances in which
Trump glowingly touted WikiLeaks on the 2016 campaign trail. 'I love WikiLeaks!' he famously proclaimed on October 10, 2016 in Wilkes-Barre,
Penn.
Presumably this expression of 'love' was indication that Trump viewed WikiLeaks as providing a public service. If not, perhaps
some intrepid reporter can ask precisely what his 'love' entailed. He can pretend all he wants now that he's totally oblivious to
WikiLeaks, but it was Trump himself who relayed that he was contemporaneously reading the Podesta emails in October 2016, and reveling
in all their newsworthiness. If he wanted, he could obviously intercede and prevent any unjust prosecution of Assange. Trump has
certainly seen fit to complain publicly about all matter of other inconvenient Justice Department activity, especially as it pertained
to him or his family members and associates. But now he's acting as though he's never heard of WikiLeaks, which is just pitiful:
not a soul believes it, even his most ardent supporters.
Sean Hannity became one of Assange's biggest fans in 2016 and 2017, effusively lavishing him with praise and even visiting him
in the Ecuadorian embassy in London for an exclusive interview. One wonders whether Hannity, who reportedly speaks to his best buddy
Trump every night before bedtime, will counsel a different course on this matter. There's also the question of whether Trump's most
vehement online advocates, who largely have become stalwart defenders of WikiLeaks, will put their money where their mouth is and
condition their continued support on Assange not being depredated by the American prison system.
Assange accomplished more in 2010 alone than any of his preening media antagonists will in their entire lifetime, combined.
Your feelings about him as a person do not matter. He could be the scummiest human on the face of Earth, and it would not detract
from the fact that he has brought revelatory information to public that would otherwise have been concealed. He has shone light on
some of the most powerful political factions not just in the US, but around the world. This will remain true regardless of whether
Trump capitulates to the 'Deep State' and goes along with this utterly chilling, free speech-undermining prosecution.
I personally have supported Assange since I started in journalism, nine years ago, not because I had any special affinity for
the man himself (although the radical transparency philosophy he espoused was definitely compelling). My support was based on
the fact that Assange had devised a novel way to hold powerful figures to account, whose nefarious conduct would otherwise go unexamined
but for the methods he pioneered. As thanks, he was holed up in a tiny embassy for nearly seven years – until yesterday, when
they hauled him out ignominiously to face charges in what will likely turn out to be a political show trial. Donald Trump has the
ability to stop this, but almost certainly won't. And that's all you need to know about him.
"... These are the forms of White traditional British oriented American traitors, not racial or ethnic groups with historic envy, hatreds of our people. ..."
2) Trucklers – (LBJ) lower class White Americans who gain wealth and power by championing
non White, minority causes just because it's a path to power, pleasing the elites who would otherwise
dismiss them as hicks.
3) Pussyfooters (Bush Sr. Country Club Conservatives) White Americans who prefer their
own safe life, don't hate their own people but rarely defend them – they don't like trouble, they're
pussies. Alt Right has given them a new word "Cuckservatives".
4) Old Believers (Ron Paul, Pat Robertson) Sincere old guys who wish things could go back
to the way things used to be when some systems supposedly worked for us when we were 90% White European
American, before the Great Society, New Deal, feminism, etc
5) Proditors – (John Brown, Jane Fonda, SDS)
These are the forms of White traditional British oriented American traitors, not racial or ethnic
groups with historic envy, hatreds of our people.
Do you have links to other Wilmot Robertson sites?
I really can't emphasize #2 strongly enough. The term "fog of war" is an apt one.
People in a war generally don't know much at all about what's going on, at the time. They're lucky
if they ever do. But in every single orthodox eye-witness account I've ever read, the storytellers
know exactly what was going on, and why . Even when they shouldn't. They set off
my skeptic alarms left and right.
Read some of the accounts critically, and see for yourself. They're mostly "everybody knows,"
"it is known," type stuff. Not credible at all. These are the bricks the orthodox narrative is
made of.
Interesting but very controversial. Jewish people do possess business acumen and are more oriented toward money success. Just
look what happened in the USSR after its dissolution and Yeltsin privatization. Most "oligarchs" turned to be Jewish ;-)
Also the achievement of Jewish people in science should be be underestimated. This nation gave world a lot of top
physicists mathematicians and philosophers.
Notable quotes:
"... Even the Saudi Monarchy's occasional outbursts against Israel do not inhibit it from engaging in large-scale financial transactions with the Jewish banking elite on Wall Street and City of London and from forming covert alliances with Israeli intelligence in order to overthrow secular pro-Palestinian Arab regimes – as has happened in Libya, Iraq and Syria. They have both benefited from the massive ethnic cleansing of the highly educated minority Christian populations of secular Iraq and Syria. ..."
"... Fake anti-Semitism is most recently seen in the launching of series of anti-Semitic 'threats' by ethno-centric Jews to create hysteria, serves many purposes following the recent rise of populism in Europe and the election of the American President Donald Trump who had promised to withdraw the US from wars in the Middle East. First, it secures widespread support from North American and European regimes, especially when Israel is criticized throughout the world and at the United Nations for its war crimes in occupied Palestine. ..."
"... It is almost certain that the US FBI had identified the perpetrator of these acts as they uncovered the sophisticated operation based in Israel. The FBI would have demanded Israeli police arrest 'the culprit' and shut down the operation. Israeli police staged their own 'fake' investigation and concluded that the complex cloaked cyber operations 'were the work of a shy nineteen year old with dyslexia' – clearly another example of the Jewish genius. ..."
"... A review of the top 10 US multi-billionaires finds four who are identified as 'Jews': Mark Zuckerberg with $56 billion, Larry Ellison with $52.2 billion, Michael Bloomberg with $47.5 billion and Sergey Brin $39.4 billion. In other words 40% of the super-richest Americans are 'Jews' while 60% are non-Jews. Among the top ten in the US, billionaire Jews with a total of $195.1 billion are collectively less rich than the top billionaire Gentiles who own $282.7 billion. ..."
"... All the high-tech computer and financial billionaires are just assumed by the tribalists to view themselves as 'Jewish geniuses' even though they may have learned and borrowed ideas and knowledge from their non-Jewish partners and mentors in Silicon Valley or Wall Street. ..."
Ethno-religious (ER) beliefs and practices have been harmless when individuals or
groups linked to those practices have limited influence over the state and economy. In contrast,
when such groups exercise a disproportionately powerful influence over the state and economy, they
dominate and exploit majorities while forming closed self-replicating networks.
Examples of powerful ethno-centric regimes in the 1930's are well known for their brutality and
devastating consequences. These include the white Christians in the US, Germany and the European
colonial settlement regimes in Rhodesia, South Africa, India and Indonesia, as well as the Japanese
imperialists in Asia.
In the post-colonial or neo-colonial era, ethno-centrism has taken the form of virulent anti-Islamic
hysteria resulting in predatory Western regimes embarking on wars and military occupations in the
Middle East.
The rise of Judeo-centrism, as an economic and political force, occurred in the last half of
the 20th century. The Jewish-Zionist seizure, occupation and ethnic cleansing of historic Palestine
and their rising economic and political influence within the United States has created a formidable
power bloc with significant implications for world peace.
The rise of Jewish ethnocentrism (JE) has confounded its proponents as well as its adversaries;
Zionists and anti-Semites alike are surprised by the scope and depth of JE.
Advocates and adversaries, of all persuasions, conflate the power of what they call 'the Jews',
for their own purposes. Advocates find proof of 'Jewish genius' in every prestigious position and
attribute it to their own unique culture, heredity and scholarship, rather than the result of a greater
social-cultural context. The anti-Semites, for their part, attribute all the world's nefarious dealings
and diabolic plots to 'the Jews'. This creates a strange duality of illusions about the exceptionalism
of a minority group.
In this paper I will focus on demystifying the myths buttressing the power of contemporary Judeo-centric
ideology, belief and organizational influence. There is little point in focusing on anti-Semitism,
which has no impact on the economy and the exercise of state power with the possible exception of
Saudi Arabia. Even the Saudi Monarchy's occasional outbursts against Israel do not inhibit it from
engaging in large-scale financial transactions with the Jewish banking elite on Wall Street and City
of London and from forming covert alliances with Israeli intelligence in order to overthrow secular
pro-Palestinian Arab regimes – as has happened in Libya, Iraq and Syria. They have both benefited
from the massive ethnic cleansing of the highly educated minority Christian populations of secular
Iraq and Syria.
Fake Anti-Semitism: Operational Weapon of the Ethno-Centric Jews
Fake anti-Semitism is most recently seen in the launching of series of anti-Semitic 'threats'
by ethno-centric Jews to create hysteria, serves many purposes following the recent rise of populism
in Europe and the election of the American President Donald Trump who had promised to withdraw the
US from wars in the Middle East. First, it secures widespread support from North American and European
regimes, especially when Israel is criticized throughout the world and at the United Nations for
its war crimes in occupied Palestine. Widespread fake anti-Semitic attacks divert attention to Judeo-ethno
centrists and validate their claims to be the first among the history's victims. Second, widely publicized
'fake' acts of anti-Semitism arouse the ethnocentric foot soldiers and increase rich donor contributions
to the illegal Jewish settlements and the Israeli military. Third, 'fake anti-Semitism' is used to
threaten, repress and outlaw any organizations and individuals who criticize Israel and the influence
of Jewish ethnocentric organizations in their home countries.
How many 'anti-Semitic' acts are staged is uncertain: On March 23, 2017, an Israeli-American
man was arrested in Israel for sending hundreds of fake anti-Semitic threats to Jewish institutions
and schools in four European countries and nine US states. Such threats led to the emergency grounding
of two US airlines and the panicked evacuation of countless schools and cultural centers. This man
used a sophisticated system of cloaking accounts to appear to originate in other countries. Despite
his high skills at cyber-terrorism, Israeli authorities preposterously described him as a 'teenager
with a learning disability'. The Israeli-American cyber-terrorist's arrest made the 'back-pages'
news in the US for one day while his (and others') fake threats continued to make international headlines
for weeks.
These scores of fake anti-Semitic bomb threats were cited by the major ethnocentric leaders in
the US to pressure the US President and hundreds of Congressional leaders, University Presidents,
etc. to mindlessly echo their clamor for greater police state investigations against critics of Israel
and to offer special 'protection' for potential 'Jewish victims'. Moves to outlaw criticism of Israel
as 'anti-Semitism' and a 'hate crime' increased.
Not surprisingly the leading Jewish organizations never backed down or called on the US government
to investigate the source of the fake anti-Semitic threats: that is Israeli-American Zionists, who
carry both nations' passports and can enter and exit with total ease and enjoy immunity from extradition.
It is almost certain that the US FBI had identified the perpetrator of these acts as they uncovered
the sophisticated operation based in Israel. The FBI would have demanded Israeli police arrest 'the
culprit' and shut down the operation. Israeli police staged their own 'fake' investigation and concluded
that the complex cloaked cyber operations 'were the work of a shy nineteen year old with dyslexia'
– clearly another example of the Jewish genius.
It is more likely that the hundreds of false-anti-Semitic
threats were part of an Israeli state operation identified by the FBI who 'diplomatically' pressured
Tel Aviv to cut out the monkey business. The news report of the lone-wolf teenager in Israel allowed
the Israeli intelligence to cover-up their role. Once the Israelis passed off the unbelievable tale
of a brilliant, if troubled, young 'lone wolf', the entire US mass media buried the story forever.
In due time the so-called perpetrator will be released, amply rewarded and his identity re-cycled.
In the meantime the US government, as well as several European governments, was forced to allocate
tens of millions of dollars to provide extra security to Jewish institutions in the wake of these
fake threats.
Jewish Power: The Top 25 American Multi-Billionaires
In February 2017, Forbes magazine compiled a list of the world's billionaires, including a country-by-country
account. The top five countries with multi-billionaires among its citizens are: the US with 565,
China with 319, Germany with 114, India with 101, and Russia with 96. Moreover, since 2016 the net
worth of the multi-billionaires grew 18% to $7.67 trillion dollars.
While the US has the greatest number of billionaires, China is fast catching up.
Despite China's advances, the US remains the center of world capitalism with the greatest concentration
of wealth, as well as the greatest and growing inequalities. One reasonably can argue that who controls
US wealth controls the world.
'Jews' among the Top 25 Multi-Billionaires in the US
A review of the top 10 US multi-billionaires finds four who are identified as 'Jews': Mark Zuckerberg
with $56 billion, Larry Ellison with $52.2 billion, Michael Bloomberg with $47.5 billion and Sergey
Brin $39.4 billion. In other words 40% of the super-richest Americans are 'Jews' while 60% are non-Jews.
Among the top ten in the US, billionaire Jews with a total of $195.1 billion are collectively less
rich than the top billionaire Gentiles who own $282.7 billion.
Of the top 25 multi-billionaires in the US, 11 of the 25 are Jews. In other words 'the Jews'
represent 44% of the top 25 biggest billionaires – outnumbered by Gentiles but catching up.
Analysis of the 'Richest Jews'
We place 'Jews' in quotation marks because this is a doubtful signifier – more useful to both
Zionist fanatics and anti-Semitic polemicists. Most are not 'practicing' or are completely disinterested
in tribal religions. Nevertheless, half of secular Jews in the US are active supporters of Israel
or involved in Fifth Column Israeli 'front groups'.
In other words, about half of the richest 'Jews' do not consider themselves to be religiously
or ethnically 'Jewish'. Super rich Jews are divided regarding their ethnic loyalties between the
US and Israel.
Moreover what is murkier, many of the richest so-called 'Jews' were born to 'mixed marriages'.
Strictly religious Jews do not recognize the children of such marriages as Jews because their mothers
are not Jewish. The omnivorous Zionists, on the other hand, classify all of them as Jews on the basis
of their actual or potential contribution to the State of Israel. In other words, the Zionist classification
of 'Jews' becomes arbitrary, politicized and dependent on organizational affiliation. Religious practice
and ethno-cultural purity are less important.
Judeo-Centrism and the Intrinsic Superiority Fallacy
Among the many zealous advocates of the Judeo-centric world, the most tiresome are those who
claim they represent the product of superior genetics, culture and heritage – unique and intrinsic
to Jews.
For many centuries most Jews were illiterate believers of religious tribal myths, taught by anti-scientific
rabbis, who closed off the ghettos from the accomplishments of higher culture and forbade integration
or mixed marriages. The high priests punished and expelled any Jews who were influenced by the surrounding
Hellenistic, Romanized, Arabic, Renaissance and Rationalists cultures, like the great Spinoza.
In other words, Jews who had rejected Jewish law, the Scriptures and the Torah were expelled
as apostates. But these 'apostates' were most open to the modern ideas of science. Jews greatly benefited
from the emancipatory laws and opportunities following the French Revolution. Under Napoleon, Jews
became citizens and were free to advance in science, the arts and finance by attending secular universities
away from the primitive, superstitious Rabbi-controlled ghetto 'schools'.
The dramatic growth of intellectual excellence among Jews in the 19th century was a result of
their ceasing to be Jews in the traditional closed religious sense. Did they suddenly switch on their
'genius genes' or invent a fake history or religion, as the ethno-centrist would have us believe?
It seems far more likely that they took great advantage of the opportunities opened to them with
major social and political developments in the greater society. As they assimilated and integrated
in secular traditions, they ceased to be Jews in the tribal religious sense. Their scientific, medical
and financial success came from learning, absorbing and exchanging scientific ideas, high culture
and conservative, liberal and socialist ideas with the larger progressive non-Jewish society.
It is no coincidence that 'great Jewish achievers' like the totally secular Albert Einstein were
educated in German universities by German professors and drew on scientific knowledge by German and
non-Jewish scholars. His intellectual development was due to his free association with the great
scientists and scholars of Germany and Europe, not closeted away in some ethno-tribal commune.
The Jews who remained embedded in the Polish, Lithuanian and Russian ghettos, under the reign
of the leading Rabbis, remained illiterate, poor and backward. Most of the claims of 'superior' cultural
heritage or traditions are the creation of a mythical folk history serving ethno-national supremacists.
The Myth of the Contemporary Genius
The modern ethnocentric ideologues ignore the 'dilution of Jewishness' in their celebratory identification
with successful 'Jews'.
Many of the best thinkers, writers, scientists and political leaders were conversos (Christian
converts), or integrated European secular nationalists, socialists, monarchists, bankers and professionals.
Some remained 'reformed Jews' or later transformed into secular Zionists: nationalists who despised
non-Europeans as inferior and couldn't even conceive of Arab Palestine as their 'homeland'. It wasn't
until the 20th century that Zionism was in part 'Judacized'. Early Zionists looked at various locations
for a homeland, including Argentina and parts of Africa and Russia.
These ethno-chauvinist ideologues lay claim to all brilliant individuals, no matter how tenuous
as examples of 'Jewish genius'. Even those personally opposed Jewish ethno-religious beliefs and
indifferent to tribal loyalties end up being claimed as examples of the 'Jewish genius'. Once some
'matrilineal link' could be found, their success and brilliance was tied to the mystical lineage,
no matter how tenuous.
This bizarre practice became even more commonplace following the Jewish military conquest and
brutal ethnic cleansing of Palestine, with the military, political and financial backing of non-Jewish
Europe and the United States. With myths and inflated ideas of unique virtue and brilliance, Israel
was established as a racist apartheid state. A new militant, ethnocentric Judaism converted Israel and its overseas backers into an ethno-ideological
international power with religious trappings, based on the myth of its 'exceptionalism'. To maintain this myth, the personal histories of all prominent 'Israel Firsters' were sanitized
and scrubbed of anti-social and destructive behavior.
All Jewish billionaires were to be portrayed as uniquely philanthropic, while the exploits of
Jewish billionaire swindlers (Bernie Madoff, Michael Milken and Ivan Boesky) were not to be mentioned
in polite company. The conquests of billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, rapist-procurer head of
the IMF Dominique Strauss-Kahn, Governor Elliot Spitzer, Congressman Anthony Weiner and other similar
perverts quietly slithered off the edge of the planet although all had once been hailed as examples
of 'ethnocentric genius'.
Major Jewish political donors to US-UK-French electoral parties were hailed while their work
on behalf of Israel was naturally assumed but not discussed. The dizzying shifts between open adulation
and selective whitewash served to reinforce the illusion of superiority. Anyone, Jew or Gentile,
bold enough to point out the obvious hypocrisy would be immediately censored as 'self-hating' (Jew)
or 'anti-Semite' (Gentile).
Return to the Beginning: Judeo-Centric Power
As mentioned above, Jews represent a substantial minority among the top multi-billionaires, but
they are still a minority. Below the top level of wealth are the single digit billionaires and triple
and double digit multi-millionaires; here the proportion of 'Jews' increases. These 'less-than-super-billionaires'
are among the most active and the biggest financial and political supporters of the ethno centric
ideology and tribal cohesion.
Los Angeles-based Israeli-American billionaire Haim Saban contributed tens of millions of dollars
to support of the Jewish state's occupation of Palestine and brutal colonial land grabbing 'settlers'.
His wealth is largely based on his 'genius' in pushing culturally vacuous Japanese cartoons (Mighty
Morphing Power Rangers) on the nation's children. He is the primary donor to the Democratic Party
pushing Israel's agenda – his number one priority as an American citizen.
The lesser 'foot soldiers' of the Zionist power structure are the millionaires and affluent professionals,
dentists, stockbrokers, lawyers, doctors and impresarios. The middle and lower levels of wealth and
power are a diverse group – mostly ethno-religious and secular, but very self-identified ethno-Jews.
A minority is totally secular or converted to non-Jewish religions (especially Buddhism, Christianity)
Despite the constant drumbeat of ethnocentric identity, an increasing number of young US 'Jews'
do not identify with Judaism or Israel. Their influence however is minimal.
The wealthy ethno-religious and secular ethnic Jews may or may not constitute a numerical majority
but they are the best organized, most political and most adamant in their claims to 'speak for and
represent the Jewish community' as a whole, especially during waves of (fake) 'anti-Semitism'!
The many former-Jews, anti-tribal Jews and 'non-Jewish' Jews are no match for the ethnocentric
political apparatus controlled by the chauvinists.
When the tribalists appropriate the glory of a secular non-Jewish Jewish scientist or major 'prize
winner' they claim his or her tribal affiliation in order to impress the 'goys' and to seduce younger
more skeptical Jews about the advantages of ethno-chauvinism.
All the high-tech computer and financial billionaires are just assumed by the tribalists to view
themselves as 'Jewish geniuses' even though they may have learned and borrowed ideas and knowledge
from their non-Jewish partners and mentors in Silicon Valley or Wall Street.
Upward mobility within academia, government and business circles is automatically assumed by
the tribalists to be a reward for superior merit – 'Jewish genius' – rather than nepotism or connections.
Tribal networks and 'understandings' play a powerful unspoken role in career success and immunity
from the consequences of failure, incompetence or dishonesty.
Multi-billionaires and multi-millionaires prospered because they entered establish lucrative
fields or made their career choices highly profitable.
Early on, many powerful Gentile bankers provided entry for talented Jews to succeed. This is
despite revisionist history bemoaning the exclusion of US Jews on Wall Street and their degrading
denial of membership in select WASP country clubs. These myths of brutal oppression on Wall Street
or Long Island yacht clubs have empowered generations of American Jews to assume the role of spokespersons
for the oppressed everywhere. The expression 'crying all the way to the bank' comes to mind.
By the last quarter of the 20th century and especially in the 21st century, deindustrialization
and the shift to financialization in the US economy increased the power and privilege of a disproportionate
number of multi-billionaire/millionaire Jews. This seismic shift has coincided with the pervasive
impoverishment of the marginalized working class in the former 'rust belt' and central parts of the
country and the incredible concentration of national wealth at the top 1%. This is a demographic
shift and ethno-class apartheid of huge, but unstudied, significance.
The most important political question is not how many Jews are super-wealthy but what proportion
of them are influential political donors and active in the Democratic or Republican Parties in order
to intervene on behalf of clan, tribe and motherland (Israel). Majorities among Jews are not crucial
– most are not politically active. What is decisive is the percentage of all the super-wealthy who
are politically active, organized and contribute substantially to influence and control the mass
media to promote their ethno-centric ideology and punish critics.
Conclusion
Overt and covert Jewish supremacists have embroidered a fake history and legacy of exceptional
intelligence ignoring the context of advanced non-Jewish science and cultures, which preceded and
later provided Jews with opportunities for education and wealth.
The danger inherent in all ethno-centric tribes is that they work to dominate majority populations
by creating systems of assigning superiority and inferiority. They then use these to justify growing
inequalities of wealth, education and political power!
Historically favored minorities tend to overreach and, like the eyeless Sampson, bring down the
Temple on everyone. Power corrupts and absolute ethno-chauvinist power corrupts absolutely. Intelligent
Jews of principle are abandoning
Trump betrayed white workers because he knows he can get away with it. For the last thirty years of the 20th century millions of
white families were wrenched out of the middle class without a squeak out of any major news outlet or national level politician. Trump
himself stiffed his workers in those days and got away with it.
Notable quotes:
"... “In 2008, Obama was touted as a political outsider who will hose away all of the rot and bloody criminality of the Bush years. He turned out to be a deft move by our ruling class. Though fools still refuse to see it, Obama is a perfect servant of our military banking complex. Now, Trump is being trumpeted as another political outsider. ..."
"... A Trump presidency will temporarily appease restless, lower class whites, while serving as a magnet for liberal anger. This will buy our ruling class time as they continue to wage war abroad while impoverishing Americans back home. Like Obama, Trump won’t fulfill any of his election promises, and this, too, will be blamed on bipartisan politics.” ..."
"... Yes, it would have been worse with the Cackling Hyena, but what does that tell ya? ..."
I'm not sure why the author of this article seems to be surprised by the actions of Trump and his administration. The collective
image of him as a blood-thirsty racist whose hatred of all peoples queer 'n' colored runs marrow and generations-deep -- think
of a cross between a street corner John Galt and Ian Smith, daubed with vague overtones of Archie Bunker mingling with Clint Eastwood
-- is purely an invention of the media, the left as well as that of the right.
Why or how he became the impromptu pope of white nationalism escapes me. Anyone with ears to listen and eyes to see could find
for themselves that he never so much as intimated even muted sympathy for that movement, not during his campaign and certainly
not as head of state, media accusations of "dog whistles" and the like notwithstanding.
But a demoralized white working and middle class were willing to believe in anything, deluding themselves into reading between
the barren eruptions of his blowzy proclamations. They elevated him to messianic heights, ironically fashioning him into that
which he publicly claims to despise: an Obama, a Barry in negative image, "hope and change" for the OxyContin and Breitbart set.
Like his predecessor, Trump never really says anything at all. There are grand pronouncements, bilious screeds targeting
perceived enemies, glib generalities, but rarely are any concrete, definitive ideas and policies ever articulated. Trump, like
Obama, is merely a cipher, an empty suit upon which the dreams (or nightmares) of the beholder can effortlessly be projected,
a polarizing figurehead who wields mostly ceremonial powers while others ostensibly beneath him busy themselves with the actual
running of the republic.
To observe this requires no great research or expenditure of effort -- he lays it all out there for anybody to hear or read.
Unfortunately, the near totality of this country's populace is effectively illiterate and poorly equipped to think critically
and independently, preferring to accept the verdicts of their oleaginous talking heads at face value without ever troubling themselves
to examine why. (The dubious products of the glorified diploma mills we call "higher education" are often the most gullible and
dim-witted.) Trump is the dark magus of racism and bigotry -- boo! Trump is the man of sorrows who will carry aloft Western Civilization
resurgent -- yay!
Just as the hysterical left was quickly shattered by the mediocrity that was Barack Obama, so too does the hysterical right
now ululate the sting of Donald Trump's supposed betrayal. As with their ideological antipodes, they got what they deserved. Pity
that the rest of us have to be carted along for the ride.
Politics, at least at the national level, is a puppet show to channel and periodically blow off dissent.
“In 2008, Obama was touted as a political outsider who will hose away all of the rot and bloody criminality of the Bush
years. He turned out to be a deft move by our ruling class. Though fools still refuse to see it, Obama is a perfect servant of
our military banking complex. Now, Trump is being trumpeted as another political outsider.
A Trump presidency will temporarily appease restless, lower class whites, while serving as a magnet for liberal anger.
This will buy our ruling class time as they continue to wage war abroad while impoverishing Americans back home. Like Obama, Trump
won’t fulfill any of his election promises, and this, too, will be blamed on bipartisan politics.”
Linh Dinh, “Orlando Shooting Means Trump for President,” published at The Unz Review, June 12, 2016.
"On Friday, the United Nations Security Council, following a closed-door meeting, issued a
statement to the press calling for Hifter's LNA to "halt its military activity" near Tripoli.
When Britain proposed a formal resolution along these lines, however, Russia opposed it, no
doubt fearing that it could become the pretext for a fresh Western intervention in Libya.
The British draft included a passage calling "for those who undermine Libya's peace and
security to be held to account."
What hypocrisy! There was no such call when the UK joined with France and the United
States to overthrow the country's government and inflict death upon its population and
destruction upon its infrastructure.
*****No one, from Barack Obama, Nicolas Sarkozy and David Cameron on down, was ever held
accountable for a criminal war of aggression that turned the country into a living
hell.****
Launched under the pretext of a UN resolution authorizing the imposition of a no-fly zone
over Libya to halt the supposed (but non-existent) threat of a massacre in the eastern city
of Benghazi, the war saw money and arms poured into Islamist militias and lavished on Al
Qaeda operatives, who were backed by a relentless bombing campaign, which included nearly
30,000 sorties in the course of seven months.
A war launched on the pretext of protecting civilians culminated in the carpet bombing of
Sirte, a bastion of popular support for Gaddafi, and the lynch-mob torture and murder of the
Libyan leader, over which then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton laughingly gloated, "We
came, we saw, he died."
"In the intervening eight years, the attempts to install a pro-Western puppet regime in a
devastated country controlled by clashing Islamist, tribal and other militias have failed
miserably. The regime headed up by Sarraj, recognized as Libya's "legitimate" government,
barely controls even Tripoli. Under its supposed rule, the country's education and health
systems have collapsed, while inflation is ravaging living standards, the unemployment rate
has reached 30 percent, and fully a third of the population lives below the poverty line.
Conditions of life for masses of Libyans have deteriorated dramatically since the overthrow
of Gaddafi."
"... The seeds sown in the US' "Long War"* are terrible. Libya discord gave arms and bases for US support to Salafi jihad in Syria, ISIS is US sown, Iraq is to be a permanent occupation more dangerous than South Korea, Afghanistan is a tottering escapade each new commander bringing a fresh set of objectives none connected to an end to the blood shed. ..."
"... The press is at fault, they work for the empire's war profiteers. ..."
"... *Many commentators on the US' military horrors since 9/11/01 stopped saying "global war on terror" and use "Long War". ..."
7 years after the US - led by Obama, Hillary & @SamanthaJPower - bombed Libya in the
name of "humanitarianism" along with the UK & France & then utterly ignored it, the
country is so violent, unstable & dangerous that US troops can no longer safely
remain
American troops in Libya moved out of country as violence escalates near capital
The announcement comes as the U.N.-backed government in Tripoli vowed to defend the
capital against a renegade militia seeking to storm its way into the city, a showdown that
threatened to spill into bloody urban combat in the streets of Tripoli.
How come none of this is on page one above the fold?
EMichael, goes after Chinese oppression of Muslims, but never a word about humanitarian
tragedies US spreads from Caracas to Yemen through Kandahar to Pyongyang.
Russia doing any of this to Ukraine or Georgia would be howled about!
The seeds sown in the US' "Long War"* are terrible. Libya discord gave arms and bases for
US support to Salafi jihad in Syria, ISIS is US sown, Iraq is to be a permanent occupation
more dangerous than South Korea, Afghanistan is a tottering escapade each new commander
bringing a fresh set of objectives none connected to an end to the blood shed.
The press is at fault, they work for the empire's war profiteers.
*Many commentators on the US' military horrors since 9/11/01 stopped saying "global war on
terror" and use "Long War".
"... Crowdstrike can continue in business defending their clients from dreadful hackers. Admitting a leak opens the question as to why have crowdstrike at their current contract and go for cheaper. ..."
Crowdstrike can continue in business defending their clients from dreadful hackers.
Admitting a leak opens the question as to why have crowdstrike at their current contract and
go for cheaper.
I do like the logic that suggests Comey FBI etc are complicit. They are the crime here and
they are the crime in the killing of Seth Rich and they are the crime in the Awan family spy
ring.
On your 'hows that working out for ya.... I do heaps and many others here do likewise.
Stay strong.
Selection of Crowdstrike is highly suspect; the behaviour of FBI is highly suspect (why they allowed the contractor to handle
the evidence), the behaviour of MSM is highly suspect (they came with the predefined notion -- Russia), the murder of Seth Rich and
subsequent investigation (or the lack of thereof ) are highly suspect. Add to this mix incredible Awan brothers story
and Debbie Wasserman behaviour after Imran Awan arrest
This all points in the direction of the false flag.
Notable quotes:
"... There can be no conceivable excuse for relying on a contractor selected by the organisation which is claiming that there has been a hack, when an alternative possibility is a leak: and the implications of the alternative possibility could be devastating for that organisation . ..."
"... The chain of events that led to the publication of the DNC emails is highly suspect. IMO it's likely to be a CIA/Mossad op to portray Wikileaks as an agent of Russia (AFAIK, Seth Rich was Jewish; and his family has acted strangely about the whole affair). And this 'op' fits well with use of the 2016 Presidential campaign to prepare for McCarthyist 'Russiagate' - for which CIA seems to have joined with MI6. ..."
"... If the publication of the DNC emails was in fact a false flag then to support Assange that fact needs to be proven, and the persons responsible exposed for staging a false "framing of Assange" event.. ..."
"... The Zionist "take the oil from the Ottoman" project involved weaponizing Jewish immigration and and redirecting European Jewish immigration from locating in Argentina ..."
It cannot be repeated often enough that it is difficult to see any conceivable excuse for the FBI to fail to secure access
to the DNC servers. One would normally moreover expect that, on an issue of this sensitivity, they would have the 'digital
forensics' done by their own people.
There can be no conceivable excuse for relying on a contractor selected by the organisation which is claiming that there
has been a hack, when an alternative possibility is a leak: and the implications of the alternative possibility could be
devastating for that organisation .
To rely on a contractor linked to the notoriously Russophobic 'Atlantic Council' is even more preposterous.
The clear close integration of other cyber people from the 'Atlantic Council' into Orwellian 'information operations'
sponsored by the British Government simply puts these facts into sharp relief.
There has to be a strong possible 'prima facie' case that anyone in authority prepared to accept the 'digital forensics'
from 'CrowdStrike' is complicit in the conspiracy against the constitution, and/or the conspiracy to cover-up that conspiracy.
This certainly goes for Comey, and I think it also goes for Mueller."
IMO The suggestion that Crowdstrike called it a hack instead of a leak to absolve themselves [as per the bolded phrase] is specious.
But Habbuk (thankfully) rightly puts the onus on the FBI for not doing their job.
The chain of events that led to the publication of the DNC emails is highly suspect. IMO it's likely to be a CIA/Mossad
op to portray Wikileaks as an agent of Russia (AFAIK, Seth Rich was Jewish; and his family has acted strangely about the whole
affair). And this 'op' fits well with use of the 2016 Presidential campaign to prepare for McCarthyist 'Russiagate' - for which
CIA seems to have joined with MI6.
The chain of events that led to the publication of the DNC emails is highly suspect. IMO it's likely to be a CIA/Mossad op to
portray Wikileaks as an agent of Russia (AFAIK, Seth Rich was Jewish; and his family has acted strangely about the whole affair).
And this 'op' fits well with use of the 2016 Presidential campaign to prepare for McCarthyist 'Russiagate' - for which CIA seems
to have joined with MI6.
by: Jackrabbit @7
Seems to me this could be that place to start donkeytale @ 3 asks is there a way to save Julian Assange..
If the publication of
the DNC emails was in fact a false flag then to support Assange that fact needs to be proven, and the persons responsible exposed
for staging a false "framing of Assange" event..
The Jews immigrated to NYC from Salonika (the other half went to Russia) after the failure to use a corrupted CUP to over throw
the Ottomans ( Ottomans discovered, and burned the Jews out) in 1908-1912 the dominate political majority in NYC became Jewish, dwarfing
the previous majority, who were the Irish.
So when the POTUS needed stronger support to force governed Americans into WWI, Those in charge of the banker backed "take
the oil and land from the Ottomans" project in banker controlled Europe directed the new NYC immigrants to send letters to the
POTUS urging USA entry into the war in Europe.. within a week over a million letters arrived, which were designed to strengthen POTUS
efforts to force Americans and the congress critters into WWI (abuse of American human rights by sending soldiers, creating a tax
law, that had been rule unconstitutional every year since 1865 to (1912-13) diverting the domestic budget to a foreign war budget,
and organizing and directing the industrial might of America to assist in the WWI Zionist movement in Europe to take the oil from
the Ottoman.
WWI was planned before 1896, (Read: Roland Green Usher Pan-Germanism 1913-14 and My Memoirs 1878-1918 by Ex-Kaiser William, II<
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_II,_German_Emperor)
and organized at Zionist Congress (1897) in Europe (Russia signed a contain Germany Agreement with France in 1896 to deny Germany)
and in 1897 the USA secretly agreed to support France and England against Germany agreement (why? Germany relations with Ottomans
gave Germans access to the Ottoman oil, which the British, French and USA bankers and the corporations they sponsored would not stand
for.
The Zionist "take the oil from the Ottoman" project involved weaponizing Jewish immigration and and redirecting European
Jewish immigration from locating in Argentina [ http://www.billgladstone.ca/?p=3197]
to locating in Ottoman-Palestine-Israel locations <=object to: occupy and eventually displace the Ottomans (WWI divided the Ottoman
empire into British Palestine, and French Syria) from their land and their oil.
So letters (in answer to donkeytale @ 3) with return receipt, sent directly to the POTUS might be a means to support Julian Assange?
I can imagine what it might be like to see 10 million return receipts posted somewhere!
"... Six months later, the FBI arrests him as he's boarding a flight to Pakistan and charges him with bank fraud. ..."
"... The congresswoman says conservatives are making a big deal of this to distract from the much more real Russia investigation. "Undoubtedly, the easier path would have been to terminate Mr. Awan, despite the fact that I had not received any evidence of his alleged wrongdoing," she said in a statement issued last week, "but that is not the woman my constituents elected, and that is not the mother my children know me to be." ..."
"... February: Capitol Police accuse five IT staffers of trying to steal House equipment and violating House security policies, report BuzzFeed and Politico . They are shared employees who work for 30 or so members of Congress. Capitol Police ban the five from access to the House of Representatives network while it investigates. Investigators tell lawmakers that it's up to them to decide whether to fire the accused staffers. ..."
"... Awan is one of those staffers accused. Most of the others are related to him, including his wife, Hina Alvi. ..."
"... Wasserman Schultz remains quiet, other than to say Awan had been moved to an advisory role since he was no longer able to directly interact with the House network. She remains dubious about the accusations against Awan and does not see cause to fire him. She becomes increasingly concerned he was being singled out because of his religion. ..."
"... "When their investigation was reviewed with me, I was presented with no evidence of anything that they were being investigated for. And so that, in me, gave me great concern that his due process rights were being violated. That there were racial and ethnic profiling concerns that I had," she said. ..."
"... She later told the Sun-Sentinel she was asking about Awan's laptop: "He accidentally left it somewhere." ..."
"... Week of July 24: Awan's legal troubles deepen. The FBI arrests him at a D.C.-area airport on his way to Pakistan. Fox News's Chad Pergram first reports it, and conservative Daily Caller fleshes out the story . ..."
"... Awan was arrested while attempting to board a flight after wiring $283,00 to the country. His wife and their three children are already in Pakistan. An affidavit obtained by the Daily Caller alleges they tried to trick their bank, the Congressional Federal Credit Union, into giving them a second mortgage for a rental property by claiming it was their primary residency. ..."
"... Aug. 3 : Wasserman Schultz gives her first interview to the media. She tells the Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel that she had initially only commented on the arrest via a spokesman since she had been on vacation. And she stands by her decision not to fire Awan after he was accused of stealing House equipment: "I believe that I did the right thing, and I would do it again," she says. ..."
"... Aug. 7: Wasserman Schultz's Democratic primary challenger, Tim Canova , accuses her of making "a lot of self-serving excuses for Awan." ..."
Here's one version of a story making headlines in conservative media over the past couple of
weeks: A powerful Democratic congresswoman refuses to fire an information technology aide after
he's accused of stealing House computer equipment and potentially breaching security protocols.
Six months later, the FBI arrests him as he's boarding a flight to Pakistan and charges him
with bank fraud.
Here's another version of the same topic, coming from Democratic lawmakers: Powerful
Democratic congresswoman protects Muslim IT staffer from what she suspects is religious
discrimination. She fires him after he is charged with a seemingly unrelated crime.
The case involving now-fired House Democratic information technology staffer Imran Awan and
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) underscores how easy it is to manipulate facts to suit
one's political leaning.
The story has blown up on the right, with conservative website Daily Caller writing more
than two dozen stories about it and Fox News hosts linking it, without any evidence, to the
Russian WikiLeaks hack of DNC emails, which happened under Wasserman Schultz's tenure as
chairwoman.
President Trump poured gasoline on the story when he retweeted a conservative site
describing the "scandal engulfing" Wasserman Schultz and accusing the media of ignoring it.
Mainstream media outlets have covered the story, but not extensively. The Washington Post
has published two articles: One reporting
Awan's arrest and the other about a watchdog group
seeking an investigation .
Left-leaning sites have either stayed away from it or defended Wasserman Schultz's account
of it.
The congresswoman says conservatives are making a big deal of this to distract from the much
more real Russia investigation. "Undoubtedly, the easier path would have been to terminate Mr.
Awan, despite the fact that I had not received any evidence of his alleged wrongdoing," she
said in a statement issued last week, "but that is not the woman my constituents elected, and
that is not the mother my children know me to be."
Clearly, there are a lot of political accusations tied up in this nuanced story. Here's what
we know about the timeline of accusations against Arwan, his arrest and his dismissal by
Wasserman Schultz.
February: Capitol Police accuse five IT staffers of trying to steal House equipment and
violating House security policies, report BuzzFeed and Politico
. They are shared employees who work for 30 or so members of Congress. Capitol Police ban the
five from access to the House of Representatives network while it investigates. Investigators
tell lawmakers that it's up to them to decide whether to fire the accused staffers.
Awan is one of those staffers accused. Most of the others are related to him, including his
wife, Hina Alvi.
February–March: Politico follows
up on the fate of the staffers and finds some Democratic lawmakers have kept them on the
payroll, Wasserman Schultz included. While Capitol Police claim there may have been potentially
serious IT violations, these lawmakers see it differently.
The IT staffers have worked for many of the offices for more than a decade, and some
Democratic lawmakers said they were concerned these staffers may have been targeted by Capitol
investigators because they are Muslim and from Pakistan.
"As of right now, I don't see a smoking gun," Rep. Gregory W. Meeks (N.Y.)
tells Politico , even as he confirms he has dismissed Alvi. "I wanted to be sure
individuals are not being singled out because of their nationalities or their religion. We want
to make sure everybody is entitled to due process."
Wasserman Schultz remains quiet, other than to say Awan had been moved to an advisory role
since he was no longer able to directly interact with the House network. She remains dubious
about the accusations against Awan and does not see cause to fire him. She becomes increasingly
concerned he was being singled out because of his religion.
In an interview on Aug. 3 with the Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel,
she said she felt Awan had been nabbed on a technicality: He had been accused of using
innocuous programs like Dropbox to transfer information, which doesn't clear House security
protocols.
"When their investigation was reviewed with me, I was presented with no evidence of anything
that they were being investigated for. And so that, in me, gave me great concern that his due
process rights were being violated. That there were racial and ethnic profiling concerns that I
had," she said.
A spokeswoman for Capitol Police declined to comment on the accusations, saying they do not
comment on ongoing investigations. The police force is overseen by the congressionally
appointed sergeant at arms, Congress itself and an inspector general.
May: In a budget hearing for Capitol Police, Wasserman Schultz starts asking Capitol Police
Chief Matthew R. Verderosa why they confiscated a laptop related to the case and how she can
get it back. "If the equipment belongs to the member, it has been lost, they say it's been lost
and it's been identified as that member's, then the Capitol Police are supposed to return it."
When the police chief says she can't have it back because there's an ongoing investigation
related to it, she appears genuinely frustrated and says: "I think you're violating the rules
when you conduct your business that way and you should expect that there will be
consequences."
She later told the Sun-Sentinel she was asking about Awan's laptop: "He accidentally left it
somewhere."
Week of July 24: Awan's legal troubles deepen. The FBI arrests him at a D.C.-area airport on
his way to Pakistan. Fox News's Chad Pergram first reports it, and conservative Daily Caller
fleshes out the story .
Awan was arrested while attempting to board a flight after wiring $283,00 to the country.
His wife and their three children are already in Pakistan. An affidavit
obtained by the Daily Caller alleges they tried to trick their bank, the Congressional Federal
Credit Union, into giving them a second mortgage for a rental property by claiming it was their
primary residency.
The FBI accuses Awan of trying to flee the country, but his lawyer later
tells The Washington Post he had no intention of fleeing; he had bought a round-trip ticket
and applied for unpaid leave from work. Awan pleads not guilty.
Same week: Immediately following the charges, Wasserman Schultz's office says Awan is
fired.
Same week : The chairwoman of the Republican National Committee starts going on TV to
question why Wasserman Schultz hadn't fired Awan earlier, when he was accused of stealing House
equipment.
"Debbie Wasserman Schultz has obstructed at every level on something that affects
potentially our national security," Ronna McDaniel says on Fox Business. She and other
conservative groups call for Congress to hold hearings and Wasserman Schultz to testify.
The RNC sends emails to local media of the 30 Democratic lawmakers who had hired Awan or the
other staffers, explaining the case and urging them to ask their lawmakers questions when
they're back home for the August break.
Same week : Trump retweets this.
A week after Awan's arrest : A conservative group files a complaint with
the House's independent ethics committee alleging Wasserman Schultz broke House rules by
allowing Awan to stay on after he was banned from the House system.
Wasserman Schultz's office issues a statement calling the complaint "baseless" because they
worked with House officials to make sure they were following the rules to keep him on to do
things like help troubleshoot printers.
" It's no surprise that they would nonetheless file it, against one of Donald Trump's
fiercest critics, at a time when the administration is trying to distract from its internal
turmoil and destructive health care efforts," says Wasserman Schultz spokesman David
Damron.
Aug. 3: Wall Street Journal columnist Kimberly Strassel calls
attention to the drama by pointing out how much money Awan and his relatives were making.
"The government, under the inattentive care of Democrats, may have been bilked for ages by a
man the FBI has alleged to be a fraudster." Awan, his wife and their relatives were each making
roughly $150,000 in annual salary working for more than two dozen House Democrats. Politico
calculated Awan had earned more than $2 million since he started working for House Democrats in
2004.
Aug. 3 : Wasserman Schultz gives her first interview to the media. She
tells the Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel that she had initially only commented on the arrest
via a spokesman since she had been on vacation. And she stands by her decision not to fire Awan
after he was accused of stealing House equipment: "I believe that I did the right thing, and I
would do it again," she says.
Meanwhile, Awan must stay within 50 miles of his Lorton home while he faces the bank fraud
charges.
Aug. 7: Wasserman Schultz's Democratic primary challenger,
Tim Canova ,
accuses her of making "a lot of self-serving excuses for Awan."
"... The random probability that FAT was not used is 1 chance in 2 to the 500th power or approximately 1 chance in 10 to the 150th power - in other words, an infinitely high order. ..."
TEST IT YOURSELF, THE 2-SECOND-ROUNDING FACT PATTERN IN THE DNC EMAILS By William Binney
and Larry Johnson Bill and I published a piece a few weeks back that provides actual
evidence that challenges the claim that "Russia hacked the DNC." Yes, we know, the Mueller
Report continues to insist that theft of emails from the DNC was done over the internet. But
that conclusion rests on the opinion of third parties who offer no actual forensic evidence.
We, by contrast, are offering up actual evidence that points to an alternative explanation. We
do not ask you to take our word for it. Instead, we want to show you how you can test the data
yourself ..
An examination of the Wikileaks DNC files shows they were created on 23 and 25 May and 26
August respectively. The fact that they appear in a FAT system format indicates the data was
transfered to a storage device, such as a thumb drive.
How do we know? The truth lies in the "last modified" time stamps on the Wikileaks files.
Every single one of these time stamps end in even numbers. If you are not familiar with the FAT
file system, you need to understand that when a date is stored under this system the data
rounds the time to the nearest even numbered second.
We have examined 500 DNC email files stored on Wikileaks and all 500 files end in an even
number -- 2, 4, 6, 8 or 0. If a system other than FAT had been used, there would have been an
equal probability of the time stamp ending with an odd number. But that is not the case with
the data stored on the Wikileaks site. All end with an even number.
Here's what you need to do to replicate what we found.:
Step One -- Go to the Wikileaks
DNC email database. Click here: https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/ ) Step Two -- Search
the DNC database using the any word. We opted for "Clinton."
Step Four--Click on submit. That will take you to the following document:
Step Five--scroll down to the "HTTP response headers" section where you will find the
"Last-Modified" timestamp.
Message 100 shows a Last Modified Timestamp of 05:22:00 GMT.
That time equates to 01:22:00 Eastern Daylight Time.
It ends in 0, an even number. Our search and analysis of all the messages from the DNCin the
first Wikileaks release published July 22, 2016" show that all end in an even number.
We repeat our conclusion from the original article:
The random probability that FAT was not used is 1 chance in 2 to the 500th power or
approximately 1 chance in 10 to the 150th power - in other words, an infinitely high order.
This data alone does not prove that the emails were copied at the DNC headquarters. But it
does show that the data/emails posted by Wikileaks did go through a storage device on the 25
th of May, like a thumbdrive, before Wikileaks posted the emails on the World Wide
Web.
We do not know if a person or persons with access to the DNC server accessed the emails from
their home. That is possible. What is certain, however, is that email message 100 demonstrates
forensic evidence that indicates the email was physically copied onto a storage device, like a
thumb drive or CD-Rom, with a last modified date of 05:22:00 GMT on Wednesday the 25
th of May 2016, before it was published on the Wikileaks site. The fact that these
messages are in FAT format is not evidence that supports Mueller's claim a "hack."
Perhaps Mueller's team of investigators turned up forensic data that proves a Russian hack.
There was no such evidence, however, presented in June and July of 2016 when the initial claim
was made blaming Russian intelligence operatives.
We also are confident that there was no solid forensic evidence available in January 2017 to
substantiate the Intelligence Community Assessment attributing the "hack" to the Russian
Government because NSA analysts only agreed that they had "moderate confidence" in that claim.
We know from our prior experience in producting such assessments that if there existed actual
forensic evidence, such as tracing the packets back to a server operated by the Russian
Government then there would be "strong confidence" in the conclusion.
Who was the person or persons who had access to the DNC server that were copying these
messages to a storage device, like a thumb drive, early in the morning on Wednesday the 25
th of May? We have an opinion, but our focus is not on speculation. Let us first
deal with the hard forensic evidence. We are certain of one thing -- the available evidence
does not support the claim that the DNC emails were "hacked" via an internet cyber
attack.
Since Assange lives in an embassy, would there be any value to looking into who visited
him or mailed something to him between Wednesday the 25thof May 2016 and the date Wikileaks
published the material (July 22, 2016)? Would the embassy have those records?
Also, I may be mistaken, but wasn't the same material passed to, and published by, DCleaks
around the same time as the Wikileaks release? If that is correct, why does no one talk about
or analyze the DCleaks aspect of the case?
Finally, what do you think about the idea that multiple penetrations of the server could
have been occurring simultaneously by different parties? It is a juicy target, after all, and
apparently not well protected. Perhaps the Russians were in there, but were not the source of
the DCLeaks and/or Wikileaks material.
Radio Sputnik's Loud and Clear spoke with Daniel Lazare,
a journalist and author of three books, "The Frozen Republic," "The Velvet Coup" and "America's
Undeclared War," about what we can expect from Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation
in 2019, its third year of operation.
"A House committee can keep the ball rolling indefinitely," Lazare noted. "Nothing solid has
turned up about collusion in the Russiagate story. Yet, the story keeps going and going, a new
tidbit is put out every week, and so the scandal keeps somehow perpetuating itself. And even
though there's less and less of substance coming out, so I expect that'll be the pattern for
the next few months, and I expect that the Democrats will revv this whole process up to make it
sort of seem as if there really is an avalanche of information crashing down on Trump when
there really isn't."
investigation, noting it had produced little to nothing of substance in support of the
thesis justifying its existence: that Russia either colluded with the Trump campaign or
conspired to interfere in the US election to tilt it in Trump's favor.
Indeed,
report after
report on the data that has been provided to Congress by tech giants like Facebook, Twitter
and Google show an underwhelming performance by any would-be Russian actors. In contrast to the
apocalyptic claims by Democrats and the mainstream media about the massive disinformation
offensive waged by Russian actors, the websites, social media accounts, post reach and ad money
associated with "Russians" is always
dwarfed by the equivalent actions of the Trump campaign and the campaign of its rival in
the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton, along with their throngs of supporters
across the US corporate world, both of whom sunk hundreds of millions into winning the
social media game.
Among the chief motivations for Democrats going into 2019 is that "Democrats are now the
party of war," Lazare said, noting that Democratic House Leader Nancy Pelosi called Trump's
prospective withdrawal from Syria a "Christmas gift to ISIS [Daesh]."
"This is the raison d'etre for Russiagate: they're trying to maneuver Trump into
hostilities with Russia, China, North Korea, etc. I mean, this is foreign policy by
subterfuge it's about keeping 2,000 troops in Syria as well, and getting Americans' heads
blown off in Afghanistan, all of which the Democrats want to do. The whole thing is backroom
government of the worst kind."
TEST IT YOURSELF, THE 2-SECOND-ROUNDING FACT PATTERN IN THE DNC EMAILS By William Binney
and Larry Johnson
Larry Johnson
Bill Binney
Bill and I published a piece a few weeks back that provides actual evidence that challenges
the claim that "Russia hacked the DNC." Yes, we know, the Mueller Report continues to insist
that theft of emails from the DNC was done over the internet. But that conclusion rests on the
opinion of third parties who offer no actual forensic evidence. We, by contrast, are offering
up actual evidence that points to an alternative explanation. We do not asky you to take our
word for it. Instead, we want to show you how you can test the data yourself ..
An examination of the Wikileaks DNC files shows they were created on 23 and 25 May and 26
August respectively. The fact that they appear in a FAT system format indicates the data was
transfered to a storage device, such as a thumb drive.
How do we know? The truth lies in the "last modified" time stamps on the Wikileaks files.
Every single one of these time stamps end in even numbers. If you are not familiar with the FAT
file system, you need to understand that when a date is stored under this system the data
rounds the time to the nearest even numbered second.
We have examined 500 DNC email files stored on Wikileaks and all 500 files end in an even
number -- 2, 4, 6, 8 or 0. If a system other than FAT had been used, there would have been an
equal probability of the time stamp ending with an odd number. But that is not the case with
the data stored on the Wikileaks site. All end with an even number.
Step Four--Click on submit. That will take you to the following document:
Step Five--scroll down to the "HTTP response headers" section where you will find the
"Last-Modified" timestamp.
Message 100 shows a Last Modified Timestamp of 05:22:00 GMT.
That time equates to 01:22:00 Eastern Daylight Time.
It ends in 0, an even number. Our search and analysis of all the messages from the DNCin the
first Wikileaks release published July 22, 2016" show that all end in an even number.
We repeat our conclusion from the original article:
The random probability that FAT was not used is 1 chance in 2 to the 500th power or
approximately 1 chance in 10 to the 150th power - in other words, an infinitely high order.
This data alone does not prove that the emails were copied at the DNC headquarters. But it
does show that the data/emails posted by Wikileaks did go through a storage device on the 25
th of May, like a thumbdrive, before Wikileaks posted the emails on the World Wide
Web.
We do not know if a person or persons with access to the DNC server accessed the emails from
their home. That is possible. What is certain, however, is that email message 100 demonstrates
forensic evidence that indicates the email was physically copied onto a storage device, like a
thumb drive or CD-Rom, with a last modified date of 05:22:00 GMT on Wednesday the 25
th of May 2016, before it was published on the Wikileaks site. The fact that these
messages are in FAT format is not evidence that supports Mueller's claim a "hack."
Perhaps Mueller's team of investigators turned up forensic data that proves a Russian hack.
There was no such evidence, however, presented in June and July of 2016 when the initial claim
was made blaming Russian intelligence operatives.
We also are confident that there was no solid forensic evidence available in January 2017 to
substantiate the Intelligence Community Assessment attributing the "hack" to the Russian
Government because NSA analysts only agreed that they had "moderate confidence" in that claim.
We know from our prior experience in producting such assessments that if there existed actual
forensic evidence, such as tracing the packets back to a server operated by the Russian
Government then there would be "strong confidence" in the conclusion.
Who was the person or persons who had access to the DNC server that were copying these
messages to a storage device, like a thumb drive, early in the morning on Wednesday the 25
th of May? We have an opinion, but our focus is not on speculation. Let us first
deal with the hard forensic evidence. We are certain of one thing -- the available evidence
does not support the claim that the DNC emails were "hacked" via an internet cyber
attack.
Since Assange lives in an embassy, would there be any value to looking into who visited
him or mailed something to him between Wednesday the 25thof May 2016 and the date Wikileaks
published the material (July 22, 2016)? Would the embassy have those records?
Also, I may be mistaken, but wasn't the same material passed to, and published by, DCleaks
around the same time as the Wikileaks release? If that is correct, why does no one talk about
or analyze the DCleaks aspect of the case?
Finally, what do you think about the idea that multiple penetrations of the server could
have been occurring simultaneously by different parties? It is a juicy target, after all, and
apparently not well protected. Perhaps the Russians were in there, but were not the source of
the DCLeaks and/or Wikileaks material.
Under neoliberalism any regime change is necessary followed by an economic rape. That was the case with the USSR in 1991,
that was the case in Ukraine in 2014. Only the size and length of the looting varies depending of the strength of new government.
Both the size and the length is maximal if in power are marionette like Yeltsin or Yatsenyuk/Poroshenko.
Saying "Beware of Greeks bearing gifts" now should sound as "Beware of Americans who bring you color revolutions." They bring the
economic rape (aka "Disaster
capitalism") as the second phase. That's the nature of neocolonialism -- now you do not need to occupy the country.
It's enough to make it a debt slave using IMF and install compradors to endure the low of money and continuing impoverishment of the
population.
With such crooked and greedy friends as Biden and Kerry and their narcoaddicts sons you do not need enemies. But the main
danger are not individual sharks but Western financial institutions like IMF and World bank. Those convert countries into debt slaves
and that means permanently low standard (Central African in case of Ukraine, something like $2 a day) of living for generations
to come.
What is interesting is that unlike say German nationalists in 30th, the Ukrainian nationalists proved to be completly
useless in defending the Ukraine from looting. They actually serves as supplementary tool of the same looting.
The standard of living of Ukrainians dropped 2-3 times since 2014. How pensioners survive, on $50 a month pension I simply do not
understand. In any case Neoliberalism proved to be very effecting is keeping "developing" nations economic growth down and converting
them into debt slaves. The fact that Biden use loans as a tool of extortion (as in threat to cancel one billion loan) to close criminal
investigation of his sons company is just an icing on the cake. Poroshenko and his camarilla should be tried in the court of law for
his corruption and pandering to the Western sharks, who were happy to steal from Ukraine as much as then can.
To pay $166K a month for Biden's son cocaine is way too much to such impoverished country as Ukraine.
Notable quotes:
"... "I said, ' You're not getting the billion .' I'm going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: ' I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money, '" bragged Biden, recalling the conversation with Poroshenko. ..."
"... " Well, son of a bitch, he got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time," Biden said at the Council on Foreign Relations event - while insisting that former president Obama was complicit in the threat. ..."
"... The prosecutor he got fired was leading a wide-ranging corruption probe into the natural gas firm Burisma Holdings that employed Biden's younger son, Hunter, as a board member. ..."
"... U.S. banking records show Hunter Biden's American-based firm, Rosemont Seneca Partners LLC, received regular transfers into one of its accounts -- usually more than $166,000 a month -- from Burisma from spring 2014 through fall 2015, during a period when Vice President Biden was the main U.S. official dealing with Ukraine and its tense relations with Russia. - The Hill ..."
"... And before he was fired, Shokin says he had made "specific plans" for the investigation - including "interrogations and other crime-investigation procedures into all members of the executive board, including Hunter Biden." "I would like to emphasize the fact that presumption of innocence is a principle in Ukraine," added Shokin. Joe Biden "clearly had to know" about the probe before he insisted on Shokin's ouster . Via The Hill: ..."
"... The U.S. Embassy in Kiev that coordinated Biden's work in the country repeatedly and publicly discussed the general prosecutor's case against Burisma; ..."
"... President Obama named Biden the administration's point man on Ukraine in February 2014 ..."
"... Remember Victoria Nuland's famous phone recording of "**** the EU?" This was nothing more than another CIA destabilization campaign carried out of another Sovereign Country. With the goal of breaking the Bush Senior & Jim Baker agreement of not surrounding Russia with NATO countries after their Collapse. ..."
"... Let's face it. If Ukrainians loved it's Country, Joey, Hunter and the Choco-**** would have wound up like Mikhail Lesin during an all night party in an upscale grotto in Kiev by now! ..."
"... At last some questions for this dirt ball-burisma is tied in with one of the most if not the most corrupt oligarch, Koloimiski. Biden is up to his eyeballs in some dodgy deals in china as well-this guy and his son are walking corruption personified. ..."
"... Didn't Hillary teach Joe that a tax free foundation is better than using your son's LLC for laundering the bribes... This is basic stuff. ..."
"... Joe "the Conqueror" "Caesar Magnus" Biden. Joe of Ukraine, the best bud of $oro$. ..."
Originally from:
Forget 'Creepy'
- Biden Has A Major Ukraine Problem Joe Biden appears to have made a major tactical error last year when he bragged to an
audience of foreign policy experts how he threatened to hurl Ukraine into bankruptcy if their top prosecutor, General Viktor Shokin,
wasn't immediately fired, according to
The Hill 's John Solomon.
In his own words, with video cameras rolling,
Biden described
how he threatened Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko in March 2016 that the Obama administration would pull $1 billion in
U.S. loan guarantees , sending the former Soviet republic toward insolvency, if it didn't immediately fire Prosecutor General
Viktor Shokin. -
The Hill
"I said, ' You're not getting the billion .' I'm going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at
them and said: ' I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money, '" bragged Biden, recalling
the conversation with Poroshenko.
" Well, son of a bitch, he got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time," Biden said at the Council
on Foreign Relations event - while insisting that former president Obama was complicit in the threat.
Interviews with a half-dozen senior Ukrainian officials confirm Biden's account, though they claim the pressure was applied
over several months in late 2015 and early 2016, not just six hours of one dramatic day . Whatever the case, Poroshenko and Ukraine's
parliament obliged by
ending Shokin's tenure as prosecutor. Shokin was facing steep criticism in Ukraine, and among some U.S. officials, for not
bringing enough corruption prosecutions when he was fired. -
The Hill
And why would Biden want the "son of a bitch" fired?
In what must be an amazing coincidence, the prosecutor was leading a wide-ranging corruption investigation into a natural gas
firm - which Biden's son, Hunter, sat on the board of directors.
The prosecutor he got fired was leading a wide-ranging corruption probe into the natural gas firm
Burisma Holdings
that employed Biden's younger son, Hunter, as a board member.
U.S. banking records show Hunter Biden's American-based firm, Rosemont Seneca Partners LLC, received regular transfers
into one of its accounts -- usually more than $166,000 a month -- from Burisma from spring 2014 through fall 2015, during a period
when Vice President Biden was the main U.S. official dealing with Ukraine and its tense relations with Russia. -
The Hill
The Hill 's Solomon reviewed the general prosecutor's file for the Burisma probe - which he reports shows Hunter Biden, his business
partner Devon Archer and their firm, Rosemont Seneca, as potential recipients of money.
And before he was fired, Shokin says he had made "specific plans" for the investigation - including "interrogations and other
crime-investigation procedures into all members of the executive board, including Hunter Biden." "I would like to emphasize the fact
that presumption of innocence is a principle in Ukraine," added Shokin. Joe Biden "clearly had to know" about the probe before he
insisted on Shokin's ouster . Via The Hill:
Although Biden made no mention of his son in his 2018 speech, U.S. and Ukrainian authorities both told me Biden and his office
clearly had to know about the general prosecutor's probe of Burisma and his son's role. They noted that:
Hunter Biden's appointment to the board was widely reported in American media;
The U.S. Embassy in Kiev that coordinated Biden's work in the country repeatedly and publicly discussed the general prosecutor's
case against Burisma;
Great Britain took very public action against Burisma while Joe Biden was working with that government on Ukraine issues;
Biden's office was quoted, on the record, acknowledging Hunter Biden's role in Burisma in a New York Times article about the
general prosecutor's Burisma case that appeared four months before Biden forced the firing of Shokin. The vice president's office
suggested in that article that Hunter Biden was a lawyer free to pursue his own private business deals.
President Obama named Biden the administration's point man on Ukraine in February 2014 , after a popular revolution ousted
Russia-friendly President Viktor Yanukovych and as Moscow
sent military forces into Ukraine's Crimea territory.
***
Key questions for 'ol Joe:
Was it appropriate for your son and his firm to cash in on Ukraine while you served as point man for Ukraine policy? What work
was performed for the money Hunter Biden's firm received? Did you know about the Burisma probe? And when it was publicly announced
that your son worked for Burisma, should you have recused yourself from leveraging a U.S. policy to pressure the prosecutor who
very publicly pursued Burisma?
Remember Victoria Nuland's famous phone recording of "**** the EU?" This was nothing more than another CIA destabilization
campaign carried out of another Sovereign Country. With the goal of breaking the Bush Senior & Jim Baker agreement of not surrounding
Russia with NATO countries after their Collapse.
Let's face it. If Ukrainians loved it's Country, Joey, Hunter and the Choco-**** would have wound up like Mikhail Lesin
during an all night party in an upscale grotto in Kiev by now!
Amazing that all 3 of them are still alive and that "Song Bird" McCain (#4) was allowed to die from his brain cancer instead
of joining them or being dismembered and put on display when he made these visit(s) (
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbfsTcJCKDE ) along
with General Vallely (#5)!!!
Taras Bulba , 1 hour ago
At last some questions for this dirt ball-burisma is tied in with one of the most if not the most corrupt oligarch, Koloimiski.
Biden is up to his eyeballs in some dodgy deals in china as well-this guy and his son are walking corruption personified.
CarifonianSeven, 2 hours ago
Didn't Hillary teach Joe that a tax free foundation is better than using your son's LLC for laundering the bribes... This
is basic stuff.
Pernicious Gold Phallusy, 1 hour ago
Joe cheated his way through undergrad and law school. He would be unable to understand any of that.
whittler, 1 hour ago
What? You mean folks will finally care about little Hunter hiring Azov neo-Nazi fighters (oops! security I mean) to protect
his fracking site just north of the 'troubles' in the eastern Ukraine? I'm sure they were working for free and that no Biden money
was ever used to payoff (oops again! I mean pay the wages of) a bunch of Nazis (dang it again, I mean neo-Nazis, it sounds so
much warmer and fuzzier when you add 'neo').
Creepy Joe and all D's agree, 'Nazi' = bad, neo-Nazi = warm, fuzzy and good; heck, they even like to kill Russians Russians
Russians!!!
Cracker 16 , 1 hour ago
Joe "the Conqueror" "Caesar Magnus" Biden. Joe of Ukraine, the best bud of $oro$.
Yes, "Trump was selling himself as a traitor to a corrupt class, someone who knew how soulless and greedy the ruling elite was because
he was one of them. " But he turned to be a fake, a marionette who is controlled by neocons like hapless Bush II.
Notable quotes:
"... Last weekend, I published a book chapter criticizing the Russiagate narrative, claiming it was a years-long press error on the scale of the WMD affair heading into the Iraq war. ..."
"... The overwhelming theme of that race, long before anyone even thought about Russia, was voter rage at the entire political system. ..."
"... The anger wasn't just on the Republican side, where Trump humiliated the Republicans' chosen $150 million contender , Jeb Bush (who got three delegates, or $50 million per delegate ). It was also evident on the Democratic side, where a self-proclaimed "Democratic Socialist" with little money and close to no institutional support became a surprise contender . ..."
"... Trump was gunning for votes in both parties. The core story he told on the stump was one of system-wide corruption, in which there was little difference between Republicans and Democrats. ..."
"... Perhaps just by luck, Trump was tuned in to the fact that the triumvirate of ruling political powers in America – the two parties, the big donors and the press – were so unpopular with large parts of the population that he could win in the long haul by attracting their ire, even if he was losing battles on the way. ..."
"... The subtext was always: I may be crude, but these people are phonies, pretending to be upset when they're making money off my bullshit . ..."
"... Trump was selling himself as a traitor to a corrupt class, someone who knew how soulless and greedy the ruling elite was because he was one of them. ..."
Faulty coverage of Donald Trump's 2016 campaign later made foreign espionage a more plausible explanation for his ascent to power
Last weekend, I published a book chapter criticizing the Russiagate
narrative, claiming it was a years-long press error on the scale of the WMD affair heading into the Iraq war.
Obviously (and I said this in detail), the WMD fiasco had a far greater real-world impact, with hundreds of thousands of lives
lost and trillions in treasure wasted. Still, I thought Russiagate would do more to damage the reputation of the national news media
in the end.
A day after publishing that excerpt, a
Attorney General
William Barr sent his summary of the report to Congress, containing a quote filed by Special Counsel
Robert Mueller : "[T]he investigation did not establish
that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."
Suddenly, news articles appeared arguing people like myself and Glenn Greenwald of the Intercept were
rushing to judgment
, calling us bullies whose writings were intended to leave reporters "cowed" and likely to "
back down from aggressive coverage of Trump ."
This was baffling. One of the most common criticisms of people like Greenwald, Michael Tracey, Aaron Mate, Rania Khalek, Max Blumenthal,
Jordan Chariton and many others is that Russiagate "skeptics" - I hate that term, because it implies skepticism isn't normal and
healthy in this job - were really secret Trump partisans, part of a "horseshoe" pact between far left and far right to focus attention
on the minor foibles of the center instead of Trump's more serious misdeeds. Even I received this label, and I once wrote a book
about Trump called Insane Clown President .
A typical social media complaint:
@mtaibbi and all his deplorable followers. The truth will come out
and your premature celebrations are embarrassing.
It's irritating that I even have to address this, because my personal political views shouldn't have anything to do with how I
cover anything. But just to get it out of the way: I'm no fan of
Donald Trump .
I had a well-developed opinion about him long before the 2016 race started. I once interned for Trump's nemesis-biographer, the
late, great muckraker Wayne Barrett
. The birther campaign
of 2011 was all I ever needed to make a voting decision about the man.
I started covering the last presidential race in 2015 just as I was finishing up a book about the death of Eric Garner called
I Can't Breathe . Noting that
a birther campaign started by "peripheral political curiosity and reality TV star Donald Trump" led to 41 percent of respondents
in one poll believing Barack Obama was "not even American," I wrote:
If anyone could communicate the frustration black Americans felt over Stop-and-Frisk and other neo-vagrancy laws that made
black people feel like they could be arrested anywhere, it should have been Barack Obama. He'd made it all the way to the White
House and was still considered to be literally trespassing by a huge plurality of the population.
So I had no illusions about Trump. The Russia story bothered
me for other reasons, mostly having to do with a general sense of the public being misled, and not even about Russia.
The problem lay with the precursor tale to Russiagate, i.e. how Trump even got to be president in the first place.
The 2016 campaign season brought to the surface awesome levels of political discontent. After the election, instead of wondering
where that anger came from, most of the press quickly pivoted to a new tale about a Russian plot to attack our Democracy. This conveyed
the impression that the election season we'd just lived through had been an aberration, thrown off the rails by an extraordinary
espionage conspiracy between Trump and a cabal of evil foreigners.
This narrative contradicted everything I'd seen traveling across America in my two years of covering the campaign. The overwhelming
theme of that race, long before anyone even thought about Russia, was voter rage at the entire political system.
The anger wasn't just on the Republican side, where Trump humiliated the Republicans' chosen
$150 million
contender , Jeb Bush (who got three delegates, or
$50 million per delegate ). It was also evident on the Democratic side, where a self-proclaimed "Democratic Socialist" with little
money and close to no institutional support became
a surprise contender
.
Because of a series of press misdiagnoses before the Russiagate stories even began, much of the American public was unprepared
for news of a Trump win. A cloak-and-dagger election-fixing conspiracy therefore seemed more likely than it might have otherwise
to large parts of the domestic news audience, because they hadn't been prepared for anything else that would make sense.
This was particularly true of upscale, urban, blue-leaning news consumers, who were not told to take the possibility of a Trump
White House seriously.
Priority number-one of the political class after a vulgar, out-of-work game-show host conquered the White House should have been
a long period of ruthless self-examination. This story delayed that for at least two years.
It wasn't even clear Trump whether or not wanted to win. Watching him on the trail, Trump at times went beyond seeming disinterested.
There were periods where it looked like South Park's "
Did I offend you? " thesis was true, and he was
actively trying to lose, only the polls just wouldn't let him.
Forget about the gift the end of Russiagate might give Trump by allowing him to spend 2020 peeing from a great height on the national
press corps. The more serious issue has to be the failure to face the reality of why he won last time, because we still haven't done
that.
... ... ...
Trump, the billionaire, denounced us as the elitists in the room. He'd call us "bloodsuckers," "dishonest," and in one line that
produced laughs considering who was saying it, "
highly-paid ."
He also did something that I immediately recognized as brilliant (or diabolical, depending on how you look at it). He dared cameramen
to turn their cameras to show the size of his crowds.
They usually wouldn't – hey, we don't work for the guy – which thrilled Trump, who would then say something to the effect of,
"See! They're
very dishonest people ." Audiences would turn toward us, and boo and hiss, and even throw little bits of paper and other things
our way. This was unpleasant, but it was hard not to see its effectiveness: he'd re-imagined the lifeless, poll-tested format of
the stump speech, turning it into menacing, personal, WWE-style theater.
Trump was gunning for votes in both parties. The core story he told on the stump was one of system-wide corruption, in which there
was little difference between Republicans and Democrats.
...
Perhaps just by luck, Trump was tuned in to the fact that the triumvirate of ruling political powers in America – the two parties,
the big donors and the press – were so unpopular with large parts of the population that he could win in the long haul by attracting
their ire, even if he was losing battles on the way.
...
The subtext was always: I may be crude, but these people are phonies, pretending to be upset when they're making money off my
bullshit .
I thought this was all nuts and couldn't believe it was happening in a real presidential campaign. But, a job is a job. My first
feature on candidate Trump was called "
How
America Made Donald Trump Unstoppable ." The key section read:
In person, you can't miss it: The same way Sarah Palin can see Russia from her house, Donald on the stump can see his future.
The pundits don't want to admit it, but it's sitting there in plain view, 12 moves ahead, like a chess game already won:
President Donald Trump
It turns out we let our electoral process devolve into something so fake and dysfunctional that any half-bright con man with
the stones to try it could walk right through the front door and tear it to shreds on the first go.
And Trump is no half-bright con man, either. He's way better than average.
Traditional Democratic audiences appeared thrilled by the piece and shared it widely. I was invited on scads of cable shows to
discuss ad nauseum the "con man" line. This made me nervous, because it probably meant these people hadn't read the piece, which among other things posited the failures
of America's current ruling class meant Trump's insane tactics could actually work.
Trump was selling himself as a traitor to a corrupt class, someone who knew how soulless and greedy the ruling elite was because
he was one of them.
...
The only reason most blue-state media audiences had been given for Trump's poll numbers all along was racism, which was surely
part of the story but not the whole picture. A lack of any other explanation meant Democratic audiences, after the shock of election
night, were ready to reach for any other data point that might better explain what just happened.
Russiagate became a convenient replacement explanation absolving an incompetent political establishment for its complicity in
what happened in 2016, and not just the failure to see it coming. Because of the immediate arrival of the collusion theory, neither
Wolf Blitzer nor any politician ever had to look into the camera and say, "I guess people hated us so much they were even willing
to vote for Donald Trump."
Post-election, Russiagate made it all worse. People could turn on their TVs at any hour of the day and see anyone from Rachel
Maddow to Chris Cuomo openly reveling in Trump's troubles. This is what Fox looks like to liberal audiences.
Worse, the "walls are closing in" theme -- two years old now -- was just a continuation of the campaign mistake, reporters confusing
what they wanted to happen with what was happening . The story was always more complicated than was being represented.
"... I suspect that the cool aid is not working effectively these days and that far too many people see through the charades and lies. An interesting story lurks behind this and the entire 'hate Russia' and 'monkey Mueller' episode. ..."
"... The attitudes of the masses are spinning out of the manipulative hands of the deep state and the oligarchs ..."
"... Russiagate became a convenient replacement explanation absolving an incompetent political establishment for its complicity in what happened in 2016, and not just the failure to see it coming. ..."
"... Because of the immediate arrival of the collusion theory, neither Wolf Blitzer nor any politician ever had to look into the camera and say, "I guess people hated us so much they were even willing to vote for Donald Trump ..."
"... the elite seem to be fighting amongst themselves or (IMO) providing cover for ongoing elite power/control efforts. It might not be about private/public finance in a bigger picture but I can't see anything else that makes sense ..."
"... Most of those reporters were going to slant their stories the way their bosses wanted. Their jobs are just too nice to do otherwise. Getting Trump as Hillary's opponent had to have been a goal for the majority of them. He was the patsy who would become squished roadkill in the treads of The Most Experienced Presidential Candidate In History. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton is a knowledgeable, well-prepared, reasonable, experienced, even-tempered, hardworking candidate, while her opponent is a stubbornly uninformed demagogue who has been proven again and again to be a liar on matters big and small. There is no objective basis on which to equate Hillary Clinton to her opponent. ..."
"... The author had it half right. Turns out the voters knew quite a bit about Trump, and still preferred him to the Butcher of Libya. ..."
Thaks b, now that is a delightful question to pose on the eve of April fool's day.
My suggestion is that Cambridge Analytica and others backing Trump and the yankee imperial
machine have been taking measurements of USA citizens opinions and are staggered by the
results. They are panicked!
I suspect that the cool aid is not working effectively these days and that far too many
people see through the charades and lies. An interesting story lurks behind this and the
entire 'hate Russia' and 'monkey Mueller' episode.
The attitudes of the masses are spinning out of the manipulative hands of the deep state
and the oligarchs. Do any of our comrades have a handle on this type of research and the
implication for voter attitudes?
" Russiagate became a convenient replacement explanation absolving an incompetent
political establishment for its complicity in what happened in 2016, and not just the failure
to see it coming.
Because of the immediate arrival of the collusion theory, neither Wolf
Blitzer nor any politician ever had to look into the camera and say, "I guess people hated us
so much they were even willing to vote for Donald Trump ."
As a peedupon all I can see is that the elite seem to be fighting amongst themselves or
(IMO) providing cover for ongoing elite power/control efforts. It might not be about
private/public finance in a bigger picture but I can't see anything else that makes sense
Thanks for the Taibbi link. I hadn't seen it, and found him to be in good form. I do think
he ought to have spoken more about how bad Trump's Primary opponents were.
Most of those reporters were going to slant their stories the way their bosses wanted.
Their jobs are just too nice to do otherwise. Getting Trump as Hillary's opponent had to have
been a goal for the majority of them. He was the patsy who would become squished roadkill in
the treads of The Most Experienced Presidential Candidate In History. More on that for people
with strong stomachs:
Hillary Clinton is a knowledgeable, well-prepared, reasonable, experienced, even-tempered,
hardworking candidate, while her opponent is a stubbornly uninformed demagogue who has been
proven again and again to be a liar on matters big and small. There is no objective basis
on which to equate Hillary Clinton to her opponent.
The author had it half right. Turns out the voters knew quite a bit about Trump,
and still preferred him to the Butcher of Libya.
Some people understood the situation in 2017, when most Trump voters were still full of illutions.
Notable quotes:
"... you like most losers are driven by your own projections. You projected your hopes and wishful thinking on Trump and it worked perfectly for him. He got elected. ..."
"... now after firing Bannon there is nothing left. He was the last and the only guarantor of your hopes. That's why MSM hated Bannon so much. ..."
"... torture, Guantanamo and stealing their oil ..."
This turn of events is the biggest challenge ever to my support of Trump. If he really goes the way he is indicating, he will
lose the support of people like me -- and there may be millions like me. We have no alternative candidate, but we will never
again be led down this road.
If Trump turns, that is the end of everything.
" we will never again be led down this road." You will, you will because you like most losers are driven by your own projections.
You projected your hopes and wishful thinking on Trump and it worked perfectly for him. He got elected.
But now after firing Bannon there is nothing left. He was the last and the only guarantor of your hopes. That's why MSM
hated Bannon so much.
The only pre-election promises that actually will be retained are torture, Guantanamo and stealing their oil. Did you vote
for these items? Anyway, that is all you are left with. Get used to it:
Despite his election promises Trump Secretary of State shortlist was always dominated by neocons. A set of candidates would make
Hillary Clinton proud..
(There are 5 women on the list, including Sarah Palin & NH's Kelly Ayotte, demonstrating that
ilsm has some influence.
For Sec/Defense - seriously. Alternatively for UN Ambassador. Right.)
Thomas Barrack Jr. Founder, chairman and executive chairman of Colony Capital; private equity
and real estate investor
Jeb Hensarling Representative from Texas and chairman of the House Financial Services Committee
Steven Mnuchin Former Goldman Sachs executive and Mr. Trump's campaign finance chairman
Tim Pawlenty Former Minnesota governor
Defense Secretary
Kelly Ayotte Departing senator from New Hampshire and member of the Senate Armed Services
Committee
Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn Former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency (he would need
a waiver from Congress because of a seven-year rule for retired officers)
Stephen J. Hadley National security adviser under George W. Bush
Jon Kyl Former senator from Arizona
Jeff Sessions Senator from Alabama who is a prominent immigration opponent
Attorney General
Chris Christie New Jersey governor
Rudolph W. Giuliani Former New York mayor
Jeff Sessions Senator from Alabama
Interior Secretary
Jan Brewer Former Arizona governor
Robert E. Grady Gryphon Investors partner
Harold G. Hamm Chief executive of Continental Resources, an oil and gas company
Forrest Lucas President of Lucas Oil Products, which manufactures automotive lubricants, additives
and greases
Sarah Palin Former Alaska governor
Agriculture Secretary
Sam Brownback Kansas governor
Chuck Conner Chief executive officer of the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives
Sid Miller Texas agricultural commissioner
Sonny Perdue Former Georgia governor
Commerce Secretary
Chris Christie New Jersey governor
Dan DiMicco Former chief executive of Nucor Corporation, a steel production company
Lewis M. Eisenberg Private equity chief for Granite Capital International Group
Labor Secretary
Victoria A. Lipnic Equal Employment Opportunity commissioner and work force policy counsel
to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce
Health and Human Services Secretary
Dr. Ben Carson Former neurosurgeon and 2016 presidential candidate
Mike Huckabee Former Arkansas governor and 2016 presidential candidate
Bobby Jindal Former Louisiana governor who served as secretary of the Louisiana Department
of Health and Hospitals
Rick Scott Florida governor and former chief executive of a large hospital chain
Energy Secretary
James L. Connaughton Chief executive of Nautilus Data Technologies and former environmental
adviser to President George W. Bush
Robert E. Grady Gryphon Investors partner
Harold G. Hamm Chief executive of Continental Resources, an oil and gas company
Education Secretary
Dr. Ben Carson Former neurosurgeon and 2016 presidential candidate
Williamson M. Evers Education expert at the Hoover Institution, a think tank
Secretary of Veterans Affairs
Jeff Miller Retired chairman of the House Veterans Affairs Committee
Homeland Security Secretary
Joe Arpaio Departing sheriff of Maricopa County, Ariz.
David A. Clarke Jr. Milwaukee County sheriff
Michael McCaul Representative from Texas and chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee
Jeff Sessions Senator from Alabama
White House Chief of Staff
Stephen K. Bannon Editor of Breitbart News and chairman of Mr. Trump's campaign
Reince Priebus Chairman of the Republican National Committee
E.P.A. Administrator
Myron Ebell A director at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and a prominent climate change
skeptic
Robert E. Grady Gryphon Investors partner who was involved in drafting the Clean Air Act Amendments
of 1990
Jeffrey R. Holmstead Lawyer with Bracewell L.L.P. and former deputy E.P.A. administrator in
the George W. Bush administration
U.S. Trade Representative
Dan DiMicco Former chief executive of Nucor Corporation, a steel production company, and
a critic of Chinese trade practices
U.N. Ambassador
Kelly Ayotte Departing senator from New Hampshire and member of the Senate Armed Services
Committee
Richard Grenell Former spokesman for the United States ambassador to the United Nations during
the George W. Bush administration
CIA Director / Director of National Intelligence
Michael T. Flynn Former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency
Peter Hoekstra Former chairman of the House Intelligence Committee
Mike Rogers Former chairman of the House Intelligence Committee
Frances Townsend Former homeland security adviser under George W. Bush
National Security Adviser
Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn Former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency
Trump's Hires Will Set Course of His Presidency
http://nyti.ms/2eNUfRg
NYT - MARK LANDLER =- Nov 12
WASHINGTON - "Busy day planned in New York," President-elect Donald J. Trump said on Twitter
on Friday morning, two days after his astonishing victory. "Will soon be making some very important
decisions on the people who will be running our government!"
If anything, that understates the gravity of the personnel choices Mr. Trump and his transition
team are weighing.
Rarely in the history of the American presidency has the exercise of choosing people to fill
jobs had such a far-reaching impact on the nature and priorities of an incoming administration.
Unlike most new presidents, Mr. Trump comes into office with no elective-office experience, no
coherent political agenda and no bulging binder of policy proposals. And he has left a trail of
inflammatory, often contradictory, statements on issues from immigration and race to terrorism
and geopolitics.
In such a chaotic environment, serving a president who is in many ways a tabula rasa, the appointees
to key White House jobs like chief of staff and cabinet posts like secretary of state, defense
secretary and Treasury secretary could wield outsize influence. Their selection will help determine
whether the Trump administration governs like the firebrand Mr. Trump was on the campaign trail
or the pragmatist he often appears to be behind closed doors. ...
"... Each new president inherits a sea of problems from his predecessor. Donald Trump's biggest legacy headaches and priority will be in the Mideast, a disaster area on its own but made far, far worse by the bungling of the Obama administration and its dimwitted attempts to put the US and Russia on a collision course. ..."
"... Thanks to George W. Bush – who dared show his face at the inauguration – and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Obama, Trump inherits America's longest war, Afghanistan, with our shameful support of mass drug dealing, endemic corruption and war crimes. Add the crazy mess in Iraq and now Syria. ..."
"... This week US B-2 heavy bombers attacked Libya. US forces are fighting in Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan and parts of Africa. For what? No one is quite sure. America's foreign wars, fueled by its $1 trillion military budget, have assumed a life of their own. Once a great power goes to war, its proponents insist, 'we can't be seen to back down or our credibility will suffer.' ..."
"... If President Trump truly wants to bring some sort of peace to the explosive Mideast, he will have to reject the advice of the hardline Zionists with whom he has chosen to surround himself. Their primary interest is Greater Israel, free of Arabs, not in a Greater America. Trump is too smart not to know this. But he may also listen to his blood and guts former generals who lost the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. ..."
"... Trump should be reminded that the 9/11 attackers cited two reasons for their attack: 1. Occupation of Saudi Arabia by the US; 2. Continued US-backed occupation of Palestine. Persistent attacks on western targets that we call terrorism are, in most cases, acts of revenge for our neo-colonial actions in the Muslim world, the 'American Raj' as I term it. ..."
What I found most impressive this time was the reaffirmation of America's dedication to the peaceful transfer of political power.
This was the 45th time this miracle has happened. Saying this is perhaps banal, but the handover of power never fails to make me
proud to be an American and thankful we had such brilliant founding fathers.
This peaceful transfer sets the United States apart from many of the world's nations, even Britain and Canada, where leaders under
the parliamentary system are chosen in a process resembling a knife fight in a dark room. The US has somehow managed to retain its
three branches of government in spite of the best efforts of self-serving politicians to wreck it.
Each new president inherits a sea of problems from his predecessor. Donald Trump's biggest legacy headaches and priority will
be in the Mideast, a disaster area on its own but made far, far worse by the bungling of the Obama administration and its dimwitted
attempts to put the US and Russia on a collision course.
Thanks to George W. Bush – who dared show his face at the inauguration – and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Obama, Trump inherits
America's longest war, Afghanistan, with our shameful support of mass drug dealing, endemic corruption and war crimes. Add the crazy
mess in Iraq and now Syria.
This week US B-2 heavy bombers attacked Libya. US forces are fighting in Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan and parts of Africa. For what?
No one is quite sure. America's foreign wars, fueled by its $1 trillion military budget, have assumed a life of their own. Once a
great power goes to war, its proponents insist, 'we can't be seen to back down or our credibility will suffer.'
Trump will struggle to find a face-saving retreat from these unnecessary conflicts and shut his ears to the siren songs of the
war party and deep state which just failed to stage a 'soft' coup to block his inauguration. Waging little wars against weak nations
is a multi-billion dollar national industry in the US. America has become as addicted to war as it has to debt.
If President Trump truly wants to bring some sort of peace to the explosive Mideast, he will have to reject the advice of the
hardline Zionists with whom he has chosen to surround himself. Their primary interest is Greater Israel, free of Arabs, not in a
Greater America. Trump is too smart not to know this. But he may also listen to his blood and guts former generals who lost the wars
in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Trump appears to have been gulled into believing the canard that Mideast-origin violence is caused by what he called in his inaugural
speech, radical Islamic terrorism. This is a favorite device promoted by the hard right and Israel to de-legitimize any resistance
to Israel's expansion and ethnic cleansing. The label of 'terrorism' serves the same purpose.
Trump should be reminded that the 9/11 attackers cited two reasons for their attack: 1. Occupation of Saudi Arabia by the
US; 2. Continued US-backed occupation of Palestine. Persistent attacks on western targets that we call terrorism are, in most cases,
acts of revenge for our neo-colonial actions in the Muslim world, the 'American Raj' as I term it.
Unfortunately, President Trump is unlikely to get this useful advice from the men who now surround him, with the possibly exception
of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. Let's hope that Tillerson and not Goldman Sachs bank ends up steering US foreign policy.
(Reprinted from EricMargolis.com by permission
of author or representative)
During 2016 election campaign: "On foreign policy Hillary is trigger happy" says Trump and he is right 100%... And he continued Hillary
policies.
And the he behaves as 100% pure militarist.
Notable quotes:
"... I've always thought that Hillary's support for the broader mission in Libya put the president on the 51 side of the line for a more aggressive approach ..."
"... Had the secretaries of state and defense both opposed the war, he and others said, the president's decision might have been politically impossible. ..."
"... Except for that last minute of Trump_vs_deep_states, I almost thought that was a Bernie speech. An interesting general election plan is to take Bernie's ideas with a healthy dash of Trump spice in an attempt to coalesce the angry populist vote. ..."
"... Sanders is the last hope to avoid total disaster. Maybe he can help mitigate HRC's hawk stance in the ME. I think Israel is a lost cause though as the problem child with nukes. ..."
"... A political strategy based on xenophobia and divisiveness supports those who benefit from xenophobia and divisiveness – those who exploit labor (including Trump who outsources jobs, hires H2-B workers, and exploits workers domestically and overseas), and those who benefit from the military-industrial-security-serveillance complex; and harms the rest of us. ..."
"... Obama and the Democrats did everything they could to undermine and stamp out progressive organization. ..."
"... Except it's recent US actions which have undermined the Middle East in general. From Saddam to Libya to ISIS etc etc. ..."
"... if you pay them enough. ..."
"... "We have been killing, maiming and displacing millions of Muslims and destroying their countries for the last 15 years with less outcry than transgender bathrooms have generated." ..."
"... Good point. I keep wondering why Hillary the Hawk's actual illegal war and murdering of Muslims is worse than Trump's ban. ..."
"... Imagine Trump running to the left of Hillary on defense / interventionism, trade, and universal healthcare. That would sure make things interesting. He could win. ..."
"... James Carville, astute handicapper that he is, has already sniffed out that Hillary now needs Bernie more than Bernie needs Hillary. ..."
"... even in comparison with Hillary Clinton ..."
"... "core voters come from communities where a lot of people have fought in the post-9/11 Middle Eastern conflicts. Our armed forces are stretched to the breaking point. Trump has strong support among veterans and active duty soldiers" ..."
"... "As a small business owner, not only are you trying to provide benefits to your employees, you're trying to provide benefits to yourself. I have seen our health insurance for my own family, go up $500 dollars a month in the last two years. We went from four hundred something, to nine hundred something. We're just fighting to keep benefits for ourselves. The thought of being able to provide benefits to your employees is almost secondary, yet to keep your employees happy, that's a question that comes across my desk all the time. I have to keep my employees as independent contractors for the most part really to avoid that situation, and so I have turnover" ..."
"... "We do not qualify for a subsidy on the current health insurance plan. My question to you is not only are you looking out for people that can't afford healthcare, but I'm someone that can afford it, but it's taking a big chunk of the money I bring home." ..."
"... "What you're saying is one of the real worries that we're facing with the cost of health insurance because the costs are going up in a lot of markets, not all, but many markets and what you're describing is one of the real challenges." ..."
"... "There's a lot of things I'm looking at to try to figure out how to deal with exactly the problem you're talking about. There are some good ideas out there but we have to subject them to the real world test, will this really help a small business owner or a family be able to afford it. What could have possibly raised your costs four hundred dollars, and that's what I don't understand." ..."
"... You echo my feelings. My loathing of Clinton knows no bounds, and I cannot vote for her, no matter what. But I simply don't trust Trump. He's a gold-digger extrodinaire, and quite the accomplished showman. He knows how to play to the crowd, and he's clearly quite quick to shape shift. The wrecked tatters of what's called the USA "media" gives Trump a YOOOGE pass on simply everything and anything the man says or does. ..."
"... if Donald wins, he could just end up the loneliest man in DC, be ignored, get nothing done ..."
"... Trump doesn't need to see the Zapruder film. He was alive then and knows the story, just like everyone else of a certain age. Nay, verily, he just means to cash in on it. ..."
"... Being Left of Hillary is a really really really low bar. He probably is, but thats probably because Hillary is right wing. You know, like almost all American politicians from both parties. Trumps not left of Bernie (at least not yet or not right now: I expect hes going to swing left in the general to scoop up Bernie voters), and Bernies just an Eisenhower Republican, which is admittedly to the left of basically all the other politicians today. ..."
There are good reasons to harbor serious reservations about The Donald, given that he changes
his position as frequently as most people change their clothes. But so far, he has been consistent
in making an argument that is sorely underrepresented in the media and in policy circles: that our
war-making in the Middle East has been a costly disaster with no upside to the US. Trump even cites,
without naming him, Joe Stiglitz's estimate that
our wars have cost at least $4 trillion.
As Lambert put it, "I hate it when Trump is right."
If you think Trump is overstating his case on Hillary's trigger-happiness, read this New York
Times story,
How Hillary Clinton Became a Hawk .
Mrs. Clinton's account of a unified European-Arab front powerfully influenced Mr. Obama. "Because
the president would never have done this thing on our own," said Benjamin J. Rhodes, the deputy
national security adviser.
Mr. Gates, among others, thought Mrs. Clinton's backing decisive. Mr. Obama later told him
privately in the Oval Office, he said, that the Libya decision was "51-49."
"I've always thought that Hillary's support for the broader mission in Libya put the president
on the 51 side of the line for a more aggressive approach," Mr. Gates said. Had the secretaries
of state and defense both opposed the war, he and others said, the president's decision might
have been politically impossible.
Best assessment yet. This is a great speech bite from Donald but I have no idea if he means it.
(Though I don't agree with it just look at his Muslim Ban stance) Half the time he makes coherent
reasonable arguments, the other half the time I think he definitely is a Clinton Mole. I don't know
which Trump I'm getting hour to hour much less day to day.
Except for that last minute of Trump_vs_deep_states, I almost thought that was a Bernie speech. An interesting
general election plan is to take Bernie's ideas with a healthy dash of Trump spice in an attempt to
coalesce the angry populist vote. It'll be interesting to watch Hillary circle the wagons of the content,
elite center in an attempt to hold off the marginalized hordes of angry "savage plebs", especially if
the convention seems stolen. Still hoping for some miracle to pull Sanders through.
Miracle indeed, Sanders is the last hope to avoid total disaster. Maybe he can help mitigate HRC's
hawk stance in the ME. I think Israel is a lost cause though as the problem child with nukes.
In all seriousness, why is his Muslim ban idea bad? Or for that matter why would it, in principle,
be a bad idea to ban nearly all foreigners from entering the US? After all, it's not as if the US has
some actual need for foreigners to enter considering the large and growing desperately poor domestic
population. Especially considering that heretofore (let's be real here) both legal and illegal immigration
has been mainly exploited to destroy domestic labor conditions in the US.
This is a fact a lot of ostensibly good-hearted progressive and wealthy liberals conveniently ignore
(they'd probably cry themselves to sleep if they could no longer help to improve the lot of that below
minimum wage illegal immigrant maid they hired). Well, the working poor aren't ignoring it, and the
lid is going to blow soon if this keeps up. Donald Trump and the popularity of his Muslim ban is only
an early sign of the brewing discontent.
He didn't propose banning Muslims as a way to address our jobs and economic problems (which it isn't),
he proposed it as a way to address domestic terror (which it isn't). It's a political tactic to stir
up and implicitly sanction hate, prejudice, divisiveness, and violence.
Not arguing your point, however how are Trump supporters reading this? These people are already against
any immigrant coming into the US for economic reasons, and in all honesty they are looking for any excuse
whatsoever to view immigrants in a bad light.
Just to add to that a bit, it's also why immigrant crime is always being hyped up and exaggerated
by Trump supporters. The real issue deep down is that immigrants are threatening them economically,
and they'll use any justification whatsoever to get rid of them.
Is it right? I don't really know how to objectively answer that. But for the people doing it, this
could work out in economic terms for them. So at least from their perspective it's a good idea.
I think people are just so angry with how the squillionaries use "politically correct" proper thinking
about immigration to hide their illegal suppression of wages that even outrageous and outlandish statements
by The Donald will not dissuade his supporters – – after all, the supporters could ask why is this issue
of wage suppression, "by any means necessary", that affects FAR, FAR more people who ARE US citizens
so scrupulously IGNORED by the media (media owned by rich??? – of course). As disturbing as what The
Donald says, what is NOT SAID by the ENTIRE (except Sanders) US political establishment, is far more
disturbing, as I think it shows an utterly captured political caste. As well as the rank hypocrisy that
if any of these immigrants don't have health care after they arrive, the squillionaires couldn't care
less if they died in the streets – no matter how rich they are, they want to make more people poorer.
They are such an evil enemy that people will put up with The Donald.
It is a fact that these tech billionaires engaged in an illegal activity. It is a fact the US government
simply ignored enforcing laws and refuses to punish them.
Trump in my view will not be able to do even a quarter of some of this crap like banning Muslims
– laws do have to be passed. But the fact remains that Trump will probably be the only presidential
nominee (not presidential candidate, i.e., Sanders), and the last one in 40 years, to even merely talk
about these issues.
The fact that Trump succeeds just shows how famished people are to some challenge to the war mongering,
coddling of the rich that is passed off as something that the majority supports.
A political strategy based on xenophobia and divisiveness supports those who benefit from xenophobia
and divisiveness – those who exploit labor (including Trump who outsources jobs, hires H2-B workers,
and exploits workers domestically and overseas), and those who benefit from the military-industrial-security-serveillance
complex; and harms the rest of us.
It seems no more likely that Trump as president will actually promote policies that will "work out
in economic terms" for ordinary people as it was to think Obama would put on this "comfortable shoes"
and join a picket line (though I bought that one at the time).
Hillary basically won relatively well to do minorities who voted for her in 2008 just in smaller
numbers. Poorer minorities stayed home in Southern states where Internet access is less available and
progressive organizations are just churches. On the surface, Sanders sounds very much like the media
perception of President Hope and Change who isn't as popular as much as no one wants to admit the first
non white President was terrible or they actively applauded terrible policy.
Free college probably didn't appeal to people with junk degrees from for profit diploma mills. The
damage is done. People need jobs not school at this point or incomes. A green jobs guarantee act would
have been a better push front and center, but again, this is with hindsight. Many minority voters simply
didn't vote, and Hillary pushed that "you don't know Bernie" line to scare voters that Sanders was another
Obama.
Obama and the Democrats did everything they could to undermine and stamp out progressive organization.
Agree that jobs should be the focus (or income and meeting basic needs). Education as the focus appeals
to the under 25 years old college bound crowd, but not so much to anyone older having to survive out
there in the work world everyday.
I am a Trump supporter and I am not against immigrants or immigration. I am opposed to doing nothing
in the face of a broken immigration system. I do not think it is wise for any country to have millions
and millions of undocumented workers in its midst. I believe we should legalize those that are here.
Those that have committed crimes not related to immigrating or over staying visas should absolutely
be deported and lose the privilege of living in the US. I live in Spain, but am an American. If I broke
minor laws, such as drunk driving, assault or drug possession I would be deported too, seems fair to
me. I believe we have to revamp border security, though I don´t think a wall spanning the entire border
would be wise or effective I personally think Trump is speaking hyperbolically and symbolically about
the wall. Nonetheless, our elites sure do love living behind big walls and gated communities, with armed
security, maybe we should ask them why, walls are just racist anyways, no?
Immigrant crime is not some myth, its real and sometimes it is a very tragic consequence of a broken
immigration system. The fact that the cartels also exploit our broken border and immigration system
is not a myth either, it is reality.
And as for a temporary ban on Muslims coming from Syria, Libya and other locations that have been
devastated by the covert and overt wars of the US I support it totally, for no other reason than public
safety, which is the first reason we institute government. Remember this happened just after Paris,
public safety is a very legitimate concern. Also, why are Islamic countries such as Saudi Arabia or
the Gulf States taking in a single refugee? The Saudis have the money and the capacity to to do this.
They have tents used only during the hajj that house thousands upon thousands. Where is that wonderful,
charitable side of Islam?
I wish the world were different. I don´t harbor prejudice against anyone. Those that want to come
and live, grow and contribute to American civilization, Come, please!! But our world is very dangerous,
and we have created enemies that seek to do harm to our society and civilization in anyway that they
can. We have to protect ourselves and our nation. I wish beyond wishing, that it was someone besides
the Donald saying these things, but, it is what it is. I am not gonna shoot the messanger cuase I dont
like his personality, or because I would not be friends with someone like him.
Illegal immigration could likely be enforced in some industries (on the lower paid scale in garment
making sweatshops and so on). And this could probably best be done by prosecuting the employers doing
the hiring. But I'm not at all convinced the country could run without immigrants entirely. Who would
pick the crops? Ok maybe lots of people at a $15 an hour minimum wage. But at current compensation?
Though I don't know if this really needs to be done via illegal immigration, it could be done by much
more formalized guest worker programs I suppose.
Or, we could just let the market work. You WILL get American workers to perform just about any job
if you pay them enough. Obviously, the reasonable price point for labor is currently well below
what a US citizen will accept. But if I offered a million dollars to get my lawn mowed, I would have
a line out the door of American workers begging to have the job.
Guest workers are just another way to depress US citizens' wages. And immigration reform is best
tackled at the employer level, like you said - anybody who doesn't make this part of his or her "reform"
plan is not to be taken seriously. (I regularly mention this to conservatives, and they always look
for a way to justify going after the powerless immigrants anyway.)
High wages can encourage more automation or substitution of crops that require less manual labor
or even cause people to exit farming as uneconomic.. But the number of workers employed in farming is relatively small.
The World Bank has the USA workforce at 161 million in 2014 and if about 2% of this workforce is
employed in farming, this is about 3.2 million people throughout the USA. And the 3.2 million count is probably not all illegal immigrant workers. This report suggests government price supports have encouraged more people to work in agriculture,
implying that the government is indirectly creating low wage jobs by price supports.
From the above pdf. "For example, the institutionalization of what began as emergency income support
in the 1930s has likely slowed the movement of labor out of the farm sector."
I am of the opinion that the law of one price will apply if there is relatively free movement of
workers, legally or illegally, across borders.
Note, Trump never suggests e-verify and employer enforcement, which would be a low cost way of enforcing
citizen employment and would avoid a costly "great wall".
Trump and HRC's investments are probably more profitable due to a lower labor cost influenced by
low wage workers.
And people don't OPPOSE his restrictions on Muslim immigration because they feel so charitable towards
and accepting of Muslims.
We have been killing, maiming and displacing millions of Muslims and destroying their countries for
the last 15 years with less outcry than transgender bathrooms have generated. And we've allowed our
own civil liberties to be radically infringed. All because " THEY hate us for our 'freedoms.'
" Who the hell do you think THEY are?
But it's Trump who is hateful, prejudiced, divisive and bigoted? As if "welcoming" some immigrants
from countries that we callously destroyed perfectly absolves those who were busy waiting in line for
the newest i-gadget and couldn't be bothered to demand an end to the slaughter.
Get a clue. Trump's not talking about murdering anybody. And no amount of puffed up "outrage" and
name-calling is going to get the stain out. Not to mention it's the most sane and humane way to protect
the "homeland" from the "terrorism" that we, ourselves, created.
"We have been killing, maiming and displacing millions of Muslims and destroying their countries
for the last 15 years with less outcry than transgender bathrooms have generated."
Good point. I keep wondering why Hillary the Hawk's actual illegal war and murdering of Muslims is
worse than Trump's ban.
"I'm against all immigration, as it's merely a lever to lower wages." "I'm against the immigration
of muslims, because they're bad terrorists." There is a difference in these two statements.
You are correct that there is too much immigration to the U.S., and it causes economic and environmental
problems. However, Trump's Muslim ban would cover more than immigration. He would also ban temporary
visits by Muslims (except for the mayor of London, I suppose).
I object very strongly to Muslim extremism, and a lot of Muslims have extremist views. But not all
of them do. And many Christians, Hindus, and whatever also have extremist views which should be opposed.
Trump's not proposing a bad on travel by extremist Christians; he's singling out Muslims because they
scare millions of Americans. It's demagoguery.
You are not quite right there. Trump supporters do indeed want to ban Christian immigrants as well
(the vast, overwhelming majority of immigrants from Mexico, central, and South America are Christians
of some sort) although in the case of Christians the excuse is "violent crime" since obviously Trump
supporters can not disparage Christians specifically for their Christianity. Seriously, watch any Trump
speech and you'll see that he spends more time talking about why all American (Christian) immigrants
need to be banned (crime) than why Muslim immigrants need to be banned (terror). Economic insecurity
is at the root of all of it.
Has Trump demanded that Christians from Europe or Canada be prevented from entering the U.S.? I'm
pretty sure he hasn't. If he's really motivated by economic reasons, there's no need to specify a particular
religion, such as Islam, or a particular nationality, such as Mexicans.
People from Europe and Canada already have high salaries. Or they are perceived to have high salaries
in their home countries. IE they are not percieved as an economic threat. I guarantee you, show me a
poor, third world country that is sending a lot of people to US right now and and I'll show you an ethnic
groups that faces some prejudice. Come on, it's not well paid people with stable jobs and incomes who
are going around being prejudiced against immigrants. It's the poor and the desperate who are doing
it.
There is a reason for that. Ignoring that reason and pretending that it's some bizarre and unfathomable
psychological illness just coincidentally affecting people who are also offing themselves from despair
left and right isn't going to make it go away. Rather, you are inviting something terrible to happen.
The Germans didn't decide to follow Hitler because times were good, and a friendly PR campaign encouraging
openness and acceptance among the poor misguided racists and immigrant haters out there will do exactly
nothing to help matters.
I don't think anyone (most anyone anyway) would disagree that there are plenty of Muslims who are
not extremists. The problem for us is, how do you tell the difference? The San Bernadino shooter was
a health inspector, had a wife, kids, a middle class job, ties to the community and still decided to
shoot up his co-workers with his wife in tow. Plenty of the European ISIS recruits come from middle
class families that are seemingly well-adjusted. If these people (keep in mind Farook was a US citizen)
can become terrorists, how can we possibly screen new entrants with any sort of efficacy?
I'd say it's probably worth the miniscule risk of possible immigrants turning out to be terrorists
if there was some other benefit to having them come in, but if we agree there's too much immigration
to the US already and it is hurting actual US citizens, what exactly is the upside to keep allowing
Muslims in?
By the way, I've been lurking on this site for a few weeks now, first time commenter. It's nice to
find some quality discussion on the internet. Nice to meet everyone.
Where are these "extremist Christians" burning and burying people alive, beheading hostages, blasting
away at crowds in night clubs? "Christian extremism" is a figment of your imagination. The attempt to
equate Moslem violence with conservative Christians is utterly absurd. Do you seriously believe that
soime Amish dude is going to run amuck in a New York night club and slaughter hundreds of people?
Obama does not get is morning SITREP delivered with biblical headers
"The religious theme for briefings prepared for the president and his war cabinet was the brainchild
of Major General Glen Shaffer, a committed Christian and director for intelligence serving Mr Rumsfeld
and the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
In the days before the six-week invasion, Major General Shaffer's staff had created humorous covers
for the briefings to alleviate the stress of preparing for battle.
But as the body count rose, he decided to introduce biblical quotes.
However, many of his Pentagon colleagues were reportedly opposed to the idea, with at least one Muslim
analyst said to be greatly offended.
A defence official warned that if the briefing covers were leaked, the damage to America's standing
in the Arab world 'would be as bad as Abu Ghraib' – the Baghdad prison where U.S. troops abused Iraqis.
But Major General Shaffer, 61, who retired in August 2003, six months after the invasion, claimed
he had the backing of the president and defence secretary. When officials complained, he told them the
practice would continue because it was 'appreciated by my seniors' – Mr Rumsfeld and Mr Bush.
The briefing covers were revealed for the first time by GQ after they were leaked to the U.S. magazine
by a source at the Pentagon."
Disheveled Marsupial . whilst I understand the acts committed transcend time and political party's .
never the less in – The Name Of – can not be white washed away
Did you manage to miss Trump's point in the video that the US has killed millions in the Middle East,
and that if US presidents had gone to the beach for the last 15 years. everyone would have been better
off? And that we murder people by drone in addition to all our undeclared wars? You are seriously pretending
Christians not only have blood on their hands, but started these wars and have killed people in vastly
bigger numbers than we have? I'm not defending terrorists, but your position is a remarkable airbrushing.
The worst domestic terrorist the U.S. ever produced, Timothy McVeigh, wasn't Amish, yet neither was
he Muslim. Denying people the opportunity to immigrate here– based solely on religion– contradicts the
principles of tolerance on which this country was founded.
Yah, this is a Great Country, isn't it, where everyone has the right to own assault weapons, and
the opportunity to assemble and detonate giant bombs hidden in rental trucks, and you can do pretty
much whatever you can get away with, depending on one's degree of immunity and impunity and invisibility
Eric Rudolph and Robert Lewis Dear, Jr., are more examples of Christian terrorists. Outside the country,
there's Anders Breivik (well, he's only partially Christian, but he's definitely not Muslim).
I get your point from a labor standpoint but who gets to decide to shut the door and say 'no more
room at the inn'? Unless it's First Peoples I think it would be pretty hypocritical coming from the
descendants of all the other immigrants who crossed over themselves at some point.
PS: I haven't heard this talked about much but does anyone really believe Trump is serious with all
this immigrant-bashing rhetoric? If he is anywhere near as rich as he claims to be, he got there at
least in part, and likely in large part by exploiting cheap labor. While I've never stayed in a Trump
property to see for myself I'm guessing that all the hotel employees aren't direct descendants of the
Daughters of the American Revolution.
Unless it's First Peoples I think it would be pretty hypocritical coming from the descendants
of all the other immigrants who crossed over themselves at some point.
Everybody outside of Africa, including "First Peoples" (if I understand that phrase correctly), is
a descendant of immigrants. The ancestors of the Amer-Indians (probably) came from Siberia over the
Bering land bridge during the late ice age.
It might be hypocritical for an actual immigrant to advocate restrictions on immigration, but that's
not the case for descendants of immigrants. But if there are restrictions, they shouldn't be based on
religion or race.
I don't really think shutting down immigration is the answer. It's not practical and isn't likely
to solve the problems blamed on immigration even if you could keep people out.
People don't leave their countries en masse unless there's some kind of disaster. A little less imperialism
turning nations to rubble would be a much better solution.
So you believe that no people, anywhere, ever, have a right to determine who can join their community,
contribute to their community, or undercut their community's wages and values. Except if some "First
Peoples" show up and endorse the idea? Do they have divine right of kings or something? What if we got
one Indian to agree? A plurality of them?
If it was right for the natives to resist the destruction of their way of life in 1492-1900, and
it was, it is right for the natives to resist of the destruction of their way of life now. Even if those
natives' skin now comes in multiple colors.
Well, I have trouble believing that Trump is serious about his TPP-bashing and Iraq-war-bashing,
I have trouble believing Trump's words are credible on just about any issue.
It's going to be a rough four years, whether Trump wins or loses.
Well, Sanders still has a chance, although he's a long shot. Democratic voters in Kentucky, Oregon,
the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, California, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota,
and the District of Columbia have a chance to save the nomination for him.
In Puerto Rico, Montana, and North Dakota, the election events are open, so anyone who's registered
can vote for Sanders. In California, registered independents can also vote for Sanders.
If its hypocritical, perhaps we should live with that if it is also reality-based and pragmatic.
As in " we've got a good thing going here and we don't need nobody else muscling in on our sweet racket".
Separately, many advocates of ILLEGAL immigration carefully pull a sleight-of-mouth bait-and-switch
between ILLEGAL immigration and legal immigration. Accepters of carefully controlled legal immigration
can still reject ILLEGAL immigration for pragmatic social-survival reasons.
Quite simply, the idea of banning Muslims entry to the U.S. is an affront to the very nature of the
American experiment, of plurality, equality, and religious freedom. However, recent events in Europe,
specifically the sexual assaults in Cologne and elsewhere show that some young Muslim men are a problem.
So are some young American men. An issue we need to wrestle with is how to reduce this problem. Such
problems are not about religion, they are cultural, they are about interpersonal respect and behavior.
But, the West, broadly speaking, has shown horrendous disrespect to Moslems. The U.S. has attacked wedding
parties and funerals, destroyed cities and countries, behaving like Crusaders. Perhaps were the West
to display less barbarism toward Moslems, they would express more respect toward us. Seems worth a try.
He doesn't have to mean anything. Trump needs to drive potential Democratic turnout down. On one
hand, reminding people how awful Hillary is effectively destroys volunteer efforts which is how voters
get registered and identified for gotv. The other side is what is the perception of the average Democratic
voter of Hillary's record. Hillary supporters have pushed the "tested," "likely to win, " and "inevitable"
arguments for a long time now. How many people in the potential electorate understood Hillary was a
hawk when they voted or didn't bother to show up? Bernie used words such as "poor judgement" for fear
of being labeled sexist. Trump won't hold back.
Perhaps, Trump was a mole, but what can Bill offer that the GOP can't? Air Force One might not be
the most luxurious plane, but its the Air Force plane wherever the President is. Thats respect no one
can buy. Reagan was carted through the White House, so why not Trump?
Imagine Trump running to the left of Hillary on defense / interventionism, trade, and universal healthcare.
That would sure make things interesting. He could win.
It ain't over. She's got one countermove left which is to somehow get Bernie on the ticket and grab
the enthusiastic and politically correct (if not fully-informed) millenial vote. Otherwise the dilution
of the blue vote in the swing states will loom large. James Carville, astute handicapper that he is,
has already sniffed out that Hillary now needs Bernie more than Bernie needs Hillary.
Sanders on the ticket would only undermine Sanders. This Is about the DLC or the status quo. The
length of Sanders career has made him credible, but Hillary has already lost this same race to an empty
suit. The Democrats have bled support since Obama went full Reagan, but in many ways, this is a conflict
between Democratic elites and their loyalist followers and everyone else. Accepting assimilation will
only hurt Sanders. Forcing a Vice President onto Hillary such as Gabbard would be a far better aim.
Sanders supporters aren't interested in a status quo candidate, supported by the usual list of villains.
Hillary can get a begrudging vote, but she will never endive enthusiasm. Bernie and Hillary uniting
will only annoy people.
Yes, and then, as his long history with customers, contractors, vendors and creditors has shown,
he'll fuck us.
Please don't take this as advocacy for the Other One, but Donnie's entire career is based on screwing
people over; this is just another, albeit far bigger, hustle.
Don't think for a second that you could rely on him to follow through honestly about anything; it's
always and forever about Donnie.
Hey, there's at least a 1% chance that Trump won't go out if his way to screw the American people
considering the blackbox nature of his candidacy, whereas there is at least a 100% chance that HRC will
screw the American people hard. And add in the fact that she is a known psychopath with an itchy trigger
finger who will have the Red Button on her desk if she gets into the oval office Yeah. Trump isn't
looking too bad now, is he?
I gotta admit that Trump has always been a wild card for me, and while he is likely to screw us,
Hillary definitely will. Still the only candidate worth supporting in any conceivable sense is Bernie.
Given his gleeful endorsement of torture, advocacy for war crimes, nods to totalitarianism and fascism,
his own clear psychopathy, along with his racism, xenophobia, and apparent ignorance on everything from
medicine to the environment, and nuclear weapons, yes he looks bad, even in comparison with Hillary
Clinton , which says a great deal about just how awful he truly is.
I'm personally more frightened by Trump than Clinton. I've lived through almost 8 years of Obama,
plus Bush and Clinton how much worse than those could another 4-8 years of the same be? Trump is a
terrifying like my house on fire. But at the same time, I can certainly understand the desire to vote
for the Green with a clear conscience.
Perhaps we'll get lucky, and Hillary's campaign will collapse before the convention. Bernie would
be the first candidate I could really vote for (and who'd have a real chance at winning).
Why not put your vote where your words are? We're Senator Bernie Sanders to be the candidate, my
vote would be his. If he's not, and he endorses Secretary Clinton, then my vote goes to Doctor Jill
Stein, my favorite candidate anyway. Given the momentum Sanders has generated, were he, instead of supplicating
himself to Clinton following her coronation, to stand behind Ms. Stein Only in my dreams. Sigh
The DLC Third-Way Clintonite Obamacrats will not let Bernie become nominee no matter what. If the
party can't coronate Clinton, the party will try to bolt the severed head of Joe Biden onto Clinton's
headless body . . and run THAT.
That right there is what convinced me that the woman is a psychopath. She should have been carried
out out of the interview in a straight jacket, and yet there are some people who trying to make her
president. Trump may be a narcissist, but I would not say that he's psychotic.
If nothing else you need to support Trump for the survival of humanity.
Thinking about a Trump/hillary_clinton. contest reminds me of the movie 'The Sting'; where a couple of honest
con men take down a dishonest con man who killed their friend. I see Hillary as the dishonest con man.
In reality Trump is NOT to the left of Hillary on universal healthcare. Read his website.
Look since the guy is a major presidential candidate whether one likes that or not, I have no problem
directing people to his website. See how he puts his actual policy positions, such as they are, in his
own words.
Interventionism and trade remain to be seen as personally I think his positions on them are likely
to still uh evolve as they say during the campaign season. So I'm leaving the verdict out there.
I brought up this idea right when he became the presumptive nominee but this isn't really a pivot
left. He's always been less of a hawk than Hillary. One of the few positions he has been relatively
consistent on. I see him biding his time for a full pivot until Bernie is out of the picture. Here's
to hoping that doesn't happen.
My apologies, my friend. Didn't mean to step on you. Meant it as a concurrence. Sipping coffee slowly
today. You're one of my favorite people here for your regularly spot on, insightful comments.
Yes, my big effort to tell myself that Life Under Trump may not be as horrible as I fear is that
the record of outsider presidents (Carter) and celebrity governors (Schwarznegger and Jesse Ventura)
is they get very little done.
Modern governors are bound by devolution and mandates. They are just glorified city managers with
the staff to do the city manager's job. Even popular, insider governors can do very little. The President
can set the terms by which the governors operate.
I'm concerned that HRC will get more done than the Donald, but little of HRC's actions will be positive.
California handled Schwarznegger without too many problems as he tried unsuccessfully to "break down
boxes".
He replaced, via recall, the forgettable democratic Governor Gray Davis who simply disappeared from
politics.
As I recall, Davis papered over the CA energy crisis until after the election, figuring that when
the s**t hit the fan, he'd have been safely reinstalled in office.
I see HRC as possibly getting more wars started, TPP/TTIP approved, a grand bargain done on SS, and
providing more coddling to the financial, medical and insurance industries.
If many or all of HRC's possible negative accomplishments will not be done by Trump, then that could
justify electing a president who accomplishes little..
Yea Schwarznegger was ok. He made a few very devoted enemies in a few unions. But he was probably
far better on pushing environmental issues than Jerry fracking Brown ever was or will be. If it was
him versus Jerry at this point, I might very well prefer Arnold.
I think Trump at least understands that you can't take money from people who don't have any. His
casino enterprise in Atlantic City may have taught him that.
Like Anne Amnisia's link yesterday, I feel like I know where I stand with a Mussolini and can envision
taking a bullet honorably in resistance where the DNC method has been slowly killing me my whole adult
life and, short of Bernie, I can't see how to resist!
If he's ineffectual and doesn't start more wars, at least its more time to organize and Trump's the
kind of "leader" that might give focus to resistance.
Yves, I wish I thought you were right. But The Duck is so bizarre, so definitively unhinged, that
no one can predict what he'll do. He changes positions as the wind blows. And when he follows any philosophy
at all, it's the "Conservative" philosophy. He doesn't believe in global warming. He once said that
there should be NO minimum wage. I'm a Bernie fan, not a Hillary fan, but I would never, ever take the
risk of letting the Hare-Brained Jabberwocky into any position of power, which means, probably, that
I have to vote for Hillary, and even start sending her money after the primaries. Probably.
His healthcare plan on his campaign website is the usual Republican gibberish – repeal Obamacare,
sell insurance across state lines, block grant Medicaid.
He suggested 20-30,000 troops to Syria in response to a debate question, then said he would never
do that, but send " air power and military support" instead. (
LINK )
edit: Position on the website is also to give veterans the ability to "choose" healthcare outside
the VA system. (I'm not knowledgeable to say if this would actually help current pressing VA issues,
but it is a move from a national public health service model to a private care model, so not leftward).
Thanks for that. I think the general idea holds, though: it's a populist remake of politics, and
I think if Trump stakes out some 'unconventional' positions that are to the 'left' of HRC, he could
beat her.
Well, if by left you meant 'left' then we agree :) His appeal is much broader, though IMO a combination
of rightward demagoguery and leftward populist-i-ness.
That VA notion is a dagger pointed at the heart of all those people who for whatever reason, "took
the King's shilling" or drew the short straws in the draft lotteries or, before that, were nailed and
"inducted" just by living in heavy-draft-quota areas. And of course the Greatest Generation, so many
of whom got drug into earlier US imperial wars (Narrative notwithstanding.)
Sending GIs to docs outside the VA system (itself under siege for generations now by the same shits
who bring on the Forever War that generates ever more damaged people needing those "services"), to docs
who in my experience pretty uniformly have zero knowledge of vet-specific problems and diseases and
injuries, who will be paid how much to treat what quota of veterans, again? Crucifying GIs on the HMO
cross, so people can pretend there's "care" for them, via docs who are even more likely than VA docs
(who at least have some protections against arbitrary rules and policies and firings, in a "system"
run by many who institutionalize actual CARE as the main idea) to "go along with the minimization-hurry-up-and-die
program"?
The whole notion is straight Rule #2: "GO DIE, FOKKER! And do it quietly, out of sight, and with
minimum fuss, in a structure that so diffuses the abuses over space and time that it's extremely difficult
for the affected population to even gather the numbers to show how bad it is." Straight "more continuing
more opaque fog of war" bullshit. The same kind of sales BS as used to sell the rest of neoliberalist
misery ("Don't whine now, fools - you voted for it, I have the validated results of the elections right
here, so now it's All Nice And Legal, seeee?) from NAFTA and preceding frauds and vast FIREs, on up
to the present scams.
In the meantime, the Military-Industrial Juggernaut continues to gain mass and momentum. Trump can
natter about "war in the Mideast is a bad deal for the US" (Mideast seemingly not including AfPak, China,
Africa, South America, etc.) as a "bad deal." But will he have any interest in spooling down the turbines
on the enormous Milo Minderbinder Enterprises machine that is daily being "upgraded" and "up-armored"
and "re-weaponed" and "re-doctrined" and "mission-creeped," with the happy participation of every business,
large and small, that can wangle or "extend" a procurement or "study" contract to expand and lethality
and simple bureaucratic-growth size and incompetence (as a military force, in the old sense of what
armies are supposed to do for the Emperoro) of the monster, even as we blog participants do our mostly
ineffectual (if intellectually pleasing) nattering?
Civilian Control of the Military is a dishonest myth - true only in the sense that the Captains of
MICIndustry and drivers of "policy" are not currently Active Duty, though they all, along with the generals
(who live like kings, of course) belong to the same clubs and dip deeply into the same MMT Cornucopia.
And the MIC, from what I read, is quite open and pleased about the state of affairs
I would argue that the MIC is simply part of the 20 percent that derive their middle class existence
by serving at the beck and call of the 1 percent. You are describing the symptoms and not the disease.
We are in the grip of "credentialled" doctors and lawyers. Just as most litigation and most of what
lawyers do is destructive to the average person, it is estimated that half of all surgeries done in
the US are unnecessary. the HIC (health industrial complex) has brainwashed the public to believe that
we need $20,000 per month medications and artificial discs. As you have doubtless seen the third leading
cause of death in the US is medical mistakes. They happen in the VA and in the private sector. Maybe
the notion of more medical care is better is simply not valid. At some point we will have to realize
that rationing in a rational way is going to have to happen. I would rather have someone who went to
medical school decide on what is going to be rationed than some lawyer or business administrator.
There sure is a lot packed into that comment. But my experience with VA doctors and other caregivers
(speaking as a retired "private sector" nurse, VA care recipient and former attorney) is that except
for the psychiatrists and some of the docs that perform disability examinations, the VA caregivers actually
provide care, and they seem to do it pretty well, given the constant attrition of resources and burgeoning
case load the neolibs are imposing. Personal tale: the Medicare 'provider" at the full-spectrum clinic
I used to use was all hot to perform a "common surgical procedure that most older men need." A fee-generating
TURP, which pretty rarely improves the victim's life. The VA doc, looking at the same condition and
presentation, noted the down-sides pretty carefully and said that until I was a lot more "restricted,"
there was no way I "needed" any such invasive procedure. But then his income is not influenced by the
number of cuts he makes
Most of what lawyers do any more, and this has been true for a long time, is combat over wealth transfers,
economic warfare. Ever since partnership was killed off as the mandatory form of lawyer business operations,
with attendant personal liability for partner actions, the rule is "eat what you kill, and kill all
you can." Most doctors I know have caregiving as their primary motivation in going into medicine. (Most
nurses, the same to a much greater extent, and since they start with smaller debt and fewer chances
to bleed the patient and the system that bleeds the nurse pretty badly, they can carry that decency
forward.)
Interesting, of course, that more and more doctors have joint MD and MBA credentials. And working
with other operatives, are gradually and maybe inexorably forcing more of their fellows into "medical
cooperatives" like HCA and JSA, where they become salaried wage slaves with productivity targets and
metrics, and thus "rationers" de facto, by having to respond to "metrics" that are all driven by the
basic business model: "More and more work, from fewer and fewer people, for less and less money, for
higher and higher costs, with ever more crapified outcomes for the mope-ery." Although, I might offer,
there are some of my fellow mopes who actually do benefit from those back surgeries (yes, maybe most
of them are unwarranted, but not all) and meds that only cost "$20,000 per month" because of MARKETS.
Imagine Trump winning as a GOP canidate by running to the left of the DNC canidate. The vision of
the GOP having a collective ulcer/Rovian Meltdown is making me giggle like a schoolgirl all day.
Frankly, I'm *much* more worried about HRC in the Whitehouse than I am about Trump. Reason why is
that he's a relative outsider, not an Establishment guy - and there is always Congress to deal with.
Its not like he would have a total dictatorship, whereas HRC would be able to do far more and deeper
damage to the nation.
My position is Sanders or bust, and I say that as a 20-year member of the GOP (now independent).
Like you said, he changes his positions all the time, and Clinton is no doubt a serious warmonger/war
criminal, but he did also say that he would "bomb the s- out of ISIS," which one might also be inclined
to characterize as trigger happy.
I am equally terrified at the prospect of having Clinton or Trump at the nuclear controls, which
is why we should all send Bernie a few bucks today. The MSM have already gone into full Clinton v Trump
general election mode, though that is certain to change once Bernie wins California.
If you read what Trump has said about our foreign policy, he has been consistent in his view that
the US can't and shouldn't be acting as an imperalist. He does not use those words, but he's said this
often enough that I've even linked to articles describing how Trump is willing to depict America as
being in decline, and this as one manifestation. In addition, his foreign policy speech was slammed
basically because it broke with neocon orthodoxy. I have not read it but people I respect and who are
not temperamentally inclined to favor Trump have, and they said it was sensible and among other things
argued that we could not be fighting with China and Russia at the same time, and pumped for de-escalating
tensions with Russia as the country whose culture and interests were more similar to ours than China's.
Having said that, calling out our belligerence and TPP as bad ideas seem to be the only issues on
which he's not been all over the map (well, actually, he has not backed down on his wall either .)
The other reason to think he might stick with this position more consistently than with others is
that his core voters come from communities where a lot of people have fought in the post-9/11 Middle
Eastern conflicts. Our armed forces are stretched to the breaking point. Trump has strong support among
veterans and active duty soldiers, and it's due to his speaking out against these wars.
Trump can probably get away with continuing to shape shift till Labor Day, since most voters don't
make up their minds till close to the election. It's not pretty to watch him make a bold statement and
then significantly walk it back in the next 24 hours, particularly if it's an issue you care about and
he's said something that is so nuts that it sounds like he cares more about his Nielsen rating than
what makes sense for the country. If he can't put enough policy anchors down by the fall and stick to
them, he will lose a lot of people who might give him a shot out of antipathy to Clinton.
That may well be the case and he was right to call out the Iraq war as a "mistake" during that debate
(given his otherwise unconventional rhetoric, however, I was actually a bit disappointed that he didn't
use the more correct term war crime), but he has also said that he wants to bring back torture and then
some.
As far as I'm concerned though, the race right now is between Clinton and Bernie and I'm fairly confident
that Bernie still has a good chance since he is sure to take California (which, luckily for Bernie,
will seem like a huge surprise).
In a match up between Trump and Clinton my own personal thoughts (that a democratic – i.e. neoliberal
– white house will at least continue to move people to the left, whereas a republican white house will
only galvanize people around bringing another neoliberal to the white house) are irrelevant because
I have virtually no doubt that Trump will win.
Yes, his enthusiasm for torture is pretty creepy and you get a taste of it here indirectly: "That
Saddam, he was a really bad guy but he sure could take care of those terrorists!" While Trump does seem
to genuinely disapprove of all the people our wars have killed for no upside (a commonsense position
in absence among our foreign policy elites), he seems overly confident that we can identify baddies
well and having identified them, we should have no compunction about being brutal with them.
"That Saddam, he was a really bad guy but he sure could take care of those terrorists!"
His meaning here is we should have stayed out of it and let the "really bad guy" (Saddam) handle
Al Quaeda. Of course, the Bush neocons dishonestly morphed Saddam into Al Quaeda. You know the rest
of the story.
I'm willing to bet that he's saying a lot of this stuff for his audience–people who are generally
a pretty angry and bloodthirsty lot. I'm not saying that he's not going to come out for peace, love
and contrition when he's elected president, but I think it is safe to say that his rhetoric now is completely
unrelated to how he'd go about actually governing.
OK, so normally that'd be a horrible admission–if the Democrats hadn't had the brilliant idea of
foisting Hillary onto the American people. What a brain-dead move! I myself could have been persuaded
to support Bernie, but Hillary is the Devil incarnate as far as I'm concerned.
One fact that we have to remember is all the people who designed, advocated for, implemented, and
defended "enhanced interrogation" and than who use "Clintonisms" to say we no longer use torture (because
we never did – "enhanced interrogation") AND because we are "rendering" them someplace else and our
friends are doing the enhanced interrogation – well, such lying devious people in my view are far, far
worse than The Donald.
In my view, there appears to be considerable evidence that the US still defacto tortures – and that
is far, far worse than the appalling, but at least truthful statement of how Trump feels. And of course,
pink misting people may not be torture, but it can't be separated.
Again, which is worse:
A. The Donald up front advocates a policy (of torture), people can be mobilized to oppose it. No legalisms,
dissembling, and every other term that can be used to obfuscate what the US is REALLY doing.
B. The US government asserts it no longer tortures. How many readers here have confidence that that
is a factually true statement, that can be said without word games?
Is saying we should torture WORSE than saying we don't torture, but WE ARE???
I feel the same way. It's preferable to have someone take the morally reprehensible pro-torture stance
than to pretend to be against it while secretly renditioning prisoners and so forth.
except for the fake wmds that started it. and abu ghraib. and the reasons the contractors were hung
in fallujah. and the fake alliance between saddam and al quaida. and outing valerie plame when joe wilson
blew the whistle on the fake purpose of the aluminum tubes.
Enough electoral fraud has been evidenced that I think that the numbers are going to be gamed to
be closer to the non-representative polling that flood the MSM. He may win, but they aren't going to
allow him to win by a lot in such a delegate heavy state.
Unfortunately, I think you are quite right that the California numbers will be rigged/gamed. I had
become quite cynical about American politics, thanks to Obama the More Effective Evil's reign and the
Bush and the Supremes Florida gambit back in 2000. But this primary vote rigging has really moved my
marker so far that I am not even sure what word to use what's more cynical than super duper cynical?
So here's an idea I've been pondering how can the people try to prevent or find this? Could we exit
poll outside the voting places? Yes it would be a limited sample of just one local place but it's something
and in aggregate if lots of people were doing this
I too think they might try to game California. And this is quite alarming considering California
is usually too unimportant to even game. I figure the elections are usually honest here, probably because
they just don't matter one whit. But this time it might matter and they might steal the vote.
"core voters come from communities where a lot of people have fought in the post-9/11 Middle
Eastern conflicts. Our armed forces are stretched to the breaking point. Trump has strong support
among veterans and active duty soldiers"
This.
People tend to also forget that there's a lot of us Gen-X'ers that were deployed over there over
25 years ago, when it was popular, for the same damned thing. Nothing has changed. Sure, some leadership
folks have been taken out, but the body count of Americans soldiers has only risen,and the Region is
now worse off.
The "first time" we had more folks die from non-combat related accidents than from actual combat.
Some of us are sick of our political and corporate establishment selling out our fellow soldiers and
Veterans, even worse is the way they have been treated when they come home. I'm not a Trump supporter,
but this part of his message not only resonates with me, but angers me further. Why? Because I know
that if Hillary Clinton walks into The Oval Office, even more Americans are going to die for lust of
more power and influence.
HRC is simply the evilest human being I have ever seen in politics in my lifetime. Trump may be an
idiot, crass, authoritarian, and any number of negative things, but he is not "evil" – she is.
If the mash up continues as Clinton v. Trump and barring any character sinking actions of Trump,
this man will win in November. To paraphrase Shivani, Clinton is speaking entirely in high minded self-interest,
while Trump has latched onto and is pressing a actual truths of reality (regardless of his personal
convictions or what he wlll actually do if elected).
Trump is more liberal than Clinton here. What exactly are her redeeming qualities again?
I can't really think of any HRC redeeming qualities. "Retail politicking" doesn't seem to be one
of them. Lambert, you no doubt saw this video of her confronted with rising health insurance costs post-ACA?
Her word salad response doesn't begin to address the real issues
During a recent town hall event, a small business owner explained to the Democratic front-runner
that her health insurance has gone up so significantly for her family that the thought of providing
benefits to her employees is secondary at this point.
"As a small business owner, not only are you trying to provide benefits to your employees,
you're trying to provide benefits to yourself. I have seen our health insurance for my own family,
go up $500 dollars a month in the last two years. We went from four hundred something, to nine hundred
something. We're just fighting to keep benefits for ourselves. The thought of being able to provide
benefits to your employees is almost secondary, yet to keep your employees happy, that's a question
that comes across my desk all the time. I have to keep my employees as independent contractors for
the most part really to avoid that situation, and so I have turnover"
"We do not qualify for a subsidy on the current health insurance plan. My question to you
is not only are you looking out for people that can't afford healthcare, but I'm someone that can
afford it, but it's taking a big chunk of the money I bring home."
To which Hillary responded, to make a long story short, that she knows healthcare costs are going
up, and doesn't understand why that would ever be the case.
"What you're saying is one of the real worries that we're facing with the cost of health insurance
because the costs are going up in a lot of markets, not all, but many markets and what you're describing
is one of the real challenges."
"There's a lot of things I'm looking at to try to figure out how to deal with exactly the
problem you're talking about. There are some good ideas out there but we have to subject them to
the real world test, will this really help a small business owner or a family be able to afford it.
What could have possibly raised your costs four hundred dollars, and that's what I don't understand."
"What could have possibly raised your costs four hundred dollars, and that's what I don't
understand." - this from a woman who ostensibly is an expert on health care delivery?
The link is from Zero Hedge but in any case watch the video. Or wait for it to appear in a Trump
campaign ad:
"Or wait for it to appear in a Trump campaign ad" Haha!
I am surprised she didn't pull out the "90% coverage" false-positve. We haven't seen that pony enough.
The notion of imploring "scientific" method here is interesting in light of the party's blood oath to
meritocracy. "There are some good ideas out there but we have to subject them to the real world
test ". It also implies that the process is natural and no accountability is necessary.
Another great DNC experiment. Throwing the blacks in jail for 20 years over nothing "oh well, we
need to try more!" I cannot imagine being in prison right now for some minor drug offense and hearing
the Clintons spew this nonsense.
Jeff Gundlach, one of the few iconoclasts and reigning king of bonds on Wall Street:
"People are going to start putting greater focus on Hillary (Clinton). Voters are going to say, 'No.
I don't want this,'" he told Reuters. "Hillary is going to evolve into an unacceptable choice. If she
is such a great candidate, how come (Bernie Sanders) is beating her?"
Even more. He's based in LA so there's a 400 mile air gap between him in the goldbugging, glibertarian,
wannabe John Galt culture of the Valley exemplified by Peter Theil.
How about a picture of Gundlach for tomorrow's antidote ?
It is warm heartening to see this site who consistently leaning left warming for the Donald. Clinton
is a horrible candidate, flawed human being and her presidency is guaranteed to be marred by scandal
after scandal and deep polarization.
Bern would be a great choice but he has no chance, the corrupt Democratic establishment will stick with
Clinton.
I inuited months ago that the warming to Donald thing would happen. I have a growing conviction that
most of the people here, maybe even you, are going to vote for Donald in November. Even Jason will vote
for Donald (unless he is being employed by that pro-Hillary super pac which I don't think is the case
but just throwing it out there since there are empirically speaking people being paid to produce pro
Hillary comments on the internet). Barring something truly interesting and novel happening between now
and then that is.
The way things are going now this plane seems set for an effortless autopilot victory for Trump.
I have no doubt that everyone will regret too. They'll even regret before they cast the vote, and do
it anyway. Oh man, that's some truly black humor. OK I'll make an even grander prediction: Trump will
inaugurate the post postmodern era (whatever historians eventually decide to call it) where our entire
conception and perception of reality as a society undergoes a radical and unpleasant change. It's a
unique time to be alive. Aren't we lucky?
Wait. I just had an incredible insight. We're already out of the postmodern era, and I can date it
from Sept. 11, 2001as the exit. Historian are going to say that this was a short era, a transitional
era of illusions, delusions and fear, where complete non-reality Trumped the real for an ever so short
period of time. But now we're going to be shocked awake, and what's coming next is going to be incredible
and horrific. Damn, it's such an awesome and strange feeling to see things so clearly all of a sudden!
It's really happening. So this why I've been obsessing over this stuff much recently.
I tried to find a short clip of Brunhilde riding her horse into the flames in Gotterdammerung right
before Valhalla collapses, which is what voting for Trump would be like for me, but I couldn't find
out.
There was an antiwar left on the msm during the Bush years? Kerry's campaign message was "Ill be
W 2.0." Kerry himself was that awful, but there was no antiwar left in the msm. I thought the absence
was the direct cause for the rise of blogs. The real crisis is the shift of websites such as TalkingPointMemo
and CrooksandLiars to Team Blue loyalist sites or when Digby brought on Spoonfed.
Yep. 2006 was when the Dems decapitated the left blogosphere, and as a result we have no independent
media, except for lonely outposts like this one, and whatever those whacky kidz are doing with new media.
I keep donating to Bernie because even if he somehow doesn't win the nomination, he can force Hillary
to be much more like him – if HRC wants Bernie voters to clinch the deal for her. Bernie staying in
and fighting to the end (and my money says he wins) is great and if Hillary doesn't become Bernie, then
the only one that can beat Trump is Bernie, and the super-delegates have got to see that.
Bottom line, Hillary has to become Bernie to beat Trump. Is that going to happen? We'll see.
Bernie staying in until the very end serves two purposes (he CAN still win, especially when he carries
California). The first is, again, he CAN win. The second purpose is to prevent Hillary from shifting
right the way she REALLY wants to for the general. She will have to keep tacking left to fend off a
major slide towards Bernie. The "center" (actually right wing) is out of reach for her as long as Bernie
is there.
Sorry to rain on your thesis, but absent the nomination, all Bernie can do is to force Hillary to
*message* more like him. With her, the operative phrase is "words are wind". There is nothing whatever
to keep her from immediately ditching every progressive-sounding campaign stance once she is in office,
just as Obama did. And I guarantee you that if she does become president, that is precisely what she
will do.
Trump knows the counterweight better than anyone. He's the guy you keep on the job because he's entertaining,
knowing he will sell you out if you let him, and you let him, when it serves a purpose, to adjust the
counterweight.
POLITICS, RE feudalism, is a game, and he loves it, despite the heartburn. All that debt inertia.preventing
the economic motor from gaining traction is psychological. That much he knows, which is a lot more than
the rest of the politicians, making him a better dress maker. But like the others, he has no idea what
to do about it.
He vascillates to maintain options, including a path to the future, while others rule themselves
out. Of course hiring good people is the answer, but most Americans are politicians, like anywhere else,
wanting to know little more than their cubicle, because the net result of majority behavior is punishing
work, in favor of consumers, competing for advantage.
If you spent this time developing skills and finding a spouse that won't cut your throat, you will
do quite well. The casino isn't life; it just keeps a lot of people busy, with busy work. Government
is hapless.
It's hard to know if Trump sees militarization and imperialism as bad because they're bad or bad
because it's not Donald Trump in charge, with a great big straw sucking Benjamins between those rectally
pursed lips. It may take an agent provocateur bullshitter to call bullshit, but that says nothing about
what Trump will do as president. What's likeliest, given his record, is an opportunistic seizure of
the Treasury to rival the occupation of Iraq. When I gaze into my crystal ball at a Trump administration
I see cronyism, graft, corruption, nepotism, and deceit of monumental dimensions, just like the gold
letters spelling Trump plastered over everything he lays his stubby little hands on. Because the Clintons
are appalling doesn't make Trump appealing. It's a farcical contest, and every way, we lose.
You echo my feelings. My loathing of Clinton knows no bounds, and I cannot vote for her, no matter
what. But I simply don't trust Trump. He's a gold-digger extrodinaire, and quite the accomplished showman.
He knows how to play to the crowd, and he's clearly quite quick to shape shift. The wrecked tatters
of what's called the USA "media" gives Trump a YOOOGE pass on simply everything and anything the man
says or does.
I don't trust Trump, and although, yes, he has says a few things that I agree with – and usually
stuff that no one else at his level will ever say – it's essentially meaningless to me. I think Trump
would be a disaster as President, and my "take" – which is based on my own opinion – is that he'll be
Grifter El Supremo and make sure that he walks off with stacks and gobs and buckets of CA$H. For him.
And if the country really tanks and goes bankrupt? So What?
Plus all this about Trump not being a War Hawk? I don't trust it. With the other breath, he's constantly
spewing about "building up" the damn military, which, allegedly Obama has "weakened." Like, we really
need to be spending another gazillion of our tax dollars "building up" the Military??? WHY? If The Donald
is so against all these foreign wars, then why do we need to spend even more money on the Military???
All that signals to me is that Donald expects to go large on MIC investments for HIMSELF.
Story time: so, when I married the Mrs, I offered to fix the mother in laws old bug. She turned me
down and has since demand that I fix what is now a rust bucket, not worth one manhour of my time, going
around to the neighbors, all critters on govt checks rapidly falling behind RE inflation, to build consensus
to the end, among women using men and men using women, all of them having thrown their marriages under
the bus, as if majority vote is going to get me to do something I have no intention of doing.
When hospital gave Grace that shot and sent her to the ICU, per Obamacare expert protocol, all the
critters went into CYA mode, and ultimately called the family, to confirm that the wife and I must be
on drugs, which they did. I don't blame the morons running the court system, and she's the mother in
law.
That debt is nothing more than psychology, but it is more effective than a physical prison. Silicon
Valley is the as is abutment, simply reinforcing stupid with ever greater efficiency, but it is the
endpoint on a collapsing bridge with no retreat, because automation has systematically destroyed the
skill pool and work ethic required to advance further, replacing them with make work and make work skills.
Competing with China and the Middle East to build carp infrastructure to keep As many economic slaves
as busy as possible is not the path forward. As you have seen, govt data is far closer to being 180
degrees wrong than being correct, as designed, which you should expect, from those holding out ignorance
as a virtue.
There are far more elevators that need fixing than I could ever get to, and I am quite capable of
fixing them in a manner that generates power. Who becomes president is irrelevant.
My family in Ohio is massive, they made a killing on RE and currency arbitrage, after selling all
the family farms, and have nothing real to show for it, but rapidly depreciating sunk costs, waiting
to do it again. Rocket scientists.
If the GWOT has cost us $4 Trillion, somebody made $4 Trillion.
That/those somebodies are not about to give up the kind of behavior that makes that
kind of money.
If there is any real, actual third-rail in American politics, it's the MIC budget.
This fact has never been openly acknowledged, even though the American people are pretty sure that
threatening the will of the MIC cost the life of at least one well known politician.
Trump may talk about that enormous waste now, but after his private screening of the Zapruder film
he's going to STFU and get with the program like all the rest.
OTOH, like Yves has pointed out, if Donald wins, he could just end up the loneliest man in DC, be
ignored, get nothing done, and I'm not sure I see a down-side to that.
if Donald wins, he could just end up the loneliest man in DC, be ignored, get nothing done
Exactly my feeling. He will be hated and fought constantly, whereas Clinton (if nominated) is guaranteed
to screw things up. Like her husband (who by the way will be there whispering in ears and making passes
at maids) she will triangulate on issues and pass destructive GOP legislation and likely drag this country
into another foreign policy blunder, where I am betting more young, under-educated, poor citizens with
no prospects or options will be sent to slaughter (themselves and others).
EH? I think The Donald will just go Large on MIC investments for himself. He talks a good game, but
he keeps saying that he's going "build up" the Military, even as he's stating that we shouldn't be fighting
in all of these wars. Why, then, do we need to "build up" the Military?
No one ever said Trump was stupid. I'm sure he's rubbing his grubby tiny vulgarian mitts with glee
thinking about how he, too, can get in on that sweet sweet SWEET MIC payola grift scam. Count on it.
Trump doesn't need to see the Zapruder film. He was alive then and knows the story, just like everyone
else of a certain age. Nay, verily, he just means to cash in on it.
Watt4Bob
May 13, 2016 at 12:30 pm
"OTOH, like Yves has pointed out, if Donald wins, he could just end up the loneliest man in DC, be ignored,
get nothing done, and I'm not sure I see a down-side to that."
I too view that as a feature and not a bug. Seriously, in the last 10, 20, 30 years, I would ask,
what law is viewed as making things better? Was Sarbanes Oxley suppose to do something??? Maybe the
law is OK, they just won't enforce it
I know Obamacare is relentlessly disparaged here, others think it is better than nothing.
Many of you youngsters don't realize this, but there was a time, when dinosaurs roamed the earth, that
there were no deductibles, co-pays, narrow networks, and that you had confidence that your doctor may
have over treated and tested you, but you weren't afraid that you would die because it was too expensive
to treat you.
Just like I don't care if GDP goes up because i won't see any of it, I don't care about all the cancer
research because I am certain I won't be able to afford it, even though I have health "insurance" .
"Employer-sponsored retiree health coverage once played a key role in supplementing Medicare," observe
Tricia Neuman and Anthony Damico of the foundation. "Any way you slice it, this coverage is eroding."
Since 1988, the foundation says, among large firms that offer active workers health coverage, the
percentage that also offer retiree health plans has shrunk to 23% in 2015 from 66% in 1988. The decline,
which has been steady and almost unbroken, almost certainly reflects the rising cost of healthcare and
employers' diminishing sense of responsibility for long-term workers in retirement.
.
Financial protection against unexpected healthcare costs is crucial for many Medicare enrollees, especially
middle- and low-income members, because the gaps in Medicare can be onerous. The deductible for Medicare
Part A, which covers inpatient services, is $1,288 this year, plus a co-pay of $322 per hospital day
after 60 days. Part B, which covers outpatient care, has a modest annual deductible of $166 but pays
only 80% of approved rates for most services.
====================================================
80% of 100,000$ means 20K is left over – with cancer treatments*, kidney treatments, cardiovascular
treatments, such a scenario is more likely than a lot of people will imagine.
*treatments don't include those foam slippers that they charge you 25$ for .
But the consequences of the shift away from employer-sponsored retiree benefits go beyond the rise
in costs for the retirees themselves. Many are choosing to purchase Medigap policies, which fill in
the gaps caused by Medicare's deductibles, cost-sharing rates and benefit limitations. That has the
potential to drive up healthcare costs for the federal government too. That's because Medigap policies
tend to encourage more medical consumption by covering the cost-sharing designed to make consumers more
discerning about trips to the doctor or clinic. Already, nearly 1 in 4 Medicare enrollees had a Medigap
policy - almost as many as had employer-sponsored supplemental coverage.
..
The trend is sure to fuel interest on Capitol Hill in legislating limits to Medigap plans. Such limits
have supporters across the political spectrum: Over the past few years, proposals to prohibit Medigap
plans from covering deductibles have come from the left-leaning Center for American Progress, the centrist
Brookings Institution and conservatives such as Sens. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Bob Corker (R-Tenn.).
================================
please stop going to the doctor, its expensive .just expire
First time poster, long time lurker. You don't think that Sanders success in the race pushed HRC
to embrace debt free 4 year public college?
We'll see what specific policy commitments come out of the convention, but I don't think the current
campaign would have the same issues if Bernie wasn't there.
Please don't mistake me either, ideologically I'm with Sanders and was supporting him until the NYDN
article and the delegate math became pretty much impossible. If I had my druthers, he'd be the candidate,
but it looks quite quite unlikely now.
I'm concerned that HRC will pivot after the election and give support to the TPP but even then I'm
still anti-Trump more.
Actually, a poster with your email commented in 2014 under another handle. There seems to be a rash
lately of infrequent or new commenters who "support Sanders but" or "supported Sanders until" lately.
For some reason.
That said, you could be right on college (
see here for a comparison of the plans ). It's just that Clinton's talking point about not wanting
to pay for Trump's children is so unserious I can't believe the plan is serious.
I dunno. I see a lot of people decry Trump's immigration ban on Muslims, but Hillary's record as
SecState was incredibly violent toward Muslims internationally and also includes presiding
over a defacto immigration ban from specific "problem" states- banning people for security reasons being
much more tactful than banning Muslims per se.
The nativist appeal Trump is making doesn't go much farther than naming the intent of policy Hillary
has been actually pursuing. Trump wants to use the demonisation of Muslims since 9/11 as a political
lever to gain power and will use anti-Muslim or anti-immigrant (weird to see the two conflated so frequently)
sentiment to achieve specific political goals, preferably sublating it into keynesian infrastructure
programs (wall building or whatever). Hillary intends to keep bombing societies that are increasingly
visibily disintegrating from the cumulative effects of climate change, colonial oppression and marginalisation,
foreign intervention, etc. It's not obvious who gets the benefit of the doubt in a lesser evil contest.
Trump is breaking the "lesser of two evils" argument.
Let's be clear about something here. The "lesser of two evils" is not an argument to find which candidate
is "the less evil." It's an argument used to justify the assumption that your candidate is the less
evil of the other. While else is it that Democrats say Clinton is the less evil while Republicans argue
that Trump is the less evil.
It's obvious watching leftist pundits (many of whom I respect) come out and flatly assert "Clinton
is the better of the two." And there heads usually explode right off their shoulders when they run into
someone who disagrees or is simply skeptical of the claim.
The real problem is when Trump dose speak on trade and war policy, he exposes the fallacy of the
argument. We can't take Trump's word for it – even though we already know Hillary is likely lying, so
it's still a tie. The notion that Trump might actually be honest here isn't even permitted to be considered
because that would make Trump the less evil of the two.
The problem I keep running into is just how do you measure "evil?" This gets even harder to do when
you can't take either at their word. There is always some deeper calculous we are expected to project
on the candidates in order to arrive at our pre-supposed conclusion that our candidate is always the
less evil.
It's the main reason I will not be voting for either.
Forgive me for piling on today Btw,.anyone know who this Carmen Yarrusso is? Excerpt from Counterpunch
(today)
"Trump may be a (loose-cannon) unpredictable evil. But then, based on her long track record, Clinton
is a very predictable evil. In fact, Trump is left of Clinton on such things as legal marijuana, NATO
aggression, and trade policy. His crazy proposals (e.g. Mexican wall, banning Muslims) are just bluster
with zero chance of becoming reality. If Congress can stop Obama, it can stop Trump. But Clinton has
a predictable pro-war track record (Iraq, Libya, Syria) and a predictable track record of changing positions
for political expediency (e.g. Iraq war, NAFTA, Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2000, immigration, gun control,
the Keystone XL pipeline, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, same-sex marriage). How can you be sure she
won't conveniently change her current progressive positions as president? A Trump presidency just might
force Democratic Party elites to start seriously addressing the populist concerns they now arrogantly
ignore.
If you vote for Clinton as the lesser of two evils, you're compromising your moral values, you're
condoning the Democratic Party's shoddy treatment of millions of progressives, and you're sabotaging
future real change. You're virtually guaranteeing the Democratic Party elites will put you in this position
again and again. If you refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils, maybe you'll help elect Trump (or
maybe your write-in or third party choice will win). But you'll certainly send a very clear message
to Democratic Party elites that you'll no longer tolerate being ignored, marginalized, or shamed with
false lesser of two evil choices."
lol watching people attack Trump well, not sure if it's Clinton's army out to scare us about the
horrors Trump will cause. now it's like the Devil we know vs the Devil we don't know. Kind of hard to
compare Trump to Hillary. Hillary's effective brand of evil is well established and is quite thorough,
shown by the primary votes in NY and AZ, for example. watching the Elites attack, belittle and completely
ignore the existence of Bernie gives us a little clue of what is in store if Hillary gets her way. Trump
is the "known unknown" to use Rumsfeld terminology.
Evil is as evil does. aka Hillary
this is perhaps the one and only time I ever will vote Republican. and I abhor Republicans. Hillary
has earned her reputation, Trump.. well Trump or no Trump, it won't be Hillary getting my vote. Keeping
Bernie out, we all lose.
No, I don't support the current administration's drone war, nor did I support the horrible Iraq war
of 2003, but that doesn't answer my question. I don't understand "Hillary is lying" as a tautology and
the conclusion being that Trump is a better bet than HRC because of that.
But in regards to your question, do you think that the drone war stance will change in the next administration
whether's it's HRC or Trump? Trump said he wants to get more aggressive on terrorists than we currently
are, explicitly endorsing torture.
Well even Sanders has come out in favor of drones, so probably, unless one is die hard Jill Stein
all the way. Then one's hands are entirely clean if also entirely ineffective.
Yeah, because voting for drone strikes, imperialism and corruption is more effective at getting rid
of those things than not voting for drone strikes, imperialism and drone strikes
Theyre both liars. If youre trusting Donald to not drone strike or trusting Hillary to not torture,
youre being duped.
As for your comment further down about Trump saying he wants to torture people more Its not as if
Obama has stopped Bush's torture regime or closed Guantanamo. Hillary too would continue more things.
Honestly I still dont understand why Trump is so much scarier than Hillary. Their differences are
mostly kayfabe. All that xenophobic racist demagogy Trump is doing? More kayfabe. Im still voting Stein,
because I dont vote for corrupt imperialists.
Stein is likewise kayfabe. If the party had gone with Anderson he might well have pulled a Bernie
in the last general election. That just wouldn't do, so the party was rather brazenly railroaded into
nominating Stein.
Just as the best lies are 99% truth the best con-jobs are the ones containing the maximum amount
of truthiness. Some days I like the things I hear Trump saying, the next he gives me a sick feeling
with chills down my spine. Sure, he's not sticking to the approved neo-con, neo-lib, Washington consensus
script but just how stupid do you have to be to not know that Saddam Hussein was a secular Bathist dictator
who executed anyone who he saw as a threat to his power, especially muslim extremists. Just because
Trump can spout off a truthy factoid that is only news to the brain-dead Fox News masses doesn't mean
he is any more of an honest dealer than Bush Jr. Does anyone think Bush, Cheney or Rumsfield were operating
under any illusions that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with 9/11? Of course not, they either saw
an opportunity or they engineered an opportunity to do what they wanted to do. Trump has shown himself
to be a bully comfortable with marshaling mob violence or the threat of mob violence. He is an authoritarian
and no defender of civil liberties, habeous corpus or the Geneva convention. He's exactly the type of
megalomanic that would try and seize power in an ailing democracy like our own, and I have no doubts
that if elected he will create some sort of Constitutional crisis that could end in a military coup
or Trump installed as a dictator. He already has a silent pissed-off army of violent brown shirts on
his side. I don't like the way this situation looks and people on the left with intelligence and a grasp
of history are deluding themselves if they think Trump isn't a very dangerous person.
In a possibly unrelated note, I'm 99% sure someone deeply keyed the full length of my car (truck
actually) yesterday while I was surfing for no other reason than my Bernie Sanders bumper sticker right
here in sunny, liberal southern California. Could it have been a Clinton supporter or a joy vandal who
likes keying random people's cars – sure. But if Trump wins I wonder how long it is before halal restaurants
and muslim dry cleaners start getting their windows smashed, then burned. How long before Hindus and
brown people start getting attacked (as a common occurrence, not outlier events that are punished as
they are now) because they are confused as being Muslim or Mexican or deliberately because they just
aren't white and should go home. There's a very nasty underbelly to this Trump thing and I don't like
it.
I agree on the nasty underbelly. On the other hand, I find it refreshing that Trump mentions the
millions of people slaughtered by our foreign policy. I don't hear that from Clinton, at all.
" I find it refreshing that Trump mentions the millions of people slaughtered by our foreign policy.
I don't hear that from Clinton, at all."
Ditto, me too, but I'm not about to cherry-pick Trump's schizophrenic and ever shifting talking points
then soft-peddle candidate Trump while telling people not to worry. I like silver-linings, staying optimistic
and being contrarian (I wouldn't hang out here otherwise) but why ignore the very troubling subtext
in the rest of Trump's speech? The anti-democratic, sneering remarks about suspected terrorists being
executed immediately in Saddam's Iraq instead of "on trial for fifteen years" in pansy-cakes weak, habeas
corpus America. Trump offhandedly mentions; 'Oh by the way, don't buy the lowball collateral damage
numbers you hear from the Pentagon, we're unnecessarily killing a lot of brown people abroad.' But then
he fans the flames of racism with stump speeches about building a wall and banning all muslims from
entering the USA. I can tell you which message his supporters are comprehending if you're unsure. Despite
being a politically heterodox chameleon Trump is showing his true colors. Just because Trump is willing
to break with the orthodoxy while he is campaigning doesn't mean he isn't an aspiring tyrant. Don't
be fooled. Trump isn't enlightened or altruistic, he's a talented demagogue pulling a Con on America-
that's it.
By the way, I wanted to add I am not in any way considering a vote for Hillary if she does in fact
become the Democratic nominee. I am very troubled by the prospect of a President Trump but I will not
allow my vote to be held hostage by the DNC and the very tired "lesser of evils arguments" I realized
my last comment might be construed as a "Trump must be stopped at all costs" Clinton rationalization.
It was not. Trump will be on the conscience of those who vote for him and those who have enabled him.
Maybe we should look at what Trump recently said at AIPAC – y'know, that itsy bitsy little lobby
that seems to strike fear into the hearts of all US politicians Trump included – to get a sense of his
ME policy,
shall we
?
snip
'In Spring 2004, at the height of violence in the Gaza Strip, I was the Grand Marshal of the 40th
Salute to Israel Parade, the largest single gathering in support of the Jewish state."
"My number one priority is to dismantle the disastrous deal with Iran. I have been in business
a long time. I know deal-making and let me tell you, this deal is catastrophic – for America, for
Israel, and for the whole Middle East."
"First, we will stand up to Iran's aggressive push to destabilize and dominate the region. Iran
is a very big problem and will continue to be, but if I'm elected President, I know how to deal with
trouble. Iran is a problem in Iraq, a problem in Syria, a problem in Lebanon, a problem in Yemen,
and will be a very major problem for Saudi Arabia. Literally every day, Iran provides more and better
weapons to their puppet states.
Hezbollah in Lebanon has received sophisticated anti-ship weapons, anti-aircraft weapons, and
GPS systems on rockets. Now they're in Syria trying to establish another front against Israel from
the Syrian side of the Golan Heights."
Just last week, American Taylor Allen Force, a West Point grad who served in Iraq and Afghanistan,
was murdered in the street by a knife-wielding Palestinian. You don't reward that behavior, you confront
it!
It's not up the United Nations to impose a solution. The parties must negotiate a resolution themselves.
The United States can be useful as a facilitator of negotiations, but no one should be telling Israel
it must abide by some agreement made by others thousands of miles away that don't even really know
what's happening.
When I'm president, believe me, I will veto any attempt by the UN to impose its will on the Jewish
state.
Already, half the population of Palestine has been taken over by the Palestinian ISIS in Hamas,
and the other half refuses to confront the first half, so it's a very difficult situation but when
the United States stands with Israel, the chances of peace actually rise. That's what will happen
when I'm president.
We will move the American embassy to the eternal capital of the Jewish people, Jerusalem – and
we will send a clear signal that there is no daylight between America and our most reliable ally,
the state of Israel."
Yup, it's like he and Hillary are just night and day, huh?
I mean other than the fact that Hillary actually BACKS the Iran Deal but don't let that get in the
way of a good "but Hillary" meeting.
The two candidates will be identical where it's most important – e.g. w/ Israel and the ME – just
like all of the presidential candidates.
You would think the Obama administration may have taught us something about perceiving reality oh
wait that's right, it really was Hillary and not poor Obama who's been doing all that killing over the
last 8 years and the Donald's really a renegade "outsider" billionaire who's just scaring the pants
off of the Establishment, right?
Wow. Just wow.
Obama Hope Junkies so desperate that they're shooting Trumpodil straight into their minds.
I'm confused. What does this have to do with the topic of the post? The YouTube has nothing to do
with the deplorable Beltway consensus on Israel, of which Trump is a part.
As US-driven wars plummet the Muslim world ever deeper into jihadi-ridden failed state chaos,
events seem to be careening toward a tipping point. Eventually, the region will become so profuse
a font of terrorists and refugees, that Western popular resistance to "boots on the ground" will
be overwhelmed by terror and rage. Then, the US-led empire will finally have the public mandate it
needs to thoroughly and permanently colonize the Greater Middle East.
It is easy to see how the Military Industrial Complex and crony energy industry would profit from
such an outcome. But what about America's "best friend" in the region? How does Israel stand to benefit
from being surrounded by such chaos?
Tel Aviv has long pursued a strategy of "divide and conquer": both directly, and indirectly through
the tremendous influence of the Israel lobby and neocons over US foreign policy.
A famous article from the early 1980s by Israeli diplomat and journalist Oded Yinon is most explicit
in this regard. The "Yinon Plan" calls for the "dissolution" of "the entire Arab world including
Egypt, Syria, Iraq and the Arabian peninsula." Each country was to be made to "fall apart along sectarian
and ethnic lines," after which each resulting fragment would be "hostile" to its neighbors." Yinon
incredibly claimed that:
"This state of affairs will be the guarantee for peace and security in the area in the long run"
According to Yinon, this Balkanization should be realized by fomenting discord and war among the
Arabs:
"Every kind of inter-Arab confrontation will assist us in the short run and will shorten the way
to the more important aim of breaking up Iraq into denominations as in Syria and in Lebanon."
So, you can see that Trump has said the right things into the right ears – read: AIPAC – as far as
anyone of import is concerned – read: not any of us – and so now he's free to say whatever else he thinks
he needs to.
I mean, Sheldon Adelson endorsed him so he can't be THAT scary to Israel-first billionaires and their
bed-buddies, right?
Ooops, I forgot he's an outsider that everyone's scared of. My bad. Hillary will be so much worse.
Robert Parry at ConsortiumNews has written an insightful article about the damage that has been caused
by both the neocon ideologues' control of US foreign policy and the neoliberals' control of economic
policy, their powerful political and propaganda apparatus, and what we can expect from the legacy political
party candidates for the presidency, focusing on Clinton and her past positions regarding the Middle
East.
It is noteworthy that the dominance of failed neocon and neoliberal policies over the past few decades
has coincided with consolidation and concentration of ownership of corporate media in very few hands.
As with restoring the Glass-Steagall Act and breaking up the TBTFs, reinstating limits on media ownership
and control is an important and necessary measure to breaking the influence these few individuals have
had over national policy.
Being Left of Hillary is a really really really low bar. He probably is, but thats probably because
Hillary is right wing. You know, like almost all American politicians from both parties. Trumps not
left of Bernie (at least not yet or not right now: I expect hes going to swing left in the general to
scoop up Bernie voters), and Bernies just an Eisenhower Republican, which is admittedly to the left
of basically all the other politicians today.
Quoting from memory, context foreign policy: "If our Presidents had gone to the beach every day of
the year fifteen years ago, we would have been in much better shape." (Note this includes Bush.)
"... "I've known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy," Trump said of Epstein during a 2002 interview with New York magazine. "He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side." ..."
"... "How would he know that?" he said of Trump's acknowledgement of Epstein's penchant for young women. The interview came nearly six years before Epstein's secret sex life exploded into public view when the money manager pleaded guilty to Florida charges of procuring and soliciting a minor for prostitution. "Why would he make a joke like that?" the West Palm Beach attorney asked. ..."
"... Bill has frequent flier points on Lolita Express. He had a 14yr.old toy on the island and the flight logs can prove his attendance. ..."
"... "The Government aligned themselves with Epstein, working against his victims, for 11 years..." ..."
"... THE SAME can be said for this: "The Government aligned themselves with APARTHEID Israhell, working against their Palestinians victims, for over 70 years... " ..."
"... Epstein has dirt on EVERYONE ... If he ever gets in a legitimate court room? - many, many, shitty people will be in trouble ... GOP and Democrat. And Trump? Acosta is in his admin, right? Or, he didn't fire the scum yet? And when is Hillary going to jail? ..."
"... I assume MOSSAD & friends will have to pull some very fancy rabbits out of their hat to get this buried again. The $wamp can't afford to have him cooperating, so I'm guessing Epstein will have to 'retire' to Tel-Aviv - or have an accident/become 'depressed, etc.' ..."
"... Hastert mentioned in WikiLeaks: https://wearechange.org/disgraced-house-speaker-pedophile-dennis-hastert/ As you dig into these stories, one singular theory emerges again and again: Sexual deviants and psychos have been groomed for office because they are easier to blackmail and control. ..."
Both Clinton and Trump were close to Epstein. To me this smells like there was a bi-partisan consensus to bury this, and only
now that the Clintons are no longer dominating the Democrat party, do we get some results.
While Trump has recently distanced himself from Epstein, a 64-year-old financier, it wasn't always that way.
"I've known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy," Trump said of Epstein during a 2002 interview with New York magazine.
"He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger
side."
Attorney Spencer Kuvin, one of dozens of lawyers who successfully sued Epstein on behalf of roughly 30 women who claimed
he lured them to his Palm Beach mansion for sexually-charged massages when they were as young as 14, said he always found the
comment curious.
"How would he know that?" he said of Trump's acknowledgement of Epstein's penchant for young women. The interview came
nearly six years before Epstein's secret sex life exploded into public view when the money manager pleaded guilty to Florida
charges of procuring and soliciting a minor for prostitution. "Why would he make a joke like that?" the West Palm Beach attorney
asked.
Be nice if someone found the guest list because Bill Clinton wouldn't be able to kill that many people to cover it up. It'd
be sweet if they found evidence that Trump went, because he definitely did. He's probably the one to name it "Lolita Express."...no,
that was probably Bill.
"The Government aligned themselves with Epstein, working against his victims, for 11 years..."
THE SAME can be said for this: "The Government aligned themselves with APARTHEID Israhell, working against their Palestinians
victims, for over 70 years... "
Epstein has dirt on EVERYONE ... If he ever gets in a legitimate court room? - many, many, shitty people will be in trouble
... GOP and Democrat. And Trump? Acosta is in his admin, right? Or, he didn't fire the scum yet? And when is Hillary going to
jail?
I assume MOSSAD & friends will have to pull some very fancy rabbits out of their hat to get this buried again. The $wamp
can't afford to have him cooperating, so I'm guessing Epstein will have to 'retire' to Tel-Aviv - or have an accident/become 'depressed,
etc.'
I will further bet that JE has had adequate notice of all this to be getting out of the USA to Balfourstan - a non-extradition
country - ASAP.
King of Faustian bargain of a US politician. Bernie showed his colors in the 2016 primaries. He can't be trusted...
What Bernie is doing is eliminating chances for Tulsi...
Notable quotes:
"... Thank you Jimi, for calling out even Bernie when he buys the corporate bullshit ..."
"... Seriously, if you still support this clown, you are part of the problem. ..."
"... There's nothing progressive about silence, tepidness, or even support for destructive policies abroad by the same forces -- & for the same interests -- that we claim to oppose at home. ..."
"... this is the bargain Bernie made to run as a Democrat ..."
"... Bernie lost credibility when he endorsed Hilary in 2016... Tulsi is the one for 2020... ..."
Aaron Maté tweets -- Do we need a new category for progressives whose progressive values stop at the US border?
There's nothing progressive about silence, tepidness, or even support for destructive policies abroad by the same forces --
& for the same interests -- that we claim to oppose at home.
Bernie lost credibility when he endorsed Hilary in 2016... Tulsi is the one for 2020...
pandastratton. 23 hours ago
Donate to Tulsi to get her on the debate stage!!!!
Dionysos, 19 hours ago
Jimmy I know Tulsi is the best candidate in terms of foreign policy, but Bernie is our only chance at getting a real progressive
in the White House!
People are suffering economically and that is the issue where the vast majority of support lies. If stuff like this splits
the progressive support and allows someone like Kamala to win in the primaries, things will get really bad.
Robert Rowland23 hours ago
Jimmy (God love ya), the Military Industrial Complex is the single most gut-wrenchingly ruthless, most awesome entity on the
planet. It has the ability to kill pretty much anyone they want without repercussion. No domestic political movement, even one
that holds the Whitehouse, is capable of bringing them down or even reining them in. They will eventually meet their demise through
bad management in combination with a series of misfortunes resulting in defeat in all-out global war. Until then, and while we
as a nation are still able, the best we common folks can hope for is this juggernaut (the true boss) to give us some measure of
these desperately needed social reforms. In other words, Bernie is just being realistic.
Meanwhile, Tulsi, The Real Deal Gabbard (God bless her soul), if successful, will be on a course to join the ranks of JFK,
RFK, and MLK.
Our much-vaunted democracy is a sham and our freedom isn't actually what it is represented as being. May I suggest you watch this
video and view it as a metaphor. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vb8Rj5xkDPk
While many of us disagree on ideology and values, we agree on practical things like obeying the constitution and not letting
big corporations and the wealthy run everything.
Your 35-day government shutdown was a senseless abuse of power. So too your "national emergency" to build your wall with
money Congress refused to appropriate.
When you passed your tax bill you promised our paychecks would rise by an average of $4,000 but we never got the raise.
Our employers used the tax savings to buy back their shares of stock and give themselves raises instead.
Then you fooled us into thinking we were getting a cut by lowering the amounts withheld from our 2018 paychecks. We know
that now because we're getting smaller tax refunds.
At the same time, many big corporations aren't paying a dime in taxes. Worse yet, they're getting refunds. For example, GM is paying zilch and claiming a $104m refund on $11.8bn of profits. Amazon is paying no taxes and claiming
a $129m refund on profits of $11.2bn. (This is after New York offered it $3bn to put its second headquarters there.) They aren't breaking any tax laws or regulations. That's because they made the tax laws and regulations. You gave them a
free hand.
You're supposed to be working for us, not for giant corporations. But they're doing better than ever, as are their top executives
and biggest investors. Yet nothing has trickled down. We're getting shafted.
Which is why more than 75% of us (including 45% who call ourselves Republicans) support Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's proposed
70% tax on dollars earned in excess of $10m a year.
And over 60% of us support Elizabeth Warren's proposed 2% annual tax on households with a new worth of $50m or more.
You've also shown you don't have a clue about healthcare. You promised us something better than the Affordable Care Act
but all you've done is whittle it back.
A big reason we gave Democrats control of the House last November was your threat to eliminate protection for people with
pre-existing conditions.
Are you even aware that 70% of us now favor Medicare for all?
Most of us don't pay much attention to national policy but we pay a lot of attention to home economics. You've made our
own home economics worse.
We'll give you official notice you're fired on 3 November 2020, if not before. Until then, you can keep the house and perks,
but you're toast.
What people notice, they often forget unless media work to remind them. The end of the
Democrats began as far back as the 1980s, with the Reagan Dems -- a handful of conservative
Democrats who represented "sensible politics." These merged with the Clinton right wing,
which successfully took over the Democratic Party in the 1990s. Just as the Reagan
administration obtained significant "influence" over the MSM, the Clinton administration
obtained significant "influence" over the new (online/cable) media marketed to middle class
liberals. Media shapes broad public opinion. Robert Reich has been a valued player (effective
propagandist) on the Clinton wing since the '90s.
Trump will come through this mess just fine. My impression is that the role of media
during this administration is to keep public focus off of what's actually happening in DC by
amplifying the Russian Tale and every delicious scandal that can even vaguely e connected to
it. It keeps the public preoccupied, chasing ghosts, so that those who are in power can do
what they're doing without interruption.
Eddie S , March 19, 2019 at 21:19
While Reich often writes-about & supports liberal/progressive issues, I still recall
how he effectively caved to Bill Clinton and his 'Republican-lite' programs, notably
'free-trade/globalization', which undercuts Reich's stated support for unions. I lost most of
my modest respect for him at that point -- he apparently felt it was more important to be 'an
insider' in a presidential administration than to stand up for his reputed viewpoints.
This is probably the most comprehensive outline of the color revolution against Trump. Bravo, simply bravo !!!
Reads like Agatha Christi Murder on the Orient
Express ;-) Rosenstein role is completely revised from a popular narrative. Brennan role clarifies and detailed. Obama
personal role hinted. Victoria Nuland role and the role of the State Department in Russiagate is documented for the first
time, I think.
Notable quotes:
"... The "insurance policy" appears to have been the effort to legitimize the Trump–Russia collusion narrative so that an FBI investigation, led by McCabe, could continue unhindered. ..."
"... Ohr, one of the highest-ranking officials in the DOJ, was communicating on an ongoing basis with Steele, whom he had known since at least 2006 , well into mid-2017. He is also married to Nellie Ohr, an expert on Russia and Eurasia who began working for Fusion GPS sometime in late 2015 . Nellie Ohr likely played a significant role in the construction of the dossier. ..."
"... The Obama administration provided a simultaneous layer of protection and facilitation for the entire effort. One example is provided by Section 2.3 of Executive Order 12333 , also known as Obama's data-sharing order . With the passage of the order, agencies and individuals were able to ask the NSA for access to specific surveillance simply by claiming the intercepts contained relevant information that was useful to a particular mission. ..."
"... Leaking, including felony leaking of classified information, has been widespread. The Carter Page FISA warrant -- likely the unredacted version -- has been in the possession of The Washington Post and The New York Times since March 2017. Traditionally, the intelligence community leaked to The Washington Post while the DOJ leaked to sources within The New York Times. This was a historical pattern that stood until this election. The leaking became so widespread, even this tradition was broken. ..."
"... The information contained within both articles likely came via felony leaks from James Wolfe, former director of security for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, who was arrested on June 7, 2018, and charged with one count of lying to the FBI. Wolfe's indictment alleges that he was leaking classified information to multiple reporters over an extended period of time. ..."
"... The Steele dossier was fed into U.S. channels through several different sources. One such source was Sir Andrew Wood, the former British ambassador to Russia, who had been briefed about the dossier by Steele. Wood later relayed information regarding the dossier to Sen. John McCain, who dispatched David Kramer, a fellow at the McCain Institute, to London to meet with Steele in November 2016. McCain would later admit in a Jan. 11, 2017, statement that he had personally passed on the dossier to then-FBI Director James Comey. ..."
"... Trump, after issuing an order for the declassification of documents and text messages related to the Russia-collusion investigations -- including parts of the Carter Page FISA warrant application -- received phone calls from two U.S. allies saying, "Please, can we talk." Those "allies" were almost certainly the UK and Australia. ..."
"... Questions to be asked are why is it that two of our allies would find themselves so opposed to the release of these classified documents that a coordinated plea would be made directly to the president? And why would these same allies have even the slightest idea of what was contained in these classified U.S. documents? ..."
Spygate: The True Story of Collusion [Infographic] How America's most powerful agencies were weaponized against President
Donald Trump
Although the details remain complex, the structure underlying Spygate -- the creation of the false narrative that candidate Donald
Trump colluded with Russia, and the spying on his presidential campaign -- remains surprisingly simple:
CIA Director John Brennan, with some assistance from Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, gathered foreign intelligence
and fed it throughout our domestic Intelligence Community.
The FBI became the handler of Brennan's intelligence and engaged in the more practical elements of surveillance.
The Department of Justice facilitated investigations by the FBI and legal maneuverings, while providing a crucial shield of
nondisclosure.
The Department of State became a mechanism of information dissemination and leaks.
Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee provided funding, support, and media collusion.
Obama administration officials were complicit, and engaged in unmasking and intelligence gathering and dissemination.
The media was the most corrosive element in many respects. None of these events could have transpired without their willing
participation. Stories were pushed, facts were ignored, and narratives were promoted.
Let's start with a simple premise: The candidacy of Trump presented both an opportunity and a threat.
Initially not viewed with any real seriousness, Trump's campaign was seen as an opportunistic wedge in the election process. At
the same time, and particularly as the viability of his candidacy increased, Trump was seen as an existential threat to the established
political system.
The sudden legitimacy of Trump's candidacy was not welcomed by the U.S. political establishment. Here was a true political outsider
who held no traditional allegiances. He was brash and boastful, he ignored political correctness, he couldn't be bought, and he didn't
care what others thought of him -- he trusted himself.
Governing bodies in Britain and the European Union were also worried. Candidate Trump was openly challenging monetary policy,
regulations, and the power of special interests. He challenged Congress. He challenged the United Nations and the European Union.
He questioned everything.
Brennan played a crucial role in the creation of the Russia-collusion narrative and the spying on the Trump campaign. (Don Emmert/AFP/Getty
Images)
Brennan became the point man in the operation to stop a potential Trump presidency. It remains unclear whether his role was self-appointed
or came from above. To embark on such a mission without direct presidential authority seems both a stretch of the imagination and
particularly foolhardy.
Brennan took unofficial foreign intelligence compiled by contacts, colleagues, and associates --
primarily from the UK , but also from other Five Eyes members, such as Australia.
Individuals in official positions in UK intelligence, such as Robert Hannigan -- head of the UK Government Communications Headquarters
(GCHQ, Britain's equivalent of the National Security Agency) -- partnered with former UK foreign intelligence members. Former MI6
head Sir Richard Dearlove
, former Ambassador Sir Andrew Wood, and private UK intelligence firm
Hakluyt all played a role.
In the summer of 2016, Hannigan traveled to Washington to
meet with Brennan
regarding alleged communications between the Trump campaign and Moscow. On Jan. 23, 2017 -- three days after Trump's inauguration
-- Hannigan abruptly announced
his retirement. The Guardian openly
speculated that Hannigan's
resignation was directly related to the sharing of UK intelligence.
One method used to help establish evidence of collusion was the employment of "spy traps." Prominent among these were ones set
for Trump campaign advisers George Papadopoulos and Carter Page. The intent was to provide or establish connections between the Trump
campaign and Russia. The content and context mattered little as long as a connection could be established that could then be publicized.
The June 2016 Trump Tower meeting was another such attempt.
Western intelligence assets were used to initiate and establish these connections, particularly in the cases of Papadopoulos and
Page.
Ultimately, Brennan formed an inter-agency task
force comprising an estimated six agencies and/or government departments. The FBI, Treasury, and DOJ handled the domestic inquiry
into Trump and possible Russia connections. The CIA, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and the National Security Agency
(NSA) handled foreign and intelligence aspects.
Brennan's inter-agency task force is not to be confused with the July 2016 FBI counterintelligence investigation, which was formed
later at Brennan's urging.
During this time, Brennan also employed the use of
reverse targeting , which relates to the targeting of a foreign individual with the intent of capturing data on a U.S. citizen.
This effort was uncovered and
made public by Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) in a March 2017
press conference :
"I have seen intelligence reports that clearly show the president-elect and his team were monitored and disseminated out in
intelligence-reporting channels. Details about persons associated with the incoming administration, details with little apparent
foreign-intelligence value were widely disseminated in intelligence community reporting.
"From what I know right now, it looks like incidental collection. We don't know exactly how that was picked up but we're trying
to get to the bottom of it."
As this foreign intelligence -- unofficial in nature and outside of any traditional channels -- was gathered, Brennan began a
process of feeding his gathered intelligence to the FBI. Repeated transfers of foreign intelligence from the CIA director pushed
the FBI toward the establishment of a formal counterintelligence investigation. Brennan repeatedly noted this during
a May 23, 2017, congressional testimony :
"I made sure that anything that was involving U.S. persons, including anything involving the individuals involved in the Trump
campaign, was shared with the [FBI]."
Brennan also admitted that his intelligence helped establish
the FBI investigation:
"I was aware of intelligence and information about contacts between Russian officials and U.S. persons that raised concerns in
my mind about whether or not those individuals were cooperating with the Russians, either in a witting or unwitting fashion, and
it served as the basis for the FBI investigation to determine whether such collusion [or] cooperation occurred."
Once the FBI began its counterintelligence investigation on July 31, 2016, Brennan shifted his focus. Through a series of meetings
in August and September 2016, Brennan informed the congressional Gang of Eight regarding intelligence and information he had gathered.
Notably, each Gang of Eight member was briefed separately, calling into question whether each of the members received the same information.
Efforts to
block the release of the transcripts from each meeting remain ongoing.
This final report was used to continue pushing the Russia-collusion narrative following the election of President Donald Trump.
Notably, Admiral Mike Rogers of the NSA publicly dissented from the findings of the ICA, assigning only a moderate confidence level.
Although the FBI is technically part of the DOJ, it is best for the purposes of this article that the FBI and DOJ be viewed as
separate entities, each with its own related ties.
The FBI itself was comprised of various factions, with a particularly active element that has come to be known as the "insurance
policy group." It appears that this faction was led by FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and comprised other notable names such as
FBI agent Peter Strzok, FBI lawyer Lisa Page, and FBI general counsel James Baker.
The FBI established the counterintelligence investigation into alleged Russia collusion with the Trump campaign on July 31, 2016.
Comey initially refused to say whether the FBI was investigating possible connections between members of the Trump campaign and Russia.
He would continue to refuse to provide answers until March 20, 2017, when he disclosed the existence of the FBI investigation
during congressional testimony.
Comey also testified that he did not provide notification to the Gang of Eight until early March 2017 -- less than one month earlier.
This admission was in stark contrast to actions taken by Brennan, who had notified members of the Gang of Eight individually during
August and September 2016. It's likely that Brennan never informed Comey that he had briefed the Gang of Eight in 2016. Comey did
note that the DOJ "had been aware" of the investigation all along.
Comey opened the counterintelligence investigation into Trump on the urging of CIA Director John Brennan.
Following Comey's firing on May 9, 2017, the FBI's investigation was transferred to special counsel Robert Mueller. The
Mueller investigation remains ongoing.
The FBI's formal involvement with the
Steele dossier began on July 5, 2016,
when Mike Gaeta, an FBI agent and assistant legal attaché at the US Embassy in Rome, was dispatched to visit former MI6 spy Christopher
Steele in London. Gaeta would return from this meeting with a copy of Steele's first memo. This memo was given to Victoria Nuland
at the State Department, who passed it along to the FBI.
Gaeta, who also headed the FBI's Eurasian Organized Crime unit, had known Steele since at least 2010, when Steele had provided
assistance to the FBI's investigation into the
FIFA corruption
scandal .
Prior to the London meeting, Gaeta may also have met on a less formal basis with Steele
several weeks earlier.
"In June, Steele flew to Rome to brief the FBI contact with whom he had cooperated over FIFA," The Guardian reported. "His information
started to reach the bureau in Washington."
It's worth noting that there was no "dossier" until it was fully compiled in December 2016. There was only a sequence of documents
from Steele -- documents that were passed on individually -- as they were created. Therefore, from the FBI's legal perspective, they
didn't use the dossier. They used individual documents.
For the next month and a half, there appeared to be little contact between Steele and the FBI. However, the FBI's interest in
the dossier suddenly accelerated in late August 2016, when the bureau
asked Steele "for all information in his possession and for him to explain how the material had been gathered and to identify
his sources."
In September 2016, Steele traveled back to Rome to meet with the FBI's Eurasian squad once again. It's likely that the meeting
included several other FBI officials as well. According to a
House Intelligence Committee
minority memo , Steele's reporting reached the FBI counterintelligence team in mid-September 2016 -- the same time as Steele's
September trip to Rome.
The reason for the FBI's renewed interest had to do with an adviser to the Trump campaign -- Carter Page -- who had been in
contact with Stefan Halper, a CIA
and FBI source, since July 2016. Halper
arranged to meet with Page for the first time on July 11, 2016, at a
Cambridge symposium , just three days after Page took a trip
to Moscow. Speakers at the symposium included Madeleine Albright, Vin Webber, and Sir Richard Dearlove, the former head of MI6.
Page was now the FBI's chosen target for a FISA warrant that would be obtained on Oct. 21, 2016. The Steele dossier would be the
primary evidence used in obtaining the FISA warrant, which would be renewed three separate times, including after Trump took office,
finally expiring in September 2017.
Former volunteer Trump campaign adviser Carter Page on Nov. 2, 2017. The FBI obtained a retroactive FISA spy warrant
on Page.
After being in contact with Page for 14 months, Halper stopped contact exactly as the final FISA warrant on Page expired. Page,
who has steadfastly maintained his innocence, was never charged with any crime by the FBI. Efforts for the declassification of the
Page FISA application are currently ongoing through the DOJ's Office of the Inspector General.
Peter Strzok and Lisa Page
Peter Strzok and Lisa Page were two prominent members of the FBI's "insurance policy" group. Strzok, a senior FBI agent, was the
deputy assistant director of FBI's Counterintelligence Division. Lisa Page, an FBI lawyer, served as special counsel to FBI Deputy
Director Andrew McCabe.
Strzok was in charge of the investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server for government business. He helped
FBI Director James Comey draft the statement exonerating Clinton and was personally responsible for changing specific wording within
that statement that reduced Clinton's legal liability. Specifically, Strzok changed the words "grossly negligent," which could be
a criminal offense, to "extremely careless."
Strzok also personally led the FBI's counterintelligence investigation into the alleged Trump–Russia collusion and signed the
documents that opened the investigation on July 31, 2016. He was one of the FBI agents who interviewed Trump's national security
adviser, Gen. Michael Flynn. Strzok met multiple times with DOJ official Bruce Ohr and received information from Steele at those
meetings.
Following the firing of FBI Director James Comey, Strzok would join the team of special counsel Robert Mueller. Two months later,
he was removed from that team after the DOJ inspector general discovered a lengthy series of texts between Strzok and Page that contained
politically charged messages. Strzok would be fired from the FBI in August 2018.
Both Strzok and Page engaged in strategic
leaking to the press. Page did so at the direction of McCabe, who directly
authorized Page to share information with Wall Street
Journal reporter Devlin Barrett. That information was used in an Oct. 30, 2016, article headlined
"FBI in Internal Feud Over Hillary Clinton Probe ." Page leaked to Barrett thinking she had been granted legal and official authorization
to do so.
McCabe would later initially deny providing such
authorization to the Office of Inspector General. Page, when confronted with McCabe's denials, produced texts refuting his statement.
It was these texts that led to the inspector general uncovering the texts between Strzok and Page.
The two exchanged thousands of texts, some of them indicating surveillance activities, over a two-year period. Texts sent between
Aug. 21, 2015, and June 25, 2017, have been made
public . The series comes
to an end with a final text by Page telling Strzok, "Don't ever text me again."
On Aug. 8, 2016, Stzrok wrote that they would prevent candidate Trump from becoming president:
Page: "[Trump is] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!"
Strzok: "No. No he won't. We'll stop it."
On Aug. 15, 2016, Strzok sent a text referring to an "insurance policy":
"I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office -- that there's no way [Trump] gets elected --
but I'm afraid we can't take that risk. It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40."
The "insurance policy" appears to have been the effort to legitimize the Trump–Russia collusion narrative so that an FBI investigation,
led by McCabe, could continue unhindered.
Department of Justice
The Department of Justice, which comprises 60 agencies , was transformed
during the Obama years. The department is forbidden by federal law from hiring employees based on political affiliation.
However, a
series
of investigative articles by PJ Media published during Eric Holder's tenure as attorney general revealed an unsettling pattern
of ideological conformity among new hires at the DOJ: Only lawyers from the progressive left were hired. Not one single moderate
or conservative lawyer made the cut. This is significant as the DOJ enjoys significant latitude in determining who will be subject
to prosecution.
The DOJ's job in Spygate was to facilitate the legal side of surveillance while providing a protective layer of cover for all
those involved. The department became a repository of information and provided a protective wall between the investigative efforts
of the FBI and the legislative branch. Importantly, it also served as the firewall within the executive branch, serving as the insulating
barrier between the FBI and Obama officials. The department had become legendary for its stonewalling tactics with Congress.
DOJ Official Bruce Ohr on Aug. 28, 2018. Ohr passed on information from Christopher Steele to the FBI.
The DOJ, which was fully aware of the actions being taken by James Comey and the FBI, also became an active element acting against
members of the Trump campaign. Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, along with Mary McCord, the head of the DOJ's National Security
Division, was actively
involved in efforts to remove Gen. Michael Flynn from his position as national security adviser to President Trump.
To this day, it remains unknown which individual was responsible for making public Flynn's call with the Russian ambassador. Flynn
ultimately pleaded guilty to a process crime: lying to the FBI. There have been
questions raised in Congress regarding the possible alteration of FD-302s, the written notes of Flynn's FBI interviews. Special
counsel Robert Mueller has repeatedly deferred Flynn's sentencing hearing.
David Laufman, deputy assistant attorney general in charge of counterintelligence at the DOJ's National Security Division, played
a key role in both the Clinton email server and Russia hacking investigations. Laufman is currently the attorney for Monica McLean,
the long-time friend of Christine Blasey Ford, who recently accused Judge Brett Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her while in high
school. McLean was also
employed
by the FBI for 24 years.
Bruce Ohr was a significant DOJ official who played a
key role in Spygate. Ohr held
two important positions at the DOJ: associate deputy attorney general, and director of the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task
Force. As associate deputy attorney general, Ohr was just four offices away from then-Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, and he
reported directly to her. As director of the task force, he was in charge of a program described as "the centerpiece of the attorney
general's drug strategy."
Ohr, one of the highest-ranking officials in the DOJ, was communicating on an ongoing basis with Steele, whom he had known
since at
least 2006 , well into mid-2017. He is also married to Nellie Ohr,
an expert on Russia and Eurasia who began working
for Fusion GPS sometime in
late 2015 . Nellie Ohr likely played a significant role in the construction of the dossier.
According to testimony from FBI agent Peter Strzok, he and Ohr met at least five times during 2016 and 2017. Strzok was working
directly with then-Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe.
Additionally, Ohr met with the FBI at least
12 times between late November 2016 and May 2017 for a series of interviews. These meetings could have been used to
transmit information from Steele to the FBI. This came after the FBI had formally severed contact with Steele in late October
or early November 2016.
John Carlin is another notable figure with the DOJ. Carlin was an assistant attorney general and the head of the DOJ's National
Security Division until October 2016. His role will be discussed below in the section on FISA abuse.
The Battle Between Rosenstein and McCabe
Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe held a pivotal role in what has become known as "Spygate." He directed the activities of Peter
Strzok and Lisa Page and was involved in all aspects of the Russia investigation. He was also mentioned in the infamous "insurance
policy" text message.
McCabe was a major component of the insurance policy.
On April 26, 2017, Rosenstein found himself appointed as the new deputy attorney general. He was placed into a somewhat chaotic
situation, as Attorney General Jeff Sessions had recused himself from the ongoing Russia investigation a little less than two months
earlier, on March 2, 2017. This effectively meant that no one in the Trump administration had any oversight of the ongoing investigation
being conducted by the FBI and the DOJ.
Additionally, the leadership of then-FBI Director James Comey was coming under increased scrutiny as the result of actions taken
leading up to and following the election, particularly Comey's handling of the Clinton email investigation.
On May 9, 2017, Rosenstein wrote a memorandum recommending that Comey be fired. The subject of the memo was "Restoring Public
Confidence in the FBI." Comey was fired that day. McCabe was now the acting director of the FBI and was immediately under consideration
for the permanent position.
On the same day Comey was fired, McCabe would lie during an interview with agents from the FBI's Inspection Division (INSD) regarding
apparent leaks that were used in an Oct. 30, 2016, Wall Street Journal article, "FBI in Internal Feud Over Hillary Clinton Probe"
by Devlin Barrett. This would later be disclosed in the inspector general report, "A Report of Investigation of Certain Allegations
Relating to Former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe."
At the time, nobody, including the INSD agents, knew that McCabe had lied, nor were the darker aspects of McCabe's role in Spygate
fully known.
In late April or early May 2016, McCabe opened a federal criminal investigation on Sessions, regarding potential lack of candor
before Congress in relation to Sessions's contacts with Russians. Sessions was unaware of the investigation.
Sessions would later be cleared of any wrongdoing by special counsel Robert Mueller.
On the morning of May 16, 2017, Rosenstein reportedly suggested to McCabe that he secretly record President Trump. This remark
was reported in a New York Times article that was sourced from memos from the now-fired McCabe, along with testimony taken from former
FBI general counsel James Baker, who relayed a conversation he had with McCabe about the occurrence. Rosenstein issued a statement
denying the accusations.
The alleged comments by Rosenstein occurred at a meeting where McCabe was "pushing for the Justice Department to open an investigation
into the president." An unnamed participant at the meeting, in comments to The Washington Post, framed the conversation somewhat
differently, noting Rosenstein responded sarcastically to McCabe, saying, "What do you want to do, Andy, wire the president?"
Later, on the same day that Rosenstein had his meetings with McCabe, President Trump met with Mueller, reportedly as an interview
for the FBI director job. On May 17, 2017, the day after President Trump's meeting with Mueller -- and the day after Rosenstein's
encounters with McCabe -- Rosenstein appointed Mueller as special counsel.
The May 17 appointment of Mueller in effect shifted control of the Russia investigation from the FBI and McCabe to Mueller. Rosenstein
would retain ultimate authority for the probe and any expansion of Mueller's investigation required authorization from Rosenstein.
Interestingly, without Comey's memo leaks, a special counsel might not have been appointed -- the FBI, and possibly McCabe, would
have remained in charge of the Russia investigation. McCabe was probably not going to become the permanent FBI director, but he was
reportedly under consideration. Regardless, without Comey's leak, McCabe would have retained direct involvement and the FBI would
have retained control.
On July 28, 2017, McCabe lied to Inspector General Michael Horowitz while under oath regarding authorization of the leaking to
The Wall Street Journal. At this point, Horowitz knew McCabe was lying, but did not yet know of the May 9 INSD interview with McCabe.
On Aug. 2, 2017, Rosenstein secretly issued Mueller a revised memo on "the scope of investigation and definition of authority"
that remains heavily redacted. The full purpose of this memo remains unknown. On this same day, Christopher Wray was named as the
new FBI director.
Two days later, on Aug. 4, 2017, Sessions announced that the FBI had created a new leaks investigation unit. Rosenstein and Wray
were tasked with overseeing all leak investigations.
That Aug. 2 memo from Rosenstein to Mueller may have been specifically designed to remove any residual FBI influence -- specifically
that of McCabe -- from the Russia investigation. The appointment of Wray as FBI director helped cement this. McCabe was finally completely
neutralized.
On March 16, 2018, McCabe was fired for lying under oath at least three different times and is currently the subject of a grand
jury investigation.
State Department
The State Department, with its many contacts within foreign governments, became a conduit for the flow of information. The transfer
of Christopher Steele's first dossier memo was personally
facilitated by Victoria Nuland, the assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs. Nuland gave approval for
FBI agent Michael Gaeta to travel to London to obtain the memo from Steele. The memo may have passed directly from her to FBI leadership.
Secretary of State John Kerry was also given a copy.
Steele was already well-known within the State Department. Following Steele's involvement in the FIFA scandal investigation, he
began to provide reports
informally to the State Department. The reports were written for a "private client" but were "shared widely within the U.S. State
Department, and sent up to Secretary of State John Kerry and Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, who was in charge of
the U.S.
response to Putin's annexation of Crimea and covert invasion of eastern Ukraine," the Guardian reported.
Nuland passed on parts of the Steele dossier to the FBI. (Mark Wilson/Getty Images)
In July 2016, when the FBI wanted to send Gaeta to visit Steele in London, the bureau
sought permission from the office of Nuland, who provided this version of events during a Feb. 4, 2018,
appearance on CBS's "Face the Nation":
"In the middle of July, when [Steele] was doing this other work and became concerned, he passed two to four pages of short
points of what he was finding and our immediate reaction to that was, this is not in our purview. This needs to go to the FBI
if there is any concern here that one candidate or the election as a whole might be influenced by the Russian Federation. That's
something for the FBI to investigate."
Steele also
met with Jonathan Winer, a former deputy assistant secretary of state for international law enforcement and former special envoy
for Libya. Steele and Winer had known each other since at least 2010. In an opinion article in The Washington Post, Winer wrote the
following:
"In September 2016, Steele and I met in Washington and discussed the information now known as the 'dossier.' Steele's sources
suggested that the Kremlin not only had been behind the hacking of the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign
but also had compromised Trump and developed ties with his associates and campaign."
In a strange turn of events, Winer also received a
separate dossier , very similar to Steele's, from long-time Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal. This "second dossier" had been
compiled by another longtime Clinton operative, former journalist Cody Shearer, and echoed claims made in the Steele dossier. Winer
then met with Steele in late September 2016 and gave Steele a copy of the "second dossier." Steele went on to
share this second dossier with the FBI, which may have used it to corroborate his dossier.
Winer passed on memos from Christopher Steele to Victoria Nuland. (State Department)
Other foreign officials also used conduits into the State Department. Alexander Downer, Australia's high commissioner to the UK,
reportedly funneled his conversation
with Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos -- later used as a reason to open the FBI's counterintelligence investigation --
directly to the U.S. Embassy in London.
"The Downer details landed with the embassy's then-chargé d'affaires, Elizabeth Dibble, who previously served as a principal deputy
assistant secretary in Mrs. Clinton's State Department," The Wall Street Journal's Kimberley Strassel wrote in a May 31, 2018,
article .
If true, this would mean that neither Australian intelligence nor the Australian government alerted the FBI to the Papadopoulos
information. What happened with the Downer details, and to whom they were ultimately relayed, remains unknown.
Curiously, details surprisingly similar to the Papadopoulos–Downer conversation show up in the
first memo written
by Steele on June 20, 2016:
"A dossier of compromising information on Hillary Clinton has been collated by the Russian Intelligence Services over many
years and mainly comprises bugged conversations she had on various visits to Russia and intercepted phone calls. It has not yet
been distributed abroad, including to Trump."
Clinton Campaign and the DNC
The Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee both occupied a unique position. They had the most to gain but they
also had the most to lose. And they stood willing and ready to do whatever was necessary to win. Hillary Clinton's campaign manager,
Robby Mook, is credited with being the first to raise the specter of candidate Donald Trump's alleged collusion with Russia.
The entire Clinton campaign willfully promoted the narrative of Russia–Trump collusion despite the uncomfortable fact that they
were the ones who had engaged the services of Fusion GPS and Christopher Steele through their law firm Perkins Coie. Information
flowed from the campaign -- sometimes through Perkins Coie, other times through affiliates -- ultimately making its way into the
media and sometimes to the FBI. Information from the Clinton campaign may also have ended up in the Steele dossier.
Jennifer Palmieri, the communications director for the Clinton campaign, in tandem with Jake Sullivan, the senior policy adviser
to the campaign,
took the lead in briefing the press on the Trump–Russia collusion story.
Another example of this behavior can be seen from an instance when Perkins Coie lawyer Michael Sussmann
leaked information from Steele and Fusion GPS to Franklin Foer of Slate magazine. This event is described in the House Intelligence
Committee's final report on
Russian active measures
, in footnote 43 on page 57. Foer then published the article
"Was a Trump Server Communicating With Russia? " on Oct. 31, 2016. The article concerns allegations regarding a server in the
Trump Tower.
The Slate article managed to attract the immediate attention of Clinton, who posted a
tweet on the same day the article was
published:
"Computer scientists have apparently uncovered a covert server linking the Trump Organization to a Russian-based bank."
Attached to her tweet was a
statement from Sullivan:
"This could be the most direct link yet between Donald Trump and Moscow. Computer scientists have apparently uncovered a covert
server linking the Trump Organization to a Russian-based bank.
"This secret hotline may be the key to unlocking the mystery of Trump's ties to Russia. It certainly seems the Trump Organization
felt it had something to hide, given that it apparently took steps to conceal the link when it was discovered by journalists."
These statements, which were later proven to be incorrect, are all the more disturbing with the hindsight knowledge that it was
a senior Clinton/DNC lawyer who helped plant the story. And given the prepared statement by Sullivan, the Clinton campaign knew this.
This type of behavior would be engaged in repeatedly -- damning leaks leading to media stories, followed by ready attacks from
the Clinton campaign.
Alexandra Chalupa is a Ukrainian-American operative who was consulting for the Democratic National Committee. Chalupa
met with top officials in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington in an effort to expose ties between Trump, Paul Manafort, and Russia.
Chalupa began investigating
Manafort in 2014. In late 2015, Chalupa expanded her opposition research on Manafort to include Trump's ties to Russia. In January
2016, Chalupa shared her information with a senior DNC official.
Chalupa's meetings with DNC and Ukrainian officials would continue. On April 26, 2016, investigative reporter Michael Isikoff
published a story
on Yahoo News about Manafort's business dealings with Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska. It was later learned from a DNC email leaked
by Wikileaks that Chalupa had been working with Isikoff
-- the same journalist Christopher Steele
leaked to
in September 2016. Manafort would later be indicted for Foreign Agents Registration Act violations that occurred during the Obama
administration.
Perkins Coie
International law firm Perkins Coie served as the legal arm for both the Clinton campaign and the DNC. Ties to Perkins Coie extended
beyond the DNC into the Obama White House.
Bob Bauer, a partner at the law firm and founder of its political law practice, served as
White House counsel to President Barack Obama throughout 2010 and 2011. Bauer was also
general counsel to Obama's campaign organization, Obama for America, in 2008 and 2012.
Perkins Coie partners Marc Elias and Michael Sussmann each played critical roles and were the ones who hired Fusion GPS and Steele.
Sussmann
personally handled the alleged hack of the DNC server. He also transmitted information, likely from Steele and Fusion GPS, to
James Baker, then-chief counsel at the FBI, and to several members of the press.
Perkins Coie partner Michael Sussmann. Sussmann transmitted information to FBI chief counsel James Baker and several
journalists. (Courtesy Perkins Coie)
According to a
letter
dated Oct. 24, 2017, written by Matthew Gehringer, general counsel at Perkins Coie, the firm was approached by Fusion GPS founder
Glenn Simpson in early March 2016 regarding the possibility of hiring Fusion GPS to continue opposition research into the Trump campaign.
Simpson's overtures were successful, and in April 2016, Perkins Coie
hired
Fusion GPS on behalf of the DNC.
Sometime in April or May 2016, Fusion GPS
hired Christopher Steele. During
this same period, Fusion also reportedly
hired Nellie Ohr, the wife of Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr. Steele would complete his first memo on June 20, 2016,
and send it to Fusion via enciphered mail.
Perkins Coie appears to have also been acting as a conduit between the DNC and the FBI.
Documents suggest that Sussmann was feeding information to FBI general counsel James Baker and at least one journalist ahead
of the FBI's application for a FISA warrant on the Trump campaign.
The information provided by Sussmann may have been used by the FBI as "corroborating information."
Obama Administration
The Obama administration provided a simultaneous layer of protection and facilitation for the entire effort. One example is
provided by
Section
2.3 of Executive Order 12333 , also known as Obama's
data-sharing
order . With the passage of the order, agencies and individuals were able to ask the NSA for access to specific surveillance
simply by claiming the intercepts contained relevant information that was useful to a particular mission.
Section 2.3 had been expected to be finalized by early to mid-2016. Instead, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper didn't
sign off on Section 2.3 until Dec. 15, 2016. The order was finalized when Attorney General Loretta Lynch signed it on Jan. 3, 2017.
The reason for the delay could relate to the fact that while the executive order made it easier to share intelligence between
agencies, it also limited certain types of information from going to the White House.
An example of this was provided by Evelyn Farkas during a March 2, 2017,
MSNBC interview , where she detailed how the Obama administration
gathered and disseminated intelligence on the Trump team:
"I was urging my former colleagues and, frankly speaking, the people on the Hill 'Get as much information as you can. Get as
much intelligence as you can before President Obama leaves the administration.'
"The Trump folks, if they found out how we knew what we knew about the Trump staff's dealing with Russians, [they] would try
to compromise those sources and methods, meaning we would no longer have access to that intelligence. That's why you have the
leaking."
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russia/Ukraine/Eurasia Evelyn Farkas on May 6, 2014. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)
Many of the Obama administration's efforts appear to have been structural in nature, such as establishing new procedures or creating
impediments to oversight that enabled much of the surveillance abuse to occur.
DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz was appointed by Obama in 2011. From the very start, he found his duties throttled by the
attorney general's office. According to congressional
testimony by Horowitz:
"We got access to information up to 2010 in all of these categories. No law changed in 2010. No policy changed. It was simply
a decision by the General Counsel's Office in 2010 that they viewed, now, the law differently. And as a result, they weren't going
to give us that information."
These new restrictions were
put in place by Attorney General Eric Holder and Deputy Attorney General James Cole.
On Aug. 5, 2014, Horowitz and other inspectors general sent a
letter to Congress asking for unimpeded access to all records. Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates responded on July 20, 2015,
with a 58-page
memorandum . The memo specifically denied the inspector general access to any information collected under Title III -- including
intercepted communications and national security letters.
The New York Times recently
disclosed that national security letters were used in the surveillance of the Trump campaign.
At other times, the Obama administration's efforts were more direct. The
Intelligence Community assessment was released
internally on Jan. 5, 2017. On this same day, Obama held an undisclosed White House meeting to discuss the dossier with national
security adviser Susan Rice, FBI Director James Comey, and Yates. Rice would later send herself an email
documenting
the meeting.
The following day, Brennan, Clapper, and Comey attached a written summary of the Steele dossier to the classified briefing they
gave Obama. Comey then met with President-elect Trump to inform him of the dossier. This meeting took place just hours after Comey,
Brennan, and Clapper formally briefed Obama on both the Intelligence Community assessment and the Steele dossier.
Comey would only inform Trump of the "salacious" details contained within the dossier. He later
explained on CNN in an April 2018 interview
why:
"Because that was the part that the leaders of the Intelligence Community agreed he needed to be told about."
Shortly after Comey's meeting with Trump, both the Trump–Comey meeting and the existence of the dossier were leaked to CNN. The
significance of the meeting was material, as Comey
noted in
a Jan. 7 memo he wrote:
"Media like CNN had them and were looking for a news hook. I said it was important that we not give them the excuse to write
that the FBI has the material."
Clapper leaked information to CNN, after which he publicly condemned the leaks. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)
The media had widely dismissed the dossier as unsubstantiated and, therefore, unreportable. It was only after learning that Comey
briefed Trump that
CNN reported
on the dossier. It was later
revealed that DNI James Clapper personally leaked Comey's meeting with Trump to CNN.
The Obama administration also directly participated in a series of
intelligence unmaskings
, the process whereby a U.S. citizen's identity is revealed from collected surveillance. U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Samantha
Power reportedly engaged in hundreds of unmasking requests. Rice has admitted to doing the same.
The Obama administration engaged in the ultimately successful effort to oust Trump's newly appointed national security adviser,
Gen. Michael Flynn. Yates, along with Mary McCord, head of the DOJ's National Security Division,
led that effort
.
Executive Order 13762
President Barack Obama issued a last-minute executive order on Jan. 13, 2017, that altered the line of succession within the DOJ.
The action was not done in consultation with the incoming Trump administration.
Acting Attorney General Sally Yates was fired on Jan. 30, 2017, by a newly inaugurated President Trump for refusing to uphold
the president's executive order limiting travel from certain terror-prone countries. Yates was initially supposed to serve in her
position until Jeff Sessions was confirmed as attorney general.
Obama's executive order placed the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia next in line behind the department's senior leadership.
The attorney at the time was Channing Phillips.
Phillips was first hired by former Attorney General Eric Holder in 1994 for a position in the D.C. U.S. attorney's office. Phillips,
after serving as a senior adviser to Holder, stayed on after he was replaced by Attorney General Loretta Lynch.
It appears the Obama administration was hoping the Russia investigation would default to Channing in the event Sessions was forced
to recuse himself from the investigation. Sessions, whose confirmation hearings began three days before the order, was already coming
under intense scrutiny.
The implementation of the order may also tie into Yates's efforts to remove Gen. Michael Flynn over his call with the Russian
ambassador.
Trump ignored the succession order, as he is legally allowed to do, and instead appointed Dana Boente, the U.S. attorney for the
Eastern District of Virginia, as acting attorney general on Jan. 30, 2017, the same day Yates was fired.
Trump issued a new executive order on Feb. 9, 2017, the same day Sessions was sworn in, reversing Obama's prior order.
On March 10, 2017, Trump fired 46 Obama-era U.S. attorneys, including Preet Bharara, the U.S. attorney in Manhattan. These firings
appear to have been unexpected.
Media
In some respects, the media has played the most disingenuous of roles. Areas of investigation that historically would have proven
irresistible to reporters of the past have been steadfastly ignored. False narratives have been all-too-willingly promoted and facts
ignored. Fusion GPS personally made a
series of payments to several as-of-yet-
unnamed reporters .
The majority of the mainstream media has represented positions of the DNC and the Clinton campaign.
Steele met with members of certain media with relative frequency. In
September 2016 ,
he met with a number of U.S. journalists for "The New York Times, the Washington Post, Yahoo! News, the New Yorker and CNN," according
to The Guardian. It was during this period that Steele met with Michael Isikoff of Yahoo News.
In mid-October
2016, Steele returned to New York and met with reporters again. Toward the end of October, Steele spoke via Skype with Mother
Jones reporter David Corn.
Leaking, including felony leaking of classified information, has been widespread. The Carter Page FISA warrant -- likely the
unredacted version -- has been in the possession of The Washington Post and The New York Times since March 2017. Traditionally, the
intelligence community leaked to The Washington Post while the DOJ leaked to sources within The New York Times. This was a historical
pattern that stood until this election. The leaking became so widespread, even this tradition was broken.
On April 3, 2017, BuzzFeed reporter Ali Watkins wrote the article "
A Former Trump Adviser Met With a Russian Spy ." In the article, she identified "Male-1," referred to in
court documents
relating to the case of Russian spy Evgeny Buryakov, as Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, who had provided the FBI with assistance
in the case. Just over a week later, on April 11, 2017, a Washington Post article, "
FBI Obtained FISA Warrant to Monitor Former Trump Adviser Carter Page ," confirmed the existence of the October 2016 Page FISA
warrant.
The information contained within both articles likely came via felony leaks from James Wolfe, former director of security
for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, who was arrested on June 7, 2018, and
charged with one count of lying
to the FBI. Wolfe's indictment
alleges that he was leaking classified information to multiple reporters over an extended period of time.
Reporter Ali Watkins likely received the undredacted FISA application on Carter Page from James Wolfe.
It appears probable that Wolfe leaked unredacted copies of the Page FISA application. According to the
indictment , Wolfe
exchanged 82 text messages with
Watkins on March 17, 2017. That same evening they engaged in a 28-minute phone call. The original Page FISA application is 83 pages
long, including one final signatory page.
In the public version of the application, there are 37 fully redacted pages. In addition to that, several other pages have redactions
for all but the header. There are only two pages in the entire document that contain no redactions.
Why would Wolfe bother to send 37 pages of complete redactions? It seems more than plausible that Wolfe took pictures of the original
unredacted FISA application and sent them by text to Watkins.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes has repeatedly
stated that evidence within the FISA application
shows the counterintelligence agencies were abused by the Obama administration. Most of the mainstream media has known this.
Despite this, most major news organizations for over two years have promoted the Russia-collusion narrative. Despite ample evidence
having come out to the contrary, they have not admitted they were wrong, likely because doing so would mean they would have to admit
their complicity.
Foreign Intelligence
UK and Australian intelligence agencies also played meaningful roles during the 2016 presidential election.
Britain's GCHQ was involved in
collecting information regarding then-candidate Trump and transmitting it to the United States. In the summer of 2016, Robert
Hannigan, the head of GCHQ, flew from London to
meet personally
with then-CIA Director John Brennan, The Guardian reported.
Former GCHQ head Robert Hannigan in this file photo. Hannigan transmitted information regarding Donald Trump to John
Brennan in the summer of 2016. (Romeo Gacad/AFP/Getty Images)
Hannigan's meeting was noteworthy because Brennan wasn't Hannigan's counterpart. That position belonged to NSA Director Mike Rogers.
In the following year, Hannigan
abruptly announced
his retirement on Jan. 23, 2017 -- three days after Trump's inauguration.
As GCHQ was gathering intelligence, low-level Trump campaign foreign-policy adviser George Papadopoulos appears to have been targeted
after a series of highly coincidental meetings. Maltese professor Josef Mifsud, Australian diplomat Alexander Downer, FBI informant
Stefan Halper, and officials from the UK's Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) all crossed paths with Papadopoulos -- some repeatedly
so.
Christopher Steele, who authored the dossier on Trump, was an MI6 agent while the agency was headed by Sir Richard Dearlove. Steele
retains close ties with Dearlove.
Dearlove has ties to most of the parties mentioned. It was he who advised Steele and his business partner, Chris Burrows, to
work with a top British government official to pass along information to the FBI in the fall of 2016. He also was a speaker at
the July 2016 Cambridge symposium that Halper invited Carter
Page to attend.
Dearlove knows Halper through their
mutual association at the Cambridge Intelligence Seminar. Dearlove also knows Sir Iain Lobban, a former head of GCHQ, who is
an advisory board member at British strategic intelligence
and advisory firm Hakluyt , which was founded by former MI6 members and
retains close ties to UK intelligence services.
Halper has historical connections to Hakluyt through Jonathan Clarke, with whom he has
co-authored two books.
Downer, who
met Papadopoulos in a May 2016 meeting
established through a chain
of two intermediaries, served on the advisory board of Hakluyt
from 2008 to 2014. He reportedly still
maintains contact with Hakluyt officials. Information from his meeting with Papadopoulos was later used by the FBI to establish
the bureau's counterintelligence investigation into Trump–Russia collusion. Downer has changed his version of events multiple times.
The Steele dossier was fed into U.S. channels through several different sources. One such source was Sir Andrew Wood, the
former
British ambassador to Russia, who had been briefed about the dossier by Steele. Wood later
relayed information regarding the dossier to Sen. John McCain, who dispatched David Kramer, a fellow at the McCain Institute,
to London to meet with Steele in November 2016. McCain would later admit in a Jan. 11, 2017,
statement that he had personally passed on the dossier to then-FBI Director James Comey.
Trump, after issuing an order for the declassification of documents and text messages related to the Russia-collusion investigations
-- including parts of the Carter Page FISA warrant application -- received phone calls from two U.S. allies saying, "Please, can
we talk." Those "allies" were almost certainly the UK and Australia.
In a Twitter post , Trump wrote that
the "key Allies called to ask not to release" the documents.
Questions to be asked are why is it that two of our allies would find themselves so opposed to the release of these classified
documents that a coordinated plea would be made directly to the president? And why would these same allies have even the slightest
idea of what was contained in these classified U.S. documents?
Britain and Australia appear to know full well what those documents contain, and their attempt to prevent their public release
appears to be because they don't want their role in events surrounding the 2016 presidential election to be made public.
Fusion GPS/Orbis/Christopher Steele
Glenn Simpson, a former Wall Street Journal reporter, is co-founder of Fusion GPS, along with Peter Fritsch and Tom Catan. Fusion
was hired by the DNC and the Clinton campaign through law firm Perkins Coie to produce and disseminate the Steele dossier used against
Trump. The dossier would later be the primary evidence used to obtain a FISA warrant on Carter Page on Oct. 21, 2016.
The company was hired by the Clinton campaign and the DNC–through law firm Perkins Coie–to produce the dossier on Trump.
Christopher Steele, who retains close ties to UK intelligence, worked for MI6 from 1987 until his retirement in 2009, when he
and his partner, Chris Burrows, founded Orbis Intelligence. Steele
maintains contact with British intelligence,
Sir Richard Dearlove
, and UK intelligence firm Hakluyt.
Steele appears to have been
represented
by lawyer Adam Waldman, who also represented Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska. We know this from
texts sent by Waldman. On April 10, 2017, Waldman sent this to Sen. Mark Warner:
"Hi. Steele: would like to get a bi partisan letter from the committee; Assange: I convinced him to make serious and important
concessions and am discussing those w DOJ; Deripaska: willing to testify to congress but interested in state of play w Manafort.
I will be with him next tuesday for a week."
Steele also appears to have
lobbied on behalf of Deripaska, who was discussed in
emails between Bruce Ohr and Steele that were recently
disclosed by the Washington Examiner:
"Steele said he was 'circulating some recent sensitive Orbis reporting' on Deripaska that suggested Deripaska was not a 'tool'
of the Kremlin. Steele said he would send the reporting to a name that is redacted in the email."
Fusion GPS was also employed by Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya in a previous case. Veselnitskaya was involved in litigation
pitting Russian firm Prevezon Holdings against British-American financier William Browder. Veselnitskaya hired U.S. law firm BakerHostetler,
who, in turn, hired Fusion GPS to dig up dirt on Browder. Veselnitskaya was one of the participants at the June 2016 Trump Tower
meeting, at which she discussed the
Magnitsky Act .
Fox News reported on Nov. 9, 2017, that Simpson
met with Veselnitskaya immediately before and after the Trump Tower meeting.
A declassified top-secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court report released on April 26, 2017, revealed that government
agencies, including the FBI, CIA, and NSA, had improperly accessed Americans' communications. The FBI specifically provided outside
contractors with access to raw surveillance data on American citizens without proper oversight.
Communications and other data of members of the Trump campaign may have been accessed in this way.
Nellie Ohr, the wife of high-ranking DOJ official Bruce Ohr, was hired by Fusion GPS to work on the dossier on Trump.
Bruce and Nellie Ohr have
known Simpson since at least 2010 and have known Steele since at least 2006. The Ohrs and Simpson worked together on a
DOJ report in 2010 . In that report, Nellie Ohr's biography
lists her as working for Open Source Works, which is part of the CIA. Simpson met with Bruce Ohr
before and after the 2016 election.
Bruce Ohr had been in
contact repeatedly with Steele during the 2016 presidential campaign -- while Steele was constructing his dossier. Ohr later
actively shared information he received from Steele with the FBI, after the agency had terminated Steele as a source. Interactions
between Ohr and Steele stretched for months into the first year of Trump's presidency and were documented in a number of FD-302s
-- memos that summarize interviews with him by the FBI.
Spy Traps
In an effort to put forth evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, it appears that several different spy traps
were set, with varying degrees of success. Many of these efforts appear to center around Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos
and involve London-based professor Joseph Mifsud, who has
ties to Western intelligence, particularly in the UK.
Papadopoulos and Mifsud
both worked
at the London Centre of International Law Practice (LCILP). Mifsud appears to have joined LCILP around
November
2015 . Papadopoulos reportedly
joined
LCILP sometime in late February 2016 after leaving Ben Carson's presidential campaign. However, some
reports indicate Papadopoulos joined LCILP in November
or December of 2015. Mifsud and Papadopoulos reportedly never crossed paths
until March 14, 2016, in Italy.
Mifsud introduced Papadopoulos to several Russians, including Olga Polonskaya, whom Mifsud introduced as "Putin's niece," and
Ivan Timofeev, an official at a state-sponsored think tank called the Russian International Affairs Council. Both Papadopoulos and
Mifsud were interviewed by the FBI. Papadopoulos was ultimately charged with a process crime and was recently sentenced to 14 days
in prison for lying to the FBI. Mifsud was never charged by the FBI.
Throughout this period, Papadopoulos continuously pushed for meetings between Trump campaign officials and Russian contacts but
was ultimately unsuccessful in establishing any meetings.
Papadopoulos met with Australian diplomat Alexander Downer on May 10, 2016. The Papadopoulos–Downer meeting has been portrayed
as a
chance encounter in a bar. That does not appear to be the case.
Papadopoulos was introduced
to Downer through a chain of two intermediaries who said Downer wanted to meet with Papadopoulos. Another individual happened
to
be in London at exactly the same time: the FBI's head of counterintelligence, Bill Priestap. The purpose of Priestap's visit
remains unknown.
The Papadopoulos–Downer
meeting was later used to establish the FBI's counterintelligence investigation into Trump–Russia collusion. It was repeatedly
reported that Papadopoulos told Downer that Russia had Hillary Clinton's emails. This is incorrect.
Foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign was approached by several individuals with ties to UK and U.S. intelligence
agencies. (Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images)
According to Downer, Papadopoulos at some point
mentioned the Russians had damaging information on Hillary Clinton.
"During that conversation, he [Papadopoulos] mentioned the Russians might use material that they have on Hillary Clinton in the
lead-up to the election, which may be damaging,'' Downer told
The Australian about the Papadopoulos meeting in an April 2018 article. "He didn't say dirt, he said material that could be damaging
to her. No, he said it would be damaging. He didn't say what it was."
Downer, while serving as Australia's foreign minister, was
responsible for one of the largest foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation: $25 million from the Australian government.
Unconfirmed media reports, including a Jan. 12, 2017,
BBC article , have suggested that the FBI attempted
to obtain two FISA warrants in June and July 2016 that were denied by the FISA court. It's likely that Papadopoulos was an intended
target of these failed FISAs.
Interestingly, there is no mention of Papadopoulos in the Steele dossier. Paul Manafort, Carter Page, former Trump lawyer Michael
Cohen, Gen. Michael Flynn, and former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski are all listed in the Steele dossier.
Papadopoulos may have started out assisting the FBI or CIA and later discovered that he was being set up for surveillance himself.
After failing to obtain a spy warrant on the Trump campaign using Papadopoulos, the FBI set its sights on campaign volunteer Carter
Page. By this time, the counterintelligence investigation was in the process of being established, and we know now that it was formalized
with no official intelligence. The FBI needed some sort of legal cover. They needed a retroactive warrant. And they got one on Oct.
21, 2016. The Page FISA warrant would be renewed three times and remain in force until September 2017.
Stefan Halper met with Page for the first time on July 11, 2016, at a
Cambridge symposium , just three days after Page's July 2016
Moscow trip. As noted previously, former MI6 head Sir Richard Dearlove was a speaker at the symposium. Halper and Dearlove have known
each other for years and maintain several mutual associations.
Page was already known to the FBI. The Page FISA warrant application references the Buryakov spy case and an FBI interview with
Page. Current information suggests there was only
one meeting between Page and the FBI in 2016. It happened on March 2, 2016. It was in relation to Victor Podobnyy, who was named
in the Buryakov case.
Page, who
cooperated with the FBI on the case, almost certainly was providing testimony or details against Podobnyy. Page had been contacted
by Podobnyy in 2013 and had previously provided information to the FBI. Buryakov
pleaded guilty on March 11, 2016 -- nine days after Page met with the FBI on the case -- and was
sentenced to 30 months in prison on May 25, 2016. On April 5, 2017, Buryakov was granted early release and was
deported to Russia.
FBI informant Stefan Halper approached Trump campaign advisers George Papadopoulos and Carter Page.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes
said in August that exculpatory evidence
on Page exists that wasn't included by the DOJ and the FBI in the FISA application and subsequent renewals. The exculpatory evidence
likely relates specifically to Page's role in the Buryakov case.
If the FBI failed to disclose Page's cooperation with the bureau or materially misrepresented his involvement in its application
to the FISA Court, it means that the FBI's Woods procedures, which govern FISA applications, were violated.
Page has not been arrested or charged with any crime related to the investigation.
FISA Abuse
Admiral Mike Rogers, while director of the NSA, was personally responsible for
uncovering an unprecedented level of FISA abuse that would later be documented in a 99-page
unsealed FISA
court ruling . As the FISA court noted in the April 26, 2017, ruling, the abuses had been occurring since at least November 2015:
"The FBI had disclosed raw FISA information, including but not limited to Section 702-acquired information, to private contractors.
"Private contractors had access to raw FISA information on FBI storage systems.
"Contractors had access to raw FISA information that went well beyond what was necessary to respond to the FBI's requests."
The FISA Court report is particularly focused on the FBI:
"The Court is concerned about the FBI's apparent disregard of minimization rules and whether the FBI may be engaging in similar
disclosures of raw Section 702 information that have not been reported."
The FISA Court
disclosed that illegal NSA database searches were endemic. Private contractors, employed by the FBI, were given full access to
the NSA database. Once in the contractors' possession, the data couldn't be traced.
In April 2016, after Rogers became aware of
improper
contractor access to raw FISA data on March 9, 2016, he
directed the NSA's Office
of Compliance to conduct a "fundamental baseline review of compliance associated with 702."
On April 18, 2016, Rogers shut down all outside contractor access to raw FISA information -- specifically outside contractors
working for the FBI.
Then-NSA Director Adm. Mike Rogers on May 23, 2017. Rogers uncovered widespread abuse of FISA data by the FBI. (Saul
Loeb/AFP/Getty Images)
DOJ National Security Division (NSD) head John Carlin filed the government's proposed
2016 Section 702 certifications on Sept. 26, 2016. Carlin knew the general status of compliance review by Rogers. The NSD was
part of the review. Carlin failed to disclose a critical Jan. 7, 2016,
report by the Office
of the Inspector General and associated FISA abuse to the FISA Court in his 2016 certification. Carlin also failed to disclose
Rogers's ongoing Section 702 compliance review.
The following day, on Sept. 27, 2016, Carlin
announced his resignation, effective Oct. 15, 2016.
After receiving a briefing by the NSA compliance officer on Oct. 20, 2016, detailing
numerous "about query"
violations from the 702 NSA compliance audit, Rogers shut down all "about query" activity the next day and
reported his findings
to the DOJ. "About queries" are searches based on communications containing a reference "about" a surveillance target but that are
not "to" or "from" the target.
On Oct. 21, 2016, the DOJ and the FBI sought and received a Title I FISA probable-cause order authorizing electronic surveillance
on Carter Page from the FISA Court.
At this point, the FISA Court was still unaware of the Section 702 violations.
On Oct. 24, 2016, Rogers verbally
informed
the FISA Court of his findings. On Oct. 26, 2016, Rogers appeared formally before the FISA Court and presented the written findings
of his audit.
The FISA Court had been unaware of the query violations until they were presented to the court by Rogers.
Carlin didn't disclose his knowledge of FISA abuse in the annual Section 702 certifications in order to avoid raising suspicions
at the FISA Court ahead of receiving the Page FISA warrant.
The FBI and the NSD were literally racing against Rogers's investigation in order to obtain a FISA warrant on Carter Page.
While all this was transpiring, DNI James Clapper and Defense Secretary Ash Carter submitted a
recommendation that Rogers be removed from his post as NSA director.
The move to fire Rogers, which ultimately failed, originated sometime in mid-October 2016 -- exactly when Rogers was preparing
to present his findings to the FISA Court.
The Insurance Policy
Ever since the release of FBI text messages revealing the existence of an "insurance policy," the term has been the subject of
wide speculation.
Some observers have suggested that the insurance policy was the FISA spy warrant used to monitor Trump campaign adviser Carter
Page and, by extension, other members of the Trump campaign. This interpretation is too narrow and fails to capture the underlying
meaning of the text.
The insurance policy was the actual process of establishing the Trump–Russia collusion narrative.
It encompassed actions undertaken in late 2016 and early 2017, including the leaking of the Steele dossier and James Clapper's
leaks of James Comey's briefing to President Trump. The intent behind these actions was simple. The legitimization of the investigation
into the Trump campaign.
The strategy involved the recusal of Trump officials with the intent that Andrew McCabe would end up running the investigation.
The Steele dossier, which was paid for by the Clinton presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee, served as the
foundation for the Russia narrative.
The intelligence community, led by CIA Director John Brennan and DNI James Clapper, used the dossier as a launching pad for creating
their Intelligence Community assessment.
This report, which was presented to Obama in December 2016, despite NSA Director Mike Rogers having only moderate confidence in
its assessment, became one of the core pieces of the narrative that Russia interfered with the 2016 elections.
Through intelligence community leaks, and in collusion with willing media outlets, the narrative that Russia helped Trump win
the elections was aggressively pushed throughout 2017.
Spygate
Spygate represents the biggest political scandal in our nation's history. A sitting administration actively colluded with a political
campaign to affect the outcome of a U.S. presidential election. Government agencies were weaponized and a complicit media spread
intelligence community leaks as facts.
But a larger question remains: How long has the United States been subject to interference from the intelligence community and
our political agencies? Was the 2016 presidential election a one-time aberration, or is this episode symptomatic of a larger pattern
extending back decades?
The intensity, scale, and coordination suggest something greater than overzealous actions taken during a single election. They
represent a unified reaction of the establishment to a threat posed by a true outsider -- a reaction that has come to be known as
Spygate.
Jeff Carlson is a regular contributor to The Epoch Times. He also runs the website TheMarketsWork.com and can be followed
on Twitter @themarketswork.
"... "After reading several articles, it seemed clear that key difficulties for Russians communicating in English include: definite and indefinite articles, the use of presuppositions and correct usage of say/tell and said/told. Throughout 2017, I constructed a corpus of Guccifer 2.0's communications and analyzed the frequency of different types of mistakes. The results of this work corroborate Professor Connolly's assessment. ..."
"... Overall, it appears Guccifer 2.0 could communicate in English quite well but chose to use inconsistently broken English at times in order to give the impression that it wasn't his primary language. The manner in which Guccifer 2.0's English was broken, did not follow the typical errors one would expect if Guccifer 2.0's first language was Russian. ..."
"... Access and motive . . .here are two who had both: Seth Rich and Imran Awan. That our fake news organizations have no interest in either, that should tell you something. ..."
"I didn't really address the case that Russia hacked the DNC, content to stipulate it for
now." - exce
The State Department paused its investigation of the Secretary's emails so as not to
interfere with the Mueller investigation. Here we see Taibbi writes an exhaustive
condemnation of the Western press while leaving out the very crux of the story, the very
source of the stolen DNC emails was Clapper and Brennan pretending to be Guccifer 2.0.
Pitiful attempt at redemption there Matt. Seriously, go **** your self.
"After reading several articles, it seemed clear that key difficulties for Russians
communicating in English include: definite and indefinite articles, the use of
presuppositions and correct usage of say/tell and said/told. Throughout 2017, I constructed a corpus of Guccifer
2.0's communications and analyzed the frequency of different types of mistakes. The
results of this work
corroborate
Professor Connolly's assessment.
Overall, it appears Guccifer 2.0 could communicate in English quite well but chose to use
inconsistently broken English at times in order to give the impression that it wasn't his
primary language. The manner in which Guccifer 2.0's English was broken, did not follow the
typical errors one would expect if Guccifer 2.0's first language was Russian.
To date, Connolly's language study has not drawn any significant objections or
criticism."
DNC emails were downloaded at 22.3Mbs, a speed which is not possible to achieve remotely, or even local. It is the exact
download speed of a thumb drive.
All russian "fingerprints" were embedded in error codes, which had to be affirmatively copied. They were not an accident.
And please remind me, who exactly was it that examined the DNC servers and pointed at Russia?
Access and motive . . .here are two who had both: Seth Rich and Imran Awan. That our fake news organizations have no
interest in either, that should tell you something.
"... The bent cops at the FBI and the madmen like Brennan, Clapper and Comey, who treacherously used the government's forces against the Constitution, must be punished so severely as to make an example that will dissuade other midgets on horseback from making similar attempts to overturn the results of elections. ..."
"... At the bottom of the cauldron overflowing with political misdeeds shines the face of Hillary Clinton and the army of clever people who ran her 2016 campaign. They devised the clever, clever idea of creating the Steele Dossier in cahoots with Washington co-conspirators and the even more clever idea of marketing it back into the US political bloodstream through British intelligence channels by feeding it to the erratic and spiteful senator from Arizona whose staff peddled it all over Washington and New York. There must be retribution for this. ..."
"... I would be most interested if one of the legally competent members of this Committee – Robert Willman perhaps? – could give us us an idea of what charges could be leveled against Christopher Steele under U.S. law in relation to his clearly central role in this conspiracy. ..."
"... It also seems reasonably clear that he was not acting in isolation, and that there is a strong 'prima facie' case that senior figures in the British 'intelligence community' – notably Robert Hannigan and probably Sir Richard Dearlove – were involved, in which case the complicity is likely to have gone very much further. ..."
"... They devised the clever, clever idea of creating the Steele Dossier in cahoots with Washington co-conspirators and the even more clever of marketing it back into the US political bloodstream through British intelligence channels, by feeding it to the erratic and spiteful senator from Arizona whose staff peddled it all over Washington and New York. ..."
"... Both sides were furiously engaged in throwing mud at each other. Situation normal. Then an odd thing happens. A particularly foolish piece of mud comes along. All that Golden Showers nonsense. Regard that as normal if we please. I expect worse comes along sometimes. Then it turns out that that piece of mud comes from an Intelligence source. Situation no longer normal. ..."
"... The coup may be over, but the witch hunt will continue; ..."
"... Col. Lang is absolutely correct that those involved in attempting to reverse the results of the 2016 election, de-legitimize an elected president, and remove him should be thoroughly pursued through all avenues and procedures of the civil and criminal law. ..."
"... It's a dirty business. If half this stuff is true, and not just layers of increasingly unbelievable cover stories (I mean, a tangential example, is the whole Skripal thing a weirdly, too obviously fake cover show for what was in reality a "witness protection" operation? A witness who could and would reveal much? On this matter even, perhaps. Such obvious deceptions are harmful to respect for authority and the law.) ..."
There were no major disagreements between Mueller and his managers at the U.S. Department of
Justice (DOJ).
The Russians who tried to interfere in the 2016 election were exposed and charged -- but no
American was charged with any effort to conspire with Moscow and hijack the election.
the "Steele dossier" that was the main FISA evidence was paid for with funds
from Hillary Clinton
's campaign and the Democratic Party;
Christopher Steele, the dossier's author, had told a senior DOJ official he was desperate to
defeat Trump;
most of the dossier was not verified before it was used as evidence of alleged Trump-Russia
collusion; and
agents collected statements from key defendants such as Papadopoulos and Carter Page during
interactions with an FBI informant that strongly suggested their innocence.
Such omissions are so glaring as to constitute defrauding a federal court. And each and
every participant to those omissions needs to be brought to justice.
An upcoming DOJ inspector general's report should trigger the beginning of that
accountability in a court of law, and President Trump can assist the effort by declassifying
all evidence of wrongdoing by FBI, CIA and DOJ officials. " The Hill
------------
Pilgrims, the seditious conspiracy to depose the elected president of the United States for
conspiracy to commit treason with the Government of the Russian Federation has been
defeated.
The bent cops at the FBI and the madmen like Brennan, Clapper and Comey, who treacherously
used the government's forces against the Constitution, must be punished so severely as to make
an example that will dissuade other midgets on horseback from making similar attempts to
overturn the results of elections.
At the bottom of the cauldron overflowing with political misdeeds shines the face of Hillary
Clinton and the army of clever people who ran her 2016 campaign. They devised the clever,
clever idea of creating the Steele Dossier in cahoots with Washington co-conspirators and the
even more clever idea of marketing it back into the US political bloodstream through British
intelligence channels by feeding it to the erratic and spiteful senator from Arizona whose
staff peddled it all over Washington and New York. There must be retribution for this.
The leftist press is already discounting the results of Mueller's investigation while
gloating over how long the Democratic held House of Representatives can continue to search
through Trump's life trying to find criminality.
AG Barr should stand Mueller up next to him at a press conference to make clear the results
of his report and to answer questions about it. After that the prosecutions should begin.
pl
I would be most interested if one of the legally competent members of this Committee –
Robert Willman perhaps? – could give us us an idea of what charges could be leveled
against Christopher Steele under U.S. law in relation to his clearly central role in this
conspiracy.
It also seems reasonably clear that he was not acting in isolation, and that there is a
strong 'prima facie' case that senior figures in the British 'intelligence community' –
notably Robert Hannigan and probably Sir Richard Dearlove – were involved, in which
case the complicity is likely to have gone very much further.
The argument that declassification of relevant documentation would harm the intelligence
relationship between the U.S. and U.K. has clearly been made with great emphasis from this
side.
In fact, it is pure bollocks. A serious investigation on your side, which could lead to
the kind of clean-out which should have happened when the scale of the corruption of
intelligence in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq became clear, might pave the way for us
to reconstruct reasonably functional intelligence services.
Doing this on both sides of the Atlantic might pave the way for a reconstruction of an
intelligence relationship which was actually beneficial to both countries, as in recent years
it patently has not been.
Whether there is a realistic prospect of people on your side opening the cans of worms on
ours, as well as your own, of course remains a moot point.
I'm glad the Steele affair has been examined at the American end -
"They devised the clever, clever idea of creating the Steele Dossier in cahoots with
Washington co-conspirators and the even more clever of marketing it back into the US
political bloodstream through British intelligence channels, by feeding it to the erratic and
spiteful senator from Arizona whose staff peddled it all over Washington and New York.
"
What about the UK end? We're fussing over some little local difficulties in the UK at the
moment and at our end the questions still remain - Who in the UK authorised it and how high did it go?
The problem with criminal prosecution is one must cite a Brit or US law which was violated.
The only ones in US law that I am aware of stipulate that the plotting must be by means of
violence, "by force". All this appears to me to be only the propagation of rumors.
I think it might be more the investigation of the propagation of rumours. Think back to that election campaign, and to the period before the inauguration.
Both sides were furiously engaged in throwing mud at each other. Situation normal. Then an
odd thing happens. A particularly foolish piece of mud comes along. All that Golden Showers
nonsense. Regard that as normal if we please. I expect worse comes along sometimes. Then it
turns out that that piece of mud comes from an Intelligence source. Situation no longer normal.
With respect it is not propagating rumours to ask how that happened. As for my own
interest in the affair, it is not propagating rumours to ask how a senior UK ex-Intelligence
Officer comes to be mixed up in it all. I suppose I started to look on it as rather more than a prank or a few cogs slipping when
that senior UK ex-Intelligence Officer got whisked away to a safe house. We're a penny
pinching lot over here and we don't run to that sort of thing for nothing.
An investigation could certainly be predicated on the reasonable suspicion that Steele, et
al, conspired to defraud the United States, in this case a purposeful and knowing smear of a
candidate for office; also, another potential violation could be lying to the FBI, T 18 USC
1001.
The problem, as I see it, is sorting out the malignant from the merely incompetent. As I've
argued many times, the dossier should have been dismissed from the outset as a pile of
garbage, empty of actionable content, because the ultimate sources could not be vetted: the
information could not be said to be either credible or reliable. The information was acted on
by screening it behind the reliabilty and credibility, so called, of Steele. So it would be
necessary to show that Steele knew that the information, point by point, was false. This
could be difficult. Steele's first line of defense would be that he threw everything that he
heard from anyone at all into the mix in the expectation that the "professionals" would
figure it out.
Yes, they were all partisan, Steele, his sources, his bosses, the so called
professionals, and their partisanship would be easy to prove; and yes, almost assuredly their
partisanship contributed, perhaps even explained, their defective judgement as to how to
handle the scurrilous information, especially on the part of the so called professionals, but
proving they actually knew the materials to be false would be difficult.
They couldn't know
that it was false because they had no ability to run down the sources. The professionals
would defend themselves by saying they had no ability to vet the sources but the information
represented such a serious security threat that they had no alternative but to try to vet the
information by launching the investigation against the targets. This puts the cart before the
horse, represents an astonishing lack of judgement, especially considering the "exalted"
positions in the Intel Community the people exercising the bad judgement occupied, but there
it is - "we thought we were doing the right thing."
Perhaps this defense could be overcome by
demonstrating that people at such high and important heights of government could not possible
be so stupid... maybe.
And of course we have the orchestrated leaks to various media, the orchestrated unmaskings,
all of which kept the media frenzy fired up. All in all, it was the greatest political dirty
trick ever attempted in American Politics, and did devastating damage to both domestic
tranquility and national security. Trump survived, but the damage done is incalculable.
So It pains me greatly to think that the reckoning will likely have to be political rather
than criminal because the malice that can be demonstrated is so admixed and even overshadowed
by incompetence and judgement flaws; and even a political reckoning given the state of the
country is so uncertain.
I hope that I am wrong and that some kind of prosecution can be fashioned because of the
sheer enormity of violence that was done to our electoral system, surpassing by far the
chickenshit case Mueller brought against the Russian troll farm; but I fear that I am right.
It hurts to think that so much damage can be caused by scheming little political weasels and
that they all may well walk away scot free; and even be lionized by their political confreres
as having tried to do the right thing. This is the state of American politics today!!!
I see that some of the midgets on horseback are saying that they will bring Mueller before
congress to explain himself. Their knight in shining armor has failed to return with the holy
grail. A couple even suggested that perhaps Mueller has been influenced by the Russians or
somehow intimated by Trump.
The coup may be over, but the witch hunt will continue;
and that
+ all the crazy Marxism (social and economic), bad immigration policy and Green New Deal is
going to doom the Democrats in 2020. They look like they are jumping off a final sake fueled
banzai charge. Maybe they think the best defense is a good offense re; the prosecutions that
should happen. What is the chance that Mueller will pass *all* he has learned to help get the
criminal cases under way?
On 13 July 2018, when announcing the indictment of 12 Russian military officers by the
Mueller group for "conspiring to interfere" in the 2016 presidential election, Deputy
Attorney General Rod Rosenstein admitted that no "interference" actually happened. In this
video of his announcement, starting at 5 minutes, 52 seconds into it and ending at the 6
minute, 5 second mark, he says--
"There is no allegation in this indictment that any American citizen committed a crime.
There is no allegation that the conspiracy changed the vote count or affected any election
result."
Col. Lang is absolutely correct that those involved in attempting to reverse the results
of the 2016 election, de-legitimize an elected president, and remove him should be thoroughly
pursued through all avenues and procedures of the civil and criminal law.
However, I am concerned that the new attorney general, William Barr, will not do so based
on his past associations and work. I hope I am wrong about that, but I am not optimistic.
It's a dirty business. If half this stuff is true, and not just layers of increasingly
unbelievable cover stories (I mean, a tangential example, is the whole Skripal thing a
weirdly, too obviously fake cover show for what was in reality a "witness protection"
operation? A witness who could and would reveal much? On this matter even, perhaps. Such
obvious deceptions are harmful to respect for authority and the law.)
I'm wrestling with the idea that 'twas ever thus and now with the internet its workings
are revealed to a "lay" audience with no connection to the dark arts of the spy business. But
I am curious, with the good Colonel's indulgence, if the new tools of the trade have made
things which should be secret not possible to be kept secret?
Amen to the prosecutions. If there is seen to be no accountability for this fraud then we are
seriously damaging what's left of democracy. Who, in their right mind, is going to publicly
support and assist a political candidate who is not "Swamp approved" if they face the threat
of thereby triggering their own, and their family's destruction by the judicial system?
I suggest that even a pardon is not enough for those entrapped in this mess. There needs
to be restitution.
To put that another way, in my opinion, "birther" allegations could be passed off as
political tactics. Nobody got hurt. It is just good luck that Russiagate hasn't resulted in
suicide or worse - so far.
I certainly agree that consequences must be brought to bear: lying politicians without a
shred of evidence, nor did they offer any for their lies; press for their utter and complete
malfeasance and corruption without a shred of evidence, the doj/fbi corrupted and coup
plotting officials,and finally the shame to all who shrieked about "evil" putin, russia the
aggressor, etc. It has set our discourse back decades, forced any critics of this insanity
into the shadows, and completely killed any attempt at normal diplomacy between nations.
I noted one astute writer as equating this russiagate insanity to the lies surrounding wmd
and the destruction of iraq. Close. The damage from this criminality is incalculable!
Will the shrillest of all in the press lose their jobs? Nah, not a chance. Prob get raise
or promotion.Will the brennans, clintons, clappers, et al do the perp walk. Nah, not a
chance. High paid lawyers will tie the courts up for years if not decades.
And america has the institutional memory of a gnat. And of course, the question is as to
high up did this criminality go? I personally do not believe it is a question-it is obvious
to me. The major question for me is how high up the prosecution, if any, will go.
Problem is...who's going to do the prosecuting?
The DOJ - protector of the swamp - has become thoroughly corrupted as an arm of the
Democrat-media party.
Should (can) Trump appoint a special prosecutor as far as possible from the DOJ?
The president might use this and any Republican-led prosecutions as leverage to work out
deals that will allow him to achieve his agenda. I think he'll need to given how the
Democrats intend to use their house majority to launch investigations and hearings to find
something, anything to howl about and impede his agenda.
Still need to see the full report. I hope it is releasable. Otherwise the conspiracy theories
or leaks will never let up. The article cited is a partisan opinion piece, not a news report.
It accepts the fallback stance that yes, crimes were committed but collusion by Trump was not
among them. This actually seems possible if only in light of the chaotic condition of the
campaign.
That said, I would not be surprised to find collusion discounted. Not that the Russians
didn't interfere. That would be entirely in character. But I don't know any reason for
supposing that they would have a better understanding of American political dynamics than the
Americans who make good livings being the best in that arena. The Russians seem to have been
doing the same things as numerous other players. They shouldn't have been in that game, but
there is no strong reason for according them Superman status. Their strongest feature seems
to have been sheer quantity. Outrage over their actions often seems to flow from a poor grasp
of the real nature of normal political process.
"The Russians seem to have been doing the same things..."
Multiple members of the FBI and DOJ seem to have been interfering in the 2016 Presidential
election. How many other federal and state elections did they interfere with?
Can you cite a single piece of hard evidence, not simply allegation, that proves the Russians
interfered in the 2016 election? If so, please cite it, since I know of none. Thank you.
"... Back in November of 2016, the American people were so fed up with the neoliberal oligarchy that everyone knows really runs the country that they actually elected Donald Trump president ..."
"... The oligarchy that runs the country responded to the American people's decision by inventing a completely cock-and-bull story about Donald Trump being a Russian agent who the American people were tricked into voting for by nefarious Russian mind-control operatives, getting every organ of the liberal corporate media to disseminate and relentlessly promote this story on a daily basis for nearly three years, and appointing a special prosecutor to conduct an official investigation in order to lend it the appearance of legitimacy. Every component of the ruling establishment (i.e., the government, the media, the intelligence agencies, the liberal intelligentsia, et al.) collaborated in an unprecedented effort to remove an American president from office based on a bunch of made-up horseshit which kind of amounts to an attempted soft coup. ..."
"... It now appears that the world will see that the so-called "Russia Gate" investigation was nothing more than the pro-Clintonista BS that Trump always claimed it was. ..."
"... As for the Clintons, both Bill and Hillary, they should be treated like the creeps they are: corrupt, opportunistic and power hungry. Like Typhoid Mary, they infect everything they touch ..."
"... I'm also convinced that Trump and Clinton colluded, but that they did so in order to get her elected. I don't think he really wanted the job. But still, Hillary can do nationalist, and the designs of the Empire would have proceeded either way. ..."
"... Trump is a crook who takes money wherever he can get it, from subcontractors foolish enough to work for him to bankers dumb enough to believe his financial statements. No doubt he has helped Russian crooks sanitize their booty, but that is apparently too difficult for Mueller to prove. ..."
"... It is not good news that this troglodyte was not indicted, but it is good news that Russia was not found guilty of electing him. Russiagate is an existential issue for the "national security" establishment and just another propaganda offensive designed to justify the largely useless & destructive activities of the Pentagon. ..."
"... It is time to build cooperation not continue the stupidity of US unilateralism and pursuit of global hegemony. Trump and his team have to be removed from office. Democrats don't need Russiagate to do it. The truth will work better. ..."
Back in November of 2016, the American people were so fed up with the neoliberal oligarchy
that everyone knows really runs the country that they actually elected Donald Trump
president. They did this fully aware that Trump was a repulsive, narcissistic ass clown who
bragged about "grabbing women by the pussy" and jabbered about building "a big, beautiful
wall" and making the Mexican government pay for it. They did this fully aware of the fact
that Donald Trump had zero experience in any political office whatsoever, was a loudmouth
bigot, and was possibly out of his gourd on amphetamines half the time. The American people
did not care. They were so disgusted with being conned by arrogant, two-faced, establishment
stooges like the Clintons, the Bushes, and Barack Obama that they chose to put Donald Trump
in office, because, fuck it, what did they have to lose?
The oligarchy that runs the country responded to the American people's decision by
inventing a completely cock-and-bull story about Donald Trump being a Russian agent who the
American people were tricked into voting for by nefarious Russian mind-control operatives,
getting every organ of the liberal corporate media to disseminate and relentlessly promote
this story on a daily basis for nearly three years, and appointing a special prosecutor to
conduct an official investigation in order to lend it the appearance of legitimacy. Every
component of the ruling establishment (i.e., the government, the media, the intelligence
agencies, the liberal intelligentsia, et al.) collaborated in an unprecedented effort to
remove an American president from office based on a bunch of made-up horseshit which kind of
amounts to an attempted soft coup.
It now appears that the world will see that the so-called "Russia Gate" investigation was
nothing more than the pro-Clintonista BS that Trump always claimed it was. The Clintons once
again, both Bill and Hillary, have managed to raise a vicious, loud mouthed thug in the White
House to the status of some kind of martyr. What a country America it is. One thing should be
clear however. Any politician or media pundit that towed the pro-Clintonista line should be
barred from public office or the media forever.
As for the Clintons, both Bill and Hillary,
they should be treated like the creeps they are: corrupt, opportunistic and power hungry.
Like Typhoid Mary, they infect everything they touch. There is one difference between Typhoid
Mary, and Bill and Hillary: Typhoid Mary didn't realize what she was doing, the Clintons did!
sorry to double post, but it just occurred to me that they pulled a classic DC move: if you
have something humiliating or horrible to admit, do it on a friday night.
i have to wonder if the entire western media is cynically praying for a (coincidentally
distracting) school shooting or terrorist attack within the next two days.
I have close friends that have been on the MSNBC/Maddow Kool-Ade for years. Constantly
declaring Mueller was on the verge of closing in on Trump and associates for treason with the
Russians. On Friday night after dinner at our home, the TV was tuned to MSNBC so they could
watch their spiritual leader Rachel Maddow....what a pitiful sight (both Maddow and friends).
No one was going to jail or be impeached for conspiring with Putin.....how on how could that
be true. Putin personally stole the election from Clinton and THEY are just going to let him
walk was the declaration a few feet from my chair. Normally, I would recommend grieve
counseling, but they are still my friends ... now they can go back to blaming Bernie for
Clinton's loss. Maybe I will recommend grieve counseling!
DontBelieveEitherPropaganda , Mar 23, 2019 2:27:18 PM |
link
@dltravers: Apart from the "goyim" you may be right.. But if you want to claim with that
Trumps opponents where under the pressure of the Zionists, you got it all wrong man.. ;) No
presidents been more under the Zionist thumb than DJT.
That ofc doesnt make Hillarys Saudi and Muslim brotherhood connections better.. ;)
Anyway, cheers to the end of this BS! And lets hope that Trump has now payed off his debts
with Adelson now that he secured Bibis reelection. But dont hold your breath.. ;)
"very politician, every media figure, every Twitter pundit and everyone who swallowed this
moronic load of bull spunk has officially discredited themselves for life".
I wish so, but that's not how the exceptional nation of US of A works, as demonstrated by
the Iraq WMD fiasco case. In fact, very politician, every media figure, every Twitter pundit
(about Saddam's WMD" BS) is alive and well, spreading more BS. What is even more depressing
is that the huge chunk of this exceptional nation cannot have enough of the BS and is
chanting "give me more, give me more...".
The Dems were stupid to gin up the Russian collusion.
However some good things have come out of the investigation. It cost taxpayers 2 million
but recouped over 25 million from those convicted of fraud and tax evasion.
And its not over, Mueller has sent 5 to 7 referrals or evidence/witnesses to SDNY, EDNY, DC,
EDVA, plus the National Security and Criminal Divisions. These from information turned up
crimes unrelated to his Russia probe and allegedly concerning Trump or his family business, a
cadre of his advisers and associates. They are being conducted by officials from Los Angeles
to Brooklyn.
The bad news is it exposed how wide spread and corrupt the US has become...in private and
political circles.
The other bad news is most of the Trump lovers and Trump haters are too stupid to drop
their partisan and personal blinders and recognize that ....ITS THE CORRUPTION STUPID.
b you have repeatedly made the case that this whole thing was kicked off by the Steele
dossier. That is factually incorrect. The first investigation was already running before the
dossier ever materialized. That investigation spawned the special prosecutors investigation
when Trump fired Comey and then went on TV and said it was because of the Russia
investigation. The Russia investigation was originally kicked off by Papadopoulos drinking
with the the Australian ambassador and bragging about what the campaign was doing with
Russia. Remember the original evidence was presented to the leadership of both the House and
the Senate when they were both controlled by the Republican party and every one that was
briefed came out on camera and said the Justice dept was doing the right thing in pursuing
this.
I think the Democrats should lose Hillary down a deep hole and not let her near any of the
coming campaign events. But this came about because of the actions of the people around
Trump. Not because Hillary controls the US government from some secret bunker some where.
One could argue Russiagate was on the contrary quite a success. The Elites behind the scheme
never believed it would end up with Trump's impeachment. What they did accomplish though is a
deflection via "Fake News" from the Dem's election failures & shenanigans and refocus the
attention towards the DNC's emerging pedophilia scandals (Weiner, the Podesta's, Alefantis,
etc) & suspicious deaths (Seth Rich, etc) towards a dead-end with the added corollary of
preventing US/Ru rapprochement for more then half an administration..
Blooming Barricade , Mar 23, 2019 3:10:02 PM |
link
The deeply tragic thing about this for the media, the neocons, and the liberals is that they
brought it upon themselves by moving the goalposts continuously. If, after Hillary lost, they
had stuck to the "Russia hacked WikiLeaks" lie, then they probably have sufficient proof from
their perspective and the perspective of most of the public that Russia helped Trump win. In
this case it would be remembered by the Democrats like the stolen election of 2000 (albeit
the fact that it was a lie this time). They had multiple opportunities to jump off this
train. Even the ridiculous DNI report could have been their final play: "Russia helped
Trump." Instead of going with 2000 they went with 2001, aka 9-11, with the same neocon
fearmongers playing the pipe organ of lies. As soon as they accepted the Steele Dossier,
moving the focus to "collusion" they discredited themselves forever. Many of the lead
proponents were discredited Iraq war hawks. Except this time it was actually worse because
the whole media bought into it. This leaves an interesting conundrum: there were at least
some pro-Afghanistan anti-Iraq warmongers who rejected the Bush premise in the media, so they
took over the airwaves for about two years before the real swamp creatures returned. This
time, it will be harder to issue a mea culpa. They made this appear like 9-11, well, this
time the truthers have won, and they are doomed.
Societies collapse when their systems (institutions) become compromised. When they are no
longer capable of meeting the needs of the population, or of adapting to a changing world.
Societal systems become compromised when their decision making structures, which are
designed to ensure that decisions are taken in the best interest of the society as a whole,
are captured by people who have no legitimacy to make the decisions, and who make decisions
for the benefit of themselves, at the expense of society as a whole.
Russia-gate is a flagrant example of how the law enforcement and intelligence institutions
have been captured. Their top officials, no longer loyal to their country or their
institution, but rather to an international elite (including the likes of Soros, the
Clintons, and far beyond) have used these institutions in an attempt to delegitimize a
constitutionally elected president and to over turn an election. This is no less than treason
of the highest order.
Indeed, the actions much of the Washington establishment, as well as a number
international actors, since Trump was elected seems suspiciously like one of the 'Color
Revolutions' that are visited upon any country who's citizens did not 'vote right' the first
time. Over-throw the vote, one way or another, until the result that is wanted is achieved.
None of these 'Color Revolutions' has resulted in anything good for the country involved.
Rather they have resulted in the destruction of each country's institutions, and eventually
societal collapse.
In the U.S. the capturing of systems' decision making structures is not limited to
Russia-Gate and the overturning of the electoral system. Their are other prime examples:
- The capture of the Air Transport Safety System by Boeing that has resulted in the recent
737 Max crashes, and likely the destruction of the reputation of the U.S. aviation industry,
in an industry where reputation is everything.
- The capture of the Financial Regulatory System, by Wall Street, who in 1998 rewrote the
rules in their own favor, against the best interests of the population as a whole. The result
was the 2008 financial crisis and the inability of the U.S. economy to effectively recover
from that crisis.
- This capture is also seen in international diplomatic systems, where the U.S. is
systematically by-passing or subverting international law and international institutions,
(the U.N. I.C.J., I.N.F. treaty) etc., and in doing so is destroying these institutions and
the ability to maintain peace.
The result of system (institution) capture is difficult to see at first. But, in time, the
damage adds up, the ability of the systems to meet the needs of the population disappears,
and societal decline sets in.
It looks today like the the societal decline is acellerating. Russia-gate is just one of
many indicators.
Your comment on the BBC is on the mild side. I listen to it when I drive in in the morning
and also get annoyed sometimes. When it is reporting on the Westminster bubble it is
factually accurate as far as I can judge. Apart from that, and particularly in the case of
the BBC news, we're in information control territory.
But accept that and the BBC turns into quite a valuable resource. It's well staffed, has
good contacts, and picks up what the politicians want us to think with great accuracy.
In that respect it's better than the newspapers and better also than the American media.
Those news outlets have several masters of which the political elite is only one. The BBC has
just the one master, the political elite, and is as sensitive as a stethoscope to the
shifting currents within that political elite.
So I wouldn't despise the BBC entirely. It tells us how the politicians want us to think.
In telling us that it sometimes gives us a bearing on what the politicians et al are doing
and what they intend to do.
The never-Trumpers will never let their dreams die. Of course, they never oppose Trump on
substantive issues like attempting a coup in Venezuela, withdrawing from the INF treaty,
supporting the nazis in Ukraine, supporting Al Qaeda forces in Syria, etc. But somehow
they're totally against him and ready to haul out the latest stupid thing he said as their
daily fodder for conversation...
renfro @ 10 said;"The Dems were stupid to gin up the Russian collusion."
Uh no, just doing their job of distracting the public, while ignoring the real issues
the
American workers care about. You know, the things DJT promised the workers, but has never
delivered.(better health care for all, ending the useless wars overseas, an
infrastructure
plan to increase good paying jobs), to name just a few.
The corporate Dems( which is the lions share of them), are bought and paid for to
distract, and they've done it well.
The Bushes, the Clintons, the Obamas, and most who have come before, are of the same
ilk.
Bend over workers and lube up, for more of the same in 2020...
I profoundly disagree with the notion that Russiagate had anything to do with Hillary's
collusion with the DNC. Gosh, that is naive at best.
1) Hillary didn't need to collude against Sanders - the additional money that she got from
doing so was small change compared the to overall amount she raised for her campaign.
2) Sanders was a long-time friend of the Clintons. He boasted that he's known Hillary
for over 25 years.
3) Sanders was a sheepdog meant to keep progressives in the Democratic Party. He was
never a real candidate. He refused to attack Hillary on character issues and remained loyal
even after Hillary-DNC collusion was revealed.
When Sanders had a chance to total disgrace Hillary, he refused to do so. Hillary
repeatedly said that she had NEVER changed for vote for money but Warren had proven that
she had: Hillary changed her vote on the Bankruptcy Bill for money from the credit card
industry.
4) Hillary didn't try to bury her collusion with the DNC (as might be expected), instead
she used it to alienate progressive voters by bring Debra Wasserman-Shultz into her
campaign.
5) Hillary also alienated or ignored other important constituencies: she wouldn't
support an increase in the minimum wage but accepted $750,000 from Goldman Sachs for a
speech; she took the black vote for granted and all-but berated a Black Lives Matters
activist; and she called whites "deplorables".
Hillary threw the race to her OTHER long-time friend in the race: Trump. The
Deep-State wanted a nationalist and that's just what they got.
6) Hillary and the DNC has shown NO REMORSE whatsoever about colluding with Sanders and
Sanders has shown no desire whatsoever to hold them accountable.
IMO Russiagate (Russian influence on Trump) and accusations of "Russian meddling" in the
election are part of the same McCarthyist psyop to direct hate at Russia and stamp out any
dissent. Trump probably knowingly, played into the Deep State's psyop by:
> hiring Manafort;
> calling on Russia to release Hillary's emails;
> talking about Putin in a admiring way.
And it accomplished much more than hating on Russia:
> served as excuse for Trump to do Deep State bidding;
> distracted from the real meddling in the 2016 election;
> served as a device for settling scores:
- Assange isolated
(Wikileaks was termed an "agent of a foreign power");
- Michael Flynn forced to resign
(because he spoke to the Russian ambassador).
hopehely , Mar 23, 2019 3:49:15 PM |
link The US owes Russia an official apology. And also Russia should get its stolen
buildings and the consulate back. And maybe to get paid some compensation for the injustice
and for damages suffered. Without that, the Russiagate is not really over.
If memory serves me correctly, the initial accusations of collusion between DJT's
presidential campaign and the Kremlin came from Crowdstrike, the cybersecurity company hired
by the Democratic National Committee to oversee the security of its computers and databases.
This was done to deflect attention away from Hillary Clinton's illegal use of a personal
server at home to conduct government business during her time as US State Secretary (2009 -
2013), business which among other things included plotting with the US embassy in Libya (and
the then US ambassador Chris Stevens) to overthrow Muammar Gaddhafi's government in 2011, and
conspiring also to overthrow the elected government in Honduras in 2010.
The business of Christopher Steele's dossier (part or even most of which could have been
written by Sergei Skripal, depending on who you read) and George Papadopoulos' conversation
with the half-wit Australian "diplomat" Alexander Downer in London were brought in to bolster
the Russiagate claims and make them look genuine.
As B says, Crowdstrike does indeed have a Ukrainian nationalist agenda: its founder and
head Dmitri Alperovich is a Senior Fellow at The Atlantic Council (the folks who fund
Bellingcat's crapaganda) and which itself receives donations from Ukrainian oligarch Viktor
Pinchuk. Crowdstrike has some association with one of the Chalupa sisters (Alexandra or
Andrea - I can't be bothered dredging through DuckDuckGo to check which - but one of them was
employed by the DNC) who donated money to the Maidan campaign that overthrew Viktor
Yanukovych's government in Kiev in February 2014.
thanks b... i would like russiagate to be finished, but i tend to see it much like kadath
@2.. the link @2 is worth the read as a reminder of how far the usa has sunk in being a
nation of passive neocons... emptywheel can't say no to this as witnessed by her article
from today.. ) as a consequence, i agree with @14 dh-mtl's conclusion - "It looks today
like the the societal decline is acellerating. Russia-gate is just one of many indicators."
the irony for those of us who don't live in the usa, is we are going to have watch this
sad state of affairs continue to unravel, as the usa and the west continue to unravel in
tandem.. the msm as corporate mouthpiece is not going to be tell us anything of relevance..
instead it will be continued madcow, or maddow bullshit 24-7... amd as kadath notes @2 - if
any of them are to step up as a truth teller - they will be marginalized or silenced... so
long as the mainstream swallow what they are fed in the msm, the direction of the titanic is
still on track...
@19 hopehely... you can forget about anything like that happening..
What Difference Does it Make?
They don't really need Russia-gate anymore. It bought them time. As we speak nuclear bombers
make runs near Russian borders every day and Russian consulates get attacked with heavy
weaponry in the EU and no Russian outlet is even making a reference,while Israel is ready to
move heavy artillery in to Golan targeting Russia bases in Syria and China raking all their
deals for civilian projects in the Med.
Russia got stuffed in the corner getting all the punches.
What a horrible witch hunt, but the msm will keep on denying and keep creating new hoaxes
about Trump, Russia.
Heck the media even deny there was no collussion, they keep spinning it in different ways!
Thanks for citing Caitlin Johnstone's wonderful epitaph, b--Russiavape indeed!
During the fiasco, the Outlaw US Empire provided excellent proof to the world that it does
everything it accused Russia of doing and more, while Russia's cred has greatly risen.
Meanwhile, there're numerous other crimes Trump, his associates, Clinton, her
associates--like Pelosi--ought to be impeached, removed from office, arrested, then tried in
court, which is diametrically opposed to the current--false--narrative.
Scotch Bingeington , Mar 23, 2019 4:47:39 PM |
link
The people who steered us into two years of Russiavape insanity are the very last people
anyone should ever listen to ever again when determining the future direction of our world.
Yes, absolutely. And not just regarding the world's future, but even if you happen to be
in the same building with one of them and he/she bursts into your already smoke-filled room
yelling that the house is on fire.
Btw, whatever authority has ever ruled that "ex-MI6 dude" Steele (who doesn't remind me of
steel at all, but rather of a certain nondescript entity named Anthony Blair) is in fact
merely 'EX'? He himself? The organisation? The Queen perhaps?
Expose them at every opportunity, they should not get away with this like nothing
happend:
If you think a single Russiagate conspiracist is going to be held accountable for media
malpractice, you clearly haven't been awake the past 2 decades. No one will pay for being
wrong. This profession is as corrupt & rotten as the kleptocracy it serves
defeatism isn't the answer -- should remind & mock these hacks every opportunity.
Just need to be aware of the beast we're up against.
The establishment plays on peoples fears and so we all sink together as we all cling to
our "lesser evils", tribal allegiances, and try to avoid the embarrassment of being
wrong.
Although everyone is aware of the corruption and insider dealing, no one seems to want to
acknowledge the extent, or to think critically so as to reveal any more than we already
know.
It's almost as though corruption (the King's nudity) is a national treasure and revealing
it would be a national security breach in the exceptional nation.
And so to the Deep State cabal continues to rule unimpeded.
The oligarchy that runs the country responded to the American people's decision by
inventing a completely cock-and-bull story about Donald Trump being a Russian agent who the
American people were tricked into voting for by nefarious Russian mind-control operatives,
getting every organ of the liberal corporate media to disseminate and relentlessly promote
this story on a daily basis for nearly three years
Posted by: Ken | Mar 23, 2019 2:09:31 PM | 4
You people don't get it do you?
'The Plan' was to get rid of Turkey-Russia-Israel (and a few others) with one fell
swoop....
Russia gate was both a diversion from the real collusions (Russian Mafia , China and Israel)
and a clever ruse to allow Trump to back off from his campaign promise to improve relations
with Russia. US policy toward Russia is no different under Trump than it was during Obamas
administration. Exactly what the Russia Gaters wanted and Trump delivered.
That Mueller could find nothing more than some tax/money laundering/perjury charges in
which the culprits in the end get pardoned is hardly surprising given his history. Want
something covered up? Put Mueller on it.
To show how afraid Trump was of Mueller he appointed his long term friend Barr as AJ and
pretended he didn't know how close they were when it came out. There is no lie people wont
believe. Lol
Meanwhile Trumps Russian Mafia connections stay under the radar in MSM, Trump continues as
Bibi's sock puppet, the fake trade war with China continues as Ivanka is rolling in China
trademarks .
The Rothschild puppet that bailed out Trumps casinos as Commerce Secretary overseeing
negotiations that will open the doors for more US and EU (they willy piggy back on the deal
like hyenas) jobs to go to China (this time in financial/services) and stronger IPR
protections that will facilitate this transfer, and will provide companies more profits in
which to buyback stocks but wont bring manufacturing jobs back.
The collusion story has been hit badly and it will likely lose its momentum, but I wonder how
far reaching this loss of momentum is. There are many variants. The 'unwitting accomplice' is
an oxymoron which isn't finished yet. The Russians hacking the election: not over. The
Russians sowing discord and division. Not over. Credibility of the Russiagate champions
overall? Not clear. Some could take a serious hit. Brennan and other insiders who made it
onto cable tv?
It is possible that the whole groupthink about Russiagate changes drastically
and that 'the other claims' also lose their credibility but it's far from certain. After
years of building up tension Russia's policies are also changing. I think they have shown
restraint but their paranoia and aggressiveness is also increasing and some claims will
become true after all.
"Russiagate" has always been a meaningless political fraud.
When folks like Hillary Clinton sign on to something and give it a great deal of weight,
you really do know you are talking about an empty bag of tricks. She is a psychopathic liar,
one with a great deal of blood on her hands.
My problem with this official result is that it may tend to give Trump a boost, new
credibility.
The trouble with Trump has never been Russia - something only blind ideologues and people
with the minds of children believe - it is that he is genuinely ignorant and genuinely
arrogant and loud-mouthed - an extremely dangerous combination.
And in trying to defend himself, this genuine coward has completely surrendered American
foreign policy to its most dangerous enemies, the Neocons.
Blaming Russiagate on Hillary is very easy for those who hate her or hope that Trump will
deliver on his faux populist fake-agenda.
No one wants to contemplate the possibility that Hillary and Trump, and the duopoly they
lead, fixed the election and planned Russiagate in advance.
It seems a bridge too far, even for the smart skeptics at MoA.
So funny.
Trump has proven himself to be a neocon. He broke his campaign promise to investigate
Hillary within DAYS of being elected. He has brought allies of his supposed enemies into his
Administration.
Yet every one turns from the possibility that the election was fixed. LOL.
The horrible possibility that our "democracy" is managed is too horrible to contemplate.
Lets just blame it all on Hillary.
Those who have been holding their breath for two years can finally exhale. I guess the fever
of hysteria will have to be attended a while longer. A malady of this kind does not easily
die out overnight. Those who have been taken in, and duped for so long, can not so easily
recover. The weight of so much cognitive dissonance presses down on them like a boulder. The
dust of the stampeded herd behind Russiagate is enough paralyze the will of those who have
succumbed.
As Joseph Conrad once wrote, "The ways of human progress are inscrutable."
Russiagate is a pendulum, it reached the dead point, it would hange in the air for a moment,
then it would start swinging right backwards at full speed crashign everything in the way!
It would be revealed, it was Russia who paid Muller to start that hysteria and stole money
from American tax-payers and make America an international laughing stock. "Putin benefited
from it", highly likely!
Muller's investigation is paid for with Manafort's seized cash and property and Manafort
has made Yanukovich king of Ukraine, so Manafort is Putin's agent, so Muller is working of
Putin's money, so it was Putin's collusion everything that Muller is doing! Highly
likely.
There is no "Liberal Media". Those whom claim to be Liberal and yet support the Warmonger
Democratic Party (Republican lite) are frauds. Liberalism does not condone war and it most
certainly does not support wars of aggression - especially those wars waged against
defenseless nations. Neither can liberalism support trade sanctions or the subjugation of
Palestinians in the Apartheid State of ISreal.
We must be very careful with the words we choose, in order to paint the correct
conjuncture and not to throw the bathtub with the baby inside.
It's one thing to say Bernie Sanders is not a revolutionary; it's another completely
different thing to say he was in cahoots with the Clintons.
If Bernie Sanders really was a "friend" of the Clintons, then he wouldn't even have
disputed the primaries against Hillary. Not only he chose to do so, but he only didn't win
because the DNC threw all its weight against him.
Now, I agree he's not a revolutionary socialist. He's an imperialist who believes the
spoils of the empire should be also used to build a Scandinavian-style Welfare State for the
American people only. A cynic would tell you this would make him a Nazi without the race
theme, but you have to keep in mind societies move in a dialectical patern, not a linear one:
if you preach for "democratic socialism", you're bringing the whole package, not only the
bits you want.
I believe the rise of Bernie Sanders had an overall positive impact in the world as it
exists. Americans are more aware of their own contradictions (more enlightened) now than
before he disputed those faithful primaries of 2016. And the most important ingredient for
that, in my opinion, was the fact he was crushed by both parties; that the "establishment"
acted in unison not to let him get near the WH. That was a didactic moment for the American
people (or a signficant part of it).
But I agree Russiagate went well beyond just covering the Clintons' dirt in the DNC.
It may have be born like that, but, if that was the case, the elites quickly realized it
had other, ampler practical uses. The main one, in my opinion, was to drive a wedge between
Trump's Clash of Civilizations's doctrine -- which perceives China as the main long term
enemy, and Russia as a natural ally of the West -- and the public opinon. The thing is most
of the American elite is far too dependent on China's productive chain; Russia is not, and
can be balkanized.
There is a funny video compilation of the TV talking heads predicting the end of Trump, new
bombshells, impeachment, etc., over the last two years.
Unfortunately, the same sort of compilation could be made of sane people predicting "this new
information means the end of Russiagate" over the same time period.
The truth is that the truth doesn't matter, only the propaganda, and it has not stopped, only
spun onto new hysteria.
As others have said, hard core Russiagaters will likely not be convinced that they have been
wrong all along. They have too much emotional investment in the grand conspiracy theory to
simply let it go. Rather, they will forever point to what they believe are genuine bits of
evidence and curse Mueller for not following the leads. And the Dems in the House of
Representatives will waste more time and resources on pointless investigations in an effort
to keep the public sufficiently distracted from more important matters, such as the endless
wars and coups that they support. A pox on all their houses, both Democrats and
Republicans.
"...hard core Russiagaters will likely not be convinced that they have been wrong all along."
Wrong about what? There seems to be "narrative" operative here that there are only two
positions on this matter: the "right" one and the "wrong" one and nothing else.
Ben's and other comments might make this a little bit superfluous but it's short.
A case of divide and conquer against the population
This time it was a fabricated scandal.
Continued control over "facts" and narratives, the opportunity for efficient misdirection
and distraction, stealing and wasting other people's time and effort, spurious disagreements,
wearing down relations.
The illusion of choice, (false) opposition, blinded "oversight", and mythical claims
concerning a civilian government (in the case of the US: "of, for, and by" or something like
that).
Who knew or knows is irrelevant as long as the show goes on. There's nothing to prove
anything significant about who if anyone may or may not be behind the curtain and thus on
towards the next big or small scandal we go because people will be dissatisfied and hungry
and ready to bite as hard as possible on some other bait for or against something.
Maybe "Russiagate" was impeccably engineered or maybe it organically outcompeted other
distractions on offer that would ultimately also waste enormous amounts of time and
effort.
Management by crisis
The scandals, crises, "Science says" games and rubbish, outrage narratives, and any other
manipulations attempt and perhaps succeed at controlling the US and the world through
spam.
Jonathan @39: Of course it was fixed. That's what the Electoral College is for.
Well, you can say the same think about money-as-speech , gerrymandering, voter
suppression, etc. Despite all these, Americans believe that their democracy works.
I contend that what we witnessed in 2016 was a SHOW. Like American wrestling. It was
(mostly) fake. The proper term for this is kayfabe .
My advice to the yanks mourning Russiagate: move to the UK. The sick Brits will keep the
Russia hating cult alive even after they spend a decade puking over Brexit.
Jackrabbit @18
So, you don't think HRC qualifies as a nationalist? She can't fake populist, but she can do
nationalist.
I also think she is much too ambitious to have intentionally thrown the election. It was her
turn dammit! Take a look at her behavior as First Lady if you think she's the kind of
personality that is content to wield power from behind the scenes.
They didn't fall for the Steele dossier. I recall that emptywheel had discredited the dossier
during the election as it was known to have been rejected by major media outlets leading up
to the election. I think they merely fell behind the others as the outgoing administration,
the Democrats, the CIA, and the media chose to use the dossier to 'blackmail' Trump.
The most important fruit of russiagate, from the view of the establishment of the hegemon, is
that America has now taken a giant step towards full bore censorship.
We must be very careful ... and not to throw the bathtub with the baby
inside.
Don't we already have plenty of evidence that there is no precious democratic baby in the
bath? What do you think the Yellow Vests are doing every weekend?
If Bernie Sanders really was a "friend" of the Clintons, then he wouldn't even have
disputed the primaries against Hillary.
Why not? Do you know him personally? Can you vouch for him?
Bernie referred to Hillary as "my friend" many times on the campaign trail. He told
Politico that he's known her for 25 years but they are not "best friends". That's Sander's
typical word judo. Like when he was asked about Zionism, his response: what's
that?
The fact is, Bernie is friendly with all the top Democrats: Obama campaigned for him
and Schumer wouldn't allow funding for democratic candidates that opposed him.
Then there's other strangeness. Like Bernie's refusal to release his 2014 tax
returns. Bernie said his returns were "boring" but when his 2015 tax return was delayed the
press asked him to release his 2014 return (Hillary boasted that she had released 10 years of
returns). Bernie refused.
Now, I agree he's not a revolutionary socialist.... I believe the rise of Bernie
Sanders had an overall positive impact in the world as it exists.
Really? LOL. Sanders REFUSED to lead a Movement for real change. That might've changed things
for the better Mi>- like the Yellow Vests are changing things for the better.
What have we seen from the Democratics since 2016? Bullshit like Russiagate,
meaningless astroturf activism around bathrooms and statues, and outlandish policies like
open borders. These things just irritate most Americans and will lead to more failure for the
Democrats and another 4 years for Trump.
Lastly, you said nothing about Bernie's refusal to attack Hillary on character
issues and to counter her assertion that she NEVER changed her vote for money. Other
examples: Bernie refused to discuss Hillary's home email server, never mentioned Hillary's
well known work to squash investigations of Bill Clinton for abusing women (Jennifer
Flowers), and didn't talk about other scandals like Benghazi ("What difference does it make")
and her glee at the overthrow of Quadaffi ("we came, we saw, we kicked his ass").
And what of Trump? He was the ONLY republican populist in a field of 19. Do you find
that even a little bit strange?
We must be very careful ... and not to throw the bathtub with the baby
inside.
Don't we already have plenty of evidence that there is no precious democratic baby in the
bath? What do you think the Yellow Vests are doing every weekend?
If Bernie Sanders really was a "friend" of the Clintons, then he wouldn't even have
disputed the primaries against Hillary.
Why not? Do you know him personally? Can you vouch for him?
Bernie referred to Hillary as "my friend" many times on the campaign trail. He told
Politico that he's known her for 25 years but they are not "best friends". That's Sander's
typical word judo. Like when he was asked about Zionism, his response: what's that?
The fact is, Bernie is friendly with all the top Democrats: Obama campaigned for him and
Schumer wouldn't allow funding for democratic candidates that opposed him.
Then there's other strangeness. Like Bernie's refusal to release his 2014 tax returns.
Bernie said his returns were "boring" but when his 2015 tax return was delayed the press
asked him to release his 2014 return (Hillary boasted that she had released 10 years of
returns) . Bernie refused.
Now, I agree he's not a revolutionary socialist.... I believe the rise of Bernie
Sanders had an overall positive impact in the world as it exists.
Really? LOL. Sanders REFUSED to lead a Movement for real change. That might've changed things
for the better Mi>- like the Yellow Vests are changing things for the better.
What have we seen from the Democratics since 2016? Bullshit like Russiagate, meaningless
astroturf activism around bathrooms and statues, and outlandish policies like open borders.
These things just irritate most Americans and will lead to more failure for the Democrats and
another 4 years for Trump.
Lastly, you said nothing about Bernie's refusal to attack Hillary on character issues and
to counter her assertion that she NEVER changed her vote for money. Other examples: Bernie
refused to discuss Hillary's home email server, never mentioned Hillary's well known work to
squash investigations of Bill Clinton for abusing women (Jennifer Flowers), and didn't talk
about other scandals like Benghazi ("What difference does it make") and her glee at the
overthrow of Quadaffi ("we came, we saw, we kicked his ass").
And what of Trump? He was the ONLY republican populist in a field of 19. Do you find that
even a little bit strange?
mourning dove @57: Exactly! It's the Electoral College that decides elections, not
voters.
Do you think Hillary didn't know that? She refused to campaign in the three mid-western
states that would've won her the electoral college. Each of the states were won by Trump by a
thin margin.
Gosh and Blimey!
Comment #56 in a thread about an utterly corrupt political system and no-one has mentioned
the pro-"Israel" Lobby?
Words fail me. So I'll use someone else's...
From Xymphora March 21, 2019.
"Truth or Trope?" (Sailer):
"Of the top 50 political donors to either party at the federal level in 2018, 52 percent
were Jewish and 48 percent were gentile. Individuals who identify as Jewish are usually
estimated to make up perhaps 2.2 percent of the population.
Of the $675 million given by the top 50 donors, 66 percent of the money came from Jews and 34
percent from gentiles.
Of the $297 million that GOP candidates and conservative causes received from the top 50
donors, 56 percent was from Jewish individuals.
Of the $361 million Democratic politicians and liberal causes received, 76 percent came from
Jewish givers.
So it turns out that Rep. Omar and Gov. LePage appear to have been correct, at least about
the biggest 2018 donors. But you can also see why Pelosi wanted Omar to just shut up about
it: 76 percent is a lot."
Next up another false flag operation. The thing is, it would have be non-trivial and
involving the harming of people to jolt the narrative back to that favoring the deep state.
And taking off the proverbial media table, that Mueller found no collusion. Yes, election in
2016 no collusion, but Putin was behind the latest horrific false flag, "oh look, Trump is
not confronting Putin"...
Not even getting into the "treason", "putin's c*ckholster", "what's the time on Moscow,
troll!" crap we've been subjected to for 3 years, please enjoy this mashup: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjUvfZj-Fm0.
I've said before that she's a terrible strategist and she ran a terrible campaign and she's
terribly out of touch. I think she expected a cake walk and was relying on Trump being so
distasteful to voters that they'd have no other option.
I think Trump legitimately won the election and I don't believe for a second that she won the
popular vote. There were so many problems with the election but since they were on the losing
side, nobody cares. In 2012 I didn't know anyone else who was voting for Jill Stein, way too
many people were still in love with Obama. She got .4% of the vote. In 2016 most of the
people I knew were voting for Jill Stein, she drew a large crowd from DemExit, but they say
she got .4% of the vote. Total bullshit. There was also ballot stuffing and lots of other
problems, but it still wasn't enough.
I'm also convinced that Trump and Clinton colluded, but that they did so in order to get her
elected. I don't think he really wanted the job. But still, Hillary can do nationalist, and
the designs of the Empire would have proceeded either way.
Trump is a crook who takes money wherever he can get it, from subcontractors foolish enough
to work for him to bankers dumb enough to believe his financial statements. No doubt he has
helped Russian crooks sanitize their booty, but that is apparently too difficult for Mueller
to prove.
It is not good news that this troglodyte was not indicted, but it is good news that
Russia was not found guilty of electing him. Russiagate is an existential issue for the
"national security" establishment and just another propaganda offensive designed to justify
the largely useless & destructive activities of the Pentagon.
It is time to build
cooperation not continue the stupidity of US unilateralism and pursuit of global hegemony.
Trump and his team have to be removed from office. Democrats don't need Russiagate to do it.
The truth will work better.
"... RussiaGate was never a sustainable narrative. It was ludicrous from the beginning. And now that it has ended with a whimper there are a lot of angry, confused and scared people out there. ..."
"... And now his report is in. There are no new indictments. And by doing so he is saving his reputation for the future. And that is your biggest tell that Hillary's blackmail is now worthless. ..."
"... They don't fear her anymore because RussiaGate outed her as the architect. Anything else she has is irrelevant in the face of trying to oust a sitting president from power. ..."
"... The Deep State and The Davos Crowd stand revealed and reviled. If they don't do something dramatic then the anger from the rest of the country will also be palpable come election time. Justice is not done simply by saying, "No evidence of collusion." ..."
"... It's clear that RussiaGate is a failure of monumental proportions. Heads will have to roll. But who will be willing to fall on their sword at this point? Comey? No. McCabe? No. ..."
"... If there is no collusion, if RussiaGate is a scam, then all roads lead back to Hillary as the sacrificial lamb. ..."
"... If there is any hope of salvaging the center of this country for the Democrats, the ones that voted against Hillary in 2016, then there is no reason anymore not to indict Hillary as the architect of RussiaGate. ..."
"... And hope that is enough bread and circuses to distract from the real storm ahead of us. ..."
"... Hillary is the epitome of evil. ..."
"... I don't think Hillary is enough. I want McCabe, Comey, Mueller, Rosenstein, Loretta Lynch, Obama, Lois Lerner, Blasey Ford, Brennan, Clapper, Abedin, Weiner, Cheryl Mills, Susan Rice, Strzok, Page, Sally Yates, all of the phony FISA cohort brought to justice. ..."
"... Her DNC cabal cooked in less than 24 hours from the election defeat a conspiracy of Russian meddling and now, when more information became available, HCR is involved in two separate cases of foreign collusion, The Steele dossier, with Russo-Anglo meddling and another a Ukrainian one, which is now under investigation and the purpose was getting their help for becoming elected. ..."
"... Without a doubt the Russian collusion is the most serious one, because it deliberately sabotaged diplomatic relations with Russia and lead into to a new cold war era. This also raised substantially risks for a direct confrontation with catastrophic consequences. The damage from these treacherous acts is huge and the felony bears pretty much all hallmarks of treason. Se deliberately undermined her own nation´s interests and rather risked even a war simply, because she is a psychopath, who refused to concede the defeat in due elections and instead wanted to hide real reasons for her loss to any cost for everybody else, "because it was her turn to get elected". ..."
"... HIS NAME WAS SETH RICH ..."
"... It is clear that from the beginning, fraudulent FISA warrants, that it was a case of Obama's administration digging dirt on Trump believing that when Hillary wins there will be nobody to hold them responsible ..."
"... When Hillary lost there was only one way out for them to justify that kind of abuse, to find something, anything on Trump so they can say that they were right. Worse than Watergate by orders of magnitude, involving FBI, DOJ and WH itself. ..."
During most of the RussiaGate investigation against Donald Trump I kept saying that all
roads lead to Hillary Clinton.
Anyone with three working brain cells knew this, including
'Miss' Maddow, whose tears of disappointment are particularly delicious.
Robert Mueller's investigation was designed from the beginning to create something out of
nothing. It did this admirably.
It was so effective it paralyzed the country for more than two years, just like Europe has
been held hostage by Brexit. And all of this because, in the end, the elites I call The Davos
Crowd refused to accept that the people no longer believed their lies about the benefits of
their neoliberal, globalist agenda.
Hillary Clinton's ascension to the Presidency was to be their apotheosis along with the
Brexit vote. These were meant to lay to rest, once and for all time, the vaguely libertarian
notion that people should rule themselves and not be ruled by philosopher kings in some distant
land.
Hillary's failure was enormous. And the RussiaGate gambit to destroy Trump served a laundry
list of purposes to cover it:
Undermine his legitimacy before he even takes office.
Accuse him of what Hillary actually did: collude with Russians and Ukrainians to effect
the outcome of the election
Paralyze Trump on his foreign policy desires to scale back the Empire
Give aid and comfort to hurting progressives and radicalize them further undermining our
political system
Polarize the electorate over the false choice of Trump's guilt.
Paralyze the Dept. of Justice and Congress so that they would not uncover the massive
corruption in the intelligence agencies in the U.S. and the U.K.
Isolate Trump and take away every ally or potential ally he could have by turning them
against him through prosecutor overreach.
Hillary should have been thrown to the wolves after she failed. When you fail the people she
failed and cost them the money she cost them, you lose more than just your funding. What this
tells you is that Hillary has so much dirt on everyone involved, once this thing started
everyone went along with it lest she burn them down as well.
Burnin' Down da House
Hillary is the epitome of envy. Envy is the destructive sin of coveting someone else's life
so much they are obsessed with destroying it. It's the sin of Cain. She envies what Trump has,
the Presidency. And she was willing to tear it down to keep him from having it no matter how
much damage it would do. She's worse than the Joker from The Dark Knight.
Because while the Joker is unfathomable to someone with a conscience there's little stopping
us from excising him from the community completely., even though Batman refuses.
Hillary hates us for who we are and what we won't give her. And that animus drove her to
blackmail the world while putting on the face of its savior.
And that's what makes what comes next so obvious to me. RussiaGate was never a sustainable
narrative. It was ludicrous from the beginning. And now that it has ended with a whimper there
are a lot of angry, confused and scared people out there.
Mueller thought all he had to do was lean on corrupt people and threaten them with
everything. They would turn on Trump. He would resign in disgrace from the public outcry. It
didn't work. In the end Paul Manafort, Michael Cohen and Roger Stone all held their ground or
perjured themselves into the whole thing falling apart.
Andrew Weissman's resignation last month was your tell there was nothing. Mueller would
pursue this to the limit of his personal reputation and no further. Just like so many other
politicians.
Vote Your Pocketbook
With respect to Brexit I've been convinced that it would come down to reputations. Would the
British MP's vote against their own personal best interests to do the bidding of the EU? Would
Theresa May eventually realize her historical reputation would be destroyed if she caves to
Brussels and betrays Brexit in the end? Always bet on the fecklessness of politicians. They
will always act selfishly when put to the test. While leading RussiaGate, Mueller was always
headed here if he couldn't get someone to betray Trump.
And now his report is in. There are no new indictments. And by doing so he is saving his
reputation for the future. And that is your biggest tell that Hillary's blackmail is now
worthless.
They don't fear her anymore because RussiaGate outed her as the architect. Anything else she
has is irrelevant in the face of trying to oust a sitting president from power. The
progressives that were convinced of Trump's treason are bereft; their false hope stripped away
like standing in front of a sandblaster. They will be raw, angry and looking for blood after
they get over their denial.
Everyone else who was blackmailed into going along with this lunacy will begin cutting deals
to save their skins. The outrage over this will not end. Trump will be President when he stands
for re-election.
The Wolves Beckon
The Democrats do not have a chance against him as of right now. When he was caving on
everything back in December it looked like he was done. That there was enough meat on the
RussiaGate bones to make Nancy Pelosi brave. Then she backed off on impeachment talk.
Oops....
... ... ...
The Deep State and The Davos Crowd stand revealed and reviled. If they don't do something
dramatic then the anger from the rest of the country will also be palpable come election time.
Justice is not done simply by saying, "No evidence of collusion."
It's clear that RussiaGate is
a failure of monumental proportions. Heads will have to roll. But who will be willing to fall
on their sword at this point? Comey? No. McCabe? No. There is only one answer. And Obama's
people are still in place to protect him. I said last fall that " Hillary would
indict herself. " And I meant it. Eventually her blackmail and drive to burn it all down
led to this moment.
The circumstances are different than I expected back then, Trump didn't win the mid-terms.
But the end result was always the same. If there is no collusion, if RussiaGate is a scam, then
all roads lead back to Hillary as the sacrificial lamb.
Because the bigger project, the erection of a transnational superstate, is bigger than any
one person. Hillary is expendable. Lies are expensive to maintain. The truth is cheap to
defend. Think of the billions in opportunity costs associated with this. Once the costs rise
above the benefits, change happens fast. If there is any hope of salvaging the center of this
country for the Democrats, the ones that voted against Hillary in 2016, then there is no reason
anymore not to indict Hillary as the architect of RussiaGate.
We all know it's the truth. So, the cheapest way out of this mess for them is to give the
MAGApedes what they want, Hillary.
And hope that is enough bread and circuses to distract from the real storm ahead of us.
I don't think Hillary is enough. I want McCabe, Comey, Mueller, Rosenstein, Loretta Lynch,
Obama, Lois Lerner, Blasey Ford, Brennan, Clapper, Abedin, Weiner, Cheryl Mills, Susan Rice,
Strzok, Page, Sally Yates, all of the phony FISA cohort brought to justice. Think of the
taxpayer money wasted on this ridiculous Mueller investigation! The Roger Stone arrest was an
outrage. Who tipped off CNN? Who ordered it? What was with the attack dogs and machine guns?
And now we have Nadler trying to destroy anyone and everyone who ever did business with
Trump. All those 80 people who got letters from him asking for documents will now be
bankrupted by legal fees.
According to Scott Adams, one recipient is refusing to
cooperate -- he's saying "I can't afford for me and family to be destroyed." He put the request
for documents in a drawer. He has no money for lawyers.
This insanity and abuse of power has
got to stop. Meanwhile, nothing gets done in Congress. We're all looking at censorship,
tilted search engines, de-monetization, being beat up on campus for trying to express an
opinion, being accosted in a restaurant (or, VP Pence, from the stage ("Hamilton"), getting
sucker-punched for wearing a MAGA hat, having elections stolen through myriad Dem cheating
methods, and NOTHING is being done.
Her DNC cabal cooked in less than 24 hours from the election defeat a conspiracy of Russian
meddling and now, when more information became available, HCR is involved in two separate
cases of foreign collusion, The Steele dossier, with Russo-Anglo meddling and another a
Ukrainian one, which is now under investigation and the purpose was getting their help for
becoming elected.
Without a doubt the Russian collusion is the most serious one, because it deliberately
sabotaged diplomatic relations with Russia and lead into to a new cold war era. This also
raised substantially risks for a direct confrontation with catastrophic consequences. The
damage from these treacherous acts is huge and the felony bears pretty much all hallmarks of
treason. Se deliberately undermined her own nation´s interests and rather risked even a
war simply, because she is a psychopath, who refused to concede the defeat in due elections
and instead wanted to hide real reasons for her loss to any cost for everybody else, "because
it was her turn to get elected".
It is clear that from the beginning, fraudulent FISA warrants, that it was a case of
Obama's administration digging dirt on Trump believing that when Hillary wins there will be
nobody to hold them responsible.
When Hillary lost there was only one way out for them to
justify that kind of abuse, to find something, anything on Trump so they can say that they
were right. Worse than Watergate by orders of magnitude, involving FBI, DOJ and WH itself.
This month marks the 20th anniversary of Operation Allied Force, NATO's 78-day air war against Yugoslavia. It was a war waged
as much against Serbian civilians – hundreds of whom perished – as it was against Slobodan Milošević's forces, and it was a campaign
of breathtaking hypocrisy and selective outrage. More than anything, it was a war that by President Bill Clinton's own admission
was fought for the sake of NATO's credibility.
One Man's Terrorist
Our story begins not in the war-torn Balkans of the 1990s but rather in the howling wilderness of Afghanistan at the end of the
1980s as defeated Soviet invaders withdrew from a decade of guerrilla warfare into the twilight of a once-mighty empire. The United
States, which had provided arms, funding and training for the mujahideen fighters who had so bravely resisted the Soviet occupation,
stopped supporting the jihadis as soon as the last Red Army units rolled across the Hairatan Bridge and back into the USSR. Afghanistan
descended deeper into civil war.
The popular narrative posits that Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda network, Washington's former mujahideen allies, turned on the
West after the US stationed hundreds of thousands of infidel troops in Saudi Arabia – home to two out of three of Sunni Islam's holiest
sites – during Operation Desert Shield in 1990. Since then, the story goes, the relationship between the jihadists and their former
benefactors has been one of enmity, characterized by sporadic terror attacks and fierce US retribution. The real story, however,
is something altogether different.
From 1992 to 1995, the Pentagon flew
thousands of al-Qaeda mujahideen, often accompanied by US Special Forces, from Central Asia to Europe to reinforce Bosnian Muslims
as they fought Serbs to gain their independence from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The Clinton administration
armed and trained these fighters in
flagrant violation of United Nations accords; weapons purchased by Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Iran were secretly shipped to the jihadists
via Croatia, which netted a hefty profit from each transaction. The official Dutch inquiry into the 1995 Srebrenica massacre, in
which thousands of Bosniak (Bosnian Muslim) men and boys were slaughtered by Bosnian Serb and Serbian paramilitary forces, concluded
that the United States was "very closely involved" in these arms transfers.
When the Bosnian war ended in 1995 the United States was faced with the problem of thousands of Islamist warriors on European
soil. Many of them joined the burgeoning Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), which mainly consisted of ethnic Albanian Kosovars from what
was still southwestern Yugoslavia. Emboldened by the success of the Slovenes, Croats, Macedonians and Bosnians who had won their
independence from Belgrade as Yugoslavia literally balkanized, KLA fighters began to violently expel as many non-Albanians from Kosovo
as they could. Roma, Jews, Turks and, above all, Serbs were all victims of Albanian ethnic cleansing.
The United States was initially very honest in its assessment of the KLA. Robert Gelbard, the US special envoy to Bosnia,
called it "without any question a terrorist
group." KLA backers allegedly included Osama bin Laden
and other Islamic radicals; the group largely bankrolled its activities by trafficking heroin and sex slaves. The State Department
accordingly added the KLA to its list of terrorist organizations in 1998.
However, despite all its nastiness the KLA endeared itself to Washington by fighting the defiant Yugoslavian President Slobodan
Milošević. By this time Yugoslavia, once composed of eight nominally autonomous republics, had been reduced by years of bloody civil
war to a rump of Serbia, Montenegro and Kosovo. To Serbs, the dominant ethnic group in what remained of the country, Kosovo is regarded
as the very birthplace of their nation. Belgrade wasn't about to let it go without a fight and everyone knew it, especially the Clinton
administration. Clinton's hypocrisy was immediately evident; when Chechnya fought for its independence from Moscow and Russian forces
committed horrific atrocities in response, the American president
called the war an internal Russian affair
and barely criticized Russian President Boris Yeltsin. But when Milošević resorted to brute force in an attempt to prevent Yugoslavia
from further fracturing, he soon found himself a marked man.
Although NATO
called
the KLA "the main initiator of the violence" in Kosovo and blasted "what appears to be a deliberate campaign of provocation" against
the Serbs, the Clinton administration was nevertheless determined to attack the Milošević regime. US intelligence confirmed that
the KLA was indeed provoking harsh retaliatory strikes by Serb forces in a bid to draw the United States and NATO into the conflict.
President Clinton, however, apparently wasn't listening. The NATO powers, led by the United States, issued Milošević an ultimatum
they knew he could never accept: allow NATO to occupy all of Kosovo and have free reign in Serbia as well. Assistant US Secretary
of State James Rubin later
admitted that "publicly we had to make clear we were seeking an agreement but privately we knew the chances of the Serbs agreeing
were quite small."
Wagging the Dog?
In 1997 the film Wag the Dog debuted to rave reviews. The dark comedy concerns a Washington, DC spin doctor and a Hollywood
producer who fabricate a fictional war in Albania to distract American voters from a presidential sex scandal. Many observers couldn't
help but draw parallels between the film and the real-life events of 1998-99, which included the Monica Lewinsky scandal, Clinton's
impeachment and a very real war brewing in the Balkans. As in Wag the Dog , there were exaggerated or completely fabricated
tales of atrocities, and as in the film the US and NATO powers tried to sell their war as a humanitarian intervention. An attack
on Yugoslavia, we were told, was needed to avert Serb ethnic cleansing of Albanians.
There were two main problems with this. First, there was no Serb ethnic cleansing of Albanian Kosovars until after NATO
began mercilessly bombing Yugoslavia. The German government
issued several reports confirming this. One, from October 1998, reads, in part:
The violent actions of the Yugoslav military and police since February 1998 were aimed at separatist activities and are no
proof of a persecution of the whole Albanian ethnic group in Kosovo or a part of it. What was involved in the Yugoslav violent actions
and excesses since February 1998 was a selective forcible action against the military underground movement (especially the KLA) A
state program or persecution aimed at the whole ethnic group of Albanians exists neither now nor earlier.
Subsequent German government reports issued through the winter of 1999 tell a similar story. "Events since February and March
1998 do not evidence a persecution program based on Albanian ethnicity," stated one report released exactly one month before the
NATO bombing started. "The measures taken by the armed Serbian forces are in the first instance directed toward combating the KLA
and its supposed adherents and supporters."
While Serbs certainly did commit atrocities (especially after the ferocious NATO air campaign began), these were often greatly
exaggerated by the Clinton administration and the US corporate mainstream media. Clinton claimed – and the media dutifully parroted
– that 600,000 Albanians were "trapped within Kosovo lacking shelter, short of food, afraid to go home or buried in mass graves."
This was completely false . US diplomat David
Scheffer claimed that "225,000 ethnic Albanian men are missing, presumed dead." Again, a
total fabrication . The FBI, International War Crimes
Tribunal and global forensics experts flocked to Kosovo in droves after the NATO bombs stopped falling; the total number of victims
they found was around 1 percent of the figure claimed by the United States.
However, once NATO attacked, the Serb response was predictably furious. Shockingly, NATO commander Gen. Wesley Clark declared
that the ensuing Serbian atrocities against the Albanian Kosovar population had been
"fully anticipated" and were apparently of little concern to Washington.
Not only did NATO and the KLA provoke a war with Yugoslavia, they did so knowing that many innocent civilians would be killed, maimed
or displaced by the certain and severe reprisals carried out by enraged Serb forces. Michael McGwire, a former top NATO planner,
acknowledged that "to describe the bombing as a humanitarian intervention is really grotesque."
Bloody Hypocrites
The other big problem with the US claiming it was attacking Yugoslavia on humanitarian grounds was that the Clinton administration
had recently allowed – and was at the time allowing – far worse humanitarian catastrophes to rage without American intervention.
More than 800,000 men, women and children were slaughtered while Clinton and other world leaders stood idly by during the 1994 Rwandan
genocide. The US also courted the medievally brutal
Taliban regime in hopes of achieving stability in Afghanistan and with an eye toward building a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan through
Afghanistan to Pakistan. Clinton also did nothing to stop Russian forces from viciously crushing nationalist uprisings in the Caucuses,
where Chechen rebels were fighting for their independence much the same as Albanian Kosovars were fighting the Serbs.
Colombia, the Western Hemisphere's leading recipient of US military and economic aid, was waging a fierce, decades-long campaign
of terror against leftist insurgents and long-suffering indigenous peoples. Despite
horrific brutality and pervasive human rights violations, US aid to Bogotá increased year after year. In Turkey, not only did
Clinton do nothing to prevent government forces from committing widespread atrocities against Kurdish separatists, the administration
positively encouraged its NATO ally with billions of dollars in loans and arms sales. Saudi Arabia, home to the most repressive fundamentalist
regime this side of Afghanistan, was – and remains – a favored US ally despite having one of the
world's worst human rights
records. The list goes on and on.
Much closer to the conflict at hand, the United States tacitly approved the largest ethnic cleansing campaign in Europe since
the Holocaust when as many as 200,000 Serbs were
forcibly expelled from the Krajina region of Croatia by that country's US-trained military during Operation Storm in August 1995.
Krajina Serbs had purged the region of its Croat minority four years earlier in their own ethnic cleansing campaign; now it was the
Serbs' turn to be on the receiving end of the horror. Croatian forces stormed through Krajina, shelling towns and slaughtering innocent
civilians. The sick and the elderly who couldn't escape were executed or burned alive in their homes as Croatian soldiers machine-gunned
convoys of fleeing refugees.
"Painful for the Serbs"
Washington's selective indignation at Serb crimes both real and imagined is utterly inexcusable when held up to the horrific and
seemingly indiscriminate atrocities committed during the NATO air campaign against Yugoslavia. The prominent Australian journalist
John Pilger noted that "in the attack on Serbia, 2 percent of NATO's missiles hit military targets, the rest hit hospitals, schools,
factories, churches and broadcast studios." There is little doubt that US and allied warplanes and missiles were targeting the Serbian
people as much as, or even more than, Serb forces. The bombing knocked out electricity in 70 percent of the country as well as much
of its water supply.
NATO warplanes also deliberately bombed a building containing the headquarters of Serbian state television and radio in the middle
of densely populated central Belgrade. The April 23, 1999 attack occurred without warning while 200 employees were at work in the
building. Among the 16 people killed were a makeup artist, a cameraman, a program director, an editor and three security guards.
There is no doubt that the attack was meant to demoralize the Serbian people. There is also no doubt that those who ordered the bombing
knew exactly what outcome to expect: a NATO planning document viewed by Bill Clinton, UK Prime Minister Tony Blair and French President
Jacques Chirac forecast as
many as 350 deaths in the event of such an attack, with as many as 250 of the victims expected to be innocent civilians living in
nearby apartments.
Allied commanders wanted to fight a "zero casualty war" in Yugoslavia. As in zero casualties for NATO forces, not the people they
were bombing. "This will be painful for the Serbs," Pentagon spokesman Kenneth Bacon sadistically predicted. It sure was. NATO warplanes
flew sorties at 15,000 feet (4,500 meters), a safe height for the pilots. But this decreased accuracy and increased civilian casualties
on the ground. One attack on central Belgrade mistakenly
hit Dragiša Mišović hospital with a laser-guided "precision" bomb, obliterating an intensive care unit and destroying a children's
ward while wounding several pregnant women who had the misfortune of being in labor at the time of the attack. Dragana Krstić, age
23, was recovering from cancer surgery – she just had a 10-pound (4.5 kg) tumor removed from her stomach – when the bombs blew jagged
shards of glass into her neck and shoulders. "I don't know which hurts more," she lamented, "my stomach, my shoulder or my heart."
Dragiša Mišović wasn't the only hospital bombed by NATO. Cluster bombs dropped by fighter jets of the Royal Netherlands Air Force
struck a hospital and a market in the city of Niš on May 7,
killing 15 people and wounding 60 more. An emergency clinic
and medical dispensary were also bombed in the
mining town of Aleksinac on April 6, killing at least five people and wounding dozens more.
Bridges were favorite targets of NATO bombing. An international passenger train traveling from Belgrade to Thessaloniki, Greece
was
blown apart by two missiles as it crossed over Grdelica gorge on April 12. Children and a pregnant woman were among the 15 people
killed in the attack; 16 other passengers were wounded. Allied commander Gen. Wesley Clark claimed the train, which had been damaged
by the first missile, had been traveling too rapidly for the pilot to abort the second strike on the bridge. He then offered up a
doctored video that was sped up more than three times so that the pilot's behavior would appear acceptable.
On May 1, at least 24 civilians, many of them children, were killed when NATO warplanes
bombed a bridge in Lužane just as a bus was crossing.
An ambulance rushing to the scene of the carnage was struck by a second bomb. On the sunny spring afternoon of May 30, a bridge over
the Velika Morava River in the small town of Vavarin was
bombed by low-flying German Air Force F-16 fighters while hundreds of local residents gathered nearby to celebrate an Orthodox
Christian holiday. Eleven people died, most of them when the warplanes returned and bombed the people who rushed to the bridge to
help those wounded in the first strike.
No One Is Safe
The horrors suffered by the villagers of Surdulica shows that no one in Serbia was safe from NATO's fury. They endured some 175
bombardments during one three-week period alone, with 50 houses destroyed and 600 others damaged in a town with only around 10,000
residents. On April 27, 20 civilians, including 12 children,
died when bombs meant to
destroy an army barracks slammed into a residential neighborhood. As many as 100 others were wounded in the incident. Tragedy
befell the tiny town again on May 31 when NATO
warplanes returned to bomb an ammunition depot but instead hit an old people's home; 23 civilians, most of them helpless elderly
men and women, were blown to pieces. Dozens more were wounded. The US military initially said "there were no errant weapons" in the
attack. However, Deputy Defense Secretary John Hamre later testified before Congress that it "was a case of the pilot getting confused."
The CIA was also apparently confused when it relied on what it claimed was an outdated map to approve a Stealth Bomber strike
on what turned out to be the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade. Three Chinese journalists were killed and 27 other people were wounded.
Some people aren't so sure the attack was an accident – Britain's Observer later
reported that the US deliberately bombed the
embassy after discovering it was being used to transmit Yugoslav army communications.
There were plenty of other accidents, some of them horrifically tragic and others just downright bizarre. Two separate attacks
on the very Albanians NATO was claiming to help killed 160 people, many of them women and children. On April 14, NATO warplanes bombed
refugees along a 12-mile (19-km) stretch of road between the towns of Gjakova and Deçan in western Kosovo, killing 73 people including
16 children and wounding 36 more. Journalists reported
a grisly scene of "bodies charred or blown to pieces, tractors reduced to twisted wreckage and houses in ruins." Exactly one month
later, another column of refugees was
bombed near Koriša, killing
87 – mostly women, children and the elderly – and wounding 60 others. In the downright bizarre category, a wildly errant NATO missile
struck a residential neighborhood in the Bulgarian capital Sofia, some 40 miles (64 km) outside of Serbia. The American AGM-88 HARM
missile blew the roof off
of a man's house while he was shaving in his bathroom.
NATO's "Murderous Thugs"
As the people of Yugoslavia were being terrorized by NATO's air war, the terrorists of the Kosovo Liberation Army stepped up their
atrocities against Serbs and Roma in Kosovo. NATO troops deployed there to keep the peace often failed to protect these people from
the KLA's brutal campaign. More than 164,000 Serbs fled or
were forcibly driven from the Albanian-dominated province and by the summer of 2001 KLA ethnic cleansing had rendered Kosovo almost
entirely Albanian, with just a few die-hard Serb holdouts living in fear and surrounded by barbed wire.
The KLA soon expanded its war into neighboring Macedonia. Although NATO Secretary-General Lord Robertson called the terror group
"murderous thugs," the United States – now with George W. Bush as president – continued to offer its invaluable support. National
Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice personally
intervened in an attempt to persuade Ukraine to halt arms sales to the Macedonian army and when a group of 400 KLA fighters were
surrounded at Aracinovo in June 2001, NATO ordered Macedonian forces to hold off their attack while a convoy of US Army vehicles
rescued the besieged militants. It later
emerged that 17 American military advisers were embedded with the KLA at Aracinovo.
Credibility Conundrum
The bombing of Yugoslavia was really about preserving the credibility of the United States and NATO. The alliance's saber rattling
toward Belgrade had painted it into a corner from which the only way out was with guns blazing. Failure to follow threats with deadly
action, said President Clinton, "would discredit NATO." Clinton
added
that "our mission is clear, to demonstrate the seriousness of NATO's purpose." The president seemed willfully ignorant of NATO's
real purpose, which is to defend member states from outside attack. British Prime Minister Tony Blair agreed with Clinton,
declaring on the eve of the war that
"to walk away now would destroy NATO's credibility." Gary Dempsey, a foreign policy analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute,
wrote that the Clinton administration
"transformed a conflict that posed no threat to the territorial integrity, national sovereignty or general welfare of the United
States into a major test of American resolve."
Waging or prolonging war for credibility's sake is always dangerous and seems always to yield disastrous results. Tens of thousands
of US troops and many times as many Vietnamese, Laotian and Cambodian soldiers and civilians died while Richard Nixon sought an "honorable"
way out of Vietnam. Ronald Reagan's dogged defense of US credibility cost the lives of 299 American and French troops killed in Hezbollah's
1983 Beirut barracks bombing. This time, ensuring American credibility meant backing the vicious KLA – some of whose fighters had
trained at Osama bin Laden's terror camps in Afghanistan. This, despite the fact that al-Qaeda had already been responsible for deadly
attacks against the United States, including the 1998 embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania.
It is highly questionable whether bombing Yugoslavia affirmed NATO's credibility in the short term. In the long term, it certainly
did not. The war marked the first and only time NATO had ever attacked a sovereign state. It did so unilaterally, absent any threat
to any member nation, and without the approval of the United Nations Security Council. "If NATO can go for military action without
international blessing, it calls into question the reliability of NATO as a security partner," Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak,
then Moscow's ambassador to NATO, told me at a San Francisco reception.
Twenty years later, Operation Allied force has been all but forgotten in the United States. In a country that has been waging
nonstop war on terrorism for almost the entire 21st century, the 1999 NATO air war is but a footnote in modern American history.
Serbs, however, still seethe at the injustice and hypocrisy of it all. The bombed-out ruins of the old Yugoslav Ministry of Defense,
Radio Television of Serbia headquarters and other buildings serve as constant, painful reminders of the horrors endured by the Serbian
people in service of NATO's credibility.
Brett Wilkins is a San Francisco-based author and activist. His work, which focuses on issues of war and peace and human rights,
is archived atwww.brettwilkins.com
Now that Robert Mueller has closed his investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016
election without bringing any new indictments, some Twitter users have lashed out at former at
political analyst and former CIA director for his recent prediction that Mueller would be
bringing additional charges before finishing his probe.
Brennan
appeared on MSNBC earlier this month, where he predicted that the special counsel's office
would soon be bringing indictments to add to the list of 34
individuals already charged by Mueller's team.
In that interview, Brennan also opined that he expected that any indictment of anyone close
to President Trump, including his family or extended family, would be named at the conclusion
of the investigation.
"Bob Mueller and his team knows if he were to do something -- indicting a Trump family
member or if he were to go forward with indictment on criminal conspiracy involving U.S.
persons -- that would basically be the death of the special counsel's office, because I don't
believe Donald Trump would allow Bob Mueller to continue in the aftermath of those types of
actions," Brennan explained at the time.
Yet Mueller closed his investigation without bringing any further indictments and without
any charges being brought against anyone within Trump's closest circle. The president's
supporters and others took this opportunity to pounce on Brennan via Twitter.
Journalist Glenn Greenwald, who has been openly critical of the Russia investigation, was
among the first to call out Brennan's indictment prediction.
"You can't blame MSNBC viewers for being confused," tweeted Greenwald in the wake of news
that Mueller had submitted his report. "They largely kept dissenters from their Trump/Russia
spy tale off the air for 2 years. As recently as 2 weeks ago, they had @JohnBrennan strongly
suggesting Mueller would indict Trump family members on collusion as his last act"
He later added, "The worst part of this video is how Brennan said Mueller would indict Trump
Family members for conspiring with Russia before March 15 or after, because he was too noble to
do it on the Ides of March. Will MSNBC or Brennan apologize? Will there be consequences for any
of this? LOL"
Conservative political pundit Charlie Kirk listed Brenna on a list of other frequent targets
-- Hillary Clinton, President Barack Obama, former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, among others
-- of people who should be investigated, though it was not clear which laws Kirk believes any
of these individuals might have broken.
Actor Dean Cain likened Brennan's indictment prediction to Vermont Governor Howard Dean's
infamous "Dean Scream" that helped to tank Dean's 2004 presidential campaign.
Conservative political consultant Frank Luntz used the incorrect Brennan prediction to
criticize media outlets for what he saw as a failure to acknowledge errors on their part.
W e are still trying to fathom the apparent but transient palace-coup attempts of Rod
Rosenstein and Andrew McCabe. No one has gotten to the bottom of the serial lying by McCabe and
James Comey, much less their systematic and illegal leaking to pet reporters.
We do not know all the ways in which James Clapper and John Brennan seeded the dossier and
its related gossip among the press and liberal politicians -- only that both were prior
admitted fabricators who respectively while under oath misled congressional representatives on
a host of issues.
The central role of Hillary Clinton in funding the anti-Trump, Russian-"collusion,"
Fusion/GPS/Christopher Steele dossier is still not fully disclosed. Did the deluded FISA court
know it was being used by Obama-administration DOJ and FBI officials, who withheld from it
evidence to ensure permission to spy on American citizens? Could any justice knowingly be so
naïve?
Do we remember at all that Devin Nunes came to national prominence when he uncovered
information that members of the Obama administration's national-security team, along with
others, had systematically unmasked surveilled Americans, whose names then were leaked
illegally to the press?
One day historians will have the full story of how Robert Mueller stocked his legal team
inordinately with partisans. He certainly did not promptly disclose the chronology of, or the
interconnected reasons for, the firings of Lisa Page and Peter Strozk. And his team has largely
used process-crime allegations to leverage mostly minor figures to divulge some sort of
incriminating evidence about the president -- none of it pertaining to the original mandated
rationale of collusion.
These are the central issues and key players of this entire sordid attempt to remove a
sitting president.
But we should remember there were dozens of other minor players who did their own parts in
acting unethically, and in some cases illegally, to destroy a presidency. We have mostly
forgotten them. But they reflect what can happen when Washington becomes unhinged, the media go
berserk, and a reign of terror ensues in which any means necessary is redefined as what James
Comey recently monetized as a "Higher Loyalty" to destroy an elected president.
Here are just a few of the foot soldiers we have forgotten.
Anonymous
On September 5, 2018 (a date seemingly picked roughly to coincide with the publication of Bob
Woodward's sensational tell-all book about the inside of the Trump White House), the New
York Times printed a credo from a supposed anonymous Republican official deep within the
Trump administration. In a supposed fit of ethical conviction, he (or she) warned the nation of
the dangers it faced under his boss, President Trump, and admitted to a systematic effort to
subvert his presidency:
The dilemma -- which he does not fully grasp -- is that many of the senior officials in
his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda
and his worst inclinations. I would know. I am one of them.
Anonymous elaborated:
Given the instability many witnessed, there were early whispers within the cabinet of
invoking the 25th Amendment, which would start a complex process for removing the president.
But no one wanted to precipitate a constitutional crisis. So we will do what we can to steer
the administration in the right direction until -- one way or another -- it's over.
We do not know whether Anonymous was describing the coup attempt as described by Andrew
McCabe that apparently entailed Rod Rosenstein at the Justice Department informally polling
cabinet officials, or marked a wider effort among Never Trump Republicans and deep-state
functionaries to ensure that Trump failed -- whether marked by earlier efforts to leak
confidential calls with foreign officials or to serve up unsubstantiated rumors to muckrakers
or simply slow-walk or ignore presidential directives.
In any case, Anonymous's efforts largely explain why almost daily we hear yet another mostly
unsubstantiated account that a paranoid, deranged, and dangerous Trump is holed up in his
bedroom with his Big Macs as he plans unconstitutional measures to wreck the United States --
and then, by accident, achieves near-record-low peacetime unemployment, near-record-low
minority unemployment, annualized 3 percent GDP growth, record natural-gas and oil production,
record deregulation, comprehensive tax reform and reduction, and foreign-policy breakthroughs
from the destruction of ISIS to cancellation of the flawed Iran deal.
James Baker
In the course of congressional testimony, it was learned that the FBI general counsel, James
Baker, for a time had been under investigation for leaking classified information to the press.
Among the leaks were rumored scraps from the Steele dossier passed to Mother Jones
reporter David Corn (who has denied any such connection) that may have fueled his sensational
pre-election accusation of Trump–Russian collusion.
Nonetheless, about a week before the 2016 election, Corn of Mother Jones was writing
lurid exposés, such as the following, to spread gossip likely inspired from the
Christopher Steele dossier (italics inserted):
Does this mean the FBI is investigating whether Russian intelligence has attempted to
develop a secret relationship with Trump or cultivate him as an asset? Was the former
intelligence officer and his material deemed credible or not?
An FBI spokeswoman says, "Normally, we don't talk about whether we are investigating
anything." But a senior US government official not involved in this case but familiar with
the former spy tells Mother Jones that he has been a credible source with a proven record of
providing reliable, sensitive, and important information to the US government. In June,
the former Western intelligence officer -- who spent almost two decades on Russian
intelligence matters and who now works with a US firm that gathers information on Russia for
corporate clients -- was assigned the task of researching Trump's dealings in Russia and
elsewhere, according to the former spy and his associates in this American firm.
What does "assigned" mean, and by whom? That Fusion/GPS (which, in fact, is a generic
opposition-research firm with no particular expertise in Russia) hired with disguised Clinton
campaign funds a has-been foreign-national spy to buy dirt from Russian sources to subvert a
presidential campaign?
Those leaks of Christopher Steele's dirt also did their small part in planting doubt in
voters' minds right that electing Trump was tantamount to implanting a Russian asset in the
White House. Baker has been the alleged center of a number of reported leaks, even though the
FBI's general counsel should have been the last person to disclose any government communication
to the press during a heated presidential campaign. And there is still no accurate information
concerning what role, if any, Baker played in Andrew McCabe's efforts to discuss removing the
president following the Comey firing.
Evelyn Farkas
On March 1, 2017, just weeks after Trump took office, the New York Times revealed that.
in a last-minute order, outgoing president Obama had vastly expanded the number of government
officials with access to top-secret intelligence data. The Obama administration apparently
sought to ensure a narrative spread that Trump may have colluded with the Russians. The day
following the disclosure, a former Pentagon official, Evelyn Farkas (who might have been a
source for the strange disclosure of a day earlier), explained Obama's desperate eleventh-hour
effort in an MSNBC interview:
I was urging my former colleagues, and, and frankly speaking the people on the Hill . . .
it was more actually aimed at telling the Hill people, get as much information as you can,
get as much intelligence as you can before President Obama leaves the administration.
Because I had a fear that somehow that information would disappear with the senior people
who left so it would be hidden away in the bureaucracy, um, that the [stutters] Trump folks
-- if they found out how we knew what we knew about their [the] Trump staff, dealing
with Russians -- that they would try to compromise those sources and methods, meaning we no
longer have access to that intelligence.
So I became very worried because not enough was coming out into the open and I knew that
there was more. We have very good intelligence on Russia, so then I had talked to some of my
former colleagues and I knew that they were also trying to help get information to the
Hill.
Despite media efforts to spin Farkas's disclosure, she was essentially contextualizing how
outgoing Obama officials were worried that the incoming administration would discover their own
past efforts ("sources and methods") to monitor and surveil Trump-campaign officials, and would
seek an accounting. Her worry was not just that the dossier-inspired dirt would not spread
after Trump took office, but that the Obama administration's methods used to thwart Trump might
be disclosed (e.g., " if they found out how we knew what we knew about their [the] Trump
staff, dealing with Russians -- that they would try to compromise those sources and methods,
meaning we no longer have access to that intelligence" ).
So Farkas et al. desperately sought to change the law so that their rumors and narratives
would be so deeply seeded within the administrative state that the collusion narrative would
inevitably lead to Congress and the press, and thereby overshadow any shock at the improper or
illegal methods the Obama-administration officials had authorized to monitor the Trump
campaign.
And Farkas was correct. Even today, urination in a Russian hotel room has overshadowed
perjury traps, warping the FISA courts, illegal leaking, inserting a spy into the Trump
campaign, and Russian collusion with Clinton hireling and foreign agent Christopher Steele.
Samantha Power
We now forget that for some reason, in her last year in office, but especially during and after
the 2016 election, Power, the outgoing U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, reportedly asked
to unmask the names of over 260 Americans picked up in government surveillance. She offered no
real explanations of such requests.
Even stranger than a U.N. ambassador suddenly playing the role of a counterintelligence
officer, Power continued her requests literally until the moments before Trump took office in
January 2017. And, strangest of all, after Power testified before the House Oversight and
Government Reform Committee, Representative Trey Gowdy reported that "her testimony is 'they
[the unmasking requests] may be under my name, but I did not make those requests.'"
Who, in the world, then, did make those requests and why and, if true, did she know she was
so being used?
And were some of those unmasking requests leaked, thus helping to fuel media rumors in late
2016 and early 2017 that Trump officials were veritable traitors in league with Russia? And why
were John Brennan, James Clapper, Susan Rice, and Sally Yates reportedly in the last days (or,
in some cases, the last hours) requesting that the names of Americans swept up in surveillance
of others be unmasked? What was the point of it all?
In sum, did a U.N. ambassador let her name be used by aides or associates to spread rumors
throughout the administrative state, and thereby brand them with classified government
authenticity, and then all but ensure they were leaked to the press?
We the public most certainly wondered why the moment Trump was elected, the very name Carter
Page became synonymous with collusion, and soon Michael Flynn went from a respected
high-ranking military official to a near traitor, as both were announced as emblematic of their
erstwhile complicit boss.
Ali Watkins and James Wolf
Watkins was the young reporter for Buzzfeed (which initially leaked the largely fake
Steele dossier and erroneously reported that Michael Cohen would implicate Trump in suborning
perjury) who conducted an affair with James Wolf, a staffer, 30 years her senior, on the Senate
Intelligence Committee.
Wolf, remember, systematically and illegally began leaking information to her that found its
way into sensationalized stories about collusion. But as Margot Cleveland of the
Federalist pointed out, Watkins was also identified by Buzzfeed "in court filings
as one of the individuals who 'conducted newsgathering in connection with the Dossier before
Buzzfeed published the Article' on the dossier. This fact raises the question of whether
Watkins received information from Wolfe concerning the dossier and, if so, what he leaked."
In other words, the dossier was probably planted among U.S. senators and deliberately leaked
through a senior Senate aide, who made sure that the unverified dirt was published by the press
to damage Donald Trump.
And it did all that and more.
The list of these bit players could be easily expanded. These satellites were not
coordinated in some tight-knit vast conspiracy, but rather took their cue from their superiors
and the media to freelance with assumed impunity, as their part in either preventing or ending
a Trump presidency. And no doubt the Left would argue that the sheer number of federal
bureaucrats and political appointees, in a variety of cabinets and agencies, throughout the
legislative and the executive branches, all proves that Trump is culpable of something.
Perhaps. But the most likely explanation is that a progressive administrative state, a
liberal media, and an increasingly radicalized liberal order were terrified by the thought of
an outsider Trump presidency. Therefore, they did what they could, often both unethically and
illegally, to stop his election, and then to subvert his presidency.
In their arrogance, they assumed that their noble professions of higher loyalties and duties
gave them exemption to do what they deemed necessary and patriotic. And others like them will
continue to do so, thereby setting the precedent that unelected federal officials can break the
law or violate any ethical protocols they please -- if they disagree with the ideology of the
commander in chief. We ridicule Trump for going ballistic at each one of these periodically
leaked and planted new stories that raised some new charge about his stupidity, insanity,
incompetence, etc. But no one has before witnessed any president subjected to such a
comprehensive effort of the media, the deep state, political opponents, and his own party
establishment to destroy him.
Subversion is the new political opposition. The nation -- and the Left especially -- will
come to regret the legacy of the foot soldiers of the Resistance in the decades to come.
But Clintons are mobsters in disguise, so what's the difference. Jared Kushner father is as close to a mobster as one can get (hiring a prostitute to compromise relative is one of his tricks)
Notable quotes:
"... Don't ever think the Democratic establishment is your friend. They want you to die in foreign wars and your children to work in starvation-wage service jobs until they're 70 so that the top 0.1% can buy their kids' way into Yale ..."
Don't ever think the Democratic establishment is your friend. They want you to die in foreign wars and your children to
work in starvation-wage service jobs until they're 70 so that the top 0.1% can buy their kids' way into Yale
Navi 9:50 AM - 22 Mar 2019
"It's already happening" while the DCCC is trying their best to stop primary challenges is a little shortsighted no? If you
don't call out what is wrong what are you really 'fixing'? We can walk and chew gum at the same time!
Yves here. This post focuses on an important slice of history in what "freedom" has meant in
political discourse in the US. But I wish it had at least mentioned how a well-funded, then
extreme right wing effort launched an open-ended campaign to render US values more friendly to
business. They explicitly sought to undo New Deal programs and weaken or end other social
safety nets. Nixon Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell codified the strategy for this initiative
in the so-called Powell Memo of 1971.
One of the most effective spokesmen for this libertarian program was Milton Friedman, whose
bestseller Free to Choose became the foundation for a ten-part TV series.
America is having a heated debate about the meaning of the word socialism . We'd be
better served if, instead, we were debating the meaning of freedom .
The
Oregonian reported last week that fully 156,000 families are on the edge of homelessness in
our small-population state. Every one of those households is now paying more than 50 percent of
its monthly income on rent, and none of them has any savings; one medical bill, major car repair
or job loss, and they're on the streets.
While socialism may or may not solve their problem, the more pressing issue we have is an
entire political party and a huge sector of the billionaire class who see homelessness not as a
problem, but as a symptom of a "free" society.
The words freedom and liberty are iconic in American culture -- probably more so than with
any other nation because they're so intrinsic to the literature, declarations and slogans of our
nation's founding.
The irony -- of the nation founded on the world's greatest known genocide (the systematic
state murder of tens of millions of Native Americans) and over three centuries of legalized
slavery and a century and a half of oppression and exploitation of the descendants of those
slaves -- is extraordinary. It presses us all to bring true freedom and liberty to all
Americans.
But what do those words mean?
If you ask the Koch brothers and their buddies -- who slap those words on pretty much
everything they do -- you'd get a definition that largely has to do with being "free" from
taxation and regulation. And, truth be told, if you're morbidly rich, that makes a certain amount
of sense, particularly if your main goal is to get richer and richer, regardless of your
behavior's impact on working-class people, the environment, or the ability of government to
function.
On the other hand, the definition of freedom and liberty that's been embraced by so-called
"democratic socialist" countries -- from Canada to almost all of Europe to Japan and Australia --
you'd hear a definition that's closer to that articulated by Franklin D. Roosevelt when he
proposed, in January 1944, a " second Bill
of Rights " to be added to our Constitution.
FDR's proposed amendments included the right to a job, and the right to be paid enough to
live comfortably; the right to "adequate food and clothing and recreation"; the right to start a
business and run it without worrying about "unfair competition and domination by monopolies"; the
right "of every family to a decent home"; the right to "adequate medical care to achieve and
enjoy good health"; the right to government-based "protection from the economic fears of old age,
sickness, accident, and unemployment"; and the right "to a good education."
Roosevelt pointed out that, "All of these rights spell security." He added, "America's own
rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have
been carried into practice for our citizens. For unless there is security here at home there
cannot be lasting peace in the world."
The other nations mentioned earlier took President Roosevelt's advice to heart. Progressive
"social democracy" has kept Europe, Canada, and the developed nations of the East and South
Pacific free of war for almost a century -- a mind-boggling feat when considering the history of
the developed world since the 1500s.
Just prior to FDR winning the White House in the election of 1932, the nation had been
treated to 12 years of a bizarre Republican administration that was the model for today's GOP. In
1920, Warren Harding won the presidency on a campaign of "more industry in government, less
government in industry" -- privatize and deregulate -- and a promise to drop the top tax rate of
91 percent down to 25 percent.
He kept both promises, putting the nation into a sugar-high spin called the Roaring '20s,
where the rich got fabulously rich and working-class people were being beaten and murdered by
industrialists when they tried to unionize. Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover (the three Republican
presidents from 1920 to 1932) all cheered on the assaults, using phrases like "the right to work"
to describe a union-free nation.
In the end, the result of the "
horses and sparrows " economics advocated by Harding ("feed more oats to the horses and
there'll be more oats in the horse poop to fatten the sparrows" -- that generation's version of
trickle-down economics) was the Republican Great Depression (yes, they called it that until after
World War II).
Even though Roosevelt was fabulously popular -- the only president to be elected four times --
the right-wingers of his day were loud and outspoken in their protests of what they called
"socialist" programs like Social Security, the right to unionize, and government-guaranteed job
programs including the WPA, REA, CCC, and others.
The Klan and American Nazis were assembling by the hundreds of thousands nationwide -- nearly
30,000 in Madison Square Garden
alone -- encouraged by wealthy and powerful "economic royalists" preaching "freedom" and "
liberty ." Like the Kochs' Freedomworks , that generation's huge and well-funded
(principally by the DuPonts' chemical fortune) organization was the Liberty League .
Roosevelt's generation had seen the results of this kind of hard-right "freedom" rhetoric in
Italy, Spain, Japan and Germany, the very nations with which we were then at war.
Speaking of "the grave dangers of 'rightist reaction' in this Nation," Roosevelt told America in that same speech that: "[I]f
history were to repeat itself and we were to return to the so-called 'normalcy' of the 1920s --
then it is certain that even though we shall have conquered our enemies on the battlefields
abroad, we shall have yielded to the spirit of Fascism here at home."
Although right-wingers are still working hard to disassemble FDR's New Deal -- the GOP budget
for 2019 contains massive cuts to Social Security, as well as to Medicare and Medicaid -- we got
halfway toward his notion of freedom and liberty here in the United States:
You're not free if
you're old and deep in poverty, so we have Social Security (although the GOP wants to gut it).
You're not free if you're hungry, so we have food stamps/SNAP (although the GOP wants to gut
them). You're not free if you're homeless, so we have housing assistance and homeless shelters
(although the GOP fights every effort to help homeless people). You're not free if you're sick
and can't get medical care, so we have Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare (although the GOP wants
to gut them all). You're not free if you're working more than 40 hours a week and still can't
meet basic expenses, so we have minimum wage laws and the right to unionize (although the GOP
wants to gut both). You're not free if you can't read, so we have free public schools (although
the GOP is actively working to gut them). You're not free if you can't vote, so we've passed
numerous laws to guarantee the right to vote (although the GOP is doing everything it can to keep
tens of millions of Americans from voting).
The billionaire class and their wholly owned Republican politicians keep trying to tell us
that "freedom" means the government doesn't provide any of the things listed above.
Instead, they tell us (as Ron Paul famously did in a GOP primary debate years ago) that, if we're
broke and sick, we're "free" to die like a feral dog in the gutter.
Freedom is homelessness, in the minds of the billionaires who own the GOP.
Poverty, lack of education, no access to health care, poor-paying jobs, and barriers to voting
are all proof of a free society, they tell us, which is why America's lowest life expectancy,
highest maternal and childhood death rates, lowest levels of education, and lowest pay
are almost all in GOP-controlled states .
America -- particularly the Democratic Party -- is engaged in a debate right now about the
meaning of socialism . It would be a big help for all of us if we were, instead, to have
an honest debate about the meaning of the words freedom and liberty .
Let us not forget the other propaganda arm of Republican party and big money- Fox news. They
spew the freedom nonsense while not adhering to any definition of the word.
I worked in the midwest as an Engineer in the 90s to early 2000s and saw plants being
gutted/shifted overseas, Union influence curtailed and mid level and bottom pay stay flat for
decades; all in the name of free market.
Sadly the same families that are the worst affected vote Republican! But we know all this
and have known it for a while. What will change?
The intro to this post is spot on. The Powell memo outlined a strategy for a corporate
coup d'eta. Is was completely successful. Now that the business class rules America, their only
vision is to continue the quest and cannibalize the country and enslave its people by any means
possible. What tools do they use to achieve these ends? -- debt, fear, violence and pandering
to human vanity as a motivator. Again, very successful.
Instead of honest public debate- which is impossible when undertaken with liars and thieves,
a good old manifesto or pamphlet like Common Sense is in order. Something calling out concrete
action that can be taken by commoners to regain their social respect and power. That should
scare the living daylights out of the complacent and smug elite.
Its that, or a lot of public infrastructure is gong to be broken up by the mob- which
doesn't work out in the long run. The nations that learn to work with and inspire their
populations will prosper- the rest will have a hard time of it. Look no further than America's
fall.
This piece raises some important points, but aims too narrowly at one political party,
when the D-party has also been complicit in sharing the framing of "freedom" as less
government/regulation/taxation. After all, it was the Clinton administration that did welfare
"reform", deregulation of finance, and declared the end of the era of "big government", and
both Clinton and Obama showed willingness to cut Social Security and Medicare in a "grand
bargain".
If in place of "the GOP," the author had written, "The national Democratic and Republican
parties over the past fifty years," his claim would be much more accurate. To believe what he
says about "the GOP," you have to pretend that Clinton, and Obama, and Pelosi, and Schumer, and
Feinstein simply don't exist and never did. The author's implicit valorization of Obamacare is
even more disheartening.
But perhaps this is the *point* of the piece after all? If I were a consultant to the DNC
(and I make less than $100,000/yr so I am clearly not), I would advocate that they commission,
underscore, and reward pieces exactly like this one. For the smartest ones surely grasp that
the rightist oligarchic policy takeover has in fact happened, and that it has left in its wake
millions of disaffected, indebted, uneducated, uninsured Americans.
(Suggesting that it hadn't was the worst idiocy of Clinton's 2016 campaign. It would have
been much better had she admitted it and blamed it on the Republican Senate while holding dear
old Obama up as a hamstrung martyr for the cause. I mean, this is what everybody at DailyKos
already believes, and the masses -- being poor and uneducated and desperate -- can be brought
around to believe anything, or anyway, enough of them can be.)
I would advocate that the DNC double down on its rightful claims to Roosevelt's inheritance,
embrace phrases like "social democracy" and "freedom from economic insecurity," and shift
leftward in all its official rhetoric. Admit the evisceration of the Roosevelt tradition, but
blame it all on the GOP. Maybe *maybe* even acknowledge that past Democratic leaders were a
little naive and idealistic in their pursuit of bipartisanship, and did not understand the
truly horrible intentions of the GOP. But today's Democrats are committed to wresting back the
rights of the people from the evil clutches of the Koch Republicans. This sort of thing.
Would my advice be followed? Or would the *really* smart ones in the room demure? If so, why
do you think they would?
In short, I read this piece as one stage in an ongoing dialectic in the Democratic Party in
the run-up to the 2020 election wherein party leaders try to determine how leftward its
"official" rhetoric is able to sway before becoming *so* unbelievable (in light of historical
facts) that it cannot serve as effective propaganda -- even among Americans!
Team Blue elites are the children of Bill Clinton and the Third Way, so the echo chamber was
probably terrible. Was Bill Clinton a bad President? He was the greatest Republican President!
The perception of this answer is a key. Who rose and joined Team Blue through this run? Many
Democrats don't recognize this, or they don't want to rock the boat. This is the structural
problem with Team Blue. The "generic Democrat" is AOC, Omar, Sanders, Warren, and a handful of
others.
Can the Team Blue elites embrace a Roosevelt identity? The answer is no. Their ideology is
so wildly divergent they can't adjust without a whole sale conversion.
More succinctly, the Third Way isn't about helping Democrats win by accepting not every
battle can be won. Its about advancing right wing politics and pretending this isn't what its
about. If they are too clear about good policy, they will be accused of betrayal.
This article makes me wonder if the GOP is still a political party anymore. I know, I know,
they have the party structure, the candidates, the budget and all the rest of it but when you
look at their policies and what they are trying to do, the question does arise. Are they doing
it because this is what they believe is their identity as a party or is it that they are simply
a vehicle with the billionaires doing the real driving and recruiting? An obvious point is that
among billionaires, they see no need to form their own political party which should be telling
clue. Certainly the Democrats are no better.
Maybe the question that American should ask themselves is just what does it mean to be an
American in the year 2020? People like Norman Rockwell and his Four Freedoms could have said a
lot of what it meant some 60 years ago and his work has been updated to reflect the modern era
( https://www.galeriemagazine.com/norman-rockwell-four-freedoms-modern/
) but the long and the short of it is that things are no longer working for most people anymore
-- and not just in America. But a powerful spring can only be pushed back and held in place for
so long before there is a rebound effect and I believe that I am seeing signs of this the past
few years.
" a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be
established for all -- regardless of station, race, or creed.
Among these are:
The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of
the nation;
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and
his family a decent living;
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from
unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and
unemployment;
The right to a good education.
All of these rights spell security."
America is having a heated debate about the meaning of the word socialism. We'd be better
served if, instead, we were debating the meaning of freedom.
I agree, and we should also be having a debate about capitalism as it actually exists. In
the US capitalism is always talked about in rosy non-specific terms (e.g. a preference for
markets or support for entrepreneurship) while anybody who says they don't necessarily support
capitalism has to answer for Stalin's gulag's or the Khmer Rouge. All the inequalities and
injustices that have helped people like Howard Schultz or Jeff Bezos become billionaire
capitalists somehow aren't part of capitalism, just different problems to be solved somehow but
definitely not by questioning capitalism.
Last night I watched the HBO documentary on Elizabeth Holmes and Theranos and I couldn't
help but laugh at all these powerful politicians, investors, and legal giants going along with
someone who never once demonstrated or even explained how her groundbreaking innovation
actually worked. $900 million was poured into that company before people realized something
that a Stanford professor interviewed in the documentary saw when she first met Holmes.
Fracking companies have been able to consistently raise funding despite consistently losing
money and destroying the environment in the process. Bank balance sheets were protected while
working people lost everything in the name of preserving American capitalism. I think it's good
to debate socialism and capitalism, but there's not really any point if we aren't going to be
talking about Actually Existing Capitalism rather than the hypothetical version that's trotted
out anytime someone suggests an alternative.
There was a great comment here on NC a little while ago, something to the effect of
"capitalism has the logic of a cancer cell. It's a pile of money whose only goal is to become a
bigger pile of money." Of course good things can happen as a side effect of it becoming a
bigger pile of money: innovation, efficiencies, improved standard of living, etc. but we need
government (not industry) regulation to keep the bad side effects of capitalism in check (like
the cancer eventually killing its host).
Shoot, must have missed that comment but it's a good metaphor. Reminds me of Capital vol. 1,
which Marx starts with a long and dense treatment of the nature of commodities and
commodification in order to capture this process whereby capitalists produce things people
really do want or need in order to get at what they really want: return on their
investment.
I also agree but I think we need to have a the same heated debate over what capitalism
means. Over the years I have been subjected to (exposed) to more flavors of socialism than I
can count. Yet, other than an introductory economics class way back when, no debatable words
about what 'capitalism' is seems to get attention. Maybe it's time to do that and hope that
some agreeable definition of 'freedom' falls out.
of course maybe socialism is the only thing that ever really could solve homelessness, given
that it seems to be at this point a worldwide problem, although better some places than others
(like the U.S. and UK).
This article lets the Dems off the hook. They have actively supported the Billionaire
Agenda for decades now; sometimes actively (like when they helped gut welfare) and sometimes by
enabling Repubs objectives (like voter suppression).
At this point in time, the Dem leadership is working to deep six Medicare for All.
With 'friends' like the Dems, who needs the Repubs?
1) In the history, a mention of the attempted coup against FDR would be good. See The
Plot to Seize the White House by Jules Archer. ( Amazon link )
2) For the contemporary intellectual history, I really appreciated Nancy MacLean's
Democracy in Chains . ( Amazon
link ) Look her up on youtube or Democracy Now . Her book got a bit of press and she
interviews well.
This post seems heavily slanted against the GOP and does not take into account how
pro-business the Democrats have become. I tenuously agree with Yves intro that much of the
current pro business value system campaign in the US was started with the political far right
and the Lewis Powell Memo. And that campaign kicked into high gear during the Reagan
Presidency.
But as that "pro business campaign" gained steam, the Democratic Party, IMO, realized that
they could partake in the "riches" as well and sold their political soul for a piece of the
action. Hartman's quote about the billionaire class should include their "wholly owned
Republicans and Democrat politicians".
As Lambert mentions (paraphrasing), "The left puts the working class first. Both liberals
and conservatives put markets first, liberals with many more layers of indirection (e.g.,
complex eligibility requirements, credentialing) because that creates niches from which their
professional base benefits".
As an aside, while the pro-business/capitalism on steroids people have sought more
"freedom", they have made the US and the world less free for the rest of us.
Also the over focusing on freedom is not uniquely GOP. As Hartman mentions, "the words
freedom and liberty are iconic in American culture -- probably more so than with any other
nation because they're so intrinsic to the literature, declarations and slogans of our nation's
founding." US culture has taken the concept of freedom to an extreme version of
individualism.
That is not surprising given our history.
The DRD4 gene is a dopamine receptor gene. One stretch of the gene is repeated a variable
number of times, and the version with seven repeats (the "7R" form) produces a receptor protein
that is relatively unresponsive to dopamine. Being unresponsive to dopamine means that people
who have this gene have a host of related traits -- sensation and novelty seeking, risk taking,
impulsivity, and, probably most consistently, ADHD. -- -- Seems like the type of people that
would value extreme (i.e. non-collective) forms of freedom
The United States is the individualism poster child for at least two reasons. First
there's immigration. Currently, 12 percent of Americans are immigrants, another 12 percent are
children of immigrants, and everyone else except for the 0.9 percent pure Native Americans
descend from people who emigrated within the last five hundred years.
And who were the immigrants?' Those in the settled world who were cranks, malcontents,
restless, heretical, black sheep, hyperactive, hypomanic, misanthropic, itchy, unconventional,
yearning to be free, yearning to be rich, yearning to be out of their, damn boring repressive
little hamlet, yearning. -- -- Again seems like the type of people that would value freedom in
all aspects of life and not be interested in collectivism
Couple that with the second reason -- for the majority of its colonial and independent
history, America has had a moving frontier luring those whose extreme prickly optimism made
merely booking passage to the New World insufficiently, novel -- and you've got America the
individualistic.
The 7R variant mentioned above occurs in about 23 percent of Europeans and European
Americans. And in East Asians? 1 percent. When East Asians domesticated rice and invented
collectivist society, there was massive selection against the 7R variant. Regardless of the
cause, East Asian cultural collectivism coevolved with selection against the 7R variant.
So which came first, 7R frequency or cultural style? The 4R and 7R variants, along with the
2R, occur worldwide, implying they already existed when humans radiated out of Africa 60,000 to
130,000 years ago. A high incidence of 7R, associated with impulsivity and novelty seeking, is
the legacy of humans who made the greatest migrations in human history.
So it seems that many of the people who immigrated to the US were impulsive, novelty
seeking, risk takers. As a counterpoint, many people that migrated to the US did not do so by
choice but were forced from their homes and their countries by wars.
The point of this long comment is that for some people the concept of freedom can be taken
to extreme -- a lack of gun control laws, financial regulation, extremes of wealth, etc. After
a brief period in the 1940's, 1950's, and early 1960's when the US was more collective, we
became greedy, consumerist, and consumption oriented, aided by the political and business
elites as mentioned in the post.
If we want the US to be a more collective society we have to initially do so in our
behaviors i.e. laws and regulations that rein in the people who would take the concept of
freedom to an extreme. Then maybe over an evolutionary time period some of the move impulsive,
sensation seeking, ADHDness, genes can be altered to a more balance mix of what makes the US
great with more of the collective genes.
IMO, if we do not begin to work on becoming a collective culture now, then climate change,
water scarcity, food scarcity, and resource scarcity will do it for us the hard way.
In these days of short attention spans I apologize for the long comment. The rest of my day
is busy and I do not have more time to shorten the comment. I wanted to develop an argument for
how the evolutionary and dysfunctional forms of freedom have gotten us to this point. And what
we need to do to still have some freedom but also "play nice and share in the future sandbox of
climate change and post fossil fuel society.
Trump betrayed all and every of his main election promises, except may be building the wall. For example "Trump said that
he no longer sees the point of NATO 25 years after the Soviet collapse."
Notable quotes:
"... Trump said that he no longer sees the point of NATO 25 years after the Soviet collapse. If he sticks to his view, it means a big political change in Washington's EU vassals. The hostility toward Russia of the current EU and NATO officials would have to cease. German Chancellor Merkel would have to change her spots or be replaced. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg would have to be dismissed. ..."
It also remains to be seen how the Oligarchy will respond to Trump's victory. Wall Street and
the Federal Reserve can cause an economic crisis in order to put Trump on the defensive, and they
can use the crisis to force Trump to appoint one of their own as Secretary of the Treasury. Rogue
agents in the CIA and Pentagon can cause a false flag attack that would disrupt friendly relations
with Russia. Trump could make a mistake and retain neoconservatives in his government.
With Trump there is at least hope. Unless Trump is obstructed by bad judgment in his appointments
and by obstacles put in his way, we should expect an end to Washington's orchestrated conflict
with Russia, the removal of the US missiles on Russia's border with Poland and Romania, the end
of the conflict in Ukraine, and the end of Washington's effort to overthrow the Syrian government.
However, achievements such as these imply the defeat of the US Oligarchy. Although Trump defeated
Hillary, the Oligarchy still exists and is still powerful.
Trump said that he no longer sees the point of NATO 25 years after the Soviet collapse. If he sticks
to his view, it means a big political change in Washington's EU vassals. The hostility toward Russia
of the current EU and NATO officials would have to cease. German Chancellor Merkel would have to
change her spots or be replaced. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg would have to be dismissed.
We do not know who Trump will select to serve in his government. It is likely that Trump is unfamiliar
with the various possibilities and their positions on issues. It really depends on who is advising
Trump and what advice they give him. Once we see his government, we will know whether we can be hopeful
for the changes that now have a chance.
If the oligarchy is unable to control Trump and he is actually successful in curbing the power
and budget of the military/security complex and in holding the financial sector politically accountable,
Trump could be assassinated.
The final Mueller report should be graded "incomplete," says VIPS, whose forensic work proves the speciousness of the story that
DNC emails published by WikiLeaks came from Russian hacking.
MEMORANDUM FOR: The Attorney General
FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
SUBJECT: Mueller's Forensics-Free Findings
Executive Summary
Media reports are predicting that Special Counsel Robert Mueller is about to give you the findings of his probe into any
links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump.
If Mueller gives you his "completed" report anytime soon, it should be graded "incomplete."
Major deficiencies include depending on a DNC-hired cybersecurity company for forensics and failure to consult with those who
have done original forensic work, including us and the independent forensic investigators with whom we have examined the data. We
stand ready to help.
We veteran intelligence professionals (VIPS) have done enough detailed forensic work to prove the speciousness of the prevailing
story that the DNC emails published by WikiLeaks came from Russian hacking. Given the paucity of evidence to support that story,
we believe Mueller may choose to finesse this key issue and leave everyone hanging. That would help sustain the widespread belief
that Trump owes his victory to President Vladimir Putin, and strengthen the hand of those who pay little heed to the unpredictable
consequences of an increase in tensions with nuclear-armed Russia.
There is an overabundance of "assessments" but a lack of hard evidence to support that prevailing narrative. We believe that there
are enough people of integrity in the Department of Justice to prevent the outright manufacture or distortion of "evidence," particularly
if they become aware that experienced scientists have completed independent forensic study that yield very different conclusions.
We know only too well -- and did our best to expose -- how our former colleagues in the intelligence community manufactured fraudulent
"evidence" of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
We have scrutinized publicly available physical data -- the "trail" that every cyber operation leaves behind. And we have had
support from highly experienced independent forensic investigators who, like us, have no axes to grind. We can prove that the conventional-wisdom
story about Russian-hacking-DNC-emails-for-WikiLeaks is false. Drawing largely on the unique expertise of two VIPS scientists who
worked for a combined total of 70 years at the National Security Agency and became Technical Directors there, we have regularly published
our findings. But we have been deprived of a hearing in mainstream media -- an experience painfully reminiscent of what we had to
endure when we exposed the corruption of intelligence before the attack on Iraq 16 years ago.
This time, with the principles of physics and forensic science to rely on, we are able to adduce solid evidence exposing mistakes
and distortions in the dominant story. We offer you below -- as a kind of aide-memoire -- a discussion of some of the key
factors related to what has become known as "Russia-gate." And we include our most recent findings drawn from forensic work on data
associated with WikiLeaks' publication of the DNC emails.
We do not claim our conclusions are "irrefutable and undeniable," a la Colin Powell at the UN before the Iraq war. Our judgments,
however, are based on the scientific method -- not "assessments." We decided to put this memorandum together in hopes of ensuring
that you hear that directly from us.
If the Mueller team remains reluctant to review our work -- or even to interview willing witnesses with direct knowledge, like
WikiLeaks' Julian Assange and former UK Ambassador Craig Murray, we fear that many of those yearning earnestly for the truth on Russia-gate
will come to the corrosive conclusion that the Mueller investigation was a sham.
In sum, we are concerned that, at this point, an incomplete Mueller report will fall far short of the commitment made by then
Acting Attorney General Rod Rosenstein "to ensure a full and thorough investigation," when he appointed Mueller in May 2017. Again,
we are at your disposal.
Discussion
The centerpiece accusation of Kremlin "interference" in the 2016 presidential election was the charge that Russia hacked Democratic
National Committee emails and gave them to WikiLeaks to embarrass Secretary Hillary Clinton and help Mr. Trump win. The weeks following
the election witnessed multiple leak-based media allegations to that effect. These culminated on January 6, 2017 in an evidence-light,
rump report misleadingly labeled "Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA)." Prepared by "handpicked analysts" from only three of
the 17 U.S. intelligence agencies (CIA, FBI, and NSA), the assessment expressed "high confidence" in the Russia-hacking-to-WikiLeaks
story, but lacked so much as a hint that the authors had sought access to independent forensics to support their "assessment."
The media immediately awarded the ICA the status of Holy Writ, choosing to overlook an assortment of banal, full-disclosure-type
caveats included in the assessment itself -- such as:
" When Intelligence Community analysts use words such as 'we assess' or 'we judge,' they are conveying an analytic assessment
or judgment. Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact. Assessments are based on
collected information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary High confidence in a judgment does not imply that the assessment
is a fact or a certainty; such judgments might be wrong."
To their credit, however, the authors of the ICA did make a highly germane point in introductory remarks on "cyber incident attribution."
They noted: "The nature of cyberspace makes attribution of cyber operations difficult but not impossible. Every kind of cyber
operation -- malicious or not -- leaves a trail." [Emphasis added.]
Forensics
The imperative is to get on that "trail" -- and quickly, before red herrings can be swept across it. The best way to establish
attribution is to apply the methodology and processes of forensic science. Intrusions into computers leave behind discernible physical
data that can be examined scientifically by forensic experts. Risk to "sources and methods" is normally not a problem.
Direct access to the actual computers is the first requirement -- the more so when an intrusion is termed "an act of war" and
blamed on a nuclear-armed foreign government (the words used by the late Sen. John McCain and other senior officials). In testimony
to the House Intelligence Committee in March 2017, former FBI Director James Comey admitted that he did not insist on physical access
to the DNC computers even though, as he conceded, "best practices" dictate direct access.
In June 2017, Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Richard Burr asked Comey whether he ever had "access to the actual hardware
that was hacked." Comey answered, "In the case of the DNC we did not have access to the devices themselves. We got relevant forensic
information from a private party, a high-class entity, that had done the work. " Sen. Burr followed up: "But no content? Isn't content
an important part of the forensics from a counterintelligence standpoint?" Comey: "It is, although what was briefed to me by my folks
is that they had gotten the information from the private party that they needed to understand the intrusion by the spring of 2016."
The "private party/high-class entity" to which Comey refers is CrowdStrike, a cybersecurity firm of checkered reputation and multiple
conflicts of interest, including very close ties to a number of key anti-Russian organizations. Comey indicated that the DNC hired
CrowdStrike in the spring of 2016.
Given the stakes involved in the Russia-gate investigation – including a possible impeachment battle and greatly increased tension
between Russia and the U.S. -- it is difficult to understand why Comey did not move quickly to seize the computer hardware so the
FBI could perform an independent examination of what quickly became the major predicate for investigating election interference by
Russia. Fortunately, enough data remain on the forensic "trail" to arrive at evidence-anchored conclusions. The work we have done
shows the prevailing narrative to be false. We have been suggesting this for over two years. Recent forensic work significantly strengthens
that conclusion.
We Do Forensics
Recent forensic examination of the Wikileaks DNC files shows they were created on 23, 25 and 26 May 2016. (On June 12, Julian
Assange announced he had them; WikiLeaks published them on July 22.) We recently discovered that the files reveal a FAT (File Allocation
Table) system property. This shows that the data had been transferred to an external storage device, such as a thumb drive,
before WikiLeaks posted them.
FAT is a simple file system named for its method of organization, the File Allocation Table. It is used for storage only and is
not related to internet transfers like hacking. Were WikiLeaks to have received the DNC files via a hack, the last modified times
on the files would be a random mixture of odd-and even-ending numbers.
Why is that important? The evidence lies in the "last modified" time stamps on the Wikileaks files. When a file is stored under
the FAT file system the software rounds the time to the nearest even-numbered second. Every single one of the time stamps in the
DNC files on WikiLeaks' site ends in an even number.
We have examined 500 DNC email files stored on the Wikileaks site. All 500 files end in an even number -- 2, 4, 6, 8 or 0. If
those files had been hacked over the Internet, there would be an equal probability of the time stamp ending in an odd number. The
random probability that FAT was not used is 1 chance in 2 to the 500th power. Thus, these data show that the DNC emails posted by
WikiLeaks went through a storage device, like a thumb drive, and were physically moved before Wikileaks posted the emails on the
World Wide Web.
This finding alone is enough to raise reasonable doubts, for example, about Mueller's indictment of 12 Russian intelligence officers
for hacking the DNC emails given to WikiLeaks. A defense attorney could easily use the forensics to argue that someone copied the
DNC files to a storage device like a USB thumb drive and got them physically to WikiLeaks -- not electronically via a hack.
Role of NSA
For more than two years, we strongly suspected that the DNC emails were copied/leaked in that way, not hacked. And we said so.
We remain intrigued by the apparent failure of NSA's dragnet, collect-it-all approach -- including "cast-iron" coverage of WikiLeaks
-- to provide forensic evidence (as opposed to "assessments") as to how the DNC emails got to WikiLeaks and who sent them. Well before
the telling evidence drawn from the use of FAT, other technical evidence led us to conclude that the DNC emails were not hacked over
the network, but rather physically moved over, say, the Atlantic Ocean.
Is it possible that NSA has not yet been asked to produce the collected packets of DNC email data claimed to have been hacked
by Russia? Surely, this should be done before Mueller competes his investigation. NSA has taps on all the transoceanic cables leaving
the U.S. and would almost certainly have such packets if they exist. (The detailed slides released by Edward Snowden actually show
the routes that trace the packets.)
The forensics we examined shed no direct light on who may have been behind the leak. The only thing we know for sure is that the
person had to have direct access to the DNC computers or servers in order to copy the emails. The apparent lack of evidence from
the most likely source, NSA, regarding a hack may help explain the FBI's curious preference for forensic data from CrowdStrike. No
less puzzling is why Comey would choose to call CrowdStrike a "high-class entity."
Comey was one of the intelligence chiefs briefing President Obama on January 5, 2017 on the "Intelligence Community Assessment,"
which was then briefed to President-elect Trump and published the following day. That Obama found a key part of the ICA narrative
less than persuasive became clear at his last press conference (January 18), when he told the media, "The conclusions of the intelligence
community with respect to the Russian hacking were not conclusive as to how 'the DNC emails that were leaked' got to WikiLeaks.
Is Guccifer 2.0 a Fraud?
There is further compelling technical evidence that undermines the claim that the DNC emails were downloaded over the internet
as a result of a spearphishing attack. William Binney, one of VIPS' two former Technical Directors at NSA, along with other former
intelligence community experts, examined files posted by Guccifer 2.0 and discovered that those files could not have been downloaded
over the internet. It is a simple matter of mathematics and physics.
There was a flurry of activity after Julian Assange announced on June 12, 2016: "We have emails relating to Hillary Clinton which
are pending publication." On June 14, DNC contractor CrowdStrike announced that malware was found on the DNC server and claimed there
was evidence it was injected by Russians. On June 15, the Guccifer 2.0 persona emerged on the public stage, affirmed the DNC statement,
claimed to be responsible for hacking the DNC, claimed to be a WikiLeaks source, and posted a document that forensics show
was synthetically tainted with "Russian fingerprints."
Our suspicions about the Guccifer 2.0 persona grew when G-2 claimed responsibility for a "hack" of the DNC on July 5, 2016, which
released DNC data that was rather bland compared to what WikiLeaks published 17 days later (showing how the DNC had tipped the primary
scales against Sen. Bernie Sanders). As VIPS
reported in a wrap-up
Memorandum for the President on July 24, 2017 (titled "Intel Vets Challenge 'Russia Hack' Evidence)," forensic examination of the
July 5, 2016 cyber intrusion into the DNC showed it NOT to be a hack by the Russians or by anyone else, but rather a copy onto an
external storage device. It seemed a good guess that the July 5 intrusion was a contrivance to preemptively taint anything WikiLeaks
might later publish from the DNC, by "showing" it came from a "Russian hack." WikiLeaks published the DNC emails on July 22, three
days before the Democratic convention.
As we prepared our July 24 memo for the President, we chose to begin by taking Guccifer 2.0 at face value; i. e., that the documents
he posted on July 5, 2016 were obtained via a hack over the Internet. Binney conducted a forensic examination of the metadata contained
in the posted documents and compared that metadata with the known capacity of Internet connection speeds at the time in the U.S.
This analysis showed a transfer rate as high as 49.1 megabytes per second, which is much faster than was possible from a remote online
Internet connection. The 49.1 megabytes speed coincided, though, with the rate that copying onto a thumb drive could accommodate.
Binney, assisted by colleagues with relevant technical expertise, then extended the examination and ran various forensic tests
from the U.S. to the Netherlands, Albania, Belgrade and the UK. The fastest Internet rate obtained -- from a data center in New Jersey
to a data center in the UK -- was 12 megabytes per second, which is less than a fourth of the capacity typical of a copy onto a thumb
drive.
The findings from the examination of the Guccifer 2.0 data and the WikiLeaks data does not indicate who copied the information
to an external storage device (probably a thumb drive). But our examination does disprove that G.2 hacked into the DNC on July 5,
2016. Forensic evidence for the Guccifer 2.0 data adds to other evidence that the DNC emails were not taken by an internet spearphishing
attack. The data breach was local. The emails were copied from the network.
Presidential Interest
After VIPS' July 24, 2017 Memorandum for the President, Binney, one of its principal authors, was invited to share his insights
with Mike Pompeo, CIA Director at the time. When Binney arrived in Pompeo's office at CIA Headquarters on October 24, 2017 for an
hour-long discussion, the director made no secret of the reason for the invitation: "You are here because the President told me that
if I really wanted to know about Russian hacking I needed to talk with you."
Binney warned Pompeo -- to stares of incredulity -- that his people should stop lying about the Russian hacking. Binney then started
to explain the VIPS findings that had caught President Trump's attention. Pompeo asked Binney if he would talk to the FBI and NSA.
Binney agreed, but has not been contacted by those agencies. With that, Pompeo had done what the President asked. There was no follow-up.
Confronting James Clapper on Forensics
We, the hoi polloi, do not often get a chance to talk to people like Pompeo -- and still less to the former intelligence
chiefs who are the leading purveyors of the prevailing Russia-gate narrative. An exception came on November 13, when former National
Intelligence Director James Clapper came to the Carnegie Endowment in Washington to hawk his memoir. Answering a question during
the Q&A about Russian "hacking" and NSA, Clapper said:
" Well, I have talked with NSA a lot And in my mind, I spent a lot of time in the SIGINT business, the forensic evidence
was overwhelming about what the Russians had done. There's absolutely no doubt in my mind whatsoever." [Emphasis added]
Clapper added: " as a private citizen, understanding the magnitude of what the Russians did and the number of citizens in our
country they reached and the different mechanisms that, by which they reached them, to me it stretches credulity to think they didn't
have a profound impact on election on the outcome of the election."
(A transcript of the interesting Q&A can be found
here and a commentary
on Clapper's performance at Carnegie, as well as on his longstanding lack of credibility, is
here .)
Normally soft-spoken Ron Wyden, Democratic senator from Oregon, lost his patience with Clapper last week when he learned that
Clapper is still denying that he lied to the Senate Intelligence Committee about the extent of NSA surveillance of U.S. citizens.
In an unusual outburst, Wyden said: "James Clapper needs to stop making excuses for lying to the American people about mass surveillance.
To be clear: I sent him the question in advance. I asked him to correct the record afterward. He chose to let the lie stand."
The materials brought out by Edward Snowden in June 2013 showed Clapper to have lied under oath to the committee on March 12,
2013; he was, nevertheless, allowed to stay on as Director of National Intelligence for three and half more years. Clapper fancies
himself an expert on Russia, telling Meet the Press on May 28, 2017 that Russia's history shows that Russians are "typically,
almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever."
Clapper ought to be asked about the "forensics" he said were "overwhelming about what the Russians had done." And that, too, before
Mueller completes his investigation.
For the steering group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity:
William Binney , former NSA Technical Director for World Geopolitical & Military Analysis; Co-founder of NSA's Signals
Intelligence Automation Research Center (ret.)
Richard H. Black , Senator of Virginia, 13th District; Colonel US Army (ret.); Former Chief, Criminal Law Division,
Office of the Judge Advocate General, the Pentagon (associate VIPS)
Bogdan Dzakovic , former Team Leader of Federal Air Marshals and Red Team, FAA Security (ret.) (associate VIPS)
Philip Girald i, CIA, Operations Officer (ret.)
Mike Gravel , former Adjutant, top secret control officer, Communications Intelligence Service; special agent of the
Counter Intelligence Corps and former United States Senator
James George Jatras , former U.S. diplomat and former foreign policy adviser to Senate leadership (Associate VIPS)
Larry C. Johnson , former CIA and State Department Counter Terrorism officer
John Kiriakou , former CIA Counterterrorism Officer and former senior investigator, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Karen Kwiatkowski , former Lt. Col., US Air Force (ret.), at Office of Secretary of Defense watching the manufacture
of lies on Iraq, 2001-2003
Edward Loomis , Cryptologic Computer Scientist, former Technical Director at NSA (ret.)
David MacMichael , Ph.D., former senior estimates officer, National Intelligence Council (ret.)
Ray McGovern , former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA analyst; CIA Presidential briefer (ret.)
Elizabeth Murray , former Deputy National Intelligence Officer for the Near East, National Intelligence Council & CIA
political analyst (ret.)
Todd E. Pierce , MAJ, US Army Judge Advocate (ret.)
Peter Van Buren , US Department of State, Foreign Service Officer (ret.) (associate VIPS)
Sarah G. Wilton , CDR, USNR, (ret.); Defense Intelligence Agency (ret.)
Kirk Wiebe , former Senior Analyst, SIGINT Automation Research Center, NSA
Ann Wright , retired U.S. Army reserve colonel and former U.S. diplomat who resigned in 2003 in opposition to the Iraq
War
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) is made up of former intelligence officers, diplomats, military officers
and congressional staffers. The organization, founded in 2002, was among the first critics of Washington's justifications for launching
a war against Iraq. VIPS advocates a US foreign and national security policy based on genuine national interests rather than contrived
threats promoted for largely political reasons. An archive of
VIPS memoranda is available at Consortiumnews.com.
Human society is way to complex for alpha males to succeed unconditionally... Quite a different set of traits is often needed.
Notable quotes:
"... Superficially, Hemingway was correct. But on a deeper level, he missed the reality of the heightened sense of entitlement that the very rich possess, as well as the deference that so many people automatically show to them. ..."
"... Hemingway is saying: take away all that money and the behavior would change as well. It's the money (or the power in your example) that makes the difference. ..."
"... I feel Fitzgerald got the basic idea right ..."
"... Apparently Fitzgerald was referring specifically to the attitudes of those who are born rich, attitudes that Fitzgerald thought remained unaltered by events, including the loss of economic status. ..."
"... "They think, deep in their hearts, that they are better than we are because we had to discover the compensations and refuges of life for ourselves. Even when they enter deep into our world or sink below us, they still think that they are better than we are. They are different." ..."
"... "He thought they were a special glamorous race and when he found they weren't it wrecked him as much as any other thing that wrecked him." ..."
Superficially, Hemingway was correct. But on a deeper level, he missed the reality of the heightened sense of
entitlement that the very rich possess, as well as the deference that so many people automatically show to them. The rich
shouldn't be different in this way, but they are. In some other societies, such entitlement and deference would accrue to
senior party members, senior clergymen, or hereditary nobility (who might not have much money at all).
"Go with the winner." That is how it works for the alpha male (a chimp, an ape, or a gorilla) for most followers anyway. Some will challenge. If victorious, followers will line up (more go-with-the-winner). If defeated, an outcast.
Without a doubt Hemingway had a rather catty attitude toward his literary rival, but in this instance I think the debunking
is merited. It's quite possible that rich people act the way we would act if we were rich, and that Fitzgerald's tiresome obsession
with rich people didn't cut very deep. Hemingway is saying: take away all that money and the behavior would change as well. It's
the money (or the power in your example) that makes the difference.
In my opinion, the fact that if they had less money would change the way they think, does not change the fact that, while they
have more money, they think differently, and different rules apply to them.
Addendum: The fact that an Alpha Chimp would act differently if someone else was the Alpha Chimp does not change the fact that
an Alpha Chimp has fundamentally different behavior than the rest of the group.
"Hemingway is responsible for a famous misquotation of Fitzgerald's. According to Hemingway, a conversation between him and
Fitzgerald went:
Fitzgerald: The rich are different than you and me. Hemingway: Yes, they have more money.
This never actually happened; it is a retelling of an actual encounter between Hemingway and Mary Colum, which went as follows:
Hemingway: I am getting to know the rich.
Colum: I think you'll find the only difference between the rich and other people is that the rich have more money."
Just want to point out that that quote of Hemingways wasn't about Fitzgerald and wasn't even by Hemingway. Anyway I was more
attacking the "rich have more money" thing than I was trying to defend Fitzgerald, but I feel Fitzgerald got the basic idea
right
Apparently Fitzgerald was referring specifically to the attitudes of those who are born rich, attitudes that Fitzgerald
thought remained unaltered by events, including the loss of economic status.
"They think, deep in their hearts, that they are better than we are because we had to discover the compensations
and refuges of life for ourselves. Even when they enter deep into our world or sink below us, they still think that they are
better than we are. They are different."
Hemingway suggested that Fitzgerald had once been especially enamored of the rich, seeing them as a "special glamorous race"
but ultimately became disillusioned.
"He thought they were a special glamorous race and when he found they weren't it wrecked him as much as any other thing
that wrecked him."
"... Both Clinton and Trump were close to Epstein. To me this smells like there was a bi-partisan consensus to bury this, and only now that the Clintons are no longer dominating the Democrat party, do we get some results. ..."
"... "I've known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy," Trump said of Epstein during a 2002 interview with New York magazine. "He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side." ..."
"... "The Government aligned themselves with Epstein, working against his victims, for 11 years..." THE SAME can be said for this: "The Government aligned themselves with APARTHEID Israhell, working against their Palestinians victims, for over 70 years... " WARNING: Graphic Images ..."
"... Epstein has dirt on EVERYONE ... If he ever gets in a legitimate court room? - many, many, shitty people will be in trouble ... GOP and Democrat. ..."
"... The ruling comes after Senators on the Judiciary Committee asked that the DOJ open an investigation into the deal, which was offered at a time when Robert Mueller was running the FBI . ..."
"... I assume MOSSAD & friends will have to pull some very fancy rabbits out of their hat to get this buried again . The $wamp can't afford to have him cooperating, so I'm guessing Epstein will have to 'retire' to Tel-Aviv - or have an accident/become 'depressed, etc.' ..."
Both Clinton and Trump were close to Epstein. To me this smells like there was a bi-partisan consensus to bury this, and
only now that the Clintons are no longer dominating the Democrat party, do we get some results.
While Trump has recently distanced himself from Epstein, a 64-year-old financier, it wasn't always that way.
"I've known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy," Trump said of Epstein during a 2002 interview with New York magazine.
"He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger
side."
Attorney Spencer Kuvin, one of dozens of lawyers who successfully sued Epstein on behalf of roughly 30 women who claimed
he lured them to his Palm Beach mansion for sexually-charged massages when they were as young as 14, said he always found the
comment curious.
"How would he know that?" he said of Trump's acknowledgement of Epstein's penchant for young women. The interview came nearly
six years before Epstein's secret sex life exploded into public view when the money manager pleaded guilty to Florida charges
of procuring and soliciting a minor for prostitution. "Why would he make a joke like that?" the West Palm Beach attorney asked.
Be nice if someone found the guest list because Bill Clinton wouldn't be able to kill that many people to cover it up. It'd
be sweet if they found evidence that Trump went, because he definitely did. He's probably the one to name it "Lolita Express."...no,
that was probably Bill.
"The Government aligned themselves with Epstein, working against his victims, for 11 years..." THE SAME can be said for
this: "The Government aligned themselves with APARTHEID Israhell, working against their Palestinians victims,
for over 70 years... " WARNING:
Graphic Images
I assume MOSSAD & friends will have to pull some very fancy rabbits out of their hat to get this buried again. The
$wamp can't afford to have him cooperating, so I'm guessing Epstein will have to 'retire' to Tel-Aviv - or have an accident/become
'depressed, etc.'
I will further bet that JE has had adequate notice of all this to be getting out of the USA to Balfourstan - a non-extradition
country - ASAP.
As you dig into these stories, one singular theory emerges again and again: Sexual deviants and psychos have been groomed for
office because they are easier to blackmail and control.
Peter
Strzok's big fat FBI lie
about the reason for the set up of the private email server. The FBI knew years before they released
tranches of Hillary's emails starting in Sep. 2016. Tellingly, he volunteered this explanation even though he wasn't asked about WHEN.
Whoops.
Peter Strzok. (Jun. 27, 2018)
. Peter Strzok TRANSCRIPTION of Interview with Peter Strzok released by Rep. Doug Collins (GA 9th),
Committee on the Judiciary, pgs. 312. U.S. House of Representatives.
FACT: The alternative media is better at presenting FACTS than the FBI. Her domain was registered in January 2009.
The 'rank and file' FBI SUCK at their jobs! When ordinary citizens do a better job at finding
facts, then why do we employee these people?
The Justice Department and Hillary Clinton's legal team "negotiated" an agreement that blocked the
FBI from accessing emails on Clinton's homebrew server related to the Clinton Foundation,
according to a transcript
of recently released testimony from last summer by former FBI special
agent Peter Strzok.
Under questioning from Judiciary Committee General Counsel Zachary Somers, Strzok
acknowledged that Clinton's private personal email servers contained a mixture of emails related
to the Clinton Foundation, her work as secretary of state and other matters.
"Were you given access to [Clinton Foundation-related] emails as part of the investigation?"
Somers asked
"
We were not. We did not have access
," Strzok responded. "
My
recollection is that the access to those emails were based on consent that was negotiated
between the Department of Justice attorneys and counsel for Clinton
." -
Fox
News
Strzok added that "
a significant filter team
" was employed at the FBI to "work
through the various terms of the various consent agreements."
"According to the attorneys, we lacked probable cause to get a search warrant for those servers
and projected that either it would take a very long time and/or it would be impossible to get to
the point where we could obtain probable cause to get a warrant," said Strzok.
The foundation has long been accused of "pay-to-play" transactions, fueled by a report in the
IBTimes
that the
Clinton-led State Department authorized $151 billion in Pentagon-brokered deals to 16 countries
that donated to the Clinton Foundation - a
145% increase in completed sales to those
nations over the same time frame during the Bush administration.
Adding to speculation of malfeasance is the fact that
donor contributions to the Clinton
Foundation
dried up by approximately 90%
over a three-year period between
2014
and
2017
,
according to financial statements.
What's more, Bill Clinton reportedly received a
$1
million check
from Qatar - one of the countries which gained State Department clearance to buy
US weapons while Clinton was Secretary of State,
even as the department signaled them out
for a range of alleged ills,"
according to
IBTimes.
The Clinton Foundation
confirmed
it accepted
the money.
Then there was the
surely unrelated
$145
million
donated to the Foundation
from parties linked to the
Uranium One deal
prior to its approval through a
rubber-stamp
committee
.
"The committee almost never met, and when it deliberated it was usually at a fairly
low bureaucratic level," Richard Perle said. Perle, who has worked for the Reagan, Clinton and
both Bush administrations added, "
I think it's a bit of a joke.
" –
CBS
Later in his testimony last summer, Strzok said that agents were able to access "the
entire universe" of information on the servers by using search terms to probe their contents -
saying "we had it voluntarily."
"What's bizarre about this, is in any other situation, there's no possible way
they would allow the potential perpetrator to self-select what the FBI gets to see," said former
Utah Rep. Jason Chaffetz - former chair of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee
until 2017 and current contributor to
Fox News
. "
The FBI should be the one to sort
through those emails -- not the Clinton attorneys.
"
Chaffetz suggested that the goal of the DOJ was to "make sure they hear no evil, see
no evil -- they had no interest in pursuing the truth."
"The Clinton Foundation isn't supposed to be communicating with the State Department
anyway," said Chaffetz. "The foundation -- with her name on it -- is not supposed to be
communicating with the senior officials at the State Department."
Republican-led concerns that the DOJ, under the Obama administration, was too cozy with the
Clinton team during the 2016 presidential campaign have grown louder in recent days. Earlier
this week,
Fox
News exclusively reviewed
an internal chart prepared by federal investigators working on the
so-called "Midyear Exam" probe into Clinton's emails. The chart contained the words "NOTE: DOJ
not willing to charge this" next to a key statute on the mishandling of classified information.
The notation appeared to contradict former FBI Director James Comey's repeated claims that
his team made its decision that Clinton should not face criminal charges independently.
But Strzok, in his closed-door interview, denied that the DOJ exercised undue influence over
the FBI, and insisted that lawyers at the DOJ were involved in an advisory capacity working with
agents. -
Fox
News
Strzok was fired from the FBI after months of intense scrutiny over anti-Trump text messages he
exchanged with his mistress - FBI lawyer Lisa Page. Both Strzok and Page were involved at the
highest levels of both the Clinton email investigation and the counterintelligence investigation on
President Trump and his 2016 campaign.
Investigators Ask Loretta Lynch: Why Didn't DOJ/FBI Give Trump A
Defensive Briefing If They Suspected Members of His Campaign Had
Ties to Russia?
Posted at 7:30 pm on March 14, 2019 by Elizabeth Vaughn
Although the transcripts from former Attorney General Loretta
Lynch's Testimony last year have not been released yet,
investigative reporter Sara Carter obtained a copy and said that
lawmakers had one question on their minds. If the DOJ and the FBI
were so worried that Trump's campaign had been penetrated by
Russians, why didn't anyone give him a defensive briefing which is
customary? Lynch's inability to answer this question spoke
volumes.
Defensive briefings are "often given to presidential
candidates, elected officials and even U.S. businesses that have
either been unwittingly approached by foreign actors attempting to
gain trust and befriend those in position of influence." A senior
former intelligence official told Carter that, "if the FBI or
intelligence agencies suspect foreign adversaries may be trying to
penetrate a presidential campaign, as those FBI and DOJ sources
suggested in testimony to lawmakers, it would then be required to
warn those affected." In 2008, for example, the FBI gave John
McCain a defensive briefing due to their concern over the Russian
connections of a member of his campaign. Why wasn't Trump offered
the same courtesy?
Carter's source added:
It is an essential task of the FBI and the intelligence
community to give a defensive briefing to a presidential candidate
when a foreign adversary is attempting to penetrate or make
contact with someone in the campaign. If the FBI and DOJ were so
concerned about Carter Page and (George) Papadopoulos why didn't
they brief Trump when he became a candidate? The fact that they
didn't is very revealing. If they gave a defensive briefing to the
Clinton campaign then I think we have the answer.
(It is unknown if the Clinton campaign received a briefing.)
Carter said that a comparison of the testimonies of DOJ
official Bruce Ohr, former FBI top lawyer James Baker and Lynch
show that all three spoke of their concern that Russians might be
penetrating Trump's campaign, yet no one offered a defensive
briefing.
In her testimony, Lynch admitted that top officials, including
James Comey, all talked about offering a defensive briefing, but
no one ever followed through.
But, then again, why brief a candidate when you're trying to
frame him instead?
look NOTHING happens in DC if not for political gain, including
actual law enforcement---exhibit A being the email server.
Does
indicting Hillary help Trump independent voters? Not so sure.
Seems like the OJ trial---who DOESN"T think she's guilty and like
AOC, every time she opens her trap, it helps Trump.
Perp walking the traitors (McCabe, Strzok, Page and the rest
the Hilter Youth)--huge benefits IMO. Remember, all the Dems
have steadfastly defended this cabal. Make them defend the
traitors.
Pedophilia has come up in the mainstream a lot lately, as PizzaGate came to light fairly recently and more and more pedophile
rings are being exposed, some of which have involved government officials.
If you're unfamiliar with PizzaGate, it refers to a wide range of email correspondence leaked from the DNC that allegedly unearthed
a high-level elitist global pedophile ring in which the U.S. government was involved.
It emerged when Wikileaks released tens of thousands of emails from the former White House Chief of Staff under Bill Clinton,
John Podesta, who also served as Hillary Clinton's campaign manager. It's because of these emails that many claimed John Podesta
was a part of these child trafficking rings as well.
Since then, conspiracy theorists and world renowned journalists alike have been looking into the topic and speculating how big
this problem could be and who could be involved within these underground rings.
For example, award winning American journalist Ben Swann explained the Pizzagate controversy in detail on mainstream news:
Not long after, Swann's entire online personal brand and accounts had all but vanished from the
internet. Why?
More recently, there's been some speculation that these pedophile rings could stretch into pop culture, potentially involving
more pedophilia scandals and symbolism within the media. The question here is: Is there any tangible evidence of all of this, or
is it mere speculation?
Pedophilia Symbolism
I'd like to begin by identifying the symbols that are used by pedophiles to identify themselves and make their requests within
underground networks. Here is a link
to a declassified FBI document illustrating the symbols and images used by pedophiles to "identify their sexual preferences."
So, how do these images relate to pizza? First of all, before PizzaGate was even suggested, "cheese pizza" was used as
a code word to discuss "child porn" (hint: it's the same initials, CP). A quick Google search will reveal that the market for underage
sex workers is fairly substantial, and you can even see a 2015 post on
Urban Dictionary that explains
how "cheese pizza" is used as code for child porn.
As per PizzaGate and the symbolism, it all started when multiple emails involving John Podesta, his brother, and Hillary Clinton
simply didn't add up. Strange wording discussing pizza and cheese left readers confused, and because the emails made so little sense,
it led many to suspect that they were code for something else.
For example, this email addressed to John Podesta
reads: "The realtor found a handkerchief (I think it has a map that seems pizza-related)," and
this email sent from John Podesta asks: "Do you
think I'll do better playing dominos on cheese than on pasta?" There are many more examples, and I encourage you to go through
the Wikileaks vault to explore.
On top of that, the DNC was associated with two pizza places, Comet Ping Pong and Besta Pizza, which use very clear symbols of
pedophilia in their advertising and have strange images of children and other ritualistic type images and suspicious videos on their
social media accounts – which has since been made private given the controversy over the images and their link to the DNC, but again,
a quick Google search will show you what those images looked like. You can read the email correspondence between John Podesta and
Comet Ping Pong's owner, James Alefantis,
here .
"... I'll be honest here and admit that Democrats irritate me more than Republicans for this one simple reason. ..."
"... I've come to expect Republicans to be malicious -- there is honesty in their advertisement. However, it's the Democrats who smile like foxes as they pretend to be our allies only to stab us in our backs the minute they get elected. ..."
"Foxes and wolves usually are of the same breed. They belong to the same family -- I think
it's called canine. And the difference is that the wolf when he shows you his teeth, you know
that he's your enemy; and the fox, when he shows you his teeth, he appears to be smiling. But
no matter which of them you go with, you end up in the dog house."
It took a mean mugging by reality -- one that shook me out of cognitive dissonance -- for me
to realize that Democrats are no different than Republicans. They differ in their methods, but
in the end they feast on us regardless of their gang affiliation. Both parties are subsidiaries
of corporations and oligarchs; our entire political system is based on two factions bamboozling their
respective bases while manufacturing dissension on all sides.
... ... ...
Now that I've shed my political blinders, I see how this game is played. I'll be honest here
and admit that Democrats irritate me more than Republicans for this one simple reason.
I've
come to expect Republicans to be malicious -- there is honesty in their advertisement. However,
it's the Democrats who smile like foxes as they pretend to be our allies only to stab us in our
backs the minute they get elected.
They have maintained power for decades by successfully
treading on the pains of marginalized groups as they concurrently enact legislation and
regulations that inflame the very injustices they rail against.
If there is one group that has been leveraged the most by Democrats, it's the descendants of slaves and "black" diaspora
as a whole. For generations, supposed liberals -- who now call themselves progressives -- have
cunningly used the pains of "African-Americans" to further their own agendas. The Democrat's
most loyal voting bloc have time and time again been taken advantage of only to be tossed to
the side as soon as Democrats gain power. They talk a good game and pretend to be for us right
up until election day, soon as the last ballot is counted, they are nowhere to be found.
I want to say this is the Zabinski Point (apparently the lowest dry point in the
geographic US) in the D party's recent history, but I fear it could get lower still.
The actual lowest point in the state might be at the bottom of the artificially created
lake-the Salton Sea, as at the surface it's -236 feet, and the claim is the bottom is 5 feet
higher than Badwater, but who knows.
It was created in 1905, when a diversion of the Colorado River went out of control for 2
years, until they were able to stop the flow.
"Zabriskie Point." A truly apt metaphor for the modern political landscape.
My favourite foreign movie metaphor for the Democrat Party would be Bertolucci's "The
Conformist."
Jimmy Dore show is pretty educational... Why hasn't Schultz been charged for election fraud yet (she rigged the 2016 primary
and then rigged her own race in Florida against Tim Canova.)? Just when you thought crooked Hillary and corrupt Debbie
Wasserman-Schultz were finally silent and out of the picture, they keep coming back again and again and again...like a case of
herpes.
Nothing that Bernie will do can satisfy the Democrats. Said the other day he was
wishy-washy over Venezuela but it was still not enough. Seems that Debbie Wasserman Schultz
has threatened to have him kicked out of the party unless he calls out Madura as a dictator.
Well then, Sanders better be carrying a polished shield at all times never know when
Debbie the medusa will lurch forward throwing that gazy DNC stink-eye in his direction !
"... He quickly adapted and learned the art of duplicity; Obama perfected his ability to talk eloquently about our issues and suffering as a means to an end. ..."
"... Barack Obama was not an outlier but the norm when it comes to the tokens who are paraded by Democrats to represent faux-progress and counterfeit diversity. Kamala Harris is the next black bourgeoisie in line who is hoping to use the plight of African-Americans and the tribulations of "black" folk to win the White House. After spending a career locking up brown and "black" folk with impunity and resurrecting the ugly legacy of penal slavery, she is now shamelessly pretending to be the next coming of Sojourner Truth -- hers is the audacity of trope. ..."
"... Trump uses the same playbook of feigned concern to dupe their respective side ..."
"... Identity has been weaponized, instead of addressing the structural nature of racism and sexism, folks like Kamala Harris, Hillary Clinton and identity politics shysters across the political spectrum are turning the victims of systematic oppression into human shields to intimidate anyone who dares to question their record. Enough is enough! ..."
"... There is a broader problem beyond these two-faced grifters ..."
"... What is true of "African-Americans" is true of society as a whole. In this richest nation, there exists a breathtaking chasm between the few who have much and the many who have little. Keeping this dynamic in place is a pyramid scheme that transfers wealth upward being kept by the greed of politicians and the indifference of the proletariat. We are being swindled by hustlers to keep this most depraved system intact. ..."
He
railed against the select few "negroes" who willingly stepped on their own people in order to
advance their own selfish ambitions. Malcolm X was against integration for this reason; he
realized that a modification of a racist system that benefits a fraction of society while
keeping the majority repressed was morally bankrupt. This same realization eventually
dawned on
Martin Luther King Jr when he confided to his closest advisers that he might have
"integrated his people into a burning house."
Fast forward fifty years and it's evident that the bourgeoisie "negroes" who Malcolm X
talked about have been unleashed by the establishment to work against the interests of their
people. As the majority of "African-Americans" suffer economic inequalities and are burdened by
financial uncertainties, black politicians, pundits and so-called "activists" are enriching
themselves while they pretend to be fighting injustice.
Forget Plymouth Rock, the biggest hoodwink of them all that landed on us was a boulder named
Barack. After losing a Congressional primary to Bobby Rush in 2000, Obama's inner circle
realized that he was not embraced by "African-Americans" in Chicago because many did not see
him as one of them . He
quickly adapted and learned the art of duplicity; Obama perfected his ability to talk
eloquently about our issues and suffering as a means to an end. The end was his unabated ego.
After he scaled the heights of politics, he ended up enacting policies that exacerbated the
wealth gap. For his brazen act of betrayal, Obama was rewarded
handsomely .
The Audacity of Trope
Barack Obama was not an outlier but the norm when it comes to the tokens who are paraded by
Democrats to represent faux-progress and counterfeit diversity. Kamala
Harris is the next black bourgeoisie in line who is hoping to use the plight of
African-Americans and the tribulations of "black" folk to win the White House. After spending a
career locking up brown and "black" folk with impunity and resurrecting the ugly legacy of
penal slavery, she is now shamelessly pretending to be the next coming of Sojourner Truth --
hers is the audacity of trope.
Given the fact that too many are conditioned to think in binary fashion, I must take a pause
here to clarify one thing. This is in no way to excuse the pernicious nature of Republicans and
the vile racism of Donald Trump. After all, not only are Republicans insidious when it comes to
the way they treat "African-Americans" and minorities as a whole, the party of Trump uses the
same playbook of feigned concern to dupe their respective side. However, the more I observe the
rank opportunism of the Democrat front-runners, the more I appreciate the sagacity of Malcolm
X.
It's not only politicians like Barack Obama and Kamala Harris who traffic in this most
insincere form of paternalism, there is a whole cottage industry of black opinion leaders and
gate-keepers who actively work against our interests while passively speaking against
injustice. They abound on TV, in the press and throughout social media; the surest way to make
a name for oneself is to be a part of the "woke" intelligentsia who lull their people into
collective comas.
Adding insult to injury is the fact that these same bourgeoisie mouthpieces are not only
using the pains of the oppressed to advance themselves, they are now employing the injuries of
the masses to deflect well-deserved criticism. Identity has been weaponized, instead of
addressing the structural nature of racism and sexism, folks like Kamala Harris, Hillary
Clinton and identity politics shysters across the political spectrum are turning the victims of
systematic oppression into human shields to intimidate anyone who dares to
question their record. Enough is enough!
The Talented Tenth
There is a broader problem beyond these two-faced grifters. The truth is that the "black"
community has become bifurcated; the bourgeoisie class feeling the blessings of capitalism and
enterprise while the vast majority are burdened by consumerism and debt. DuBois once talked
about the "talented tenth", an educated sector of blacks leading the bottom 90% out of bondage.
Sadly, the talented tenth has been convinced to seek self-enrichment and forget about
collective wellness.
What is true of "African-Americans" is true of society as a whole. In this richest nation,
there exists a breathtaking chasm between the few who have much and the many who have little.
Keeping this dynamic in place is a pyramid scheme that transfers wealth upward being kept by
the greed of politicians and the indifference of the proletariat. We are being swindled by
hustlers to keep this most depraved system intact.
... ... ...
Teodrose Fikre is the editor and founder of the Ghion Journal . A published author and prolific writer, a once
defense consultant was profoundly changed by a two year journey of hardship and struggle. Going
from a life of upper-middle class privilege to a time spent with the huddled masses taught
Teodrose a valuable lesson in the essence of togetherness and the need to speak against
injustice. Originally from Ethiopia with roots to Atse Tewodros II , Teodrose is a former
community organizer whose writing was incorporated into Barack Obama's South Carolina primary
victory speech in 2008. He pivoted away from politics and decided to stand for collective
justice after experiencing the reality of the forgotten masses.
Note that the candidate swears to be "faithful" to the "interests, welfare and success of
the Democratic Party," but not to its principles. That's because there aren't any.
Readers may enjoy picking through the bafflegab, because I think you could drive a whole
fleet of trucks through the loopholes. Here, for example, is Benjamin
Studebaker's view : "A Second Term for Trump is Better Than Beto."
Nobody, after all, said that success had to be immediate ; perhaps a short term
failure improves the ultimate welfare and prospects for success for the party.
In a way, this McCarthy-ite armraising is a kludge, another symptom of a fraying system:
Exactly as we can no longer, apparently, trust voters to pick a President, and so must give
veto power to the intelligence community, so we can no longer trust primary voters to pick a
candidate, and the "National Chairperson" must step in if they somehow get the wrong answer.
Pesky voters!
Right now the title should "Can Trump happen again?" ;-)
But this is from 2016 and Professor Stiglitz missed the foreign policy and neoliberal globalization aspects of "Hillary vs
Trump" battle. A vote for Hillary was a vote for continuation of wars of expansion of neoliberal empire.
It is unclear where is political force that can reverse neoliberal deregulation and neoliberal tax cuts. for example full set of
taxes on all kind of income might help (so that dividends owners should pay Social security tax too) but currently is politically unfeasible,
as control of Washington is in the hands of financial oligarchy which will not relinquish its power without a fight.
Notable quotes:
"... reforms that political leaders promised would ensure prosperity for all – such as trade and financial liberalization – have not delivered. Far from it. And those whose standard of living has stagnated or declined have reached a simple conclusion: America's political leaders either didn't know what they were talking about or were lying (or both). ..."
"... Thus, many Americans feel buffeted by forces outside their control, leading to outcomes that are distinctly unfair. Long-standing assumptions – that America is a land of opportunity and that each generation will be better off than the last – have been called into question. The global financial crisis may have represented a turning point for many voters: their government saved the rich bankers who had brought the US to the brink of ruin, while seemingly doing almost nothing for the millions of ordinary Americans who lost their jobs and homes. The system not only produced unfair results, but seemed rigged to do so. ..."
"... Support for Trump is based, at least partly, on the widespread anger stemming from that loss of trust in government. ..."
"... The simplistic neo-liberal market-fundamentalist theories that have shaped so much economic policy during the last four decades are badly misleading, with GDP growth coming at the price of soaring inequality. Trickle-down economics hasn't and won't work. Markets don't exist in a vacuum. The Thatcher-Reagan "revolution," which rewrote the rules and restructured markets for the benefit of those at the top, succeeded all too well in increasing inequality, but utterly failed in its mission to increase growth. ..."
"... The interests that have secured control of the US government -- again, the legislative and executive at the federal and state levels, in particular -- will not easily or readily let go of the power they have amassed, vis-à-vis their control over the writing and execution of laws and regulations lesser mortals must live under but from which the elites are exempt (cf, banking crisis). ..."
"... Either we find a TR and FDR -- and the modern-day equivalent of their allies in Congress -- or our society will continue to erode. ..."
"... the balance of global power likely will continue to shift to the more pragmatic and less constrained Hobbesian forms of societal organization -- most likely some variant of strongman rule, with China at the vanguard, if Xi Jinping (or a competitor) is able to successfully consolidate power. ..."
"... we still lack the details and a roadmap towards a new economy. ..."
"... The vehicle for shifting the fruits of that growth has more to do with our free trade agreements than tax cuts. Corporations were just as greedy before we had free trade agreements but tariffs prevented the enrichment free trade opens up. That GDP increase would have happened without free trade as workers enjoyed higher wages. Which makes Trump correct after all. ..."
"... From shortly after the end of the War of 1812 until the Kennedy Round of tariff reductions in 1967 the United States was the most tariff protected nation on earth. ..."
"... How is it possible that two powerful families (Bush and Clinton) are nearly have a monopoly on becoming US presidents. ..."
"... Just twenty five years ago Mr. Robert McNamara came to Matsue, a Japanese city near where I live, to attend a US-Japanese conference. I was appalled to hear, as he said and I was in the audience, that the income of the American middle-class had not risen at all for the past twenty or so years. His words were less an explanation of what had been going on in the American economy and more a warning of what was going to happen in the Japanese economy. The rules need to be rewritten. ..."
"... The Americans shall be voting Trump for the same reasons they voted Bush Jr. The democratic [neoliberal] establishment failed miserably ..."
But several underlying factors also appear to have contributed to the closeness of the race. For starters, many Americans are
economically worse off than they were a quarter-century ago. The median income of full-time male employees is lower than it was 42
years ago, and it is increasingly difficult for those with limited education to get a full-time job that pays decent wages.
Indeed, real (inflation-adjusted) wages at the bottom of the income distribution are roughly where they were 60 years ago. So
it is no surprise that Trump finds a large, receptive audience when he says the state of the economy is rotten. But Trump is wrong
both about the diagnosis and the prescription. The US economy as a whole has done well for the last six decades: GDP has increased
nearly six-fold. But the fruits of that growth have gone to a relatively few at the top – people like Trump, owing partly to massive
tax cuts that he would extend and deepen.
At the same time, reforms that political leaders promised would ensure prosperity for all – such as trade and financial liberalization
– have not delivered. Far from it. And those whose standard of living has stagnated or declined have reached a simple conclusion:
America's political leaders either didn't know what they were talking about or were lying (or both).
Trump wants to blame all of America's problems on trade and immigration. He's wrong. The US would have faced deindustrialization
even without freer trade: global employment in manufacturing has been declining, with productivity gains exceeding demand growth.
Where the trade agreements failed, it was not because the US was outsmarted by its trading partners; it was because the US trade
agenda was shaped by corporate interests. America's companies have done well, and it is the Republicans who have blocked efforts
to ensure that Americans made worse off by trade agreements would share the benefits.
Thus, many Americans feel buffeted by forces outside their control, leading to outcomes that are distinctly unfair. Long-standing
assumptions – that America is a land of opportunity and that each generation will be better off than the last – have been called
into question. The global financial crisis may have represented a turning point for many voters: their government saved the rich
bankers who had brought the US to the brink of ruin, while seemingly doing almost nothing for the millions of ordinary Americans
who lost their jobs and homes. The system not only produced unfair results, but seemed rigged to do so.
Support for Trump is based, at least partly, on the widespread anger stemming from that loss of trust in government.
But Trump's proposed policies would make a bad situation much worse. Surely, another dose of trickle-down economics of the kind he
promises, with tax cuts aimed almost entirely at rich Americans and corporations, would produce results no better than the last time
they were tried.
In fact, launching a trade war with China, Mexico, and other US trading partners, as Trump promises, would make all Americans
poorer and create new impediments to the global cooperation needed to address critical global problems like the Islamic State, global
terrorism, and climate change. Using money that could be invested in technology, education, or infrastructure to build a wall between
the US and Mexico is a twofer in terms of wasting resources.
There are two messages US political elites should be hearing. The simplistic neo-liberal market-fundamentalist theories that
have shaped so much economic policy during the last four decades are badly misleading, with GDP growth coming at the price of soaring
inequality. Trickle-down economics hasn't and won't work. Markets don't exist in a vacuum. The Thatcher-Reagan "revolution," which
rewrote the rules and restructured markets for the benefit of those at the top, succeeded all too well in increasing inequality,
but utterly failed in its mission to increase growth.
This leads to the second message: we need to rewrite the rules of the economy once again, this time to ensure that ordinary citizens
benefit. Politicians in the US and elsewhere who ignore this lesson will be held accountable. Change entails risk. But the Trump
phenomenon – and more than a few similar political developments in Europe – has revealed the far greater risks entailed by failing
to heed this message: societies divided, democracies undermined, and economies weakened.
markets aurelius OCT 15, 2016
I've yet to see such a succinct or well-presented analysis on the rise of Trump and the far-left and -right in Europe. Thank
you.
Where I disagree with Prof. Stiglitz, however, is in the second point of his conclusion; to wit, "... we need to rewrite the
rules of the economy once again, this time to ensure that ordinary citizens benefit. Politicians in the US and elsewhere who ignore
this lesson will be held accountable. Change entails risk. But the Trump phenomenon – and more than a few similar political developments
in Europe – has revealed the far greater risks entailed by failing to heed this message: societies divided, democracies undermined,
and economies weakened." A political solution is impossible at this point in the USA since the legislative and executive branches
of the have been completely captured by cartels, just as Hayek warned back in the '40s.
It took centuries of war -- civil and foreign -- to evolve the English common law and representative government from which
America derived is greatest strengths. Included in that are the quaint cultural memes of civility and "fair play," which permeated
all levels of society, not just sports; these norms were violated at great personal expense, in that it was difficult to gain
the trust of one's fellow citizens if one violated them. However, it is not an immutable fact of nature such a system will persist
throughout history. Truth be told, it is an outlier in the history of the world. Typically, and to this day outside the Anglosphere,
most societies are spoils systems, in which the strong impose their will on the weak, and take the larger share of everything
their societies produce. Some operate artfully (e.g., Mediterranean Europe), while others are just ham-handed (e.g., Russia, the
Middle East). The ordering described by Hobbes more appropriately captures the state of affairs to a greater or lesser degree
in these states.
It took a revolution, a civil war, and a century-long struggle post-civil war to evolve the US society to its modern, yet-to-be-fully-formed
state. The interests that have secured control of the US government -- again, the legislative and executive at the federal
and state levels, in particular -- will not easily or readily let go of the power they have amassed, vis-à-vis their control over
the writing and execution of laws and regulations lesser mortals must live under but from which the elites are exempt (cf, banking
crisis).
Either we find a TR and FDR -- and the modern-day equivalent of their allies in Congress -- or our society will continue
to erode. Either we fade into history as much of Europe did during the Dark Ages or we have another revolution.
While that's going on, the balance of global power likely will continue to shift to the more pragmatic and less constrained
Hobbesian forms of societal organization -- most likely some variant of strongman rule, with China at the vanguard, if Xi Jinping
(or a competitor) is able to successfully consolidate power.
Daniel Esmond OCT 15, 2016
I agree with nearly everything in Prof Stiglitz' analysis. However, I would like some details about the new 'rules of the economy'.
There is a realisation in many circles that something has to change and the solutions advanced by the new populists are unworkable.
But we still lack the details and a roadmap towards a new economy. While analysis like this one about how we got here
are useful and enlightening, we need (desperately!) to move on and do something. I really would like to see a follow up of this
article with Prof Stigliz outlining his plans for a new economic order.
James Murphy OCT 15, 2016
"But Trump is wrong both about the diagnosis and the prescription. The US economy as a whole has done well for the last
six decades: GDP has increased nearly six-fold. But the fruits of that growth have gone to a relatively few at the top.."
The vehicle for shifting the fruits of that growth has more to do with our free trade agreements than tax cuts. Corporations
were just as greedy before we had free trade agreements but tariffs prevented the enrichment free trade opens up. That GDP increase
would have happened without free trade as workers enjoyed higher wages. Which makes Trump correct after all.
We are a trade deficient nation. As such the only way we lose a trade war is not to fight one. Aside from the short transition
harm the American people would be better off with tariff protection as they were in the past.
From shortly after the end of the War of 1812 until the Kennedy Round of tariff reductions in 1967 the United States was
the most tariff protected nation on earth. During that time absolutely none of the bad things you postulate actually happened.
Free trade is an Ivory Tower theory that has never worked in the real world experience of the United States. We have more free
trade today than we have ever had. Where are the blessings of those free trade deals? We abandoned free trade in 1967 and the
real wages of blue collar workers peaked 5 years later never to come back.
Simon Barnard OCT 14, 2016
Rules of the economy do need to be rewritten and also do the rules of economic measurement.
Growth of GDP is not a valid measurement of whether or not an economy is healthy (or indeed growing). Should vast inequalities
be created, that in turn cause social unrest, that in turn lead to a disintegration of society, this society may find it necessary
to build a lot of prisons. The capital expenditure on these prisons will contribute to the GDP. Is it really healthier? Is this
what is happening in the US? - it could be going that way.
So is it any wonder that people are looking for an alternative to the status quo, of which Hilary Clinton is certainly part
of? NO.
Is Trump an alternative? DEFINITELY NO.
As Joseph Stiglitz put very well, he would make things still worse.
So I feel sorry for the USA having such a poor choice and I hope that soon we can change from the neo-liberal hegemony and
develop a new one that will allow a progressive new choice to make itself available.
Vicky Lavendel OCT 14, 2016
The true questions is: How is it possible that two powerful families (Bush and Clinton) are nearly have a monopoly on becoming
US presidents. And furthermore all presidential candidates who want to have a chance must be ultra rich (like Trump) or must
have very wealthy donors (like Obama). Is this still a democracy or already an oligarchy? That Stieglitz doesnt ask this question
might be a hint that he is part of this wealthy establishment as well.
Yoshimichi Moriyama OCT 14, 2016
The word liberalization is so dazzling that we are captured and made by it to be unable to see the reality; we are often duped
by it. When we hear or see the word, we need to be very careful of what the speaker or writer actually means by it. Corporate
and financial interests have made an extensive use of it to camouflage and promote their selfishness.
Just twenty five years ago Mr. Robert McNamara came to Matsue, a Japanese city near where I live, to attend a US-Japanese
conference. I was appalled to hear, as he said and I was in the audience, that the income of the American middle-class had not
risen at all for the past twenty or so years. His words were less an explanation of what had been going on in the American economy
and more a warning of what was going to happen in the Japanese economy.
The rules need to be rewritten.
M M OCT 14, 2016
The Americans shall be voting Trump for the same reasons they voted Bush Jr. The democratic [neoliberal] establishment failed
miserably. They had eight years to put things right and what did they do, not only maintaining the status quo which made
inequality worse but created mayhem everywhere and the Clintons were part of it throughout the Obama tenure. So Mr. "Yes We Can"
not only managed to increase inequality, re-introduce slavery (albeit in many new forms), help spread terrorism all over the place
and this to state just a few examples.
His greatest accomplishment may well be that he has caused Washington's Swamp Dwellers to rise from the ooze and expose themselves
for all the world to see. That's weakened them immeasurably, perhaps fatally. To be sure, that's no small thing, and the next
Trump to come along is now on full alert as to who & what to bring with him.
You nailed it. Even if they do eventually succeed in foiling Trump, things will never be the same again. The whole world is watching
the circus in Washington, and so Washington's brand ('democracy') is now shot. 2016 was indeed an annus mirabilis! " things will
never be the same again. The whole world is watching the circus in Washington.."
It looks and sounds like dementia – as if a sick person behaving inappropriately, showing unprovoked aggression (like some
Alzheimer patients), using silly or senseless phrasing, and having the unreasonable demands and uncontrolled fits of rage like
a spoiled child. The marasmic McCain, marasmic Pelosi, and hysterical Max Boot, the openly lying Clapper and the hate-filled profiteer
Brennan.
As I have written here and elsewhere, President Swamp Drainer needs to get control of the DoJ. He got rid of Comey, which was
good, but got Rosenstein and Mueller in response. Meanwhile Jeff Sessions is twiddling his thumbs re the Russia witch hunt. Perhaps
his recusal was appropriate, but he's not doing anything whatsoever regarding Swamp Draining. So it feels like he's a disingenuous
old guard GOPer, who wants to obstruct any real progress, while dragging his feet with do-nothingness obscured behind a facade
of law enforcement community boosterism. By this tactic the GOP attempts to stall until 2020, when it can then point at Trump's
failures (failures they have enabled by their stalling, wink wink) and then campaign to take "their" party back. In short, Sessions
may just be an anti-Trump "mole" planted in the single most important position with regard to swamp draining, in order to ***prevent***
any swamp draining.
Let me be clear: in the last 24 years the DC political class has gone almost entirely criminal, with the last 13 years dedicated
to serial war crimes. In this sort of situation the DoJ, AG, and FBI head, becomes corrupted, and turns away from the rule of
law to become a shield for the DC criminal despotism.
So watch closely what happens next. Just today rumors have come out -- though I've been speaking of this for several weeks
now -- that there is talk in the White House about ***recess appointments*** . We have reached the crucial moment, and I for one
am surprised that, as important as this is, it has not been prominent in public discussion until now. The "August" was scheduled
to begin at the end of business tomorrow, July 28th. Because of the health care business, McConnell has postponed it for two weeks,
so let's call it for close of business Friday, August 11th. That's fifteen days from now.
When Congress goes home fifteen days from now, this country and the world may very well change forever. Go to Wikipedia and
look up "recess appointment". Here's what you will find:
" a recess appointment is an appointment by the President of a federal official while the U.S. Senate is in recess.
Recess appointments are authorized by Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, which states:
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting
Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session .
If Trump is the fighter I think he is, then this is what he has been waiting for, ever so patiently these last six months.
Notice that the Congress cannot countermand recess appointments. Recess appointments end by expiration, and then only at the end
of the following Congressional session. Other than impeachment, Congress cannot stop Trump from doing this .
So Trump dumps Sessions, purges the anti-Trump prosecutors from previous administrations, and appoints a new FBI head and dozens
of fire-breathing swamp-draining prosecutors who immediately start doling out orange jumpsuits. He could -- not saying that he
would execute this "nuclear option" -- but he could lock up virtually the entire Congress on war crimes charges; Neocons for conspiracy
to commit war crimes; Cheney, Addington, Yoo, and Bybee to the Hague for torture; Hillary and Obama for Libya.
Control of the DoJ is the key.
The next two weeks will show whether Trump is the real deal, or just another schlub.
While focusing on preserving ObamaCare and other achievements of the Obama administration that are
threatened by a Donald Trump presidency, the DA's agenda includes panels on rethinking polling and
the left's approach to winning the working-class vote. The group will also stress funneling cash
into state legislative policy initiatives and races where Republicans took over last week.
President-elect Donald Trump has said his first 100 days will be dedicated to restoring "honesty,
accountability and change to Washington" through the following seven steps:
A Constitutional Amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress
A hiring freeze on all federal employees to reduce federal workforce through attrition (exempting
military, public safety, and public health)
A requirement that for every new federal regulation, two existing regulations must be eliminated
A five year ban on White House and Congressional officials becoming lobbyists after they leave
government service
A lifetime ban on the White House officials lobbying on behalf of a foreign government
A complete ban on foreign lobbyists raising money for American elections
Cancel billions in payments to U.N. climate change programs and use the money to fix America's
water and environmental infrastructure
Billionaire George Soros immediately had fingers of blame pointing at him for the anti-Trump riots
and protests that swept the nation since Nov. 9, as
his group MoveOn.org has organized most of them .
The billionaire committed
$25 million to boosting the Clinton campaign and other Democratic candidates and causes in 2016.
"... News that Trump might work 4 days a week as President, or at least work the same work week as Congress does, would suggest he plans on running a lean government. ..."
"... A counter-argument that could be put forward is that the Presidency doesn't (and shouldn't) define the office-holder's life and the Clintons themselves are an example of what can happen if the Presidency consumes their lives ..."
"... If it's Trump's intention to reform the political culture in Washington and make it more accountable to the public, and bring the Presidency closer to the public, then defining the maximum limits of the position on his time and sticking to them, perhaps through delegating roles and functions to his cabinet secretaries, is one path to reform. ..."
My impression is that Donald Trump is planning or at least thinking of running the government
as a business, choosing people as cabinet secretaries on the basis of past experience and on what
they would bring to the position, as opposed to choosing cabinet secretaries because they have
been loyal yes-people (as Hillary Clinton would have done)
News that Trump might work 4 days a week as President, or at least work the same work week
as Congress does, would suggest he plans on running a lean government. At present the prevailing
attitude among Washington insiders and the corporate media is that Trump is not really that interested
in being President and isn't committed to the job 24/7.
A counter-argument that could be put forward is that the Presidency doesn't (and shouldn't)
define the office-holder's life and the Clintons themselves are an example of what can happen
if the Presidency consumes their lives: it can damage the individuals and in Hillary Clinton's
case, cut her off so much from ordinary people that it disqualifies her from becoming President
herself.
If it's Trump's intention to reform the political culture in Washington and make it more accountable
to the public, and bring the Presidency closer to the public, then defining the maximum limits
of the position on his time and sticking to them, perhaps through delegating roles and functions
to his cabinet secretaries, is one path to reform.
Ran Paul was one of the few who understood how quickly Trump will betray his voters: "There was a time, a very brief
time under the Articles of Confederation, when Americans recognized the evils of the establishment and avoided instituting one." But
it looks like he shares most of illution about Trump ability to changethings to the better: " The Obama establishment is dead. The Democratic establishment is dead, at least for 4 years.
"
Notable quotes:
"... Washington insiders attempt to capture Trump and influence his positions, policies and decisions. ..."
"... The Obama establishment is dead. The Democratic establishment is dead, at least for 4 years. There was a time, a very brief time under the Articles of Confederation, when Americans recognized the evils of the establishment and avoided instituting one. ..."
What happens next in Washington? Trump fills out his administration.
At the same time, Washington insiders attempt to capture Trump and influence his positions,
policies and decisions. The presidency is an institution, not a man, not a president. The presidency
is a network of enormous power with Trump now at its center.
Washington insiders who live and breathe politics are now in a race for positions of power and
influence. They hanker and vie for appointments. Trump must make appointments. He cannot operate
alone. He must delegate power to make decisions. He cannot monitor all information pertinent to every
issue in which the government has a hand.
The presidency is not 100 percent centralized. Decision-making power is allocated to levels below
the president himself and to levels surrounding him. It also lies outside the presidency in Congress.
Trump has his ideas and desires for actions, but their realization depends on the people he appoints.
He loses control and locks himself in with every appointment that he makes. People around him want
his power and want to influence him. They have a heavy influence on what he hears, whom he sees,
the options presented to him, and the evaluations of competing personnel. Trump will likely form
a very small team of offshoots of himself, people whom he trusts implicitly, in order to extend his
capacity to choose people who will adhere to and execute his agenda.
Power in Washington is not simply the apparatus of administering the presidency that will take
up headlines for the next few months. After the U.S. Treasury robs the tax-paying Americans, new
robbers (the Lobby) appear to rob the Treasury using every device they can get away with. There is
a second contingent, the power-seekers. Those who covet the exercise of power unceasingly work toward
their own narrow aims. As long as Washington remains the place that concentrates unbelievably large
amounts of money and powers, it will remain the swamp that Trump has promised to drain but won't.
He cannot drain it, not without destroying Washington's power and he cannot accomplish that, nor
does he even hint that he wants to accomplish that. His stated aims are the redirection of money
and powers, not their elimination for the sake of a greater justice, a greater right, and a truly
greater people and country.
The presidency is an establishment and Washington is another. By being elected, Trump struck
a blow at the members of the establishment who will be packing their bags while weeping over their
losses (see
here and
here .)
But elections do not strike the roots of the presidency, the establishment or Washington. Neither
will demonstrations against Trump.
The Obama establishment is dead. The Democratic establishment is dead, at least for 4 years.
There was a time, a very brief time under the Articles of Confederation, when Americans recognized
the evils of the establishment and avoided instituting one.
This gave way almost immediately (in 1787) to the constitutional seed that planted the enormous
tree that now cuts out the sun of justice from American lives. A domestic war failed to uproot that
tree. Long live the establishment, the Union, the American state, and may they be possessed of immense
powers over our lives - these became the social and political reality. Trump isn't going to change
it. He's a president administering a presidency. He's at the top of the heap. His credo is still
"Long Live the Establishment!"
Some people understood it in 2016: "The deep state ushered in Trump because he's clearly their most useful decoy. As the country
hopes in vain, the crooked men behind the curtain will go on with business as usual. Trump is
simply an Obama for a different demographic. Nothing will change for the better."
Also: "To claim the trump is more powerful and has more influence over the US deep state on day one
is just ludicrous."
Notable quotes:
"... Remember, the US Constitution was written by aristocrats who were still in many ways monarchists who didn't want to give up all their power. That mindset also put the electoral college process into the constitution. ..."
"... Oh, what does anyone know about Pence? Folks have been saying he's going to be Trump's Cheney (and apparently Cheney is a Pence's avowed role model and personal hero). Cheney had a lifetime of insider experience and I'm guessing is both ambitious and intelligent (if evil). ..."
"... Did anyone catch Peter Thiel's speech to the National Press Club? Listen to this and tell me it is not spot on. His is actually on Rumps transition team. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfYLEPRiIyE ..."
"... "The deep state ushered in Trump because he's clearly their most useful decoy. As the country hopes in vain, the crooked men behind the curtain will go on with business as usual. Trump is simply an Obama for a different demographic. Nothing will change for the better." ..."
"... So is Trump Hope and Change for the Angry White Male demographic? ..."
"... I doubt very much that the Obama is providing "continuity". IMO this is a naive reading. Obama has just created a smokescreen that allows for preparing to 'facts on the ground' that will force Trump to respond accordingly. ..."
"... That's a mini-conspiracy compared with the one that the Fake War Of Terror has distracted people's attention from. The Privatisation of almost every Publicly-owned asset and piece of infrastructure in the West. The Neolib takeover was well-advanced in 1999 but slipped into overdrive in 2001. Banks, Insurance Cos, Telcos, Airlines, Childcare, Hospitals, Health Clinics (preventative), Roads, Rail, Electrical Generation and distribution. ..."
"... To claim the trump is more powerful and has more influence over the US deep state on day one is just ludicrous. ..."
"... I'm going with the new boss is the same as the old boss. ..."
"...the paradox problem is they'll have to charge Clinton before da boy can pardon her..."
That's one of those facts that sounds right but isn't true. If the law was logical that might
be correct, but then mathematicians would get the highest scores on the Law School Admission Test
(which supposedly tests aptitude to "think like a lawyer.")
The President of the U.S. can't pardon someone in advance for possible later crimes, but can give
a pardon for any and all past crimes without specifying those crimes. That's how Ford was able to
pardon Nixon, who had not been indicted, for any crimes "he might have committed."
If Obama wants he can pardon the Clintons for everything and anything they MIGHT have done up
to the final minutes of swearing in Trump. In that case they would never need to concede they had
ever broken any laws at all.
Remember, the US Constitution was written by aristocrats who were still in many ways monarchists
who didn't want to give up all their power. That mindset also put the electoral college process into
the constitution.
Are you saying that Obama could pardon Bill Clinton and his entire foundation for financial crimes
(apparently) being investigated in New York wrt New York's laws regarding charitable foundation
practices? That seems like it would be "bigger than Marc Rich" demonstration of Democratic misuse
/ abuse of power, cronyism, etc.
If he can do it, he might do it ... if the punishment/threat for not doing it was sufficient.
I've not been impressed by Obama's "brilliance" or "vision" ... I have been impressed rather by
his self-promotion and self-interest -- Neither Bush or Bill Clinton had the sort of job opportunities
that GHWB enjoyed.
Oh, what does anyone know about Pence? Folks have been saying he's going to be Trump's
Cheney (and apparently Cheney is a Pence's avowed role model and personal hero). Cheney had a
lifetime of insider experience and I'm guessing is both ambitious and intelligent (if evil).
Does Pence have genuine potential as Cheney II ... and where does the awkward relationship
between the GOP establishment and Trump put "Pence as a new Cheney" ... The GOP might love it.
Is Trump ideologically consistent enough (don't laugh) to recognize the contradictions?
Did anyone catch Peter Thiel's speech to the National Press Club? Listen to this and tell
me it is not spot on. His is actually on Rumps transition team.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfYLEPRiIyE
Early days indeed. An alternative view of the recent events, by someone who said more or less
the same about Obama when he was selected.
"The deep state ushered in Trump because he's clearly their most useful decoy. As the country
hopes in vain, the crooked men behind the curtain will go on with business as usual. Trump is
simply an Obama for a different demographic. Nothing will change for the better."
I agree with Hoarsewhisperer @11: ... it's a crock and a trick.
I doubt very much that the Obama is providing "continuity". IMO this is a naive reading.
Obama has just created a smokescreen that allows for preparing to 'facts on the ground' that will
force Trump to respond accordingly.
We are at a very very dangerous point in time.
<> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Also, giving ANY credence to 'Obama legacy' BS is misguided in the extreme. His 'legacy'
is dissembling and treachery. Anything thing beyond that is just BS meant to keep adversary's
off-balance.
@22 Where do you get the idea that those countries are somehow bad for USA? If we ramp up industries
in USA it will cost substantially more than in those countries. They've benefitted USA immensely.
If the industries come back to USA it won't go over too well, unless slave wages are truly instituted
I don't know if Trump can take credit ... but rather that the Clinton wing of the Pentagon
and CIA, etc. has been defanged and the threat of a coup (if Obama acted in ways contrary to Clinton
and the General's plans) is now neutralized ... Clinton's loss, I hope, will mean future books
will be more candid than might have been possible if she were in office... yes, I wanna know how
bad it's been these last 8 years.
Obama's personal stock wrt his future as a consultant, motivational speaker and all around
leader fell dramatically both with Clinton's campaign (and anticipated sharp turn from Obama's
foreign policy) but also with her defeat (now his legacy). He was spared the ongoing shaming by
a Clinton administration. Likely too little, too late ... when does Kerry get back from the Antarctica?
He's got a chance at some legacy mending as well.
I believe reports that the Clintons and the Obamas loathe each other ... particularly since
the Clintons hate everyone/anyone who does not grovel perfectly. Did Obama sell-out to the DLC
Democrats to secure his future $$$ with all their and the foundation's friends... it will be fun
to watch and look for breadcrumbs, particularly if the foundation implodes under scrutiny.
That would be as part of the carveup that we are not supposed to talk about because it is a
wicked "conspiracy theory"...
Posted by: paul | Nov 11, 2016 12:12:44 PM | 17
That's a mini-conspiracy compared with the one that the Fake War Of Terror has distracted people's
attention from. The Privatisation of almost every Publicly-owned asset and piece of infrastructure
in the West. The Neolib takeover was well-advanced in 1999 but slipped into overdrive in 2001.
Banks, Insurance Cos, Telcos, Airlines, Childcare, Hospitals, Health Clinics (preventative), Roads,
Rail, Electrical Generation and distribution.
In Oz the Govt/people used to own all of the above, or a competitive participant in the 'market'
in the case of banking, insurance, health clinics, airlines etc. In 2016 the govt owns only unprofitable
burdens. Public Education is currently under extreme pressure to be Privatised for Profit.
(The Yanks call it Anti-Communism but consumers call it an Effing Expensive way to get much
crappier service than in the Good Old Days).
I think you give Barrack Obongo way too much credit. He is a "selfishly concerned" narcissist
alright but that's about it. All his years at the bathhouses and public lavatories with his wookie-in-drag
in Chicago, has not made him particularly smarter you know, rather the opposite...
Dropping AQ means dropping KSA, i.e. the 9/11 enquiry will probably go ahead. As for the MB/Qatar
who run a bunch of other groups, this is left to the EU to decide what it want to do with Turkey.
You bet the Eurocrats are having a headache. And Hollande shows his muscles (sic) and claims he
will talk with Trump on the phone and gets some "clarifications" about his programme.
MSM are reporting on a daily basis of the huge problems with the "Syrian refugees" crossing
the Mediterranean Sea although there is just a handful of Syrians compared to Eritreans, Sudanese,
Gambians etc.
According to the report, the last time Turkish jets participated in airstrikes against terrorists
in Syria was on October 23, three days after around 200 PKK/PYD terrorists were killed.
Ash Carter is, together with John Brennan, the major anti-Russian force in the Obama administration.
He is a U.S. weapon industry promoter and the anti-Russia campaign, which helps to sell U.S. weapons
to NATO allies in Europe, is largely of his doing.
BTW, I do believe he re-won his senate seat, against the true patriot Arpaio there.
Hence his absence from the public scene these months.
So things have not changed much if at all, since still 70 days to Jan20, except for appearances
as they've rearranged some furniture & color-matched the curtains to the upholstery in the act/play
is all.
@11 Hoarsewhisperer - I think it's unrealistic to expect the US simply to leave..
...
Posted by: Grieved | Nov 11, 2016 12:33:02 PM | 27
Today, your guess is as good as mine (at least).
But I regard FrUKUS as Ter'rism Central and if Russia & China et al think they can put a stop
to TerCent without dislodging some teeth and kneecapping them, they're pissing into the wind/dreaming.
It's a bit ambiguous but China, according to CCTV Nov 12, during a chat about Sun Yat Sen and
China/Taiwan unity, seems to be issuing a Global reminder to Loyal Chinese Citizens overseas similar
to the one that Russia issued a month ago.
Disgusting as it is, yes, my understanding is Obama can do exactly that. My guess is, want
to or not, he probably will come under so much pressure he will have to pass out plenty of pardons.
Or maybe Lynch will give everyone involved in the Clinton Foundation immunity to testify and then
seal the testimony -- or never bother to get any testimony. So many games.
For Obama, it might not even take all that much pressure. From about his second day in office,
from his body language, he's always looked like he was scared.
Instead of keeping his mouth shut, which he would do, being the lawyer he is, Giuliani has
been screaming for the Clintons' scalps. That's exactly what a sharp lawyer would do if he was
trying to force Obama to pardon them. If he really meant to get them he would be agreeing with
the FBI, saying there doesn't seem to be any evidence of wrong doing, and then change his mind
once (if) he's AG and it's too late for deals.
With so many lawyers, Obama, the Clintons, Lynch, Giuliani, Comey, no justice is likely to
come out of this.
@ Posted by: Ken Nari | Nov 11, 2016 2:51:53 PM | 55
I heard a podcast on Batchelor with Charles Ortel which explained some things -- even if
there are no obvious likely criminal smoking guns -- given that foundations get away with a lot
of "leniency" because they are charities, incomplete financial statements and chartering documents,
as I recall. I was most interested in his description of the number of jurisdictions the Foundation
was operating under, some of whom, like New York were already investigating; and others, foreign
who might or might be, who also have very serious regulations, opening the possibility that if
the Feds drop their investigation, New York (with very very strict law) might proceed, and that
they might well be investigated (prosecuted/banned??) in Europe.
The most recent leak wrt internal practices was just damning ... it sounded like a playground
of favors and sinecures ... no human resources department, no written policies on many practices
...
This was an internal audit and OLD (2008, called "the Gibson Review") so corrective action
may have been taken, but I thought was damning enough to deter many donors (even before Hillary's
loss removed that incentive) particularly on top of the Band (2011) memo. Unprofessional to the
extreme.
It's part of my vast relief that Clinton lost and will not be in our lives 24/7/365 for the
next 4 years. (I think Trump is an unprincipled horror, but that's as may be, I'm not looking
for a fight). After the mess Clinton made of Haiti (and the accusations/recriminations) I somehow
thought they'd have been more careful with their "legacy" -- given that it was founded in 1997,
2008 is a very long time to be operating without written procedures wrt donations, employment
Donald Trump's success or failure as the next US president will largely depend on his ability to keep his independence from the "shadow
government" and elite structures that shaped the policies of previous administrations, former presidential candidate Ron Paul told
RT.
[...]
" Unfortunately, there has been several neoconservatives that are getting closer to Trump. And if gets his advice from them then
I do not think that is a good sign, " Paul told the host of RT's Crosstalk show Peter Lavelle.
The retired Congressman said that people voted for Trump because he stood against the deep corruption in the establishment, that
was further exposed during the campaign by WikiLeaks, and because of his disapproval of meddling in the wider Middle East.
" During the campaign, he did talk a little bit about backing off and being less confrontational to Russia and I like that. He
criticized some the wars in the Middle East at the same time. He believes we should accelerate the war against ISIS and terrorism,
" Paul noted.
[...]
" But quite frankly there is an outside source which we refer to as the 'deep state' or the 'shadow government'. There is a lot
of influence by people which are actually more powerful than our government itself, our president, " the congressman said.
" Yes, Trump is his own guy, more so than most of those who have ever been in before. We hope he can maintain an independence
and go in the right direction. But I fear the fact that there is so much that can be done secretly, out of control of our apparent
government and out of the view of so many citizens, " he added. More: https://www.rt.com/usa/366404-trump-ron-paul-crosstalk/
Look at this forecast now and laugh... Trump betrayed all hopes.
Notable quotes:
"... It's obvious that Americans want a new direction when it comes to foreign policy. That's partly what Trump's election is all about. Americans are sick and tired of the never-ending wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, and elsewhere. That includes military families, especially the many who supported Trump, Gary Johnson, or Jill Stein. Americans are also tired of the out of control spending and debt that come with these wars. By electing Trump, it is obvious that Americans are demanding a change on foreign policy. ..."
Eight years ago, President Obama had a chance to change the warmongering direction that outgoing
President Bush and the U.S. national-security establishment had led America for the previous eight
years. Obama could have said, "Enough is enough. America has done enough killing and dying. I'm going
to lead our country in a different direction - toward peace, prosperity, and harmony with the people
of the world." He could have ordered all U.S. troops in the Middle East and Afghanistan to return
home. He could have ended U.S. involvement in the endless wars that Bush, the Pentagon, and the CIA
spawned in that part of the world. He could have led America in a new direction.
Instead, Obama decided to stay Bush's course, no doubt believing that he, unlike Bush, could win
the endless wars that Bush had started. It was not to be. He chose to keep the national-security
establishment embroiled in Afghanistan and Iraq. Death and destruction are Obama's legacy, just as
they were Bush's.
Obama hoped that Hillary Clinton would protect and continue his (and Bush's) legacy of foreign
death and destruction. Yesterday, a majority of American voters dashed that hope.
Will Trump change directions and bring U.S. troops home? Possibly not, especially given he is
an interventionist, just as Clinton, Bush, and Obama are. But there is always that possibility, especially
since Trump, unlike Clinton, owes no allegiance to the U.S. military-industrial complex, whose survival
and prosperity depends on endless wars and perpetual crises.
If Clinton had been elected, there was never any doubt about continued U.S. interventionism in
Afghanistan and the Middle East. Not only is she a died-in-the-wool interventionist, she would have
been owned by the national-security establishment. She would have done whatever the Pentagon, CIA,
and NSA wanted, which would have automatically meant endless warfare - and permanent destruction
of the liberty and prosperity of the American people.
It's obvious that Americans want a new direction when it comes to foreign policy. That's partly
what Trump's election is all about. Americans are sick and tired of the never-ending wars in Afghanistan,
Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, and elsewhere. That includes military families, especially the many who
supported Trump, Gary Johnson, or Jill Stein. Americans are also tired of the out of control spending
and debt that come with these wars. By electing Trump, it is obvious that Americans are demanding
a change on foreign policy.
Imagine the benefits to American society if Trump were to change directions on foreign policy.
No more anti-American terrorist blowback, which would mean no more war on terrorism. That means the
restoration of a sense of normality to American lives. No more TSA checkpoints at airports. No more
mass surveillance schemes to "keep us safe." No more color coded warnings. No more totalitarian power
to round up Americans, put them into concentration camps or military dungeons, and torture them.
No more power to assassinate people, including Americans. In other words, the restoration of American
civil liberties and privacy.
The Middle East is embroiled in civil wars - wars that have been engendered or magnified by U.S.
interventionism. Continued interventionism in an attempt to fix the problems only pours gasoline
on the fires. The U.S. government has done enough damage to Afghanistan and the Middle East. It has
already killed enough people, including those in wedding parties, hospitals, and neighborhoods. Enough
is enough.
Will Trump be bad on immigration and trade? Undoubtedly, but Clinton would have been bad in
those areas too. Don't forget, after all, that Obama has become America's greatest deporter-in-chief,
deporting more illegal immigrants than any U.S. president in history. Clinton would have followed
in his footsteps, especially in the hope of protecting his legacy. Moreover, while Trump will undoubtedly
begin trade wars, Clinton would have been imposing sanctions on people all over the world whose government
failed to obey the commands of the U.S. government. A distinction without a difference.
Another area for hope under a Trump presidency is with respect to the drug war, one of the most
failed, destructive, and expensive government programs in history. Clinton would have followed in
Bush's and Obama's footsteps by keeping it in existence, if for no other reason than to cater to
the army of DEA agents, federal and state judges, federal and state prosecutors, court clerks, and
police departments whose existence depends on the drug war.
While Trump is a drug warrior himself, he doesn't have the same allegiance to the vast drug-war
bureaucracy that Clinton has. If we get close to pushing this government program off the cliff -
and I am convinced that it is on the precipice - there is a good chance that Trump will not put much
effort into fighting its demise. Clinton would have fought for the drug war with every fiber of her
being.
There is another possible upside to Trump's election: The likelihood that Cold War II will
come to a sudden end. With Clinton, the continuation of the new Cold War against Russia was a certainty.
In fact, Clinton's Cold War might well have gotten hot very quickly, given her intent to establish
a no-fly zone over Syria where she could show how tough she is by ordering U.S. warplanes to shoot
down Russian warplanes. There is no telling where that would have led, but it very well might have
led to all-out nuclear war, something that the U.S. national-security establishment wanted with the
Soviet Union back in the 1960s under President Kennedy.
The danger of war with Russia obviously diminishes under a President Trump, who has said that
he favors friendly relations with Russia, just as Kennedy favored friendly relations with the Soviet
Union and Cuba in the months before he was assassinated.
Indeed, given Trump's negative comments about NATO, there is even the possibility of a dismantling
of that old Cold War dinosaur that gave us the crisis in Ukraine with Russia.
How about it, President-Elect Trump? While you're mulling over your new Berlin Wall on the Southern
(and maybe Northern) border and your coming trade wars with China, how about refusing to follow
the 16 years of Bush-Obama when it comes to U.S. foreign interventionism? Bring the troops home.
Lead America in a different direction, at least insofar as foreign policy is concerned - away from
death, destruction, spending, debt, loss of liberty and privacy, and economic impoverishment and
toward freedom, peace, prosperity, and harmony.
Not so quick. He proved to be Bush III. But illusions after his election were abundant.
Notable quotes:
"... I see Trump's success as proof that "the people who run [the GOP] and the institutions surrounding it failed." They not only failed in their immediate task of preventing the nomination of a candidate that party leaders loathed, but failed repeatedly over at least the last fifteen years to govern well or even to represent the interests and concerns of most Republican voters. ..."
"... Party leaders spent decades conning Republican voters with promises they knew they wouldn't or couldn't fulfill, and then were shocked when most of those voters turned against them. ..."
"... Trump is millions of Republican voters' judgment against a party that failed them, and the fact that Trump is thoroughly unqualified for the office he seeks makes that judgment all the more damning. ..."
Trump officially
secured the Republican nomination last night:
Mr. Trump tallied 1,725 delegates, easily surpassing the 1,237 delegate threshold
needed to clinch the nomination. The delegate tally from his home state of New York,
announced by Mr. Trump's son Donald Jr., put him over the top.
Like
Rod Dreher, I see Trump's success as proof that "the people who run [the GOP] and
the institutions surrounding it failed." They not only failed in their immediate task of
preventing the nomination of a candidate that party leaders loathed, but failed
repeatedly over at least the last fifteen years to govern well or even to represent the
interests and concerns of most Republican voters.
Had the Bush administration not presided over multiple disasters, most of them of
their own making, there would have been no opening or occasion for the repudiation of
the party's leaders that we have seen this year. Had the party served the interests of
most of its voters instead of catering to the preferences of their donors and
corporations, there would have been much less support for someone like Trump.
Party
leaders spent decades conning Republican voters with promises they knew they wouldn't or
couldn't fulfill, and then were shocked when most of those voters turned against them.
Trump is millions of Republican voters' judgment against a party that failed
them, and the fact that Trump is thoroughly unqualified for the office he seeks makes
that judgment all the more damning.
"... What happened? Why is this clique's triumphant return to power erupting in massive scandal this time around? Probably because we are living in an era during which much that was mysterious is suddenly becoming clear. Probably because Trump's "silent majority" suddenly saw before them someone they had been waiting for for a long time – a man ready to defend their interests. ..."
"... Perhaps also it is because the middle class is choking on its growing exasperation with the "elite caste" occupying its native country. And it finally became clear to the sober-minded American patriots in law enforcement that the return to power of the people responsible for the current global chaos could be a big threat to the US and rest of the world. Because, in the end, everyone has children and no one wants a new world war. ..."
Today Trump represents an entirely new party made up of half of the American electorate, and they
are ready for action. And whatever the eventual political structure of this new model, this is what
is shaping America's present reality. Moreover, this does not seem like such a unique situation.
It rather appears to be the final chapter of some ancient story, in which the convoluted plotlines
finally take shape and find resolution.
The circumstances are increasingly reminiscent of 1860, when Lincoln's election so enraged the
South that those states began agitating for secession. Trump is today symbolic of a very real American
tradition that during
the Civil War (1860-1865) ran headlong into American revolutionary liberalism for the first time.
Right up until World War I traditional American conservatism wore the guise of "isolationism."
Prior to WWII it was known as "non-interventionism." Afterward, that movement attempted to use
Sen. Joseph
McCarthy to battle the left-liberal stranglehold. And in the 1960s it became the primary target
of the "counter-cultural revolution."
Its last bastion was
Richard
Nixon , whose fall was the result of an unprecedented attack from the left-liberal press in 1974.
And this is perhaps the example against which we should compare the present-day Trump and his current
fight.
And by the way, the crimes of Hillary Clinton, who has failed to protect state secrets and has
repeatedly been caught lying under oath, clearly outweigh the notorious Watergate scandal that led
to Nixon's forced resignation under threat of impeachment. But the liberal American media remains
silent, as if nothing has happened.
By all indications it is clear that we are standing before a truly epochal moment. But before
turning to the future that might await us, let's take a quick glance at the history of conflict between
revolutionary liberalism and traditional white conservatism in the US.
***
Immediately after WWII, an attack on two fronts was launched by the party of "expansionism" (we'll
call it that). The Soviet Union and Communism were designated the number one enemy. Enemy number
two (with less hype) was traditional American conservatism. The war against traditional "Americanism"
was waged by several intellectual fringe groups simultaneously.
The country's cultural and intellectual life was under the absolute control of a group known as
the " New York
Intellectuals ." Literary criticism as well as all other aspects of the nation's literary life
was in the hands of this small group of literary curators who had emerged from the milieu of a Trotskyist-communist
magazine known as the
Partisan Review (PR). No one could become a professional writer in the America of the 1950s and
1960s without being carefully screened by this sect.
The foundational tenets of American political philosophy and sociology were composed by militants
from the Frankfurt School
, which had been established during the interwar period in Weimar Germany and which moved to
the US after the National Socialists took power. Here, retraining their sights from communist to
liberal, they set out to design a "theory of totalitarianism" in addition to their concept of an
"authoritarian personality" – both hostile to "democracy."
The "New York Intellectuals" and representatives of the Frankfurt School became friends, and
Hannah Arendt , for example, was an
authoritative representative of both sects. This is where future neocons (Norman Podhoretz, Eliot
A. Cohen, and Irving Kristol) gained their experience. The former leader of the Trotskyist Fourth
International and godfather of the neocons,
Max Shachtman , held a place
of honor in the "family of intellectuals."
The anthropological school of Franz Boas and Freudianism reigned over the worlds of psychology
and sociology at that time. The Boasian approach in psychology argued that genetic, national, and
racial differences between individuals were of no importance (thus the concepts of "national culture"
and "national community" were meaningless).
Psychoanalysis also became fashionable, which primarily aimed to supplant traditional church institutions
and become a type of quasi-religion for the middle class.
The common denominator linking all these movements was anti-fascism. Did something look fishy
in this? But the problem was that the traditional values of the nation, state, and family were all
labeled "fascist." From this standpoint, any white Christian man aware of his cultural and national
identity was potentially a "fascist."
Kevin MacDonald, a professor of psychology at California State University, analyzed in detail
the seizure of America's cultural, political, and mental landscape by these "liberal sects" in his
brilliant book The Culture
of Critique , writing:
"The New York Intellectuals, for example, developed ties with elite universities, particularly
Harvard, Columbia, the University of Chicago, and the University of California-Berkeley, while
psychoanalysis and anthropology became well entrenched throughout academia.
"The moral and intellectual elite established by these movements dominated intellectual
discourse during a critical period after World War II and leading into the countercultural revolution
of the 1960s."
It was precisely this intellectual milieu that spawned the countercultural revolution of the 1960s.
Riding the wave of these sentiments, the new
Immigration and Nationality Act was passed in 1965, encouraging this phenomenon and facilitating
the integration of immigrants into US society. The architects of the law wanted to use the celebrated
melting pot to "dilute" the "potentially fascist" descendants of European immigrants by making use
of new ethno-cultural elements.
The 60s revolution opened the door to the American political establishment to representatives
from both wings of the expansionist "party" – the neo-liberals and the neo-conservatives.
Besieged by the left-liberal press in 1974, Richard Nixon resigned under threat of impeachment.
In the same year the US Congress passed the
Jackson-Vanik
Amendment (drafted by Richard
Perle ), which emerged as a symbol of the country's "new political agenda" – economic war against
the Soviet Union using sanctions and boycotts.
At that same time the "hippie generation" was joining the Democratic Party on the coattails of
Senator George McGovern's campaign . And that was when Bill Clinton's smiling countenance first
emerged on the US political horizon.
And the future neo-conservatives (at that time still disciples of the Democratic hawk Henry "Scoop"
Jackson) began to slowly edge in the direction of the Republicans.
In 1976, Mr. Rumsfeld and his fellow neo-conservatives resurrected the
Committee
on the Present Danger , an inter-party club for political hawks whose goal became the launch
of an all-out propaganda war against the USSR.
Former Trotskyists and followers of Max Shachtman (Kristol, Podhoretz, and Jeane Kirkpatrick)
and advisers to Sen. Henry Jackson (Paul Wolfowitz, Perle, Elliott Abrams, Charles Horner, and Douglas
Feith) joined Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and other "Christian" politicians with the intention
of launching a "campaign to transform the world."
This is where the neocons' "nonpartisan ideology" originated. And eventually today's "inalterable
US government" hatched from this egg.
American politics began to acquire its current shape during the Reagan era. In economics this
was seen in the policy of neoliberalism (politics waged in the interests of big financial capital)
and in foreign policy – in a strategy consisting of "holy war against the forces of evil." The Nixon-Kissinger
tradition of foreign policy (which viewed the Soviet Union and China as a normal countries with which
is essential to find common ground) was entirely abandoned.
The collapse of the USSR was a sign of the onset of the final phase of the "neocon revolution."
At that point their protégé, Francis Fukuyama, announced the "end of history."
***
As the years passed, the influence of the neo-conservatives (in politics) and neoliberals (in
economics) only expanded. Through all manner of committees, foundations, "think tanks," etc., the
students of Milton Friedman and Leo Strauss (from the departments of economics and political science
at the University of Chicago) penetrated ever more deeply into the inner workings of the Washington
power machine. The apotheosis of this expansion was the presidency of George W. Bush, during which
the neocons, having seized the primary instruments of power in the White House, were able to plunge
the country into the folly of a war in the Middle East.
By the end of the Bush presidency this clique was the object of universal hatred throughout the
US. That's why the middle-ground, innocuous figure of Barack Obama, a Democrat, was able to move
into the White House for the next eight years. The neocons stepped down from their central rostrums
of power and returned to their "influential committees." It is likely that this election was intended
to facilitate the triumphant return of the neoconservative-neoliberal paradigm all wrapped up in
"new packaging." For various reasons, the decision was made to assign this role to Hillary Clinton.
But it seems that at the most critical moment the flimsy packaging ripped open
What happened? Why is this clique's triumphant return to power erupting in massive scandal this
time around? Probably because we are living in an era during which much that was mysterious is suddenly
becoming clear. Probably because Trump's "silent majority" suddenly saw before them someone they
had been waiting for for a long time – a man ready to defend their interests.
Perhaps also it is because the middle class is choking on its growing exasperation with the "elite
caste" occupying its native country. And it finally became clear to the sober-minded American patriots
in law enforcement that the return to power of the people responsible for the current global chaos
could be a big threat to the US and rest of the world. Because, in the end, everyone has children
and no one wants a new world war.
How will this new conservative revolt against the elite end? Will Trump manage to "drain the swamp
of Washington, DC" as he has promised, or he will end up as the system's next victim? Very soon we
can finally get an answer to these questions.
They bought in 2016 was Trump was selling not realizing that this was Obama-style bait and switch
Notable quotes:
"... With paychecks remaining disappointingly small and layoffs reaching a seven-year high , many have subscribed to Trump's narrative instead the one presented by Obama's administration. It's a horror story about an American economy in terminal decline, its workers sold down the river to China and Mexico. ..."
"... "It's a horror story about an American economy in terminal decline, its workers sold down the river to China and Mexico." You forgot India. ..."
"... Mr Obama has the distinction of running the biggest soup kitchen in living memory - 46 million on food stamps. Quite an economic accomplishment ..."
"... In the US the Democratic party has lost touch with the working class. The media in the US are even worse. The Democrats are now the party of cosmopolitan elites, college students, and identify politics adherents. ..."
"... Blue collar workers have long know they didn't have a voice in the beltway. That their "champions" viewed them as lower beings, children that needed to be taken care of. The fact that Trump annoys these very people is viewed as a great positive. So these former Demcrats crashed the Republican party. ..."
"... So now we have a populist vs a establishment Democrat. Standard Republicans are now left scratching their heads wondering "what the hell just happened?" ..."
"... Trump proposes to get rid of the National Debt in eight years. Since that money resides in the pockets of the private sector the net outcome in getting rid of the "debt" (government money injection into the private sector) will be to substantially reduce the amount of money in active circulation and could result in excessive private borrowing to compensate for that loss resulting in an unsustainable debt build-up and a re-run of the 2008 financial crash. ..."
"... Consecutive Bushes did too much damage economically and socially to be fixed ..."
"... Unfortunately, they cannot return what they bought from President Dubya and President Hope and Change.... the same thing that Hillary is peddling, but with a nice girly twist this time. ..."
"... There has been much talk about Donald Trump being the "elephant in the room" that cannot be ignored when discussing the presidential election. The Donald is a wizard at dispensing outrageous but irrelevant comments which the news media are drawn to like cats to catnip. For example "Elizabeth Warren is NOT 1/32 Cherokee!" As far as I know, Elizabeth Warren is not running for President. If Donald Trump said that "Micky Mouse is NOT 1/32 gerbil", it would make many headlines. He's brilliant at manipulating the media. Or, is he simply colluding with the news media? ..."
"... What journalists are not reporting is who is doing the dirty work in Congress and in the Obama Administration to skew the economy toward benefitting the wealthy. Big campaign contributors, lobbyists, and conniving legislators have worked hard to "stack the deck against the average American" as Elizabeth Warren has rightly said. ..."
"... Why aren't Washington journalists unpacking and describing the many, many financial deals being made in the halls of Congress to benefit the politically connected few? The reason is simple. They are afraid to. They have to provide food, clothing, and shelter for themselves and their families. The big media corporations they work for would not be pleased by any discomforting of their political allies, and the corporations themselves may be involved. Many are conglomerates made up of many businesses with their fingers in many pies. ..."
With paychecks remaining disappointingly small and
layoffs reaching a seven-year high , many have subscribed to Trump's narrative instead the one presented by Obama's administration.
It's a horror story about an American economy in terminal decline, its workers sold down the river to China and Mexico.
"People don't really want to hear that it could have been worse. Sometimes such statements anger people and make the president
seem out of touch. It doesn't resonate because they can't observe that alternative outcome," explained Lawrence Mishel, president
at the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute. "It's progress in their weekly paychecks that resonates."
"Wages are the unfinished business of the recovery," the US labor department has noted repeatedly over the last few months
as jobs report after jobs report have shown wage growth to be in the vicinity of just 2%. In addition to jobs, wages are one of
the most important parts of this recovery.
In order for working class Americans to feel its effects, wage growth would have to be closer to 3% to 4%. When the US census
last released its data about median household incomes in the US, it found that the average American was bringing home the same
paycheck as Americans in 1997.
With rents and food costs going back, wages from 20 years ago are no longer cutting it. As a result, working Americans are
tired of what they think of as "status quo" politics.
"People are feeling ornery and that's the result of stagnant wages for the vast majority for at least the last dozen years,"
said Mishel. "That may explain why among conservative GOP voters Trump has made headway. This is the first election I ever heard
any GOP candidates talk about wages."
AmyInNH, 7 May 2016 09:39
Nailed it, Ms. Kasperkevic. Bravo.
"It's a horror story about an American economy in terminal decline, its workers sold down the river to China and Mexico."
You forgot India.
salfraser, 7 May 2016 08:54
Mr Obama has the distinction of running the biggest soup kitchen in living memory - 46 million on food stamps. Quite
an economic accomplishment
DJROM 7 May 2016 08:39
Good article. Seemed like an honest effort to explain the appeal of Trump without lazily using racism, misogyny, or stupidity
as a half baked rationalization.
In the US the Democratic party has lost touch with the working class. The media in the US are even worse. The Democrats
are now the party of cosmopolitan elites, college students, and identify politics adherents.
Blue collar workers have long know they didn't have a voice in the beltway. That their "champions" viewed them as lower
beings, children that needed to be taken care of. The fact that Trump annoys these very people is viewed as a great positive.
So these former Demcrats crashed the Republican party.
So now we have a populist vs a establishment Democrat. Standard Republicans are now left scratching their heads wondering
"what the hell just happened?"
The Guardian had an article about how Labor should not dismiss the grey haired blue collar workers that were joining UKIP.
It was in 2014,long before the Trump phenomenon, but when i recently read it i thought " that is Trump.
Trump's ultimately selling recession, despite his opposition to unfair global trading tactics, but hardly anybody understands
this because they're clueless about how their money system works. Trump proposes to get rid of the National Debt in eight years.
Since that money resides in the pockets of the private sector the net outcome in getting rid of the "debt" (government money
injection into the private sector) will be to substantially reduce the amount of money in active circulation and could result
in excessive private borrowing to compensate for that loss resulting in an unsustainable debt build-up and a re-run of the
2008 financial crash.
As for Clinton and Sanders, you can't trust the former and the latter sends a mixed message in regard to how well he understands
how the country's money system works. Like the UK the US is in a pickle with politicians who should rightly say "I'm not an
idiot but I've got a few parts missing!"
TheBBG -> Hendrik Bruwer 7 May 2016 08:08
You obviously are oblivious to the concepts of and necessity for tact and diplomacy, two basics for foreign policy as well
as cajoling congress. Be careful what you wish for, and even more so what you vote for - you might get what you want - the
US going down the toilet.
Madranon 7 May 2016 08:03
Consecutive Bushes did too much damage economically and socially to be fixed by either Clinton or Obama administrations.
It is like running down someone's immune system that it is unable to fight off aggressive and opportunistic germs.
bcarey 7 May 2016 07:58
Unfortunately, they cannot return what they bought from President Dubya and President Hope and Change.... the same thing
that Hillary is peddling, but with a nice girly twist this time.
dallasdunlap -> Solomon Black 7 May 2016 07:56
The dislike of Trump stems from his remarks re illegal immigration. That triggered an organized effort by left wing groups,
abetted by media organizations, to depict him as a racist and, by extension a fascist, fascist being the designation for any
moderate of conservative politician who is obviously popular.
GeorgeFrederick 7 May 2016 07:43
There has been much talk about Donald Trump being the "elephant in the room" that cannot be ignored when discussing
the presidential election. The Donald is a wizard at dispensing outrageous but irrelevant comments which the news media are
drawn to like cats to catnip. For example "Elizabeth Warren is NOT 1/32 Cherokee!" As far as I know, Elizabeth Warren is not
running for President. If Donald Trump said that "Micky Mouse is NOT 1/32 gerbil", it would make many headlines. He's brilliant
at manipulating the media. Or, is he simply colluding with the news media?
What journalists are not reporting is who is doing the dirty work in Congress and in the Obama Administration to skew
the economy toward benefitting the wealthy. Big campaign contributors, lobbyists, and conniving legislators have worked hard
to "stack the deck against the average American" as Elizabeth Warren has rightly said.
Why aren't Washington journalists unpacking and describing the many, many financial deals being made in the halls of
Congress to benefit the politically connected few? The reason is simple. They are afraid to. They have to provide food, clothing,
and shelter for themselves and their families. The big media corporations they work for would not be pleased by any discomforting
of their political allies, and the corporations themselves may be involved. Many are conglomerates made up of many businesses
with their fingers in many pies. Yes, the average American may not be doing well, but the gravy train in Washington is
running on schedule and doing very well, thank you. (I'll let someone else comment on all this nonsense about how many jobs
have been created by Obama.)
"... None of this will matter to Trump, however. He is no conservative and Trump_vs_deep_state requires no party. Even if some new institutional alternative to conventional liberalism eventually emerges, the two-party system that has long defined the landscape of American politics will be gone for good. ..."
"... Should Trump or a Trump mini-me ultimately succeed in capturing the presidency, a possibility that can no longer be dismissed out of hand, the effects will be even more profound. In all but name, the United States will cease to be a constitutional republic. Once President Trump inevitably declares that he alone expresses the popular will, Americans will find that they have traded the rule of law for a version of caudillismo ..."
Whether or not Donald Trump ultimately succeeds in winning the White House, historians are likely to rank him as the most consequential
presidential candidate of at least the past half-century. He has already transformed the tone and temper of American political life.
If he becomes the Republican nominee, he will demolish its structural underpinnings as well. Should he prevail in November, his election
will alter its very fabric in ways likely to prove irreversible. Whether Trump ever delivers on his promise to "Make America Great
Again," he is already transforming American democratic practice.
Trump takes obvious delight in thumbing his nose at the political establishment and flouting its norms. Yet to classify him as
an anti-establishment figure is to miss his true significance. He is to American politics what
Martin Shkreli
is to Big Pharma. Each represents in exaggerated form the distilled essence of a much larger and more disturbing reality. Each
embodies the smirking cynicism that has become one of the defining characteristics of our age. Each in his own way is a sign of the
times.
In contrast to the universally reviled Shkreli, however, Trump has cultivated a mass following that appears
impervious to his missteps, miscues, and misstatements. What Trump actually believes-whether he believes in anything apart from
big, splashy self-display-is largely unknown and probably beside the point. Trump_vs_deep_state is not a program or an ideology.
It is an attitude or pose that feeds off, and then reinforces, widespread anger and alienation.
The pose works because the anger-always present in certain quarters of the American electorate but especially acute today-is genuine.
By acting the part of impish bad boy and consciously trampling on the canons of political correctness, Trump validates that anger.
The more outrageous his behavior, the more secure his position at the very center of the political circus. Wondering what he will
do next, we can't take our eyes off him. And to quote Marco Rubio in a
different context
, Trump "knows exactly what he is doing."
♦♦♦
There is a form of genius at work here. To an extent unmatched by any other figure in American public life, Trump understands
that previous distinctions between the ostensibly serious and the self-evidently frivolous have collapsed. Back in 1968, then running
for president, Richard Nixon, of all people, got things rolling when he
appeared on
Laugh-In and uttered the immortal words, "Sock it to me?" But no one has come close to Trump in grasping the implications
of all this: in contemporary America, celebrity confers authority. Mere credentials or qualifications have become an afterthought.
How else to explain the host of a "reality" TV show instantly qualifying as a serious contender for high office?
For further evidence of Trump's genius, consider the skill with which he plays the media, especially celebrity journalists who
themselves specialize in smirking cynicism. Rather than pretending to take them seriously, he unmasks their preening narcissism,
which mirrors his own. He refuses to acknowledge their self-assigned role as gatekeepers empowered to police the boundaries of permissible
discourse. As the embodiment of "breaking news," he continues to stretch those boundaries beyond recognition.
In that regard, the spectacle of televised "debates" has offered Trump an ideal platform for promoting his cult of personality.
Once a solemn, almost soporific forum for civic education-remember Kennedy and Nixon in
presidential debates now provide
occasions for trading insults, provoking gaffes, engaging in verbal food fights, and marketing magical solutions to problems ranging
from war to border security that are immune to magic. For all of that we have Trump chiefly to thank.
Trump's success as a campaigner schools his opponents, of course. In a shrinking Republican field, survival requires mimicking
his antics. In that regard, Ted Cruz rates as Trump's star pupil. Cruz is to Trump what Lady Gaga was to Amy Winehouse-a less freewheeling,
more scripted, and arguably more calculating version of the original.
Yet if not a clone, Cruz taps into the same vein of pissed-off, give-me-my-country-back rage that Trump himself has so adeptly
exploited. Like the master himself, Cruz has demonstrated a notable aptitude for expressing disagreement through denigration and
for extravagant,
crackpot promises . For his part, Marco Rubio, the only other Republican still seriously in the running, lags not far behind.
When it comes to swagger and grandiosity, nothing beats a vow to create a "
New American Century
," thereby resurrecting a mythic past when all was ostensibly right with the world.
On two points alone do these several Republicans see eye-to-eye. The first relates to domestic policy, the second to America's
role in the world.
On point one: with absolute unanimity, Trump, Cruz, and Rubio ascribe to Barack Obama any and all problems besetting the nation.
To take their critique at face value, the country was doing swimmingly well back in 2009 when Obama took office. Today, it's FUBAR,
due entirely to Obama's malign actions.
Wielding comparable authority, however, a Republican president can, they claim, dismantle Obama's poisonous legacy and restore
all that he has destroyed. From "day one," on issues ranging from health care to immigration to the environment, the Republican candidates
vow to do exactly this. With the stroke of a pen and the wave of a hand, it will be a breeze.
On point two: ditto. Aided and abetted by Hillary Clinton, Obama has made a complete hash of things abroad. Here the list of Republican
grievances is especially long. Thanks to Obama, Russia threatens Europe; North Korea is misbehaving; China is flexing its military
muscles; ISIS is on the march; Iran has a clear path to acquiring nuclear weapons; and perhaps most distressingly of all, Benjamin
Netanyahu, the prime minister of Israel, is unhappy with U.S. policy.
Here, too, the Republican candidates see eye-to-eye and have solutions readily at hand. In one way or another, all of those solutions
relate to military power. Trump, Cruz, and Rubio are unabashed militarists. (So, too, is Hillary Clinton, but that's an issue deserving
an essay of its own). Their gripe with Obama is that he never put American military might fully to work, a defect they vow to amend.
A Republican commander-in-chief, be it Trump, Cruz, or Rubio, won't take any guff from Moscow or Pyongyang or Beijing or Tehran.
He will eradicate "radical Islamic terrorism," put the mullahs back in their box, torture a bunch of terrorists in the bargain, and
give Bibi whatever he wants.
In addition to offering Obama a sort of backhanded tribute-so much damage wrought by just one man in so little time-the Republican
critique reinforces reigning theories of presidential omnipotence. Just as an incompetent or ill-motivated chief executive can screw
everything up, so, too, can a bold and skillful one set things right.
♦♦♦
The ratio between promises made and promises fulfilled by every president in recent memory-Obama included-should have demolished
such theories long ago. But no such luck. Fantasies of a great president saving the day still persist, something that Trump, Cruz,
and Rubio have all made the centerpiece of their campaigns. Elect me, each asserts. I alone can save the Republic.
Here, however, Trump may enjoy an edge over his competitors, including Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. With Americans assigning
to their presidents the attributes of demigods-each and every one
memorialized before death with a
library-shrine -who better to fill the role than an egomaniacal tycoon who already acts the part? The times call for strong leadership.
Who better to provide it than a wheeler-dealer unbothered by the rules that constrain mere mortals?
What then lies ahead?
If Trump secures the Republican nomination, now an increasingly imaginable prospect, the party is likely to implode. Whatever
rump organization survives will have forfeited any remaining claim to represent principled conservatism.
None of this will matter to Trump, however. He is no conservative and Trump_vs_deep_state requires no party. Even if some new
institutional alternative to conventional liberalism eventually emerges, the two-party system that has long defined the landscape
of American politics will be gone for good.
Should Trump or a Trump mini-me ultimately succeed in capturing the presidency, a possibility that can no longer be dismissed
out of hand, the effects will be even more profound. In all but name, the United States will cease to be a constitutional republic.
Once President Trump inevitably declares that he alone expresses the popular will, Americans will find that they have traded the
rule of law for a version of caudillismo . Trump's Washington could come to resemble Buenos Aires in the days of Juan Perón,
with Melania a suitably glamorous stand-in for Evita, and plebiscites suitably glamorous stand-ins for elections.
That a considerable number of Americans appear to welcome this prospect may seem inexplicable. Yet reason enough exists for their
disenchantment. American democracy has been decaying for decades. The people know that they are no longer truly sovereign. They know
that the apparatus of power, both public and private, does not promote the common good, itself a concept that has become obsolete.
They have had their fill of irresponsibility, lack of accountability, incompetence, and the bad times that increasingly seem to go
with them.
So in disturbingly large numbers they have turned to Trump to strip bare the body politic, willing to take a chance that he will
come up with something that, if not better, will at least be more entertaining. As Argentines and others who have trusted their fate
to demagogues have discovered, such expectations are doomed to disappointment.
In the meantime, just imagine how the Donald J. Trump Presidential Library, no doubt taller than all the others put together,
might one day glitter and glisten - perhaps with a casino attached.
The United States should threaten Russia with military force in order to contain the Kremlin's growing
power on the international stage, a top candidate to become Donald Trump's Secretary of State has
said.
Rudy Giuliani, the former New York Mayor
who is believed to be the front runner to head Mr Trump's
State Department, made the comments at a Washington event sponsored by the
Wall Street Journal
.
In
quotes | The Trump - Putin relationship
Putin on Trump:
"He is a very flamboyant man, very talented, no doubt about
that He is an absolute leader of the presidential race, as we see it today. He says that
he wants to move to another level of relations, to a deeper level of relations with Russia.
How can we not welcome that? Of course we welcome it." -
December 2015
Trump on Putin:
"It is always a great honour to be so nicely complimented by a
man so highly respected within his own country and beyond." -
December 2015
"I think I would just get along very well with Putin. I just
think so. People say what do you mean? I just think we would." -
July 2015
"I have no relationship with [Putin] other than he called me a
genius. He said Donald Trump is a genius and he is going to be the leader of the party and
he's going to be the leader of the world or something. He said some good stuff about me I
think I'd have a good relationship with Putin, who knows." -
February 2016
"I have nothing to do with Putin, I have never spoken to him, I
don't know anything about him, other than he will respect me." -
July 2016
"I would treat Vladimir Putin firmly, but there's nothing I can
think of that I'd rather do than have Russia friendly as opposed to how they are right now
so that we can go and knock out Isis together with other people. Wouldn't it be nice if we
actually got along?" -
July 2016
"The man has very strong control over a country. It's a very
different system and I don't happen to like the system, but certainly, in that system, he's
been a leader." -
September 2016
"Well I think when [Putin] called me brilliant, I'll take the
compliment, okay?" -
September 2016
Ron Paul was right in 2016 to express reservations about Trump forign policy.
Notable quotes:
"... Paul started off the interview saying that he is keeping his "fingers crossed" regarding Trump's potential foreign policy actions. ..."
"... Trump has presented "vague" foreign policy positions overall. Paul also comments that a good indication of how Trump will act on foreign policy issues will be provided by looking at who Trump appoints to positions in the executive branch and from whom Trump receives advice. ..."
"... Regarding Trump's foreign policy advisors and potential appointees, Paul expresses in the interview reason for concern. Paul states: "Unfortunately, there have been several neoconservatives that are getting closer to Trump, and, if he gets his advice from them, then I don't think that is a good sign." ..."
"... Even if Trump wants to pursue a significantly more noninterventionist course than his recent predecessors in the presidency, Paul warns that the entrenched "deep state" that favors foreign intervention and war, special interests that have "sinister motivation for these wars," and media propaganda that "builds up the war fever" can ..."
Ron Paul, known for his promotion of the United States following a noninterventionist foreign policy,
presented Thursday his take on the prospects of Donald Trump's foreign policy as president. Paul
set out his analysis in an extensive interview with host Peter Lavelle at RT.
Paul started off
the interview saying that he is keeping his "fingers crossed" regarding Trump's potential foreign
policy actions. Paul says he views favorably Trump's comments in the presidential election about
"being less confrontational with Russia" and criticizing some of the US wars in the Middle East.
Paul, though, notes that Trump has presented "vague" foreign policy positions overall. Paul also
comments that a good indication of how Trump will act on foreign policy issues will be provided by
looking at who Trump appoints to positions in the executive branch and from whom Trump receives advice.
Regarding Trump's foreign policy advisors and potential appointees, Paul expresses in the interview
reason for concern. Paul states: "Unfortunately, there have been several neoconservatives that are
getting closer to Trump, and, if he gets his advice from them, then I don't think that is a good
sign."
Even if Trump wants to pursue a significantly more noninterventionist course than his recent predecessors
in the presidency, Paul warns that the entrenched "deep state" that favors foreign intervention and
war, special interests that have "sinister motivation for these wars," and media propaganda that
"builds up the war fever" can
Ron Paul was right in 2016 to express reservations about Trump forign policy.
Notable quotes:
"... Paul started off the interview saying that he is keeping his "fingers crossed" regarding Trump's potential foreign policy actions. ..."
"... Trump has presented "vague" foreign policy positions overall. Paul also comments that a good indication of how Trump will act on foreign policy issues will be provided by looking at who Trump appoints to positions in the executive branch and from whom Trump receives advice. ..."
"... Regarding Trump's foreign policy advisors and potential appointees, Paul expresses in the interview reason for concern. Paul states: "Unfortunately, there have been several neoconservatives that are getting closer to Trump, and, if he gets his advice from them, then I don't think that is a good sign." ..."
"... Even if Trump wants to pursue a significantly more noninterventionist course than his recent predecessors in the presidency, Paul warns that the entrenched "deep state" that favors foreign intervention and war, special interests that have "sinister motivation for these wars," and media propaganda that "builds up the war fever" can ..."
Ron Paul, known for his promotion of the United States following a noninterventionist foreign policy,
presented Thursday his take on the prospects of Donald Trump's foreign policy as president. Paul
set out his analysis in an extensive interview with host Peter Lavelle at RT.
Paul started off
the interview saying that he is keeping his "fingers crossed" regarding Trump's potential foreign
policy actions. Paul says he views favorably Trump's comments in the presidential election about
"being less confrontational with Russia" and criticizing some of the US wars in the Middle East.
Paul, though, notes that Trump has presented "vague" foreign policy positions overall. Paul also
comments that a good indication of how Trump will act on foreign policy issues will be provided by
looking at who Trump appoints to positions in the executive branch and from whom Trump receives advice.
Regarding Trump's foreign policy advisors and potential appointees, Paul expresses in the interview
reason for concern. Paul states: "Unfortunately, there have been several neoconservatives that are
getting closer to Trump, and, if he gets his advice from them, then I don't think that is a good
sign."
Even if Trump wants to pursue a significantly more noninterventionist course than his recent predecessors
in the presidency, Paul warns that the entrenched "deep state" that favors foreign intervention and
war, special interests that have "sinister motivation for these wars," and media propaganda that
"builds up the war fever" can
I honestly think that had the media and the deep state treated Trump fairly, they would have still have some credibility
now. But the blatant attempt to derail his candidacy only egged on his supporters. Then, the concerted attempts to nullify the
election results convinced people all over the political spectrum that our "democracy" is only a "simulation of democracy" as
Hopkins points out.
Don't the people pulling the strings behind the media understand what they have done? They have convinced a large part of the
nation that everything that they were taught from childhood is a fraud.
Civilizations are only held together by the "glue" of shared beliefs. The deep-state-media-complex has just applied a solvent
to the very glue that holds the entire culture together.
This is going to make the next couple of years very interesting.
The DNC takes Deep State to a whole new level. They have this thing called "Superdelegates",
which has veto power over the little people.
The SJWs and Bernie bots may be too dumb to know who their real daddies are, but the
Superdelegates know exactly whose ring they need to kiss to regain power: the same globalist
capitalist Davos scums who now have Trump exactly where they want him, between their legs
sucking up while busy implementing their agendas of endless wars and endless immigration.
The Superdelegates will never let things get too far with the socialists, they're good for
entertainment, to give off the pretense of a real race. I'm betting my money on Kirsten
Gillibrand -- Dems know if there's a woman who could beat Trump, she needs to be a blonde.
Uncle Joe has too many skeletons in his closet. It's just a matter of time before the
cockroaches come out of the woodwork and #MeToo him into the orbits.
I stopped by to thank you for the link to Greg Grandin you offered in the last thread. I
just finished reading it, and it's a gem of historical storytelling, weaving great themes of
law in a superbly easy read. The concept of national sovereignty originated for the world in
the Latin American colonies, and over time the US embraced it as international law, only to
discard it later, from about the Nixon era on.
So Bolton and the like are actually acting within a current Washington school of thought.
And how well the concept of interventionism has been captured by neoliberalism. The concept
of individual sovereignty was used to dissolve the borders of national sovereignty, but it
wasn't the individual who won. As Grandin states towards the end:
"Economic globalisation promised a prosperous, borderless world, even as its promoters
signed a raft of treaties that freed capital but effectively criminalised labour mobility."
This matter of the mobility of capital and the demise of the individual is something shown
clearly in that other excellent piece you linked a couple of weeks back:
I've wanted to come here to comment on it but the task seemed daunting. Foster's
magisterial article traces the history of neoliberalism - almost 100 years old - and shows
how the mobility of capital was always what it aimed towards. And this financially
borderless world is what we live in now - how ironic that the US can enforce imperial borders
through financial sanctions.
~~
So the stories told by Grandin and Foster seem to intertwine. The rich desire a borderless
world to move capital freely. This has killed the prosperity of the working classes because
of the ease of offshoring industry - the ultimate threat against the worker. And you can no
longer restore equity to a society simply by taxing wealth, because it's too easy for wealth
to flee to other havens. The only thing you can do is nationalize it, to force it to stay
in-country.
Indeed, Venezuela is the enemy of the US on both of these crucial fronts: it insists on
the national sovereignty of its resources and it insists on sharing that wealth with its
workers. It becomes ever more clear that the struggle for true national sovereignty can only
come with the empowerment of the sovereign people, through fair law and fair distribution of
national wealth.
But to do all this, in an era of borderless capitalism, takes socialism.
And this is the crucial aspect of the time we live in. Justice Holmes I think said that he
paid taxes as the price for civilization. But moving forward the only way we can pay for
civilization now is through socialism. This is the dynamic that all the roads lead to,
inexorably.
You see what trouble you stir up when you share links?
It's really interesting that I was listening to a Boston sports radio station as the thing
with Kraft and prostitution was unfolding and ESPN's reporter Adam Schefter was on and he
denied his initial reporting about the 200 other guys and "bigger fish".
It looks like an effort is going on to stamp out news of what these other "bigger fish"
were up to.
edit to expound on that. Adam Schefter got caught, and remains in, a fake news warp. Right
before he came on the WEEI radio show they had a TMZ guy come on and he said the names they
showed were the only ones.
Schefter said what he said and the radio guys were talking about it and asked him about
the 200 names and the bigger fish and he denied saying it. So what happened as far as I can
tell is TMZ got the memo from fake news hqtrs to *** it and Schefter/ESPN did not.
People are
saying who cares about old guys paying for blow jobs - but according to the popo spokesman -
this multi-agency investigation is not about prostitution but about human trafficking which
moves the needle from raunchy to sinister.
"... Trump didn't drain the swamp, he pour fertilizer in it. ..."
"... The shekel counting big snout alligators? They're particularly nasty. ..."
"... Acosta = Epstein Pedogate Prosecutor "When I first heard the name Alexander Acosta, Trump's new pick for Labor Secretary, I knew it sounded eerily familiar. And then it dawned on me. He was the U.S. Attorney in charge of the Southern District of Florida from 2006 through 2009, and oversaw a sweetheart deal for Jeffrey Epstein." ..."
"... Trump - Epstein civil suit COMPLAINT FOR RAPE, SEXUAL MISCONDUCT, CRIMINAL SEXUAL ACTS, SEXUAL ABUSE, FORCIBLE TOUCHING, ASSAULT, BATTERY, INTENTIONAL AND RECKLESS INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, DURESS, FALSE IMPRISONMENT, AND DEFAMATION ..."
"... Over 200 children. 12,13,14 years old. Broken homes. Different countries. "Punishment" = Empty wing of a comfy 'prison' with liberal leave privledges for him to work from his office, where he could receive guests including females. That's not prison Tyler's, it's ******* daycare - which is the kind of place he's attracted to. Stop calling it / quoting it as a "prison sentence". ..."
So Trump appoints the prosecutor who slapped Epstein on the wrist for a cabinet position. This is so obvious as Trump was part
of the Lolita Express as was lifelong Democrat Alan Dershowitz who has suddenly flipped to Trump's most ardent supporter as well
as the usual group of pervs like Clinton and Spacey (who cares I guess).
Trump didn't drain the swamp, he pour fertilizer in it.
Acosta = Epstein Pedogate Prosecutor
"When I first heard the name Alexander Acosta, Trump's new pick for Labor Secretary, I knew it sounded eerily familiar. And
then it dawned on me. He was the U.S. Attorney in charge of the Southern District of Florida from 2006 through 2009, and oversaw
a sweetheart deal for Jeffrey Epstein."
Trump - Epstein civil suit COMPLAINT FOR RAPE, SEXUAL MISCONDUCT, CRIMINAL SEXUAL ACTS, SEXUAL ABUSE, FORCIBLE TOUCHING, ASSAULT, BATTERY, INTENTIONAL
AND RECKLESS INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, DURESS, FALSE IMPRISONMENT, AND DEFAMATION
Over 200 children. 12,13,14 years old. Broken homes. Different countries. "Punishment" = Empty wing of a comfy 'prison' with
liberal leave privledges for him to work from his office, where he could receive guests including females. That's not prison Tyler's,
it's ******* daycare - which is the kind of place he's attracted to. Stop calling it / quoting it as a "prison sentence".
Must be some really compromising video footage with some very powerful people on it to get that kind of deal. Day of the rope
for that **** and all who let him walk. No exceptions.
I had to search this up to believe what you said. Holy ****... the rabbit hole is deeper than most realize:
" Instead of being sent to state prison, Epstein was housed in a private wing of the Palm Beach County jail. And rather
than having him sit in a cell most of the day, the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office allowed Epstein work release privileges,
which enabled him to leave the jail six days a week, for 12 hours a day, to go to a comfortable office that Epstein had set up
in West Palm Beach. This was granted despite explicit sheriff's department rules stating that sex offenders don't qualify for
work release ."
Note how they spent hours to placate and kowtow to the pedophile while dumping on the victims. That is because the government
is loaded with dog **** like the half monkey Epstein and his fellow tribe members. The only justice left to Americans will come
from the streets. I am completely against torture and war, yet this piece of scum should be waterboarded for names. They need
to clear out those members of government who have been compromised by the activities of the tribe.
The websites contain not only virus, malware, spyware whatever. .. (depends on your PC protection)
It is a ripoff . You never get paid a cent. But if one is gullible and naive enough to give away to shady strangers personal
data as address, birth date, social security number, credit card number, bank account etc., they empty your account , and they
do Identity theft.
p.e. They ask for an initial payment for training, or they sell you a starter kit etc., so they get your data. Or they promise
you to pay salary in advance, before they ever saw you. Sometimes they have "real" job interviews with a "recruiter" by Skype
or Smartphones facial, no skills required, with faked websites of real companies, faked or personal email addresses.
Every last pedophile is dead meat just like Judaica is dead meat which promoted it. No, you cannot touch a kid any longer,
ignorant arrogant sick followers of the Talmud and Kabbalah, for the Talmud and Kabbalah will be burned out of every last Synagogue
on the planet just as the entire religion will be burned down to the ground. Including many dumb parts of the Bible. Take for
example that sick *** stupid mother ******* event where some guy holds a knife up to his son because God told him to. You ignorant
arrogant assholes. God never said any such thing, and God sure as hell never said you were chosen! Well, I take that back. You
see, God told me that you are actually especially chosen for the *** kicking of a millenia.
This is the manner that the scum in the so called "Justice Department" works to protect pedophiles. If it wasn't for an intense
amount of corruption, Epstein would have been prosecuted by the full extent of the law. Instead, sneaky deals by the scum bags
that "prosecuted" this fraud of a case ended up with a plea agreement which "punished" this slimy creep with a measly 13 month
sentence.
To add insult to injury to the victims, the civil case is dragged on for 11 years.
This is the same type of "justice" that is in place that has protected the Catholic clergy pedophiles, which for the most part,
never saw the inside of a court room for their unspeakable crimes.
Why are pedophiles seemingly protected in this society? Is it because pedophilia is rampant among so many that are in powerful
positions? I think we all know the answer to that one.
And then there are all Epstein's friends, who enjoyed themselves with little girls on that benighted island: hearsay includes
both the Clintons among them, and the Queen of England's second son, prince someone or the other. I assume that what they did
on that island was felonious. Need to go after them.
And then there's ACOSTA - our current Federal Secretary of Labor. TRUMP NEEDS TO FIRE HIM, perhaps to prosecute him.
Shhhh, never let the facts get in the way of a good story. Orange Jesus is their messiah. He can do no wrong. He was misquoted
when he said he'd bang his daughter, ignore those creepy photos too.
Facts? Oh you mean like the Donald Trump, Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislane Maxwell connection? Yeah. Wait, they obviously never met
right? "He's a lot of fun to be with," "It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on
the younger side."
This ****** is toast. If you don't get that, you're just not ready for what's happening, and it's OK. The adults have stepped
in, and are cleaning house. The streets will be paved with the carcases of these pedophiles, satanists, and assorted scumbags.
Some will be from the dregs of society, others from the highest echelons, but none will escape.
[So it has been spoken, so it shall be done... (Yul Brenner as Pharoah - from The Ten Commandments)]
I figure God helps those that help themselves,there is an afterlife though,the trick is being in this world but not of it.I
have a roof over my head,a full belly,an income and good family and friends hell thats better than 70 per cent on this planet
so I tend not to be much of a God botherer.
I must apologize, it seems his pimpette (?) named Ghislaine was there, representing Prince Andrew, who also seems to like them
young, ... not sure if thats why Fergie left him... its complicated...
As far as the Clinton Foundation paying for the 3 million dollar wedding, well that's murky too
Far more important in the here and now is Bernie Sanders refused to go with the Dims and back fat Mike's 'Guido' in Venezuela.
The head of the Clinton Foundation , a Congresswoman from Florida and ex Bill Clinton Secretary of something, loudly condemned
Bernie and said he will NEVER be the Dems candidate for President.
For all of you ZH'rs who hate civil trial lawyers, there were several prominent ones who
literally devoted a decade to this (many at the risk of their practices, taking on TPTB). And
without any real chance of ever seeing a penny for their efforts. Kudos and cheers for the
victory in the battle.
If they do see vindication, The Miami Herald should get some credit. The reporters
there have been doing the investigative work to reveal that there were many children
involved. Funny how the MSM couldn't get to the bottom of this story. ///
It wasn't just Bill Clinton and actor Kevin Spacey who got ferried, (sorry, but when it
comes to Spacey, there's an inside joke there I'm sure). Sen. Bob Menendez was also a
passenger, and who knows who else. I personally would like for AG Barr to have a chance at
squeezing Epstein's nutz for evidence on the [DS].
When CIA does not want that FBI does not prosecute somebody they usually have their way.
Robert Mueller is not only about Trump, he is also about scrubbing all the crimes committed by Clintons and Obama. That's
a lot of crimes.
Notable quotes:
"... I think ultimately, the coverup of Clinton's emails was not to protect Clinton but to protect Obama, as he had communicated with her on the server ..."
The FBI's top lawyer, General Counsel James Baker, initially thought that Hillary Clinton should face criminal charges for transmitting
classified information over her insecure, private email server, according to transcripts from a 2018 closed-door Congressional testimony
reviewed by
The Hill 's John Solomon.
While being questioned by Rep. John Radcliffe (R-TX), Baker was clear that he thought Clinton should face criminal charges.
"I have reason to believe that you originally believed it was appropriate to charge Hillary Clinton with regard to violations
of law - various laws, with regard to mishandling of classified information. Is that accurate?" asked Ratcliffe, a former federal
prosecutor.
After a brief pause to consult with his attorney, Baker responded: "Yes."
Baker later explained how he arrived at his conclusion, and how he was "persuaded" to change his mind.
"So, I had that belief initially after reviewing, you know, a large binder of her emails that had classified information in them,"
said Baker. "And I discussed it internally with a number of different folks, and eventually became persuaded that charging her was
not appropriate because we could not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that - we, the government, could not establish beyond a
reasonable doubt that - she had the intent necessary to violate (the law). "
Baker says he was persuaded to change his mind "pretty late in the process, because we were arguing about it, I think, up until
the end. "
Recall that in December, 2017 we learned that James Comey's original exoneration letter was drafted in a way that would have required
criminal charges - changing Clinton's conduct from the legally significant "gross negligence" to "extremely careless" - which is
not a legal term of art. This language - along with
several other incriminating components was altered by former FBI counterintelligence agent and attorney, Peter Strzok.
Baker made clear that he did not like the activity Clinton had engaged in: "My original belief after - well, after having conducted
the investigation and towards the end of it, then sitting down and reading a binder of her materials - I thought that it was alarming,
appalling, whatever words I said, and argued with others about why they thought she shouldn't be charged. "
His boss, Comey, announced on July 5, 2016, that he would not recommend criminal charges. He did so without consulting the
Department of Justice, a decision the department's inspector general (IG)
later concluded was misguided
and likely usurped the power of the attorney general to make prosecutorial decisions. Comey has said, in retrospect, he accepts
that finding but took the actions he did because he thought "they were in the country's best interest." -
The Hill
Baker noted that had he been more convinced that there was evidence that Clinton intended to violate the law, "I would have argued
that vociferously with him [Comey] and maybe changed his view."
Comey made this announcement before election day 2016. We knew this excuse was obstruction of justice.
They wanted to see if the public would stand for it, which they did. Most democrats are fine with a seditious, treasonous felon
being president.
A lot of Republicans are cool with it too, so long as they get their brand in there for Federal Pork.
Navy62802 28 minutes ago
I think ultimately, the coverup of Clinton's emails was not to protect Clinton but to protect Obama, as he had
communicated with her on the server (even using an alias email, himself) even though he claimed to have learned of the
server when everyone else did ... an obvious lie. So in order to avoid being a co-conspirator with someone violating the
Espionage Act, Baker was "persuaded" not to charge Clinton.
Weren't
superdelegates people who, in the era before cars, would represent groups who are unable to travel to the voting stations
(long distances).
The superdelegates have the "right" to change the vote because their candidate could die while the
superdelegate is traveling. or any major development.
When they return to cast the vote they have a choice.
In the 21st
century it is unacceptable to keep such traditions and policies.
Trump's BIGGEST single mistake was making Sessions AG and then failing to fire Sessions
after Sessions recused himself. We now know Sessions is Trump's Judas Iscariot.
How about the very well documented and obvious Crimes & Felonies:
1. On Rosenstein's advice, Sessions recused himself from getting involved with any Trump
campaign related investigations - here come the Trump campaign related investigations.
2. Sessions appoints Rosenstein assistant AG.
3. Rosenstein recommends that Comey be fired.
4. Trump fires Comey.
5. Rosenstein recommends Wray, good buddy of Comey & Mueller, to be new FBI director.
6. Comey testifies that he leaked a memo (stuff he made up) because he knew it would trigger
a special council to investigate the Trump campaign for Russia collusion (how did Comey know
that? Was it part of the plan with Rosenstein?)
7. Rosenstein appoints Mueller (good friend of Rosenstein & Comey) as the special council
with open authority to investigate "collusion", a suspected activity that is not a crime if
it did exist. We now know Mueller's appointment & authority might be illegal.
8. Rosenstein & Wray stonewall congressional investigations into DOJ & FBI
criminality.
9. Sessions refuses to appoint special council to investigate obvious Hitlary, DOJ & FBI
criminality.
10. Sessions appoints John Huber, Obama appointee & swamp rat, to assist Inspector
General without any power to subpoena or seat a Grand Jury.
11. Stormy Daniels is used to demoralize Trump and is assisted by FBI. Since when does the
FBI get involved in the kind of civil actions raised by a prostitute?
12. Michael Cohen is raided by FBI regarding an issue that should be reserved for state
court. Attorney client privilege is violated. This alone is a criminal act but nobody to
prosecute it.
13. Months before the Cohen raid, Rosenstein-Mueller used the Cohen-Stormy situation to
launch investigation into Cohen and thereby spy on Trump conversations with his attorney.
14. Judge appointed to hear the Cohen case is Prog Hack & Soros-Clinton crony Kimba
Wood.
Conclusion: Sessions, Rosenstein, Comey, Wray and Mueller conspired to assist the
"Soros-Clinton-Obama Resistance" to thwart all efforts to indict Clintons and Obama and
expose the corruption at the FBI, DOJ and State Dept.
The article states: " but by 2011 Boot had another war in mind. 'Qaddafi Must Go,' Boot
declared in The Weekly Standard. In Boot's telling, the Libyan dictator had become a threat
to the American homeland." -- -- - There is reported evidence that Libya was a war crime. And
the perpetrators are Free. See info below:
They speak of "The Rule of Law" while breaking the law themselves They are the dangerous
hypocrites that bombed Libya, and created hell Thousands upon thousands are dead in this
unfortunate country Many would still be alive, if our "leaders" had not been down and
dirty
Libya is reportedly a war crime and the war criminals are free Some of them are seen
posturing on the world stage and others are on T.V. Others have written books and others are
retired from public office And another exclaimed: "We came, we saw, he died" as murder was
their accomplice
They even teamed up with terrorists to commit their bloody crimes And this went unreported
in the "media": was this by design? There is a sickness and perversion loose in our society
today When war crimes can be committed and the "law" has nothing to say
Another "leader" had a fly past to celebrate the bombing victory in this illegal war Now
Libya is in chaos, while bloody terrorists roam secure And the NATO gang that caused all this
horror and devastation Are continuing their bloody bombings in other unfortunate nations
The question must be asked: "Are some past and present leaders above the law? Can they get
away with bombing and killing, are they men of straw? Whatever happened to law and order in
the so- called "democracies"? When those in power can get away with criminality: Is that not
hypocrisy?
There is no doubt that Libya was better off, before the "liberators" arrived Now many of
its unfortunate people are now struggling to exist and survive The future of this war torn
country now looks very sad and bleak If only our "leaders" had left it alone; but instead
hypocrisy: They Speak
"... Neither these talking points nor the chart of potential violations committed by Clinton and her associates have been released. ..."
"... Rybicki writes: By NLT [no later than] next Monday, the Director would like to see a list of all cases charged in the last 20 years where the gravamen of the charge was mishandling classified information. It should be in chart form with: (1) case name, (2) a short summary for content (3) charges brought, and (4) charge of conviction. ..."
"... According to a December, 2017 letter from Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Ron Johnson (R-WI) to FBI Director Christopher Wray, fired FBI agent Peter Strzok changed the language regarding Clinton's conduct from the criminal charge of "gross negligence" to "extremely careless." ..."
"... "Gross negligence" is a legal term of art in criminal law often associated with recklessness. According to Black's Law Dictionary, gross negligence is " A severe degree of negligence taken as reckless disregard ," and " Blatant indifference to one's legal duty, other's safety, or their rights ." "Extremely careless," on the other hand, is not a legal term of art. ..."
"... 18 U.S. Code § 793 "Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information" specifically uses the phrase "gross negligence." Had Comey used the phrase, he would have essentially declared that Hillary had broken the law. ..."
"... And now, thanks to the Judicial Watch FOIA, we know that the FBI also went to great lengths to justify letting Clinton off the hook with a "chart" of her offenses. ..."
FOIA Docs Reveal Obama FBI Covered Up "Chart" Of Potential Hillary Clinton Crimes
by Tyler Durden
Fri, 02/15/2019 - 17:30 1.7K SHARES
The top brass of the Obama FBI went to great lengths to justify their decision not to
recommend charges against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for mishandling classified
information, according to Judicial Watch , which obtained evidence that the agency created a
'chart' of Clinton's offenses.
The newly obtained emails came in response to a court ordered Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA) request that the DOJ had previously ignored.
Three days after then-FBI Director James Comey's press conference announcing that he
would not recommend a prosecution of Mrs. Clinton, a July 8, 2016 email
chain shows that, the Special Counsel to the FBI's executive assistant director in charge
of the National Security Branch, whose name is redacted, wrote to Strzok and others that he
was producing a "chart of the statutory violations considered during the investigation [of
Clinton's server], and the reasons for the recommendation not to prosecute "
[Redacted] writes : I am still working on an additional page for these TPs that consist of a
chart of the statutory violations considered during the investigation , and the reasons for the
recommendation not to prosecute, hopefully in non-lawyer friendly terms
Strzok forwards to Page,
Jonathan Moffa and others : I have redlined some points. Broadly, I have some concerns
about asking some our [sic] senior field folks to get into the business of briefing this case,
particularly when we have the D's [Comey's] statement as a kind of stand alone document. In my
opinion, there's too much nuance, detail, and potential for missteps. But I get they may likely
be asked for comment.
[Redacted] writes to Strzok, Page and others : The DD [Andrew McCabe] will need to approve
these before they are pushed out to anyone. At the end of last week, he wasn't inclined to send
them to anyone. But, it's great to have them on the shelf in case they're needed.
[Redacted] writes to Strzok and Page : I'm really not sure why they continued working on
these [talking points]. In the morning, I'll make sure Andy [McCabe] tells Mike [Kortan] to
keep these in his pocket. I guess Andy just didn't ever have a moment to turn these off with
Mike like he said he would.
Page replies : Yes, agree that this is not a good idea.
Neither these talking points nor the chart of potential violations committed by Clinton and
her associates have been released.
On May 15, 2016,
James Rybicki , former chief of staff to Comey, sends FBI General Counsel James Baker;
Bill Priestap , former assistant director of the FBI's counterintelligence division;
McCabe; Page; and others an
email with the subject line "Request from the Director."
Rybicki writes: By NLT [no later than] next Monday, the Director would like to see a list of
all cases charged in the last 20 years where the gravamen of the charge was mishandling
classified information. It should be in chart form with: (1) case name, (2) a short summary for content (3) charges
brought, and (4) charge of conviction.
If need be, we can get it from NSD [National Security Division] and let them know that the
Director asked for this personally.
Please let me know who can take the lead on this.
Thanks!
Jim
Page forwards to Strzok : FYSA [For your situational awareness]
Strzok replies to Page : I'll take the lead, of course – sounds like an espionage
section question Or do you think OGC [Office of the General Counsel] should?
And the more reason for us to get feedback to Rybicki, as we all identified this as an
issue/question over a week ago.
Page replies : I was going to reply to Jim [Rybicki] and tell him I can talked [sic] to you
about this already. Do you want me to?
***
Recall that the FBI agents involved made
extensive edits to former FBI Diretor James Comey's statement exonerating Hillary Clinton -
changing the language to effectively downgrade the crime of mishandling classified information
so that they could recommend no charges.
According to a December, 2017 letter from Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
Committee Chairman Ron Johnson (R-WI) to FBI Director Christopher Wray, fired FBI agent Peter
Strzok changed the language regarding Clinton's conduct from the criminal charge of "gross
negligence" to "extremely careless."
"Gross negligence" is a legal term of art in criminal law often associated with
recklessness. According to Black's Law Dictionary, gross negligence is " A severe degree of
negligence taken as reckless disregard ," and " Blatant indifference to one's legal duty,
other's safety, or their rights ." "Extremely careless," on the other hand, is not a legal term
of art.
According to an Attorney briefed on the matter, "extremely careless" is in fact a defense to
"gross negligence": "What my client did was 'careless', maybe even 'extremely careless,' but it
was not 'gross negligence' your honor." The FBI would have no option but to recommend
prosecution if the phrase "gross negligence" had been left in.
18 U.S. Code §
793 "Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information" specifically uses the phrase
"gross negligence." Had Comey used the phrase, he would have essentially declared that Hillary
had broken the law.
And now, thanks to the Judicial Watch FOIA, we know that the FBI also went to great lengths
to justify letting Clinton off the hook with a "chart" of her offenses.
The real problem here is that once faith in government is destroyed by the very agencies
we would hope to be honest to the end, the end of that government is at hand and all Hell is
about to break loose. Hold on tight to your Constitution and all the Amendments for tyranny
is at our doorsteps.
The FBI and DOJ, the NSA and CIA are infiltrated and infested with Anti-American
anti-patriots who think that their job is to protect a ideological faction supporting
globalism and neoliberalism.
These are the rotting fruits of 60 years of Socialist/Communist/Cultural Marxist
indoctrination at the level of public education and University level academia.
We have to face this now. The problem is massively bigger than McCabe or Comey or Brennan
or their low-level flunkies.
"... Why does the USA care about internal Venezuelan politics? Because it cares about every country's politics and demands every country bow down and kneel to the USA. The voters, aka morons, support this, both liberal and right wing, and have for generations. ..."
"... The morons pay their taxes to meddle in other countries and for a giant military to slaughter people who do not obey. ..."
Venezuela invasion thing is double-faceted: a trap for Trump & a bluff. if the
invasion is, then bye-bye 2020 election, mission accomplished. if no invasion on sight then
the bluff of Pompeo-Bolton-Abrams is called & the 2020 reelection assured. Venezuela in
the role of bait.
The real issue lies in the voting class which cowers in fear all day long and
seeks saviors every four years via rigged circus. Trump = Obama = CIA meddling in every
country. Presidents never change, only the perception of the morons changes.
Why does the USA care about internal Venezuelan politics? Because it cares about every
country's politics and demands every country bow down and kneel to the USA. The voters, aka
morons, support this, both liberal and right wing, and have for generations.
The morons pay their taxes to meddle in other countries and for a giant military to
slaughter people who do not obey. Freedom at the point of a gun. Nothing quite says
democracy like having the US president tell the Venezuelans how to run their country.
"... You can take this to the bank. Hardcore Russiagaters will never give up their belief in collusion and Russian influence in the 2016 campaign -- never. Congress and Mueller will be accused of engaging in a coverup. ..."
"... Thus, even if the Mueller report is underwhelming, I think that the Democrats and TDS-saturated Trump opponents will attempt to rehabilitate it by pretending that it contains important loose ends that need to be pursued. In other words, to perpetuate the Mueller-driven political Russophobia by all other available means. ..."
"... Russiagate has exposed the great degree of corruption within the Justice Department bureaucracy, particularly within FBI, and within the entire Democrat Party. ..."
"... Since this is obviously not going to be allowed to happen, and since these people get away with everything, expect this to never end, despite all evidence to the contrary. It doesn't matter if they've been exposed as CIA propagandists or Integrity Initiative stooges, the game goes on...and on.... the job security of these disgraced columnists is the greatest in the Western world. ..."
"... Stephen Cohen discusses how rational viewpoints are banned from the mainstream media, and how several features of US life today resemble some of the worst features of the Soviet system. https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/02/12/stephen-cohen-on-war-with-russia-and-soviet-style-censorship-in-the-us/ ..."
"... The US needs an enemy, how else can they ask NATO members to cough up 2% of GDP [just for one example Germany's GDP is nearly 4 Trillion dollars [2017] for defence spending, what a crazy sum all NATO members must fork out to please the US, but then most of that money must be spent on the US MIC 'interoperability' of course. ..."
"... Another great damage of Russiagate was the instigating of a nuclear arms race directed primarily at Russia, and ideologically justified by its diabolical policies. ..."
"... Russiagate was very successful. You just have to understand the objectives. It was a great distraction. Diverting peoples attention from the continued fleecing of the "real people" which are the bottom 90% by the "Corporate People" and their Government Lackeys. ..."
"... It provided an excuse for the acting CEO (a figurehead) of the Corporate Empire to go back on many of the promises made that got him elected, and to fill the swamp with Neocon and Koch Brother creatures with the excuse the Deep State made him do it. More proof that there is no deception that is too ridiculous to be believed so long as you have enough pundits claiming it to be so ..."
"... If you've done just a cursory look into Seth Rich, you'd be very suspicious about the story of his life and death. IMO Assange/Wikilleaks were set up. And Flynn was set up too. What they are doing is Orwellian: White Helmets, election manipulation, propaganda, McCarthism, etc. If you're not angry, you're not paying attention. ..."
"... See also this primer on Mueller's MO. ..."
"... The button pushers behind the Trump collusion and Russia election hacking false narratives got what they wanted: to walk the democrats and republicans straight into Cold War v2; to start their campaign to suppress alternative voices on the internet; to increase military spending; and more, more, more war. ..."
"... Russiagate was very successful <=pls read, re-read Pft @ 46.. he listed many things. divide and conquer accomplished. a nation state is defined as an armed rule making structure, designed by those who control a territory, and constructed by the lawyers, military, and wealthy and run by the persons the designers appoint, for the appointed are called politicians. ..."
"... At the beginnng of Russiagate, I wrote on Robert Parry's Consirtium News that Russiagate is Idiocracy piggy-backing on decades and literally billions of dollars of anti-Soviet and anti-Russian propaganda. How hard would it be to brainwash an already brainwashed population? ..."
"... The purveyors of Russiagate will re-compose themselves, brush off all reports and continue on. One just cannot get away from one's nature, even when that nature is pure idiocy. ..."
"... Russiagate will not go away unfortunately because it has evolved in the "Russiagate Industry". As mentioned by others, the Russiagate Industry has been very profitable for many industries and people. Russiagate has generated an entire cottage industry of companies around censorship and "find us a Russian". Dow Jones should have an index on the Russiagate Industry. ..."
For more than two years U.S. politicians, the media and some bloggers hyped a conspiracy theory. They claimed that Russia had
somehow colluded with the Trump campaign to get him elected.
An obviously fake 'Dirty Dossier' about Trump, commissioned by the Clinton campaign, was presented as evidence. Regular business
contacts between Trump flunkies and people in Ukraine or Russia were claimed to be proof for nefarious deals. A Russian
click-bait company was accused of manipulating the U.S. electorate by posting puppy pictures and crazy memes on social media.
Huge investigations were launched. Every rumor or irrelevant detail coming from them was declared to be - finally - the evidence
that would put Trump into the slammer. Every month the walls were closing in on Trump.
Finally the conspiracy theory has run out of steam. Russiagate
is finished :
After two years and 200 interviews, the Senate Intelligence Committee is approaching the end of its investigation into the 2016
election, having uncovered no direct evidence of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia, according to both Democrats
and Republicans on the committee.
...
Democrats and other Trump opponents have long believed that special counsel Robert Mueller and Congressional investigators would
unearth new and more explosive evidence of Trump campaign coordination with Russians. Mueller may yet do so, although Justice
Department and Congressional sources say they believe that he, too, is close to wrapping up his investigation.
Nothing, zero, nada was found to support the conspiracy theory. The Trump campaign did not collude with Russia. A few flunkies
were indicted for unrelated tax issues and for lying to the investigators about some minor details. But nothing at all supports the
dramatic claims of collusion made since the beginning of the affair.
In a recent statement House leader Nancy Pelosi was reduced
to accuse Trump campaign officials of doing their job:
"The indictment of Roger Stone makes clear that there was a deliberate, coordinated attempt by top Trump campaign officials to
influence the 2016 election and subvert the will of the American people. ...
No one called her out for spouting such nonsense.
Russiagate created a lot of damage.
The alleged Russian influence campaign that never happened was used to
install censorship on social media. It was used
to undermine the election of progressive Democrats. The weapon salesmen used it to push for more NATO aggression against Russia.
Maria Butina, an innocent Russian woman interested in good relation with the United States, was
held in solitary confinement
(recommended) until she signed a paper which claims that she was involved in a conspiracy.
In a just world the people who for more then two years hyped the conspiracy theory and caused so much damage would be pushed out
of their public positions. Unfortunately that is not going to happen. They will jump onto the next conspiracy train continue from
there.
Posted by b on February 12, 2019 at 01:38 PM |
Permalink
Comments next
page " Legally, Maria Butina was suborned into signing a false declaration. If there were the rule of law, such party or
parties that suborned her would be in gaol. Considering Mueller's involvement with Lockerbie, I am not holding my breath. FWIW the
Swiss company that made the timers allegedly involved in Lockerbie have some
comments of its own .
I will be really glad when this 'get Russia' craziness is over, but I suspect even if the Mueller investigation has nothing,
all the same creeps will be pulling out the stops to generate something... Skripal, Integrity Initiative, and etc. etc. stuff
like this just doesn't go away overnight or with the end of this 'investigation'... folks are looking for red meat i tell ya!
as for Maria Butina - i look forward to reading the article.. that was a travesty of justice but the machine moves on, mowing
down anyone in it's way... she was on the receiving end of all the paranoia that i have come to associate with the western msm
at this point...
Hillary's loss is actually best explained as her throwing the election to Trump . The Deep State wanted a nationalist
to win as that would best help meet the challenge from Russia and China - a challenge that they had been slow to recognize.
= ... to smear Wikileaks as a Russian agent
The DNC leak is best explained as a CIA false flag.
= ... to remove and smear Michael Flynn
Trump said that he fired Flynn for lying to VP Pence but Flynn's conversations with the Russian Ambassador after Obama threw
them out for "meddling" in the US election was an embarrassment to the Administration as Putin's Putin's decision not to respond
was portrayed as favoritism toward the Trump Administration.
You can take this to the bank. Hardcore Russiagaters will never give up their belief in collusion and Russian influence in
the 2016 campaign -- never. Congress and Mueller will be accused of engaging in a coverup. This is typical behavior for conspiracy
theorists.
I hope that Russiagate is indeed "finished", but I think it needs to be draped with garlic-clove necklaces, shot up with silver
bullets, sprinkled with holy water, and a wooden stake driven through its black heart just to make sure.
I don't dispute the logical argument B. presents, but it may be too dispassionately rational. I know that the Russiagate
proponents and enthralled supporters of the concept are too invested psychologically in this surrealistic fantasy to let go, even
if the official outcome reluctantly admits that there's no "there" there.
The Democratic Party, one of the major partners mounting the Russophobic psy-op, has already resolved to turn Democratic committee
chairmen loose to dog the Trump administration with hearings aggressively flogging any and all matters that discredit and undermine
Trump-- his business connections, social liaisons, etc.
They may hope to find the Holy Grail: the elusive "bombshell" that "demands" impeachment, i.e., some crime or illicit conduct
so heinous that the public will stand for another farcical impeachment proceeding. But I reckon that the Dems prefer the "soft"
impeachment of harassing Trump with hostile hearings in hopes of destroying his 2020 electability with the death of a thousand
innuendoes and guilt-by-association.
Thus, even if the Mueller report is underwhelming, I think that the Democrats and TDS-saturated Trump opponents will attempt
to rehabilitate it by pretending that it contains important loose ends that need to be pursued. In other words, to perpetuate
the Mueller-driven political Russophobia by all other available means.
Put more succinctly, I fear that Russiagate won't be finished until Rachel Maddow says it's finished. ;)
Once a hypothesis is fixed in people's minds, whether true or not, it's hard to get them to let go of it. And let's not forget
how many times the narrative changed (and this is true in the Skripal case as well), with all past facts vanishing to accommodate
a new narrative.
So I, like others, expect the fake scandal to continue while many, many other real crimes (the US attempted
coup in Venezuela and the genocidal war in Yemen, for instance) continue unabated.
Putin solicits public input for essential national
policy goals . If ever there was a template to follow for an actual MAGAgenda, Putin's Russia provides one. While US politicos
argue over what is essentially Bantha Pudu, Russians are hard at work improving their nation which includes restructuring their
economy.
Russiagate has exposed the great degree of corruption within the Justice Department bureaucracy, particularly within FBI,
and within the entire Democrat Party.
I very much doubt it it is over. Trump is corrupt and has links to corrupt Russians. Collusion, maybe not, but several
stinking individuals are in the frame for, guess what - ...bring it on... The fact that Hilary was arguably even worse (a point
made ad-nauseum on here) is frankly irrelevant. The vilification of Trump will not affect the warmongers efforts. He is a useful
idiot
for a take on the alternative reality some are living in
emptywheel has an article up on the nbc link b provides and the article on butina is discussed in the comments section...
as i said - they are looking for red meat and will not be happy until they get some... they are completely zonkers...
Blooming Barricade , Feb 12, 2019 2:55:18 PM |
link
Now that this racket has been admitted as such, I expect all of the media outlets that devoted banner headlines, hundreds of thousands
of hours of cable TV time, thousands of trees, and free speech online to immediately fire all of their journalists and appoint
Glenn Greenwald as the publisher of the New York Times, Michael Tracey at the Post, Aaron Matte at the Guardian, and Max Blumenthal
at the Daily Beast.
Since this is obviously not going to be allowed to happen, and since these people get away with everything, expect this
to never end, despite all evidence to the contrary. It doesn't matter if they've been exposed as CIA propagandists or Integrity
Initiative stooges, the game goes on...and on.... the job security of these disgraced columnists is the greatest in the Western
world.
The US needs an enemy, how else can they ask NATO members to cough up 2% of GDP [just for one example Germany's GDP is nearly
4 Trillion dollars [2017] for defence spending, what a crazy sum all NATO members must fork out to please the US, but then most
of that money must be spent on the US MIC 'interoperability' of course.
Then of course Russia has to be surrounded by NATO should they try and take over Europe by surging through the Fulda gap./s
Then of course there are the professional pundits who have built careers on anti Russian propaganda, Rachel Maddow for instance
who earns 30,000$ per day to spew anti Russian nonsense.
Another great damage of Russiagate was the instigating of a nuclear arms race directed primarily at Russia, and ideologically
justified by its diabolical policies.
I'm sorry b is so down on Conspiracy Theories, since they reveal quite real staged homicidal false flag operations of US power.
Feeding into the stigmatizing of the truth about reality is not in the interests of the earth's people.
somehow I see this "revelation: tied to Barr's approaching tenure. I think they (FBI/DOJ) didn't want his involvement in their
noodle soup of an investigation and the best way to accomplish that was to end it themselves. I also suspect that a deal has been
made with Trump, possibly in exchange for leaving his family alone.
So we will see no investigation of Hillary, her 650,000
emails or the many crimes they detailed (according to NYPD investigation of Weiner's laptop) and the US will continue to be at
war all day, every day. Team Swamp rules.
Meanwhile, MSM is prepping its readers for the possibility that the Mueller report will never be released to us proles. If that's
the case, I'm sure nobody will try to use innuendo to suggest it actually contains explosive revelations after all...
Harry, its vitally important as the US desperately wants to keep Europe under its thumb and to stop this European army which
means Europe lead by Paris and Berlin becomes a world power. Trump's attempts to make nice with Russia is to keep it out of the
EU bloc.
Well, the liberal conspiracy car crash ensured downmarket Mussolini a second term, it appears...Hard Brexit Tories also look likely
to win thanks to centrist sabatoge of the left. You reap what you sow, corporate presstitutes!
Sane people have predicted the end of Russiagate almost as many times as insane people have predicted that the "smoking gun that
will get rid of Trump" has been found. And yet the Mighty Wurlitzer grinds on, while social media is more and more censored.
I expect it all to continue until the 2020 election circus winds up into full-throated mode, and no one talks about anything but
the next puppet to be appointed. Oops, I mean "elected".
You also need to behead the corpse, stuff the mouth with a lemon and then place the head down in the coffin with the body in
supine (facing up) position. Weight the coffin with stones and wild roses and toss it into a fast-flowing river.
Russiagate won't be finished until a wall is built around Capitol Hill and all its inhabitants and worker bees declared insane
by a properly functioning court of law.
I also suspect that a deal has been made with Trump, possibly in exchange for leaving his family alone. So we will see no
investigation of Hillary ...
Underlying your perspective is the assumption that USA is a democracy where a populist "outsider" could be elected President,
Yet you also believe that Hillary and the Deep State have the power to manipulate government and the intelligence agencies and
propose a "conspiracy theory" based on that power.
Isn't it more likely that Trump made it clear (behind closed doors, of course) that he was amenable to the goals of the Deep
State and that the bogus investigation was merely done to: 1) cover their own election meddling; 2) eliminate threats like Flynn
and Assange/Wikileaks; 3) anti-Russian propaganda?
Dowd, Trump's former lawyer on Russiagate stated there may not even be a report. If this is the case then the Zionist rulers have
gotten to Mueller who no doubt figured out that the election collusion breadcrumbs don't lead to Putin, they lead to Netanyahu
and Zionist billionaire friends! So Mueller may have to come up with a nothing burger to hide the truth.
B is the only alternative media blogger I've followed for a significant amount of time without becoming disenfranchised. Not because
he has no blind spot - his is just one I can deal with... optimism.
I will believe Russiagate is finished when expelled Russian staff gets back, when the US returns the seized Russian properties,
when the consulate is Seattle reopens and when USA issues formal apology to Russia.
Posted by: hopehely | Feb 12, 2019 5:14:49 PM |
link
Nobody has ever advanced the tiniest shred of credible evidence that 'Russia' or its government at any level was in any way implicated
either in Wikileaks' acquisition of the DNC and Podesta emails or in any form of interference with the Presidential election.
This has been going on for three years and not once has anything like evidence surfaced.
On the other hand there has been an abundance of evidence that those alleging Russian involvement consistently refused to listen
to explore the facts.
Incredibly, the DNC computers were never examined by the FBI or any other agency resembling an official police agency. Instead
the notorious Crowdstrike professionally russophobic and caught red handed faking data for the Ukrainians against Russia were
commissioned to produce a 'report.'
Nobody with any sense would have credited anything about Russiagate after that happened.
Thgen there was the proof, from VIPS and Bill Binney (?) that the computers were not hacked at all but that the information
was taken by thumbdrive. A theory which not only Wikileaks but several witnesses have offered to prove.
Not one of them has been contacted by the FBI, Mueller or anyone else "investigating."
In reality the charges from the first were ludicrous on their face. There is, as b has proved and every new day's news attests,
not the slightest reason why anyone in the Russian government should have preferred Trump over Clinton. And that is saying something
because they are pretty well indistinguishable. And neither has the morals or brains of an adolescent groundhog.
Russiagate is over, alright, The Nothingburger is empty. But that means nothing in this 'civilisation': it will be recorded
in the history books, still to be written, by historians still in diapers, that "The 2016 Presidential election, which ended in
the controversial defeat of Hillary Clinton, was heavily influenced by Russian agents who hacked ..etc etc"
What will not be remembered is that every single email released was authentic. And that within those troves of correspondence
there was enough evidence of criminality by Clinton and her campaign to fill a prison camp.
Another thing that will not be recalled is that there was once a young enthusiastic man, working for the DNC, who was mugged
one evening after work and killed.
The 'no collusion' result will only spur the 'beginning of the end' baboons to shout even more, they'll never stop until they
die in their beds or the plebs of the Republic made them adore the street lamp posts, you'll see. The former is by far more likely,
the unwashed of American have never had a penchant for foreign affairs except for the few spasms like Vietnam.
There was collusion alright but the only Russians who helped Trump get elected and were in on the collusion are citizens of ISRAEL
FIRST, likewise for the American billionaires who put Trump in the power perch. ISRAEL FIRST.
That's why Trump is on giant billboards in Israel shaking hands with the Yahoo. Trump is higher in the polls in Israel than
in the U.S. If it weren't that the Zionist upper crust need Trump doing their dirty work in America, like trying today get rid
of Rep. Omar Ilhan, then Trump would win the elections in Ziolandia or Ziostan by a landslide cause he's been better for the Joowish
state than all preceding Presidents put together. Mazel tov to them bullshet for the rest of us servile mass in the vassal West
and Palestinians the most shafted class ever. Down with Venezuela and Iran, up with oil and gas. The billionare shysters' and
Trump's payola is getting closer. Onward AZ Empire!
He proved himself so easy to troll during the election. It wouldn't surprise me if aim of the domestic intelligence agencies all
along was to get him elected and have a candidate they could manipulate.
At least Germany has the good sense not to throw taxpayer money at the F-35.
German F-35 decision sacrifices NATO capability for Franco-German industrial cooperation I don't know what they have
in mind with a proposed airplane purchase. If they need fighters, buy or lease Sweden's Gripen. If attack airplanes are what they're
after, go to Boeing and get some brand new F-15X models. If the prickly French are agreeable to build a 6th generation aircraft,
that would be worth a try.
Regarding Rachel Maddow, I recently had an encounter with a relative who told me 1) I visited too many oddball sites and 2)
he considered Rachel M. to be the most reliable news person in existence. I think we're talking "true believer" here. :)
It wouldn't surprise me if aim of the domestic intelligence agencies all along was to get him elected and have a candidate
they could manipulate.
Considering how those "intelligence agencies" are hard pressed to find their own tails, even if you allow them to use both
hands, it would surprise me.
That Trump would turn out to be a tub of jello in more than just a physical way has been a surprise to an awful lot of us.
Russiagate was very successful. You just have to understand the objectives. It was a great distraction. Diverting
peoples attention from the continued fleecing of the "real people" which are the bottom 90% by the "Corporate People" and their
Government Lackeys.
It provided an excuse for the acting CEO (a figurehead) of the Corporate Empire to go back on many of the promises made
that got him elected, and to fill the swamp with Neocon and Koch Brother creatures with the excuse the Deep State made him do
it. More proof that there is no deception that is too ridiculous to be believed so long as you have enough pundits claiming it
to be so
Allowed the bipartisan support for the clamp down on alt media with censorship by social media (Deep State Tools) and funded
by the Ministry of Truth set up by Obama in his last days in office to under the false pretense of protecting us from foreign
governments interference in elections (except Israel of course) . Similar agencies have been set up or planned to be in other
countries followig the US example such as UK, France, Russia, etc.
Did anyone really expect Mr "Cover It Up " Mueller to find anything? Mueller is Deep State all the way and Trump is as well,
not withstanding the "Fake Wrestling " drama that they are bitter enemies. All the surveillance done over the past 2-3 decades
would have so much dirt on the Trumpet they could silence him forever . Trump knew that going in and I sometimes wonder if he
was pressured to run as a condition to avoid prosecution. Pretty sure every President since Carter has been "Kompromat"
If you've done just a cursory look into Seth Rich, you'd be very suspicious about the story of his life and death. IMO
Assange/Wikilleaks were set up. And Flynn was set up too. What they are doing is Orwellian: White Helmets, election manipulation,
propaganda, McCarthism, etc. If you're not angry, you're not paying attention.
Russians and likely at the behest of the Russian state interfered and it was fair payback for Yeltsin's election. It is time to
move on but not in feigned ignorance of what was done. Was it "outcome" affecting, possibly, but not clearly and if the US electoral
college and electoral system generally is so decrepit that a second level power in the world can influence then its the US's fault.
It's not like the 2000 election wasn't a warning shot about the rottenness of system and a system that doesn't understand a
warning shot deserves pretty much what it gets. But there's enough non-hype evidence of acts and intent to say yes, the Russians
tried and may have succeeded. They certainly are acting guilty enough. but still close the book move and move on to Trump's 'real'
crimes which were done without a Russian assist.
I seem to recall former UK Ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray saying that it was not a hack and that he had been handed
a thumb drive in a field near American University by a disgruntled Democrat whistleblower. Further, I seem to recall William Binney,
former NSA Technical Leader for intelligence, conducting an experiment to show that internet speeds at the time would not allow
the information to be hacked - they knew the size of the files and the period over which they were downloaded. Plus, Seth Rich.
So why does anyone even believe it was a hack, @32 THN?
Just another comment re Mueller. There is a great documentary by (Dutch, not Israeli---different person) Gideon Levy, Lockerbie
Revisited. The narration is in Dutch, but the interviews are in English, and there is a small segment of a German broadcast. The
documentary ends abruptly where one set of FBI personnel contradict statements by another set of FBI personnel. See also
this primer on Mueller's MO.
reply to Les 42
"It wouldn't surprise me if aim of the domestic intelligence agencies all along was to get him elected and have a candidate they
could manipulate."
Not the intelligence agencies, the Military IMO. They knew HC for what she was; horrifically corrupt and,again IMO,they know
she is insane.
They saw and I think still see Trump as someone they could work with, remember Rogers (Navy) of the NSA going to him immediately
once he was elected? That was the Military protecting him as best they could.
They IMO have kept him alive and as long as he doesn't send any troops into "real" wars, they will keep on keeping him alive.
This doesn't mean Trump hasn't gone over to the Dark Side, just that no military action will take place that the military command
doesn't fully support.
Again, I could be wrong, he could be backed by fiends from Patagonia for all I really know:)
The button pushers behind the Trump collusion and Russia election hacking false narratives got what they wanted: to walk the
democrats and republicans straight into Cold War v2; to start their campaign to suppress alternative voices on the internet; to
increase military spending; and more, more, more war.
Boy, I hope Jackrabbit sees this. Everyone knows I believe Trump is the anointed chosen of the Zionist 1%. There was no Russia
collusion; it was Zionist collusion with a Russian twist...
Oh yeah! Forgot to mention the latest. Trump is asking Kim to provide a list of his nuclear scientists! Before Kim acts on this
request, he should call up the Iranian government for advise 'cause they have lots of experience and can warn Kim of what will
happen to each of those scientists. They'll be put on a kill-list and will be extrajudicially wacked as in executed. Can you believe
the chutzpah? Trump must think Kim is really stupid to fall for that one!
Aye! The thought of six more years of Zionist pandering Trump. Barf-inducing prospect is too tame.
The view from the hermitage is, we are in the age of distractions. Russiagate will be replaced with one of a litany of distractions,
purely designed to keep us off target. The target being, corruption, vote rigging, illegal wars, war crimes, overthrowing sovereign
governments, and political assasinations, both at home and abroad. Those so distracted, will focus on sillyness; not the genuine
danger afoot around the planet. Get used to it; it's become the new normal.
@76Hw
I have yet to read anything more delusional, nay, utterly preposterous. Methinks you over-project too much. Even Trump would have
a belly-ache laugh reading that sheeple spiel. You're the type that sees the giant billboard of Zionist Trump and Yahoo shaking
hands and drones on and on that our lying eyes deceive us and it's really Trump playing 4-D chess. I suppose when he tried to
pressure Omar Ilhan into resigning her seat in Congress yesterday, that too was reverse psychology?
Trump instagramed the billboard pic, he tweeted it, he probably pasted it on his wall; maybe with your kind of wacky, Trump
infatuation, you should too!
Russiagate is finished because Mueller discovered an embarrassing fact: The collusion was and always will be with Israel. Here's
Trump professing his endless love for Zionism:
Trump Resign
Russiagate was very successful <=pls read, re-read Pft @ 46.. he listed many things. divide and conquer accomplished.
a nation state is defined as an armed rule making structure, designed by those who control a territory, and constructed by the
lawyers, military, and wealthy and run by the persons the designers appoint, for the appointed are called politicians.
Most designs of armed nation states provide the designers with information feedback and the designers use that information
to appoint more obedient politicians and generals to run things, and to improve the design to better serve the designers. The
armed rule making structure is designed to give the designers complete control over those targeted to be the governed. Why so
stupid the governed? ; always they allow themselves to be manipulated like sheep.
When 10 angry folks approach you with two pieces of ropes: one to throw over the tree branch under which your horse will be
supporting you while they tie the noose around your neck and the other shorter piece of rope to tie your hands behind ..your back
you need at that point to make your words count , if five of the people are black and five are white. all you need do is
say how smart the blacks are, and how stupid the whites are, as the two groups fight each other you manage your escape. democrat
vs republican= divide to conquer. gun, no gun = divide to conquer, HRC vs DJT = divide to conquer, abortion, no abortion = divide
to conquer, Trump is a Russian planted in a high level USA position of power = divide to conquer, They were all in on it together,,
Muller was in the white house to keep the media supplied with XXX, to keep the law enforcement agencies in the loop, and to advise
trump so things would not get out of hand ( its called Manipulation and the adherents to the economic system called Zionism
For the record, Zionism is not related to race, religion or intelligence. Zionism is a system of economics that take's no captives,
its adherents must own everything, must destroy and decimate all actual or imaginary competition, for Zionist are the owners and
masters of everything? Zionism is about power, absolute power, monopoly ownership and using governments everywhere to abuse the
governed. Zionism has many adherents, whites, blacks, browns, Christians, Jews, Islamist, Indians, you name it among each class
of person and walk of life can be found persons who subscribe to the idea that they, and only they, should own everything, and
when those of us, that are content to be the governed let them, before the kill and murder us, they usually end up owning everything.
1. why the Joint non nuclear agreement with Iran and the other nuclear power nations, that prevented Iran from developing nuclear
weapons, was trashed? Someone needs to be able to say Iran is developing ..., at the right time.
2. Why Netanyohu made public a video that claimed Iran was developing nuclear stuff in violation of the Iran non nuclear agreement,
and everybody laughed,
3. Why the nuclear non proliferation agreement with Russia, that terminated the costly useless arms race a decade ago, has
been recently terminated, to reestablish the nuclear arms race, no apparent reason was given the implication might be Russia could
be a target, but
4. why it might make sense to give nukes to Saudi Arabia or some other rogue nation, and
5. why no one is allowed to have nuclear weapons except the Zionist owned and controlled nation states.
Statement: Zionism is an economic system that requires the elimination of all competition of whatever kind. It is a winner
get's all, takes no prisoners, targets all who would threaten or be a challenge or a threat; does not matter if the threat is
in in oil and gas, technology or weapons as soon as a possibility exist, the principles of Zionism would require that it be taken
out, decimated, and destroyed and made where never again it could even remotely be a threat to the Empire, that Zionism demands..
Hypothesis: A claim that another is developing nuclear weapon capabilities is sufficient to take that other out?
I am glad that most commenters understand that Russiagate will not go away. But the majority appear to miss the real reason. Russiagate
is not an accusation, it is the state of mind.
At the beginnng of Russiagate, I wrote on Robert Parry's Consirtium News that Russiagate is Idiocracy piggy-backing on
decades and literally billions of dollars of anti-Soviet and anti-Russian propaganda. How hard would it be to brainwash an already
brainwashed population?
The purveyors of Russiagate will re-compose themselves, brush off all reports and continue on. One just cannot get away
from one's nature, even when that nature is pure idiocy. Of course, the most ironic in the affair is that it is the so called
US "intellectuals", academics and other assorted cretins who are the most fervent proponents. If you were wondering how Russia
can make such amazing defensive weapons that US can only deny exist and wet dream of having, there is your answer. It is the state
of mind. The whole of US establishment are legends in their on lunch time and totally delusional about the reality surrounding
them - both Russiagate and MAGA cretins, no report can help the Russiagate nation.
Finally, I am thinking of that crazy and ugly professor bitch from the British Cambridge University who gives her lectures
naked to protest something or other. I am so lucky that I do not have to go to a Western university ever again. What a catastrophic
decline! No Brexit can help the Skripal nation.
Russiagate is finished, but is DJT also among the rubble?
Hardly any money for the border wall and still lingering in the ME?
If Hoarsewhisperer proves to be correct above re: DJT, he will really have to knock our socks off before election 2020. To
do this he will have to unequivocally and unceremoniously withdraw from the MENA and Afghanistan and possibly declare a National
Emergency for more money for the wall.
The problem is, when he does this, he will look impulsively dangerous and this may harm his mystique to the lemmings who need
a president to be more "presidential."
My money is on status quo all the way to 2020 and the rethugz hoping the Dems will eat their own in an orgy of warring identities.
The collusion story may be faltering, but the blame for Russia poisoning the Skripals lives on. The other night on The News Hour,
"Judy" led off the program with this: "It has been almost a year since Kremlin intelligence officers attempted to kill a Russian
defector in the British city of Salisbury by poisoning him with a nerve agent. That attack, and the subsequent death of a British
woman, scared away tourists and shoppers, but authorities and residents are working to get the town's economy back on track. Special
correspondent Malcolm Brabant reports."
Russiagate will not go away unfortunately because it has evolved in the "Russiagate Industry". As mentioned by others,
the Russiagate Industry has been very profitable for many industries and people. Russiagate has generated an entire cottage industry
of companies around censorship and "find us a Russian". Dow Jones should have an index on the Russiagate Industry.
Here is one recent example. You know the measles outbreak in the US Pacific Northwest. Yup, the Russians. How do we know.
A government funded research grant. The study found that 899 tweets caused people to doubt vaccines. Looks like money is
to be had even by academics for the right results.
Looks like Gussifer 2.0 person is a fake created to cover tracks and ofload the blame to Russians.
Notable quotes:
"... The phrase, "moderate confidence" is intelligence speak for "we have no hard evidence." ..."
"... Instead, the NSA only claimed to have moderate confidence in the judgement regarding Russian meddling. If the NSA had hard intelligence to support the judgement the conclusion would have been stated as "full confidence." ..."
"... Why does a cyber security company wait 45 days after allegedly uncovering a massive Russian attack on the DNC server to take concrete steps to safeguard the integrity of the information held on the server? This makes no sense. ..."
"... We know one thing for certain -- CrowdStrike did not take steps to shutdown and repair the DNC network until 18 days after the last email was copied from the server. ..."
"... Taken together, these disparate data points combine to paint a picture that exonerates alleged Russian hackers and implicates persons within our law enforcement and intelligence community taking part in a campaign of misinformation, deceit and incompetence. ..."
By William Binney, former Technical Director NSA & Larry Johnson, former State CT and CIA
The FBI, CIA and NSA claim that the DNC emails published by WIKILEAKS on July 26, 2016 were
obtained via a Russian hack, but more than three years after the alleged "hack" no forensic
evidence has been produced to support that claim. In fact, the available forensic evidence
contradicts the official account that blames the leak of the DNC emails on a Russian internet
"intrusion". The existing evidence supports an alternative explanation--the files taken from
the DNC on between 23 and 25May 2016 and were copied onto a file storage device, such as a
thumb drive.
If the Russians actually had conducted an internet based hack of the DNC computer network
then the evidence of such an attack would have been collected and stored by the National
Security Agency. The technical systems to accomplish this task have been in place since 2002.
The NSA had an opportunity to make it clear that there was irrefutable proof of Russian
meddling, particularly with regard to the DNC hack, when it signed on to the January 2017
"Intelligence Community Assessment," regarding Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential election :
We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump's
election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her
unfavorably to him. All three agencies agree with this judgment. CIA and FBI have high
confidence in this judgment; NSA has moderate confidence.
The phrase, "moderate confidence" is intelligence speak for "we have no hard evidence."
Thanks to the leaks by Edward Snowden, we know with certainty that the NSA had the capability
to examine and analyze the DNC emails. NSA routinely "vacuumed up" email traffic transiting the
U.S. using robust collection systems (whether or not anyone in the NSA chose to look for this
data is another question). If those emails had been hijacked over the internet then NSA also
would have been able to track the electronic path they traveled over the internet. This kind of
data would allow the NSA to declare without reservation or caveat that the Russians were
guilty. The NSA could admit to such a fact in an unclassified assessment without compromising
sources and methods. Instead, the NSA only claimed to have moderate confidence in the judgement
regarding Russian meddling. If the NSA had hard intelligence to support the judgement the
conclusion would have been stated as "full confidence."
We believe that Special Counsel Robert Mueller faces major embarrassment if he decides to
pursue the indictment he filed -- which accuses 12 Russian GRU military personnel and an entity
identified as, Guccifer 2.0, for the DNC hack -- because the available forensic evidence
indicates the emails were copied onto a storage device.
According to a DOJ press release on the indictment of the Russians, Mueller declares that
the emails were obtained via a "spearphising" attack:
In 2016, officials in Unit 26165 began spearphishing volunteers and employees of the
presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton, including the campaign's chairman. Through that
process, officials in this unit were able to steal the usernames and passwords for numerous
individuals and use those credentials to steal email content and hack into other computers.
They also were able to hack into the computer networks of the Democratic Congressional Campaign
Committee (DCCC) and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) through these spearphishing
techniques to steal emails and documents, covertly monitor the computer activity of dozens of
employees, and implant hundreds of files of malicious computer code to steal passwords and
maintain access to these networks.
The officials in Unit 26165 coordinated with officials in Unit 74455 to plan the release of
the stolen documents for the purpose of interfering with the 2016 presidential election.
Defendants registered the domain DCLeaks.com
and later staged the release of thousands of stolen emails and documents through that website.
On the website, defendants claimed to be "American hacktivists" and used Facebook accounts with
fictitious names and Twitter accounts to promote the website. After public accusations that the
Russian government was behind the hacking of DNC and DCCC computers, defendants created the
fictitious persona Guccifer 2.0. On the evening of June 15, 2016 between 4:19PM and 4:56PM,
defendants used their Moscow-based server to search for a series of English words and phrases
that later appeared in Guccifer 2.0's first blog post falsely claiming to be a lone Romanian
hacker responsible for the hacks in the hopes of undermining the allegations of Russian
involvement.(
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/grand-jury-indicts-12-russian-intelligence-officers-hacking-offenses-related-2016-election
)
Notwithstanding the DOJ press release, an examination of the Wikileaks DNC files do not
support the claim that the emails were obtained via spearphising. Instead, the evidence clearly
shows that the emails posted on the Wikileaks site were copied onto an electronic media, such
as a CD-ROM or thumbdrive before they were posted at Wikileaks. The emails posted on Wikileaks
were saved using the File Allocation Table (aka FAT) computer file system architecture.
An examination of the Wikileaks DNC files shows they were created on 23, 25 and 26 May
respectively. The fact that they appear in a FAT system format indicates the data was
transfered to a storage device, such as a thumb drive.
How do we know? The truth lies in the "last modified" time stamps on the Wikileaks files.
Every single one of these time stamps end in even numbers. If you are not familiar with the FAT
file system, you need to understand that when a date is stored under this system the data
rounds the time to the nearest even numbered second.
We have examined 500 DNC email files stored on Wikileaks and all 500 files end in an even
number -- 2, 4, 6, 8 or 0. If a system other than FAT had been used, there would have been an
equal probability of the time stamp ending with an odd number. But that is not the case with
the data stored on the Wikileaks site. All end with an even number.
The DNC emails are in 3 batches (times are GMT).
Date Count Min Time Max Time FAT Min Id Max Id
2016-05-23 10520 02:12:38 02:45:42 x 3800 14319
2016-05-25 11936 05:21:30 06:04:36 x 1 22456
2016-08-26 13357 14:11:36 20:06:04 x 22457 44053
The random probability that FAT was not used is 1 chance in 2 to the 500th power or
approximately 1 chance in 10 to the 150th power - in other words, an infinitely high order. This data alone does not prove that the emails were copied at the DNC headquarters. But it
does show that the data/emails posted by Wikileaks did go through a storage device, like a
thumbdrive, before Wikileaks posted the emails on the World Wide Web.
This fact alone is enough to raise reasonable doubts about Mueller's indictment accusing 12
Russian soldiers as the culprits for the leak of the DNC emails to Wikileaks. A savvy defense
attorney will argue, and rightly so, that someone copied the DNC files to a storage device
(Eg., USB thumb drive) and transferred that to Wikileaks.
We also tested the hypothesis that Wikileaks could have manipulated the files to produce the
FAT result by comparing the DNC email files with the Podesta emails (aka Larter file) that was
released on 21 September 2016. The FAT file format is NOT present in the Podesta files. If
Wikileaks employed a standard protocol for handling data/emails received from unknown sources
we should expect the File structure of the DNC emails to match the file structure of the
Podesta emails. The evidence shows otherwise.
There is further compelling technical evidence that undermines the claim that the DNC emails
were downloaded over the internet as a result of a spearphising attack. Bill Binney, a former
Technical Director of the National Security Agency, along with other former intelligence
community experts, examined emails posted by Guccifer 2.0 and discovered that those emails
could not have been downloaded over the internet as a result of a spearphising attack. It is a
simple matter of mathematics and physics.
Shortly after Wikileaks announced it had the DNC emails, Guccifer 2.0 emerged on the public stage,
claiming that "he" hacked the DNC and that he had the DNC emails. Guccifer 2.0 began in late
June 2016 to publish documents as proof that "he" had hacked from the DNC.
Taking Guccifer 2.0 at face value -- i.e., that his documents were obtained via an internet
attack -- Bill Binney conducted a forensic examination of the metadata contained in the posted
documents based on internet connection speeds in the United States. This analysis showed that
the highest transfer rate was 49.1 megabytes per second, which is much faster than possible
from a remote online connection. The 49.1 megabytes speed coincides with the download rate for
a thumb drive .
Binney, assisted by other colleagues with technical expertise, extended the examination and
ran various tests forensic from the Netherlands, Albania, Belgrade and the UK. The fastest rate
obtained -- from a data center in New Jersey to a data center in the UK--was 12 megabytes per
second, which is less than a fourth of the rate necessary to transfer the data, as it was
listed from Guccifer 2.
The findings from the examination of the Guccifer 2.0 data and the Wikileaks data does not
prove who copied the information to a thumbdrive, but it does provide and empirical alternative
explanation that undermines the Special Counsel's claim that the DNC was hacked. According to
the forensic evidence for the Guccifer 2.0 data, the DNC emails were not taken by an internet
spearphising attack. The data breach was local. It was copied from the network.
There is other circumstantial evidence that buttresses the conclusion that the data breach
was a local effort that copied data.
First there is the Top Secret information leaked by Edward Snowden. If the DNC emails had
been hacked via spearphising (as alleged by Mueller) then the data would have been captured by
the NSA by means of the Upstream program (Fairview, Stormbrew, Blarney, Oakstar) and the
forensic evidence would not modify times - the data would be presented as sent.
Second, we have the public reporting on the DNC and Crowdstrike, which provide a bizarre
timeline for the alleged Russian hacking.
Falcon had identified not one but two Russian intruders: Cozy Bear, a group CrowdStrike's
experts believed was affiliated with the FSB, Russia's answer to the CIA; and Fancy Bear, which
they had linked to the GRU, Russian military intelligence.
And what did CrowdStrike do about this? Nothing. According to Michael Isikoff, CrowdStrike
claimed their inactivity was a deliberate plan to avoid alerting the Russians that they had
been "discovered." This is nonsense. If a security company detected a thief breaking into a
house and stealing its contents, what sane company would counsel the client to do nothing in
order to avoid alerting the thief?
We know from examining the Wikileaks data that the last message copied from the DNC network
is dated Wed, 25 May 2016 08:48:35. No DNC emails were taken and released to Wikileaks after
that date.
CrowdStrike waited until 10 June 2016 to take concrete steps to clean up the DNC network.
Alperovitch told
Esquire's Vicky Ward that :
Ultimately, the teams decided it was necessary to replace the software on every computer at
the DNC. Until the network was clean, secrecy was vital. On the afternoon of Friday, June 10,
all DNC employees were instructed to leave their laptops in the office.
Why does a cyber security company wait 45 days after allegedly uncovering a massive
Russian attack on the DNC server to take concrete steps to safeguard the integrity of the
information held on the server? This makes no sense.
A more plausible explanation is that it was discovered that emails had been downloaded from
the server and copied onto a device like a thumdrive. But the culprit had not yet been
identified. We know one thing for certain -- CrowdStrike did not take steps to shutdown and
repair the DNC network until 18 days after the last email was copied from the server.
The final curiosity is that the DNC never provided the FBI access to its servers in order
for qualified FBI technicians to conduct a thorough forensic examination. If this had been a
genuine internet hack, it would be very easy for the NSA to identify when the information was
taken and the route it moved after being hacked from the server. The NSA had the technical
collection systems in place to enable analysts to know the date and time of the messages. But
that has not been done.
Taken together, these disparate data points combine to paint a picture that exonerates
alleged Russian hackers and implicates persons within our law enforcement and intelligence
community taking part in a campaign of misinformation, deceit and incompetence. It is not a
pretty picture.
My understanding is that the Democratic Party person who passed the USB stick to Craig
Murray was not Seth Rich. Seth Rich died on 10 July 2016 and Murray received the USB stick in
September of the same year. So there were quite a few disgruntled Democratic Party
whistleblowers at the time.
You're right - Seth Rich was not alive in September 2016. Craig Murray says he received a
package in a wooded area near the American University in Washington DC in September 2016 from
"the source" and that the leak source was the deed of a disgruntled Democrat employee.
@71 jen / 73 spudski... i went and checked craigs site, but was unable to find him mentioning
this.. i did re-read his post from july 3rd 2017 that came up in a search of seth rich..
The Stink Without a
Secret
to quote from it.. "That is it. To this day, that is the sum total of actual "evidence" of
Russian hacking. I won't say hang on to it as a fact, because it contains no relevant fact.
But at least it is some form of definable allegation of something happening, rather than
"Russian hacking" being a simple article of faith like the Holy Trinity.
But there are a number of problems that prevent this being fact at all. Nobody has ever
been able to refute the evidence of Bill Binney, former Technical Director of the NSA who
designed its current surveillance systems. Bill has stated that the capability of the NSA is
such, that if the DNC computers had been hacked, the NSA would be able to trace the actual
packets of that information as those emails travelled over the internet, and give a precise
time, to the second, for the hack. The NSA simply do not have the event – because there
wasn't one. I know Bill personally and am quite certain of his integrity.
As we have been repeatedly told, "17 intelligence agencies" sign up to the "Russian
hacking", yet all these king's horses and all these king's men have been unable to produce
any evidence whatsoever of the purported "hack". Largely because they are not in fact trying.
Here is another actual fact I wish you to hang on to: The Democrats have refused the
intelligence agencies access to their servers to discover what actually happened. I am going
to say that again.
The Democrats have refused the intelligence agencies access to their servers to discover
what actually happened." - why is that???
As you consider the weirdness of the Rich family, also keep in mind the substantial efforts
made to discredit and disable Assange/Wikileaks and Trump's call, in summer 2016) for Putin
to release Hillary's lost emails.
The timeline is as follows:
January 2016
FBI report says Hillary emails contained highly classified info
By this time, Trump has all but locked up the GOP nomination - Michael Bloomberg makes
urgent public announcement that may enter the race to prevent Sanders and Trump from
winning.
February 2016
Never Trump Movement is born
March/April 2016
Trump hires Manafort
May 2016
DNC is hacked
June 2016
Trump Jr. meets with Russians that say they have info about Hillary
September 2016
Flynn signs agreement with Turk company Inovo BV: $500k "sweatheart deal"
October 2016
Assange's Internet access is terminated for the first time due to "election interference"
by publishing DNC emails
November 2016
Flynn's agreement with Turk company ends on election day (Nov 8)
Flynn accepts position as National Security Advisor (Nov 18)
January 2017
Flynn is under investigation due to his work for Inovo BV
Chuck Schumer says Intel agencies "have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you"
February 2017
Trump fires Flynn after he is evasive/untruthful about his conversation with Russian
Ambassador
>> Trump's positioning as pro-Russia was bolstered by his hiring
pro-Russia Manafort who has links to Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska. This is a strange
choice for the "America First" Trump campaign.
>> Assange/Wikileaks and Flynn are all ultimately snared by anti-Russia hysteria.
Wikileaks would later be described as a "hostile intelligence agency" and Assange as a
"Russian agent".
I had a call from a Guardian journalist this afternoon. The astonishing result "was that
for three hours, an article was accessible through the Guardian front page which actually
included the truth among the CIA hype:
"The Kremlin has rejected the hacking accusations, while the WikiLeaks founder Julian
Assange has previously said the DNC leaks were not linked to Russia. A second senior official
cited by the Washington Post conceded that intelligence agencies did not have specific proof
that the Kremlin was "directing" the hackers, who were said to be one step removed from the
Russian government.
Craig Murray, the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, who is a close associate of Assange,
called the CIA claims "bullshit", adding: "They are absolutely making it up."
"I know who leaked them," Murray said. "I've met the person who leaked them, and they are
certainly not Russian and it's an insider. It's a leak, not a hack; the two are different
things.
"If what the CIA are saying is true, and the CIA's statement refers to people who are known
to be linked to the Russian state, they would have arrested someone if it was someone inside
the United States.
"America has not been shy about arresting whistleblowers and it's not been shy about
extraditing hackers. They plainly have no knowledge whatsoever."
But only three hours. While the article was not taken down, the home page links to it
vanished and it was replaced by a ludicrous one repeating the mad CIA allegations against
Russia and now claiming – incredibly – that the CIA believe the FBI is
deliberately blocking the information on Russian collusion.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
jackrabbit
Thanks for the info. The Seth Rich story always bothered me. I also recall that in one
article CM was quoted as saying that who he got the leaked materials was not "the source."
Was the original source SR?
i tend to believe julian assange when he says the stakes are very high when one is
involved in sharing information that could be detrimental others - a large organization in
particular, and etc..
I suppose the 2 choices here are one believes either Seth Rich was murdered in a bad part
of Washington dc - conceivable, or that someone knew he had passed the emails and wanted to
kill him for it..
If you believe 2 - then you have to come up with a reason for why they had to kill him..
The reason jr appears to offer is it makes Russia and WikiLeaks the 2 main suspects, as
opposed to seth rich.. and on and on it goes..
I lean towards the later view which jr articulates, but i don't expect to ever find
out..
It is unclear how long this vulnerability exists, but this is pretty serious staff that shows
how Hillary server could be hacked via Abedin account. As Abedin technical level was lower then
zero, to hack into her home laptop just just trivial.
Microsoft also patched
Exchange against a vulnerability that allowed remote attackers with little more than an
unprivileged mailbox account to gain administrative control over the server. Dubbed
PrivExchange, CVE-2019-0686 was publicly disclosed last month , along with
proof-of-concept code that exploited it. In Tuesday's
advisory , Microsoft officials said they haven't seen active exploits yet but that they
were "likely."
The USSR had elections of various types. They meant nothing because the Party owned
everybody.
We have elections that are far more like Soviet elections than the average 'conservative'
voter can allow himself to imagine. The great difference Soviet elections and ours today is
who – what entity – owns the system, meaning which cultural values rule,
dictate.
Ours is the Anglo-Zionist Empire. This is the end game of the Judaizing heresies that
destroyed Christendom. This nightmare is where WASP culture leads and always lead.
Krugman is a dangerous neoliberal propagandist... And he essentially kills Democratic Party
appeal to voters by trying to equate protest against immigration and racism.
To claim the Clinton neoliberal Democrats who are directly or indirectly responsible for
killing of million of "brown people" and bombing a dozen of countries support for civil rights is
a real, Nazi-propaganda like, stretch...
I consider myself socially conservative and economically liberal and I very bitterly
reject the idea that I am a "racist". The left has to stop tossing around the word "racist"
to essentially mean "anything they dislike" and "anyone they disagree with". I am not a
racist, and I defy anyone to prove I am. Dr. Krugman, if you are going to call 50% of the
voters in the US "racists"....well, consider what happened when your pal Hillary called us
"deplorables in a basket". How'd that work out for her?
Democrats love to eat their own. We have one of the most racist presidents to ever hold
office in modern times, yet some Democrats are going after Northam over some dumb stunt that
happened decades ago. Is he a good leader NOW? Does he support good policies NOW? Is
Northam's behavior really any worse (blackface versus sexual misconduct) than someone who
just got a seat on the Supreme Court? Wow, this is like watching an episode of The Twilight
Zone. Republicans have a strategic advantage because, while Democrats get all twisted up in
identity politics, Republican leaders are only tightly focused on serving the rich and
powerful at the expense of average Americans. No party disunity there. Democrats need to
start focusing on the basic, kitchen table issues that average Americans care about, like
affordable health care, affordable housing and affordable higher education. With that strong
streak of self-destruction that runs through Democrats, Nancy Pelosi is needed more than ever
in the people's House where badly needed legislation has to move forward.
A Democrat could beat Trump if he was pro-single payer, pro family, pro-union, anti-war,
and for the aggressive taxing of ultra high wealth if he could just shut down the flagrant
abuse of our immigration laws and border. That candidate can't win the primary though because
not welcoming the infinite number of suffering illegal immigrants to share these expensive
benefits or wanting law and order to immigration earns a label of "racist" in the Democratic
Party. Trump will win in 2020 unless dems stop with the wild misuse of the word racist.
"Racial hostility" is what I, a white male, feel from the Democrats. It's a common thread
among the reluctant Trump supporters I know - they are disgusted by Trump, but they won't
support the Democrats for that reason. My 66-year-old father recently said to me, for the
first time, "well, you know, I'm a racist."
This man voted for Obama, but I wouldn't be surprised if he casts his vote for Trump in
2020 because the left has lost all credibility in his eyes. They call my dad a racist over
and over, but he knows he's a fair person, so he's accepted that the "racist" label isn't
that big of a deal.
I have a hard time getting my head around the author's use of "racist". For example
'economically liberal, socially conservative politicians -- let's be blunt and just say
"racist populists."' Where does he get that connection from? Certainly not from any
dictionary I have seen. I realize that the left has adopted the habit of calling everyone
they disagree with "racist", but this article seems to completely disconnect the word from
its meaning. In fact, I have to wonder whether any of the labels he is using, "conservative",
"liberal", "populist", etc. are anchored to their literal meanings. Making sense of what he
is talking about is impossible if his words have no well defined meaning.
This analysis is simple, elegant, and completely wrong. Libertarians are far from a
majority, but far more than 4%. Probably about 20-25%. "Live and let live" isn't quite that
dead. The two party kakistocracy gives people few opportunities to express it in elections.
Sorry Professor, but there are plenty of us who don't care who you marry, make cakes for,
dress up as, smoke, grow, say, write, spend your money on, put in your or in your body, just
so long as you leave us alone. In a dim past it was called Liberalism. Before that it was
called Liberty.
On economic issues, especially on social programs, the public is to the left of the
Democrats but the numbers of the public who are racist populist are sizable enough for the
Republicans to successfully exploit it every election cycle. That's why Trump carried the
white working class voters and enough of the suburban and college educated white voters to
win the electoral votes.
This is the dilemma of the Democrats for they cannot win elections without working class
white support. Racism, and the history of it, is like a curse spelled upon the American
political system and as long as there are politicians, mostly Republicans, and others who
politically and financially benefit from appealing to racism, true democracy and racial
harmony will never arrive in America.
The democrats really shot themselves in the foot when they decided to take the stand that
those who want less immigration or legal immigration are "racists". That is the wedge the
will drive off the most important block which is the working class midwestern men. If only
there were a democrat or an outsider that could stomach being called a racist who was
conservative on immigration but liberal on economics, pro-worker, families then he could beat
Trump. Otherwise with Kamala or someone that does not appeal to rust-belt workers, there will
be 4 more years of Trump. Mark my words.
I take issue with two ideas of Mr Krugman: the statement that Trump is not a true 'racist
populist' ...what does that mean anyway? , and that Democrats are moving too left,
endangering their prospects. The first idea is that Trump is not keeping a racist agenda is
clearly false. His Muslim ban, immigration policies and mass detentions are all following
thru on racist ideas. Why Krugman does not feel these are somehow playing to a racist base,
and is faking begs credulity. The second idea that Dems are moving too far is not supported
by polls that show a majority of people support Medicare for all and taxes on billionaires.
The country's middle class has been beaten down for 30 years and now is the time to correct
that!
"Voters want an economic move to the left -- it's just that some of them dislike
Democratic support for civil rights, which the party can't drop without losing its soul." The
Democratic Party lost its soul long ago Paul. It lost it when it championed free trade,
unguarded borders, Nafta, destroyed defense budgets, tolerated the indecency of Bill Clinton,
allowed unions to become corrupt, failed to fix Social Security and bankrupted every American
downtown and small business for the pursuit of the mythological better jobs and better living
through more imports of products from China as our factories closed and our industries moved
offshore. The Democratic Party has betrayed America for the last 30 years and now you're
lamenting the loss of Democratic Party members and conservative left wingers. The Democrats
moved too far left many years ago. The issues Paul are jobs, industry, affordable housing and
healthcare, education for our children, and retirement with dignity. Not to forget safety
without sacrificing our right to self-defense. The Republicans and the Democrats equally and
together polluted our Democratic institutions. They've corrupted our judicial processes and
disenfranchised minorities. We don't need a coffee billionaire or any other billionaire. We
need decent, hardworking, intelligent and socially responsible citizens who want legitimate
government and institutions. Not corruption from Wall St. or Washington DC. Where are the
legitimate candidates?
"... Much the same could have been said about the last days of the USSR, or for that matter the last phase of the 30 Years War or the Napoleonic Wars. As back then, so now: The old elite and new authoritarians actively crushing the new group, well, they are are actively crushing _themselves_ at an even greater rate than they are crushing the new group. ..."
"... Example: Decay of Democratic leadership -- which is now, apparently, two old crazy people, one of which has active dementia. Waiting in the wings we see various groups that hate each other and propose what is pretty clearly a loot and burn approach to governing the US. They vary only in whom they will loot and what they will burn. ..."
"... Example: Decay of the media, which now knows it is as ineffective as Russian propaganda towards the USSR's end, and apparently either doesn't care or is unable to change. ..."
"... If resource scarcity prompts armed response, well, humanity has enough shiny new weapons _and untried weapons technologies_ to produce destruction as surprising in its extent as WW I and WW II were for their times [1] (or as the self supporting tercio was during the 30 Years War). ..."
The third trend is the only place where hope can reside. This trend – what I have
previously ascribed to a group I call the "dissenters" – understands that radical new
thinking is required. But given that this group is being actively crushed by the old
liberal elite and the new authoritarians, it has little public and political space to
explore its ideas, to experiment, to collaborate, as it urgently needs to.
Much the same could have been said about the last days of the USSR, or for that matter
the last phase of the 30 Years War or the Napoleonic Wars. As back then, so now: The old
elite and new authoritarians actively crushing the new group, well, they are are actively
crushing _themselves_ at an even greater rate than they are crushing the new group.
Example: Decay of Democratic leadership -- which is now, apparently, two old crazy
people, one of which has active dementia. Waiting in the wings we see various groups that
hate each other and propose what is pretty clearly a loot and burn approach to governing the
US. They vary only in whom they will loot and what they will burn.
Example: Decay of the media, which now knows it is as ineffective as Russian
propaganda towards the USSR's end, and apparently either doesn't care or is unable to
change.
Example: Reaction to yellow vests in France, which drew the reactions described in Cook's
article (at the root of this comment thread). "Back to your kennels, curs!" isn't effective
in situations like this, but it seems to be the only reply the EU has.
New groups take over when the old group has rotted away. At some point, Cook's third
alternative will be all that is left. The real question is what will be happening world wide
at that point. If resource scarcity prompts armed response, well, humanity has enough
shiny new weapons _and untried weapons technologies_ to produce destruction as surprising in
its extent as WW I and WW II were for their times [1] (or as the self supporting tercio was
during the 30 Years War).
Counterinsurgency
1] To understand contemporary effect of WW I on survivors, think of a the survivors of a
group playing paintball who accidentally got hold of grenade launchers but somehow didn't
realize that until the game was over. WW II was actually worse -- people worldwide really
expected another industrialized war within 20 years (by AD 1965), this one fought with
nuclear weapons.
"... By Jerri-Lynn Scofield, who has worked as a securities lawyer and a derivatives trader. She is currently writing a book about textile artisans. ..."
"... Quip, then Clear, Simple Statement. ..."
"... The thing that worries me is that congress might find some way to remove her or shut her up if she continues to ruffle neoliberal feathers like this. ..."
"... Fascinating as this is, I worry that AOC might get the "Rosa Luxembourg" treatment from the present day power elites. ..."
This is a must-watch clip. I hesitate to add much commentary, as anything I write will
likely not add all that much, and might instead only distract from the original.
Nonetheless, full speed ahead, damn the torpedoes! I will hazard adding some commentary.
I only ask that you watch the clip first. It'll only take five minutes of your time. Just
something to ponder on what I hope for many readers is a lazy, relaxing Sunday. Please watch
it, as my commentary will assume you've done so.
How to Explain What's At Stake with a Complex Subject
I've spent many, many years thinking about how business influences public policy – and
trying to get people to understand some of the details of how that's done, in a variety of
contexts.
Here, AOC breaks down one aspect of the problem, and clearly and succinctly explains what's
the deal, in terms that've obviously resounded with people and led them to share her primer
with their friends.
Quip, then Clear, Simple Statement. She opens with a self deprecating aside –
perhaps a bit too self-deprecating, as she doesn't pause long enough to elicit many chuckles.
Am I imagining a sense of "What's she up to?" emanating from the (sparse) crowd in that quick
initial establishing shot of the hearing chamber?
And then explains what she's up to:
Let's play a lightning round game.
I'm gonna be the bad guy, which I'm sure half the room would agree with anyway, and I want
to get away with as much bad things as possible, really to enrich myself and advance my
interests, even if that means putting my interests ahead of the American people.
I've enlisted all of you as my co-conspirators, so you're going help me legally get away
with all of this."
Framing. Turning this into a lightning round taps into popular culture. Most TV
viewers know what a lightning round is, certainly far more than regularly watch congressional
hearings on C-Span.
And using the Q & A format requires those summoned to testify at the hearing to affirm
each of her points. This reminded me a bit of the call and response technique that some
preachers employ.
By structuring this exercise in a lightning round format, each witness can only answer yes
or no, allowing little room to obfuscate – I'm looking at you, Bradley A. Smith, chairman
of the Institute for Free Speech (IFS). (Here's a link to the Washington Post op-ed AOC refers
to:
Those payments to women were unseemly. That doesn't mean they were illegal. )
AOC has no time for any waffling, "Okay green light for hush money, I can do all sorts of
terrible things, It's totally legal now for me to pay people off " She's not just working from
a great script – but is quick on her feet as well. Nice!
Simple Language, Complex Points
The language is simple, and sounds like the way ordinary people speak – "bad
guy," Followed later by "super bad guy."
"Totally."
"Okay great."
"Fabulous."
"Okay, so, awesome."
I think it's easier for her to do this, because she's not a lawyer. Even when she's
discussing questions of legality, she doesn't slip into legalese -- "super legal" isn't the
sort of phrase that would trip easily from the tongues of most lawyers– even recovering
ones, or those who got sidetracked into politics.
Repetition of One Point: This is All Legal
AOC channels Michael Kinsley's observation, "The scandal isn't what's illegal, the scandal
is what's legal." I hesitate to repeat that saying here, as for political junkies, it's been
been heard all too many times before.
AOC fleshes out the details of a message many Americans understand: the system is broken,
and under the current laws, no one's going to jail for doing any of this stuff. Instead, this
is standard operating procedure in Washington. And that's the case even though as this May
headline for report by the Pew Research Centre's headline makes clear:
Most Americans want to limit campaign spending, say big donors have greater political
influence .
AOC has great skill in understanding how language works, it is kind of mesmerizing
watching her thinking and talking on her feet -- she intertwines big narratives with smaller
ones seamlessly. Just brilliant.
She is gifted. She has demonstrated remarkable poise in her reactions to Pelosi. She
refuses to sling dirt, instead acting in deference to her power with a confidence that her
own principles will eventually prevail. It's an incredibly wise approach and extremely
counter-intuitive to most.
by supporting pelosi, calling her a progressive she shows acknowledgement of her role in
the system. it may be the confidence that her principles of being part of the club will
prevail. if you pay any attention at all to the system you'd understand it isn't broken, it
works as designed.
This past summer right around the time she went to Iowa with Bernie that she was on a
Sunday morning talk show. The host asked a question that was pointed and would pin most pols
into a corner they'd likely not want to be pinned to. AOC hesitated, thought, and said, "Yes,
i'll grant that. I agree with that." or something very similar.
Her hesitation and then acceptance told me two things:
1. She knows herself and she's not frightened by it. Other pols lapse into meaningless
nonsense and think defense first. AOC just moves forward aggressively because she's confident
in what she believes in.
2. She knows her audience. She understands who she's talking to.
Criticism just bounces off someone like that.
I had already seen the Now This video, and what is striking to me is that we have social
media content producers like Now This that are willing to treat AOC seriously and give a
platform for her ideas, unlike the TV news or most newspapers. Now This and AJ+ (Al Jazeera
social video) specialize in making videos viral, so they are the proximate cause of this
video going viral, unlike some earlier AOC videos.
Now This is owned by Group Nine Media which is an independent
startup that has received millions in venture funding as well as a significant investment by
Discovery Media, according to Wikipedia.
Also, Facebook's role is interesting because they are still allowing at least some
left-leaning videos to go viral.
How much longer will we have these outlets before they turn into CNN, MSNBC, NYT,
etc.?
Thanks for this, JLS. I was very impressed with AOC when I first saw her campaign video in
her race against Joe Crowley. Since that time she has become a force of nature not just in
Washington but across the country and internationally. I believe she is most impressive
politician I have ever seen and I am in my late sixties. She is simply thrilling to watch and
I think she appeals to many outside of her progressive base. Naturally the Washington Post,
with its neocon and neoliberal editorial page, will use every tool at its disposal to
discredit her and any other progressive.
The thing that worries me is that congress might find some way to remove her or shut
her up if she continues to ruffle neoliberal feathers like this.
While it would be a very extreme measure, do you think that Congress might try to place
her under Censure, and possibly even try building a case for Congressional Expulsion on bogus
charges? It would be a very underhanded thing to do, but on the other hand, the neoliberals
in both parties in Washington D.C. probably want to mount her head on a wall at this
point.
AOC isn't beholden to the corporate donor/lobbyist/consultant owners of the Dem estab. If
she isn't spending 30 hours a week dialing-for-dollars, and is free to represent her voters
interests, she might give other Dems ideas, especially the younger ones . Gasp! can't have
that! (/s)
I saw this one on Friday .captivating and jaw-dropping. I almost couldn't believe she just
got as blunt as that.
I wonder if she's preparing anything to get a little revenge on Pelosi for the brilliantly
withering scorn she dropped on the GND, turning it into the "Green Dream". I found myself
laughing and annoyed at the same time.
Pelosi knows she's got a grip on the reigns of power and she's happy to rub it in the face
of the new freshman class of what she sees as little more than noisemakers (not to dismiss
the power of the noisemakers, they've done more than I could have anticipated).
AOC and friends have cards to play .let's see how they play them. They can't directly
attack her, of course, they need her. But they can get attention, pressure and embarrass her
to take various actions.
AOC is not reacting to Trump's socialism challenge. She is ignoring it as if it came from
someone unqualified to be president. Imagine that. Or from masterful legislators so
compromised by corruption they will only change when they get good and frightened. It might
take a while because they have been too impervious to fear anything for so many decades they
might not realize they are in danger. They might as well be very, very stupid. No, she's not
taking the bait. Instead, she is pointing out what a corrupt thing both branches of
government are, the legislature and, even worse and more dangerous, the president, and not
merely because he is controlled by the military. She's playing chess for now. Checkmate will
probably come from left field in the form of an economic collapse. Nothing to see here. Move
along.
Fascinating as this is, I worry that AOC might get the "Rosa Luxembourg" treatment
from the present day power elites.
Murder has become a standard operating procedure for American operatives overseas; see drone
warfare as an example. The logic of Empire predicts that in general, the tactics used by the
Empire overseas will be brought back to the Homeland for eventual use against domestic
'enemies.'
The 'Tinfoil Hat Cadres' can cite numerous examples of domestic killings with suspicious ties
to internal politics. In the main, these 'examples' of evil are tied to individuals and
smaller groups of the power elites. I fear that political murder has become normalized inside
America's political classes.
Many here joke about "Mr. or Mz. 'X' better not take any small airplane flights for the
foreseeable future." It may be a 'joke' to us, but it certainly is not a joke to those
viewing their impending demise from 10,000 feet up in the air.
They probably will not have to go to that much trouble. They can always invent a
quasi-legal or illegal procedure to remove her from the senate, like the example I gave above
with Censure or Expulsion. Plus, this will be officially-sanctioned by Washington D.C. and
all of the major media outlets will be able to portray it as getting rid of a troublemaker
who did not want to be a team player.
Freuddian slip that, " remove her from the senate"? Actually, there have been open calls
from within the establishment to primary her, or most recently, to gerrymander her House
district out of existence. But that would just free her up to run for US Senate. It has been
suggested that possibility might cause Sen. Schumer to put the kabosh on any effort to
eliminate her district. As for a primary challenge, while it certainly would mean lots of
walking around money for a select group of Democratic political consultants (the Republicans
seem to have slurped up all the foreign regime-change work for this cycle), given AOC's
position as the first or second most popular politician in the country (right up there with
Bernie), that seems like a fool's errand.
Nice to know that anyone is saying this in a public forum.
In a bit of coincidence, I heard and adviser to Jerry Brown recite the current political
system's creed, saying that just because candidates get money from special interests doesn't
mean they're captives to those interests. It was astonishing to hear because the speaker said
this without the slightest hesitation The rest of us in the room paused for a moment.
I replied that psychological studies demonstrate that if I give you a piece of gum, not
millions in campaign contributions, you're likely to be more favorably disposed to what I
say.
so we agreed to disagree. Personally, I've interpreted reciting this creed as a kind of
initiation the prerequisite to belong to the religion that currently governs the country, not
as something the guy actually believed. Like Michael Corleone's recitation at his children's
christening Sure, it's a toxic religion, but there are so many of those the cult of
vengeance, for example (why else would Americans incarcerate so many people).
The context of AOC's hypothetical 100%-PAC-financed campaign:
Meet the Most Corporate PAC-Reliant Reps in Congress
Here are the eight House representatives who took more than two-thirds of their overall
campaign funding in the 2018 cycle from PACs representing corporations and corporate trade
associations:
My interpretation of the relationship between Pelosi and AOC.
I don't think at all that Pelosi is out to crush AOC. She certainly does not agree with
most of AOC's policies (after all Pelosi's path to power was different and she is irrevocably
wedded to it) but I think she operates on a different plane here.
Pelosi's rise to power was arduous and her success came from her brilliance in overcoming
a wide range of obstacles. She is focused, smart, relentless and ruthless. She earned her
power and will not give it away. (what she uses her power for is not really relevant in this
discussion)
I think she recognizes in AOC a woman not that dissimilar to herself but separated by a
couple of generations. She will not try and destroy her as AOC is not a meaningful threat to
her and she can leverage politically from AOC's huge impact in ways only Pelois is likely to
know how to do. She will make AOC earn her own power by proving she can overcome obstacles
and has the smarts and fortitude to take what she wants in spite of what her opponents do to
stop her (opponents come from all directions in politics) – just as she did. That kind
of behavior is what Pelosi respects. She could have prevented AOC from being on the committee
she used as a platform for the above exposure of corruption but she did not – and it is
certain that Pelosi was aware of the potential for AOC to use it to her advantage, or not. So
AOC just passed a test there will be many more. She may eventually fall, or she may be one of
the rare occurrences of someone rising to prominence and changing the world. She is where she
is at at 29 years old! I am sure that scares the crap out of her political opponents as
anyone can see tremendous upside for her should she continue to develop. Here's wishing her
luck – we need people like her more than any other kind by far.
I'd take it, but sounds wishful. Never underestimate incompetence. Pelosi is where she is
not because of brilliance but because she is the bag lady.
Pelosi might have made a deal to get her support for speaker, which was more important to
her.
Or she might think that AOC would quiet down once she got up on the totem pole, just as she
would have done.
Seems unlikely for somebody that believes in the rich and powerful Uber alles would otherwise
support somebody that wants to topple that temple.
AOC's appointment to Fin Svcs is an interesting one. House Oversight Environmental sub
committee is useful to Pelosi to have AOC go after Trump, but I'm not sure what Pelosi gets
out of the Fin Svcs committee. A quid pro quo for Speaker support makes some sense on the
surface.
Interesting as well, AOC turned down an appointment to the Select GND committee and
explained it as a timing issue, being asked after her previous two appointments and
not having the bandwidth to take on the Select committee and do her job well.
I can read some things into that:
– AOC values those two committee assignments. She's pretty wise to not bite off more
than she can chew.
– That Select committee is pretty meaningless. She got the resolution she wanted
introduced.
– Did Pelosi underestimate her early and then try to bury her with work? Or did she
force her to compromise either the spotlight she will have tearing people up on FS and
Oversight or the content of the GND resolution?
I think you have two very savvy political women facing off here, both know it, and both
are working a long term game of chess. The generational gap is a huge advantage and
disadvantage for both. For now, they are going to leverage it/each other and play their
roles. Sometime before the DNC convention in 2020 pieces are going to be played that changes
the dynamic. The outcome of that will dictate the path post 2020 convention. The odds of a
progressive House are slim. Progressive President a little better. AOC will need Pelosi
especially with a Progressive Presidency. Pelosi will need her with a Progressive President.
Centrist President relegates AOC to noise in terms of actual House business.
AOC is exposing the corruption of paid politics. Virginia Democrats, Donald Trump, and
Jeff Bezos illuminate the dark secrets that the plutocratic system uses to keep the connected
in line. This is breaking down. Oligarchs are at war. Neoliberalism is stealing life away
from the little people and destroying the world. She is a noble in the good old fashion
classical sense. Compare her to Adam Schiff. This is visceral. This is good versus evil.
Brings back fond memories of Alan Grayson's rundowns of the republican healthcare plan (if
you do get sick, die quickly) and socializing losses (now we all own the red roof inn).
AOC was even more riveting than Alan Grayson. I'd forgotten about the Bernanke grilling,
although his marvelous skewering of the Fed general counsel (Alvarez, I think his name was)
about where all the gazillion dollars of bailout money went was also pretty special. "Answer
the question." "Congressman, I did answer the question." "No you didn't. Answer the
question."
We're going to see more of this in the future remember, AOC doesn't do "call time," so
she'll have plenty of opportunities to engage in hearings like this.
She and the panel missed an important opportunity to point out that what gets you on a
committee is raising money from the industry regulated by that committee. Instead they just
said there is no illegality in working on related legislation.
Maybe this uniquely Article I corruption, didn't fit with her The President Is Even Worse
thesis. But she has the skills to tie it to Article II, revolving door scams. I hope she does
so soon.
I know that Big Oil is a baddie nic on AOC's quiver, but why not hit at the black heart of
HighFinance,, and their kin, WhiteShoeBoy Big-n-Legal who are, mostly likely, some of the
biggest, and most manipulative donors around. I think loosing arrows constantly the earl
cos., to the exclusion of other nefarious principals might loose some steam, especially when
most of the country's citizens rely considerably on FFs as a means of fueling their ground
transport, to say nothing of air travel. An example : She could hit Biden by name, with
regard to his imput and substantial influence, in passing legislation that has only screwed a
generation .. or few !!
So, if she's serious for change, for the better, for the Commons, she needs some specific
bulleyes to aim at, many of whom are within her own party !
It's not clear to me how this hearing happened, Can anyone enlighten? Can AOC just
schedule her own hearings on her own topics, call her own witnesses? I have no idea how those
committees work.
I've been alive forever
And I wrote the very first law
I put the weasel words together
I am power and I write the laws
I write the laws that make my wealth increase
I write the laws of war and other hateful things
I write the laws that let the poor folks die
I write the laws, I write the laws
My home lies far above you
But my claws are deep into your soul
Now, when I ignore your cries
I'm young again, even though I'm very old
I write the laws that make my wealth increase
I write the laws of war and other hateful things
I write the laws that let the poor folks die
I write the laws, I write the laws
Oh my greed makes you dance
And lets you know you have no chance
And I wrote foreclosure laws so you must move
Dejection fills your heart
Well, that's a real fine place to start
It's all for me it's not for you
It's all from you, it's all for me
It's a worldwide travesty
I write the laws that make my wealth increase
I write the laws of war and other hateful things
I write the laws that let the poor folks die
I write the laws, I write the laws
I write the laws that make my wealth increase
I write the laws of war and other hateful things
I write the laws that let the poor folks die
I write the laws, I write the laws
I am power and I write the laws
'We have a system that is fundamentally broken.' -- Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is
explaining just how f*cked campaign finance laws really are.
" Subscribe to NowThis:
http://go.nowth.is/News_Subscribe
In the latest liberal news and political news, New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez made
headlines at a recent congressional hearing on money in politics by explaining and inquiring
about political corruption. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, aka AOC, went into the issues of
lobbyists and Super PACs and how the political establishment, including Donald Trump, uses big
money to their advantage, to hide and obfuscate, and push crooked agendas. Alexandria Ocasio
Cortez is a rising star in the Democratic Party and House of Representatives.
NowThis is your premier news outlet providing you with all the videos you need to stay up to
date on all the latest in trending news. From entertainment to politics, to viral videos and
breaking news stories, we're delivering all you need to know straight to your social feeds. We
live where you live.
Love this feisty congresswoman. I can see why AOC is dislike by the right and even many
democrats. She's in DC to work for the American ppl and not enrich herself or special
interest. Love the 2018 class and hope they make changes and clean up DC.
AOC is amazing, pointing out all the fundamental wrongs in our political system. I hope
she stays in Congress as long as possible to spread her influence.
AOC is speaking out when no one else will about the corruption in Washington. She is
disliked because she is actually fighting for people. This makes me want to move to New York
just so I can vote for her. Keep it up the pressure.
She is going to be needing extra security. She's poised to take them down and we know how
these things have been handled in the past. I'm loving her fearlessness but worry for her
safety. May she be protected and blessed. SMIB
"... it is important to remember that Wasserman-Schultz and Snipes are merely the public faces of an extensive, deeply problematic system of corruption. It is then also essential to understand who, and what mechanisms, have allowed figures like Wasserman-Schultz, Snipes, the Awan brothers, and others to go unprosecuted. ..."
"... As readers may recall , Snipes illegally destroyed ballots from the 2016 primary race between Wasserman-Schultz and Tim Canova. The Sun Sentinel explained Snipes's direct involvement in the destruction of ballots, writing: ..."
"... Canova's contention that US Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein may have been responsible for preventing legal consequences for Brenda Snipes is profoundly concerning. Last year, Rosenstein faced heavy criticism in the wake of the publication of the infamous FISA Memo. Last year, The Daily Beast described the memo's account of surveillance abuse, saying: "[The memo] specifically names FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein along with former FBI Director James Comey." ..."
"... Needless to say, the fact that Rosenstein was directly involved with the strongly partisan activities documented by the FISA memo makes it unsurprising that he would interfere on behalf of associates of Hillary Clinton. ..."
"... Setting the possibility that Wasserman-Schultz's brother may also have been involved in protecting Snipes from prosecution aside for the moment, Canova's allegations raise a myriad of new questions, including: who benefits from protecting Snipes? ..."
"... "In stories like this, the image painted of the Department of Justice is one of a federal agency that functions in a manner far more akin to organized crime than to a governmental body." ..."
A vast caldera of public rage has rightfully been aimed at Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and
Brenda Snipes over the last few years. However, it is important to remember that
Wasserman-Schultz and Snipes are merely the public faces of an extensive, deeply problematic
system of corruption. It is then also essential to understand who, and what mechanisms, have
allowed figures like Wasserman-Schultz, Snipes, the Awan brothers, and others to go
unprosecuted.
This issue became clearer earlier this week when former congressional candidate Tim Canova
Tweeted:
As readers
may recall , Snipes illegally destroyed ballots from the 2016 primary race between
Wasserman-Schultz and Tim Canova. The Sun Sentinel explained Snipes's
direct involvement in the destruction of ballots, writing:
"Canova, who was checking for voting irregularities in the race, sought to look at the paper
ballots in March 2017 and took Elections Supervisor Brenda Snipes to court three months later
when her office hadn't fulfilled his request. Snipes approved the destruction of the ballots in
September, signing a certification that said no court cases involving the ballots were pending.
Snipes called the action a "mistake" during testimony she gave in the case, saying the boxes
were mislabeled and there was "nothing on my part that was intentional" about destroying the
contested ballots."
Big League Politics also reported: "On
May 11, 2018, the Florida Circuit Court granted Plaintiff Canova summary judgment, and found
that Snipes had violated numerous state and federal statutes, including laws punishable as
felonies with up to five years in prison. The Court's ruling made clear that Snipes'
destruction of ballots was illegal on several separate counts."
Disobedient Media spoke with Tim Canova, who told us:
"I was recently informed by election officials in Florida that it's the Deputy AG, Rod
Rosenstein, who would have been the DOJ official making the decision not to move forward with
a criminal investigation in our ballot destruction case. I also believe that Steve Wasserman,
an Assistant US Attorney at the DOJ headquarters in Washington, DC, may well have been
involved in the decision, particularly since Wasserman spoke out publicly against prosecuting
Awan in the days before Awan's sentencing."
A Floridian official set to prosecute Snipes was also said to have backed down after a trip
to Washington DC, which involved meetings with the DOJ. Canova stated:
"Last May, the acting US Attorney for South Florida, Ben Greenberg, was about to open a
criminal investigation into Snipes's destruction of our ballots when he flew to DC for a week
of meetings at DOJ. When he returned, the investigation was off."
Canova's contention that US Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein may have been responsible
for preventing legal consequences for Brenda Snipes is profoundly concerning. Last year,
Rosenstein faced heavy criticism in the wake of the publication of the infamous FISA Memo. Last
year, The Daily
Beast described the memo's account of surveillance abuse, saying: "[The memo] specifically
names FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein along with
former FBI Director James Comey."
The Washington Times reported: "The
memo from Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee shows that at least one questionable
surveillance warrant application was signed by Mr. Rosenstein, who already had a difficult
relationship with President Trump. The memo said information supporting the application was
obtained from a partisan anti-Trump dossier funded by Hillary Clinton's campaign and the
Democratic Party."
Needless to say, the fact that Rosenstein was directly involved with the strongly partisan
activities documented by the FISA memo makes it unsurprising that he would interfere on behalf
of associates of Hillary Clinton.
Setting the possibility that Wasserman-Schultz's brother may also have been involved in
protecting Snipes from prosecution aside for the moment, Canova's allegations raise a myriad of
new questions, including: who benefits from protecting Snipes?
Undeniably, the most obvious answer is Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, the alleged beneficiary of
Snipes's illegal ballot destruction. Similarly, one wonders what connection such a decision may
have with the DOJ's refusal to prosecute the Awan scandal, a move from which Debbie
Wasserman-Schultz also directly benefited.
In light of this, we are led to ask: Who benefits from shielding Debbie Wasserman-Schultz
from the blowback of multiple national scandals? What would induce the DOJ to prop up such an
embarrassment?
Farts and Leaves,
"In stories like this, the image painted of the Department of Justice is one of a federal agency that functions in
a manner far more akin to organized crime than to a governmental body."
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
Taras Bulba
Dis ob Media-good report-thanks.
This abolute outrageous info about snipes, the wassermanschultzes, awans, dimocrats in congress shouts loudly that we really
have no system of justice in this country, at least for the powerful and connected. This is outrageous-where in the hell is
the DOJ, oh, that is the problem with ,rosenstein, prob the clintons, et al
My guess is wasserman schultz is mossad-to my mind, there can be no other explanation.
It appears that George Webb has been shut down, he was bird dogging this info, now daily caller luke has cut him off.
The vomit factor on this one is off the scale!
Ajax-1
At the very least, why hasn't Trump or his new AG fired Rosenstein?
space junk
Probably because the stay behind networks from the Sessions/Obama/Holder and even Bush eras, have so much entanglement
into the system, that change cannot be made in quick order. One only can hope that T-man will chop off the head of the snake
and not just the tail.
hooligan2009
the two key extracts from the article are these:
"... the Department of Justice is one of a federal agency that functions in a manner far more akin to organized
crime than to a governmental body. The DOJ's refusal prosecute the Awans, and Rosenstein's alleged decision to prevent
legal consequences for Brenda Snipes shows us that corruption allowed to stagnate in Broward County affected the whole
country. "
and
"... the Department of Justice refuses to prosecute such crimes as detailed in the Awan scandal and as committed by
Snipes, how can the public hope to hold their government accountable for election interference and other forms of
corruption? "
the case is clear. the DoJ has, again, acted against the national interest and the staff involved are guilty of electoral
fraud, sedition and treason. the awan brothers sold congressional secrets to Pakistan (and mossad probably).
cui bono? from not prosecuting these blatant, obvious AND DISCLOSED crimes? there is a fetid swamp of criminality here and a
flagrant, in your face, contempt for the american people and their security.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? where is the oversight of this criminality? the inspector general? internal affairs? where
are the lawyers that leap to defend civil rights abuses against covington schoolkids, but not issues such as this?
" Congress paid the Awans more than $4 million between 2004 and 2016 at their $165,000 salary level, a sum that some sources
suggest to be three or four times higher than the norm for government contractor IT specialists performing similar work at
the same level of alleged competence. "
-ALIEN-
The US Dept of INjustice is a criminal organization, of course it is protecting those who subvert elections at the
direction of the Oligarchs.
Our whole system of voting has been carefully crafted and tuned to ensure the USA Citizen has almost no effect on the
functioning of government.
boattrash
One thing not mentioned in the article, was the dead body of federal prosecutor Beranton J. Whisenant Jr. found on the
beach in Debbie's District...Dead from a suicide gunshot to the head...he used a "magic gun" I suppose, because local police
think in "floated off in the surf" FFS
"An aide to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) reportedly told insurance executives in
private not to worry about Democrats' push for "Medicare for All." (The Intercept)"
Ryan Grim...February 5 2019...6:00 a.m.
"Less than a month after Democrats -- many of them running on "Medicare for All" -- won
back control of the House of Representatives in November, the top health policy aide to
then-prospective House Speaker Nancy Pelosi met with Blue Cross Blue Shield executives and
assured them that party leadership had strong reservations about single-payer health care and
was more focused on lowering drug prices, according to sources familiar with the meeting.
Pelosi adviser Wendell Primus detailed five objections to Medicare for All and said that
Democrats would be allies to the insurance industry in the fight against single-payer health
care. Primus pitched the insurers on supporting Democrats on efforts to shrink drug prices,
specifically by backing a number of measures that the pharmaceutical lobby is opposing.
Primus, in a slide presentation obtained by The Intercept, criticized single payer on the
basis of cost ("Monies are needed for other priorities"), opposition ("Stakeholders are
against; Creates winners and losers"), and "implementation challenges." We have recreated the
slides for source protection purposes.
Democrats, Primus said, are united around the concept of universal coverage, but see
strengthening the Affordable Care Act as the means to that end. He made his presentation to
the Blue Cross executives on December 4..."...
Personally, I am aghast. The Congress critters are in bed with the medical monopolies. One
example, among many:
The congressional endorsement of the ban on the importation of less expensive drugs,
claimed as a matter of safety, is a travesty. In the last several months, I have had two of
the drugs I take daily, recalled because the Chinese manufacturers shipped the drugs with a
measurable concentration of a known carcinogen in them. Safety, my aching ......
Democrats in action on health care include Max Baucus,Tom Daschle, and most infamously, Billy
Tauzin:
"Two months before resigning as chair of the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce,
which oversees the drug industry, Tauzin had played a key role in shepherding through
Congress the Medicare Prescription Drug Bill. Democrats said that the bill was "a give-away
to the drugmakers" because it prohibited the government from negotiating lower drug prices
and bans the importation of identical, cheaper, drugs from Canada and elsewhere. The Veterans
Affairs agency, which can negotiate drug prices, pays much less than Medicare does. The bill
was passed in an unusual congressional session at 3 a.m. under heavy pressure from the drug
companies.[4][5]
As head of PhRMA, Tauzin was a key player in 2009 health care reform negotiations that
produced pharmaceutical industry support for White House and Senate efforts.[6]
Tauzin received $11.6 million from PhRMA in 2010, making him the highest-paid health-law
lobbyist.[7] Tauzin now is on the Board of Directors at Louisiana Healthcare Group. "
"Advocate groups attended a Senate Finance Committee meeting in May 2009 to protest their
exclusion as well as statements by Baucus that "single payer was not an option on the table."
Baucus later had eight protesters removed by police who arrested them for disrupting the
hearing. Many of the single-payer advocates said it was a "pay to play" event.[44][45][46] A
representative of the Business Roundtable, which includes 35 memberships of health
maintenance organizations, health insurance and pharmaceutical companies, admitted that other
countries, with lower health costs, and higher quality of care, such as those with
single-payer systems, have a competitive advantage over the United States with its private
system.[47]
At the next meeting on health care reform of the Senate Finance Committee, Baucus had five
more doctors and nurses removed and arrested.[48][49][50] Baucus admitted a few weeks later
in June 2009 that it was a mistake to rule out a single payer plan[51] because doing so
alienated a large, vocal constituency and left President Barack Obama's proposal of a public
health plan to compete with private insurers as the most liberal position.[51]
Baucus has used the term "uniquely American solution" to describe the end point of current
health reform and has said that he believes America is not ready yet for any form of single
payer health care. This is the same term the insurance trade association, America's Health
Insurance Plans (AHIP), is using. AHIP has launched the Campaign for an American Solution,
which argues for the use of private health insurance instead of a government backed
program"
"Daschle co-wrote the 2008 book Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis ISBN
9780312383015.[55] He and his co-authors point out that "most of the world's highest-ranking
health-care systems employ some kind of 'single-payer' strategy - that is, the government,
directly or through insurers, is responsible for paying doctors, hospitals, and other
health-care providers." They argue that a single-payer approach is simple, equitable,
provides everyone with the same benefits, and saves billions of dollars through economies of
scale and simplified administration. They concede that implementing a single-payer system in
the United States would be "politically problematic" even though some polls show more
satisfaction with the single-payer Medicare system than private insurance.[56]"
Health care giant Aetna will be the first official client for the former Democratic
leader, who's now running his own consulting shop within the law firm Baker Donelson. Daschle
will lobby for the health insurer on Obamacare implementation and Medicare and Medicaid rule
changes, according to a filing with the Senate Secretary.
"For fifteen years, Tauzin was one of the more Conservative Democrats in the United States
House of Representatives. Even though he eventually rose to become an assistant majority
whip, he felt shut out by some of his more liberal colleagues and sometimes had to ask the
Republicans for floor time. When the Democrats lost control of the House after the 1994
elections, Tauzin was one of the cofounders of the House Blue Dog Coalition, a group of
moderate-to-conservative Democrats.
.......
However, on August 8, 1995, Tauzin himself became a Republican"
"... Voters by the millions dislike our cozying up to Wall Street, our hopelessly out-of-touch elitism, our support for never-ending military entanglements, our blindness to the plight of rural communities decimated by globalization, and our failure to expand opportunities for American workers. So what are we going to do about it? Well, after taking all this into account, after taking a good hard look at ourselves and doing some serious soul-searching, I'm pleased to announce that .... Democrats will continue to run on the same set of platitudes we've been trotting out since at least the 1990s. ..."
If last year's election showed us anything, it's that anger and resentment are on the rise.
I hear it from small business owners and working-class families, from millennials and retirees.
There's a sense that we've lost our way, and that the blame rests squarely on our nation's
leadership. Simply put, Americans are sick of being patronized and sick of the same old ideas
that we, as Democrats, are going to keep offering them over and over and over again.
The frustration is palpable. People are fed up with the status quo. Citizens from all walks
of life are sitting around their dinner tables, talking about how they've had it with all the
usual proposals that, once more, we will be repackaging and spoon-feeding to them in a way
that's entirely transparent and frankly condescending.
That's something every American can count on.
It's no wonder voters are furious. Politics-as-usual has failed them, and they desperately
want change that the Democratic Party has no plan to bring about in any meaningful way. But let
me assure you, when our constituents tell us they've had enough broken promises, when they say
our actions haven't addressed their needs, we listen. We hear your concerns -- hear them loud
and clear -- then immediately discard them and revert back to the exact same ineffectual
strategies we've been rallying behind for years.
It doesn't take a genius to see what the polls are telling us. Voters by the millions
dislike our cozying up to Wall Street, our hopelessly out-of-touch elitism, our support for
never-ending military entanglements, our blindness to the plight of rural communities decimated
by globalization, and our failure to expand opportunities for American workers. So what are we
going to do about it? Well, after taking all this into account, after taking a good hard look
at ourselves and doing some serious soul-searching, I'm pleased to announce that .... Democrats
will continue to run on the same set of platitudes we've been trotting out since at least the
1990s.
I just had this insight and wanted to share it here.
I am 70 and am thinking that when I was growing up the US Democrats represented the
concepts of socialism and the Republicans that of capitalism. Today I see the Democrats as
representing capitalism and Republicans representing fascism.
A commenter on another thread asked me about my China socialism focus and referred to the
US Interstate highway system initiated in the Eisenhower era when the marginal tax rate was
in the low 90 percent range. America has and continues to embrace aspects of socialism they
refuse to believe exists in America.......the effects of MSM brainwashing and propaganda.
China is attempting a mixed economy favoring socialism AFAICT
Meanwhile, the modern Republican Party is all about cutting taxes on the rich and benefits for the poor and the middle class.
And Trump, despite his campaign posturing, has turned out to be no different.
Hence the failure of our political system to serve socially conservative/racist voters who also want to tax the rich and preserve
Social Security. Democrats won't ratify their racism; Republicans, who have no such compunctions, will -- remember, the party establishment
solidly backed Roy Moore's Senate bid -- but won't protect the programs they depend on.
Paul Krugman is a baby boomer, pissant globalizer bastard, but he has made reasonable comments about immigration in the past.
Paul Krugman is a high IQ moron who has occasional bouts of clarity on the anti-worker aspects of mass legal immigration and illegal
immigration. Krugman had it right in 2006 when he said that mass immigration lowers wages for workers in the USA.
Krugman in NY Times 2006:
First, the benefits of immigration to the population already here are small. The reason is that immigrant workers are, at least
roughly speaking, paid their "marginal product": an immigrant worker is paid roughly the value of the additional goods and services
he or she enables the U.S. economy to produce. That means that there isn't anything left over to increase the income of the people
already here.
My second negative point is that immigration reduces the wages of domestic workers who compete with immigrants. That's just
supply and demand: we're talking about large increases in the number of low-skill workers relative to other inputs into production,
so it's inevitable that this means a fall in wages. Mr. Borjas and Mr. Katz have to go through a lot of number-crunching to turn
that general proposition into specific estimates of the wage impact, but the general point seems impossible to deny.
However, Krugman is also a relentless partisan hack. So his expert analysis always ends up supporting the current Democrat
talking points -- whatever they may be.
Here, Krugman is disparaging any move to the center as the DNC wants to keep the Dems unified on the left and keep Schultz
(or anyone like him) out of the race. Of course, the real reason Schultz has massively negative polling is because the Democrat
establishment has been savaging him for precisely this reason.
Likewise, to Krugman a "Racist" politician is anyone who holds the same immigration position as Krugman did in 2006, which
is now anathema to the Dem's new Open Borders electoral strategy.
It's only a matter of time until Krugman starts talking up Kamala Harris as the best thing that could happen for the economy.
Bottom line: Krugman – like any economist who was gifted with a fake Nobel Prize in Economics by his wealthy patrons (the Nobel
Prize in Economics does not exist – check out wikipedia!) – is a whore whose only function is to protect the left flank of our
corrupt and rapacious elite.
He's not a moron, and he's certainly not a liberal. His job – which pays very well mind you – is to pretend to be a sorta-kinda
Keynesian New Dealer, but in reality, anything that the rich wants, he will end up defending. And even if he sorta kinda claims
to be opposing something that the rich want which will impoverish the rest of us, when it comes to the bottom line, he will ruthlessly
attack any opposition to these policies.
First of all financial oligarchy should be taxes and Glass-Steagall reinstalled. Reinstallation of Grass-Steagall is very important
as well as raising capital gains taxes. So Warren should concentrate on attacking financial casino first...
Notable quotes:
"... We already saw this with minimum wage proposals, where minimum wages were raised by voter initiative, while Democratic candidates refuse to endorse them and lost. ..."
"... Yet kurt insists that we shouldn't be critical of the corrupt and comatose Democratic leadership, even though they clearly don't represent the vast majority of Democrats. I mean, what's democracy for, if not to follow corrupt leaders in lock step? ..."
"... If the Democratic elite is so enamored of taxing the wealthy, why is it that the DCCC never manages to stand candidates who share that view? ..."
"... Democratic perfidy on taxes dates back to JFK, when Kennedy (a plutocrat) starting cutting them on the his class. After that Tip O'Neill exacerbated the Democratic sell-out by embracing Reagan's tax cuts. ..."
"... It is time for America to live up to it's hyperbole. There are two parties in America. The GOP represents the top 1 %. The Clinton Democrats represent the top 10 %. ..."
"... The unrepresented 90 %, pay the bills, fight the wars, and suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous misfortune. ..."
"... A 50% reduction in the military budget would serve two masters. Firstly, it may force, a long overdue, economic efficiency on an out of control, wasteful monopolist, that has lost it's way. I'm pretty sure they can provide, at the least, the lame defense they have been providing, at half the cost. Secondly, with the savings, we can provide our citizens with health care, including dental. ..."
"... Our military will scream loudly, like the despots they idolize. Luckily, we have a cadre of true American soldiers that can replace the corrupt dogs of war, currently in control. ..."
Polls show that Democrats overwhelmingly favor the two AOC proposals and probably the Warren proposal as well.
Problem is that the corrupt, sclerotic and comatose Democratic establishment (Pelosi, Schumer) would rather squelch such proposals,
preferring to lose elections to endorsing and enacting them.
We already saw this with minimum wage proposals, where minimum wages were raised by voter initiative, while Democratic
candidates refuse to endorse them and lost.
Green New Deal, wealth tax, and 70% income tax are campaign issue made in heaven for Pelosi, Schumer, and party leaders...but
they are nowhere to be found. They regard the proposals as politically unfeasible, because their handlers are staunchly opposed.
Yet kurt insists that we shouldn't be critical of the corrupt and comatose Democratic leadership, even though they clearly
don't represent the vast majority of Democrats. I mean, what's democracy for, if not to follow corrupt leaders in lock step?
"Oh - Pelosi is supportive of a much higher marginal rate and welcomes AOC and has said so repeatedly so there's that."
Stop you're lying.
"You and your bretheren should double check your thoughts about Pelosi and Schumer - recognize the difference between political
posturing and reality - and then check to see if what you believe has a real basis in reality or if it is just the bothsidism
of the press providing you with the BS position of the right."
Follow your own advice. You lie constantly and are full of it.
Democratic perfidy on taxes dates back to JFK, when Kennedy (a plutocrat) starting cutting them on the his class. After that Tip
O'Neill exacerbated the Democratic sell-out by embracing Reagan's tax cuts.
Pelosi is following a long tradition of Democrats who pander to the wealthy...behaving like Republicans but trying to make-believe
that they represent we, the people.
Sure, we should fix the income tax...but that largely leaves out established wealth...plutocrats who largely live off their rents.
I pay at a rate of almost 2% on my house...France had a wealth tax...it can be done. Sweeping it under the rug, as Democrats
love to do, only guarantees that it will be buried, the implicit Democratic position.
In any case, the income tax and wealth tax proposals are ideal for Democrats...if they want to win elections rather than simply
pander to their wealthy donors.
It is time for America to live up to it's hyperbole. There are two parties in America. The GOP represents the top 1 %. The Clinton
Democrats represent the top 10 %.
The unrepresented 90 %, pay the bills, fight the wars, and suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous misfortune.
A 50% reduction in the military budget would serve two masters. Firstly, it may force, a long overdue, economic efficiency on an out of control, wasteful monopolist, that has lost it's way.
I'm pretty sure they can provide, at the least, the lame defense they have been providing, at half the cost. Secondly, with the savings, we can provide our citizens with health care, including dental.
Our military will scream loudly, like the despots they idolize. Luckily, we have a cadre of true American soldiers that can replace
the corrupt dogs of war, currently in control.
Is anyone else tired of the longest, least productive waste of war in American history ? What
have we achieved, where are we going with this ? More war.
We are being fed a fairy tale of war about what men, long dead, did. And the reason they did
it. America is being strangled by the burden of belief that now is like then.
By the patrician men and women administrators, posturing as soldiers like the WW2 army, lie
for self profit. Why does anyone believe them ? Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, each an economic
decision, rather than a security issue.
Capitalists need their options regulated and their markets ripped from their control by the
state. Profits must be subject to use it to a social purpose or heavily taxed. Dividends
executive comp and interest payments included
Well done! Much clearer than your usual. There are several distinct motivations for taxes. We
have been far enough from fairness to workers, for so long, that we need to use the tax
system to redistribute the accumulated wealth of the plutocrats.
So I would say high marginal rates are a priority, which matches both objectives. Wealth
tax is needed until we reverse the massive inequality supported by the policies of the last
40 years.
Carbon tax and the like are a different thing, use of the tax code to promote a particular
policy and reduce damage to the commons.
"...we need to use the tax system to redistribute the accumulated wealth of the plutocrats.
So I would say high marginal rates are a priority..."
Forgive me, but high marginal rates (which I hugely favor) don't "redistribute the
accumulated wealth" of the plutocrats. If such high marginal rates are ever enacted, they'll
apply only to the current income of such plutocrats.
You merged paragraphs, and elided the next one. The way I see it, high rates are a
prerequisite to prevent the reaccumulation of obscene wealth, and its diversion into
financial gambling.
But yes that would be a very slow way to redistribute what has already accumulated.
Didn't mean to misinterpret what you were saying, sorry. High rates are not only "a
prerequisite to prevent the reaccumulation of obscene wealth," they are also a reimposition
of fair taxation on current income (if it ever happens, of course).
Wealth tax is needed until we reverse the massive inequality supported by the policies of the
last 40 years. Carbon tax and the like are a different thing, use of the tax code to promote
a particular policy and reduce damage to the commons.
"
more wisdom as usual!
Although wealth tax will be unlikely, it could be a stopgap; could also be a guideline to
other taxes as well. for example, Elizabeth points out that billionaires pay about 3% of
their net worth into their annual tax bill whereas workers pay about 7% of their net worth
into their annual tax bill. Do you see how that works?
it doesn't? this Warren argument gives us a guideline. it shows us where other taxes
should be adjusted to even out this percentage of net worth that people are taxed for. Ceu,
during the last meltdown 10 years or so ago, We were collecting more tax from the payroll
than we were from the income tax. this phenomenon was a heavy burden on those of low net
worth. All this needs be resorted. we've got to sort this out.
and the carbon tax? may never be; but it indicates to us what needs to be done to make
this country more efficient. for example some folks, are spending half a million dollars on
the Maybach automobile, about the same amount on a Ferrari or a Alfa Romeo Julia
quadrifoglio, but the roads are built for a mere 40 miles an hour, full of potholes.
What good is it to own a fast car like that when you can't drive but 40 -- 50 miles an
hour? and full of traffic jams. something is wrong with taxation incentives. we need to get a
better grid-work of roads that will get people there faster.
Meanwhile most of those sports cars just sitting in the garage. we need a comprehensive
integrated grid-work of one way streets, roads, highways, and interstates with no traffic
lights, no stop signs; merely freeflow ramp-off overpass interchanges.
Jesus Christ said, in so many words, that a man's worth will be judged by his generosity and
his avarice.
" 24And the disciples were amazed at His words. But Jesus said to them again, "Children,
how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! 25It is easier for a camel to pass through the
eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." 26They were even more
astonished and said to one another, "Who then can be saved?"
"People on the left that identify as Democratic socialist, the left that supports Sanders or
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, for them, Bernie got robbed in 2016," said Michael Kazin, the
Georgetown University historian and co-editor of Dissent. "They think the
Establishment is always looking for someone to go against Bernie -- to run against progressives
in the party and stop them from being ascendant. I think they are suspicious of Beto because he
has taken oil and gas money, he's becoming the darling of big donors, and Obama likes him."
Being liked by Obama, who won two presidential elections and left office with an 90
percent favorable rating among Democrats, might not seem like a disadvantage in a
Democratic primary. But to many on the left, Obama's sins are plentiful: he bailed out Wall
Street, half-assed the stimulus package and health-care reform, deported more undocumented
immigrants than any president, and prosecuted drone warfare that left piles of civilian
casualties across the Middle East. What especially chafes Sanders-style progressives is that
Obama cloaked a centrist neoliberal agenda in a soaring, feel-good rhetoric that charmed voters
and made them forget about all the bad stuff.
Obama was cool. So is O'Rourke. The lines, then, are quickly being drawn: Beto is just a
Davos Democrat on a skateboard.
"I'm not sure we need another Obama, or another of any Democrat we've had recently,"
Elizabeth Bruenig recently
wrote in The Washington Post, urging caution before Democrats rush to O'Rourke's
corner. "I think the times both call for and allow for a left-populist candidate with
uncompromising progressive principles. I don't see that in O'Rourke." She labeled O'Rourke
"progressive-ish," pointing to his "thin" statements on energy regulation and his membership in
the New Democrat Coalition, "a centrist caucus with Clintonian views on health care, education,
and trade."
Taming of financial oligarchy and restoration of the job market at the expense of outsourcing and offshoring is required in the
USA and gradually getting support. At least a return to key elements of the New Deal should be in the cards. But Clinton wing of Dems
is beong redemption. They are Wall Street puddles. all of the them.
Issues like Medicare for All, Free College, Restoring Glass Steagall, Ending Citizen's United/Campaign finance reform, federal jobs
guarantee, criminal justice reform, all poll extremely well among the american populace
If even such a neoliberal pro globalization, corporations controlled media source as Guardian views centrist neoliberal Democrats
like Booker unelectable, the situation in the next elections might be interesting.
Notable quotes:
"... Bhaskar Sunkara is a Guardian US columnist and the founding editor of Jacobin ..."
"... 2016 has shown that the Democratic party is beyond redemption. When it comes down to the choice of either win with a platform that may impact the wealth and power of their owners, or losing, they will always choose the latter, and continue as useful (and well paid) idiots in the charade presented as US democracy. ..."
In their rhetoric and policy advocacy, this trio has been steadily moving to the left to keep pace with a leftward-moving Democratic
party. Booker ,
Harris and Gillibrand know that voters demand action and are more supportive than ever of Medicare for All and universal childcare.
Gillibrand, long considered a moderate, has even gone as far as to endorse abolishing US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice)
and, along with Cory Booker, Bernie Sanders' single-payer healthcare bill. Harris has also backed universal healthcare and free college
tuition for most Americans.
But outward appearances aren't everything. Booker, Harris and Gillibrand have been making a very different pitch of late -- on
Wall Street. According to
CNBC , all three potential candidates have been reaching out to financial executives lately, including Blackstone's Jonathan
Gray, Robert Wolf from 32 Advisors and the Centerbridge Partners founder Mark Gallogly.
Wall Street, after all, played an important role getting the senators where they are today. During his 2014 Senate run, in which
just 7% of his contributions came from small donors, Booker raised $2.2m from the securities and investment industry. Harris and
Gillibrand weren't far behind in 2018, and even the progressive Democrat Sherrod Brown has solicited donations from Gallogly and
other powerful executives.
When CNBC's story about
Gillibrand personally working the phones to woo Wall Street executives came out, her team responded defensively, noting her support
for financial regulation and promising that if she did run she would take "no corporate Pac money". But what's most telling isn't
that Gillibrand and others want Wall Street's money, it's that they want the blessings of financial CEOs. Even if she doesn't take
their contributions, she's signaling that she's just playing politics with populist rhetoric. That will allow capitalists to focus
their attention on candidates such as Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, who have shown a real willingness to abandon the traditional
coziness of the Democratic party with the finance, insurance and real estate industries.
Gillibrand and others are behaving perfectly rationally. The last presidential election cost $6.6bn -- advertising, staff and
conventions are expensive. But even more important than that, they know that while leftwing stances might help win Democratic primaries,
the path of least resistance in the general election is capitulation to the big forces of capital that run this country. Those elites
might allow some progressive tinkering on the margins, but nothing that challenges the inequities that keep them wealthy and their
victims weak.
Big business is likely to bet heavily on the Democratic party in 2020, maybe even more so than it did in 2016. In normal circumstances,
the Democratic party is the second-favorite party of capital; with an erratic Trump around, it is often the first.
The American ruling class has a nice hustle going with elections. We don't have a labor-backed social democratic party that could
create barriers to avoid capture by monied interests. It's telling that when asked about the former Colorado governor John Hickenlooper's
recent chats with Wall Street political financiers, a staff member told CNBC: "We meet with a wide range of donors with shared values
across sectors."
Plenty of Democratic leaders believe in the neoliberal growth model. Many have gotten personally wealthy off of it. Others think
there is no alternative to allying with finance and then trying to create progressive social policy on the margins. But with sentiments
like that, it doesn't take fake news to convince working-class Americans that
Democrats don't really have their interests at heart.
Of course, the Democratic party isn't a monolith. But the insurgency waged by newly elected representatives such as the democratic
socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, Ro Khanna and others is still in its infancy. At this stage, it isn't going to
scare capital away from the Democratic party, it's going to make Wall Street invest more heavily to maintain its stake in it.
Men like Mark Gallogly know who their real enemy is: more than anyone else, the establishment is wary of
Bernie Sanders . It seems likely that he will run
for president, but he's been dismissed as a 2020 frontrunner despite his high favorability rates, name recognition, small-donor fundraising
ability, appeal to independent voters, and his team's experience running a competitive national campaign. As 2019 goes on, that dismissal
will morph into all-out war.
Wall Street isn't afraid of corporate Democrats gaining power. It's afraid of the Democrats who will take them on -- and those,
unfortunately, are few and far between.
Bhaskar Sunkara is a Guardian US columnist and the founding editor of Jacobin
Just like universal health care, let's give up, it's too hard, we're not winners, we're not number one or problem solvers
and besides, someone at some time for some reason might get something that someone else might not get regardless if that someone
else needs it. Let's go with the Berners who seem to believe there will never be none so pure enough to become president.
The corporate state does not cast the votes. The public does.
Leaning farther to the left on issues like universal healthcare and foreign wars would be agreeing with the public. Not only
the progressive public, but the GENERAL public. The big money donors are the ONLY force against the Democrats resisting these
things.
2016 has shown that the Democratic party is beyond redemption. When it comes down to the choice of either win with a platform
that may impact the wealth and power of their owners, or losing, they will always choose the latter, and continue as useful (and
well paid) idiots in the charade presented as US democracy.
Bernie's challenge will "morph into all-out war". "Wall Street isn't afraid of corporate Democrats", blah, blah, blah. But we're
going to continue to play along? Why? Oh yeah, Bhaskar Sunkara will have us believe "There is no alternative". Remember TINA?
Give it up, man, just give it up.
One dollar, one vote.
If you want Change, keep it in your pocket.
We can't turn this sinking ship around unless we know what direction it's going. So far, that direction is just delivering money
to private islands.
Democrats have a lot of talk, but they still want to drive the nice cars and sell the same crapft that the Republicans are.
Taxing the rich only works when you worship the rich in the first place.
Election financing is the single root cause for our democracy's failure. Period.
I really don't care too much about the mouthing of progressive platitudes from any 2020 Dem Prez candidate. The only ones that
will be worth voting for are the ones that sign onto Sanders' (or similar) legislation that calls for a Constitutional amendment
that allows federal and state governments to limit campaign contributions.
And past committee votes to prevent amendment legislation from getting to a floor vote - as well as missed co-sponsorship opportunities
- should be interesting history for all the candidates to explain.
Campaign financing is what keeps scum entrenched (because primary challengers can't overcome the streams of bribes from those
wonderful people exercising their 'free speech' "rights" to keep their puppet in govt) and prevents any challenges to the corporate
establishment who serve the same rich masters.
Lol, Social Security, Medicare, unemployement protections, so many of the things you mentioned, and so much more, were from the
PROGRESSIVE New Deal, which managed to implement this slew of changes in 5 years! 5 years! You can't criticize "progressives"
in one sentence and then use their accomplishments to support your argument. Today, the New Deal would be considered too far left
by most so called "pragmatic liberals." I assume you are getting fully behind the proposed "Green New Deal" then, right?
Vintage59 pointed out lots of things people have changed. Here's an exhaustive list of the legislation passed by people
who didn't get elected but were more progressive than the people who did:
There is also a steadily growing list of Democrats who did worse in elections than a hypothetical Democratic candidate had
been projected to do.
The party can either continue being GOP-Lite or it can start winning elections. It can't do both.
Nobody is going to get elected on a far left platform. Not in the USA and not anywhere. That's just a fact. And everybody
is going to need $$$ in the campaign. Of course candidates are going to suck up to Wall street and business in general.
And we would have been a thousand percent better off with HRC in the white house than we are now with the Trumpostor.
We don't need a candidate with far-left platform, we need one that is left-leaning at all. HRC and her next generation of clones
are mild Republicans.
Those who want to push the Democrats to the left in order to win perhaps need to stop talking to each other and talk to
people who live outside of LA and NY. If you stay within your bubble it seems the whole world thinks like you.
How old will Sanders be in 2020?
The people (outside the coasts) lean to the left some big issues. Medicare for all. Foreign wars. etc.
A sane person might ask why in the hell the left-side party is leaning farther to the right than the general public.
Sanders is a dinosaur. If there is a reason for Wall Street to be wary of him then it is that the mentally challenged orange
guy may win another term if the Democrats run with Sanders.
Hopefully, Sanders will understand what many of his supporters do not want to see: At some time age becomes a problem. If
the Democrats decide to move to the left rather than pursuing a pragmatic centrist approach, Ocasio-Cortez might be an option.
If they opt for the centrist alternative, it might be Harris or Gillibrand. Or, in both cases, a surprise candidate. But Sanders'
time is over, just as Biden's Bloomberg's.
It's true, but Trump is such a clusterfuck that an 80yo president is still be a better situation. Many countries have had rulers
in their 80s at one time or another.
Trump is clearly showing early-stage dementia now. Compare footage of him 10+ years ago to anything within the last 6-12 months
and it's obvious. The stress levels of being the POTUS + blackmailed by Putin + investigations bearing down on him . . . it's
wearing him down fast.
Anti-trust would be a very good place to start with.
Universal healthcare is a lot harder than you seem to think. I'd love it, but getting there means putting so many people out
of work, it'll be a massive political challenge, even if corporations have no influence. Progressives might be better off focusing
on how to ensure the existing system works better and Medicaid can slowly expand to fill the universal roll in the future.
Where has offering candidates who actually have a chance to win gotten us? Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, the ADA, Title
9, Social Security, and more. None of these exist without constant changes. All took years to pass against heavy opposition. None
went far enough. All were improvements.
The list of wrongheaded things that were also passed is longer but thinking nothing changes because it takes time is faulty
logic.
Our capitalist predators are still alive and well. The finance, insurance, and real estate
organizations are the worst predators in the USA.
They will eat your babies if you let them.
New emails published by the U.S. Department of State reveal the real motives behind the
international invasion of Libya.
The new emails of Hillary Clinton reveal that the real reason behind the invasion were
primarily the countries large gold and oil reserves, and the extension of French influence in
North Africa.
Fort Russ reports:
The U.S. State Department has published a series of emails that reveal the volume of gold
reserves of Gaddafi. According to the documents, the reserves are so great that they could
become the basis for creating a pan-African currency, which, in turn, could compete with the
dollar in the region.
Also, the reasons for intervention were identified as the major oil reserves of Libya and
the strengthening of French influence in North Africa. However, in 2011, Western leaders
welcomed the overthrow of the Gaddafi regime as a democratic step. "Long live Benghazi, long
live Libya, long live the friendship between France and Libya!", – said French President
Nicolas Sarkozy.
"You showed the world that you can overthrow the dictator and have chosen freedom!" –
said the Prime Minister of Great Britain David Cameron, speaking to the Libyan people."The
people of Libya got rid of a dictator. Now it has a chance," claimed the Vice-President of USA
Joe Biden.
In the past five years, the violence and chaos in Libya has not stopped. In the background
of this, "Islamic State" is gaining momentum in the country and has captured new territory. In
January 2016, dozens of people were killed as a result of terrorist.
Previously, "Islamic State" had claimed responsibility for the attack on a training camp in
Zliten. According to the correspondent of the newspaper The Jerusalem Post Ariel Ben Solomon,
from the outset it was obvious that intervention in Libya would lead to negative consequences
for the country.
"The email to Clinton is confirmed by the results of studies that began to appear after the
invasion of Libya, organized by France with U.S. support. Major oil reserves of the country
were the main reason for intervention. Dictators lead many African countries, but the West is
in no hurry to intervene in each of them. The Obama administration from the beginning was
guided by rather naive misconceptions on the actions that needed to be taken to resolve the
situation in Libya after the war," said RT political analyst Ariel Ben Solomon.
Source:
http://yournewswire.com/clinton-email...Ozzie Crosby2 years ago
America needs war to survive. The United States IS the infidel. It's not just propaganda.
pav_k20072 years ago
modern day robbers! K Lyall2 years ago
Imagine a NWO puppet like her in the White House for 4 more years!
10 11
View reply Hide replies 1979USHI2 years ago The
Western nations governments are totally out of order and need to be taken to a real world
court. Notta
Dr2 years ago
incredibly disgusting what we are learning about warmongering corporate globalist elites. there
is a strong move starting in the other direction....more conservative nationalist leaders are
rising up everywhere. these monsters ask need to be arrested, tried and severely
punished....held to the highest level of accountability.
Nancy Pelosi is worth several hundred million dollars. I don't think she's a Marxist in
the classical sense. Although she would fit the classic Soviet politburo member with their
private dachas on the Black Sea. I would argue she and her ilk across both parties have
enabled massive market concentration across many many sectors just in the past 4 decades.
They're elitists who back an oligarchy of their fellow elitists. They are the basis for the
symbiotic relationship between Big Business and Big Government. As Steve Bannon calls them,
they're the Party of Davos. IMO, the only difference between the two parties are their
rhetoric. Both of course engage in identity politics with the Democrats focused on the SJW
virtue signaling while the Republicans have for decades channeled the evangelicals.
Trump is an outsider. They consider him to be an uncouth nouveau riche. And are appalled
that his media savvy upended their Borg candidates. Nancy believes she is now the
opposition leader with the mandate from the Party of Davos to ensure the defeat of
Trump. This brouhaha over SOTU is just the first skirmish. I wouldn't underestimate
Trump in these media centered battles. While the corporate media who as Bannon calls the
opposition party creates the perception of a Trump administration in chaos, the Deplorables
are still backing him. His approval rating at this midway point in his presidency is no worse
than Obama and even GOP megagod Reagan. It's the reaction of the people from the heartland
when he served the Clemson team Big Macs and fries compared to the derisive commentary of the
urban/suburban crowd.
McConnell is also a card carrying member of the Party of Davos or else he would have
jumped to invite Trump to speak from the Senate. But Trump's shtick is the people's leader.
So he should speak from a heartland location. Your suggestion is a good one. Another could be
a cornfield in Iowa, the first primary state where all the Democrats presidential contenders
will be camping out soon.
"... The French bourgeoisie is the politically most experienced ruling class in Europe. It has no illusions about the challenge it faces. Le Point put its file on the revolt of the vests under the self-telling title "What is waiting us". ..."
"... But it's not only the king who is naked. The whole system is naked. In the many pages devoted by the magazine to demonstrate that what the Vests want is unfeasible, not even a single serious word is written about what needs to be done to deal with the deep causes which led the French to revolt. Today's capitalism of Macron, Merkel and Trump does not produce a Roosevelt and New Deal or Popular Fronts – and we have to wait to see if it will produce a Hitler as some are trying to achieve. For the time being, it only produces Yellow Vests! ..."
"... In Oscar Wilde's masterpiece "The Picture of Dorian Gray", the main character looks every night at his horrible real self in the mirror. But he looks at it alone. ..."
"... This is where Macron made his most fatal mistake, being arrogant and markedly cut off from reality – with the confidence given to him by the mighty elite forces, which elected him and by his contempt of the common people which characterizes him. ..."
"... Observing Macron, the people understood what lied ahead for them. They felt their backs against the wall – they felt that they had only themselves to rely on, that they had to take themselves action to save themselves and their country. ..."
"... This was the decisive moment, the moment the historical mission of Macron was achieved . By establishing the most absolute control of Finance over Politics, he himself invited Revolution. His triumph and his tragedy came together. ..."
"... Many established "leftists" or "radical" intellectuals, who used to feverishly haul capitalism over the coals – although the last thing they really wanted was to experience a real revolution during their lifetime – they too, stand now frightened, looking at an angry Bucephalus running ahead of them. They prefer a stable capitalism, of which they can constitute its "consciousness", writing books, appearing on shows and giving lectures, analyzing its crises and explaining its tribulations. They idea that the People could at some point take seriously what they themselves said, never crossed their minds either! ..."
"... Today, four out of five French people disapprove of Macron's policies and one in two demands that he resigns immediately. We assume that this percentage is greater than the percentage of Russians who wanted the ousting of Tsar Nicholas II in February 1917. ..."
"... France is currently almost in a state of Power Vacuum . The president and the government cannot in essence govern and the people cannot tolerate them. It is not a situation of dual power, but a situation of dual legitimacy , in Mélenchon 's accurate description. ..."
"... This is a typical definition of a revolutionary situation . As history teaches us, the emergence of such a situation is necessary but not sufficient condition for a victorious Revolution. What is required in or order to turn a rebellion into a potentially victorious Revolution, is a capable and decided leadership and an adequate strategy, program and vision. These elements do not seem to exist, at last not for now, in today's France, as they did not exist in May 1968 or during the Russian Revolution of February 1917. Therefore, the present situation remains open to all possible eventualities; there must be no doubt however, that this is the beginning of a period of intense political and class conflicts in Europe, and that the Europe, as we know it, is already history. ..."
"... Or at least, for the people to be given the opportunity to develop an effective way of controlling state power. ..."
"... By reversing Marx's famous formula in German Ideology , the ideas of the dominant class do not dominate society. This is why the situation can be described as revolutionary. ..."
"... Although it is difficult to form an opinion from afar about how the situation may unfold, the formation of a such a United Front from grassroots could perhaps offer a way out with regards to the need for a political leadership for the movement, or even of the need to work out a transitional economic program for France, which must also serve as a transitional program for Europe . ..."
"... Contrary to how things were a century ago, certain factors such as the educational level of the lower social classes, the existence of a number of critical, radical thinkers with the necessary intellectual skills and the Internet, render such a possibility a much more realistic scenario today, than in the past. ..."
The magazine LePoint is one of the main media outlets of the French
conservative "centre-right". One of its December issues carries the cover title France
Faces its History. 1648, 1789, 1830, 1848, 1871 four centuries of revolutions.
The cover features also a painting by Pierre-Jérôme Lordon, showing people
clashing with the army at Rue de Babylone , in Paris, during the
Revolution of 1830. Perhaps this is where Luc Ferry, Chirac's former minister, got his idea
from, when, two days ago, he asked the Army to intervene and the police to start shooting and
killing Yellow Vests.
Do not be surprised if you haven't heard this from your TV or if you don't know that the
level of police repression and violence in France, measured in people dead, injured and
arrested, has exceeded everything the country has experienced since 1968. Nor should you
wonder why you don't know anything about some Yellow Vest's new campaign calling for a
massive run on French banks. Or why you have been lead you to believe that the whole thing is
to do with fuel taxes or increasing minimum wage.
The vast majority of European media didn't even bother to communicate to their readers
or viewers the main political demands of the Yellow Vests ; and certainly, there hasn't
been any meaningful attempt to offer an insightful interpretation of what's happening in
France and there is just very little serious on-the-ground reporting, in the villages and
motorways of France.
Totalitarianism
Following Napoleon's defeat in Waterloo, European Powers formed the Holy Alliance banning
Revolutions.
Nowadays, Revolutions have just been declared inconceivable (Soros – though not just
him – has been giving a relentless fight to take them out of history textbooks or, as a
minimum, to erase their significance and meaning). Since they are unthinkable they cannot
happen. Since they cannot happen they do not happen.
In the same vein, European media sent their journalists out to the streets in Paris on
Christmas and New Year's days, counted the protesters and found that they weren't too many
after all. Of course they didn't count the 150,000 police and soldiers lined up by Macron on
New Year's Eve. Then they made sure that they remain "impartial" and by just comparing
numbers of protesters, led viewers to think that we are almost done with it – it was
just a storm, it will pass.
The other day I read a whole page article about Europe in one of the most "serious" Greek
newspapers, on 30.12. The author devoted just one single meaningless phrase about the Vests.
Instead, the paper still found the way to include in the article the utterly stupid statement
of a European Right-Wing politician who attributed the European crisis to the existence of
Russia Today and Sputnik! And when I finally found a somewhat more serious article online
about the developments in France, I realized that its only purpose was to convince us that
what is happening in France surely has nothing to do with 1789 or 1968!
It is only a pity that the people concerned, the French themselves, cannot read in Greek.
If they could, they would have realized that it does not make any sense to have "Revolution"
written on their vests or to sing the 1789 song in their demonstrations or to organize
symbolic ceremonies of the public "decapitation" of Macron, like Louis XV. And the French
bourgeois press would not waste time everyday comparing what happens in the country now with
what happened in 1968 and 1789.
Totalitarianism is not just a threat. It's already here. Simply it has omitted to
announce its arrival. We have to deduce its precence from its results.
A terrified
ruling class
The French bourgeoisie is the politically most experienced ruling class in Europe. It has
no illusions about the challenge it faces. Le Point put its file on the
revolt of the vests under the self-telling title "What is waiting us".
A few months ago, all we had about Macron in the papers was praise, inside and outside of
France – he was the "rising star" of European politics, the man who managed to pass the
"reforms" one after the other, no resistance could stop him, he would be the one to save and
rebuild Europe. Varoufakis admired and supported him, as early as of the first round of the
2017 elections.
Now, the "chosen one" became a burden for those who put him in office. Some of them
probably want to get rid of him as fast as they can, to replace him with someone else, but
it's not easy – and even more so, it is not easy given the monarchical powers conferred
by the French constitution to the President. The constitution is tailored to the needs of a
President who wants to safeguard power from the people. Those who drafted it could not
probably imagine it would make difficult for the Oligarchy also to fire him!
And who would dare to hold a parliamentary or presidential election in such a situation,
as in France today? No one knows what could come out of it. Moreover, Macron does not have a
party in the sense of political power. He has a federation of friends who benefit as long as
he stays in power and they are damaged when he collapses.
The King is naked
"The King is naked", points out Le Point's editorial, before, with almost sadistic
callousness, posing the question: "What can a government do when a remarkable section of the
people vomits it?"
But it's not only the king who is naked. The whole system is naked. In the many pages
devoted by the magazine to demonstrate that what the Vests want is unfeasible, not even a
single serious word is written about what needs to be done to deal with the deep causes which
led the French to revolt. Today's capitalism of Macron, Merkel and Trump does not produce a
Roosevelt and New Deal or Popular Fronts – and we have to wait to see if it will
produce a Hitler as some are trying to achieve. For the time being, it only produces Yellow
Vests!
They predicted it, they saw it coming, but they didn't believe it!
Yet they could have predicted all that. It would have sufficed, had they only taken
seriously and studied a book published in France in late 2016, six months before the
presidential election, highlighting the explosive nature of the social situation and warning
of the danger of revolution and civil war.
The title of the book was "Revolution". Its author was none other than Emmanuel Macron
himself. Six months later, he would become the President of France, to eventually verify, and
indeed rather spectacularly, his predictions. But the truth is probably, that not even he
himself gave much credit to what he wrote just to win the election.
By constantly lying, politicians, journalists and intellectuals reasonably came to believe
that even their own words are of no importance. That they can say and do anything they want,
without any consequence.
In Oscar Wilde's masterpiece "The Picture of Dorian Gray", the main character looks every
night at his horrible real self in the mirror. But he looks at it alone.
This is where Macron made his most fatal mistake, being arrogant and markedly cut off from
reality – with the confidence given to him by the mighty elite forces, which elected
him and by his contempt of the common people which characterizes him.
Unwise and Arrogant, he made no effort to hide – this is how sure he felt of
himself, this is how convinced his environment was that he could infinitely go on doing
anything he wanted without any consequences (same as our Tsipras). Thus, acting foolishly and
arrogantly, he left a few million eyes to see his real face. This was the last straw that
made the French people realize in a definite way what they had already started figuring out
during Sarkozy's and Hollande's, administration, or even earlier. Observing Macron, the
people understood what lied ahead for them. They felt their backs against the wall –
they felt that they had only themselves to rely on, that they had to take themselves action
to save themselves and their country.
There was nobody else to make it in their place.
Macron as a Provocateur.
Terror in Pompeii
This was the decisive moment, the moment the historical mission of Macron
was achieved . By establishing the most absolute control of Finance over Politics, he himself invited
Revolution. His triumph and his tragedy came together.
It was just then, that Bucephalus (*) sprang from the depths of historical Memory,
galloping without a rider, ready to sweep away everything in his path.
Now those in power look at him with fear, but fearful too are both the "radical right" and
the "radical left". Le Pen has already called on protesters to return to their homes and give
her names to include in her list for the European election!
Mélenchon supports the Vests – 70% of their demands coincide with the program
of his party, La France Insoumise – but so far he hasn't dared to join the
people in demanding Macron's resignation, by adopting the immense, but orphan, cry of the
people heard all over France: "Macron resign". Perhaps he feels that he hasn't got the steely
strength and willpower required for attempting to lead such a movement.
The unions' leadership is doing everything it can to keep the working class away from the
Vests, but this stand started causing increasing unrest at its base.
Many established "leftists" or "radical" intellectuals, who used to feverishly haul
capitalism over the coals – although the last thing they really wanted was to
experience a real revolution during their lifetime – they too, stand now frightened,
looking at an angry Bucephalus running ahead of them. They prefer a stable capitalism, of
which they can constitute its "consciousness", writing books, appearing on shows and giving
lectures, analyzing its crises and explaining its tribulations. They idea that the People
could at some point take seriously what they themselves said, never crossed their minds
either!
In fact, this is also a further confirmation of the depth of the movement. Lenin ,
who, in any event knew something about revolutions, wrote in 1917: "In a revolutionary
situation, the Party is a hundred times farther to the left than the Central Committee and
the workers a hundred times farther to the left than the Party."
"Revolutionary
Situation" and Power Vacuum
Today, four out of five French people disapprove of Macron's policies and one in two
demands that he resigns immediately. We assume that this percentage is greater than the
percentage of Russians who wanted the ousting of Tsar Nicholas II in February 1917.
France is currently almost in a state of Power Vacuum . The president and
the government cannot in essence govern and the people cannot tolerate them. It is not a
situation of dual power, but a situation of dual legitimacy , in
Mélenchon 's accurate description.
This is a typical definition of a revolutionary situation . As history
teaches us, the emergence of such a situation is necessary but not sufficient condition for a victorious Revolution. What is required in or order to turn
a rebellion into a potentially victorious Revolution, is a capable and decided leadership and
an adequate strategy, program and vision. These elements do not seem to exist, at last not
for now, in today's France, as they did not exist in May 1968 or during the Russian
Revolution of February 1917. Therefore, the present situation remains open to all possible
eventualities; there must be no doubt however, that this is the beginning of a period of
intense political and class conflicts in Europe, and that the Europe, as we know it, is
already history.
People's Sovereignty at the center of demands
Starting from fuel tax the revolting French have now put at the centre of their demands,
in addition to Macron's resignation, the following:
preserving the purchasingpower of the poorest social strata, e.g.
with the abolition of VAT on basic necessities to ensure decent standards of living for the
entire population,
the right of people to provoke referendums on any issue, the Citizens'
Initiative Referendum (RIC), including referendums to revokeelectedrepresentatives (the President, MPs, mayors, etc. ) when they violate their mandate,
all that in the context of establishing a SixthFrenchRepublic .
In other words, they demand a profound and radical " transformation " of the
Western bourgeois-democratic regime, as we know it, towards a form of directdemocracy in order to take back the state, which has gradually and in a totalitarian
manner – but while keeping up democratic appearances – passed under direct and
full control of the Financial Capital and its employees. Or at least, for the people to be
given the opportunity to develop an effective way of controlling state power.
These are not the demands of a fun-club of Protagoras or of some left-wing or right-wing
groupuscule propagating Self-Management or of some club of intellectuals. Nor are they the
demands of only the lowest social strata of the French nation.
They are supported, according to the polls and put forward by at least three quarters of
French citizens, including a sizeable portion of the less poor. In such circumstances, these
demands constitute in effect the Will of the People, the Will of the Nation.
The Vests are nothing more than its fighting pioneers. And precisely because it is the
absolute majority of people who align with these demands, even if numbers have somewhat gone
down since the beginning of December, the Vests are still wanted out on the streets.
By reversing Marx's famous formula in German Ideology , the ideas
of the dominant class do not dominate society. This is why the situation can be
described as revolutionary.
And also because it is not only the President and the Government, who have been debunked
or at least de-legitimized, but it's also the whole range of state and political
institutions, the parties, the unions, the "information" media and the "ideologists" of the
regime.
The questioning of the establishment is so profound that any arguments about violence and
the protesters do not weaken society's support for them. Many, but not all, condemn violence,
but there are not many who don't go on immediately to add a reminder of the regime's social
violence against the people. When a famous ex-boxer lost his temper and reacted by punching a
number of violent police officers, protesters set up a fundraising website for his legal
fees. In just two hours they managed to raise around 120.000 euro, before removing the page
over officials' complaints and threats about keeping a file on anyone who contributes money
to support such causes.
Until now, an overwhelming majority of the French people supports the demands while an
absolute majority shows supports for the demonstrations; but of course, it is difficult to
keep such a deadlock and power-void situation going for long. They will sooner or later
demand a solution, and in situations such as these it is often the case that public opinion
shifts rapidly from the one end of the political spectrum to the other and vice versa,
depending on which force appears to be more decisive and capable of driving
society out of the crisis.
The organization of the Movement
Because the protesters have no confidence in the parties, the trade unions, or anyone else
for that matter, they are driven out of necessity into self-organization, as they already do
with the Citizens' Assemblies that are now emerging in villages, cities and motorway camps.
Indeed, by the end of the month, if everything goes well, they will hold the first "
AssemblyofAssemblies ".
Similar developments have also been observed in many revolutionary movements of this kind
in various countries. A classic example is the spontaneous formation of the councils (
Soviets ) during the Russian revolutions of 1905 and 1917.
Although it is difficult to form an opinion from afar about how the situation may unfold,
the formation of a such a United Front from grassroots could perhaps offer a
way out with regards to the need for a political leadership for the movement,
or even of the need to work out a transitional economic program for
France, which must also serve as a transitional program for Europe .
Contrary to how things were a century ago, certain factors such as the educational level
of the lower social classes, the existence of a number of critical, radical thinkers with the
necessary intellectual skills and the Internet, render such a possibility a much more
realistic scenario today, than in the past.
Because the movement's Achilles' Heel is that, while it is already in the process of
forming a political proposition, it still, at least for now, does not offer any economic
alternative or a politically structured, democratically controlled leadership.
Effective Democracy is an absolute requirement in such a front, because it is the
only way to synthesize the inevitablydifferentlevels of
consciousness within the People and to avoid a split of the movement between "left"
and "right", between those who are ready to resort to violence to achieve their ends and
those who have a preference for more peaceful, gradual processes.
Such a " front " could perhaps also serve as a platform for solidifying a
program and vision, to which the various parties and political organizations could
contribute.
In her CritiqueoftheRussianRevolutionRosaLuxemburg , the leader of the German Social Democracy was overly critical
of the Bolsheviks , even if, I think, a bit too severe in some points. But she closes
her critique with the phrase: " They at least dared "
Driven by absolute Need, guided by the specific way its historical experience has formed
its consciousness, possessing a Surplus of Consciousness, that is able to feel the
unavoidable conclusions coming out of the synthesis of the information we all possess, about
both the "quality" of the forces governing our world and the enormous dangers threatening our
countries and mankind, the French People, the French Nation has already crossed the
Rubicon.
By moving practically to achieve their goals at a massive scale, and regardless of what is
to come next, the French people has already made a giant leap up and forward and, once more
in its history, it became the world's forerunner in tackling the terrible economic,
ecological, nuclear and technological threats against human civilization and its
survival.
Without the conscious entry of large masses into the historical scene, with all the
dangers and uncertainties that such a thing surely implies, one can hardly imagine how
humanity will survive.
The neoliberalism of the Democratic Party elite (and most of the rank and file) is one big
factor in our 2016 loss. Even voters too ignorant to see Trump for what he really was -
voters that are misinformed to the point that they unwittingly and continually vote against
their own best interests - realized how much the Dems have sold out to Wall Street.
HRC would have been nominated in '08 if she had kissed more Wall Street you-know-what.
That's why they anointed Obama who then proceeded to squander eight years of opportunity to
remove big money from politics and enact progressive reforms to health care, the environment,
etc.
Bernie is a bit long in the tooth, so I am all in for Liz Warren. She's the only one with
both the courage and the intelligence to take on the big money that controls our
politics.
Therefore, you can expect the Russian trolls to be coming for her in force. If you read
anything negative about Warren in the coming months, check the source and don't trust the
accuracy.
"Mounting a campaign against [financial] plutocracy makes as much sense to the typical
Washington liberal as would circulating a petition against gravity.
What our modernized liberal leaders offer is not confrontation but a kind of therapy for
those flattened by the free-market hurricane: they counsel us to accept the inevitability of
the situation."
Yep,
The party has circled its wagons.
They insist that the Evil Vlad stole the last election.
Therefore, no need to examine Obama's centrist/neoliberal policies and the socio-economic
conditions that fueled the rejection of Hillary.
We're doomed to repeat our errors.
The farcical DNC leadership echoes the days of Brezhnev's intransigent politburo.
This is the realistic perspective we have to adopt in the US: the Democratic establishment
is part of the neoliberal machinery that has generated Bush's wars, Obama's bank bailouts,
deportations, and drone executions, and now Trump's anti-democratic populism.
"... Bernie's bid was crushed by Clinton's superdelegates. No amount of throwing money against him in the direct sense was doing any good. He took popular positions on issues and stubbornly stayed on-message. ..."
In regards to the Hillary v Bernie question, it also didn't help that the primary vote was
wildly skewed by so-called 'superdelegates,' who don't actually commit their votes until the
DNC convention, but were being counted by the media as having already voted for Hillary,
which made it appear to many of the uninformed that Bernie didn't have any chance of winning,
which may have been intended to keep Bernie supporters home on primary day under the
assumption that Hillary was unbeatable.
As sensible as your suggestions may be, what you're calling for would require at least three
constitutional amendments to be practical - including scrapping the first amendment.
Maybe we should strive towards attainable goals instead?
Didn't help that the ostensibly neutral DNC was sending emails saying that they should play
up Bernie Sanders' Jewish faith (among other attack strategies), fed debate questions to the
Clinton campaign or tried to limit opportunities for Bernie and Hillary to share a stage
together.
Bernie Sanders is widely considered by many to be one of the most popular American
politicians, more than Trump and certainly more popular than Hillary. I think an interesting
phenomenon to notice is the lengths the GOP, in particular, will go to in order to convince
the average voter that anything that cuts taxes is inherently good for the 'little guy,'
while anything that raises taxes is bad. Trump's recent tax cuts are a good example. Most of
the actual cuts go toward the corporations and ultra-wealthy, which just increases the
deficit while shifting the proportion of taxes paid onto the middle class. It's a con that
many Americans are inexplicably susceptible to believing, for some reason.
Progressive believe in inclusion and if that is "moralistic rhetoric" then so be it.
The litany goes "round and round.
Hillary Clinton:
" you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of
deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic -- you
name it!
"Barack Obama:
"Referring to working-class voters in old industrial towns decimated by job losses, the
presidential hopeful said: "They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion "
Bernie's bid was crushed by Clinton's superdelegates. No amount of throwing money against him
in the direct sense was doing any good. He took popular positions on issues and stubbornly
stayed on-message.
Half of Americans don't bother voting for president. Why is the American media full only of people who insist that the country
is divided in half between Democrat and Republican supporters? Where are the people of influence who think it's a problem and
reflects poorly on the country that half of eligible voters don't see a reason to participate, and that it's worth changing things
in order to get more people to change their minds about that?
Both parties are content with being unpopular, but with political mechanisms ensuring they stay in power anyway. The Democrats
aren't concerned with being popular. They're content with being a token opposition party that every once in a while gets a few
token years with power they don't put to any good anyway. It pays more, I guess.
It still looks like if Americans want to live in a progressive country, they'll have to move to one. But as it is clear that the
neoliberalism of establishment Democrats has little or nothing to offer the poor and working class, or to non-wealthy millennials,
the times they are a-changing.
These corporate-Dem candidates are not being forced to sell out to win elections. Quite the
opposite in fact. They are risking losing their elections for the sake of selling out.
Surely, many will comment that Democrats have no choice but to take the money in order to be
competitive. I have one truism for such folks to ponder: Why would you trust your allegiance
to those who don't care if you win?
Basic logic: rich people win the general election either way, so long as the
primary-winning Democrat is in their pocket (the GOP is always on their side). So this
monetary affection is certainly more about fixing an no-lose general than it is about ousting
Trump, or any Republican.
Voters around the world revolt against leaders who won't improve their lives.
Newly-elected Utah senator Mitt Romney kicked off 2019 with an op-ed in the Washington Post
that savaged Donald Trump's character and leadership. Romney's attack and Trump's response
Wednesday morning on Twitter are the latest salvos in a longstanding personal feud between the
two men. It's even possible that Romney is planning to challenge Trump for the Republican
nomination in 2020. We'll see.
But for now, Romney's piece is fascinating on its own terms. It's well-worth reading. It's a
window into how the people in charge, in both parties, see our country.
Romney's main complaint in the piece is that Donald Trump is a mercurial and divisive
leader. That's true, of course. But beneath the personal slights, Romney has a policy critique
of Trump. He seems genuinely angry that Trump might pull American troops out of the Syrian
civil war. Romney doesn't explain how staying in Syria would benefit America. He doesn't appear
to consider that a relevant question. More policing in the Middle East is always better. We
know that. Virtually everyone in Washington agrees.
Corporate tax cuts are also popular in Washington, and Romney is strongly on board with
those, too. His piece throws a rare compliment to Trump for cutting the corporate rate a year
ago.
That's not surprising. Romney spent the bulk of his business career at a firm called Bain
Capital. Bain Capital all but invented what is now a familiar business strategy: Take over an
existing company for a short period of time, cut costs by firing employees, run up the debt,
extract the wealth, and move on, sometimes leaving retirees without their earned pensions.
Romney became fantastically rich doing this.
Meanwhile, a remarkable number of the companies are now bankrupt or extinct. This is the
private equity model. Our ruling class sees nothing wrong with it. It's how they run the
country.
Mitt Romney refers to unwavering support for a finance-based economy and an internationalist
foreign policy as the "mainstream Republican" view. And he's right about that. For generations,
Republicans have considered it their duty to make the world safe for banking, while
simultaneously prosecuting ever more foreign wars. Modern Democrats generally support those
goals enthusiastically.
There are signs, however, that most people do not support this, and not just in America. In
countries around the world -- France, Brazil, Sweden, the Philippines, Germany, and many others
-- voters are suddenly backing candidates and ideas that would have been unimaginable just a
decade ago. These are not isolated events. What you're watching is entire populations revolting
against leaders who refuse to improve their lives.
Something like this has been in happening in our country for three years. Donald Trump rode
a surge of popular discontent all the way to the White House. Does he understand the political
revolution that he harnessed? Can he reverse the economic and cultural trends that are
destroying America? Those are open questions.
But they're less relevant than we think. At some point, Donald Trump will be gone. The rest
of us will be gone, too. The country will remain. What kind of country will be it be then? How
do we want our grandchildren to live? These are the only questions that matter.
The answer used to be obvious. The overriding goal for America is more prosperity, meaning
cheaper consumer goods. But is that still true? Does anyone still believe that cheaper iPhones,
or more Amazon deliveries of plastic garbage from China are going to make us happy? They
haven't so far. A lot of Americans are drowning in stuff. And yet drug addiction and suicide
are depopulating large parts of the country. Anyone who thinks the health of a nation can be
summed up in GDP is an idiot.
The goal for America is both simpler and more elusive than mere prosperity. It's happiness.
There are a lot of ingredients in being happy: Dignity. Purpose. Self-control. Independence.
Above all, deep relationships with other people. Those are the things that you want for your
children. They're what our leaders should want for us, and would want if they cared.
But our leaders don't care. We are ruled by mercenaries who feel no long-term obligation to
the people they rule. They're day traders. Substitute teachers. They're just passing through.
They have no skin in this game, and it shows. They can't solve our problems. They don't even
bother to understand our problems.
One of the biggest lies our leaders tell us that you can separate economics from everything
else that matters. Economics is a topic for public debate. Family and faith and culture,
meanwhile, those are personal matters. Both parties believe this.
Members of our educated upper-middle-classes are now the backbone of the Democratic Party
who usually describe themselves as fiscally responsible and socially moderate. In other words,
functionally libertarian. They don't care how you live, as long as the bills are paid and the
markets function. Somehow, they don't see a connection between people's personal lives and the
health of our economy, or for that matter, the country's ability to pay its bills. As far as
they're concerned, these are two totally separate categories.
Social conservatives, meanwhile, come to the debate from the opposite perspective, and yet
reach a strikingly similar conclusion. The real problem, you'll hear them say, is that the
American family is collapsing. Nothing can be fixed before we fix that. Yet, like the
libertarians they claim to oppose, many social conservatives also consider markets sacrosanct.
The idea that families are being crushed by market forces seems never to occur to them. They
refuse to consider it. Questioning markets feels like apostasy.
Both sides miss the obvious point: Culture and economics are inseparably intertwined.
Certain economic systems allow families to thrive. Thriving families make market economies
possible. You can't separate the two. It used to be possible to deny this. Not anymore. The
evidence is now overwhelming. How do we know? Consider the inner cities.
Thirty years ago, conservatives looked at Detroit or Newark and many other places and were
horrified by what they saw. Conventional families had all but disappeared in poor
neighborhoods. The majority of children were born out of wedlock. Single mothers were the rule.
Crime and drugs and disorder became universal.
What caused this nightmare? Liberals didn't even want to acknowledge the question. They were
benefiting from the disaster, in the form of reliable votes. Conservatives, though, had a ready
explanation for inner-city dysfunction and it made sense: big government. Decades of
badly-designed social programs had driven fathers from the home and created what conservatives
called a "culture of poverty" that trapped people in generational decline.
There was truth in this. But it wasn't the whole story. How do we know? Because virtually
the same thing has happened decades later to an entirely different population. In many ways,
rural America now looks a lot like Detroit.
This is striking because rural Americans wouldn't seem to have much in common with anyone
from the inner city. These groups have different cultures, different traditions and political
beliefs. Usually they have different skin colors. Rural people are white conservatives,
mostly.
Yet, the pathologies of modern rural America are familiar to anyone who visited downtown
Baltimore in the 1980s: Stunning out of wedlock birthrates. High male unemployment. A
terrifying drug epidemic. Two different worlds. Similar outcomes. How did this happen? You'd
think our ruling class would be interested in knowing the answer. But mostly they're not. They
don't have to be interested. It's easier to import foreign labor to take the place of
native-born Americans who are slipping behind.
But Republicans now represent rural voters. They ought to be interested. Here's a big part
of the answer: male wages declined. Manufacturing, a male-dominated industry, all but
disappeared over the course of a generation. All that remained in many places were the schools
and the hospitals, both traditional employers of women. In many places, women suddenly made
more than men.
Now, before you applaud this as a victory for feminism, consider the effects. Study after
study has shown that when men make less than women, women generally don't want to marry them.
Maybe they should want to marry them, but they don't. Over big populations, this causes a drop
in marriage, a spike in out-of-wedlock births, and all the familiar disasters that inevitably
follow -- more drug and alcohol abuse, higher incarceration rates, fewer families formed in the
next generation.
This isn't speculation. This is not propaganda from the evangelicals. It's social science.
We know it's true. Rich people know it best of all. That's why they get married before they
have kids. That model works. But increasingly, marriage is a luxury only the affluent in
America can afford.
And yet, and here's the bewildering and infuriating part, those very same affluent married
people, the ones making virtually all the decisions in our society, are doing pretty much
nothing to help the people below them get and stay married. Rich people are happy to fight
malaria in Congo. But working to raise men's wages in Dayton or Detroit? That's crazy.
This is negligence on a massive scale. Both parties ignore the crisis in marriage. Our
mindless cultural leaders act like it's still 1961, and the biggest problem American families
face is that sexism is preventing millions of housewives from becoming investment bankers or
Facebook executives.
For our ruling class, more investment banking is always the answer. They teach us it's more
virtuous to devote your life to some soulless corporation than it is to raise your own
kids.
Sheryl Sandberg of Facebook wrote an entire book about this. Sandberg explained that our
first duty is to shareholders, above our own children. No surprise there. Sandberg herself is
one of America's biggest shareholders. Propaganda like this has made her rich.
We are ruled by mercenaries who feel no long-term obligation to the people they rule.
They're day traders. Substitute teachers. They're just passing through. They have no skin in
this game, and it shows.
What's remarkable is how the rest of us responded to it. We didn't question why Sandberg was
saying this. We didn't laugh in her face at the pure absurdity of it. Our corporate media
celebrated Sandberg as the leader of a liberation movement. Her book became a bestseller: "Lean
In." As if putting a corporation first is empowerment. It is not. It is bondage. Republicans
should say so.
They should also speak out against the ugliest parts of our financial system. Not all
commerce is good. Why is it defensible to loan people money they can't possibly repay? Or
charge them interest that impoverishes them? Payday loan outlets in poor neighborhoods collect
400 percent annual interest.
We're OK with that? We shouldn't be. Libertarians tell us that's how markets work --
consenting adults making voluntary decisions about how to live their lives. OK. But it's also
disgusting. If you care about America, you ought to oppose the exploitation of Americans,
whether it's happening in the inner city or on Wall Street.
And by the way, if you really loved your fellow Americans, as our leaders should, if it
would break your heart to see them high all the time. Which they are. A huge number of our
kids, especially our boys, are smoking weed constantly. You may not realize that, because new
technology has made it odorless. But it's everywhere.
And that's not an accident. Once our leaders understood they could get rich from marijuana,
marijuana became ubiquitous. In many places, tax-hungry politicians have legalized or
decriminalized it. Former Speaker of the House John Boehner now lobbies for the marijuana
industry. His fellow Republicans seem fine with that. "Oh, but it's better for you than
alcohol," they tell us.
Maybe. Who cares? Talk about missing the point. Try having dinner with a 19-year-old who's
been smoking weed. The life is gone. Passive, flat, trapped in their own heads. Do you want
that for your kids? Of course not. Then why are our leaders pushing it on us? You know the
reason. Because they don't care about us.
When you care about people, you do your best to treat them fairly. Our leaders don't even
try. They hand out jobs and contracts and scholarships and slots at prestigious universities
based purely on how we look. There's nothing less fair than that, though our tax code comes
close.
Under our current system, an American who works for a salary pays about twice the tax rate
as someone who's living off inherited money and doesn't work at all. We tax capital at half of
what we tax labor. It's a sweet deal if you work in finance, as many of our rich people do.
In 2010, for example, Mitt Romney made about $22 million dollars in investment income. He
paid an effective federal tax rate of 14 percent. For normal upper-middle-class wage earners,
the federal tax rate is nearly 40 percent. No wonder Mitt Romney supports the status quo. But
for everyone else, it's infuriating.
Our leaders rarely mention any of this. They tell us our multi-tiered tax code is based on
the principles of the free market. Please. It's based on laws that the Congress passed, laws
that companies lobbied for in order to increase their economic advantage. It worked well for
those people. They did increase their economic advantage. But for everyone else, it came at a
big cost. Unfairness is profoundly divisive. When you favor one child over another, your kids
don't hate you. They hate each other.
That happens in countries, too. It's happening in ours, probably by design. Divided
countries are easier to rule. And nothing divides us like the perception that some people are
getting special treatment. In our country, some people definitely are getting special
treatment. Republicans should oppose that with everything they have.
What kind of country do you want to live in? A fair country. A decent country. A cohesive
country. A country whose leaders don't accelerate the forces of change purely for their own
profit and amusement. A country you might recognize when you're old.
A country that listens to young people who don't live in Brooklyn. A country where you can
make a solid living outside of the big cities. A country where Lewiston, Maine seems almost as
important as the west side of Los Angeles. A country where environmentalism means getting
outside and picking up the trash. A clean, orderly, stable country that respects itself. And
above all, a country where normal people with an average education who grew up in no place
special can get married, and have happy kids, and repeat unto the generations. A country that
actually cares about families, the building block of everything.
What will it take a get a country like that? Leaders who want it. For now, those leaders will
have to be Republicans. There's no option at this point.
But first, Republican leaders will have to acknowledge that market capitalism is not a
religion. Market capitalism is a tool, like a staple gun or a toaster. You'd have to be a fool
to worship it. Our system was created by human beings for the benefit of human beings. We do
not exist to serve markets. Just the opposite. Any economic system that weakens and destroys
families is not worth having. A system like that is the enemy of a healthy society.
Internalizing all this will not be easy for Republican leaders. They'll have to unlearn
decades of bumper sticker-talking points and corporate propaganda. They'll likely lose donors
in the process. They'll be criticized. Libertarians are sure to call any deviation from market
fundamentalism a form of socialism.
That's a lie. Socialism is a disaster. It doesn't work. It's what we should be working
desperately to avoid. But socialism is exactly what we're going to get, and very soon unless a
group of responsible people in our political system reforms the American economy in a way that
protects normal people.
If you want to put America first, you've got to put its families first.
Adapted from Tucker Carlson's monologue from "Tucker Carlson Tonight" on January 2,
2019.
"... America's "ruling class," Carlson says, are the "mercenaries" behind the failures of the middle class -- including sinking marriage rates -- and "the ugliest parts of our financial system." He went on: "Any economic system that weakens and destroys families is not worth having. A system like that is the enemy of a healthy society." ..."
"... He concluded with a demand for "a fair country. A decent country. A cohesive country. A country whose leaders don't accelerate the forces of change purely for their own profit and amusement." ..."
"... The monologue and its sweeping anti-elitism drove a wedge between conservative writers. The American Conservative's Rod Dreher wrote of Carlson's monologue, "A man or woman who can talk like that with conviction could become president. Voting for a conservative candidate like that would be the first affirmative vote I've ever cast for president. ..."
"... The Two-Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Parents Are Growing Broke ..."
"... Carlson wanted to be clear: He's just asking questions. "I'm not an economic adviser or a politician. I'm not a think tank fellow. I'm just a talk show host," he said, telling me that all he wants is to ask "the basic questions you would ask about any policy." But he wants to ask those questions about what he calls the "religious faith" of market capitalism, one he believes elites -- "mercenaries who feel no long-term obligation to the people they rule" -- have put ahead of "normal people." ..."
"... "What does [free market capitalism] get us?" he said in our call. "What kind of country do you want to live in? If you put these policies into effect, what will you have in 10 years?" ..."
"... Carlson is hardly the first right-leaning figure to make a pitch for populism, even tangentially, in the third year of Donald Trump, whose populist-lite presidential candidacy and presidency Carlson told me he views as "the smoke alarm ... telling you the building is on fire, and unless you figure out how to put the flames out, it will consume it." ..."
"... Trump borrowed some of that approach for his 2016 campaign but in office has governed as a fairly orthodox economic conservative, thus demonstrating the demand for populism on the right without really providing the supply and creating conditions for further ferment. ..."
"... Ocasio-Cortez wants a 70-80% income tax on the rich. I agree! Start with the Koch Bros. -- and also make it WEALTH tax. ..."
"... "I'm just saying as a matter of fact," he told me, "a country where a shrinking percentage of the population is taking home an ever-expanding proportion of the money is not a recipe for a stable society. It's not." ..."
"... Carlson told me he wanted to be clear: He is not a populist. But he believes some version of populism is necessary to prevent a full-scale political revolt or the onset of socialism. Using Theodore Roosevelt as an example of a president who recognized that labor needs economic power, he told me, "Unless you want something really extreme to happen, you need to take this seriously and figure out how to protect average people from these remarkably powerful forces that have been unleashed." ..."
"... But Carlson's brand of populism, and the populist sentiments sweeping the American right, aren't just focused on the current state of income inequality in America. Carlson tackled a bigger idea: that market capitalism and the "elites" whom he argues are its major drivers aren't working. The free market isn't working for families, or individuals, or kids. In his monologue, Carlson railed against libertarian economics and even payday loans, saying, "If you care about America, you ought to oppose the exploitation of Americans, whether it's happening in the inner city or on Wall Street" -- sounding very much like Sanders or Warren on the left. ..."
"... Capitalism/liberalism destroys the extended family by requiring people to move apart for work and destroying any sense of unchosen obligations one might have towards one's kin. ..."
"... Hillbilly Elegy ..."
"... Carlson told me that beyond changing our tax code, he has no major policies in mind. "I'm not even making the case for an economic system in particular," he told me. "All I'm saying is don't act like the way things are is somehow ordained by God or a function or raw nature." ..."
"All I'm saying is don't act like the way things are is somehow ordained by God."
Last Wednesday, the conservative talk show host Tucker Carlson started a fire on the right after airing a prolonged
monologue on his show that was, in essence, an indictment of American capitalism.
America's "ruling class," Carlson says, are the "mercenaries" behind the failures of the middle class -- including sinking
marriage rates -- and "the ugliest parts of our financial system." He went on: "Any economic system that weakens and destroys families
is not worth having. A system like that is the enemy of a healthy society."
He concluded with a demand for "a fair country. A decent country. A cohesive country. A country whose leaders don't accelerate
the forces of change purely for their own profit and amusement."
The monologue was stunning in itself, an incredible moment in which a Fox News host stated that for generations, "Republicans
have considered it their duty to make the world safe for banking, while simultaneously prosecuting ever more foreign wars." More
broadly, though, Carlson's position and the ensuing controversy reveals an ongoing and nearly unsolvable tension in conservative
politics about the meaning of populism, a political ideology that Trump campaigned on but Carlson argues he may not truly understand.
Moreover, in Carlson's words: "At some point, Donald Trump will be gone. The rest of us will be gone too. The country will remain.
What kind of country will be it be then?"
The monologue and its sweeping anti-elitism drove a wedge between conservative writers. The American Conservative's Rod Dreher
wrote of Carlson's monologue,
"A man or woman who can talk like that with conviction could become president. Voting for a conservative candidate like that would
be the first affirmative vote I've ever cast for president." Other conservative commentators scoffed. Ben Shapiro wrote in
National Review that Carlson's monologue sounded far more like Sens. Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren than, say, Ronald Reagan.
I spoke with Carlson by phone this week to discuss his monologue and its economic -- and cultural -- meaning. He agreed that his
monologue was reminiscent of Warren, referencing her 2003
bookThe Two-Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Parents Are Growing Broke . "There were parts of the book that I disagree
with, of course," he told me. "But there are parts of it that are really important and true. And nobody wanted to have that conversation."
Carlson wanted to be clear: He's just asking questions. "I'm not an economic adviser or a politician. I'm not a think tank
fellow. I'm just a talk show host," he said, telling me that all he wants is to ask "the basic questions you would ask about any
policy." But he wants to ask those questions about what he calls the "religious faith" of market capitalism, one he believes elites
-- "mercenaries who feel no long-term obligation to the people they rule" -- have put ahead of "normal people."
But whether or not he likes it, Carlson is an important voice in conservative politics. His show is among the
most-watched television programs in America. And his raising questions about market capitalism and the free market matters.
"What does [free market capitalism] get us?" he said in our call. "What kind of country do you want to live in? If you put
these policies into effect, what will you have in 10 years?"
Populism on the right is gaining, again
Carlson is hardly the first right-leaning figure to make a pitch for populism, even tangentially, in the third year of Donald
Trump, whose populist-lite
presidential candidacy and presidency Carlson told me he views as "the smoke alarm ... telling you the building is on fire, and unless
you figure out how to put the flames out, it will consume it."
Populism is a rhetorical approach that separates "the people" from elites. In the
words of Cas
Mudde, a professor at the University of Georgia, it divides the country into "two homogenous and antagonistic groups: the pure people
on the one end and the corrupt elite on the other." Populist rhetoric has a long history in American politics, serving as the focal
point of numerous presidential campaigns and powering William Jennings Bryan to the Democratic nomination for president in 1896.
Trump borrowed some of that approach for his 2016 campaign but in office has governed as a fairly orthodox economic conservative,
thus demonstrating the demand for populism on the right without really providing the supply and creating conditions for further ferment.
When right-leaning pundit Ann Coulter
spoke with Breitbart Radio about Trump's Tuesday evening Oval Office address to the nation regarding border wall funding, she
said she wanted to hear him say something like, "You know, you say a lot of wild things on the campaign trail. I'm speaking to big
rallies. But I want to talk to America about a serious problem that is affecting the least among us, the working-class blue-collar
workers":
Coulter urged Trump to bring up overdose deaths from heroin in order to speak to the "working class" and to blame the fact
that working-class wages have stalled, if not fallen, in the last 20 years on immigration. She encouraged Trump to declare, "This
is a national emergency for the people who don't have lobbyists in Washington."
Ocasio-Cortez wants a 70-80% income tax on the rich. I agree! Start with the Koch Bros. -- and also make it WEALTH tax.
These sentiments have even pitted popular Fox News hosts against each other.
Sean Hannity warned his audience that New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's economic policies would mean that "the rich people
won't be buying boats that they like recreationally, they're not going to be taking expensive vacations anymore." But Carlson agreed
when I said his monologue was somewhat reminiscent of Ocasio-Cortez's
past comments on the economy , and how even a strong economy was still leaving working-class Americans behind.
"I'm just saying as a matter of fact," he told me, "a country where a shrinking percentage of the population is taking home
an ever-expanding proportion of the money is not a recipe for a stable society. It's not."
Carlson told me he wanted to be clear: He is not a populist. But he believes some version of populism is necessary to prevent
a full-scale political revolt or the onset of socialism. Using Theodore Roosevelt as an example of a president who recognized that
labor needs economic power, he told me, "Unless you want something really extreme to happen, you need to take this seriously and
figure out how to protect average people from these remarkably powerful forces that have been unleashed."
"I think populism is potentially really disruptive. What I'm saying is that populism is a symptom of something being wrong," he
told me. "Again, populism is a smoke alarm; do not ignore it."
But Carlson's brand of populism, and the populist sentiments sweeping the American right, aren't just focused on the current
state of income inequality in America. Carlson tackled a bigger idea: that market capitalism and the "elites" whom he argues are
its major drivers aren't working. The free market isn't working for families, or individuals, or kids. In his monologue, Carlson
railed against libertarian economics and even payday loans, saying, "If you care about America, you ought to oppose the exploitation
of Americans, whether it's happening in the inner city or on Wall Street" -- sounding very much like Sanders or Warren on the left.
Carlson's argument that "market capitalism is not a religion" is of course old hat on the left, but it's also been bubbling on
the right for years now. When National Review writer Kevin Williamson
wrote
a 2016 op-ed about how rural whites "failed themselves," he faced a massive backlash in the Trumpier quarters of the right. And
these sentiments are becoming increasingly potent at a time when Americans can see both a booming stock market and perhaps their
own family members struggling to get by.
Capitalism/liberalism destroys the extended family by requiring people to move apart for work and destroying any sense
of unchosen obligations one might have towards one's kin.
At the Federalist, writer Kirk Jing
wrote of Carlson's
monologue, and a
response
to it by National Review columnist David French:
Our society is less French's America, the idea, and more Frantz Fanon's "Wretched of the Earth" (involving a very different
French). The lowest are stripped of even social dignity and deemed
unworthy of life . In Real America, wages are stagnant, life expectancy is crashing, people are fleeing the workforce, families
are crumbling, and trust in the institutions on top are at all-time lows. To French, holding any leaders of those institutions
responsible for their errors is "victimhood populism" ... The Right must do better if it seeks to govern a real America that exists
outside of its fantasies.
J.D. Vance, author of
Hillbilly Elegy
, wrote that the [neoliberal] economy's victories -- and praise for those wins from conservatives -- were largely meaningless
to white working-class Americans living in Ohio and Kentucky: "Yes, they live in a country with a higher GDP than a generation ago,
and they're undoubtedly able to buy cheaper consumer goods, but to paraphrase Reagan: Are they better off than they were 20 years
ago? Many would say, unequivocally, 'no.'"
Carlson's populism holds, in his view, bipartisan possibilities. In a follow-up email, I asked him why his monologue was aimed
at Republicans when many Democrats had long espoused the same criticisms of free market economics. "Fair question," he responded.
"I hope it's not just Republicans. But any response to the country's systemic problems will have to give priority to the concerns
of American citizens over the concerns of everyone else, just as you'd protect your own kids before the neighbor's kids."
Who is "they"?
And that's the point where Carlson and a host of others on the right who have begun to challenge the conservative movement's orthodoxy
on free markets -- people ranging from occasionally mendacious bomb-throwers like Coulter to writers like
Michael Brendan Dougherty -- separate
themselves from many of those making those exact same arguments on the left.
When Carlson talks about the "normal people" he wants to save from nefarious elites, he is talking, usually, about a specific
group of "normal people" -- white working-class Americans who are the "real" victims of capitalism, or marijuana legalization, or
immigration policies.
In this telling, white working-class Americans who once relied on a manufacturing economy that doesn't look the way it did in
1955 are the unwilling pawns of elites. It's not their fault that, in Carlson's view, marriage is inaccessible to them, or that marijuana
legalization means more teens are smoking weed (
this probably isn't true ). Someone,
or something, did this to them. In Carlson's view, it's the responsibility of politicians: Our economic situation, and the plight
of the white working class, is "the product of a series of conscious decisions that the Congress made."
The criticism of Carlson's monologue has largely focused on how he deviates from the free market capitalism that conservatives
believe is the solution to poverty, not the creator of poverty. To orthodox conservatives, poverty is the result of poor decision
making or a
lack of virtue that can't be solved by government programs or an anti-elite political platform -- and they say Carlson's argument
that elites are in some way responsible for dwindling marriage rates
doesn't make sense .
But in French's response to Carlson, he goes deeper, writing that to embrace Carlson's brand of populism is to support "victimhood
populism," one that makes white working-class Americans into the victims of an undefined "they:
Carlson is advancing a form of victim-politics populism that takes a series of tectonic cultural changes -- civil rights, women's
rights, a technological revolution as significant as the industrial revolution, the mass-scale loss of religious faith, the sexual
revolution, etc. -- and turns the negative or challenging aspects of those changes into an angry tale of what they are
doing to you .
And that was my biggest question about Carlson's monologue, and the flurry of responses to it, and support for it: When other
groups (say, black Americans) have pointed to systemic inequities within the economic system that have resulted in poverty and family
dysfunction, the response from many on the right has been, shall we say,
less than
enthusiastic .
Really, it comes down to when black people have problems, it's personal responsibility, but when white people have the same
problems, the system is messed up. Funny how that works!!
Yet white working-class poverty receives, from Carlson and others, far more sympathy. And conservatives are far more likely to
identify with a criticism of "elites" when they believe those elites are responsible for the
expansion of trans
rights or creeping secularism
than the wealthy and powerful people who are investing in
private prisons or an expansion
of the
militarization of police . Carlson's network, Fox News, and Carlson himself have frequently blasted leftist critics of market
capitalism and efforts to
fight
inequality .
I asked Carlson about this, as his show is frequently centered on the turmoils caused by "
demographic change
." He said that for decades, "conservatives just wrote [black economic struggles] off as a culture of poverty," a line he
includes in his monologue .
He added that regarding black poverty, "it's pretty easy when you've got 12 percent of the population going through something
to feel like, 'Well, there must be ... there's something wrong with that culture.' Which is actually a tricky thing to say because
it's in part true, but what you're missing, what I missed, what I think a lot of people missed, was that the economic system you're
living under affects your culture."
Carlson said that growing up in Washington, DC, and spending time in rural Maine, he didn't realize until recently that the same
poverty and decay he observed in the Washington of the 1980s was also taking place in rural (and majority-white) Maine. "I was thinking,
'Wait a second ... maybe when the jobs go away the culture changes,'" he told me, "And the reason I didn't think of it before was
because I was so blinded by this libertarian economic propaganda that I couldn't get past my own assumptions about economics." (For
the record, libertarians have
critiqued Carlson's
monologue as well.)
Carlson told me that beyond changing our tax code, he has no major policies in mind. "I'm not even making the case for an
economic system in particular," he told me. "All I'm saying is don't act like the way things are is somehow ordained by God or a
function or raw nature."
And clearly, our market economy isn't driven by God or nature, as the stock market soars and unemployment dips and yet even those
on the right are noticing lengthy periods of wage stagnation and dying little towns across the country. But what to do about those
dying little towns, and which dying towns we care about and which we don't, and, most importantly, whose fault it is that those towns
are dying in the first place -- those are all questions Carlson leaves to the viewer to answer.
Did Krugman just issue a veiled warning to Pelosi, Schumer, and Clinton Democrats? Did he see
this as a teaching moment for them? Has he turned from unabashed megaphone for establishment
Democrats to an honest broker, willing to explain economics to Demcoratic Big Money
parasites? Could be... If so, this might be a turning point for Krugman from partisan hack to
honest broker!
As always, Robert Reich pulls fewer punches: "Do not ever underestimate the influence of
Wall Street Democrats, corporate Democrats, and the Democrats' biggest funders. I know. I've
been there.
In the 2018 midterms, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, big
business made more contributions to Democrats than to Republicans. The shift was particularly
noticeable on Wall Street. Not since 2008 have donors in the securities and investment
industry given a higher percentage to Democratic candidates and committees than to
Republicans.
The moneyed interests in the Democratic party are in favor of helping America's poor and
of reversing climate change – two positions that sharply distinguish them from the
moneyed interests in the Republican party.
And maybe, just maybe, Krugman, in a veiled warning to Democrats enamored with Trump's tax
cuts, has decided to trump partisan loyalty with economic reality...as any decent economist
should do.
EMichael and kurt will be disappointed, very disappointed that Krugman sided with AOC over
corrupt, sclerotic, corporate Democrats...
There is no reason to think that mainstream liberals would not just go along with whatever
direction the liberal establishment takes. OTOH, there is a major difference in the context
between the rank and file of mainstream liberals and the actual liberal establishment itself.
Mainstream liberals just want to fit in and win elections. They are concerned with
electability and the constraints of legislative process. There is nothing wrong with that. It
is the role of the rank and file.
However, AOC is correct. It is radicals that bring about all significant change.
Mainstream radical is an oxymoron. After radicals cause change then it is no longer radical,
but it becomes mainstream instead.
In contrast, the liberal establishment is also concerned with electability because that is
what they do for a living, either get elected or ride along on the coattails of the elected,
but they are elites and elitists not to be separated from the status quo economic
establishment without considerable consternation. However, the elitists' trepidation over
being separated from their wealthy elite supporters would be greatly reduced by severe limits
on private campaign financing. Still, it would be a rare elected official that would rather
eat in a soup kitchen than a five-star restaurant both for the good food and for the good
company. In both regards though that depends upon what your definition of "good" is.
"Mainstream liberals just want to fit in and win elections..." And they are precisely they
kind of "go-along to get along types" who let bad things happen...and then pretend to not
understand what went wrong...Vietnam, Iraq, GWOT, Glass-Steagall repeal, trade
liberalization/offshoring profits, banksters who go Scot free after bringing the economy
down. The list goes on.
There are leaders, followers, and radicals. One can choose to be any one or two or those they
want, but no more than two. It is not very rewarding to be a radical from the back of the
line unless there is also a radical to follow at the front of the line. Leaders that are also
followers inherit the status quo and guard it like it was their own because it is. Radical
leaders rarely succeed, but often die young.
Trump is a bad example of a leader, but he follows his nose at least rather than just the
status quo. Trump has a nose for trouble and he cannot resist its stench any more than a
jackal or hyena can resist rotting carrion. Fortunate for Trump the US has a long history of
stockpiling trouble for future consumption that reaches all the way back to colonial times.
Trump likes to think that orange is the new black, but the old black, brown, and red are
still around and neither yellow nor orange can take their place.
The majority of people are just plain old followers. If people think that there is chaos
in the world already, just imagine what it would be like if most people were not just plain
old followers. The status quo always has the advantage of the natural force of inertia.
"...banksters who go Scot free after bringing the economy down. The list goes on."
Because you believe in government as done by Putin, Maduro, Saddam, Saudi Arabia, etc:
jail, torture, kill enemies by the people in power being the law.
You reject the US Constitution where voters are allowed to elect Republicans who legalize
fraud and theft by deception based on voters wanting the free lunch of easy credit requiring
bankers have no liability for the bad loans from easy credit. You reject the US Constitution
prohibition on retroactive laws criminalizzing legal actions.
Only if you were leading protests in the 90s in opposition to laws making credit easy for
below $80,000 workers whether buying houses or trucks/SUV.
Only if you were picketing real estate agents and car dealers from 2001 to 2005 to keep
out customers, you were not doing enough to stop easy credit.
The GOP was only dellivering what voters wanted, stuff they could not afford paid for by
workers saving for their retirement.
Elections have consequences.
The elections from 1994 to 2004 were votes for free lunch economics. The GOP promised and
delivered free lunch economic policies.
In 2005, voters on the margins realized tanstaafl, and in 2006 elected Pelosi to power,
and Pelosi, representing California knows economies are zero sum, so she increased costs to
increase general welfare. One of the costs was reccognizing the costs, and benefits, of the
US Constitution.
In 2008, she did not try to criminalize past action, and when she could not get the votes
to punish the bankers who bankrupted the institutions they ran by prohibiting bonuses in the
future,, she insread delivered the best deal possible for the US Constitutional general
welfare.
I think Bernie wanted all voters who voted GOP to lose their jobs, or maybe he simply
believes in free lunch economist claims that welfare payments in Ohio and Michigan are higher
than union worker incomes.
Maybe he thinks bankruptcy court nationalize businesses, not liquidate them.
Or maybe he figured the solution was a 21st Century Great Depression which would elect a
socialist instead of a capitalist FDR, and he would get to run all the automakers, all the
food industry, and employ all the workers deciding what they can buy?
I can never figure out how the economy would work if Bernie were running it. He talks
about Europe, but never advocates the cost of EU economy that is part of EU law: the VAT. All
EU members must have a VAT that is a significant cost to every person in the EU.
Free lunch economics is when you promise increased benefits with no costs, or lower
costs.
Free lunch Trump and free lunch Bernie differ only in their winners, but their losers are
always the same.
When progressives argue for unlimited increases in debt just like Reagan, they are
rejecting the pokicies of FDR, Keynes, the US when the general welfare increased most by
increasing assets faster than debt.
"'elitists' trepidation over being separated from their wealthy elite supporters would be
greatly reduced by severe limits on private campaign financing." Which is why so many liberal
establishment politicians...per Reich...pay only lip service to real campaign finance reform.
Being parasites, they feed off of their hosts and dare not disrupt the gravy train.
"elitists' trepidation over being separated from their wealthy elite supporters would be
greatly reduced by severe limits on private campaign financing."
So, the wealthy liberal elites who pay no taxes by cleverly paying all revenue to workers
need to be punished because they pay too much to too many workers?
Warrren Buffett has never paid much in taxes even when tax rates on corporations were over
50% and individuals reached over 70%. Money paid to workers, directly or indirectly, was and
still is the number one tax dodge.
Unless you go to a sales tax aka VAT which taxes all revenue, expecially business income
paid to workers.
VAT is an income tax with zero tax dodges aka loopholes aka deductions.
""'elitists' trepidation over being separated from their wealthy elite supporters would be
greatly reduced by severe limits on private campaign financing." Which is why so many liberal
establishment politicians...per Reich...pay only lip service to real campaign finance reform.
Being parasites, they feed off of their hosts and dare not disrupt the gravy train."
In your view, its the poor who create high paying jobs?
It's wrong to listen to people who convince rich people to give their money to people
paying US workers to build factories, wind farms, solar farms battery factories,
transportation systems, vehicles, computer systems in the US?
Instead Democrats should listen to people who have never created long term paying jobs,
but only pay elites who run campaigns using mostly unpaid workers, or workers paid only a few
months every few years? Like Bernie does?
When it comes to how to run a "Green New Deal", I want the policy crafted by someone who
listens to Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, and the CEOs of California energy corporations,
tech companies, who are commited to consuming more and more energy that requires no fossil
fuels. Listening to Home Depot and Walmart building managers and retail sales managers should
be a priority. All these guys both focus on paying more workers, and selling more to workers
paid more.
AOC and Bernie seem to listen to the Lamperts who are destroying the value of companies
like Sears by "taxing" both the customers, workers, and owners, by giving money to people who
don't work to produce anything.
I make going to RealClearPolicy, Politics, etc a daily practice to see how bad
progressives are at selling their policies, making it easy for find all sorts of costs,
without any benefits to anyone.
The New Deal was not about taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor. The New
Deal was about paying workers more.
In 1930, half the population still lived on farms. (They might work off the farm, but they
were farmworkers first.) The problem for farmers is Europe had recovered from the war and was
no longer sending gold to the US to secure loans to buy food, but instead repaying the loans
by shipping high value food to the US, wine, cheese, etc, and that meant too much food drove
prices down, which meant farmworkers earned less and less.
One of the first laws set minimum prices for food, enforced by destroying crops, or
government overpaying for food like milk, cheese, bread, which the government gave away to
the poor who could never buy this food. It was not about giving food away, but about paying
workers, the farmers, ranchers, etc. Giving the food to the poor who could not afford to buy
food was simply to avoid the attacks on FDR for destroying good food to drive up farmer pay.
Which was the truth.
FDR talked about creating a healthy workforce to make America great, then about building a
healthy soldier. Ike in the 50s and JFK in the 60s campaigned on creating healthy soldiers.
And smart, educated soldiers and workers.
The policies of liberals was about better workers, richer workers.
Conservatives since Reagan has been about cutting the costs of workers. Sold based on
consumers benefiting from lower cost workers, because consumees are never workers, workers
never consumers, because if workers equal consumers, economics must be zero sum.
By attracting the intense ire of the GOP, AOC activates the negative polarization of lib
pundits and makes them look for ways to defend left policy items they'd attack in any other
scenario. It's very effective at pushing the discourse forward.
"But the Democrats' moneyed interests don't want more powerful labor unions. They are not in
favor of stronger antitrust enforcement against large corporations."
So, you think beef at $10 plus per pound, salad greens at $5 plus per pound, a fast food
meal at $10 plus, is a winning issue for Democrats?
Or by powerful labor unions, you mean for only white male blue collar factory workers,
long haul white truckers, white construction workers?
Making all work pay enough to reach middle class status at the low end will not happen by
unions because many parts of the US, and workers, and jobs, will oppose unions. Instead,
labor laws and enforcement to lift wages and working conditions rapidly in conservative
regions are required.
Better to get the minimum wage in Indiana and Kansas to $10 than in California to $15.
More important to get farm workers fully covered by Federal law like factory workers, with
exemptions only for farmer family members.
Raising incomes in low living cost regions will not raise prices much nationally, but
increase living standards among the most disadvantaged who feel "left behind".
Automatic increases annually of 10% for 7 years, then indexed by cpi.
Constantly emphasizing this minimum is way below what the low wage is in SF, NYC, LA, but
the goods produced will be bought and thus wages paid mostly by high income liberal elites.
Conservatives sticking it to liberals!
Wow... you need to do a lot better at shopping sales. I wait for sales and then buy burger
at $2.50, crud cuts at $3-4, and can frequently get t-bone and ribeye for under $5.
BUT, on the larger scale, what is the difference if I pay $1 a pound for burger and earn
$20K a year, or I pay $3 for burger and earn $60K a year?
Inflation punishes savers? Really? What is the difference if I earn 3% at 2% inflation or
1% at 0% inflation? The answer is, none.
"In that case, however, why do we care how hard the rich work? If a rich man works an extra
hour, adding $1000 to the economy, but gets paid $1000 for his efforts, the combined income
of everyone else doesn't change, does it? Ah, but it does – because he pays taxes on
that extra $1000. So the social benefit from getting high-income individuals to work a bit
harder is the tax revenue generated by that extra effort – and conversely the cost of
their working less is the reduction in the taxes they pay."
This is not right. Heck, it's not even wrong.
Say the $1000 is for a surgery. The social benefit is the tax they pay on it? The surgery
itself is irrelevant?
Krugman confuses the flow of money, which supports and correlates with production, with
the actual production, the real "social benefit".
If you invent a widget that everyone on earth is willing to pay $1 over cost to get,
congratulations, you just earned $7 billion.
Now, does that mean you get to consume $7 billion worth of stuff other people produce? I
think so.
Or, does it mean you get to trap the world in $7 billion of debt servitude from which it
is impossible for them to escape, because you are hoarding, and then charging interest on,
the $7 billion they need to pay back their debts.
The key is to understand that money is created via debt. Money has value because people
with debt need to get it to repay their debts.
If we all decide BitCoin is worthless, then BitCoin is worthless. It has no fundamental
usefulness.
If we all decide money is worthless, then a bunch of people with debt will gladly take it
off our hands so that they can repay their debt. Heck, they may even trade us stuff to get
the debt... which is why money is NOT worthless.
If $1 per day make everyone live better with no added climate change, PLUS paid an extra $7
billion per day to production workers, service workers, that would be good, or bad?
Say, the $7 billion in wages was to sing and dance so no matter where in the world he was,
he was entertained by song and dance?
Economies are zero sum. Every cost has an equal benefit aka income or consumption. Work
can't exist without consumption, consumption without work.
"If $1 per day make everyone live better with no added climate change, PLUS paid an extra $7
billion per day to production workers, service workers, that would be good, or bad?"
Obviously, good. Which is what I say in my post.
"Money is merely work in the past or future."
Money is other peoples' debt. They have borrowed money into existence and then spent it
into the economy, AND they have pledged to do work in the future, to get the money back so
they can repay the debt.
That "doing work in the future to get the money back" is only possible if the people with
the money actually spend it back into the economy.
The problem is that the people in debt also agreed to pay interest, and the people with
the money want to keep collecting the interest... so keep holding the money... making it
absolutely impossible for those with debt to pay it back.
I'm saying is that there is obligation on both sides. There is obligation on the part of
people with debt to produce goods and services and sell them for money to repay their debts,
AND for that to be possible, there is obligation on those with money to actually spend the
money...
Contrary to CONservative opinion, money is not created by work, it is earned by selling,
and that means for the economy to function, there has to be spending.
We need a tax code with very high top rates, but deductions for spending and capital
investing... not to take from the rich, but rather to force them to spend and invest to get
deductions.
"... Excessive financialization is the Achilles' heel of neoliberalism. It inevitably distorts everything, blows the asset bubble, which then pops. With each pop, the level of political support of neoliberalism shrinks. Hillary defeat would have been impossible without 2008 events. ..."
Barkley insists on a left-right split for his analysis of political parties and their attachment to vague policy tendencies
and that insistence makes a mess of the central issue: why the rise of right-wing populism in a "successful" economy?
Naomi Klein's book is about how and why centrist neoliberals got control of policy. The rise of right-wing populism is often
supposed (see Mark Blyth) to be about the dissatisfaction bred by the long-term shortcomings of or blowback from neoliberal policy.
Barkley Rosser treats neoliberal policy as implicitly successful and, therefore, the reaction from the populist right appears
mysterious, something to investigate. His thesis regarding neoliberal success in Poland is predicated on policy being less severe,
less "shocky".
In his left-right division of Polish politics, the centrist neoliberals -- in the 21st century, Civic Platform -- seem to disappear
into the background even though I think they are still the second largest Party in Parliament, though some seem to think they
will sink in elections this year.
Electoral participation is another factor that receives little attention in this analysis. Politics is shaped in part by the
people who do NOT show up. And, in Poland that has sometimes been a lot of people, indeed.
Finally, there's the matter of the neoliberal straitjacket -- the flip-side of the shock in the one-two punch of "there's no
alternative". What the policy options for a Party representing the interests of the angry and dissatisfied? If you make policy
impossible for a party of the left, of course that breeds parties of the right. duh.
Likbez,
Bruce,
Blowback from the neoliberal policy is coming. I would consider the current situation in the USA as the starting point of this
"slow-motion collapse of the neoliberal garbage truck against the wall." Neoliberalism like Bolshevism in 1945 has no future,
only the past. That does not mean that it will not limp forward in zombie (and pretty bloodthirsty ) stage for another 50 years.
But it is doomed, notwithstanding recently staged revenge in countries like Ukraine, Argentina, and Brazil.
Excessive financialization is the Achilles' heel of neoliberalism. It inevitably distorts everything, blows the asset bubble,
which then pops. With each pop, the level of political support of neoliberalism shrinks. Hillary defeat would have been impossible
without 2008 events.
At least half of Americans now hate soft neoliberals of Democratic Party (Clinton wing of Bought by Wall Street technocrats),
as well as hard neoliberal of Republican Party, which created the " crisis of confidence" toward governing neoliberal elite in
countries like the USA, GB, and France. And that probably why the intelligence agencies became the prominent political players
and staged the color revolution against Trump (aka Russiagate ) in the USA.
The situation with the support of neoliberalism now is very different than in 1994 when Bill Clinton came to power. Of course,
as Otto von Bismarck once quipped "God has a special providence for fools, drunkards, and the United States of America." and another
turn of the technological spiral might well save the USA. But the danger of never-ending secular stagnation is substantial and
growing. This fact was admitted even by such dyed- in-the-wool neoliberals as Summers.
This illusion that advances in statistics gave neoliberal access to such fine-grained and timely economic data, that now it
is possible to regulate economy indirectly, by strictly monetary means is pure religious hubris. Milton Friedman would now be
laughed out the room if he tried to repeat his monetarist junk science now. Actually he himself discarded his monetarist illusions
before he died.
We probably need to the return of strong direct investments in the economy by the state and nationalization of some assets,
if we want to survive and compete with China. Australian politicians are already openly discussing this, we still are lagging
because of "walking dead" neoliberals in Congress like Pelosi, Schumer, and company.
But we have another huge problem, which Australia and other countries (other than GB) do not have: neoliberalism in the USA
is the state religion which completely displaced Christianity (and is hostile to Christianity), so it might be that the lemming
will go off the cliff. I hope not.
The only thing that still keeps neoliberalism from being thrown out to the garbage bin of history is that it is unclear what
would the alternative. And that means that like in 1920th far-right nationalism and fascism have a fighting chance against decadent
neoliberal oligarchy.
Previously financial oligarchy was in many minds associated with Jewish bankers. Now people are more educated and probably
can hang from the lampposts Anglo-Saxon and bankers of other nationalities as well ;-)
I think that in some countries neoliberal oligarchs might soon feel very uncomfortable, much like Soros in Hungary.
As far as I understood the level of animosity and suppressed anger toward financial oligarchy and their stooges including some
professors in economics departments of the major universities might soon be approaching the level which existed in the Weimar
Republic. And as Lenin noted, " the ideas could become a material force if they got mass support." This is true about anger as
well.
Clinton Democrats (DemoRats) are so close to neocons that the current re-alliance is only natural and only partially caused by
Trump. Under Obama some of leading figures of his administration were undistinguishable from neocons (Samantha Power is a good
example here -- she was as crazy as Niki Haley, if not more). There is only one "war party in the USA which
continently consists of two wings: Repugs and DemoRats.
Notable quotes:
"... Both GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham , one of the country's most reliable war supporters, and Hillary Clinton , who repeatedly criticized former President Barack Obama for insufficient hawkishness, condemned Trump's decision in very similar terms, invoking standard war on terror jargon. ..."
"... That's not surprising given that Americans by a similarly large plurality agree with the proposition that "the U.S. has been engaged in too many military conflicts in places such as Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan for too long and should prioritize getting Americans out of harm's way" ..."
"... But what is remarkable about the new polling data on Syria is that the vast bulk of support for keeping troops there comes from Democratic Party voters, while Republicans and independents overwhelming favor their removal. The numbers are stark: Of people who voted for Clinton in 2016, only 26 percent support withdrawing troops from Syria, while 59 percent oppose it. Trump voters overwhelmingly support withdraw by 76 percent to 14 percent. ..."
"... This case is even more stark since Obama ran in 2008 on a pledge to end the war in Afghanistan and bring all troops home. Throughout the Obama years, polling data consistently showed that huge majorities of Democrats favored a withdrawal of all troops from Afghanistan ..."
"... While Democrats were more or less evenly divided early last year on whether the U.S. should continue to intervene in Syria, all that changed once Trump announced his intention to withdraw, which provoked a huge surge in Democratic support for remaining ..."
"... At the same time, Democratic policy elites in Washington are once again formally aligning with neoconservatives , even to the point of creating joint foreign policy advocacy groups (a reunion that predated Trump ). The leading Democratic Party think tank, the Center for American Progress, donated $200,000 to the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute and has multilevel alliances with warmongering institutions. ..."
"... By far the most influential [neo]liberal media outlet, MSNBC, is stuffed full of former Bush-Cheney officials, security state operatives, and agents , while even the liberal stars are notably hawkish (a decade ago, long before she went as far down the pro-war and Cold Warrior rabbit hole that she now occupies, Rachel Maddow heralded herself as a "national security liberal" who was "all about counterterrorism"). ..."
"... All of this has resulted in a new generation of Democrats, politically engaged for the first time as a result of fears over Trump, being inculcated with values of militarism and imperialism, trained to view once-discredited, war-loving neocons such as Bill Kristol, Max Boot, and David Frum, and former CIA and FBI leaders as noble experts and trusted voices of conscience. It's inevitable that all of these trends would produce a party that is increasingly pro-war and militaristic, and polling data now leaves little doubt that this transformation -- which will endure long after Trump is gone -- is well under way. ..."
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP'S December 18 announcement that he intends to withdraw all U.S.
troops from Syria produced some isolated support in the
anti-war wings of bothparties , but largely provoked
bipartisan outrage among in Washington's reflexively pro-war establishment.
Both
GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham, one of the country's most reliable war supporters, and Hillary
Clinton, who repeatedly criticized former President Barack Obama for insufficient
hawkishness, condemned Trump's decision in very similar terms, invoking standard war on terror
jargon.
But while official Washington united in opposition, new polling data from
Morning Consult/Politico shows that a large plurality of Americans support Trump's Syria
withdrawal announcement: 49 percent support to 33 percent opposition.
That's not surprising given that Americans by a similarly large plurality agree with the
proposition that "the U.S. has been engaged in too many military conflicts in places such as
Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan for too long and should prioritize getting Americans out of harm's
way" far more than they agree with the pro-war view that "the U.S. needs to keep troops in
places such as Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan to help support our allies fight terrorism and
maintain our foreign policy interests in the region."
But what is remarkable about the new polling data on Syria is that the vast bulk of support
for keeping troops there comes from Democratic Party voters, while Republicans and independents
overwhelming favor their removal. The numbers are stark: Of people who voted for Clinton in
2016, only 26 percent support withdrawing troops from Syria, while 59 percent oppose it. Trump
voters overwhelmingly support withdraw by 76 percent to 14 percent.
A similar gap is seen among those who voted Democrat in the 2018 midterm elections (28
percent support withdrawal while 54 percent oppose it), as opposed to the widespread support
for withdrawal among 2018 GOP voters: 74 percent to 18 percent.
Identical trends can be seen on the question of Trump's announced intention to withdraw half
of the U.S. troops currently in Afghanistan, where Democrats are far more supportive of keeping
troops there than Republicans and independents.
This case is even more stark since Obama ran in 2008 on a pledge to end the war in
Afghanistan and bring all troops home. Throughout the Obama years, polling data
consistently showed that huge majorities of Democrats favored a withdrawal of all
troops from Afghanistan:
With Trump rather than Obama now advocating troop withdrawal from Afghanistan, all of this
has changed. The new polling data shows far more support for troop withdrawal among Republicans
and independents, while Democrats are now split or even opposed . Among 2016 Trump voters,
there is massive support for withdrawal: 81 percent to 11 percent; Clinton voters, however,
oppose the removal of troops from Afghanistan by a margin of 37 percent in favor and 47 percent
opposed.
This latest poll is far from aberrational. As the Huffington Post's Ariel Edwards-Levy
documented early this week , separate polling shows a similar reversal by Democrats on
questions of war and militarism in the Trump era.
While Democrats were more or less evenly divided early last year on whether the U.S. should
continue to intervene in Syria, all that changed once Trump announced his intention to
withdraw, which provoked a huge surge in Democratic support for remaining. "Those who voted for
Democrat Clinton now said by a 42-point margin that the U.S. had a responsibility to do
something about the fighting in Syria involving ISIS," Edwards-Levy wrote, "while Trump voters
said by a 16-point margin that the nation had no such responsibility." (Similar trends can be
seen among GOP voters, whose support for intervention in Syria has steadily declined as Trump
has moved away from his posture of the last two years --
escalating bombings in both Syria and Iraq and killing far more civilians , as he
repeatedly vowed to do during the campaign -- to his return to his other campaign pledge to
remove troops from the region.)
This is, of course, not the first time that Democratic voters have wildly shifted their
"beliefs" based on the party affiliation of the person occupying the Oval Office. The party's
base spent the Bush-Cheney years denouncing war on terror policies, such as assassinations,
drones, and Guantánamo as moral atrocities and war crimes, only to suddenly support those
policies once they
became hallmarks of the Obama presidency .
But what's happening here is far more insidious. A core ethos of the anti-Trump #Resistance
has become militarism, jingoism, and neoconservatism. Trump is frequently attacked by Democrats
using longstanding Cold War scripts wielded for decades against them by the far right: Trump is
insufficiently belligerent with U.S. enemies; he's willing to allow the Bad Countries to take
over by bringing home U.S. soldiers; his efforts to establish less hostile relations with
adversary countries is indicative of weakness or even treason.
By far the most influential [neo]liberal media outlet,
MSNBC, is
stuffed full of former Bush-Cheney officials, security state operatives, and agents , while
even the liberal stars are notably hawkish (a decade ago, long before she went as far down the
pro-war and Cold Warrior rabbit hole that she now occupies, Rachel Maddow heralded herself as a
"national security liberal" who was "all about counterterrorism").
All of this has resulted in a new generation of Democrats, politically engaged for the first
time as a result of fears over Trump, being inculcated with values of militarism and
imperialism, trained to view once-discredited, war-loving neocons such as Bill Kristol, Max
Boot, and David Frum, and former CIA and FBI leaders as noble experts and trusted voices of
conscience. It's inevitable that all of these trends would produce a party that is increasingly
pro-war and militaristic, and polling data now leaves little doubt that this transformation --
which will endure long after Trump is gone -- is well under way.
It takes very little to govern good people. Very little. And bad people cant be governed
at all.
― McCarthy, Cormac. (2005). "No Country for Old Men"
It's become clear justice is dead in the United States. The respect for law is gone. If
President Trump was ever going to drain the swamp, the Clintons, and even former president
Obama, would have been dressed in orange by now. It didn't happen. Instead, it is Trump who now
stands accused:
There is nothing Trump or any member of his administration has done that is comparable to
Hillary Clinton's use of her own email server while U.S. secretary of state, or her
destroying tens of thousands of emails after they were subpoenaed by Congress, or foreign
governments' and corporations' paying vast sums of money to Bill Clinton and The Clinton
Foundation while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state. Nor is there anything Trump or
anyone in his administration has done comparable to the Obama administration's use of the IRS
to suppress conservative nonprofits; its selling guns to Mexican drug cartels, at least one
of which was later found at the scene where a Border Patrol officer was killed; or the lies
it told about the cause of the murder of a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans in
Benghazi. Yet any suggestion by Republicans that these activities be investigated is
effectively shouted down by the Democrats and the media. And let's not talk about the real
collusion in 2016 – between the FBI, the State Department, the Clinton campaign and the
Obama White House, using material sourced in part from the Russian government – to
undermine the Republican candidate for president and his presidency.
Even worse, it appears the investigations into government corruption by Inspector General
Michael Horowitz and Utah U.S. attorney John Huber, were, in fact, the
cover-up :
At this point, there is every
reason to believe that the purpose of Huber's investigation is to hide the truth, not to
find it; to protect the criminals, not to charge them. The key witnesses in each of the
matters under investigation have not even been contacted. It appears that no grand juries
have been empaneled.
Tom Fitton, of Judicial Watch says, "Huber wasn't tapped to investigate anything", he was
just "a distraction".
"... A possible scenario then would be that, some time in late April or early May, the kind of surveillance on Assange and figures known to be associated with him which we can be reasonably confident was being carried out both by GCHQ and MI6 alerted people to the fact that there had been a leak of material from the DNC. ..."
"... The accident of Cameron's – characteristically foolish – statement and the Papadopoulos interview could then have led on to his meeting with Downer being set up, at almost exactly the time when 'CrowdStrike' was beginning to work on the DNC servers. ..."
"... Having gone down that route, the possibility of Seth Rich talking obviously became acutely dangerous to all kinds of people. ..."
"... If Seth had made no attempt to contact Wikileaks - and if the FBI didn't look at his laptop because "we don't investigate murders", then why does the NSA have 32 pages of secret/top secret memos on him? ..."
"... If Seth was the real leaker, he was in a position to blow apart the Guccifer 2.0 scam which was the centerpiece of the "Russia interfered" hoax. ..."
"... Also, I suspect that Shawn Lucas may have been one of the friends of Seth who - according to Sy Hersh's account - had access to Seth's dropbox. So that might explain his very mysterious death - a drug overdose involving multiple drugs in someone never known to use drugs. ..."
"... What is clear is that, both from a cybersecurity and other perspectives – the Awan family saga being an obvious instance, and the networks in which Huma Abedin is involved perhaps another – the whole Democratic apparatus in which Hillary was a central figure was as leaky as an old sieve. ..."
"... When the ex-GCHQ 'twerp' Matt Tait, then supposedly running a consultancy, 'Capital Alpha Security', which only ever filed 'accounts for a dormant company', and has now been compulsorily wound up, immediately produced evidence backing up the incoherent claims by Dmitri Alperovitch of 'CrowdStrike', it was clear that we were dealing with an amateurish cover-up. ..."
"... The notion that the name and patronymic 'Felix Dzerzhinsky' is likely to have been used by the Main Directorate, previously known as the GRU, could only have been dreamed up by people who are totally ignorant of the history of the relations between the General Staff and the 'Cheka' in the early Soviet period, or, at least, are relying on the ignorance of others. ..."
"... The next memorandum in the sequence, which is undated, introduces Paul Manafort and Carter Page into the 'rogues' gallery', and contains some very interesting observations about the cyber side. So 'Source E' – described as an 'ethnic Russian close associate' of Trump – supposedly explains that the 'intelligence network' being used against Hillary Clinton comprises three elements ..."
"... All this stinks of a hastily-organised cover-up operation, set in motion after it became clear that highly compromising material was going to appear on 'WikiLeaks' – but which moved into higher gear after the murder of Rich. ..."
"... As was very evident at the time from, for example, comments on the 'MailOnline' site, very many people who disliked Hillary immediately took for granted that Rich had been 'Arkancided', so his death then became further evidence of her innate villainy, and also confirmation that he was, in fact, the source of the 'WikiLeaks' material. ..."
"... How's this for a motive? Imran Awan ran the DNC servers. When it was discovered in May/June that the emails had been downloaded, a search was launched and suspicion fell on Seth. Worried that the Pakistani penetration of the DNC and the Congress might be uncovered, Seth was silenced. I offer this as one possible theory. ..."
"... I think it is very much a possible theory. And indeed, reading what Mark McCarty and Eric Newhill wrote, I think I may have greatly underestimated the extent to which people on Hillary's side could have thought Seth Rich too dangerous to be left alive ..."
"... One point raised by Eric's comments. It seems to me quite likely that the alarm was in fact raised by monitoring what came in to WikiLeaks, rather than what went out of the DNC. If this was so, however, it would be less likely that the monitoring was done directly by the CIA/NSA. It would be much more likely that this was in the first instance primarily an MI6/GCHQ function. ..."
"... If I had the talent and energy, I might write a sequel to the 'Quiet American', to be entitled 'The Noisy Englishmen.' It would feature a series of inept conspiracies, involving ludicrous means used in support of preposterous ends, necessitating one ham-fisted cover-up after another. ..."
"... The central characters might be loosely based on Christopher Steele, Matt Tait, Eliot Higgins, and our former UN Ambassador Matthew Rycroft, author of the July 2002 Downing Street memorandum, in which Sir Richard Dearlove was quoted explaining how, in Washington, 'the intelligence and the facts were being fixed around the policy.' ..."
"... Guccifer 2.0 was nothing but an elaborate joke. ..."
The request related to four categories of material. The first had to do with
communications between Rich and a variety of people. It is interesting that the names of
three figures with whom it is not suggested he communicated are Included, the precise
phrasing being 'David Kendall, Cheryl Mills, and Heather Samuelson are the attorneys who
represented Hillary Clinton.'
Apparently Clevenger has been trying, so far unsuccessfully, to get the trio investigated
in relation to the deletion of e-mails from the secret server.
The second category relates to material concerning phone calls involving Rich on the day
he died and the previous day, the third to possible financial transactions involved him and
an interesting range of people.
The fourth category covers correspondence involving people in or involved with
Congress.
The NSA response refers to an earlier reply dated 7 November 2017 in relation to the first
three categories. So far I cannot trace this, but I would assume that this refused access to
the material – if it did not there would clearly be rather more than fifteen documents
with 32 pages. So these presumably all relate to communications involving Congress.
Another important thread in all this relates to the 10 May 2016 meeting between George
Papadopoulos and Alexander Downer. Information has been trickling out about what the former
said in his interview with members of the House Judiciary and House Oversight Committees on
Thursday. And the episode is dealt with in a book by the 'Washington Post' reporter Greg
Miller, released earlier this month.
The sequence appears to have been that Papodopoulos was quoted in an interview in the
'Times' on 4 May 2016 saying that our then Prime Minister, David Cameron, should apologise
for calling Trump 'divisive, stupid and wrong'. Two days later, an Australian embassy
official who knew him suggested that Papadopoulos meet Downer.
According to the version restated by Miller, the FIB 'Crossfire Hurricane' investigation
opened on 31 July, following the 'WikiLeaks' publication of the DNC emails on 22 July –
with supposedly a belated communication from Downer about the Papadopoulos meeting being an
important trigger. If you work for the 'Washington Post', you will of course take all this on
trust. Serious journalists would not.
While the complications of the role of the mysterious Maltese Joseph Mifsud still do not
seem adequately ironed out, the suggestion that he told Papadopoulos that he had learned that
the Russian government had 'dirt' on Clinton in the form of 'thousands' of her emails may
well be true. Moreover, it would not necessarily be part of an entrapment operation.
It is perfectly possible that Mifsud did actually retail what he had heard in Moscow, and
while this could have been inaccurate gossip, it could also have been accurate.
As I have said before, if there was anything I would find more surprising than the notion
that the DNC material came to 'WikiLeaks' from the Russians, it would be that these could not
penetrate the obviously appallingly lax security not just of Clinton's server but of the
whole Democratic network. (People who could hire the Awan clan are obviously either totally
inept at security or totally unconcerned about it.)
At that point, one comes up against the question of how much substance there is in the
claims by Yaacov Apelbaum about the central role in 'Russiagate' of the Hakluyt/Holdingham
group, with which Downer was certainly involved.
A possible scenario then would be that, some time in late April or early May, the kind of
surveillance on Assange and figures known to be associated with him which we can be
reasonably confident was being carried out both by GCHQ and MI6 alerted people to the fact
that there had been a leak of material from the DNC.
The accident of Cameron's – characteristically foolish – statement and the
Papadopoulos interview could then have led on to his meeting with Downer being set up, at
almost exactly the time when 'CrowdStrike' was beginning to work on the DNC servers.
What could have been a piece of accurate gossip out of Russia – although of course
it could have been inaccurate gossip or indeed planted disinformation – then encouraged
the notion that the leak could be treated as a hack.
Having gone down that route, the possibility of Seth Rich talking obviously became acutely
dangerous to all kinds of people.
An accurate account of what was happened was finally passed to 'Fox News', sourced in
substantial measure from figures involved with Assange, but the company 'chickened out' in
the face of pressure. The Malia Zimmerman story, incidentally, can be viewed at
http://www.raidersmerciless... .
If the FOIA request is authentic then it would be in the FOIA logs of the agency which are
themselves FOIA-able (in general anyway).
I would speculate that the material might show that they rooted around for stuff like
this, due to the media attention, and thus, some records exist about the idea.
Also re the metadata timing, while the idea of fast copies is reasonable, it is also
possible to write a small script which would calculate a fresh set of datetime values at a
different rate than the original, wouldn't this be less than 30 lines? (like they could have
simply overwritten the metadata date values, from slower copying to an illusion of faster
copying.)
Excellent summary. How did the author get the info on NSA's response to the FOIA request? -
cant find it otherwise online.
If Seth had made no attempt to contact Wikileaks - and if the FBI didn't look at his
laptop because "we don't investigate murders", then why does the NSA have 32 pages of
secret/top secret memos on him?
This article should have cited the Sy Hersh phone tape - Sy, via Butowsky, is the evident
source of the Fox report:
With the leaks already out, if they wanted to make an example, they could have made his life
hell and heaped blame on him for them losing the election, they could have made an example
out of him without taking needless risks and without leaving anything to ambiguity (so that
it would unquestionably deter others from doing the same).
So, even if his death wasn't just him accidentally getting shot twice in the torso during
a struggle following a bungled robbery attempt in which nothing was stolen... revenge still
would have been a questionable motive.
I'd say more but it's probably best for the sake of self-preservation and to prevent
opponents from strawman attacks if I don't. Good luck figuring out who could have had a
motive.
I don't think that revenge had anything to do with it. If Seth was the real leaker, he was in
a position to blow apart the Guccifer 2.0 scam which was the centerpiece of the "Russia
interfered" hoax. The conspirators would be much more secure with him out of the way. Also, I
suspect that Shawn Lucas may have been one of the friends of Seth who - according to Sy
Hersh's account - had access to Seth's dropbox. So that might explain his very mysterious
death - a drug overdose involving multiple drugs in someone never known to use drugs.
On the question of who might have had a motive to kill Seth Rich, some aspects of the
background are worth bearing in mind.
It is very clear that Hillary Clinton divides opinion, very sharply – actually, in
Britain almost as much as in the United States. On the one hand, I have found even people
whose judgement I would once have trusted quite extraordinarily reluctant to accept that
there was anything reprehensible about her glaring security breaches, let alone about
anything else she has done.
On the other, there are many people who loathe her and her husband so much that they will
believe any mud that is slung at the pair.
What is clear is that, both from a cybersecurity and other perspectives – the Awan
family saga being an obvious instance, and the networks in which Huma Abedin is involved
perhaps another – the whole Democratic apparatus in which Hillary was a central figure
was as leaky as an old sieve.
In such a situation, if I was for example Vladimir Putin, and none of my intelligence
services had been able to supply me with something close to a complete set of Hillary
Clinton's emails, I would have wanted to know why.
But that, of course, emphatically does not mean that the Russians are a likely conduit for
material to have reached Assange. And it also means that, if by any chance Putin and General
Gerasimov, who has overall responsibility for the Main Directorate of the General Staff, had
decided they wanted the material made public, they could have been expected to look for
'plausible deniability.'
When the ex-GCHQ 'twerp' Matt Tait, then supposedly running a consultancy, 'Capital Alpha
Security', which only ever filed 'accounts for a dormant company', and has now been
compulsorily wound up, immediately produced evidence backing up the incoherent claims by
Dmitri Alperovitch of 'CrowdStrike', it was clear that we were dealing with an amateurish
cover-up.
The notion that the name and patronymic 'Felix Dzerzhinsky' is likely to have been used by
the Main Directorate, previously known as the GRU, could only have been dreamed up by people
who are totally ignorant of the history of the relations between the General Staff and the
'Cheka' in the early Soviet period, or, at least, are relying on the ignorance of others.
In addition to this, we have the fact that the initial memoranda in the dossier published
by 'BuzzFeed' and – supposedly – authored by Christopher Steele, are both a mess,
and contradict the version put out by Alperovitch and Tait. The Ellen Nakashima piece was on
14 June, the first memorandum, which contained the 'golden showers' claim, is dated 20 June
– which of course may not be accurate.
There is then a pause, until the first treatment of Russian cyber operations, in a
memorandum dated '26 July 2015.' This is clearly a mistype for 2016, so that the date, if
correct, is more than a fortnight after the murder of Rich, which was on 10 July. This
memorandum makes no mention of the GRU, claims that 'FSB leads on cyber', and also that there
had been 'limited success in attacking top foreign targets'.
The next memorandum in the sequence, which is undated, introduces Paul Manafort and Carter
Page into the 'rogues' gallery', and contains some very interesting observations about the
cyber side. So 'Source E' – described as an 'ethnic Russian close associate' of Trump
– supposedly explains that the 'intelligence network' being used against Hillary
Clinton comprises three elements:
'Firstly there were agents/facilitators within the Democratic Party structure itself;
secondly Russian emigre and associated offensive cyber operators based in the US; and
thirdly, state-sponsored cyber operatives working in Russia.'
The fourth memorandum, dated 19 July, which if accurate means it would have had to have
been written before the second, then makes the accusations about the secret meetings between
Page and Sechin.
All this stinks of a hastily-organised cover-up operation, set in motion after it became
clear that highly compromising material was going to appear on 'WikiLeaks' – but which
moved into higher gear after the murder of Rich.
The reference to 'agents/facilitators within the Democratic Party itself' reads as though
it might well have been intended to provide a basis for a 'fall-back' position, if either the
problems of the 'hacking' story became too glaring, or it became impossible to prevent more
information coming out about the role of Rich in supplying material to WikiLeaks.
Also perhaps relevant is the fact that the initial meeting between Carter Page and Stefan
Halper occurred at a symposium in Cambridge, UK, entitled '2016's Race to Change the World',
which opened on 11 July, the day after Rich's death – and was also attended by Sir
Richard Dearlove.
All this adds to the strong impression that panic which may well have been materially
increased by Rich's murder could have been one of the reasons why the 'cover-up' took off
into a kind of stratosphere of absurdity in the period that followed it.
Reverting to the question you raise of possible motives for the murder, precisely what the
panic suggests is indeed that it is not obvious that anyone in the Democratic Party apparatus
had any incentive to assassinate Rich.
As was very evident at the time from, for example, comments on the 'MailOnline' site, very
many people who disliked Hillary immediately took for granted that Rich had been
'Arkancided', so his death then became further evidence of her innate villainy, and also
confirmation that he was, in fact, the source of the 'WikiLeaks' material.
However, precisely because of the sieve-like nature of the Democratic Party apparatus, a
situation had been created where there were actually a wide variety of people, in a wide
variety of places, who could have been taking an intense interest in the kind of material
which appeared on 'WikiLeaks.'
Such people might have been able, through all kinds of routes, to find out a good deal
both about what had been leaked, how and why, and what might be leaked in the future.
While I agree that revenge is not the most obvious motive, there are two qualifications.
As we have seen with MBS, people can badly misjudge the impact of their actions, which
becomes more relevant if one starts casting the net wider in looking for possible suspects.
Also, preventing further disclosures could conceivably have been a motive.
Equally, however, it is not entirely beyond the bounds of possibility that someone who was
well aware of the conclusions people would draw could have seen having Rich murdered as a way
of striking at Hillary.
A regrettable consequence of the way in which it has been possible to use atrocity to
shape 'narratives', which has been facilitated by the increasingly patent disinterest of the
mainstream media in trying to get at the truth, is that there are very many players who, for
diverse reasons, could have seen their interests furthered by an assassination of this
kind.
How's this for a motive? Imran Awan ran the DNC servers. When it was discovered in May/June
that the emails had been downloaded, a search was launched and suspicion fell on Seth.
Worried that the Pakistani penetration of the DNC and the Congress might be uncovered, Seth
was silenced. I offer this as one possible theory.
I think it is very much a possible theory. And indeed, reading what Mark McCarty and Eric
Newhill wrote, I think I may have greatly underestimated the extent to which people on
Hillary's side could have thought Seth Rich too dangerous to be left alive.
And I also may not have have given adequate weight to the possibility that a not
particularly unnatural fear could have overridden the patent dangers involved in following
what I should perhaps have seen as an obvious logic.
One point raised by Eric's comments. It seems to me quite likely that the alarm was in
fact raised by monitoring what came in to WikiLeaks, rather than what went out of the DNC. If
this was so, however, it would be less likely that the monitoring was done directly by the
CIA/NSA. It would be much more likely that this was in the first instance primarily an
MI6/GCHQ function.
It may or may not be relevant here that Craig Murray has given a lot of people a lot of
grief – not least, in exposing the way that 'loops of lies' about 'SIGINT' were used in
the attempt to use the 'false flag' at Ghouta to inveige you and us into another disastrous
intervention in the Middle East.
Be that as it may, it seems to me a reasonable hypothesis that an enormous amount of
effort – including both 'HUMINT' and 'SIGINT' – has been deployed by British
intelligence agencies to ensure that all channels by which information could pass to and from
Assange are monitored.
Of particular interest could have been the kind of covert means of organising payments
which may have been used to transfer money to Seth Rich and his brother.
One might then be some way towards a better explanation of some of the absurd
incoherencies in the stories told by and about 'CrowdStrike', which struck a lot of us quite
early.
It is perfectly possible that 7 May is the actual date on which the company was called in.
However, this would not have been because a problem with the DNC computer systems had been
identified by that organisation – but because a receipt of information by 'WikiLeaks'
had been identified, and probably by the British.
At that point, it is perfectly possible that Alperovitch et al identified many 'hacks'
into the servers, some of which could indeed have been by organisations and individuals which
could perfectly possibly be linked to the Russians (but with the fact not being palpable,
because these would have looked for 'plausible deniability.')
Quite rapidly, the 'real' investigation, of which that by 'CrowdStrike' could have been a
part, but only part, would have identified Rich. But this would only have happened in time
for him to stop sending material originating later than 25 May. The search for a 'cover
story' would have begun at some time during this period.
The first stage in this would have involved the instruction to leave all laptops in the
office on 10 June. Thereafter, the attempts to create a 'cover story' developed rather
rapidly.
It would then becomes unsurprising that a former GCHQ person – Matt Tait –
should have played an important role, but also that the integration of the different parts of
the story was, to put it mildly, imperfect.
Part of this, however, is also likely to have had to do with the fact that both Glenn
Simpson and Christopher Steele are, quite patently, incompetent.
Unfortunately, I was 'away from base', celebrating a birthday with old friends, with
limited internet access, when the Colonel informed us that he had used 'Our Man in Havana' as
a teaching aid.
But it has become clear to me that an enormous amount of damage has resulted from the fact
that MSM journalists have read too much of the productions of David John Moore Cornwell (aka
John Le Carré), and not enough Graham Greene.
I am still trying to think this through, but another Graham Greene novel – 'The
Quiet American', of which the films are unfortunately awful, by contrast with that of 'Our
Man in Havana' – comes into the picture.
A key point about this is that 'tails wag dogs.'
So, having been persuaded that I had underestimated the likelihood of people in the
Hillary camp deciding that they had no realistic option but to remove Seth Rich from the
picture, it also occurs to me that a corollary of your suggestion is that a lot of other
people – among them, people involved with the Awans not in the United States –
might have thought that they had an overriding interest in so doing.
Moreover, they could realistically have calculated that – as with Alden Pyle when
General Thé escalates his 'false flags' – those who had thought they were in
control would then have had no realistic option but to cover up.
To digress, it seems to me likely that this is the premise on which MBS has operated
– and also, that a lot of people have given him every reason to think his confidence
was justified.
However, sometimes, when the 'tails' have been able to wag the 'dogs' for a very long
time, it goes to their head.
After contemplating the likely intelligence and propaganda efforts of HMG over the last 15
years or so I am puzzled as to motivation. Why? Why? The UK is now a regional power for which
events in places like Syria would seem to have little to do with the welfare of Britain. Why?
I suppose that the same question can be asked for the US and I have. In re "Our man in
Havana" I think there are many issues raised in the work that apply directly to the trade of
espionage.
The question why? is a very interesting but also very dispiriting one, but also one which
it is quite hard to get one's head round. I hope to have something more coherent to say about
it.
Among many reasons, however, there has been a kind of intellectual disintegration.
If I had the talent and energy, I might write a sequel to the 'Quiet American', to be
entitled 'The Noisy Englishmen.' It would feature a series of inept conspiracies, involving
ludicrous means used in support of preposterous ends, necessitating one ham-fisted cover-up
after another.
The central characters might be loosely based on Christopher Steele, Matt Tait, Eliot
Higgins, and our former UN Ambassador Matthew Rycroft, author of the July 2002 Downing Street
memorandum, in which Sir Richard Dearlove was quoted explaining how, in Washington, 'the
intelligence and the facts were being fixed around the policy.'
Subsequently, of course, he set about colluding in the process. And, sixteen years later,
Dearlove is still at it, with 'Russiagate' – and the product being actually accepted
much more uncritically by the MSM than it was then.
And that is one of the problems – nobody any longer pays any penalty for failure, or
indeed feels any sense of shame about it..
There is a 1990's British historian (whose name I've been trying to rediscover without
success) who wrote a sunny book saying Britain should return to its imperialist ways to bring
light to the dark and repressive world we live in. It was a great hit with Blair and his
henchmen. Blair used its arguments in his notorious 1999 Chicago neo-conservative/liberal
interventionist speech.
As the Colonel eloquently asks:
"I am puzzled as to motivation. Why? Why? The UK is now a regional power for which events
in places like Syria would seem to have little todo with the welfare of Britain. Why?"
I'd draw attention to "The Brideshead Revisited" generation especially at Oxford in the
early 80's. Unashamedly celebrating their wealth and upper middle class privately-educated
backgrounds, they viewed themselves as a gilded, golden generation, preened in narcissism,
adept at networking and self-promotion.
They are the generation now in power - politically, financially, in the deep state. Their
fantasy of again ruling the world (with American and Zionist aid) has led to a series of
catastrophic blunders and overreaches in both foreign and domestic policies. Our economic
power - the base of any imperial power - is shrinking daily. All the Oxfordites (chief
amongst them Theresa May, Boris Johnson and Michael Gove) are still playing Oxford Union/PPE
games and stabbing each other joyously in the back as though there's no tomorrow. It most
ressembles the halluciogenic decadence of the court of late Imperial Rome.
(I don't include the Maurice Cowling-ites in this fandango because they strike me as more
Little Englanders. Though Peterhouse is of course, shamefully, the HQ of the Henry Jackson
Society).
How did the DNC determine that Seth Rich did the download? They killed him on mere suspicion
that he could have been the insider stealing data? That seems like an extreme response
carried out on mere suspicion. The Awan/Pakistan connection was eventually revealed and it
went nowhere; basically fizzled out in the media. On the other hand, if one of our agencies
actually knew it was Rich passing info to Wikileaks via a spying program, and that Rich, as a
Sanders supporter, was doing so because he harbored deep animosity toward the Clinton
campaign and the DNC, then Rich would have to be silenced. This theory would implicate
members of the deep state. Perhaps, that is too far fetched or disturbing to consider?
Can you please clarify one point. You say Guccifer 2.0's DNC emails released in mid June,
2016 contain "meta data" and then that Binney analyzed "data" from an intrusion on July 5,
2016. Clearly Binney couldn't have analyzed Guccifer 2.0's emails meta data (inconsistent
timing) ... and could it be that Guccifer's hack was performed at the slower rate expected
over the internet? Thanks
But he went back and analyzed the docs released on 15 June as well. Please focus on the
central point--the FBI claims that Guccifer 2.0 is a GRU front but the meta data on the
documents don't support the claim that they were obtained via an internet hack.
When I turn something I am writing into a non sequitur, or worse reverse its meaning, I call
it a f*ck up (linguistically), correct it and thank anyone who cared enough to take the time
to read me in the first place and to lend me a hand. What I try not to do is to hide behind a
misapplied grammatical device. Know what I mean buttercup... ?
The NSA's FOIA response that they have traffic involving Rich and Assange reinforces both
Assange's assertion and Binney's analysis that the DNC was not hacked, the data was
downloaded. Assange's uncategorical denial that the Ruskies did it is important. It deserves
to remain unambiguous and not to be subject to uncontrolled ellipsisical seizure.
Guccifer 2.0 seemed pretty earnest. As yet we don't have much of a clue who he was working
for.
CIApedia story is a complete fabrication. And there might be connection between Seth murder and Avan brothers.
Notable quotes:
"... Now there is new information, courtesy of the National Security Agency aka NSA, that confirms that the NSA has Top Secret and Secret documents that are responsive to a FOIA request for material on Seth Rich and his contacts with Julian Assange ..."
"... While the content of these documents remain classified for now, they may provide documentary proof that Seth Rich "dropped boxed" the emails to Julian. If these documents are declassified, a big hole could be blown in the claim that Russia hacked the DNC. ..."
"... Is it really plausible that the perps would kill one person, fail to get anything of value from the homicide, then say "Oh shucks, that didn't work, won't do that again."? ..."
"... Yet there is no discussion of this of which I am aware, and the Wikipedia editors controlling the Wikipedia page for the murder of Seth Rich absolutely prohibit discussion, even on their "Talk Page" of such questions. E.g., their deletion of the question I asked here, under the heading "Why the "conspiracy theory" pejorative?" (which resulted in not only being deleted but a "Sanction" against me for daring to ask the question). ..."
"... CIA/NSA is already watching wikileaks due to Manning, etc) and "sees' that Rich has passed files. ..."
"... Intel filters up to Obama, Brennan, NSA people, Clinton and others that Rich has passed info to Wikileaks and then wikileaks announces and publishes the material. ..."
"... The DNC + Obama and other leftist deep staters concoct the Russian hacking meme to distract from the content of the material as well as to begin discredit Trump (and perhaps even develop a means of deposing him should he actually be elected). ..."
"... There is a connection between Seth and the Pakistani guy who had free rein with a lot of dem congresspeople's computers!!! His protector, Lil Debbie WS!!! There is a Podesta email where he states something to the effect that the person be taught a lesson as an example, guilty or not! ..."
If Russia had actually "hacked" the DNC emails then the National Security Agency would have
had proof of such activity. In fact, the NSA could have tracked such activity. But they did not
do that. That lack of evidence did not prevent a coordinated media campaign from spinning up to
pin the blame on Russia for the "theft" and to portray Donald Trump as Putin's lackey and
beneficiary.
Any effort to tell an alternative story has met with stout opposition. Fox News, for
example, came under withering fire after it published an article in May 2017 claiming that Seth
Rich, a young Democrat operative, had leaked DNC emails to Julian Assange at Wikileaks. The
family of Seth Rich reacted with fury and sued Fox, Malia Zimmerman and Ed Butowsky, but that
suit subsequently was dismissed.
Now there is new information, courtesy of the National Security Agency aka NSA, that
confirms that the NSA has Top Secret and Secret documents that are responsive to a FOIA request
for material on Seth Rich and his contacts with Julian Assange.
While the content of these
documents remain classified for now, they may provide documentary proof that Seth Rich "dropped
boxed" the emails to Julian. If these documents are declassified, a big hole could be blown in
the claim that Russia hacked the DNC.
There is a local angle to the Seth Rich murder story I have not seen discussed. Consider:
But the circumstances and facts surrounding the murder were strange.
Seth was shot in the back. Nothing was taken from his body -- not his
watch, not his wallet and not his credit cards.
The story promulgated by the MSM and Wikipedia is that the Washington DC MPD believe the
crime was a botched robbery.
But attempted robberies are not normally a unique event.
If it was a botched robbery, it seems almost certain that the perpetrator(s) would, having
failed in this attempt, try again to execute a robbery.
And use the same MO (modus operandi).
But I have seen no reports of other such homicide/robbery combinations.
If this was truly a unique event, how would that be possible? Is it really plausible that the perps would kill one person, fail to get anything of value
from the homicide, then say "Oh shucks, that didn't work, won't do that again."?
There certainly are reports of serial robberies in Washington.
Very hard to believe this is an exception.
Yet there is no discussion of this of which I am aware,
and the Wikipedia editors controlling the Wikipedia page for the
murder of Seth Rich absolutely prohibit discussion, even on their
"Talk Page" of such questions.
E.g., their deletion of the question I asked
here, under the heading "Why the "conspiracy theory" pejorative?"
(which resulted in not only being deleted but a "Sanction" against me for daring to ask the
question).
As a Sanders supporter, Rich was appalled by how the
DNC screwed Sanders (and maybe some other things he learned also contributed to his decision
to engage in espionage against the DNC)
Rich decides to expose DNC corruption.
Rich
downloads the files locally and then passes them to wikileaks.
CIA/NSA is already watching wikileaks due to Manning, etc) and "sees' that Rich has passed files.
Intel filters up to
Obama, Brennan, NSA people, Clinton and others that Rich has passed info to Wikileaks and
then wikileaks announces and publishes the material.
The DNC + Obama and other leftist
deep staters concoct the Russian hacking meme to distract from the content of the material as
well as to begin discredit Trump (and perhaps even develop a means of deposing him should he
actually be elected).
Rich is the wild card. He could confess that he did it all by
himself - and he could create a spectacle by explaining why.
8. They kill Rich to remove the
only serious threat to their nefarious plot....?
"Now there is new information, courtesy of the National Security Agency aka NSA, that
confirms that the NSA has Top Secret and Secret documents that are responsive to a FOIA
request for material on Seth Rich and his contacts with Julian Assange."
There is a connection between Seth and the Pakistani guy who had free rein with a lot of dem
congresspeople's computers!!! His protector, Lil Debbie WS!!! There is a Podesta email where he states something to the effect that the person be taught
a lesson as an example, guilty or not!
Obama strategy in Syria was replica of Clinton strategy in Yugoslavia during the Balkan Wars. Divide everybody up by ethnicity
or religion (Croats are Catholics, Serbians are Orthodox not to mention the various Muslims and Albanians lurking about), arm
them, create false flags to set them at each other's throats. Enjoy the results.
Obama like Clinton before him was a real wolve in sheep's clothing
Notable quotes:
"... Jackrabbit, I agree with Bevin. Obama was really useful to the deep state because, as the "First Black President" he was widely popular, not just inside the US but outside it as well. Before the 2016 election, there was a widespread hope inside the US elite that Hillary Clinton, as the "First Woman President" would be able to serve a similar function in giving US imperialism a pleasing face. ..."
"... Trump, by contrast, hurts the US deep state because his true nature as a greedy, incompetent egotist is just too blatantly obvious to too many people. And he won't follow a script, the way GW Bush usually did. That's why we see major sections of the US deep state going out of their way to be publically hostile towards Trump. ..."
But the notion that it is part of a complex and tightly scripted conspiracy in which he
plays his public part and the deep state play theirs, pretending to be at odds with each
other, is bizarre.
I would've agreed with you before Obama. I followed the criticisms of Obama from true
progressives closely. It was clear within 2 or 3 years that Obama was betraying his 'base'.
His lofty rhetoric didn't match his actions. His Nobel Peace Prize can only be viewed
today as a ruse. He talked of peace and fairness but worked behind the scenes to further the
establishment.
Fast forward to the 2016 election where Sanders was a sheepdog and Hillary ran a terrible
campaign. It's difficult to look back and not be at least somewhat suspicious of the 2016
election. A populist nationalist was what the Deep State NEEDED to face the threat from
Russia and China to their NWO project. And that is what they got. After recognizing the
threat in 2013-14 (when Russia countered the Empire in Syria and Ukraine).
Similar excuses are made for both Obama and Trump. We are told that they were FORCED to
succumb to Deep State scheming and political power. But a much more logical view is that
these "populists" know exactly what they are doing: they know what their 'job' is to serve
the establishment and act as the leader of the Deep State's political arm. In return they get
financial gain, social standing, and life long protection. Sweet.
Obama 'turned the page' on the Bush Administration's warmongering. He promised a more
peaceful USA. But he conducted covert wars and bragged of his drone targeting.
Trump 'turned the page' on Obama's deceitfulness. He promised to put 'America First' but
within months attacked Syria with missiles "for the babies". Evidence that his first attack
was prompted by a false flag didn't deter him from attacking AGAIN - also based on a false
flag. Trump is still helping the Saudis in Yemen. And he's not doing what's necessary to get
peace in Korea.
Obama promised 'transparency' ("Sunlight is the best disinfectant") but 'no drama' Obama
protected CIA torturers, NSA spies, and bankers. Trump promised to "drain the swamp" but has
welcomed oligarchs and neocons into his Administration.
How much sly BS do we have to see before people connect the dots? A real populist will
NEVER be elected in USA unless there is a revolution; USA political elites are fully
committed to a neoliberal economics that make society neofeudal, and a neoconservative-driven
foreign policy that demands full spectrum dominance that brooks no opposition to its NWO
goals.
Anyone who believes otherwise has drunk the Kool-Aid, an addictive, saccharine concoction,
provided without charge and in abundance.
Glenn Brown | Jan 5, 2019 10:27:14 PM |
39@ 10 17
Jackrabbit, I agree with Bevin. Obama was really useful to the deep state because, as the "First Black President" he
was widely popular, not just inside the US but outside it as well. Before the 2016 election, there was a widespread hope
inside the US elite that Hillary Clinton, as the "First Woman President" would be able to serve a similar function in giving
US imperialism a pleasing face.
Trump, by contrast, hurts the US deep state because his true nature as a greedy, incompetent egotist is just too
blatantly obvious to too many people. And he won't follow a script, the way GW Bush usually did. That's why we see major
sections of the US deep state going out of their way to be publically hostile towards Trump.
Yes, their public rejection of Trump is partly motivated by the need to be able to claim that Trump is an aberration from
all previous US Presidents, as opposed to Trump and his policies being just a particularly explicit continuation of the same
underlying trends.
But I see no reason to doubt that the US elites really wish they had someone as President who was better at supplying the
right propaganda and less obviously an incompetent fool. So I don't understand why you think the US oligarchy and deep state
would have thought they needed someone like Trump, or would have greatly preferred him to Hillary Clinton.
Russophobia is the standard deflection trick, designed to cement cracks in neoliberal society facade. And deep distrust of common
people toward neoliberal elite. With neoliberal elite completely immersed in its own groupthink, which reaches the level "Let them eat
cakes".
Notable quotes:
"... We have seen this play out in the US in the continuing obsession, fronted by Troll-Finder General Robert Mueller, over alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 US presidential election. And the same obsession has emerged in the UK, too, with politicians and pundits claiming that a shadowy network of Russian influence tipped the EU referendum in favour of Leave. ..."
"... It is never quite clear how the 'Russians' or 'Putin' did all this, beyond Facebook ads and decidedly dubious talk of so-called dark money. But then clarity is not the point for this stripe of Russia-maniac. He or she simply wants to believe that Trump or Brexit were not what they were. Not expressions of popular will. Not manifestations of popular discontent. Not democratic exercises. ..."
While Russia-mania is widespread among today's political and cultural elites, it is not uniform.
For an older, right-wing section of the Western political and media class, otherwise known as the Cold War Re-Enactment Society,
Russia looms large principally as a military, quasi-imperial threat. Jim Mattis, the former US marine and general, and now US defence
secretary, said Russia was responsible
for 'the biggest attack [on the world order] since World War Two'. Whether this is true or not is beside the point. What matters
is that Russia appears as a military aggressor. What matters is that Russia's actions in Ukraine – which were arguably a defensive
reaction to NATO and the EU's expansion into Russia's traditional ally – are grasped as an act of territorial aggrandisement. What
matters is that Russia's military operations in Syria – which, again, were arguably a pragmatic intervention to stabilise the West-stoked
chaos – are rendered as an expression of imperial aggression. What matters is that Russian state involvement in the poisoning of
the Skripals in Salisbury – which, given its failure, proved Russian incompetence – is presented as 'part of a pattern of Russian
aggression against Europe and its near neighbours, from the western Balkans to the Middle East', to
quote Theresa May.
And it matters because, if Russia is dressed up as the West's old Cold War adversary, just with a new McMafia logo, then the crumbling,
illegitimate and increasingly pointless postwar institutions through which Western elites have long ordered the world, suddenly look
just that little bit more solid, legitimate and purposeful. And none more so than NATO.
This is why NATO has this year been accompanying its statements
warning Russia to 'stop its reckless pattern of
behaviour' with some of the
largest military exercises since the fall of the Berlin Wall nearly three decades ago. Including one in November in Norway, involving
50,000 troops, 10,000 vehicles, 250 aircraft and 60 warships.
Then there is the newer form of Russia-mania. This has emerged from within the political and cultural elite that came to power
after the Cold War, ploughing an uninspiring third way between the seeming extremes of the 20th century's great ideologies. Broadly
social democratic in sentiment, and elitist and aloof in practice, this band of merry technocrats and their middle-class supporters
have found in 'Russia' a way to avoid having to face up to what the populist revolt reveals – that the majority of Western citizens
share neither their worldview nor their wealth. Instead, they use 'Russia' to displace the people as the source of discontent and
political revolt.
We have seen this play out in the US in the continuing obsession, fronted by Troll-Finder General Robert Mueller, over alleged
Russian meddling in the 2016 US presidential election. And the same obsession has emerged in the UK, too, with politicians and pundits
claiming that a shadowy network of Russian influence tipped the EU referendum in favour of Leave.
It is never quite clear how the 'Russians' or 'Putin' did all this, beyond Facebook ads and decidedly dubious talk of so-called
dark money. But then clarity is not the point for this stripe of Russia-maniac. He or she simply wants to believe that
Trump or
Brexit were not what they were. Not expressions of popular
will. Not manifestations of popular discontent. Not democratic exercises.
No, they were the result, as one Tory MP
put it , of 'the covert and overt forms of malign influence used by Moscow'.
Or, in
the words of an Observer columnist, 'a campaign that purported to be for the "left behind" was organised and funded by men with
links across the global network of far-right American demagogues and kleptomaniac dictators such as Putin'.
Such has been the determination to blame 'Russia' or 'Putin' for the political class's struggles, that in August Tom Watson, Labour's
conspiracy-theory-peddling deputy leader,
called for a public inquiry into an alleged Russian Brexit plot. '[Voters] need to know whether that referendum was stolen or
not', he said.
Such a call ought to be mocked. After all, it is absurd to think 'Russia', 'Putin' and the trolls are the power behind every populist
throne. But the claims aren't mocked – they're taken as calls to action. Think of anything viewed as a threat to our quaking political
and cultural elites in the West, and you can bet your bottom ruble that some state agency or columnist is busy identifying Putin
or one of his legion of bots and trolls as the source. The
gilet jaunes protests
in France?
Check . Climate change?
Check . Italy's Five Star Movement?
Check
.
And all this from a nation with a GDP
equivalent to Spain, an ageing, declining population, and a failing infrastructure. The reality of Russia is not that of a global
threat, but of a struggling state. Russia is weak. Yet in the minds of those clinging desperately to the status quo, 'Russia' has
never been more powerful.
The USA is treating Russia the same way it treated the USSR and run all kind of subversive operations against it.
Notable quotes:
"... This is Naked Capitalism fundraising week. 1440 donors have already invested in our efforts to combat corruption and predatory conduct, particularly in the financial realm. Please join us and participate via our donation page , which shows how to give via check, credit card, debit card, or PayPal. Read about why we're doing this fundraiser, what we've accomplished in the last year and our current goal, more original reporting . ..."
"... By John Helmer , the longest continuously serving foreign correspondent in Russia, and the only western journalist to direct his own bureau independent of single national or commercial ties. Helmer has also been a professor of political science, and an advisor to government heads in Greece, the United States, and Asia. He is the first and only member of a US presidential administration (Jimmy Carter) to establish himself in Russia. Originally published at Dances with Bears ..."
"... In June 1933, he bought the Washington Post at a bankruptcy auction, for $825,000 ..."
"... It [USA] has always been fighting on foreign soil since it was formed by violence against a lawful sovereign. ..."
"... This Vast Southern Empire ..."
"... A mentor in shamelessness: the man who taught Trump the power of publicity Roy Cohn, the lawyer who embraced infamy during the McCarthy hearings and Rosenberg trial, influenced Donald Trump to turn the tabloids into a soapbox ..."
"... Angels in America ..."
"... For the life of me, I still cannot figure out why people are in an absolute panic over Russian "agents" buying $100,000.00, or whatever, worth of advertising promoting either or both sides of the election when U.S.citizens and Political Parties spent over $1.6 billion. ..."
"... Are American citizens really so stupid as to fall for the amazingly, brilliantly conceived and placed $100K worth of Russian advertising, so clever that it superseded $1.6 billion worth of U.S. citizen ads? ..."
"... Or (to misquote Shakespeare/Macbeth) is it a tale told by propagandists, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing? ..."
Yves here. An important bit of history that can't be repeated too often: when the Clinton
Administration decided to move NATO into former Warsaw Pact countries, violating a
understanding made as part of the peaceful dissolution, George Kennan said it would prove to be
the worst geopolitical mistake the US ever made.
By John Helmer , the
longest continuously serving foreign correspondent in Russia, and the only western journalist
to direct his own bureau independent of single national or commercial ties. Helmer has also
been a professor of political science, and an advisor to government heads in Greece, the United
States, and Asia. He is the first and only member of a US presidential administration (Jimmy
Carter) to establish himself in Russia. Originally published at Dances with
Bears
Joseph Alsop and George Kennan started the kind of Russia-hating in Washington which, today,
President Vladimir Putin, like the businessmen around him, think of as a novelty that cannot
last for long.
Alsop was a fake news fabricator, and such a narcissist as to give the bow-ties he wore a
bad name. Kennan was a psychopath who alternated bouts of aggression to prove himself with
bouts of depression over his cowardice. For them, Russia was a suitable target. The Washington
Post was the newspaper which gave their lunacy public asylum. This, according to a fresh
history by a university professor from California, started in 1947, long before the arrival in
Washington of the anti-communist phobia known after the name of Senator Joseph McCarthy.
Russia-hating was an American upper-class phenomenon, cultivated in the offices, cocktail
parties, clubs, and mansions of the deep state, as it emerged out of World War II. It needed a
new enemy to thrive; it fastened on Russia (aka the Soviet Union) as the enemy.
McCarthyism was an American lower-class phenomenon. It focused on the loyalty or disloyalty
of the upper-class deep-staters. That wasn't the same thing as Russia-hating; Wall Street
bankers, Boston lawyers, homosexuals, Jews, communists, were all the enemy. As the Senator from
Wisconsin characterized it himself in 1952, "McCarthyism is Americanism with its sleeves
rolled." He implied – without a middle-class tie; certainly not an upper-class
bow-tie.
Russia was not an enemy which united the two American lunacies, for they hated each other
much more than they hated the Russians. The Soviet Politburo understood this better then than
the Kremlin does now.
Gregg Herken's The Georgetown
Set , is so named because it records the activities of Alsop, Kennan and several other
State Department, Central Intelligence Agency and White House officials who lived as neighbours
in the Georgetown district of the capital city, together with Katharine (Kay) and Philip
Graham, proprietor managers of the Washington Post. The district – once a chartered city
of Maryland and river port, which was absorbed into the federal District of Columbia in 1871 --
was expensive, relatively speaking then; more so now. The richest of the set, including Alsop,
had town houses in Georgetown, and rural retreats in Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and
Connecticut.
They were a set because because, as Herken said succinctly to an interviewer , "they got
together every Sunday for supper and, basically, they ran the country from those meetings." As
the book elaborates, they thought they were running the world. With a longer time lapse in
which to view the evidence, they were also losing it.
Newspapers exposed in the book for collaborating in all the deceits, failures and war crimes
of the history have reacted by calling
Herken's effort a "provincial corner". The New Yorker opined that the Russia-hating
and Russia war-making which Herken retells are dead and gone. "The guests at the Sunday
soirées no doubt felt that they were in the cockpit of history. But the United States is
a democracy, not a Wasp Ascendancy There was once an atmosphere of willingness that made a
system of bribes and information exchanges seem, to the people involved, simply a way of
working together for a common cause in a climate of public opinion that, unfortunately,
required secrecy. No one got rich from the arrangement. People just lost track of what was
inside their bubble and what was outside, as people tend to do. Vietnam was the reality check.
'I've Seen the Best of It' was the title Alsop gave to his memoirs. Things hadn't been the same
since, he felt. He was right about that, and we should be thankful." In the New York media
business these days it's possible to publish a selfie of pulling your own leg.
The Washington Post has deflected the indictment against itself by describing Herken's work
as "a very strange book (A) a rehash of the history of the Cold War as experienced in certain
Washington circles and (B) an almost obsessive recapitulation of the life and journalism of
Joseph Alsop." Alsop is dismissed as unworthy of a history at all because he was "utterly
repellent: arrogant, patronizing, imperious, uninterested in anyone except himself."
That's the truth about Alsop. The truth about the Washington Post is buried in this line by
the Post's books editor about the hand that fed him: "it must be very hard for people who did
not live through the '50s and '60s to understand how obsessed the American people were with the
threat from Moscow." That line appeared in
print on November 7, 2014. It was already history, that's to say, a misjudgement. How
monumentally mistaken is obvious now.
In covering the period from 1946 to 1975, Herken's research does repeat much of the history
of the Cold War which has been told elsewhere. It starts on February 22, 1946, the date of the
"Long Telegram", No. 511 -- Kennan's despatch from the US Embassy in Moscow to the State
Department, setting out his strategy of so-called containment and much more besides. Read it in
the declassified original
. Most of the war-fighting and other war crimes which the telegram set in motion under Kennan's
1948 rubrics, "organized political warfare" and "preventive direct action", are reported in
Herken's book; so too are Kennan's frequent funks, failures of conviction, reversals of
judgement, and pleas for help.
The book ends on December 30, 1974, the date of Alsop's last column. Alsop concluded with
the line: "I have never known the American people to be really badly wrong, if only they were
correctly and fully informed."
Herken shows how self-deluded and professionally delusional that was -- not because of
Alsop's character but because of his sources. Herken documents that they ran upwards from
foot-soldiers (also lubricious sailors) to presidents and cabinet secretaries. Herken doesn't
think the same of Kennan, who gets to walk off stage, aged 101, sounding more sceptical of
overthrowing Saddam Hussein than he ever was in his prime and in power to direct schemes of
what we call state terrorism today.
Left to right: Kennan died in 2005, aged 101; Alsop died in 1989 aged 78; Frank Wisner
died in 1965 aged 56. The deeper Herken gets into the private papers, the more he refers to his
subjects by their diminutives and nicknames – Joe, Oppie, Beetle, Dickie, the Crocodile,
Wig, Jack, Wiz, Soozle, Vangie, et al.
What is fresh about the sources is that Herken has had access to the private notes, letters
and diaries of the Alsop family; the Kennan diaries and letters; and the private papers of
Frank Wisner, the first director of covert operations against Russia. Wisner went mad and
killed himself, as did Graham. There's no doubt about the suicide outcome of their madness.
In the case of the mad ex-Defence Secretary James Forrestal his fatal jump from the window
of the Navy hospital in Bethesda, Maryland, in May 1949 might have been a homicidal push.
Herken concludes that Forrestal's death was "the first senior-ranking American casualty of the
Cold War." Herken thinks of their madness as anomalies. The history shows they were
normalities.
Missing from this history is any reference to official documents, now declassified; press
reporting of the time; or interviews with veterans of the same events but on other sides
– Russian and Soviet; British; German; French; Polish; Vietnamese; Chinese. This isn't so
much a fatal flaw in Herken's (right) book as the reason why his history is repeating itself
today. Call this a variation on Karl's Marx's apothegm that history starts as tragedy and
repeats itself as farce. Herken's blindness to this is as revealing as the Washington Post's
madness, not yet as suicidal as its former proprietor's, today.
So mesmerized is Herken by the moneyed backgrounds of his subjects and sources, and by the
amount of black cash from the US Government they spent on operations, he forgets to report what
they did to fill their own pockets. The claim by the New Yorker that "no one got rich from the
arrangement" – Alsop's fake news fabrications – is false, but Herken touches only
in passing on how they made (or kept) their money. Alsop's column, for example, was sold to 200
newspapers, and at one time claimed a readership of 25 million. His family inheritance is
recorded, but not its annual revenue value. Alsop's payola included silk shirts from Alfred
Kohlberg, a textile importer from China who backed Chiang Kai-shek against Mao Tse-tung, as did
Alsop. Alsop's patrons included Convair (General Dynamics), the company building the US Air
Force Atlas missile for procurement of which Alsop reported fictions about Soviet missile
strength.
In the US power which Alsop, Kennan and Wisner believed without hesitation, Herken is not
less a believer. "Anything could be achieved", Herken quotes a New York Times reporter quoting
Wisner. When the US force multiple changed, however, and US allies or agents were outgunned,
outspent, outnumbered, or outwitted, they were unable to acknowledge miscalculation,
attributing defeat instead to the superior force or guile of their adversaries, especially the
Russians.
This is madness, and there is good reason for recognizing the symptoms again. In 1958, when
Herken says Wisner's paranoid manias were becoming obvious to his friends and colleagues,
"Frank put forward a theory that the careless comment which had gotten George Kennan kicked out
of the Soviet Union was evidence the Soviets had succeeded in an area where the CIA's own
scientists had failed: mind control. Some agency hands alleged that Wisner attributed his own
increasingly bizarre behaviour to the Kremlin's sly manipulation."
From Washington in 1958, fast forward to Washington in 2017; for mind control and sly
manipulation, read Russian hacking and cyber warfare. From Wisner's and Kennan's balloon drops
of leaflets and broadcasts by Radio Free Europe, fast forward to Russia Today Television and
Russian infiltrations of Twitter, Google, the Democratic National Committee, and the Trump
organization.
It stands to reason (ahem!) that if you think what the US Government and its journalists
were doing then was mad, you are might conclude that what they is doing now is just as mad
– and not very different. When the incumbent president and his Secretary of State
publicly call for IQ tests on each other, all reason has failed. "The nation," as Alsop had
written, "had simply taken leave of all sense of proportion." That was in March 1954.
If you fast forward to now, there's one difference. Today the lunatic Russia warfighters
don't retire. They also don't fade away. Today's sleek successors to mad Wisner and mad Graham
sleep easily in their beds a-nights. For what they've done and do, they wouldn't dream of
taking shotguns to their heads.
Herken retells the story of the campaign Alsop waged against McCarthyism at the State
Department, against McCarthy himself, and the vulnerability Alsop himself presented until the
Boston lawyer Joseph Welch put an end to McCarthy on June 9, 1954 : "Have you no sense of decency,
sir, at long last?" Welch famously said. "Have you left no sense of decency?" The recurring
history reveals why, even if there are plenty of people to say the same thing today to the
Washington Post, New York Times, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, the madness will continue
repeating itself.
Wisner's son married the stepmother of Nicolas Sarkozy. This facilitated the Sarkozy
family's links with Wall Street (Guillaume at Credit Suisse and Carlyle and Nicolas'
stepdaughter Judith Martin (daughter of France's Bruce Forsyth and Cecilia Albeniz) at Morgan
Stanley, the latter at Canary Wharf).
A year ago, before his elimination in the Republicain primary, Sarko met executives from
Goldman Sachs to discuss a move from London to Paris due to Brexit. Sarko promised bespoke
personal and corporate tax arrangements in return for a relocation and fanfare. Sarko was
keen on the fanfare and planned to exploit that, thinking it would be a PR coup soon between
his election and the August shut down.
Kay Graham was the daughter of a former partner at Lazard Freres. Her father bought the
WaPo after his retirement. The family and its plaything rag formed part of Operation
Mockingbird.
Also worth mentioning that he purchased the WaPo in 1933. Per wikipedia, " In June
1933, he bought the Washington Post at a bankruptcy auction, for $825,000 ".
Pre-sages Bezos buying the WaPo on the cheap too. Can't say I would have thought of Bezos
as being a Russia scare-monger. I guess it's the flip-side of regime change. If you're in the
regime preservation business, perhaps that means regime changing your enemies. In which case,
never let a good crisis go to waste. And if a crisis isn't available well if a newspaper
can't figure out how to manufacture a crisis out of the available pool of evil-doers, then
really why even have a newspaper?
Bezos to Russia, "It's nothing personal, it's just business". Bezos to Trump, "It's
personal."
Seems like that is the under the radar amount of supposed funding for Fronts.
Slowly it dawned on me, or I simply put two and two together realizing I was working for a
CIA/MI6 Front. Explained why mediocrities, liars & thieves had secure jobs.
American Airlines is most probably the inheritor of Air America's freight operations,
station agents, & to pilots a great system for overt & covert operations gets 685
million a year.
IN-Q-TEL the CIA retirement benefits fund for agents gets 685 million as well.
I don't remember where I read the figures. See what you find out?
When I worked the independent movie scene in NYC all the budgets were 100 thousand
dollars.
Now how you know, or the commentators know what they are saying here, I don't know. We are
aware that the US power structure found it convenient to blame, or imply the blame for all
that was stupid and violent in politics in the US on the Russians who as a secretive
organization by habit made the picture plausible.
If oligarchs money fleeing Russia came to America and was a source of Industrial Service
Banking it would be a victory. As it is the working classes in the US and Russia end up with
the same leaders only different.
As it is the game is the same with it being real estate and art.
If there is one thing about Russians, they lust to possess beauty.
Otherwise from my experience they are difficult to do business with and you get more respect
when you up front don't trust them so they can act like Russians.
I pitched to the Atlantic "Statehood for Russia" when the Cold War supposedly ended.
With the propaganda going into what Americans look at and voter system hacking it is evident
they want to be a state.
Outstanding article and excellent commentary points and to elaborate just on several facts
stated: ("Wisner went mad and killed himself, as did Graham.") -- this might have been the
case, but most curiously, both Wisner and Graham were first treated at Chestnut Lodge
Sanitarium in Rockville, MD at the CIA's MK ULTRA wing, then they both would return home and
commit suicide?! This was also the facility where the CIA would send a research nutritionist
(do not know whether they connived her, or it was against her will, etc., but she did not
work for the Agency) who was researching an Amazonian plant with unique properties, and after
her treatment, she never mentioned said plant or research ever again?!.
Also, this is where Richard Helms, then CIA director, had his famous auto accident right
before giving testimony before the Church Committee (when he perjured himself and later was
officially censured by Congress). Helms claimed he was seeing a psychoanalyst (basis for a
simpleton movie from Hollywood called "The President's Analyst" -- probably involved Harry
Weinstein) -- but it was because Helms was shredding all the MK ULTRA files kept there prior
to appearing before the Church Committee.
And Joe Alsop was cousin to several CIA dudes, Kermit Roosevelt and Archibald Roosevelt,
whereupon he received his "tips" or misinformation.
And the Colonel explains Sarkozy's familial background quite nicely, but to further add it
was Wisner and John Negroponte, working through the Franco-American Foundation, who were
supposed to be behind the concocted false scandals against Sarkozy's presidential opponent
which allowed Sarkozy to win the election the first time. (The second time, Sarkozy was
behind that NYC airport "incident" which blow up in his face, resulting in a Hollande
victory.)
There are further Wall Street links in the Sarkozy family. Olivier, half-brother of
Nicolas, was at CS First Boston and worked briefly with our company on an engagement some
years ago. His colleagues remarked on his pedigree and ability to open doors where others
couldn't.
So the USA had no hand in arming Japan and encouraging them to attack Russia, successfully
in 1904? Who stirred up Japan, forcing them with battleships to trade, actually firing on
Japan. USA has always had war plans for the invasion of every country on Earth, since the Civil
War, if not before.
It has always been fighting on foreign soil since it was formed by violence against a
lawful sovereign. Except for 20 years!!!
WWII was a result of rearmament of Germany, by USA and its banker allies. They wanted USSR
in ashes. In the end they had to rescue Germany, failing in that and losing half of Europe.
That must be smart!
It [USA] has always been fighting on foreign soil since it was formed by violence
against a lawful sovereign.
The monarchy of George III? Lawful sovereign? Who elected George III? Nobody. Who elected
the members of Parliament? Nobody in America, and only adult males who could meet stringent
properly requirements in Britain. Britain in 1775/1776 was definitely not a lawful sovereign
over any territory in the North American continent.
Don't forget Woody Wilson sending the troops to Vladivostok after WW1. Communism was
always regarded as an existential threat by the then WASPy, now not so WASPy elites.
And re Kennan, the recent Ken Burns Vietnam documentary shows him casting doubts on the
Vietnam intervention at a Congressional hearing. Kennan said the policy was like the elephant
being terrified of the mouse. So his Russia obsession does seem to have been more about power
rivalry than ideological apostasy.
If this is true, why did the US send 17.5 M tons of material to the USSR, through
Lend Lease ,
during WW2?
Roughly 17.5 million tons of military equipment, vehicles, industrial supplies, and food
were shipped from the Western Hemisphere to the USSR, 94% coming from the US. For
comparison, a total of 22 million tons landed in Europe to supply American forces from
January 1942 to May 1945.
One item typical of many was a tire plant that was lifted bodily from the Ford Company's
River Rouge Plant and transferred to the USSR. The 1947 money value of the supplies and
services amounted to about eleven billion dollars.
Wasn't Henry Ford supposed to be a Na*i?
While repayment of the interest-free loans was required after the end of the war under
the act, in practice the U.S. did not expect to be repaid by the USSR after the war. The
U.S. received $2M in reverse Lend-Lease from the USSR. This was mostly in the form of
landing, servicing, and refueling of transport aircraft; some industrial machinery and rare
minerals were sent to the U.S. The U.S. asked for $1.3B at the cessation of hostilities to
settle the debt, but was only offered $170M by the USSR. The dispute remained unresolved
until 1972, when the U.S. accepted an offer from the USSR to repay $722M linked to grain
shipments from the U.S., with the remainder being written off.
So $722M in 1972 dollars for $11B in 1947 dollars?
If this is true, why did the US send 17.5 M tons of material to the USSR, through Lend
Lease, during WW2?
They suspended their death wish because without the USSR they could very well have lost to
the Nazis. Short of a successful invasion of Britain, the availability to the Nazis of a
small portion of the tank and aerial forces that were getting chewed up in the Soviet Union
would have led to the easy conquest of North Africa and the loss of the Suez canal. That
would have been hard for the Allies to recover from. Once the war was won it was time to
shift back into playing the innocent party responding to Soviet aggression.
The U.S. also sent $20 million in food aid to the Soviets during the famine of 1921-1922.
The U.S. attitude towards Russia / Soviet Union is complex and contradictory. Members of the
U.S. establishment mostly opposed the Soviets, but future President Herbert Hoover's role in
the famine relief project shows that there were exceptions.
By the 1930s, the behavior of Stalin justified opposition to the Soviets, although I think
that for a long time, many (perhaps most) of the Americans who opposed them did so for the
wrong reasons.
Hoover's role in famine relief was about more than food distribution. By 1911-1912 or so
he was director of the Russo-Asiatic Corporation and had extensive oil, mining, and timber
interests in Russia, all of which made him very, very wealthy. These interests were
relinquished prior to the Revolution, which Hoover vehemently opposed. According to Sayers
and Kahn in The Great Conspiracy Against Russia, "He was to remain one of the world's
bitterest foes of the Soviet Government for the rest of his life. It is a fact, whatever his
personal motive may have been, that American food sustained the White Russians and fed the
storm troops of the most reactionary regimes in Europe which were engaged in suppressing the
upsurge of democracy after the First World War. Thus American relief became a weapon against
the peoples' movements in Europe."
This is Disaster Capitalism 100 years ago.
The quote is footnoted. The footnote reads: "Herbert Hoover's activities as Food Relief
Administrator were directed toward giving aid to the White Russians and withholding all
supplies to the Soviets. Hundreds of thousands starved in Soviet territory. When, finally,
Hoover bowed to public pressure and sent some food to the Soviets he continued according to a
statement by a Near East Relief official in the New York World in April, 1922 -- to
'interfere with the collection of funds for famine-stricken Russia.' In February, 1992, when
Hoover was Secretary of Commerce, the New York Globe made this editorial comment:
'Bureaucrats centered throughout the Department of Justice, the Department of State and the
Department of Commerce for purposes of publicity are carrying on a private war with the
Bolshevist Government Washington propaganda has grown to menacing proportions Messrs. Hughes
and Hoover and Dougherty will do well to clean their houses before public irritation reaches
too high a point. The American people will not long endure a presumptuous bureaucracy which
for its own wretched purposes is willing to let millions of innocent people die."
In 1919, when the American Relief Administration first offered to help Russia, it's very
plausible that they only wanted to help the regions under White control. But the Soviets
refused foreign assistance at that time. In 1921, when the famine was worse, the Whites
didn't control much outside of portions of Siberia. I think the worst areas of famine were in
eastern Ukraine and the nearby parts of Russia. I don't think the Whites controlled any of
that territory any longer, but I could be wrong. I think that Hoover's aid helped a lot of
people in Soviet areas. And yes, he was anti-communist.
Also there was considerable sympathy towards Germany among the Latin American elites.
Several countries, such as Paraguay and Argentina, would likely have jumped aboard the Axis
bandwagon if it began to look like they'd come out on top.
The percentage of battle deaths incurred by the Germans on the Eastern front was at a
minimum 70%, and by some counts over 90%. If Operation Barbarosa had not been launched in
1941 and a truce had held on that front it is unlikely that the Anglo-American alliance could
have sustained a a landing on continental Europe in the west. This would have especially been
the case if the Germans, instead of putting their chips on Barbarosa, had been able to
successfully shut off British use of the Suez Canal, and thus deprive them of ready access to
the resources from India and especially the oil from Iran. Given British naval dominance of
the Mediterranean, however, this would have been difficult unless they were able to negotiate
passage to the Levant by land through Turkey and the Balkans.
Agreed. Instead of peddling diagnoses he would do well to stick with the attacking the
crudity of Kennan's view of world affairs. Kennan saw the Soviets as akin to "windup toys"
that were somehow driven to expand. In this he completely failed to account for the fact that
the Soviets were potentially autarchic, while the capitalist West was governed by
accumulation imperatives that pushed for market expansion. He doesn't bother himself with the
problem but jumps right into rationalizing base construction and an arms race. That Kennan is
seen as a kind of geostrategic genius speaks volumes regarding the self-deluded mindlessness
of US foreign policy.
This article sounds more like an angry emotional outburst from Helmer. It wouldn't
surprise me if he's one of the people taking a lot of crap in all this Russian propaganda
hysteria.
Yes, I know about his depression. But the claim that he was a psychopath? That stretches
believability. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, John Wayne Gacy, and Ted Bundy were examples of
psychopaths. I don't think that George Kennan was like them.
Russia-phobia is actually 100 years old. Strangely, I haven't seen any commemoration of
the centenary of 1917 Revolution. Nobody can deny that it was a world-changing event.
The Bolshevik Revolution, that overtook the Kerensky Revolution shocked the world to the
core, particularly the Church. It quickly alienated even syndicalists and anarchists, because
it developed into a strong centralized state, not the bottom up movement that Lenin found
when he entered Petrograd.
The last 4 years of Nato intervention in the Baltics, Poland and
the Ukraine have shown that the world has never recovered from that shock. British opposition
to Russia goes even deeper, back to the Great Game and the Crimean War. Without Churchill
vehemently opposing Russia in general and Stalin in particular would there even be a Nato?
History is more about continuity than discontinuity.
I'm glad you mentioned Churchill. Since the first Directors of the OSS and the CIA were
complete Anglophiles and modeled their collection techniques on Britian's SIS (MI-6) (until,
of course, those famous British spies were uncovered), it is not surprising that our first
after the war "enemies" were the same as Churchill's enemies
I have a sneaking suspicion that the troubles of the world have such a basic foundation
that if they are ever solved, people will look back, marveling at the simplicity of the
answers.
Humans have always faced the dilemma of how to organize society. The main sticking points
being how to control personal ambition in ones own group and how to get the work done that
needs doing- including protecting oneself form ones neighbors who are dealing with the same
issues.
Capitalism, and the west in general, seem to turn personal ambition loose. It takes a
persons personal confrontation and experience with the universe and makes that the primary
motivator for organization. It serves to reward the aggressive while insulating failure as a
personal shortcoming, not a flaw in the system. The Catholic religion, which underpins such a
system by giving it a spiritual legitimacy. The individual can have a personal relationship
with the creator of the universe- with the moderating teaching of caring for the poor to curb
excessive personal ambition or too close a connection. That hasn't worked out so well as the
poor are with us still and the argument is given that the poor will be with us forever. The
Divine right of Kings and all that.
Godless Communists challenged all that and the results still haven't worked themselves
out.
Endless wars seem to be an excuse to justify recurring cycles of hate. Love your God, and
spite your enemies.
The promise of Socialism is that the tools of science and reason can be used to relieve
human suffering and provide for a meaningful life. That vision remains unborn because those
sentiments are always snuffed out as quickly as they take hold.
I have a sneaking suspicion that the troubles of the world have such a basic foundation
that if they are ever solved, people will look back, marveling at the simplicity of the
answers.
I have the exact same suspicion. We might, in fact, understand the basic foundation and
already have the solutions but, to use your words, they are always snuffed out as quickly as
they take hold -- which is itself its own intractable problem.
Interesting observation about McCarthyism as a feature of the lower classes. Particularly
about what the hate and fear was directed against: bankers, lawyers, Jews, homosexuals,
communists One of the big actors in that great national drama was a fella named Roy Cohn, who
kind of fell into almost all of those categories (except maybe "communist", though with Cohn,
who was also a mob lawyer and buddy of J. Edgar Hoover, who knows?).
And for Trump haters, or those who are trying to "understand" the guy, there's even a
great big Cohn Connection, which is fun to read about here: " A mentor in shamelessness:
the man who taught Trump the power of publicity
Roy Cohn, the lawyer who embraced infamy during the McCarthy hearings and Rosenberg trial,
influenced Donald Trump to turn the tabloids into a soapbox " ,
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/20/roy-cohn-donald-trump-joseph-mccarthy-rosenberg-trial
Interesting observation about McCarthyism as a feature of the lower classes.
I noted that too. It gives credence to Matt Stoller's observation that the elites / 1%ers
are not monolithic but are fractions that can and do fight each other.
Tangentially, I saw the Angels in America in London, which includes a vivid
portrait of Roy Cohn. On his deathbed, watched over by Ethel Rosenberg, Cohn dekes Rosenberg
into singing him off to his last sleep out of pity A touching moment until Cohn sits up and
yells "Fooled ya!" (paraphrasing).
America was born of conquest. The North American continent is/was vast in scale and
resources. The vision was never to live in such a place as more to conquer it and extract its
resources. That mentality is still prominent as the resource base has not been depleted yet
and energies are directed to further exploitation- fracking and the opening of the arctic
regions. Even now, an argument can be made that American corporations are more concerned
about exploiting their customers for profit, than the health of the citizenry. That is the
motivational force behind our governing elite, not some attachment to the land and its people
and the desire to make the world a better place.
American Exceptionalism is based on conquest and the right for individuals to exploit
those resources to their own end. By that standard it continues to be a success. Communism,
in principle, was an ideology opposed to that vision. Under no circumstances can such an
ideology be allowed to exist, so was set for extermination by force and disinformation. Once
that process takes hold, you live in a world devoid of reality. It is fantasy.
Naked greed cannot be justified for long without some form of damage taking place in the
human psyche. Reflection is not prevalent in the American creed. The rise of American
Corporations to the detriment of the nations citizens is a confirmation of that fact. For how
can a nation be "Great" if its citizens are driven into poverty?
You become a Nation of crazy people.
Greed and misuse of Power lead to crazy. Instead of trying to talk sense to crazy people,
sanity lies in the opposite direction. Less greed and an articulation of the proper use of
power. Implementation is another matter.
Thanks for the reading suggestions, and I especially second the the mention of Douglass's
JFK and the Unspeakable. TTBOMK although it's nearly ten years old it's the best analysis out
there of the John Kennedy assassination.
Saying "Russia (aka the Soviet Union)" (as Helmer does) is akin to saying "California (aka
The United States". It is a false statement.
The Soviet Union (1917-1991) was a materialist anti-christian, anti religious totalitarian
State. Godlessness was the ruling precept of Soviet society.
In 1923, Lenin created the first Soviet Concentration Camp, at the "re-purposed", Russian
Orthodox Solovetsky Monastery. Solovetsky was used as the prototype for the Gulag network of
camps. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solovki_prison_camp
IMO, today, the USA is the World Epicenter of materialism, internationalism, greed and
godlessness.
Conversely, Russia (2017) is a Nationalist, Orthodox Christian Democracy. No wonder our
materialistic rulers are so "hysterically", (The APA says, "conversion disorder". Casual
psychiatric diagnosis of opponents is a breeze now!), fearful of Russia, and the Biblical,
little David, with his sling and stone (Putin).
There is a vast body of scholarly work on the origins of the Cold War from many different
perspectives, into which context this analysis is trivial and downright loopy. The Georgetown
Set got us into it? It was "mad" to oppose the Soviet Union and now Russia? Oh, please.
Western opposition to Russian communism pre-dates Joe Alsop and his bowties by decades.
The revolutionary regime that weakened the WWI alliance and prolonged that bloody war by
making a separate peace with Germany wasn't going to be well-liked by its former allies in
the first place. The same regime preached the violent overthrow of democratically-elected
western governments, who reacted as one might expect, including the (poorly-considered)
intervention of 1918-1920.
Stalin then gave the world many, many reasons not to trust Russia – brutal
repression on a hitherto unheard of scale, mass murder, disastrous economic policies leading
to mass famine, show trials and active promotion of Soviet-style take-overs elsewhere. Even
before WWII and the start of the Cold War there was plenty not to like. During the war,
Western governments bowed to geopolitical reality and allied with the USSR, despite Stalin's
cynical deal with Hitler to divide Poland just before, but Poland provides one of the best
samplings of why opposing the USSR/Russia after geopolitical realities changed at the end of
the war was not only understandable but a very good idea. Shortly after Russia took over in
eastern Poland the NKVD rounded up and brutally murdered 22,000 military officers, police
officers, public officials and assorted intellectuals, i.e. anyone who could think
independently and oppose Russian rule, and threw the bodies into pits dug in the Katyn
Forest. The Soviets denied this for decades, blaming it on the Nazi's, but finally fessed up
in 1990 during perestroika, now best understood as a brief twinkling of light in Russia's
dark history. Reports had leaked out of the massacre and other Soviet atrocities during the
war, which played a large role in mobilizing another major force in U.S. politics that was
deeply skeptical of the USSR after the war – ethnic Eastern Europeans.
The West and Russia did do deals at Yalta and Tehran on spheres of influence, but there
was ambiguity as to what that meant and words were thrown in about national
self-determination and free elections. After the war the West (mostly) promoted democratic
government, at least in Europe, while the Soviets laughed at the joke and imposed their
brutal regimes anywhere they could. Stalin's last living legacy is the horror show in North
Korea, where he installed a Soviet agent as head of the regime, now a dynasty. Kennan's Long
Cable/Article X, which is still well worth reading, dealt with the causes of Soviet
expansionism as part of Russia's long, troubled history and urged containment as an
alternative to more active opposition ("roll-back"), which largely worked in Europe. As the
counterpoint to containment, when Sec State Dean Acheson omitted Korea from the U.S.
"defensive perimeter" in his January 1950 speech, the North invaded the South with Soviet
support five months later. It was after that experience that containment went global.
With the exception of Kennan, the people mentioned may have had influence but were not the
real policy makers. Truman, George Marshall and Dean Acheson were the primary architects of
U.S postwar policy. Only Acheson lived in Georgetown, and he thought Alsop was a "pest."
Acheson took on Kennan as his staff chief because he had deep expertise on Russia and largely
made sense. The off-hand comments in the article about Kennan being a psychopath and coward
were made with no support and are at odds with his reputation as a pragmatist and
traditionalist in foreign policy. He was recently most well known for his quaint view that
the U.S. should declare wars as required by the Constitution before getting into them. Alsop
was a commentator not a policy maker and was regarded as somewhat of a fringe character, not
least because he was gay in the 1950s. As for the rest of the U.S. elite at the time, far
more of them had been sympathetic to Russia in their youths than rabid anti-communists. The
typical Cold Warrior was made that way not by bowtie-wearing but by sober, mature observation
of what the Soviet regime was all about.
So let's do fast-forward to the present day. No one with an objective understanding of
Russian history is at all surprised that a regime headed by one of their former secret
policemen is tampering with elections, fomenting political divisions and trying to disrupt
the western alliance. All the evidence supports those conclusions and more comes out every
day. Facebook, Google, the scope is astounding. In Helmer's piece we see the birth of a new
phenomenon, on the same intellectual level as climate-change denial. It's electing-tampering
denial.
I think if NC-ers wanted to read official propaganda, they could just subscribe to NYT.
The only thing that your comment demonstrates is that you've no idea what "objective
understanding of Russian history" could possibly be.
Was that an argument? The problem Russian apologists have is that periodically, after
years or decades of denial, the truth finally comes out from a Russian source, usually when
it's convenient to blame their predecessor. Khrushchev finally admitted Stalin's "mistakes",
like anyone really needed confirmation that his regime had murdered millions. Gorbachev
finally had the guts to admit the NKVD liquidated the Polish elite, which everyone else
(except the "useful idiots") had known for a long time, etc. That was the context of the Cold
War and the original posting. U.S. containment policy responded to real actions and constant
lying by the USSR as it imposed totalitarian regimes throughout Eastern Europe and elsewhere,
not some goofy chatter at Georgetown cocktail parties. Every one of those countries, as soon
as they had freedom to choose, bolted for the West and NATO.
As for election-tampering denial, sure looks like it's real. This was a new twist –
deny something simply because it's been reported in the NYT (Russian sources, and Donald
Trump, being so much more credible). But some other historical truth-telling pertains here.
If you want to understand what Vladimir Putin and his fellow secret policemen did in East
Germany, despite decades of denial, you can now go to the Stasi archives. It's a museum that
documents 44 years of soul-crushing repression, cynical manipulation of neighbor against
neighbor and systematic subversion of anyone or any group that might speak up against the
state. It's not hard at all to believe that someone who came of age with that background
would take advantage of such an easy way to undermine their U.S. adversaries. In fact, it's
hard to believe they wouldn't.
Well said. Thank you. My comment was much shorter, but said many of the same things. It
was censored. Much shorter version: Asserting that George Kennan was a lunatic is lunacy.
For the life of me, I still cannot figure out why people are in an absolute panic over
Russian "agents" buying $100,000.00, or whatever, worth of advertising promoting either or
both sides of the election when U.S.citizens and Political Parties spent over $1.6
billion.
Are American citizens really so stupid as to fall for the amazingly, brilliantly conceived
and placed $100K worth of Russian advertising, so clever that it superseded $1.6 billion
worth of U.S. citizen ads?
Or (to misquote Shakespeare/Macbeth) is it a tale told by propagandists, full of sound and
fury, signifying nothing?
"After the war the West (mostly) promoted democratic government, at least in Europe, "
Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?
I am surprised no one else responded to this screed. I agree that the Soviet Union had a
horrific human rights record, but that little snippet I quote above is like a relic from the
silliest days of Cold War propaganda. As for Russian meddling, the evidence is that probably
something happened, in my opinion, but if people were serious they would keep some sense of
proportion. I read the NYT articles and melodramatic language is doing an awful lot of work
with regards to the Facebook claims.
If I accepted everything I have read at face value our
democracy was so fragile literally anyone willing to hire some hackers and spend a minuscule
amount of money could have destroyed it. Heck, if I and a few friends were willing to
mortgage our homes and cash in our retirement funds we could fund its destruction
ourselves.
Richard Spence, professor of history at the University of Idaho, has just published "Wall
Street and the Russian Revolution: 1905 – 1925." This is a fascinating book that I
would think at least some of the above commenters would be interested in. Spence has updated
Anthony Sutton's earlier work with new/more archival research and access to new/more recently
declassified documents.
I haven't finished it as it came in the mail yesterday, but it does have a few interesting
comments about George Kennan not the above George Kennan but his distant cousin who in 1891
published a book entitled "Siberia and the Exile System." So it seems that Russia-hating ran
in the family. The cousin Kennan claimed to have assisted in the distribution of a ton and a
half of literature to Russian POWs in Japan during the Russo-Japanese War. This, according to
Kennan, was financed by Jacob Schiff and caused many of the POWs to become liberals and
revolutionaries opposed to the Tsar.
Fleshing out the role of capitalist/financial interests in the Revolution is certainly
important. These were the deep state actors of 100 years ago. The names of the people and the
interests they represent may have changed, but the chicanery hasn't.
" the Clinton administration decided to move NATO into former Warsaw Pact nations,
violating a understanding made as part of the peaceful dissolution". The "peaceful
dissolution" of the Soviet "union", I presume?
NATO was formed in 1948 in response to the Soviet refusal to withdraw from the Eastern
European nations it continued to control with puppet governments and Soviet troops after
WWll. The Soviets responded by forming the Warsaw Pact -- consisting of those very same
nations: (East) Germany, Poland, Czechoslavakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, and Albania. The
only time Warsaw Pact troops were used militarily was against its own members -- Hungary in
1956, and Czechoslavakia in 1968.
The collapse of the USSR started in 1989, with the collapse of the Berlin Wall, and
culminated in 1991 with the failed coup by hardliners against Gorbachev in August of 1991,
though the official end did not come until the formal dissolution on December 26, 1991.
In the following years, all of the Warsaw Pact nations, plus the illegally annexed and
occupied Baltic nations of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, having regained their sovereignty,
all made a point of joining NATO -- to make sure that the Russian bear did not return to do
even more damage.
What "understanding" was violated? It is a popular myth that the Russians were "promised"
that NATO would not expand to the east. Who made this promise to who, and under what
authority? Did the nations of Eastern Europe, after half a century of Russian control,
voluntarily cede the power to determine their future alliances to the Clinton Administration?
The premise is absurd on its face. In any case, how do you keep a "promise" to a political
entity- the USSR- which no longer exists?
Russian interference in Ukraine, and the forced annexation of Crimea (reminiscent of
Stalin's annexation of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania in 1940), has validated the pragmatism
of its former vassal states in joining NATO. Russia is not being threatened by its neighbor's
membership in NATO; to them, Russia is the threat.
You should ask Jim Baker, who had confirmed that an agreement regarding NATO was made. In
addition to many other people present at the time Why try at revisionist history now ?
And FIY, Estonia, Latvia, and Litva were a part of the czarist Russia for more than 300 yrs.
Soviet Union gave up the territories in the terrible peace it had to sign with Germany before
the end of WWI. After the next war, which it won, it simply took back the areas – kinda
like the French took back Alsace-Lorraine, after victory over German in WWI.
Knowing history is really a good thing
More Russians troops are buried in the soil of the Crimea than the US lost in Europe
during WWI &WWII as well. The West or it's proxies have been after it for nearly as long
as The Great Game has been in play. But that's what Russia gets for helping Lincoln by
keeping France and Britain from actively coming in on the side of the Confederates. Never
help an ingrate.
That's two misreadings of history. There was no agreement not to expand NATO, which is
confirmed by both Jim Baker and Mikhail Gorbachev, the other guy there at the table. The only
agreement made was that NATO would not put nuclear weapons or non-German troops in the former
GDR. That agreement has been kept.
The Baltic states had all declared their independence from Russia before the Russian peace
with Germany, so they weren't anyone's to give. If they were ever "transferred" to Germany
they didn't stay German for long – in fact a couple of them defeated German armies in
battle towards the end of WWI. They were all independent by 1920, part of the wave of
national self-determination after WWI that saw the liberation of lots of smaller countries
that had been dominated by one of the defunct empires. Lithuania, of course, hadn't always
been so small – at one point it was the largest country in Europe and included parts of
what became Russia. Comparisons with Alsace are absurd on several levels.
"... That's pretty rich, coming from a country and from people who actually genuinely, and in proven ways, have subverted democracy in Europe since the late 1940s - Italy being one of the clearest cases. ..."
"... For the life of me I cannot figure why Americans want a war/conflict with Russia. I can't believe it has to do with the economy. There's got to be a far better nefarious reason. Even during the real cold war we tried to avoid conflict. Absolute insanity. ..."
"... American media has graduated from simply repeating the lies of "unnamed government sources" to repeating the lies of any organization unofficially blessed by the powers that be. ..."
"... In that The Narrative is tightly controlled in the corporate media, not matter how strong the proofs or arguments about the falsity of these propaganda campaigns are, little or no circulation of those proofs or arguments wlll reach the general public. ..."
"... The thing that bothers me, is the fact that the MIC Globalists don't care what we think or how poor their deceptions are. ..."
"... The cleverest trick used in propaganda against a specific country is to accuse it of what the accuser itself is doing. ..."
"... I've always put it down to the Washington Establishment having a severe case of psychological projection. ..."
"... The warmongering is not intended to make any sense - not many people are trained in critical thinking and logic, and even when they are, they can be swamped by their own emotions or other people's emotions. ..."
"... Propaganda is intended to appeal to people's emotions and fears. You can try reading works by Edward Bernays - "Crystallizing Public Opinion" (1923) and "Propaganda" (1928) - to see how he uses his uncle Sigmund Freud's theories of the mind to create strategies for manipulating public opinion. ..."
"... The American Security State needs enemies to exist, otherwise there's no need for the "security" which translates into big bucks for the Military-Industrial-Congressional-Media Complex. They can't agree on the ranking of the enemies: North Korea is a threat to the world! Iran is....! Russia is...! China is....! But the threats are there, and they are pure evil (TPTB contend). ..."
"... Sad but definitely correct. The first casualty of war is the truth. It's dead in the USA and allies. Therefore, they're at war with Russia and China. If Russia is down, China will be dealt with. ..."
"... Some years ago, I noticed the American media and politicians were sort of going soft (actually mushy) in the brain department, but I was told not to be so judgemental. As the months went by, I saw more and more people saying "they have gone nuts". So, it turns out I am not alone after all. ..."
"... That madness comes from having no behavioural limits, no references outside of your own opinion but groupthink, and manipulating the language to suit your ambitions (the Orwellism of the US media has been repeatedly pointed at). Simply put, you don't know anymore what's what outside of the narrative your group pushes, you go nuts. The manipulators ends up caught in their lies. All the more when they makes money out of it, which would be the case of all those think tanks and media. ..."
"... Honestly, the story of democracy (by capitalist/liberal class) is a grand BS, to be modest. The only thing what was truthful, paradoxically, is who is "lesser evil" of two. Or the Bigger one in unrestrained capitalism, savage and monopoly, predatory and a fascists one. ..."
"... War or the threat of war is needed to distract attention from rapidly devolving societal bonds and immense economic inequality. ..."
"... The US is progressing toward a fascist police state; therefore, Russia is said to be a horrible dictatorship run by Putin. The US traditionally meddles in elections around the world, including Russia; therefore, the Russians are said to meddle in US elections. The US is the most aggressive country on the planet, occupying and bombing dozens of countries; therefore, the Russians are accused of "aggression." And so on ..."
"... The US actually spends $75 billion per year---more than Russia's entire $69 billion defense budget---spying on and meddling in the politics of virtually every nation on earth. An outfit within NSA called Tailored Access Operations (TAO) has a multi-billion annual budget and does nothing put troll the global internet and does so with highly educated, highly paid professionals, not $4 per hour keyboard jockeys." ..."
"... Zbignew Brzezenski explained in his 1997 book "The Grand Chessboard" why global hegemony required taking control over Russia (and how to do it, which boils down to taking the other chess pieces off the board (Iraq/Ukraine/etc. and then pulling off a "color revolution," coup or military conquest). ..."
"... Msm, bellingcat and other think tanks - they push their anti Russian racism too far making a large section of westerners just tired of their hysteria. Exposing their own racism and paranoia. ..."
"... Globalization . . . is a program to create private corporate rights to trade, invest, lend or borrow money and buy and own property anywhere in the world without much hindrance by national governments. It would bar governments from most of the common methods of helping or protecting their national industries and employment. It is a winners' program promoted chiefly by some business interests, governments and neoclassical economists in Europe and the United States. ..."
"... One of its purposes is to intensify international competition for jobs. Together with other Right policies it is likely to maintain some unemployment in the rich countries and reduce the wage rates of their lower-paid workers, and reduce the proportion of secure employment. Hugh Stretton, Economics: A New Introduction ..."
"... The anti-russian think tanks, msm, bellingcat etc push this too much, making them look stupid. ..."
"... Assange: "Regardless of whether IRA's activities were audience building through pandering to communities or whether a hare-brained Russian government plan to "heighten the differences" existed, its activities are clearly strategically insignificant compared to the other forces at play." ..."
The U.S. mainstream media are going nuts. They now make up and report stories based on the
uncritical acceptance of an algorithm they do not want to understand and which is known to
produce fake results.
SAN FRANCISCO -- One hour after news broke about the school shooting in Florida last week,
Twitter accounts suspected of having links to Russia released hundreds of posts taking up
the gun control debate.
The accounts addressed the news with the speed of a cable news network. Some adopted the
hashtag #guncontrolnow. Others used #gunreformnow and #Parklandshooting. Earlier on
Wednesday, before the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland,
Fla., many of those accounts had been focused on the investigation by the special counsel
Robert S. Mueller III into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election.
In other words - the "Twitter accounts suspected of having links to Russia" were following
the current news just as cable news networks do. When a new sensational event happened they
immediately jumped onto it. But the NYT authors go to length to claim that there is some
nefarious Russian scheme behind this that uses automated accounts to spread divisive
issues.
Those claims are based on this propaganda project:
Last year, the Alliance for Securing Democracy, in conjunction with the German Marshall
Fund, a public policy research group in Washington, created a website that tracks hundreds
of Twitter accounts of human users and suspected bots that they have linked to a Russian
influence campaign.
The "Alliance for Securing Democracy" is
run by military lobbyists, CIA
minions and neo-conservative propagandists. Its
claimed task is:
... to publicly document and expose Vladimir Putin's ongoing efforts to subvert democracy
in the United States and Europe.
There is no evidence that Vladimir Putin ever made or makes such efforts.
The ASD "Hamilton 68" website shows graphics with rankings of "top items"
and "trending items" allegedly used by Russian bots or influence agents. There is nothing
complicate behind it. It simply tracks the tweets of 600 Twitter users and aggregates the
hashtags they use. It does not say which Twitter accounts its algorithms follows. It
claims
that the 600 were selected by one of three criteria: 1. People who often tweet news that also
appears on RT (Russia Today) and Sputnik News, two general news sites
sponsored by the Russian government; 2. People who "openly profess to be pro-Russian"; 3.
accounts that "appear to use automation" to boost the same themes that people in group 1 and
2 tweet about.
Nowhere does the group say how many of the 600 accounts it claims to track belong to which
group. Are their 10 assumed bots or 590 in the surveyed 600 accounts? And how please does one
"openly profess" to be pro-Russian? We don't know and the ASD won't say.
On December 25 2017 the "Russian influence" agents or bots who - according to NYT - want
to sow divisiveness and subvert democracy,
wished everyone
a #MerryChristmas.
The real method the Hamilton 68 group used to select the 600 accounts it tracks is
unknown. The group does not say or show how it made it up. Despite that the NYT reporters,
Sheera Frenkel and Daisuke Wakabayashi, continue with the false assumptions that most or all
of these accounts are automated, have something to do with Russia and are presumably
nefarious:
Russian-linked bots have rallied around other divisive issues, often ones that President
Trump has tweeted about. They promoted Twitter hashtags like #boycottnfl,
#standforouranthem and #takeaknee after some National Football League players started
kneeling during the national anthem to protest racial injustice.
The automated Twitter accounts helped popularize the #releasethememo hashtag , ...
The Daily Beast reported earlier that the last claim is
definitely false :
Twitter's internal analysis has thus far found that authentic American accounts, and not
Russian imposters or automated bots, are driving #ReleaseTheMemo . There are no preliminary
indications that the Twitter activity either driving the hashtag or engaging with it is
either predominantly Russian.
The same is presumably true for the other hashtags.
The Dutch IT expert and blogger Marcel van den Berg was wondering how Dutch
keywords and hashtags showed up on the Hamilton 68 "Russian bots" dashboard. He found (
Dutch ,
English auto translation) that the dashboard is a total fraud:
In recent weeks, I have been keeping a close eye on Hamilton 68. Every time a Dutch hashtag
was shown on the website, I made a screenshot. Then I noted what was playing at that moment
and I watched the Tweets with this hashtag. Again I could not find any Tweet that seemed to
be from a Russian troll.
In all cases, the hash tags that Hamilton 68 reported were trending topics in the
Netherlands . In all cases there was much to do around the subject of the hashtag in the
Netherlands. Many people were angry or shared their opinion on the subject on Twitter. And
even if there were a few tweets with Russian connections between them, the effect is zero.
Because they do not stand out among the many other, authentic Tweets.
Van den Berg lists a dozen examples he analyzed in depth.
The anti-Russian Bellingcat group around couch blogger Eliot Higgins is sponsored
by the NATO propaganda shop Atlantic Council . It sniffs through open source stuff
to blame Russia or Syria wherever possible. Bellingcat was recently a victim of the
"Russian bots" - or rather of the ASD website. On February 10 the hashtag #bellingcat trended
to rank 2 of the
dashboard.
Bellingcat was thus, according to the Hamilton 68 claims, under assault by hordes
of nefarious Russian government sponsored bots.
The Bellingcat folks looked into the issue and found
that only six people on Twitter, none
of them an automated account , had used the #bellingcat hashtag in the last 48 hours. Some of
the six may have opinions that may be "pro-Russian", but as Higgins himself
says :
[I]n my opinion, it's extremely unlikely the people listed are Russian agents
The pro-NATO propaganda shop Bellingcat thus debunked the pro-NATO propaganda
shop Alliance for Securing Democracy.
The fraudsters who created the Hamilton 68 crap seem to have filled their database with
rather normal people from all over the world who's opinions they personally dislike. Those
then are the "Russian bots" who spread "Russian influence" and divisiveness.
Moreover - what is the value of its information when six normal people out of millions of
active Twitter users can push a hashtag with a handful of tweets to the top of the
dashboard?
But the U.S. media writes long gushing stories about the dashboard and how it somehow
shows automated Russian propaganda. They go to length to explain that this shows "Russian
influence" and a "Russian" attempt to sow "divisiveness" into people's minds.
This is nuts.
Last August, when the Hamilton 68 project was first released, the Nation was the
only site critical of it. It
predicted :
The import of GMF's project is clear: Reporting on anything that might put the US in a bad
light is now tantamount to spreading Russian propaganda.
It is now even worse than that. The top ranking of the #merrychristmas hashtag shows that
the algorithm does not even care about good or bad news. The tracked twitter accounts are
normal people.
The whole project is just a means to push fake stories about alleged "Russian influence"
into U.S. media. Whenever some issue creeps up on its dashboard that somehow fits its false
"Russian bots" and "divisiveness" narrative the Alliance for Securing Democracy
contacts the media to spread its poison. The U.S. media, - CNN, Wired, the New York Times -
are by now obviously devoid of thinking journalists and fact checkers. They simple re-package
the venom and spread it to the public.
How long will it take until people die from it?
Posted by b on February 20, 2018 at 03:15 PM |
Permalink
Comments next page " It's all too reminiscent of Duck Soup:
"to publicly document and expose Vladimir Putin's ongoing efforts to subvert democracy in the
United States and Europe."
That's pretty rich, coming from a country and from people who actually genuinely, and in
proven ways, have subverted democracy in Europe since the late 1940s - Italy being one of the
clearest cases.
For the life of me I cannot figure why Americans want a war/conflict with Russia. I can't
believe it has to do with the economy. There's got to be a far better nefarious reason. Even
during the real cold war we tried to avoid conflict. Absolute insanity.
Gee, what could go wrong formulating policy founded upon a series of Big Lies? Kim Dotcom says he has
important info the FBI refuses to hear. At the Munich
Security Conference , neocon Nicholas Burns, former US Ambassador to NATO, details my
assertion's factual basis that current policy is being formed on a series of Big Lies: "Will
NATO strengthen itself to contain Russian power in Eastern Europe giving what Russian
[sic] has done illegally in Crimea, in the Donbass, and in Georgia ?" [Bolded text are
the Big Lies.]
Clearly, this entire psyop was premeditated and its design was hastily done
contemporaneously with Russia's Syria intervention. NSA/CIA/FBI knew of HRC's security
breeches and rightly assumed their contents would find their way into the election, so the
general plan was ready to go prior to WikiLeaks publications. b has uncovered much, and I
hope he's planning to publish a book about the entire affair.
Ken @ 4: There doesn't necessarily need to be One Major Reason for going to war. There may be
several reasons all feeding and reinforcing one another and creating a psychological climate
in which Going To War is seen as the only solution and is inevitable. The reasons are not
just economic and political but cultural and historical.
In some countries allied with the US, the politicians in power are the ideological
descendants of those who collaborated with Nazi Germany - so in a sense they are committed to
"correcting" what they see as wrong. In the case of current Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo
Abe, he is the grandson of a former prime minister who once served in General Tojo's World
War II cabinet.
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2012/12/26/national/formed-in-childhood-roots-of-abes-conservatism-go-deep/#.WoyZCG9uaUk
That's why pinning down the reason for wanting a war against Russia is so difficult.
Since the FBI never inspected the DNC's computers first-hand, the only evidence comes from
an Irvine, California, cyber-security firm known as CrowdStrike whose chief technical
officer, Dmitri Alperovitch, a well-known Putin-phobe, is a fellow at the Atlantic Council,
a Washington think tank that is also vehemently anti-Russian as well as a close Hillary
Clinton ally.
Thus, Putin-basher Clinton hired Putin-basher Alperovitch to investigate an alleged
electronic heist, and to absolutely no one's surprise, his company concluded that guilty
party was Vladimir Putin. Amazing! Since then, a small army of internet critics has chipped
away at CrowdStrike for praising the hackers as among the best in the business yet
declaring in the same breath that they gave themselves away by uploading a document in the
name of "Felix Edmundovich," i.e. Felix E. Dzerzhinsky, founder of the Soviet secret
police.
As noted cyber-security expert Jeffrey Carr observed with regard to Russia's two main
intelligence agencies: "Raise your hand if you think that a GRU or FSB officer would add
Iron Felix's name to the metadata of a stolen document before he released it to the world
while pretending to be a Romanian hacker. Someone clearly had a wicked sense of humor."
muddy waters.. paid for propaganda.... look at all the russian bots, lol... cold war 2 / mccarthyism 2 is in effect... the historic parallels are marked. thank you
neo cons! it's working... the ordinary person in the usa can't be this stupid can they?
when does ww3 kick in? is that really what these idiots want? or is it just to prolong the
huge defense budget?
This is about conditioning voters in Europe and the United States for a long war with Russia
and China. In other words, a return to the 1950s. It is not working and becoming increasingly
hysterical because societies are not nearly as cohesive as they once were, and the mainstream
political parties, while better funded and more top-down organized, are basically hollow. The
collapse is coming. Four years or ten, take your pick.
@4 "For the life of me I cannot figure why Americans want a war/conflict with Russia."
Most Americans probably don't. Just the chosen few with the deepest fall-out shelters. The
idea is to keep piling the pressure on to countries like Iran and Russia in the hope that
their populations will rise up and demand the freedoms that we enjoy in the West....things
like uncensored wardrobe malfunctions and transgender washrooms.
let's imagine that we have the pyramid of evilness, by which we measure bestiality of one
regime and its constituency. my firm belief is that us would be on the top of that pyramid.
Only dilemma would be between Zionist entity and the US.
"How could the masses be made to desire their own repression?" was the question Wilhelm
Reich famously asked in the wake of the Reichstagsbrandverordnung (Reichstag Fire Decree,
February 28, 1933), which suspended the civil rights protections afforded by the Weimar
Republic's democratic constitution.
Hitler had been appointed chancellor on January 30, 1933
and Reich was trying to grapple with the fact that the German people had apparently chosen
the authoritarian politics promoted by National Socialism against their own political
interests.
Ever since, the question of fascism, or rather the question of why might people
vote for their own oppression, has never ceased to haunt political philosophy.2 With Trump
openly campaigning for less democracy in America -- and with the continued electoral
success of far-right antiliberal movements across Europe -- this question has again become
a pressing one.
An American people is in perfect harmony with its regime.
Remember the "USS MAINE"! Media have long agitated for War in US History. Nothing sells newspapers
like a good ole war! Demonizing is a way to achieve it. What is sure is that this is a one way street.
Once over the cliff, there is no turning back.
How do you tell people that, at the flick of your magic switch, Putin is in fact
a swell guy and wonderful human being? Once love is gone who goes back
to the filthy, abhorrent and estranged spouse?
Surely the US establishment is playing with fire thinking they will successfully
ride out any conflict and come out on top secure in their newly reestablished
hegemony on the smoldering ruins of Humanity.
Make no mistake, we are all on the road to hell. Better enjoy todays peace as
tomorrow word will be filled with the sweet music of cemeteries.
@15 "An American people is in perfect harmony with its regime."
I'm not so sure. I think there are many Americans who deeply distrust their government.
But of course they don't want to appear unpatriotic. There are also many who are apathetic
and many simply don't know how to change things.
It's horrible I know to quote a Nazi, but Goring had this right:
Göring: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm
want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his
farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in
England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all,
it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to
drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or
a Communist dictatorship.
Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter
through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare
wars.
Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always
be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they
are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country
to danger. It works the same way in any country.
American media has graduated from simply repeating the lies of "unnamed government sources"
to repeating the lies of any organization unofficially blessed by the powers that be. The
skills required to repeat the text verbatim serve them well in both cases. Skepticism is only
reserved to anyone who tries to introduce logic or facts into the equation--such as when Jill
Stein was interviewed on MSNBC recently. How dare Ms. Stein try to bring FACTS into the
discussion!
In that The Narrative is tightly controlled in the corporate media, not matter how strong the
proofs or arguments about the falsity of these propaganda campaigns are, little or no
circulation of those proofs or arguments wlll reach the general public.
Thanks Jen. It still makes no sense. As a veteran of the Vietnam fiasco, I was pretty much
government oriented until McNamara outed the whole thing whining about haw sorry he was.
59,000 dead and he's sorry. They were able to hide the Gulf of Tonkin BS until then. After
that I researched the reasons for each war/conflict the USA started and could find no logical
reasons except hunger for power. But the little sandbox wars won't destroy the world like a
major war/conflict with Russia and it goes nuclear. Almost every politician, and major news
organizations are pushing for a war/conflict with Russia. This is insanity as no one will win
a war like this and I am sure they know that,,, but they keep the war drums beating anyhow.
It simply doesn't make sense. But Thanks again.
Same for dh, #14. Things are soooo stupid, your joking may be closer to the truth than you
know. :-)
Thank you for the post. I will save it and use it liberally, with proper attributions.
When one challenges the tribe on places like Twitter, it is hard to tell who is a real idiot
and who is a bot. How do you know? Maybe that the bots go away fairly quickly and the idiots
hang around to argue ad infinitum.
The thing that bothers me, is the fact that the MIC Globalists don't care what we think or how
poor their deceptions are. The public perception that "russia did it!!" continues to rise. I
wonder what the public acceptance level needs to be for them to execute a MAJOR false flag
event. They seem to think they are still on target, and its just a short matter or time...
They are going to do this when the perception management is complete... We really do not need another one of their disasters
The bully pushes and pushes until stopped by the first serious push back. The dynamic of the
west and the neocon/Zionists at the core is essentially that of the bully. Nations like
Venezuela and the Philippines have started to push back, and I hope and feel fairly confident
that they will both survive the rage of the US. In some part, they have begun to show the
actual powerlessness of the bully.
But the really killer nations - Russia and China - are holding their water as they
strengthen their force. I believe that one very serious push back from either of them in the
right circumstances will stop the bully. And yet, as they bide their time, we see a curious
phenomenon wherein the US is destroying itself from the inside.
It's as if all of the forces that exist to control the country - the lockstep media, the
fully rigged markets, the hysterical military, the bought legislature and the crooked courts
- are all acting far more strongly than should be necessary. The entire system is
over-reacting, over-reaching, over-boiling. And in the course of this, the US is actually
shedding power, and at an amazing rate. But not from the action of Russia but from its
non-action, the empty space that that allows the bully's dynamic to over-reach, all the way
to complete failure.
Is it possible that deep in the security states of Russia and China there's even a study
and a model for this? Is the collapse of the US actually being gamed by Russia and China -
and through the totally counter-intuitive action of non-action?
Hey b,
Just wanted to let you know that Joe Lauria mentioned your blog and the article you wrote on
the indictment of the 13 Russians. He was on Loud and Clear (Sputnik Radio, Washington DC)
today and brought you up at the start of the program.
Glad to see you get some recognition for all the great work you've been doing :)
Ken @ 24: The warmongering is not intended to make any sense - not many people are trained in
critical thinking and logic, and even when they are, they can be swamped by their own
emotions or other people's emotions.
Propaganda is intended to appeal to people's emotions
and fears. You can try reading works by Edward Bernays - "Crystallizing Public Opinion"
(1923) and "Propaganda" (1928) - to see how he uses his uncle Sigmund Freud's theories of the
mind to create strategies for manipulating public opinion. https://archive.org/details/EdwardL.BernaysPropaganda
Bernays' books influenced Nazi and Soviet propaganda and Bernays himself was hired by the
US government to justify in the public mind the 1954 US invasion of Guatemala.
You may be aware that Rupert Murdoch, head of News Corporation which owns the Wall Street
Journal, FOX News and 20th Century Fox studios, is also on the Board of Directors of Genie
Energy which owns a subsidiary firm that was granted a licence by an Israeli court to explore
and drill for oil and natural gas in Syria's (and Israeli-occupied) Golan Heights.
The national media speaks as one -with one consistent melody day after day. Who is the
conductor?
When will one representative of the mainstream media sing solo? There must be a Ray
McGovern somewhere among the flock.
Many of my thoughts as well.
The U.S.'s greatest fault is its tacit misunderstanding of just what russia is in fact.
They utterly fail to understand the Russian character; forged over 800 years culminating with
the defeat of Nazi Germany, absorbing horrific losses; the U.S. fails to understand the
effect upon the then Soviets, become todays Russians.
Even the god's have abandoned the west...
I watched bbc news this am in the hope that I would get to see the most awful creature at the
2018 olympics cry her croc tears (long story - a speed skater who cuts off the opposition but
has been found out so now when she swoops in front of the others they either skate over her
leading to tearful whines from perp about having been 'pushed', or gets disqualified for
barging. Last night she got disqualified so as part of my study on whether types like this
believe their own bullshit I thought I'd tune in but didn't get that far into the beebs
lies)
The bulk of the bulletin was devoted to a 'lets hate Russia' session which featured a
quisling who works for the russian arm of BBC (prolly just like cold war days staffed
exclusively by MI6/SIS types). This chap, using almost unintelligible english, claimed he had
proof at least 50 Russian Mercenaries (question - why are amerikan guns for hire called
contractors [remember the Fallujah massacre of 100,000 civilians because amerikan contractors
were stupid] yet Russian contractors are called mercenaries by the media?) had been killed in
Syria last week. The bloke had evidence of one contractor's death not 50 - the proof was a
letter from the Russian government to the guy's mother telling her he didn't qualify for any
honours because he wasn't in the Russian military.
The quisling (likely a Ukranian I would say) went on to rabbit about the bloke having also
fought in Donbass under contract - to which the 'interviewer (don't ya love it when media
'interview' their own journos - a sure sign that a snippet of toxic nonsense is being
delivered) led about how the deceitful Russians had claimed the only Russians fighting in
Donbass were contractors - yeah well this bloke was a contractor surely that proves the
Russians were telling the truth.
It's not what these propagandists say; they adopt a tone and the audience is meant to hate
based on that even when the facts as stated conflict with the media outlet's point of view.
Remember the childhood trick of saying "bad dog" ter yer mutt in loving tones - the dog comes
to ya tail wagging & licks yer hand. This is that.
The next item was more Syria lies - white helmets footage (altho the beeb is now mostly
giving them an alternative name to dodge the facts about white helmets) of bandaged children
with flour tipped on their heads.
The evil Syrians and Russians are bombarding Gouta - nary a word about the continuous
artillery barrage Gouta has subjected the citizens of Damascus to for the past 4 years, or
that the Syrians have repeatedly offered truces and safe passage for civilians. Any injured
children need to ask their parents why they weren't allowed to take advantage of the frequent
offers of transport out. Maybe the parents are worried 'the resistance' will do its usual and
blow up the busloads of children after luring them over with candy.
Anyway I switched off after that so never did learn if little miss cheat had a cry.
Thank you for reporting on this. The people behind the so-called Alliance for Securing
Democracy need to be exposed for the warmongering frauds that they are. Regardless of what
one thinks of him, Trump was correct when he said that NATO is obsolete.
The American Security State needs enemies to exist, otherwise there's no need for the
"security" which translates into big bucks for the Military-Industrial-Congressional-Media
Complex. They can't agree on the ranking of the enemies: North Korea is a threat to the
world! Iran is....! Russia is...! China is....! But the threats are there, and they are pure
evil (TPTB contend).
So the whole scenario makes perfect sense from that standpoint.
re Felix E. Dzerzhinsky: Ukrainian fascists have a particular hatred of Felix because he was
both a Bolshevik and a Pole.
I hate to do this but I just posted this elsewhere, at Off Guardian, where the Guardian is
back into its highest gears promoting war.
"The wardrums are beating in a way not heard since 1914-there is no reason for war except the
best reason of all: an imperial ruling class sees its grip slipping and will chance
everything rather than endure the humiliation of adjusting to reality.
"China is in the position that the US was in 1914-it can prevent the war or wait until the
combatants are too exhausted to defend their paltry gains.
Given the realities of nuclear warfare-which seem not to have sunk in among the Americans,
perhaps because they mistake a bubble for a bomb shelter- the wise option is to prevent war
by publicly warning against it. In the hope that brought face to face with reality the masses
will besiege their governments, as we can easily do, and prevent war.'
Sad but definitely correct. The first casualty of war is the truth. It's dead in the USA and
allies. Therefore, they're at war with Russia and China. If Russia is down, China will be
dealt with.
The horrible thing with the US attitude is that you do a white thing, you're attacking them
and if you do a black thing, you're attacking them too. This attitude is building hostility
against Russia. It's like programming a pet to be afraid of something. The western people are
being programmed into hating Russia, dehumanizing her people, cutting every tie with Russia
and transforming any information from Russia into life threatening propaganda. A war for our
hearts is running. The US population is being coerced into believing that war against Russia
is a vital necessity.
It will be a war of choice from the US "elites". Clinton announced it and the population
had chosen Trump for that reason.
You're wondering why they're doing it. I suppose that their narrative is losing its grip on
the western populations. They're also conscious of it. If they lose it, they'll have to face
very angry mobs and face the void of their lives. Everything they did was either useless or
poisonous. It means to be in a very bad spot. They're are therefore under an existential
threat.
Russia proved time and again that it's possible to get out of their narrative. Remember their
situation when Eltsin was reelected with the western help.
The Chicago boys were telling the
Russian authorities how to run the economy and they made out of the word democrat a synonym
of thief. They were in the narrative and the result was a disaster. Then, they woke up and
started to clean the house. I remember the "hero" of democracy whose name was "Khodorovsky
(?)". In the west he was a freedom fighter and in Russia he stole something like Rosneft.
This guy and others of the same sort were described in the west as heroes, pionniers and so
on. They were put back into submission to the law. The western silence about their stealings,
lies and cheating is still deafening me.
It was the first Russian crime. The second one was
to survive the first batch of sanctions against them (I forgot the reason of the sanctions).
They not only survived they thrived. It was against the western leading economic ideology. A
third crime was to push back Saakachvili and his troops with success.
The fourth was to put
back into order the Tchechen. Russia was back into the world politics and history. They were
not following the script written for them in Washington and Brussels. They were having a
political system putting limits to the big companies. And, worst of it, it works.
Everybody in the west who can read and listen would have noticed that they are making it.
More, with RT and Sputnik giving info outside the allowed ones or asking annoying questions
(western journalists lost that habit with their new formation in the schools of journalism -
remember the revolution in their education was criticised and I missed why - very curious to
discover why), they were exposing weaknesses of the western narrative. On the other side
their narrative became so poor and so limited that any regular reader would feel bored
reading the same things time and again and being asked to pay for it at a time his salary was
decreased in the name of competitivity. The threat to their narrative was ready. They had to
fight it.
It's becoming a crime to think outside their marks. It's becoming a crime to read outside
their marks. I don't even talk about any act outside their marks. Now, it's going to be a
crime of treason to them in war time.
I do feel sadness because many will die from their fear of losing their grip on our minds. I
do feel sadness because they have lost and are in denial about it. I do feel sadness because
those death aren't necessary. I do feel sadness because those people can't face the
consequences of their actions. They don't have the necessary spine. Their lives were useless
and even toxic. They could start repairing or mitigating their damages but it would need a
very different worldview, a complete conversion to another meaning of life outside the
immediate and maximal profit.
You have aptly described the most dangerous country on this planet.
That country must not be appeased, at any cost, because it would surely end us forever...
Conclusion regarding IP address data:
What we're seeing in this IP data is a wide range of countries and hosting providers. 15% of
the IP addresses are Tor exit nodes. These exit nodes are used by anyone who wants to be
anonymous online, including malicious actors.
Overall Conclusion:
The IP addresses that DHS provided may have been used for an attack by a state actor like
Russia. But they don't appear to provide any association with Russia. They are probably used
by a wide range of other malicious actors, especially the 15% of IP addresses that are Tor
exit nodes.
The malware sample is old, widely used and appears to be Ukrainian. It has no apparent
relationship with Russian intelligence and it would be an indicator of compromise for any
website.
Partisan @15: "With Trump openly campaigning for less democracy in America -- and with the
continued electoral success of far-right antiliberal movements across Europe -- this question
has again become a pressing one."
The above is entirely backwards. The bottom 2/3rds is frustrated by the LACK of democracy
in the US and that's a major reason many voted against the (in fact anti-democratic) elite's
desired candidate, Hillary.
70% of the voting age public was dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with both candidates,
and 40% of Americans didn't vote, so that means whichever of Clinton/Trump won, she/he would
win with approval of only 10% of the electorate. That's the best example possible of our
anti-democratic reality (it's not a worry or a threat, it's already here).
In the case of both Europe and the US, many people are generally very dissatisfied with
the anti-democratic response by the elite to 'the will of the people' that there be much less
immigration into countries with high unemployment and 'race to the bottom' labor conditions.
That's nearly the entire basis of what the corporate media calls 'the move right'... When in
fact restricting immigration is a pro-labor and therefore 'left' policy ... Except in the
confused and deliberately stupid political discourse the elite media pushes so hard.
Some years ago, I noticed the American media and politicians were sort of going soft
(actually mushy) in the brain department, but I was told not to be so judgemental. As the
months went by, I saw more and more people saying "they have gone nuts". So, it turns out I
am not alone after all.
That madness comes from having no behavioural limits, no references outside of your own
opinion but groupthink, and manipulating the language to suit your ambitions (the Orwellism
of the US media has been repeatedly pointed at). Simply put, you don't know anymore what's
what outside of the narrative your group pushes, you go nuts. The manipulators ends up caught
in their lies. All the more when they makes money out of it, which would be the case of all
those think tanks and media.
One could argue that they are not going mad, that they know full well they are lying, but
I beg to differ: they don't see anymore how ridiculous or how dumb or smart their arguments
are. That would be congruent with a real loss of touch with reality. One wonders what
they see when they look at themselves in a mirror, a garden variety propagandist or a
fearless anti-Putin crusader?
Well, it is not...if you are believer in "democracy". Honestly, the story of democracy (by capitalist/liberal class) is a grand BS, to be
modest. The only thing what was truthful, paradoxically, is who is "lesser evil" of two. Or
the Bigger one in unrestrained capitalism, savage and monopoly, predatory and a fascists
one.
One way or other result is the same, it is: Barbarism.
When "trending on Twitter" became a news item in and of itself, I began to despair for the
future of reporting, political discourse and ultimately, democracy in America. Twitter and FB
are at best a source of information for news reporting, but not a source of news in
themselves.
We made ourselves vulnerable to any and every sort of pernicious manipulation and in the
end, we just about deserve everything we get.
The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the
same time over the means of mental production. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the
ideal expression of the dominant material relationships.
It is partially tied direct to the economy of the warmongers as trillions of dollars of
new cold war slop is laying on the ground awaiting the MICC hogs. American hegemony is
primarily about stealing the natural resources of helpless countries. Now in control of all
the weak ones, it is time to move to the really big prize: The massive resources of Russia.
They (US and their European Lackeys) thought this was a slam dunk when Yeltsin, in his
drunken stupors, was literally giving Russia to invading capitalist. Enter Putin, stopped the
looting .........connect the dots.
Media and its politicians have lost it completely,
and if you criticize them, well then of course you are a... "russian bot". Unfortunately 90% of westerners buy this western
MSM influence propaganda campaign, WW3
with Russia will come easy.
At risk of being censored and/or convicted of Thought Crime - it is *remarkable* how very
highly disproportionate the number of Jewish Zionists is who are in the media and in Congress
and in ThinkTankistan and shouting about Russian meddling, 'aggression,' and the like.
It's too bad it is forbidden to examine this phenomena as one part of the matrix of power
and lies leading the US into conflict with Russia, no?
I don't think Bill Kristol and David Frum and Jeff Goldberg are either honest nor
primarily concerned with American national security, nor the lives of MENA civilians. I think
they care only about using American blood and treasure to facilitate Israeli lebensraum,
however bloody and expensive.
Trump survives only if he dances for the Deep State *and* Likud.
Chris Hedges has an article on the similar situation in Germany almost 100 years ago.
"In 1923 the radical socialist and feminist Clara Zetkin gave a report at the Communist
International about the emergence of a political movement called fascism. ...." https://www.truthdig.com/articles/how-we-fight-fascism/
Partisan @54: The facts contradict the statement in the quote that Trump was "openly
campaigning for less democracy." He wasn't. He in fact campaigned in part as a populist who
would oust (or at least repeatedly ridicule) an anti-democratic elite. If you've overlooked
that and believe more or less the opposite, you can't understand the 2016 election or the
elite's virulently anti-democratic reaction to it.
Earlier I wrote about the following relationship: Khodorkovsky - The Interpreter -
Henry Jackson Society (UK) .
With Bush and the Iraq War, Dutch PM Balkenende and FM de Hoop Scheffer were seen as the
poodle of the White House. In recent years PM Mark Rutte [of MH-17 crash fame] can be
considered its puppy. Perhaps a parrot would suit better.
I noticed a former journalist Hubert Smeets hs partnered with some people to found a
"knowledge center" Window on Russia [Raam op Rusland]. Laughable, funded by the Dutch Foreign
Ministry and a Dutch-Russia cultural exchange Fund. Preposturous in its simplicity and harm
for honest reporting.
US media has gone bonkers. The original claim was Russian meddling and Russian
interference in the election. Then, a sort of bridging meme showed up (see also b
above), undermining democracy or subverting it. This in turn then morphed into
promoting divisive issues which is new (circa 2018, not before?)
Imho. US pols make it their business to create divisive issues, diviusses
(neologism), to the point of inventing rubbish ones. Part of the US public embraces that sh*t
as well, > tribalism and religious economics in lieu of policy politics. So such actions
should be viewed as gloriously democratic, ;) - ok easy to make fun.
The emphasis on 'divisive' is curious, it signals that some managers are calling for
'union' - 'cohesion' - 'group soldering' facing the outside enemy, threat.
Russia has really become the all-purpose épouvantail scarecrow, specter of
doom, etc. An awareness of the high costs of divisiveness if uncontrolled -> massive
social unrest, at extreme, civil war -- and that these are to be avoided, is evidenced.
Heh, or the whole storm is just fluff that distracts, occupies the pixels, airwaves, a
jamboree of knee-jerk reactions irrelevant to the present World Situation, with practically
no important body - faction of the PTB, Trump, the MIC, lame outsiders like the EU, etc.
having any clue.
The accusation is a lot like accusing somebody of despoiling an outhouse by crapping in
it, along with everyone else, but the outhouse in question had a sign on its door that read
"No Russians!" and the 13 Russians just ignored it and crapped in it anyway.
The reason the Outhouse of American Democracy is posted "No Russians!" is because Russia
is the enemy. There aren't any compelling reasons why it should be the enemy, and treating it
as such is incredibly foolish and dangerous, but that's beside the point. Painting Russia as
the enemy serves a psychological need rather than a rational one: Americans desperately need
some entity onto which they can project their own faults.
The US is progressing toward a
fascist police state; therefore, Russia is said to be a horrible dictatorship run by Putin.
The US traditionally meddles in elections around the world, including Russia; therefore, the
Russians are said to meddle in US elections. The US is the most aggressive country on the
planet, occupying and bombing dozens of countries; therefore, the Russians are accused of
"aggression." And so on
@Noirette 70
Yes, claiming that Russians are promoting polical division is silly -- the divisions were
already there. gizmodo
, Jun 12, 2014: It's Been 150 Years Since the U.S. Was This Politically Polarized
Nevertheless, now in WIRED
magazine: Their [Agency] goal was to enflame "political intensity through supporting radical
groups, users dissatisfied with [the] social and economic situation, and oppositional social
movements."
Bernie Sanders said he on Wednesday, "felt compelled to address Russian interference
during the US election. Sunday.... he was not aware and believes Russian bot promoting
him and went as far to said WikiLeaks published Hillary's email stolen by the
Russia....."
Can you really trust that lying basted? I'm probably one of the few MoA refused to
believe and trust Bernie Sanders and the fuckup Democrats .
Excellent article summarizing much of what B has posted and more.
"Finally, and as long was we are on the topic, here is what a real troll farm looks like.
[Picture of NSA] Yet this vast suite of offices in Fort Meade, Maryland, where 20,000 SIGINT
spies and technicians work for the NSA, is only the tip of the iceberg.
The US actually spends $75 billion per year---more than Russia's entire $69 billion
defense budget---spying on and meddling in the politics of virtually every nation on earth.
An outfit within NSA called Tailored Access Operations (TAO) has a multi-billion annual
budget and does nothing put troll the global internet and does so with highly educated,
highly paid professionals, not $4 per hour keyboard jockeys."
Great article. Great comments. I LOVE MoA! And it's great to see b getting recognition.
james wrote: "There aren't any compelling reasons why it should be the enemy"
You know the following; I think you're just too decent a human being to understand how
psychopaths operate. Russia is a huge area with enormous natural resources as well as a
large, educated populace. Zbignew Brzezenski explained in his 1997 book "The Grand
Chessboard" why global hegemony required taking control over Russia (and how to do it, which
boils down to taking the other chess pieces off the board (Iraq/Ukraine/etc. and then pulling
off a "color revolution," coup or military conquest).
Ziggy also noted that once Russia was incorporated, China is the next, and largely last
target.
Jen: NICE JOB putting together a big picture, from Bernays' control of the masses all the
way to Genie Energy. Add in Oded Yinon and PNAC and the "foreign policy blunders" that led to
the present situation in MENA look like a carefully-constructed, long-game being played "by
the book."
Fairleft. Any leftist/socialist movement which is not global is doomed to failure. This
has always been true, but with "offshoring" of manufacturing jobs and the internet
untethering many "white collar" jobs from any given geological location(s), workers must see
ourselves as a global entity rather than national or regional players - because that is
certainly how the 0.01% see us (and themselves).
"Workers of the world UNITE" is more true today than a century and a half ago.
nations that do not have to face costs arising from environmental, health or safety
legislation will almost always prevail in the world market over those that have some concern
for the environment and the workers.
That is the main issue I have with globalization.
Competing on wages is one thing; that can be a great impetus to become more efficient and
productive, but if we do nothing to force other countries to clean up their act, they will
have no impetus to do so and we will continue to lose jobs to the international competition,
no matter how efficiently we work.
Msm, bellingcat and other think tanks - they push their anti Russian racism too far making a
large section of westerners just tired of their hysteria. Exposing their own racism and
paranoia.
"....borderless globalization has been a catastrophe for most of the underdeveloped world's
businesses and workers."
it is always annoying when I see the 'globalization" argument is used whether from the
right or left. The globalization has started by the moment when us humans begin to roaming on this
planet. there are millions of examples yet somehow globalization is of recent phenomenon.
Lapis Lazuli mineral used in making blue color and paint is found on clay pottery in
Mesopotamia's ancient city of Ur. That city is also place where many legend originated which
were taken by major religion and can be found in their holy books. See even the myth are globalizied from very early on.
Most of the people do not even know what it is, not those who are writing about it.
Globalization . . . is a program to create private corporate rights to trade, invest, lend
or borrow money and buy and own property anywhere in the world without much hindrance by
national governments. It would bar governments from most of the common methods of helping
or protecting their national industries and employment. It is a winners' program promoted
chiefly by some business interests, governments and neoclassical economists in Europe and
the United States.
One of its purposes is to intensify international competition for jobs.
Together with other Right policies it is likely to maintain some unemployment in the rich
countries and reduce the wage rates of their lower-paid workers, and reduce the proportion
of secure employment.
the observable and demonstrable attempts are clearly futile, and have been pretty
much reduced to spasms and tantrums, largely devoid of cognizance, not to mention legality,
but certainly dangerous nonetheless.
no sir ree bob, we get our multipolar world or we scavenge a dead landscape of Alamogordo glass .
Assange: "Regardless of whether IRA's activities were audience building through pandering
to communities or whether a hare-brained Russian government plan to "heighten the
differences" existed, its activities are clearly strategically insignificant compared to the
other forces at play."
Cybersecurity "experts" in the United States have long alleged that "Russian bots" were used
to meddle in the 2016 elections.
But, as it turns out, the authors of a Senate report on "Russian election meddling" actually
ran the false flag meddling operation themselves.
A week before Christmas, the Senate Intelligence Committee released a report accusing Russia
of depressing Democrat voter turnout by targeting African-Americans on social media. Its
authors , New Knowledge , quickly became a household name. Described by the New
York Timesas a
group of "tech specialists who lean Democratic," New Knowledge has ties to both the U.S.
military and the intelligence agencies.
Morgan and Fox have both struck gold in the " Russiagate " scheme, which sprung into being
after Hillary Clinton blamed Moscow for Donald Trump's presidential victory in 2016. Morgan,
for example, is one of the developers of the Hamilton 68 Dashboard, the online tool that
purports to monitor and expose narratives being pushed by the Kremlin on Twitter. And also
worth mentioning, that dashboard is bankrolled by the German Marshall Fund's Alliance for
Securing Democracy – a collection of Democrats and neoconservatives funded in part by
NATO (North AtTreaty Tready Organization) and
USAID (United States Agency for International Development).
It is worth noting that the 600 " Russia-linked " Twitter accounts monitored by the
dashboard is not disclosed to the public either, making it impossible to verify these claims.
This inconvenience has not stopped Hamilton 68 from becoming a go-to source for hysteria-hungry
journalists, however. Yet on December 19, a New York Times
story revealed that Morgan and his crew had created the fake army of Russian bots, as well
as several fake Facebook groups, in order to discredit Republican candidate Roy Moore in
Alabama's 2017 special election for the U.S. Senate.
Working on behalf of the Democrats, Morgan and his crew created an estimated 1,000 fake
Twitter accounts with Russian names, and had them follow Moore. They also operated several
Facebook pages where they posed as Alabama conservatives who wanted like-minded voters to
support a write-in candidate instead . In an internal memo, New Knowledge boasted that it had
" orchestrated an elaborate 'false flag' operation that planted the idea that the Moore
campaign was amplified on social media by a Russian botnet ." – RT
This scandal is being perpetrated by the
United States media and has so far deceived millions, if not more. The botnet claim made a
splash on social media and was further amplified by
Mother Jones , which based its story on "expert opinion" from Morgan's dubious creation,
Hamilton 68.
Things got even weirder when it turned out that Scott Shane, the author of the Tim es
piece, had known about the meddling for months because he spoke at an event where the
organizers boasted about it!
Shane was one of the speakers at a meeting in September, organized by American Engagement
Technologies, a group run by Mikey Dickerson, President Barack Obama's former tech czar.
Dickerson explained how AET spent $100,000 on New Knowledge's campaign to suppress Republican
votes, "enrage " Democrats to boost turnout, and execute a " false flag " to hurt Moore. He
dubbed it " Project Birmingham ." -RT
There really was meddling in American democracy by " Russian bots. " Except those bots
weren't run from Moscow or St. Petersburg but from the offices of Democrat operatives chiefly
responsible for creating and amplifying the " Russiagate " hysteria over the past two years in
a
textbook case of psychological projection ,
brainwashing, and
Nazi-style propaganda campaigns.
"... At risk of being censored and/or convicted of Thought Crime - it is *remarkable* how very highly disproportionate the number of Jewish Zionists is who are in the media and in Congress and in ThinkTankistan and shouting about Russian meddling, 'aggression,' and the like. ..."
"... I don't think Bill Kristol and David Frum and Jeff Goldberg are either honest nor primarily concerned with American national security, nor the lives of MENA civilians. I think they care only about using American blood and treasure to facilitate Israeli lebensraum, however bloody and expensive. ..."
"... Trump survives only if he dances for the Deep State *and* Likud. ..."
At risk of being censored and/or convicted of Thought Crime - it is *remarkable* how very
highly disproportionate the number of Jewish Zionists is who are in the media and in Congress
and in ThinkTankistan and shouting about Russian meddling, 'aggression,' and the like.
It's too bad it is forbidden to examine this phenomena as one part of the matrix of power
and lies leading the US into conflict with Russia, no?
I don't think Bill Kristol and David Frum and Jeff Goldberg are either honest nor
primarily concerned with American national security, nor the lives of MENA civilians. I think
they care only about using American blood and treasure to facilitate Israeli lebensraum,
however bloody and expensive.
Trump survives only if he dances for the Deep State *and* Likud.
"... Ever since US Crude Oil peaked its production in 1970, the US has known that at some point the oil majors would have their profitability damaged, "assets" downgraded, and borrowing capacity destroyed. At this point their shares would become worthless and they would become bankrupt. The contagion from this would spread to transport businesses, plastics manufacture, herbicides and pesticide production and a total collapse of Industrial Civilisation. ..."
@4 "For the life of me I cannot figure why Americans want a war/conflict with
Russia."
Ever since US Crude Oil peaked its production in 1970, the US has known that at some
point the oil majors would have their profitability damaged, "assets" downgraded, and
borrowing capacity destroyed. At this point their shares would become worthless and they
would become bankrupt. The contagion from this would spread to transport businesses, plastics
manufacture, herbicides and pesticide production and a total collapse of Industrial
Civilisation.
In anticipation of increasing Crude Oil imports, Nixon stopped the convertibility of
Dollars into Gold, thus making the Dollar entirely fiat, allowing them to print as much of
the currency as they needed.
They also began a system of obscuring oil production data, involving the DoE's EIA and the
OECD's IEA, by inventing an ever-increasing category of Undiscovered Oilfields in their
predictions, and combining Crude Oil and Condensate (from gas fields) into one category (C+C)
as if they were the same thing. As well the support of the ethanol-from-corn industry began,
even though it was uneconomic. The Global Warming problem had to be debunked, despite its
sound scientific basis. Energy-intensive manufacturing work was off-shored to cheap
labour+energy countries, and Just-in-Time delivery systems were honed.
In 2004 the price of Crude Oil rose from $28 /barrel up to $143 /b in mid-2008. This
demonstrated that there is a limit to how much business can pay for oil (around $100 /b).
Fracking became marginally economic at these prices, but the frackers never made a profit as
over-production meant prices fell to about $60 /b. The Government encourages this destructive
industry despite the fact it doesn't make any money, because the alternative is the end of
Industrial Civilisation.
Eventually though, there must come a time when there is not enough oil to power all the
cars and trucks, bulldozers, farm tractors, airplanes and ships, as well as manufacture all
the wind turbines and solar panels and electric vehicles, as well as the upgraded
transmission grid. At that point, the game will be up, and it will be time for WW3. So we
need to line up some really big enemies, and develop lots of reasons to hate them.
Thus you see the demonisation of Russia, China, Iran and Venezuela for reasons that don't
make sense from a normal perspective.
It is partially tied direct to the economy of the warmongers as trillions of dollars of
new cold war slop is laying on the ground awaiting the MICC hogs. American hegemony is
primarily about stealing the natural resources of helpless countries. Now in control of all
the weak ones, it is time to move to the really big prize: The massive resources of Russia.
They (US and their European Lackeys) thought this was a slam dunk when Yeltsin, in his
drunken stupors, was literally giving Russia to invading capitalist. Enter Putin, stopped the
looting .........connect the dots.
Conclusion regarding IP address data: What we're seeing in this IP data is a wide
range of countries and hosting providers. 15% of the IP addresses are Tor exit nodes. These
exit nodes are used by anyone who wants to be anonymous online, including malicious
actors.
Overall Conclusion: The IP addresses that DHS provided may have been used for an
attack by a state actor like Russia. But they don't appear to provide any association with
Russia. They are probably used by a wide range of other malicious actors, especially the 15%
of IP addresses that are Tor exit nodes.
The malware sample is old, widely used and appears to be Ukrainian. It has no apparent
relationship with Russian intelligence and it would be an indicator of compromise for any
website.
Interesting, too, that the Dark State appears to be sending out talking points this week to
the effect that the alleged hacking of the DNC is an "act of war." IfI'm not mistaken, the US
recently revised war policy to include cyber attacks, whether they actually happened or not,
as being the same as a kinetic attack. Looks to me like we are seeing the beginning of a
long-term pysop/PR campaign to build support for a "preemptive" strike against Russia and
China that would, presumably, include nukes.
At the inception of this entire RussiaGate spectacle I suggested that it was a political
distraction to take the attention away from the rejection by the people of neoliberalism which
has been embraced by the establishments of both political parties.
And that the result of the investigation would be indictments for perjury in the covering up
of illicit business deals and money laundering. But that 'collusion to sway the election' was
without substance, if not a joke.
Everything that has been revealed to date tends to support that.
One thing that Aaron overlooks is the evidence compiled by William Binney and associates
that strongly suggests the DNC hack was no hack at all, but a leak by an insider who was
appalled by the lies and double dealing at the DNC.
In general, RussiaGate is a farcical distraction from other issues as they say in the video.
And this highlights the utterly Machiavellian streak in the corporate Democrats and the Liberal
establishment under the Clintons and their ilk who care more about money and power than the
basic principles that historically sustained their party. I have lost all respect for them.
But unfortunately this does open the door for those who use this to approve of the
Republican establishment, which is 'at least honest' about being substantially corrupt servants
to Big Money who care nothing about democracy, the Constitution, or the public. The best of
them are leaving or have already left, and their party is ruined beyond repair.
This all underscores the paucity of the Red v. Blue, monopoly of two parties, 'lesser of two
evils' model of political thought which has come to dominate the discussion in the US.
We are heavily propagandized by the owners of the corporate media and influencers of the
narrative, and a professional class that has sold its soul for economic advantage and access to
money and power.
Is this shadow of Integrity Initiative in the USA ? This false flag open the possibility that other similar events like
DNC (with very questionable investigation by Crowdstrike, which was a perfect venue to implement a false flag; cybersecurity area is
the perfect environment for planting false flags), MH17 (might be an incident but later it definitely was played as a false flag), Skripals
(Was Skripals poisoning a false flag decided to hide the fact that Sergey Skripal was involved in writing Steele dossier?) and Litvinenko
(probably connected with lack of safety measures in the process of smuggling of Plutonium by Litvinenko himself, but later played a
a false flag). All of those now should be re-assessed from the their potential of being yet another flag flag operation
against Russia. While Browder was a MI6 operation from the very beginning (and that explains
why he abdicated the US citizenship more convincingly that the desire to avoid taxes) .
Notable quotes:
"... Democratic operative Jonathon Morgan - bankrolled by LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman, pulled a Russian bot "false flag" operation against GOP candidate Roy Moore in the Alabama special election last year - creating thousands of fake social media accounts designed to influence voters . Hoffman has since apologized, while Morgan was suspended by Facebook for "coordinated inauthentic" behavior. ..."
"... Really the bigger story is here is that these guys convincingly pretended to be Russian Bots in order to influence an election (not with the message being put forth by the bots, but by their sheer existence as apparent supporters of the Moore campaign). ..."
"... By all appearances, they were Russian bots trying to influence the election. Now we know it was DNC operatives. Yet we are supposed to believe without any proof that the "Russian bots" that supposedly influenced the 2016 Presidential election were, actually, Russian bots, and worthy of a two year long probe about "Russian collusion" and "Russian meddling." ..."
"... The whole thing is probably a farce, not only in the sense that there is no evidence that Russia had any influence at all on a single voter, but also in the sense that there is no evidence that Russia even tried (just claims and allegations by people who have a vested interest in convincing us its true). ..."
For over two years now, the concepts of "Russian collusion" and "Russian election meddling" have been shoved down our throats
by the mainstream media (MSM) under the guise of legitimate concern that the Kremlin may have installed a puppet president in Donald
Trump.
Having no evidence of collusion aside from a largely unverified opposition-research dossier fabricated by a former British spy,
the focus shifted from "collusion" to "meddling" and "influence." In other words, maybe Trump didn't actually collude with Putin,
but the Kremlin used Russian tricks to influence the election in Trump's favor. To some, this looked like nothing more than an establishment
scheme to cast a permanent spectre of doubt over the legitimacy of President Donald J. Trump.
Election meddling "Russian bots" and "troll farms" became the central focus - as claims were levied of social media operations
conducted by Kremlin-linked organizations which sought to influence and divide certain segments of America.
And while scant evidence of a Russian influence operation exists outside of a handful of indictments connected to a St. Petersburg
"Troll farm" (which a liberal journalist
cast serious doubt ov er), the MSM - with all of their proselytizing over the "threat to democracy" that election meddling poses,
has largely decided to ignore actual evidence of "Russian bots" created by Democrat IT experts, used against a GOP candidate in the
Alabama special election, and amplified through the Russian bot-detecting "Hamilton 68" dashboard developed by the same IT experts.
Democratic operative Jonathon Morgan - bankrolled by LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman, pulled a Russian bot "false flag" operation
against GOP candidate Roy Moore in the Alabama special election last year - creating thousands of fake social media accounts designed
to influence voters . Hoffman has since apologized, while Morgan was suspended by Facebook for "coordinated inauthentic" behavior.
As Russian state-owned RT puts
it - and who could blame them for being a bit pissed over the whole thing, "it turns out there really was meddling in American democracy
by "Russian bots." Except they weren't run from Moscow or St. Petersburg, but from the offices of Democrat operatives chiefly responsible
for creating and amplifying the "Russiagate" hysteria over the past two years in a textbook case of psychological projection. "
A week before Christmas, the Senate Intelligence Committee released a report accusing Russia of depressing Democrat voter turnout
by targeting African-Americans on social media. Its authors, New Knowledge, quickly became a household name.
Described by the
New York Times
as a group of "tech specialists who lean Democratic," New Knowledge has ties to both the US military and intelligence agencies.
Its CEO and co-founder Jonathon Morgan previously worked for DARPA, the US military's advanced research agenc y. His partner,
Ryan Fox, is a 15-year veteran of the National Security Agency who also worked as a computer analyst for the Joint Special Operations
Command (JSOC). Their unique skill sets have managed to attract the eye of investors, who pumped $11 million into the company
in 2018 alone.
...
On December 19, a New York Times story revealed that Morgan and his crew had created a fake army of Russian bots, as well as
fake Facebook groups, in order to discredit Republican candidate Roy Moore in Alabama's 2017 special election for the US Senate.
Working on behalf of the Democrats, Morgan and his crew created an estimated 1,000 fake Twitter accounts with Russian names,
and had them follow Moore. They also operated several Facebook pages where they posed as Alabama conservatives who wanted like-minded
voters to support a write-in candidate instead.
In an internal memo, New Knowledge boasted that it had "orchestrated an elaborate 'false flag' operation that planted the idea
that the Moore campaign was amplified on social media by a Russian botnet."
It worked. The botnet claim made a splash on social media and was further amplified by Mother Jones, which based its story
on expert opinion from Morgan's other dubious creation, Hamilton 68. -
RT
Moore ended up losing the Alabama special election by a slim margin of just
In other words: In November 2017 – when Moore and his Democratic opponent were in a bitter fight to win over voters – Morgan
openly promoted the theory that Russian bots were supporting Moore's campaign . A year later – after being caught red-handed orchestrating
a self-described "false flag" operation – Morgan now says that his team never thought that the bots were Russian and have no idea
what their purpose was . Did he think no one would notice? -
RT
Disinformation warrior @ jonathonmorgan attempts to control
damage by lying. He now claims the "false flag operation" never took place and the botnet he promoted as Russian-linked (based
on phony Hamilton68 Russian troll tracker he developed) wasn't Russian https://www.
newknowledge.com/blog/about-ala bama
Even more strange is that Scott Shane - the journalist who wrote the New York Times piece exposing the Alabama "Russian bot" scheme,
knew about it for months after speaking at an event where the organizers bragged about the false flag on Moore .
Shane was one of the speakers at a meeting in September, organized by American Engagement Technologies, a group run by Mikey
Dickerson, President Barack Obama's former tech czar. Dickerson explained how AET spent $100,000 on New Knowledge's campaign to
suppress Republican votes, " enrage" Democrats to boost turnout, and execute a "false flag" to hrt Moore. He dubbed it "Project
Birmingham." - RT
Shane told BuzzFeed that he was "shocked" by the revelations, though hid behind a nondisclosure agreement at the request of American
Engagement Technologies (AET). He instead chose to spin the New Knowledge "false flag" operation on Moore as "limited Russian tactics"
which were part of an "experiment" that had a budget of "only" $100,000 - and which had no effect on the election.
New Knowledge suggested that the false flag operation was simply a "research project," which Morgan suggested was designed "to
better understand and report on the tactics and effects of social media disinformation."
While the New York Times seemed satisfied with his explanation, others pointed out that Morgan had used the Hamilton 68 dashboard
to give his "false flag" more credibility – misleading the public about a "Russian" influence campaign that he knew was fake.
New Knowledge's protestations apparently didn't convince Facebook, which
announced last week that five
accounts linked to New Knowledge – including Morgan's – had been suspended for engaging in "coordinated inauthentic behavior."
- RT
They knew exactly what they were doing
While Morgan and New Knowledge sought to frame the "Project Birmingham" as a simple research project, a leaked copy of the operation's
after-action report reveals that they knew exactly what they were doing .
"We targeted 650,000 like AL voters, with a combination of persona accounts, astroturfing, automated social media amplification
and targeted advertising," reads the report published by entrepreneur and executive coach Jeff Giesea.
The rhetorical question remains, why did the MSM drop this election meddling story like a hot rock after the initial headlines
faded away?
criminal election meddling, but then who the **** is going to click on some morons tactic and switch votes?
anyone basing any funding, whether it is number of facebook hits or attempted mind games by egotistical cuck soyboys needs a serious
psychological examination. fake news is fake BECAUSE IT ISNT REAL AND DOES NOT MATTER TO ANYONE but those living in the excited misery
of their tiny bubble world safe spaces. SOCIAL MEDIA IS A CON AND IS NOT IMPORTANT OR RELEVANT TO ANYONE.
far more serious is destroying ballots, writing in ballots without consent, bussing voters around to vote multiple times in different
districts, registering dead voters and imperosnating the corpses, withholding votes until deadlines pass - making them invalid.
Herdee , 10 minutes ago
NATO on behalf of the Washington politicians uses the same bullsh*t propaganda for continual war.
Mugabe , 20 minutes ago
Yup "PROJECTION"...
Yippie21 , 21 minutes ago
None of this even touches on the 501c3 or whatever that was set up , concerned Alabama voters or somesuch, and was funneled
a **** load of money to be found to be in violation of the law AFTER the election and then it all just disappeared. Nothing to
see here folks, Democrat won, let's move on. There was a LOT of " tests " for the smart-set in that election and it all worked.
We saw a bunch of it used in 2018, especially in Texas with Beto and down-ballot races. Democrats cleaned up like crazy in Texas,
especially in Houston.
2020 is going to be a hot mess. And the press is in on it, and even if illegal or unseemly things are done, as long as Democrats
win, all good... let's move on. Crazy.
LetThemEatRand , 21 minutes ago
The fact that MSM is not covering this story -- which is so big it truly raises major questions about the entire Russiagate
conspiracy including why Mueller was appointed in the first place -- is proof that they have no interest in journalism or the
truth and that they are 100% agenda driven liars. Not that we needed more proof, but there it is anyway.
Oldguy05 , 19 minutes ago
Dimz corruption is a nogo. Now if it were conservatives.......
CosineCosineCosine , 23 minutes ago
I'm not a huge fan, but Jimmy Dore has a cathartic and entertaining 30 minutes on this farce. Well worth the watch:
Really the bigger story is here is that these guys convincingly pretended to be Russian Bots in order to influence an election
(not with the message being put forth by the bots, but by their sheer existence as apparent supporters of the Moore campaign).
By all appearances, they were Russian bots trying to influence the election. Now we know it was DNC operatives. Yet we
are supposed to believe without any proof that the "Russian bots" that supposedly influenced the 2016 Presidential election were,
actually, Russian bots, and worthy of a two year long probe about "Russian collusion" and "Russian meddling."
The whole thing is probably a farce, not only in the sense that there is no evidence that Russia had any influence at all
on a single voter, but also in the sense that there is no evidence that Russia even tried (just claims and allegations by people
who have a vested interest in convincing us its true).
dead hobo , 30 minutes ago
I've been watching Scandal on Netflix. Still only in season 2. Amazing how nothing changes.They nailed it and memorialized
it. The MSM are useful idiots who are happy to make money publicizing what will sell the best.
chunga , 30 minutes ago
The media is biased and sucks, yup.
The reason the reds lost the house is because they went along with this nonsense and did nothing about it, like frightened
baby chipmunks.
JRobby , 33 minutes ago
Only when "the opposition" does it is it illegal. Total totalitarian state wannabe stuff.
divingengineer , 22 minutes ago
Amazing how people can contort reality to justify their own righteous cause, but decry their opposition for the EXACT same
thing. See trump visit to troops signing hats as most recent proof. If DJT takes a piss and sprinkles the seat, it's a crime.
DarkPurpleHaze , 33 minutes ago
They're afraid to expose themselves...unlike Kevin Spacey. Trump or Whitaker will expose this with one signature. It's
coming.
divingengineer , 20 minutes ago
Spacey has totally lost it. See his latest video, it will be a powerful piece of evidence for an insanity plea.
CosineCosineCosine , 10 minutes ago
Disagree strongly. I think it was excellent - perhaps you misunderstood the point? 6 minutes Diana Davidson look at it clarifies
Craig Murray is right that "As the Establishment feels its grip slipping, as people wake up to the appalling economic exploitation by the few that underlies
the very foundations of modern western society, expect the methods used by the security services to become even dirtier."
Collapse of neoliberal ideology and rise of tentions in neoliberal sociarties resulted in unprecedented increase of covert and false
flag operations by British intelligence services, especially against Russia, which had been chosen as a convenient scapegoat.
With Steele dossier and Skripal affair as two most well known.
New Lady Macbeth (Theresa May) Russophobia is so extreme that her cabinet derailed the election of a Russian to head
Interpol.
Looks like neoliberalism cannot be defeated by and faction of the existing elite. Only when shepp oil end mant people will
have a chance. The US , GB and EU are part of the wider hegemonic neoliberal system. In fact rejection of neoliberal
globalization probably will lead to "national neoliberals" regime which would be a flavor of neo-fascism, no more no less.
Notable quotes:
"... The British state can maintain its spies' cover stories for centuries. ..."
"... I learnt how highly improbable left wing firebrand Simon Bracey-Lane just happened to be on holiday in the United States with available cash to fund himself, when he stumbled into the Bernie Sanders campaign. ..."
"... It is, to say the least, very interesting indeed that just a year later the left wing, "Corbyn and Sanders supporting" Bracey-Lane is hosting a very right wing event, "Cold War Then and Now", for the shadowy neo-con Institute for Statecraft, at which an entirely unbalanced panel of British military, NATO and Ukrainian nationalists extolled the virtues of re-arming against Russia. ..."
"... the MOD-sponsored Institute for Statecraft has been given millions of pounds of taxpayers' money by the FCO to spread covert disinformation and propaganda, particularly against Russia and the anti-war movement. Activities include twitter and facebook trolling and secretly paying journalists in "clusters of influence" around Europe. Anonymous helpfully leaked the Institute's internal documents. Some of the Integrity Initiative's thus exposed alleged covert agents, like David Aaronovitch, have denied any involvement despite their appearance in the documents, and others like Dan Kaszeta the US "novichok expert", have cheerfully admitted it. ..."
"... By sleuthing the company records of this "Scottish charity", and a couple of phone calls, I discovered that the actual location of the Institute for Statecraft is the basement of 2 Temple Place, London. This is not just any basement – it is the basement of the former London mansion of William Waldorf Astor, an astonishing building . It is, in short, possibly the most expensive basement in London. ..."
"... Which is interesting because the accounts of the Institute for Statecraft claim it has no permanent staff and show nothing for rent, utilities or office expenses. In fact, I understand the rent is paid by the Ministry of Defence. ..."
"... I have a great deal more to tell you about Mr Edney and his organisation next week, and the extraordinary covert disinformation war the British government wages online, attacking British citizens using British taxpayers' money. Please note in the interim I am not even a smidgeon suicidal, and going to be very, very careful crossing the road and am not intending any walks in the hills. ..."
"... I am not alleging Mr Bracey-Lane is an intelligence service operative who previously infiltrated the Labour Party and the Sanders campaign. He may just be a young man of unusually heterodox and vacillating political opinions. He may be an undercover reporter for the Canary infiltrating the Institute for Statecraft. All these things are possible, and I have no firm information. ..."
"... one of the activities the Integrity Initiative sponsors happens to be the use of online trolls to ridicule the idea that the British security services ever carry out any kind of infiltration, false flag or agent provocateur operations, despite the fact that we even have repeated court judgements against undercover infiltration officers getting female activists pregnant. The Integrity Initiative offers us a glimpse into the very dirty world of surveillance and official disinformation. If we actually had a free media, it would be the biggest story of the day ..."
"... As the Establishment feels its grip slipping, as people wake up to the appalling economic exploitation by the few that underlies the very foundations of modern western society, expect the methods used by the security services to become even dirtier. ..."
"... You can bank on continued ramping up of Russophobia to supply "the enemy". ..."
The British state can maintain its spies' cover stories for centuries. Look up Eldred Pottinger, who for 180 years appears
in scores of British history books – right up to and including William Dalrymple's Return of the King – as a British officer who
chanced to be passing Herat on holiday when it came under siege from a partly Russian-officered Persian army, and helped to organise
the defences. In researching
Sikunder Burnes, I discovered and published from the British Library incontrovertible and detailed documentary evidence that
Pottinger's entire journey was under the direct instructions of, and reporting to, British spymaster Alexander Burnes. The first
historian to publish the untrue "holiday" cover story, Sir John Kaye, knew both Burnes and Pottinger and undoubtedly knew he was
publishing lying propaganda. Every other British historian of the First Afghan War (except me and latterly
Farrukh Husain) has just followed Kaye's official propaganda.
Some things don't change. I was irresistibly reminded of Eldred Pottinger just passing Herat on holiday, when I learnt how
highly improbable left wing firebrand Simon Bracey-Lane
just happened to be on holiday in the
United States with available cash to fund himself, when he stumbled into the Bernie Sanders campaign.
Recent university graduate Simon Bracey-Lane took it even further. Originally from Wimbledon in London, he was inspired to
rejoin the Labour party in September when Corbyn was elected leader. But by that point, he was already in the US on holiday. So
he joined the Sanders campaign, and never left.
"I had two weeks left and some money left, so I thought, Fuck it, I'll make some calls for Bernie Sanders," he explains. "I just
sort of knew Des Moines was the place, so I just turned up at their HQ, started making phone calls, and then became a fully fledged
field organiser."
It is, to say the least, very interesting indeed that just a year later the left wing, "Corbyn and Sanders supporting" Bracey-Lane
is hosting a very right wing event, "Cold War Then and Now", for the shadowy neo-con Institute for Statecraft, at which an entirely
unbalanced panel of British
military, NATO and Ukrainian nationalists extolled the virtues of re-arming against Russia.
Nor would it seem likely that Bracey-Lane would be involved with the Integrity Initiative. Even the mainstream media has been
forced to give a few paragraphs to the outrageous Integrity Initiative, under which the MOD-sponsored Institute for Statecraft
has been given millions of pounds of taxpayers' money by the FCO to spread covert disinformation and propaganda, particularly against
Russia and the anti-war movement. Activities include twitter and facebook trolling and secretly paying journalists in "clusters of
influence" around Europe. Anonymous helpfully leaked the Institute's internal documents. Some of the Integrity Initiative's thus
exposed alleged covert agents, like David Aaronovitch, have denied any involvement despite their appearance in the documents, and
others like Dan Kaszeta the US "novichok expert", have cheerfully admitted it.
The mainstream media have
tracked down
the HQ of the "Institute for Statecraft" to a derelict mill near Auchtermuchty. It is owned by one of the company directors, Daniel
Lafayeedney, formerly of D Squadron 23rd SAS Regiment and later of Military Intelligence (and incidentally born the rather more prosaic
Daniel Edney).
By sleuthing the company records of this "Scottish charity", and a couple of phone calls, I discovered that the actual location
of the Institute for Statecraft is the basement of 2 Temple Place, London. This is not just any basement – it is the basement of
the former London mansion of William Waldorf Astor, an astonishing building.
It is, in short, possibly the most expensive basement in London.
Which is interesting because the accounts of the Institute for Statecraft claim it has no permanent staff and show nothing
for rent, utilities or office expenses. In fact, I understand the rent is paid by the Ministry of Defence.
Having been told where the Institute for Statecraft skulk, I tipped off journalist Kit Klarenberg of Sputnik Radio to go and physically
check it out. Kit did so and was
aggressively
ejected by that well-known Corbyn and Sanders supporter, Simon Bracey-Lane. It does seem somewhat strange that our left wing
hero is deeply embedded in an organisation that
launches troll attacks on Jeremy Corbyn.
I have a great deal more to tell you about Mr Edney and his organisation next week, and the extraordinary covert disinformation
war the British government wages online, attacking British citizens using British taxpayers' money. Please note in the interim I
am not even a smidgeon suicidal, and going to be very, very careful crossing the road and am not intending any walks in the hills.
I am not alleging Mr Bracey-Lane is an intelligence service operative who previously infiltrated the Labour Party and the
Sanders campaign. He may just be a young man of unusually heterodox and vacillating political opinions. He may be an undercover reporter
for the Canary infiltrating the Institute for Statecraft. All these things are possible, and I have no firm information.
But one of the activities the Integrity Initiative sponsors happens to be the use of online trolls to ridicule the idea that the
British security services ever carry out any kind of infiltration, false flag or agent provocateur operations, despite the fact that
we even have repeated court judgements against undercover infiltration officers getting female activists pregnant. The Integrity
Initiative offers us a glimpse into the very dirty world of surveillance and official disinformation. If we actually had a free media,
it would be the biggest story of the day.
As the Establishment feels its grip slipping, as people wake up to the appalling economic exploitation by the few that underlies
the very foundations of modern western society, expect the methods used by the security services to become even dirtier.
You can
bank on continued ramping up of Russophobia to supply "the enemy".
As both Scottish Independence and Jeremy Corbyn are viewed as
real threats by the British Establishment, you can anticipate every possible kind of dirty trick in the next couple of years, with
increasing frequency and audacity
"... In his just published book, War With Russia? ..."
"... To paraphrase Putin: "You are making Russia a threat by declaring us to be one, by discarding facts and substituting orchestrated opinions that your propagandistic media establish as fact via endless repetition." ..."
"... Cohen is correct that during the Cold War every US president worked to defuse tensions, especially Republican ones. Since the Clinton regime every US president has worked to create tensions. What explains this dangerous change in approach? The end of the Cold War was disadvantageous to the military/security complex whose budget and power had waxed from decades of cold war. Suddenly the enemy that had bestowed such wealth and prestige on the military/security complex disappeared. ..."
"... The New Cold War is the result of the military/security complex's resurrection of the enemy. In a democracy with independent media and scholars, this would not have been possible. But the Clinton regime permitted in violation of anti-trust laws 90% of the US media to be concentrated in the hands of six mega-corporations, thus destroying an independence already undermined by the CIA's successful use of the CIA's media assets to control explanations. Many books have been written about the CIA's use of the media, including Udo Ulfkotte's "Bought Journalism," the English edition of which was quickly withdrawn and burned. ..."
Throughout the long Cold War Stephen Cohen, professor of Russian studies at Princeton University and New York University was a
voice of reason. He refused to allow his patriotism to blind him to Washington's contribution to the conflict and to criticize only
the Soviet contribution. Cohen's interest was not to blame the enemy but to work toward a mutual understanding that would remove
the threat of nuclear war. Although a Democrat and left-leaning, Cohen would have been at home in the Reagan administration, as Reagan's
first priority was to end the Cold War. I know this because I was part of the effort. Pat Buchanan will tell you the same thing.
In 1974 a notorious cold warrior, Albert Wohlstetter, absurdly accused the CIA of underestimating the Soviet threat. As the CIA
had every incentive for reasons of budget and power to overestimate the Soviet threat, and today the "Russian threat," Wohlstetter's
accusation made no sense on its face. However he succeeded in stirring up enough concern that CIA director George H.W. Bush, later
Vice President and President, agreed to a Team B to investigate the CIA's assessment, headed by the Russiaphobic Harvard professor
Richard Pipes. Team B concluded that the Soviets thought they could win a nuclear war and were building the forces with which to
attack the US.
The report was mainly nonsense, and it must have have troubled Stephen Cohen to experience the setback to negotiations that Team
B caused.
Today Cohen is stressed that it is the United States that thinks it can win a nuclear war. Washington speaks openly of using "low
yield" nuclear weapons, and intentionally forecloses any peace negotiations with Russia with a propaganda campaign against Russia
of demonization, vilification, and transparent lies, while installing missile bases on Russia's borders and while talking of incorporating
former parts of Russia into NATO. In his just published book, War With Russia? , which I highly recommend, Cohen makes a
convincing case that Washington is asking for war.
I agree with Cohen that if Russia is a threat it is only because the US is threatening Russia. The stupidity of the policy toward
Russia is creating a Russian threat. Putin keeps emphasizing this. To paraphrase Putin: "You are making Russia a threat by declaring
us to be one, by discarding facts and substituting orchestrated opinions that your propagandistic media establish as fact via endless
repetition."
Cohen is correct that during the Cold War every US president worked to defuse tensions, especially Republican ones. Since the
Clinton regime every US president has worked to create tensions. What explains this dangerous change in approach? The end of the Cold War was disadvantageous to the military/security complex whose budget and power had waxed from decades of
cold war. Suddenly the enemy that had bestowed such wealth and prestige on the military/security complex disappeared.
The New Cold War is the result of the military/security complex's resurrection of the enemy. In a democracy with independent media
and scholars, this would not have been possible. But the Clinton regime permitted in violation of anti-trust laws 90% of the US media
to be concentrated in the hands of six mega-corporations, thus destroying an independence already undermined by the CIA's successful
use of the CIA's media assets to control explanations. Many books have been written about the CIA's use of the media, including Udo
Ulfkotte's "Bought Journalism," the English edition of which was quickly withdrawn and burned.
The demonization of Russia is also aided and abetted by the Democrats' hatred of Trump and anger from Hillary's loss of the presidential
election to the "Trump deplorables." The Democrats purport to believe that Trump was installed by Putin's interference in the presidential
election. This false belief is emotionally important to Democrats, and they can't let go of it.
Although Cohen as a professor at Princeton and NYU never lacked research opportunities, in the US Russian studies, strategic studies,
and the like are funded by the military/security complex whose agenda Cohen's scholarship does not serve. At the Center for Strategic
and International Studies, where I held an independently financed chair for a dozen years, most of my colleagues were dependent on
grants from the military/security complex. At the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, where I was a Senior Fellow for three
decades, the anti-Soviet stance of the Institution reflected the agenda of those who funded the institution.
I am not saying that my colleagues were whores on a payroll. I am saying that the people who got the appointments were people
who were inclined to see the Soviet Union the way the military/security complex thought it should be seen.
As Stephen Cohen is aware, in the original Cold War there was some balance as all explanations were not controlled. There were
independent scholars who could point out that the Soviets, decimated by World War 2, had an interest in peace, and that accommodation
could be achieved, thus avoiding the possibility of nuclear war.
Stephen Cohen must have been in the younger ranks of those sensible people, as he and President Reagan's ambassador to the Soviet
Union, Jack Matloff, seem to be the remaining voices of expert reason on the American scene.
If you care to understand the dire threat under which you live, a threat that only a few people, such as Stephen Cohen, are trying
to lift, read his book.
If you want to understand the dire threat that a bought-and-paid-for American media poses to your existence, read Cohen's accounts
of their despicable lies. America has a media that is synonymous with lies.
If you want to understand how corrupt American universities are as organizations on the take for money, organizations to whom
truth is inconsequential, read Cohen's book.
If you want to understand why you could be dead before Global Warming can get you, read Cohen's book.
"... What Are the Democrats Hiding?" http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2017/07/what-are-the-democrats-hiding-by-publius-tacitus.html "Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) demanded that Capitol Police Chief Matthew Verderosa return equipment belonging to her office that was seized as part of the investigation -- or face "consequences." ..."
"... "FBI agents seized smashed computer hard drives from the home of Florida Democratic Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz's information technology (IT) administrator, according to two sources with knowledge of the investigation. Pakistani-born Imran Awan, long-time right-hand IT aide to the former Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chairwoman, has since desperately tried to get the hard drives back." ..."
"... This is not your phony Russia-gate or McCain-commissioned funny dossier on Trump. This is the documented "serious, potentially illegal, violations of the House IT network," which is a case of a free access to classified information by a group of the proven blackmailers. Would this matter be treated with the same urgency of "patriotism" as the cases of Manning and Assange? ..."
Virtually no one [from MSM] is paying attention to the fact that a group of Pakistani
Muslims, working for a Jewish Congresswoman from Florida, had full computer access to a large
number of Democrat Representatives. Most of the press is disinterested in pursuing this
matter."
"FBI agents seized smashed computer hard drives from the home of Florida Democratic
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz's information technology (IT) administrator, according to two
sources with knowledge of the investigation. Pakistani-born Imran Awan, long-time right-hand
IT aide to the former Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chairwoman, has since desperately
tried to get the hard drives back."
This is not your phony Russia-gate or McCain-commissioned funny dossier on Trump. This
is the documented "serious, potentially illegal, violations of the House IT network," which
is a case of a free access to classified information by a group of the proven blackmailers.
Would this matter be treated with the same urgency of "patriotism" as the cases of Manning
and Assange?
"... Rather, they seem to appear to reveal a plot by the British intelligence and security services working in collusion with then CIA Director John Brennan to subvert the course of the 2016 election in favor of the Deep State and Establishment favorite Hillary Clinton. How did that one work out? ..."
And there are other friends in unlikely
places. Beleaguered British Prime Minister Theresa May is wailing loudly
against a Trump threat
to reveal classified documents relating to Russiagate. The real problem is that
the documents apparently don't expose anything done by the Russians.
Rather, they seem to appear to reveal
a plot by the British intelligence and security services
working in collusion with then CIA Director
John Brennan to subvert the course of the 2016 election in favor of the Deep State and Establishment
favorite Hillary Clinton. How did that one work out?
So how about it? Teenagers who get in
trouble often have to ditch their bad friends to turn their lives around. There is still a chance for the
United States if we keep our distance from the bad friends we have been nurturing all around the world,
friends who have been convincing us to make poor choices. Get rid of the ties the bind to the Saudis,
Israelis, Ukrainians, Poles, and yes, even the British. Deal fairly with all nations and treat everyone the
same, but bear in mind that there are only two relationships that really matter – Russia and China. Make a
serious effort to avoid a war by learning how to get along with those two nations and America might actually
survive to celebrate a tricentennial in 2076.
You don't say; British Collusion to influence the 2016 US Presidential elections. Why, if the
beneficiary was anyone other than a Democrat, much less one named Clinton, someone might
actually appoint a Special Counsel to look into it, not to mention the misdeeds of the
various agencies and departments who aided and abetted it.
"You don't say; British Collusion to influence the 2016 US Presidential elections."
MI6, along with elements of the CIA, was behind the Steele Dossier. Representatives of
John Brennan met in London to discus before the go ahead was given. They later put Michael
Steele onto the project; he was a guy with credible Russian contacts. Basically, the scam
worked like this:
They funneled an MI6 intelligence file to Michael Steele (governments routinely keep such
files on influential foreigners and what they are up to) so he could use his contacts to
launder the information and make it appear that it came from sources within Russia; they then
funneled the report back to elements of the FBI so they could use it to justify to the FISA
court a spying campaign on Trump (the FBI illegally withheld the source of the document);
they found nothing proving any Russian connection but they kept the spy program going; they
tried justifying the spy program with a fake story involving a reliable asset that once
passed information from Jimmy Carter's campaign to George H.W. Bush in an effort to help
Reagan win the 1980 election; they later paid the asset nearly a quarter million dollars for
his efforts using a fake "India-China" grant despite the grant running to 2018, the asset
attempted to get a job in the Trump administration so he could act as a mole ; the Obama
regime purposely mishandled information in regards to the spying program (ex: Michael Steele
leaked his document to various news sources before the election and later lied to congress
about it), ensuring it would leak to the press; the Obama regime illegally unmasked elements
of Trump's personal contacts so they could clandestinely leak suggested targets off the
record to the right people
They lost the election anyway, so they then planted dirt and negative press to make the
document look legit – lies about Manafort meeting Assange (Guardian is funded by the
British government to police the left), WaPo lies claiming a vast Russian conspiracy just as
Trump came into office (it was an effort to delegitimize him and create calls for Hillary to
take his place), leaking bank records, the special counsel .and leaking information on Trump
policies to the media using a secret security clearance credentials program enacted by Obama.
They also ran interference through CIA guys like Mark Warner in an effort to cover up the
mole they planted; they falsely asserted this was a national security issue when the man's
identity was well-known to the press and he was never an undercover spy like Jarret was, at
least not in recent history.
To put this all into perspective, imagine the following scenario:
The government takes cctv footage of you at a grocery store; in the background there is an
attractive woman. The woman then goes missing. The government illegally reads your emails and
finds that you like sexual jokes. The government then interviews a friend of yours who claims
that you once made a risque rape joke back in college. They also plant a mole in your
workplace who befriends you and reports back all of your politically incorrect humor. Then
the cops find the woman's body and the government claims that you killed her because you were
in the area at the time and you make bad jokes, which has been confirmed by multiple credible
people. You look guilty, don't you? The government 1) took information out of context 2)
laundered circumstantial evidence through a credible witness when they originally obtained it
elsewhere using nefarious sources. That's what they did to Trump, but much much much
worse.
a plot by the British intelligence and security services to subvert the course of the 2016
election in favor of the Deep State and Establishment favorite Hillary Clinton. How did that
one work out?
Deep State and Establishment stooge Donald Trump.
There is still a chance for the United States if we
After Democratic party was co-opted by neoliberals there is no way back. And since Obama the trend of Democratic Party is
toward strengthening the wing of CIA-democratic notthe wing of the party friendly to workers. Bought by Wall Street leadership is
uncable of intruting any change that undermine thier current neoliberal platform. that's why they criminally derailed Sanders.
Notable quotes:
"... When you think about the issue of how exactly a clean-energy jobs program would address the elephant in the room of private accumulation and how such a program, under capitalism, would be able to pay living wages to the people put to work under it, it exposes how non threatening these Green New Deals actually are to capitalism. ..."
"... To quote Trotsky, "These people are capable of and ready for anything!" ..."
"... "Any serious measures to stop global warming, let alone assure a job and livable wage to everyone, would require a massive redistribution of wealth and the reallocation of trillions currently spent on US imperialism's neo-colonial wars abroad." ..."
"... "It includes various left-sounding rhetoric, but is entirely directed to and dependent upon the Democratic Party." ..."
"... "And again and again, in the name of "practicality," the most unrealistic and impractical policy is promoted -- supporting a party that represents the class that is oppressing and exploiting you! The result is precisely the disastrous situation working people and youth face today -- falling wages, no job security, growing repression and the mounting threat of world war." - New York Times tries to shame "disillusioned young voters" into supporting the Democrats ..."
"... It is an illusion that technical innovation within the capitalist system will magically fundamentally resolve the material problems produced by capitalism. But the inconvenient facts are entirely ignored by the corporate shills in the DSA and the whole lot of establishment politicians, who prefer to indulge their addiction to wealth and power with delusions of grandeur, technological utopianism, and other figments that serve the needs of their class. ..."
"... First it was Obama with his phoney "hope and change" that lured young voters to the Dumbicrats and now it's Ocacia Cortez promising a "green deal" in order to herd them back into the Democratic party--a total fraud of course--totally obvious! ..."
"... from Greenwald: The Democratic Party's deceitful game https://www.salon.com/2010/... ..."
they literally ripped this out of the 2016 Green Party platform. Jill Stein spoke repeatedly
about the same exact kind of Green New Deal, a full-employment, transition-to-100%-renewables
program that would supposedly solve all the world's problems.
When you think about the issue of how exactly a clean-energy jobs program would address
the elephant in the room of private accumulation and how such a program, under capitalism,
would be able to pay living wages to the people put to work under it, it exposes how non
threatening these Green New Deals actually are to capitalism.
In 2016, when the Greens made
this their central economic policy proposal, the Democrats responded by calling that platform
irresponsible and dangerous ("even if it's a good idea, you can't actually vote for a
non-two-party candidate!"). Why would they suddenly find a green new deal appealing now
except for its true purpose: left cover for the very system destroying the planet.
To quote
Trotsky, "These people are capable of and ready for anything!"
"Any serious measures to stop global warming, let alone assure a job and livable wage to
everyone, would require a massive redistribution of wealth and the reallocation of trillions
currently spent on US imperialism's neo-colonial wars abroad."
Their political position not only lacks seriousness, unserious is their political
position.
"It includes various left-sounding rhetoric, but is entirely directed to and dependent
upon the Democratic Party."
For subjective-idealists, what you want to believe, think and feel is just so much more
convincing than objective reality. Especially when it covers over single-minded class
interests at play.
"And again and again, in the name of "practicality," the most unrealistic and impractical
policy is promoted -- supporting a party that represents the class that is oppressing and
exploiting you! The result is precisely the disastrous situation working people and youth
face today -- falling wages, no job security, growing repression and the mounting threat of
world war." - New York Times tries to shame "disillusioned young voters" into supporting
the Democrats
It is an illusion that technical innovation within the capitalist system will magically
fundamentally resolve the material problems produced by capitalism. But the inconvenient
facts are entirely ignored by the corporate shills in the DSA and the whole lot of
establishment politicians, who prefer to indulge their addiction to wealth and power with
delusions of grandeur, technological utopianism, and other figments that serve the needs of
their class.
First it was Obama with his phoney "hope and change" that lured young voters to the
Dumbicrats and now it's Ocacia Cortez promising a "green deal" in order to herd them back
into the Democratic party--a total fraud of course--totally obvious!
Only an International Socialist program led by Workers can truly lead a "green revolution" by
expropriating the billionaire oil barons of their capital and redirecting that wealth into
the socialist reconstruction of the entire economy.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's "Green New Deal" is a nice laugh. Really, it sure is funny hearing
these lies given any credence at all. This showmanship belongs in a fantasy book, not in real
life. The Democratic Party as a force for good social change Now that's a laugh!
Lies, empty promises, meaningless tautologies and morality plays, qualified and conditional
declarations to be backpedalled pending appropriate political expediencies, devoid any
practical content that is what AOC, card carrying member of DSA, and in fact young energetic
political apparatchik of calcified political body of Dems establishment, duty engulfs. And
working for socialist revolution is no one of them.
What kind of socialist would reject socialist revolution, class struggle and class
emancipation and choose, as a suppose socialist path, accommodation with oligarchic ruling
elite via political, not revolutionary process that would have necessarily overthrown ruling
elite.
What socialist would acquiesce to legalized exploitation of people for profit, legalized
greed and inequality and would negotiate away fundamental principle of egalitarianism and
working people self rule?
Only National Socialist would; and that is exactly what AOC campaign turned out to be all
about.
National Socialism with imperial flavor is her affiliation and what her praises for
Pelosi, wife of a billionaire and dead warmonger McCain proved.
Now she is peddling magical thinking about global change and plunge herself into falacy of
entrepreneurship, Market solution to the very problem that the market solutions were designed
to create and aggravate namely horrific inequality that is robbing people from their own
opportunities to mitigate devastating effects of global change.
The insidiousness of phony socialists expresses itself in the fact that they lie that any
social problem can be fixed by current of future technical means, namely via so called
technological revolution instead by socialist revolution they deem unnecessary or
detrimental.
The technical means for achieving socialism has existed since the late 19th century, with the
telegraph, the coal-powered factory, and modern fertilizer. The improvements since then have
only made socialism even more streamlined and efficient, if such technologies could only be
liberated from capital! The idea that "we need a new technological revolution just to achieve
socialism" reflects the indoctrination in capitalism by many "socialist" theorists because it
is only in capitalism where "technological growth" is essential simply to maintain the
system. It is only in capitalism (especially America, the most advanced capitalist nation,
and thus, the one where capitalism is actually closest towards total crisis) where the dogma
of a technological savior is most entrenched because America cannot offer any other kind of
palliative to the more literate and productive sections of its population. Religion will not
convince most and any attempt at a sociological or economic understanding would inevitably
prove the truth of socialism.
Skripal events probably helped to advance this line of investigation. So in a way UK intelligence services put their own
stooge on the line of fire.
Notable quotes:
"... Russian prosecutors on Monday claimed that Magnitsky and several other people familiar with Browder's illicit activities in Russia may have been killed on his order. They said a new criminal case has been opened against Browder in Russia, and that Moscow will seek his extradition as an alleged ringleader of an international criminal enterprise involved in money laundering ..."
"... The prosecutors identified four people who were suspects in the Browder case, all of whom died over the course of less than two years as the investigation against him unfolded. Oktay Gasanov was the first of the four, dying in October 2007; while Magnitsky's death in November 2009 was the last. By the time of his death, Magnitsky had spent almost a year in pre-trial detention. The two others were Valery Kurochkin and Sergey Korobeinikov, who died in April 2008 and September 2008, respectively. ..."
"... Considering that the three individuals, with the exception of Magnitsky, died within months of each other while being investigated as part of Browder's case, "it is highly likely that they were killed to get rid of accomplices who could give an incriminating testimony against Browder," a senior official with the Russian General Prosecutor's office told journalists. The same may be true for Magnitsky, he said. The prosecutor stressed that Russia didn't conduct detailed studies into how the suspected poison affects living organisms, but several research institutions based in the US, France and Italy did. ..."
"... The prosecutors claim that Browder was the party who benefited most from the death of Magnitsky. They cited journalist Oleg Lurie, who shared a prison cell with Magnitsky before the latter's death. Speaking under oath during a court hearing in New York, Lurie said that his cellmate had complained to him that Browder's lawyers were pressuring him into signing a false statement. Magnitsky's testimony claimed that he had uncovered a conspiracy to embezzle taxpayers' money involving Russian officials. ..."
"... The Russian prosecutors said Browder allegedly wanted to silence his employee after obtaining the false claim. The statement itself was used to blame Russian officials for Magnitsky's death and accuse the Russian government of a cover-up. ..."
"... Described by critics as a 'vulture capitalist,' Browder seemed quite comfortable earning millions of dollars in the financial wild west. In 2005, as fallen oil tycoon Mikhail Khodorkovsky was standing trial for tax evasion, Browder scolded him on the BBC for using personal wealth to grasp at political power, and for leaving "in his wake aggrieved investors too numerous to count." He was also a staunch public supporter of the policies of Russian President Vladimir Putin. ..."
"... The investor then reinvented himself as an anti-Putin figure, using the death of Magnitsky to lobby various countries to impose sanctions on the Russian officials he blamed for his employee's death. The US Magnitsky Act was passed in 2012, allowing people accused by Washington of human rights violations to be targeted. However, it is perceived by the Kremlin as just a tool to restrain Russia for the sake of global political and economic competition. ..."
"... Among Browder's latest exploits is playing a role in the 'Russiagate' story. A key part of the elusive search for collusion between US President Donald Trump and the Russian government is a meeting between Donald Trump Jr. and a Russian lawyer. The meeting was apparently organized with a view to lobbying for the repeal of the Magnitsky Act. Its architect, Browder, has therefore been eager to lend his expertise on 'Russian machinations' to US lawmakers and media outlets. ..."
"... If you like this story, share it with a friend! ..."
Kremlin
critic Bill Browder may have given the order for his employee Sergei Magnitsky to be poisoned
with a rare toxin in a Russian prison cell, along with other suspects in a tax-evasion probe
against him, prosecutors have said. British financier Browder was once a well-connected
investor in post-Soviet Russia, but he became a fugitive from the law in the country after
being accused of financial crimes. In the West, however, he is best known as the employer of
Sergei Magnitsky, a Russian accountant who died in police custody while being investigated in
connection to the Browder case. Magnitsky's death became an international scandal, with Browder
accusing Russian officials of killing him.
Russian prosecutors on Monday claimed that Magnitsky and several other people familiar with
Browder's illicit activities in Russia may have been killed on his order. They said a new
criminal case has been opened against Browder in Russia, and that Moscow will seek his
extradition as an alleged ringleader of an international criminal enterprise involved in money
laundering.
The prosecutors identified four people who were suspects in the Browder case, all of whom
died over the course of less than two years as the investigation against him unfolded. Oktay
Gasanov was the first of the four, dying in October 2007; while Magnitsky's death in November
2009 was the last. By the time of his death, Magnitsky had spent almost a year in pre-trial
detention. The two others were Valery Kurochkin and Sergey Korobeinikov, who died in April 2008
and September 2008, respectively.
Korobeinikov died after falling off a high-rise building, while the others had health
complications. The Russian prosecutors believe all four of them may have been killed with a
rare water-soluble compound of aluminum. Each of the men showed symptoms consistent with being
poisoned by the toxin prior to their deaths, while Korobeinikov had traces of it in his liver,
according to a post mortem. An investigation into four possible murders has been
opened.
Considering that the three individuals, with the exception of Magnitsky, died within
months of each other while being investigated as part of Browder's case, "it is highly likely
that they were killed to get rid of accomplices who could give an incriminating testimony
against Browder," a senior official with the Russian General Prosecutor's office told
journalists. The same may be true for Magnitsky, he said. The prosecutor stressed that Russia
didn't conduct detailed studies into how the suspected poison affects living organisms, but
several research institutions based in the US, France and Italy did.
The prosecutors claim that Browder was the party who benefited most from the death of
Magnitsky. They cited journalist Oleg Lurie, who shared a prison cell with Magnitsky before the
latter's death. Speaking under oath during a court hearing in New York, Lurie said that his
cellmate had complained to him that Browder's lawyers were pressuring him into signing a false
statement. Magnitsky's testimony claimed that he had uncovered a conspiracy to embezzle
taxpayers' money involving Russian officials.
The Russian prosecutors said Browder allegedly wanted to silence his employee after
obtaining the false claim. The statement itself was used to blame Russian officials for
Magnitsky's death and accuse the Russian government of a cover-up.
Last year, Browder was sentenced by a Russian court to nine years in prison for tax evasion.
The trial was held in absentia and Moscow failed to have him extradited to serve the term. The
prosecutors said that they will renew attempts to get custody of Browder as part of the new
criminal case, using a UN convention on fighting transnational crime to have him arrested.
Browder is a US-born British financier, whose change of citizenship had the benefit of
allowing him to avoid paying tax on foreign earnings. However, he claimed the switch was
prompted by his family being persecuted in the US during the McCarthyism witch hunt, while the
UK seemed like the land of law and order.
He made a fortune in Russia during the country's chaotic transition to a market economy,
having invested before there was a stock exchange in Moscow. His Hermitage Capital Management
fund was a leading foreign investment entity in the late 1990s and early 2000s.
Described by critics as a 'vulture capitalist,' Browder seemed quite comfortable earning
millions of dollars in the financial wild west. In 2005, as fallen oil tycoon Mikhail
Khodorkovsky was standing trial for tax evasion, Browder scolded him on the BBC for using personal
wealth to grasp at political power, and for leaving "in his wake aggrieved investors too
numerous to count." He was also a staunch public supporter of the policies of Russian President
Vladimir Putin.
The transformation of his public image from a financial shark into a human rights crusader
started when Browder himself entered the spotlight of Russian law enforcement. In 2007, the
foundation he ran was targeted by a probe into possible large-scale embezzlement of Russian
taxpayers' money. Magnitsky, who worked for Browder and had knowledge of his firms' finances,
was arrested and held in pre-trial detention until his death in November 2009. The British
businessman insisted that the entire case was fabricated and that Magnitsky had been
assassinated for exposing a criminal scheme involving several Russian tax officials.
The investor then reinvented himself as an anti-Putin figure, using the death of
Magnitsky to lobby various countries to impose sanctions on the Russian officials he blamed for
his employee's death. The US Magnitsky Act was passed in 2012, allowing people accused by
Washington of human rights violations to be targeted. However, it is perceived by the Kremlin
as just a tool to restrain Russia for the sake of global political and economic
competition.
Browder's new-found status as a rights advocate and self-proclaimed worst enemy of Putin
helps him deflect Russia's attempts to prosecute him. On several occasions, Russia filed
international arrest warrants against him with Interpol, which even led to his brief detention
in Spain last May.
Among Browder's latest exploits is playing a role in the 'Russiagate' story. A key part
of the elusive search for collusion between US President Donald Trump and the Russian
government is a meeting between Donald Trump Jr. and a Russian lawyer. The meeting was
apparently organized with a view to lobbying for the repeal of the Magnitsky Act. Its
architect, Browder, has therefore been eager to lend his expertise on 'Russian machinations' to
US lawmakers and media outlets.
"... Trump's memo on the Saudis begins with the headline "The world is a very dangerous place!" Indeed, it is and behavior by the three occupants of the White House since 2000 is largely to blame. ..."
"... Indeed, a national security policy that sees competitors and adversaries as enemies in a military sense has made nuclear war, unthinkable since the demise of the Soviet Union in 1991, thinkable once again. ..."
"... George Washington's dictum in his Farewell Address , counseling his countrymen to "observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all." And Washington might have somehow foreseen the poisonous relationships with Israel and the Saudis when he warned that " a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification." ..."
"... Cautious optimism may be better than none, but futile nonetheless. Bullying, dispossession, slavery and genocide constitute the very bedrock, the essence and soul of the founding of our country. ..."
"... Truth be told we simply know of no other kinder, gentler alternatives to perpetual war and destruction as the cornerstone of our foreign policy. Normality? Not in my lifetime. ..."
"... Your CNI and 'If Americans Knew' informed me about Rand Paul's courageous move. I plan to call his office today to give him encouragement and call my Senators and Representative to urge them to support him (fat chance of that but I have to stick it in their face). ..."
"... America doesn't have a policy because America is no longer a real nation. It's an empire filled with diverse groups of peoples who all hate each other and want to use the power of the government for the benefit of their overseas co-ethnics. ..."
President Donald Trump's
recent statement on the Jamal Khashoggi killing by Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince might well be considered a metaphor for his foreign
policy. Several commentators have suggested that the text appears to be something that Trump wrote himself without any adult supervision,
similar to the poorly expressed random arguments presented in his tweeting only longer. That might be the case, but it would not
be wise to dismiss the document as merely frivolous or misguided as it does in reality express the kind of thinking that has produced
a foreign policy that seems to drift randomly to no real end, a kind of leaderless creative destruction of the United States as a
world power.
Lord Palmerston, Prime Minister of Britain in the mid nineteenth century, famously said that "Nations have no permanent friends
or allies, they only have permanent interests."The United States currently has neither real friends nor any clearly defined interests.
It is, however, infested with parasites that have convinced an at-drift America that their causes are identical to the interests
of the United States. Leading the charge to reduce the U.S. to "bitch" status, as Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard
has artfully put it , are Israel and Saudi
Arabia, but there are many other countries, alliances and advocacy groups that have learned how to subvert and direct the "leader
of the free world."
Trump's memo on the Saudis begins with the headline "The world is a very dangerous place!" Indeed, it is and behavior by the
three occupants of the White House since 2000 is largely to blame. It is difficult to find a part of the world where an actual
American interest is being served by Washington's foreign and global security policies. Indeed, a national security policy that
sees competitors and adversaries as enemies in a military sense has made nuclear war, unthinkable since the demise of the Soviet
Union in 1991, thinkable once again. The fact that no one is the media or in political circles is even talking about that terrible
danger suggests that war has again become mainstreamed, tacitly benefiting from bipartisan acceptance of it as a viable foreign policy
tool by the media, in the U.S. Congress and also in the White House.
The part of the world where American meddling coupled with ignorance has produced the worst result is inevitably the Middle East...
... ... ...
All of the White House's actions have one thing in common and that is that they do not benefit Americans in any way unless one
works for a weapons manufacturer, and that is not even taking into consideration the dead soldiers and civilians and the massive
debt that has been incurred to intervene all over the world. One might also add that most of America's interventions are built on
deliberate lies by the government and its associated media, intended to increase tension and create a casus belli where
none exists.
So what is to be done as it often seems that the best thing Trump has going for him is that he is not Hillary Clinton? First of
all, a comprehensive rethink of what the real interests of the United States are in the world arena is past due. America is less
safe now than it was in 2001 as it continues to make enemies with its blundering everywhere it goes. There are now
four times as many designated terrorists as there were in 2001, active in 70 countries. One would quite plausibly soon arrive
at George Washington's dictum in his Farewell Address
, counseling his countrymen to "observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all." And Washington
might have somehow foreseen the poisonous relationships with Israel and the Saudis when he warned that " a passionate attachment
of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary
common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former
into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification."
George Washington or any of the other Founders would be appalled to see an America with 800 military bases overseas, allegedly
for self-defense. The transfer of wealth from taxpayers to the military industrial complex and related entities like Wall Street
has been catastrophic. The United States does not need to protect Israel and Saudi Arabia, two countries that are armed to the teeth
and well able to defend themselves. Nor does it have to be in Syria and Afghanistan. And
If the United States were to withdraw its military from the Middle East and the rest of Asia tomorrow, it would be to nearly everyone's
benefit. If the armed forces were to be subsequently reduced to a level sufficient to defend the United States it would put money
back in the pockets of Americans and end the continuous fearmongering through surfacing of "threats" by career militarists justifying
the bloated budgets.
... ... ...
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational
foundation that seeks a more interests [email protected]
.
but even small steps in the right direction could initiate a gradual process of turning the United States into a more normal
country in its relationships with the rest of the world rather than a universal predator and bully.
Cautious optimism may be better than none, but futile nonetheless. Bullying, dispossession, slavery and genocide constitute
the very bedrock, the essence and soul of the founding of our country.
To expect mutations -- no matter how slow or fast in a
trait that appears deeply embedded in our DNA is to be naive. Add to that the intractable stranglehold Zionists and organized
world Jewry has on our nuts and decision making. A more congruent convergence of histories and DNAs would be hard to come by among
other nations. Truth be told we simply know of no other kinder, gentler alternatives to perpetual war and destruction as the cornerstone
of our foreign policy. Normality? Not in my lifetime.
Your CNI and 'If Americans Knew' informed me about Rand Paul's courageous move. I plan to call his office today to give
him encouragement and call my Senators and Representative to urge them to support him (fat chance of that but I have to stick
it in their face).
Hey, how about a Rand Paul-Tulsi Gabbard fusion ticket in 2024, not a bad idea, IMHO.
Going back to the Administration you can see the slimy Zionist hands of Steven Miller on all of those foreign policy statements.
Trump is allowing this because he has to protect his flanks from Zionists, Christian or otherwise. He might be just giving Miller
just enough rope to jettison him (wishful thinking on my part). Or he doesn't care or is unaware of the texts, a possibility.
1. Because that defies human nature. See all of history if you disagree.
2. America doesn't have a policy because America is no longer a real nation. It's an empire filled with diverse groups of peoples
who all hate each other and want to use the power of the government for the benefit of their overseas co-ethnics.
The beginning of USA foreign policy for me is the 1820 or 1830 Monroe Declaration: south America is our backyard, keep out.
Few people know that at the time European countries considered war on the USA because of this beginning of world domination.
When I told this to a USA correspondent the reply was 'but this declaration still is taught here in glowing terms'.
What we saw then was the case until Obama, USA foreign policy was for internal political reasons.
As Hollings stated in 2004 'Bush promising AIPAC the war on Iraq, that is politics'.
No empire ever, as far as I know, ever was in the comfortable position to be able to let foreign policy to be decided (almost)
completely by internal politics.
This changed during the Obama reign, the two war standard had to be lowered to one and a half.
All of a sudden the USA had to develop a foreign policy, a policy that had to take into consideration the world outside the USA.
Not the whole USA understands this, the die hards of Deep State in the lead.
What a half war accomplishes we see, my opinion, in Syria, a half war does not bring victory on an enemy who wages a whole
war.
Assad is still there, Russia has airforce and naval bases in Syria.
Normally, as any history book explains, foreign policy of a country is decided on in secret by a few people.
British preparations for both WWI and WWII included detailed technical talks with both the USA and France, not even all cabinet
members knew about it.
One of Trump's difficulties is that Deep State does not at all has the intention of letting the president decide on foreign policy,
at the time of FDR he did what he liked, though, if one reads for example Baruch's memoirs, in close cooperation with the Deep
State that then existed.
The question 'why do we not leave the rest of the world alone', hardly ever asked.
The USA is nearly autarcic, foreign trade, from memory, some five percent of national income, a very luxurious position.
But of course, leaving the rest of the world alone, huge internal consequences, as Hinckley explains with an example, politically
impossible to stop the development of a bomber judged to be superfluous.
Barbara Hinckley Sheldon Goldman, American Politics and Government, Glenview Ill.,1990
Good luck. A fight over resources with the biggest consumer of resources, the People That Kill People and all their little buddies
in the Alphabet Soup of Law Enforcement and Intelligence Depravity..
That could get a fella hurt. Ask Jack and Bob Kennedy.
"The bilateral relationship between the U.S. and Russia is now worse than it was towards the end of the Cold War". Classic American
cold warrior mentality. The present-day Russian Federation is assimilated to the former Soviet Union.
Tragically for America, and the West in general, President Trump is unrecognizable from
candidate Trump :
'This is a crossroads in the history of our civilization that will determine whether or not we the people reclaim control over
our government. The political establishment that is trying to stop us is the same group responsible for our disastrous trade deals,
massive illegal immigration and economic and foreign policies that have bled our country dry Their financial resources are virtually
unlimited, their political resources are unlimited, their media resources are unmatched, and most importantly, the depths of their
immorality is absolutely unlimited.'
CIA democrats of which Obama is a prominent example (and Hillary is another one) are are Werewolfs, very dangerous political beasts,
probably more dangerous to the world then Republicans like George W Bush. But in case of Ukraine, it was easily pushed into Baltic orbit,
because it has all the preconditions for that. So Nuland has an relatively easy, albeit dirty task. Also all this
probably that "in five years we will be living like French" was pretty effective. Now the population faces
consequences of its own stupidity. This is just neoliberal business as usual or neocolonialism.
Notable quotes:
"... populists on the right ..."
"... hired members of Ukraine's two racist-fascist, or nazi, political parties ..."
"... Disclaimer: No Russian, living or dead, had anything to do with the posting of this proudly home-grown comment ..."
Let's recap what Obama's coup
in Ukraine has led to shall we? Maybe installing and blatantly backing Neo Nazis in Ukraine might have something to do with the
rise of " populists on the right " that is spreading through Europe and this country, Hillary.
America's criminal 'news' media never even reported the coup, nor that in 2011 the Obama regime began
planning for
a coup in Ukraine . And that by 1 March 2013 they started organizing it
inside the
U.S. Embassy there . And that they hired members of Ukraine's two racist-fascist, or nazi, political parties , Right
Sector and Svoboda (which latter had been called the Social Nationalist Party of Ukraine until the CIA advised them to change
it to Freedom Party, or "Svoboda" instead). And that in February 2014 they did it (and here's the
4 February 2014 phone call instructing the U.S. Ambassador
whom to place in charge of the new regime when the coup will be completed), under the cover of authentic anti-corruption demonstrations
that the Embassy organized on the Maidan Square in Kiev, demonstrations that the criminal U.S. 'news' media misrepresented as
'democracy demonstrations ,' though Ukraine already had democracy (but still lots of corruption, even more than today's U.S. does,
and the pontificating Obama said he was trying to end Ukraine's corruption -- which instead actually soared after his coup there).
But wait there's more .... Remember
that caravan of refugees making their way through Mexico? Guess where a number of them came from? Honduras. Yep. Another coup that
happened during Obama's and Hillary's tenure.
In a recent op-ed in The Washington Post, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
used a review of Henry Kissinger's latest book, "World Order ," to lay out her vision for "sustaining America's leadership
in the world." In the midst of numerous global crises, she called for return to a foreign policy with purpose, strategy and pragmatism.
She also highlighted some of these policy choices in her memoir "Hard Choices" and how they contributed to the challenges that
Barack Obama's administration now faces.
**
The chapter on Latin America, particularly the section on Honduras, a major source of the child migrants currently pouring into
the United States, has gone largely unnoticed. In letters to Clinton and her successor, John Kerry, more than 100 members of Congress
have repeatedly warned about the deteriorating security situation in Honduras, especially since the 2009 military coup that ousted
the country's democratically elected President Manuel Zelaya. As Honduran scholar Dana Frank points out in Foreign Affairs, the
U.S.-backed post-coup government "rewarded coup loyalists with top ministries," opening the door for further "violence and anarchy."
The homicide rate in Honduras, already the highest in the world, increased by 50 percent from 2008 to 2011; political repression,
the murder of opposition political candidates, peasant organizers and LGBT activists increased and continue to this day. Femicides
skyrocketed. The violence and insecurity were exacerbated by a generalized institutional collapse. Drug-related violence has worsened
amid allegations of rampant corruption in Honduras' police and government. While the gangs are responsible for much of the violence,
Honduran security forces have engaged in a wave of killings and other human rights crimes with impunity.
Despite this, however, both under Clinton and Kerry, the State Department's response to the violence and military and police
impunity has largely been silence, along with continued U.S. aid to Honduran security forces. In "Hard Choices," Clinton describes
her role in the aftermath of the coup that brought about this dire situation. Her firsthand account is significant both for the
confession of an important truth and for a crucial false testimony.
First, the confession: Clinton admits that she used the power of her office to make sure that Zelaya would not return to office.
"In the subsequent days [after the coup] I spoke with my counterparts around the hemisphere, including Secretary [Patricia] Espinosa
in Mexico," Clinton writes. "We strategized on a plan to restore order in Honduras and ensure that free and fair elections could
be held quickly and legitimately, which would render the question of Zelaya moot."
Clinton's position on Latin America in her bid for the presidency is another example of how the far right exerts disproportionate
influence on US foreign policy in the hemisphere. up 24 users have voted. --
Disclaimer: No Russian, living or dead, had anything to do with the posting of this proudly home-grown comment
@snoopydawg@snoopydawg
Obama, Hillary and the rest of that administration knew it was a coup because that was the goal.
"..4. (C) In our view, none of the above arguments has any substantive validity under the Honduran constitution. Some are outright
false. Others are mere supposition or ex-post rationalizations of a patently illegal act. Essentially: --
the military had no authority to remove Zelaya from the country;
-- Congress has no constitutional authority to remove a Honduran president;
-- Congress and the judiciary removed Zelaya on the basis of a hasty, ad-hoc, extralegal, secret, 48-hour process;
-- the purported "resignation" letter was a fabrication and was not even the basis for Congress's action of June 28; and
-- Zelaya's arrest and forced removal from the country violated multiple constitutional guarantees, including the prohibition
on expatriation, presumption of innocence and right to due process. " https://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/09TEGUCIGALPA645_a.html
That evil woman thinks she has the right to preach to others about how to handle the very fallout from the horrific disasters
that she HERself created? Hillary, look in the mirror, you evil woman.
Clinton said rightwing populists in the west met "a psychological as much as political yearning to be told what to do, and
where to go, and how to live and have their press basically stifled and so be given one version of reality.
" The whole American system was designed so that you would eliminate the threat from a strong, authoritarian king or
other leader and maybe people are just tired of it. They don't want that much responsibility and freedom. They want to be told
what to do and where to go and how to live and only given one version of reality.
"I don't know why at this moment that is so attractive to people, but it's a serious threat to our freedom and our democratic
institutions, and it goes very deep and very far and we've got to do a better job of shining a light on it and trying to combat
it."
This arrogance of looking down on the populace is very part and parcel of the neoliberal attitude of the ruling class takes
to the rest of us peons. They created this unreality for the American people and have suppressed our right to know what is really
happening in the world. Obama destroyed the Occupy Movement with violent police attacks and kettling. And then disgustingly, Clinton
comes out with her hubristic victim blaming.
The Clintons are nearly single handedly responsible for much of the destruction of the American middle class and the repression
of poor and black people under Bill and the violent destruction of many countries under Hillary. And yet neither Clinton is willing
to own up for all the human misery that they have caused wherever they go. Unfortunately, the one place they refuse to go is just
away forever.
The belief that HRC & her circle are principled & progressive is just as fictitious as the belief that they lost to a reality
TV host because of stolen emails, social media trolls, & a (fictitious) conspiracy between the reality TV host & the Kremlin:
https://t.co/iyTC1M6uws
Clinton says Europe should make clear that "we are not going to be able to continue provide refuge & support." Isn't this
the attitude we denounce Trump for? Speaking of irony, Clinton's regime wars in Libya & Syria (& Iraq, indirectly) fueled the
migration she wants to stop. https://t.co/CIkkGRRKNd
This ego-maniac sees the world's problems - which she had a huge hand in creating - only through the lens of her electability.
Apparently, the only problems the world has are the one's that keep her from sitting in the Oval Office. Everything else is
fine. She is deplorable.
That evil woman thinks she has the right to preach to others about how to handle the very fallout from the horrific disasters
that she HERself created? Hillary, look in the mirror, you evil woman.
Clinton said rightwing populists in the west met "a psychological as much as political yearning to be told what to do,
and where to go, and how to live and have their press basically stifled and so be given one version of reality.
" The whole American system was designed so that you would eliminate the threat from a strong, authoritarian king
or other leader and maybe people are just tired of it. They don't want that much responsibility and freedom. They want to
be told what to do and where to go and how to live and only given one version of reality.
"I don't know why at this moment that is so attractive to people, but it's a serious threat to our freedom and our democratic
institutions, and it goes very deep and very far and we've got to do a better job of shining a light on it and trying to
combat it."
This arrogance of looking down on the populace is very part and parcel of the neoliberal attitude of the ruling class takes
to the rest of us peons. They created this unreality for the American people and have suppressed our right to know what is
really happening in the world. Obama destroyed the Occupy Movement with violent police attacks and kettling. And then disgustingly,
Clinton comes out with her hubristic victim blaming.
The Clintons are nearly single handedly responsible for much of the destruction of the American middle class and the repression
of poor and black people under Bill and the violent destruction of many countries under Hillary. And yet neither Clinton is
willing to own up for all the human misery that they have caused wherever they go. Unfortunately, the one place they refuse
to go is just away forever.
@gulfgal98 Because they just HAVE to get a rich, far-right, patriarchal white woman elected at any cost for the sake
of 'making history'. If these idiots really wanted to make history, they'd work like hell to put someone in charge who actually
had the balls to hang the pigs and their collaborators for their crimes.
The belief that HRC & her circle are principled & progressive is just as fictitious as the belief that they lost to a
reality TV host because of stolen emails, social media trolls, & a (fictitious) conspiracy between the reality TV host &
the Kremlin: https://t.co/iyTC1M6uws
Clinton says Europe should make clear that "we are not going to be able to continue provide refuge & support." Isn't
this the attitude we denounce Trump for? Speaking of irony, Clinton's regime wars in Libya & Syria (& Iraq, indirectly)
fueled the migration she wants to stop. https://t.co/CIkkGRRKNd
This ego-maniac sees the world's problems - which she had a huge hand in creating - only through the lens of her electability.
Apparently, the only problems the world has are the one's that keep her from sitting in the Oval Office. Everything else
is fine. She is deplorable.
"... Operating on a budget of £1.9 million (US$2.4 million), the secretive Integrity Initiative consists of "clusters" of local politicians, journalists, military personnel, scientists and academics. The team is dedicated to searching for and publishing "evidence" of Russian interference in European affairs , while themselves influencing leadership behind the scenes, the documents claim. ..."
"... The Integrity Initiative "clusters" currently operate out of Spain, France, Germany, Italy, Greece, Montenegro, Serbia, Norway, Lithuania and the netherlands. According to the leak by Anonymous, the Integrity Initiative is working to aggressively expand its sphere of influence throughout eastern Europe, as well as the US, Canada and the MENA region ..."
"... The work done by the Initiative - which claims it is not a government body, is done under "absolute secrecy via concealed contacts embedded throughout British embassies," according to the leak. It does, however, admit to working with unnamed British "government agencies." ..."
The hacking collective known as "Anonymous" published a
trove of documents on November 5 which it claims exposes a UK-based psyop to create a " large-scale information secret service
" in Europe in order to combat "Russian propaganda" - which has been blamed for everything from
Brexit to US President Trump winning the 2016 US election.
The primary objective of the " Integrity Initiative " - established
in 2015 by the Institute for Statecraft - is "to provide a coordinated
Western response to Russian disinformation and other elements of hybrid warfare."
And while the notion of Russian disinformation has become the West's favorite new bogeyman to excuse things such as Hillary Clinton's
historic loss to Donald Trump, we note that "Anonymous" was called out by WikiLeaks in October 2016 as an FBI cutout, while the report
on the Integrity Initiative that Anonymous exposed comes from Russian state-owned network
RT - so it's anyone's guess whose 400lb
hackers are at work here.
Operating on a budget
of £1.9 million (US$2.4 million), the secretive Integrity Initiative consists of "clusters" of local politicians, journalists,
military personnel, scientists and academics. The team is dedicated to searching for and publishing "evidence" of Russian interference
in European affairs , while themselves influencing leadership behind the scenes, the documents claim.
The UK establishment appears to be conducting the very activities of which it and its allies have long-accused the Kremlin,
with little or no corroborating evidence. The program also aims to "change attitudes in Russia itself" as well as influencing
Russian speakers in the EU and North America, one of the leaked
documents states. -
RT
The Integrity Initiative "clusters" currently operate out of Spain, France, Germany, Italy, Greece, Montenegro, Serbia, Norway,
Lithuania and the netherlands. According to the leak by Anonymous, the Integrity Initiative is working to aggressively expand its
sphere of influence throughout eastern Europe, as well as the US, Canada and the MENA region .
The work done by the Initiative - which claims it is not a government body, is done under "absolute secrecy via concealed contacts
embedded throughout British embassies," according to the leak. It does, however, admit to working with unnamed British "government
agencies."
The initiative has received £168,000 in funding from HQ NATO Public Diplomacy and £250,000 from the
US State Department , the
documents allege.
Some of its purported members include British MPs and high-profile " independent" journalists with a penchant for anti-Russian
sentiment in their collective online oeuvre, as showcased by a brief glance at their Twitter feeds. -
RT
Noted examples of "inedependent" anti-Russia journalists:
Spanish "Op"
In one example of the group's activities, a "Moncloa Campaign" was successfully conducted by the group's Spanish cluster to block
the appointment of Colonel Pedro Banos as the director of Spain's Department of Homeland Security. It took just seven-and-a-half
hours to accomplish, brags the group in the
documents .
"The [Spanish] government is preparing to appoint Colonel Banos, known for his pro-Russian and pro-Putin positions in the Syrian
and Ukrainian conflicts, as Director of the Department of Homeland Security, a key body located at the Moncloa," begins Nacho Torreblanca
in a seven-part tweetstorm describing what happened.
Others joined in. Among them – according to the leaks – academic Miguel Ángel Quintana Paz, who wrote that "Mr. Banos is to
geopolitics as a homeopath is to medicine." Appointing such a figure would be "a shame." -
RT
The operation was reported in Spanish media, while Banos was labeled "pro-Putin" by UK MP Bob Seely.
In short, expect anything counter to predominant "open-border" narratives to be the Kremlin's fault - and not a natural populist
reflex to the destruction of borders, language and culture.
"... It lists Bellingcat and the Atlantic Council as "partner organisations" ..."
"... "The UK's Secret Intelligence Service, otherwise known as MI6, has been scrambling to prevent President Trump from publishing classified materials linked to the Russian election meddling investigation. ... much of the espionage performed on the Trump campaign was conducted on UK soil throughout 2016." ..."
"... "Gregory R. Copley, editor and publisher of Defense & Foreign Affairs, posited that Sergei Skripal is the unnamed Russian intelligence source in the Steele dossier. ... In Skripal's pseudo-country-gentleman retirement, the ex-GRU-MI6 double agent was selling custom-made "Russian intelligence"; he had fabricated "material" that went into the Steele dossier..." ..."
"... this movement in the west by gov'ts to pay for generating lies, hate and propaganda towards russia is really sick... it is perfect for the military industrial complex corporations though and they seem to be calling the shots in the west, much more so then the voice of the ordinary person who is not interested in war ..."
"... Seems to me that this shows the primacy of the City of London, with its offshore network of illicit capital accumulation, within Britain. It is a state within a state or even a financial empire within a state, which, for deep historical reasons isn't subject to the same laws as the rest of the UK. ..."
"... The UK's pathological obsession with Russia only makes sense to me as the city's insistence on continued 90s style appropriation of Russia's wealth ..."
"... British hypocrisy publicly called out. How this all unravels is one to watch. Extra large popcorn and soda for me ..."
"... It seems to me that the UK has far more to lose from doxxing than Russia does. The interference in sovereign allied states to 'manage' who the UK thinks they should appoint does not bode well for such relations ..."
"... A separate subcluster of so-called journalists names Deborah Haynes, David Aaronovitch of the London Times and Neil Buckley from the FT." Subcluster. Love it. Just how crap do you have to be to fail to make it to membership of a full cluster of smear merchants? ..."
"... I doubt very seriously that the British launched this operation without the CIA's implicit and explicit support. This has all the markings of a John Brennan operation that has been launched stealthily to prevent anyone from knowing its real origins. ..."
"... The Brits don't act alone, and a project of this magnitude did not begin without Langley's explicit approval. ..."
"... Now check out the wording in the above document: "Funding from institutional and national governmental sources in the US has been delayed by internal disputes within the US government, but w.e.f. March 2018 that deadlock seems to have been resolved and funding should now flow." Think about that. What would have blocked the flow of USG support for this project?? Why, the allegations of collusion against Trump, of course. Naturally, the Republicans are not going to provide money to an operation that threatens to destroy the head of their own party. So, there has been no bipartisan agreement on funding for anti-Russia propaganda ..."
"... This mob was created in the autumn of 2015, according to their site. That would have been about the time -- probably just after -- the Russians intervened in Syria. The Brits had plans for an invasion of Syria in 2009, according to their fave Guardian fish wrap. ..."
"... Pat Lang posted a report that strongly implies that charges of Russian influence on Trump are a deliberate falsification ..."
"... It seems quite possible that what is alleged as "Russian meddling" is actually CIA-MI6 meddling ..."
"... As I have said before, MAGA is a POLICY RESPONSE to the challenge from Russia and China. The election of a Republican faux populist was necessary and Trump, despite his many flaws, was the best candidate for the job. ..."
"... The Integrity Initiative's goal is to defend democracy against the truth about Russia. All this is so Orwellian. When will we get the Ministry of Love? ..."
"... They shot at an elephant and failed to kill it. So yes, out of the combo of frustration, resentment, and fear they hate the resurgent Russia and prefer Cold War II, and if necessary WWIII, to peaceful co-existence. Of course the usual corporate imperative (in this case weapons profiteering) reinforces the mass psychological pathology among the elites. ..."
"... The ironic thing is that Putin doesn't prefer to challenge the neoliberal globalist "order" at all, but would happily see Russia take a prominent place within it. It's the US and its UK poodle who are insisting on confrontation. ..."
"... Great article! It reminded me of what I read in George Orwell's novella "1984." He summed it all up brilliantly in nine words: "War is Peace"; "Freedom is Slavery"; "Ignorance is Strength." The three pillars of political power. ..."
"... Since UK has always blocked the "European Intelligence" initiative, on the basis of his pertenence to the "Five Eyes", and as UK is leaving the European Union, where it has always been the Troyan Horse of the US, one would think that all these people belonging to the so called "clusters" should register themselves as "foreign agents" working for UK government. ..."
British Government Runs Secret Anti-Russian Smear CampaignsSteveg , Nov 24,
2018 11:43:44 AM |
link
In 2015 the government of Britain launched a secret operation to insert anti-Russia
propaganda into the western media stream.
We have already seen
many consequences of this and similar programs which are designed to smear anyone who
does not follow the anti-Russian government lines. The 'Russian collusion' smear campaign
against Donald Trump based on the Steele dossier was also a largely British operation but
seems to be part of a different project.
The ' Integrity
Initiative ' builds 'cluster' or contact groups of trusted journalists, military
personal, academics and lobbyists within foreign countries. These people get alerts via
social media to take action when the British center perceives a need.
On June 7 it took the the Spanish cluster only a few hours to derail the appointment of
Perto Banos as the Director of the National Security Department in Spain. The cluster
determined that he had a too positive view of Russia and launched a coordinated social media
smear
campaign (pdf) against him.
The Initiative and its operations were unveiled when someone liberated some of its
documents, including its budget applications to the British Foreign Office, and
posted them under the 'Anonymous' label at cyberguerrilla.org .
The Integrity Initiative was set up in autumn 2015 by The Institute for Statecraft in
cooperation with the Free University of Brussels (VUB) to bring to the attention of
politicians, policy-makers, opinion leaders and other interested parties the threat posed
by Russia to democratic institutions in the United Kingdom, across Europe and North
America.
It lists Bellingcat and the Atlantic Council as "partner organisations" and
promises that:
Cluster members will be sent to educational sessions abroad to improve the technical
competence of the cluster to deal with disinformation and strengthen bonds in the cluster
community. [...] (Events with DFR Digital Sherlocks, Bellingcat, EuVsDisinfo, Buzzfeed,
Irex, Detector Media, Stopfake, LT MOD Stratcom – add more names and propose cluster
participants as you desire).
The Initiatives Orwellian slogan is 'Defending Democracy Against Disinformation'. It
covers European countries, the UK, the U.S. and Canada and seems to want to expand to the
Middle East.
On its About page
it claims: "We are not a government body but we do work with government departments and
agencies who share our aims." The now published budget plans show that more than 95% of the
Initiative's funding is coming directly from the British government, NATO and the U.S. State
Department. All the 'contact persons' for creating 'clusters' in foreign countries are
British embassy officers. It amounts to a foreign influence campaign by the British
government that hides behind a 'civil society' NGO.
The organisation is led by one Chris N. Donnelly who
receives (pdf) £8,100 per month for creating the smear campaign network.
To counter Russian disinformation and malign influence in Europe by: expanding the
knowledge base; harnessing existing expertise, and; establishing a network of networks of
experts, opinion formers and policy makers, to educate national audiences in the threat and
to help build national capacities to counter it .
The Initiative has a black and white view that is based on a "we are the good ones"
illusion. When "we" 'educate the public' it is legitimate work. When others do similar, it
its disinformation. That is of course not the reality. The Initiative's existence itself,
created to secretly manipulate the public, is proof that such a view is wrong.
If its work were as legit as it wants to be seen, why would the Foreign Office run it from
behind the curtain as an NGO? The Initiative is not the only such operation. It's
applications seek funding from a larger "Russian Language Strategic Communication Programme"
run by the Foreign Office.
The 2017/18 budget application sought FCO funding of £480,635. It received
£102,000 in co-funding from NATO and the Lithuanian Ministry of Defense. The 2018/19
budget application shows a
planned spending (pdf) of £1,961,000.00. The co-sponsors this year are again NATO
and the Lithuanian MoD, but
also include (pdf) the U.S. State Department with £250,000 and Facebook with
£100,000. The budget lays out a strong cooperation with the local military of each
country. It notes that NATO is also generous in financing the local clusters.
One of the liberated papers of the Initiative is a talking points memo labeled
Top 3 Deliverable for FCO (pdf):
Developing and proving the cluster concept and methodology, setting up clusters in a
range of countries with different circumstances
Making people (in Government, think tanks, military, journalists) see the big
picture, making people acknowledge that we are under concerted, deliberate hybrid attack
by Russia
Increasing the speed of response, mobilising the network to activism in pursuit of
the "golden minute"
Under top 1, setting up clusters, a subitem reads:
- Connects media with academia with policy makers with practitioners in a country to impact
on policy and society: ( Jelena Milic silencing pro-kremlin voices on Serbian TV )
Defending Democracy by silencing certain voices on public TV seems to be a
self-contradicting concept.
Another subitem notes how the Initiative secretly influences foreign governments:
We engage only very discreetly with governments, based entirely on trusted personal
contacts, specifically to ensure that they do not come to see our work as a problem, and to
try to influence them gently, as befits an independent NGO operation like ours, viz;
- Germany, via the Zentrum Liberale Moderne to the Chancellor's Office and MOD
- Netherlands, via the HCSS to the MOD
- Poland and Romania, at desk level into their MFAs via their NATO Reps
- Spain, via special advisers, into the MOD and PM's office (NB this may change very soon
with the new Government)
- Norway, via personal contacts into the MOD
- HQ NATO, via the Policy Planning Unit into the Sec Gen's office.
We have latent contacts into other governments which we will activate as needs be as the
clusters develop.
A look at the 'clusters' set up in U.S. and UK shows some prominent names.
Members of the Atlantic Council, which has a contract to
censor Facebook posts , appear on several cluster lists. The UK core cluster also
includes some prominent names like tax fraudster William Browder , the daft Atlantic Council
shill Ben Nimmo and the neo-conservative Washington Post columnist Anne Applebaum. One person
of interest is Andrew Wood who
handed the Steele 'dirty dossier' to Senator John McCain to smear Donald Trump over
alleged relations with Russia. A separate subcluster of so-called journalists names Deborah
Haynes, David Aaronovitch of the London Times, Neil Buckley from the FT and Jonathan Marcus
of the BBC.
A ' Cluster
Roundup ' (pdf) from July 2018 details its activities in at least 35 countries. Another
file reveals (pdf) the local
partnering institutions and individuals involved in the programs.
The Initiatives Guide
to Countering Russian Information (pdf) is a rather funny read. It lists the downing of
flight MH 17 by a Ukranian BUK missile, the fake chemical incident in Khan Sheikhoun and the
Skripal Affair as examples for "Russian disinformation". But at least two of these events,
Khan Sheikun via the UK run White Helmets and the Skripal affair, are evidently products of
British intelligence disinformation operations.
The probably most interesting papers of the whole stash is the 'Project Plan' laid out at
pages 7-40 of the
2018 budget application v2 (pdf). Under 'Sustainability' it notes:
The programme is proposed to run until at least March 2019, to ensure that the clusters
established in each country have sufficient time to take root, find funding, and
demonstrate their effectiveness. FCO funding for Phase 2 will enable the activities to be
expanded in scale, reach and scope. As clusters have established themselves, they have
begun to access local sources of funding. But this is a slow process and harder in some
countries than others. HQ NATO PDD [Public Diplomacy Division] has proved a reliable source
of funding for national clusters. The ATA [Atlantic Treaty Association] promises to be the
same, giving access to other pots of money within NATO and member nations. Funding from
institutional and national governmental sources in the US has been delayed by internal
disputes within the US government, but w.e.f. March 2018 that deadlock seems to have been
resolved and funding should now flow.
The programme has begun to create a critical mass of individuals from a cross society
(think tanks, academia, politics, the media, government and the military) whose work is
proving to be mutually reinforcing . Creating the network of networks has given each
national group local coherence, credibility and reach, as well as good international
access. Together, these conditions, plus the growing awareness within governments of the
need for this work, should guarantee the continuity of the work under various auspices and
in various forms.
The
third part of the budget application (pdf) list the various activities, their output and
outcome. The budget plan includes a section that describes 'Risks' to the initiative. These
include hacking of the Initiatives IT as well as:
Adverse publicity generated by Russia or by supporters of Russia in target countries, or by
political and interest groups affected by the work of the programme, aimed at discrediting
the programme or its participants, or to create political embarrassment.
We hope that this piece contributes to such embarrassment.
Posted by b on November 24, 2018 at 11:24 AM |
Permalink
"The UK's Secret Intelligence Service, otherwise known as MI6, has been scrambling to
prevent President Trump from publishing classified materials linked to the Russian election
meddling investigation. ... much of the espionage performed on the Trump campaign was conducted on UK soil
throughout 2016."
"Gregory R. Copley, editor and publisher of Defense & Foreign Affairs, posited that
Sergei Skripal is the unnamed Russian intelligence source in the Steele dossier. ... In
Skripal's pseudo-country-gentleman retirement, the ex-GRU-MI6 double agent was selling
custom-made "Russian intelligence"; he had fabricated "material" that went into the Steele
dossier..."
For M16 to expose this level of stupidity is stunning.
this movement in the west by gov'ts to pay for generating lies, hate and
propaganda towards russia is really sick... it is perfect for the military industrial complex
corporations though and they seem to be calling the shots in the west, much more so then the
voice of the ordinary person who is not interested in war.. i guess the idea is to get the
ordinary people to think in terms of hating another country based on lies and that this would
be a good thing... it is very sad what uk / usa leadership in the past century has come down
to here.... i can only hope that info releases like this will hasten it's demise...
Seems to me that this shows the primacy of the City of London, with its offshore network of
illicit capital accumulation, within Britain. It is a state within a state or even a
financial empire within a state, which, for deep historical reasons isn't subject to the same
laws as the rest of the UK.
The UK's pathological obsession with Russia only makes sense to
me as the city's insistence on continued 90s style appropriation of Russia's wealth
@6 ingrian... things didn't go as planned for the expropriation of Russia after the fall of
the Soviet Union.. it seems the west is still hurting from not being able to exploit Russia
fully, as they'd intended...
Let the Doxx wars begin! Sure, Anonymous is not Russian but it will surely now be targeted
and smeared as such which would show that it has hit a nerve. British hypocrisy publicly
called out. How this all unravels is one to watch. Extra large popcorn and soda for me.
I think we've all noticed the euro-asslantic press (and friends) on behalf of, willingly
and in cooperation with the British intelligence et al 'calling out' numerous Russians as
G(R)U/spies/whatever for a while now yet providing less than a shred of credible
evidence.
It seems to me that the UK has far more to lose from doxxing than Russia does. The
interference in sovereign allied states to 'manage' who the UK thinks they should appoint
does not bode well for such relations.
Meanwhile in Brussels they are having their cake and eating it, i.e. bemoaning Europe's
'weak response' to Russian propaganda:
"A separate subcluster of so-called journalists names Deborah Haynes, David Aaronovitch of
the London Times and Neil Buckley from the FT." Subcluster. Love it. Just how crap do you
have to be to fail to make it to membership of a full cluster of smear merchants?
Yet another example of the pot calling the kettle black when in fact the kettle may not be
black at all; it's just the pot making up things. "These Russian criminals are using
propaganda to show (truths) like the fact the DNC and Clinton campaigns colluded to prevent
Sanders from being nominated, so we need to establish a clandestine propaganda network to
establish that the Russians are running propaganda!"
"In 2015 the government of Britain launched a secret operation to insert anti-Russia
propaganda into the western media stream."
I doubt very seriously that the British launched this operation without the CIA's implicit
and explicit support. This has all the markings of a John Brennan operation that has been
launched stealthily to prevent anyone from knowing its real origins.
The Brits don't act alone, and a project of this magnitude did not begin without Langley's
explicit approval.
Now check out the wording in the above document: "Funding from institutional and national governmental sources in the US has been delayed
by internal disputes within the US government, but w.e.f. March 2018 that deadlock seems to
have been resolved and funding should now flow." Think about that. What would have blocked the flow of USG support for this project?? Why, the allegations of collusion against Trump, of course. Naturally, the Republicans are
not going to provide money to an operation that threatens to destroy the head of their own
party. So, there has been no bipartisan agreement on funding for anti-Russia propaganda
BUT...the author assures us that the "deadlock seems to have been resolved and funding
should now flow" Huh?? In other words, the fix is in. Mueller will pardon Trump on collusion charges but the
propaganda campaign against Russia will continue...with the full support of both parties. I could be wrong, but that's how I see it...
This mob was created in the autumn of 2015, according to their site. That would have been
about the time -- probably just after -- the Russians intervened in Syria. The Brits had
plans for an invasion of Syria in 2009, according to their fave Guardian fish wrap.
A lot of
sour grapes with this so-called 'integrity initiative', IMO. BP was behind a lot of this, I
would also think. When Assad pulled the plug on the pipeline through the Levant in 2009, the
Brits hacked up a fur ball. It's gone downhill for them ever since. Couldn't happen to a
nicer lot. If you can't invade or beat them with proxies, you can at least call them names.
If Trump was taking dirty money or engaged in criminal activity with Russians then he
was doing it with Felix Sater, who was under the control of the FBI... And who was in
charge of the FBI during all of the time that Sater was a signed up FBI snitch? You got it
-- Robert Mueller (2001 thru 2013) ...
It seems quite possible that what is alleged as "Russian meddling" is actually CIA-MI6
meddling, including:
Steele dossier: To create suspicion in government, media, and later the public
Leaking of DNC emails to Wikileaks (but calling it a "hack"):
To help with election of Trump and link Wikileaks (as agent) to Russian election
meddling
Cambridge Analytica: To provide necessary reasoning for Trump's (certain) win of the electoral college.
Note: We later found that dozens of firms had undue access to Facebook data. Why did the
campaign turn to a British firm instead of an American firm? Well, it had to be a British
firm if MI6 was running the (supposed) Facebook targeting for CIA.
As I have said before, MAGA is a POLICY RESPONSE to the challenge from Russia and China. The
election of a Republican faux populist was necessary and Trump, despite his many flaws, was
the best candidate for the job.
The Integrity Initiative's goal is to defend democracy against the truth about Russia. All this is so Orwellian. When will we get the Ministry of Love?
"things didn't go as planned for the expropriation of russia after the fall of the soviet
union.. it seems the west is still hurting from not being able to exploit russia fully, as
they'd intended..."
They shot at an elephant and failed to kill it. So yes, out of the combo of frustration, resentment, and fear they hate the resurgent
Russia and prefer Cold War II, and if necessary WWIII, to peaceful co-existence. Of course
the usual corporate imperative (in this case weapons profiteering) reinforces the mass
psychological pathology among the elites.
The ironic thing is that Putin doesn't prefer to challenge the neoliberal globalist
"order" at all, but would happily see Russia take a prominent place within it. It's the US
and its UK poodle who are insisting on confrontation.
Great article! It reminded me of what I read in George Orwell's novella "1984." He summed it
all up brilliantly in nine words: "War is Peace"; "Freedom is Slavery"; "Ignorance is
Strength." The three pillars of political power.
Since UK has always blocked the "European Intelligence" initiative, on the basis of his
pertenence to the "Five Eyes", and as UK is leaving the European Union, where it has always
been the Troyan Horse of the US, one would think that all these people belonging to the so
called "clusters" should register themselves as "foreign agents" working for UK
government...and in this context, new empowerished sovereign governemts into the EU should
consider the possibility expelling these traitors as spies of the UK....
Country list of agents of influence according to the leak:
Germany: Harold Elletson ,Klaus NaumannWolf-Ruediger Bengs, Ex Amb Killian, Gebhardt v Moltke, Roland
Freudenstein, Hubertus Hoffmann, Bertil Wenger, Beate Wedekind, Klaus Wittmann, Florian
Schmidt, Norris v Schirach
Sweden, Norway, Finland: Martin Kragh , Jardar Ostbo, Chris Prebensen, Kate Hansen Bundt, Tor Bukkvoll, Henning-Andre
Sogaard, Kristen Ven Bruusgard, Henrik O Breitenbauch, Niels Poulsen, Jeppe Plenge, Claus
Mathiesen, Katri Pynnoniemi, Ian Robertson, Pauli Jarvenpaa, Andras Racz
Netherlands: Dr Sijbren de Jong, Ida Eklund-Lindwall, Yevhen Fedchenko, Rianne Siebenga, Jerry Sullivan,
Hunter B Treseder, Chris Quick
Spain: Nico de Pedro, Ricardo Blanco Tarno, Eduardo Serra Rexach, Dionisio Urteaga Todo, Dimitri
Barua, Fernando Valenzuela Marzo, Marta Garcia, Abraham Sanz, Fernando Maura, Jose Ignacio
Sanchez Amor, Jesus Ramon-Laca Clausen, Frances Ghiles, Carmen Claudin, Nika Prislan, Luis
Simon, Charles Powell, Mira Milosevich, Daniel Iriarte, Anna Bosch, Mira Milosevich-Juaristi,
Tito, Frances Ghiles, Borja Lasheras, Jordi Bacaria, Alvaro Imbernon-Sainz, Nacho Samor
US, Canada:
Mary Ellen Connell, Anders Aslund, Elizabeth Braw, Paul Goble, David Ziegler
Evelyn Farkas, Glen Howard, Stephen Blank, Ian Brzezinski, Thomas Mahnken, John Nevado,
Robert Nurick, Jeff McCausland
Todd Leventhal
UK: Chris Donnelly
Amalyah Hart William Browder John Ardis
Roderick Collins, Patrick Mileham Deborah Haynes
Dan Lafayeedney Chris Hernon Mungo Melvin
Rob Dover Julian Moore Agnes Josa David Aaronovitch Stephen Dalziel Raheem Shapi Ben
Nimmo
Robert Hall Alexander Hoare Steve Jermy Dominic Kennedy
Victor Madeira Ed Lucas Dr David Ryall
Graham Geale Steve Tatham Natalie Nougayrede Alan Riley [email protected]Anne Applebaum Neil Logan Brown James Wilson
Primavera Quantrill
Bruce Jones David Clark Charles Dick
Ahmed Dassu Sir Adam Thompson Lorna Fitzsimons Neil Buckley Richard Titley Euan Grant
Alastair Aitken Yusuf Desai Bobo Lo Duncan Allen Chris Bell
Peter Mason John Lough Catherine Crozier
Robin Ashcroft Johanna Moehring Vadim Kleiner David Fields Alistair Wood Ben Robinson Drew
Foxall Alex Finnen
Orsyia Lutsevych Charlie Hatton Vladimir Ashurkov
Giles Harris Ben Bradshaw
Chris Scheurweghs James Nixey
Charlie Hornick Baiba Braze J Lindley-French
Craig Oliphant Paul Kitching Nick Childs Celia Szusterman
James Sherr Alan Parfitt Alzbeta Chmelarova Keir Giles
Andy Pryce Zach Harkenrider
Kadri Liik Arron Rahaman David Nicholas Igor Sutyagin Rob Sandford Maya Parmar Andrew Wood
Richard Slack Ellie Scarnell
Nick Smith Asta Skaigiryte Ian Bond Joanna Szostek Gintaras Stonys Nina Jancowicz
Nick Washer Ian Williams Joe Green Carl Miller Adrian Bradshaw
Clement Daudy Jeremy Blackham Gabriel Daudy Andrew Lucy Stafford Diane Allen Alexandros
Papaioannou
Paddy Nicoll
"... When you are paid a lot of money to come up with plots "psyops", you tend to come up with plots for "psyops". The word "entrapment" comes to mind. Probably "self-serving" also. ..."
"... Anti-Russian is just a code word for Globalist, Internationalist. ..."
"... This is such BS. Since when does Russia have the resources to pull all this off? They have such a complex program that they need the coordinated efforts of all the resources of the WEST? This is nuts. ..."
One of the documents lists a series of propaganda weapons to be used against Russia. One is
use of the church as a weapon. That has already been started in Ukraine with Poroshenko
buying off regligious leader to split Ukraine Orthodoxy from Russian Orthodoxy. It also
explicitly states that the Skripal incident is a 'Dirty Trick' against Russia.
The British political system is on the verge of collapse. BREXIT has finally demonstrated
that the Government/ Opposition parties are clearly aligned against the interests of the
people. The EU is nothing more than an arm of the Globalist agenda of world domination.
The US has shown its true colours - sanctioning every country that stands for independent
sovereignty is not a good foreign policy, and is destined to turn the tide of public opinion
firmly against global hegemony, endless wars, and wealth inequity.
The old Empire is in its death throes. A new paradigm awaits which will exclude all those
who have exploited the many, in order to sit at the top of the pyramid. They cannot escape
Karma.
The Western world needs to come to terms with the collapse of the Soviet Union and its
aftermath. Today, Russia is led by Putin and he obviously has objectives as any national
leader has.
Western "leaders" need to decide whether Putin:
Is trying to create Soviet Union 2.0, to have a 2nd attempt at ruling the world thru
communism and to do this by holding the world to ransom over oil/gas supplies. OR
Is wanting Russia to become a member of the family of nations and of a multi-polar world to improve the lives of
Russian people, but is being blocked at every twist and turn by manufactured events like Russia-gate and the Skripal affair
and now this latest revelation of anti-Russian propaganda campaigns being coordinated and run out of London.
Both of the above cannot be true because there are too many contradictions. Which is it??
Yes because imagine that that we lived in 1940 without any means to inform ourselves and
that media was still in control over the information that reaches us. We would already be in
a fullblown war with Russia because of it but now with the Internet and information going
around freely only a whimpy 10% of we the people stand behind their desperately wanted war.
Imagine that, an informed sheople.
Can't have that, they cannot do their usual stuff anymore.... good riddance.
"250,000 from the US State
Department , the documents allege."....... Interesting.
"During the third
Democratic debate on Saturday night, Hillary Clinton called for a "Manhattan-like
project" to break encrypted terrorist communications. The project would "bring the government and the tech communities together" to find a way
to give law enforcement access to encrypted messages, she said. It's something that some
politicians and intelligence officials have wanted for awhile,"........
***wasn't the Manhatten project a secret venture?????? Hummmmm"
Hillary Clinton has all of our encryption keys, including the FBI's . "Encryption keys" is
a general reference to several encryption functions hijacked by Hillary and her surrogate
ENTRUST. They include hash functions (used to indicate whether the contents have been altered
in transit), PKI public/private key infrastructure, SSL (secure socket layer), TLS (transport
layer security), the Dual_EC_DRBG
NSA algorithm and certificate authorities.
The convoluted structure managed by the "Federal Common Policy" group has ceded to
companies like ENTRUST INC the ability to sublicense their authority to third parties who in
turn manage entire other networks in a Gordian knot of relationships clearly designed to fool
the public to hide their devilish criminality. All roads lead back to Hillary and the Rose
Law Firm."- patriots4truth
When you are paid a lot of money to come up with plots "psyops", you tend to come up with
plots for "psyops". The word "entrapment" comes to mind. Probably "self-serving" also.
FBI/Anonymous can use this story to support a narrative that social media bots posting
memes is a problem for everybody, and it's not a partisan issue. The idea is that fake news
and unrestricted social media are inherently dangerous, and both the West and Russia are
exploiting that, so governments need to agree to restrict the ability to use those platforms
for political speech, especially without using True Names.
Oilygawkies in the UK and USSA seem to be letting their spooks have a good-humored (rating
here on the absurd transparency of these ops) contest to see who can come up with the most
surreal propaganda psy-ops.
But they probably also serve as LHO distractions from something genuinely sleazy.
Anti-Russian is just a code word for Globalist, Internationalist. Anything that is
remotely like Nationalism is the true enemy of these Globalist/Internationalists, which is
what the Top-Ape Bolshevik promoted: see Vladimir Lenin and his quotes on how he believed
fully in "internationalism" for a world without borders. Ironic how they Love the butchers of
the Soviet Union but hate Russia. It is ALL ABOUT IDEOLOGY to these people and "the means
justify the ends".
Basically, if one acquires factual information from an internet source, which leads to
overturning the propaganda to which we're all subjected, then it MUST have come from Putin.
This is the direction they're headed. Anyone speaking out against the official story is
obviously a Russian spy.
Better to call it the Anti-Integrity Initiative. UK cretins up to their usual dirty tricks - let them choke on their poison. The judgement of history will eventually catch up with them.
A good 'ole economic collapse will give western countries a chance to purge their crazy
leaders before they involve us all in a thermonuclear war. Short everything with your entire
accounts.
This is such BS. Since when does Russia have the resources to pull all this off? They have
such a complex program that they need the coordinated efforts of all the resources of the
WEST? This is nuts.
Isn't it just as likely someone in the WEST planted this cache, intending Anonymous to
find it?
Any propaganda coming from the UK or US is strictly zionist. EVERYTHING they put out is to
the benefit of Israel and the "lobby". Russia isn't perfect, but if they're an enemy of the
latter, then they should NOT be considered a foe to all thinking and conscientious
people.
Yesterday, the BBC had a thing on Thai workers in Israel, and how they keep dying of
accidents, their general level of slavery etc. Very odd to have a negative Israel story, so I
wonder who upset whom, and what the ongoing status will be.
Thai labourers in Israel tell of harrowing conditions
A year-long BBC investigation has discovered widespread abuse of Thai nationals living
and working in Israel - under a scheme organized by the two governments.
Many are subjected to unsafe working practices and squalid, unsanitary living
conditions. Some are overworked, others underpaid and there are dozens of unexplained
deaths.
England and the U.S. don't like their very poor and rotten social conditions put out for
the public to see. Both countries have severely deteriorating problems on their streets
because of bankrupt governments printing money for foreign wars.
More of the same fraudulent duality while alleged so called but not money etc continues to
flow (everything is criminal) and the cesspool of a hierarchy pretends it's business as
usual.
This isn't about maintaining balance in a lie this is about disclosing the truth and
agendas (Agenda 21 now Agenda 2030 = The New Age Religion is Never Going To Be Saturnism).
The layers of the hierarchy are a lie so unless the alleged so called leaders of those layers
are publicly providing testimony and confession then everything that is being spoon fed to
the pablum puking public through all sources is a lie.
Operating on a budget of £1.9 million (US$2.4 million), the secretive Integrity
Initiative consists of "clusters" of (((local politicians, journalists, military personnel,
scientists and academics))).
The (((team))) is dedicated to searching for and publishing "evidence" of Russian
interference in European affairs, while themselves influencing leadership behind the scenes,
the documents claim.
The Democrats are politically responsible for the rise of Trump.
Notable quotes:
"... As Obama said following Trump's election, the Democrats and Republicans are "on the same team" and their differences amount to an "intramural scrimmage." They are on the team of, and owned lock stock and barrel by, the American corporate-financial oligarchy, personified by Trump. ..."
"... The Democrats are, moreover, politically responsible for the rise of Trump. The Obama administration paved the way for Trump by implementing the pro-corporate (Wall Street bailout), pro-war (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, drone killings) and anti-democratic (mass surveillance, persecution of Snowden, Assange, Manning) policies that Trump is continuing and intensifying. And by breaking all his election promises and carrying out austerity policies against the working class, Obama enabled the billionaire gangster Trump to make an appeal to sections of workers devastated by deindustrialization, presenting himself as the anti-establishment spokesman for the "forgotten man." ..."
"... This was compounded by the right-wing Clinton candidacy, which exuded contempt for the working class and appealed for support to the military and CIA and wealthy middle-class layers obsessed with identity politics. Sanders' endorsement of Clinton gave Trump an open field to exploit discontent among impoverished social layers. ..."
Pelosi's deputy in the House, Steny Hoyer, sums up the right-wing policies of the Democrats,
declaring: "His [Trump's] objectives are objectives that we share. If he really means that,
then there is an opening for us to work together."
So much for the moral imperative of voting for the Democrats to stop Trump! As Obama said
following Trump's election, the Democrats and Republicans are "on the same team" and their
differences amount to an "intramural scrimmage." They are on the team of, and owned lock stock
and barrel by, the American corporate-financial oligarchy, personified by Trump.
The Democrats are, moreover, politically responsible for the rise of Trump. The Obama
administration paved the way for Trump by implementing the pro-corporate (Wall Street bailout),
pro-war (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, drone killings) and anti-democratic (mass
surveillance, persecution of Snowden, Assange, Manning) policies that Trump is continuing and
intensifying. And by breaking all his election promises and carrying out austerity policies
against the working class, Obama enabled the billionaire gangster Trump to make an appeal to
sections of workers devastated by deindustrialization, presenting himself as the
anti-establishment spokesman for the "forgotten man."
This was compounded by the right-wing Clinton candidacy, which exuded contempt for the
working class and appealed for support to the military and CIA and wealthy middle-class layers
obsessed with identity politics. Sanders' endorsement of Clinton gave Trump an open field to
exploit discontent among impoverished social layers.
The same process is taking place internationally. While strikes and other expressions of
working class opposition are growing and broad masses are moving to the left, the right-wing
policies of supposedly "left" establishment parties are enabling far-right and neo-fascist
forces to gain influence and power in countries ranging from Germany, Italy, Hungary and Poland
to Brazil.
As for Gay's injunction to vote "pragmatically," this is a crude promotion of the bankrupt
politics that are brought forward in every election to keep workers tied to the capitalist
two-party system. "You have only two choices. That is the reality, whether you like it or not."
And again and again, in the name of "practicality," the most unrealistic and impractical policy
is promoted -- supporting a party that represents the class that is oppressing and exploiting
you! The result is precisely the disastrous situation working people and youth face today --
falling wages, no job security, growing repression and the mounting threat of world war.
The Democratic Party long ago earned the designation "graveyard of social protest
movements," and for good reason. From the Populist movement of the late 19th century, to the
semi-insurrectional industrial union movement of the 1930s, to the civil rights movement of the
1950s and 1960s, to the mass anti-war protest movements of the 1960s and the eruption of
international protests against the Iraq War in the early 2000s -- every movement against the
depredations of American capitalism has been aborted and strangled by being channeled behind
the Democratic Party.
"... There is something very, very COINTELPRO about the idea of "protecting" Americans from "foreign influence", and that should give liberals the heebie-jeebies. There is also an ongoing structural witch-hunt effect, unchanged from the McCarthy era, when internet firm heads are called to testify before congress. ..."
"... Bottom line - the Russians may have had no more effect on the election than the loose change in your house has on your salary. ..."
"... "Even more extreme measures are being planned and implemented, motivated by the basic principle that the greater the lie, the more aggressive the methods required to enforce it." ..."
"... "While the extortionate salaries commanded by the BBC's biggest stars are justified by "market rates," this underlying premise is never challenged by the women who are leading the gender pay fight. They don't oppose the capitalist market; they just want a bigger slice of the pie, with the working class footing the bill via contributions to the £4 billion annual license fee." - BBC gender pay row: Selective outrage of wealthy women ..."
"... The greater the inequality, the greater the lie to enforce it. ..."
"... While WSWS was uniquely correct in exposing Bush, Powell, and the ruling-elite structure of the U.S. as using deceit and lies to start an 'aggressive war' (the ultimate war crime), your description of this corrupt system of global power headquartered in the U.S. did not fully diagnose and expose it for what it was; a disguised global capitalist EMPIRE. ..."
"... Your description could have more effectively warned American citizen/'subjects' and the world that "Rather, it is a war of colonial (Empire) conquest, driven by a series of economic and geo-political aims that center on the seizure of Iraq's oil resources and the assertion of US global (Empire, not merely) hegemony." ..."
"... In any case, Andre and Joseph, thanks for reminding readers of this dark and deceitful moment of U.S. history in starting another 'aggressive war' almost two decades ago --- which wars will unfortunately continue until Americans themselves expose and ignite an essential Second America "Revolution Against Empire" [Justin duRivage] ..."
"... The Anglo-American-Israelite Empire is globally entrenched and enjoying expansion since 1945 ..."
"... I must admit myself I am disturbed by the sheer volume of unchallenged propaganda regarding these claims in the past few months. The media talking heads and various analysts don't ever really say what the implication of what their claims really mean-war. We are in an age of new mccarthyism ..."
"... What was amazing about Powell's charade was that even if Old Bad Ass as I call Saddam had had some Wombars of Mass Destruction they posed no danger whatsoever! It was obvious 9/11 had put the masses into a tizzy and they would have attacked Mars if told to! ..."
"... Yes, the "New Pearl Harbour" called for and carried out by the authors of the "Project for a New American Century" worked as planned. ..."
"... Quite right. My late father was a structural design engineer, specializing in large steel structures like the WTC and he called it as soon as the buildings imploded! ..."
"... Yes, Michael, the 'media/propaganda-sector' of this seven-sectored Disguised Global Capitalist EMPIRE is currently the most effective sector --- but the other six; corporate, financial, militarist, extra-legal, CFR 'Plot-Tanks', and of course the dual-party Vichy-political facade of the 'rougher-talking' neocon 'R' Vichy Party and the 'smoother-lying' neoliberal-con 'D' Vichy Party are all helping to keep the Empire sound, hidden, and empowered over the only American citizen/'subjects' who could possibly form a "Political Revolution against Empire" ..."
"... While it is true that D.C. is run by delusional psychotics that does not mean they are irrational as far as their greed is concerned. ..."
"... As R. Luxemburg pleaded that WWI was not "our" war but war of bunch of aristocrats wanting to divide colonies and bunch of bankers wanted their bad speculative loans repaid, using working class flesh and blood. ..."
This is one of the most sensible editorials on the Russia issue I've seen, and it is true, insofar as it goes. There is something
very, very COINTELPRO about the idea of "protecting" Americans from "foreign influence", and that should give liberals the heebie-jeebies.
There is also an ongoing structural witch-hunt effect, unchanged from the McCarthy era, when internet firm heads are called to
testify before congress.
That said, I wouldn't dismiss the effect of the Russian involvement, or the relevance of the charges against Trump and his
people. Bear in mind that the Party of McCarthy has been all about spying on its opponents from the days of HUAC. Nixon's break-in
at the Watergate Hotel didn't singlehandedly decide the election ... but who would believe that was the only underhanded tactic
he used? Republicans believe that if you're not cheating, you're not trying -- holding out for any ethical standard makes you
inherently disloyal and unworthy of support. Something like Kavanaugh's involvement in the hacking of Democrats in 2003 (
http://www.foxnews.com/poli... ) should be no surprise; neither should the "Guccifer" hack that put the Democrats' data in
the hands of Wikileaks. (Their subsequent attempts to demand Wikileaks not publish such a newsworthy leak, of course, is the sort
of thing that undermines their position with me!)
Bottom line - the Russians may have had no more effect on the election than the loose change in your house has on your salary.
But if you go back in your house after the Republicans were minding it, don't be surprised if together with the missing couch
change you notice some missing silverware, your kitchen tap has been sawed off, and the laptop is short half its RAM. By the time
you've catalogued everything missing, the stolen brass part from the gas main downstairs might have blown you to smithereens.
"Even more extreme measures are being planned and implemented, motivated by the basic principle that the greater the lie,
the more aggressive the methods required to enforce it."
There are many reasons the bourgeoisie is unfit to rule. Each one of them is bound up with the lies required to enforce
its rule. The greater its unfitness, "the greater the lie, the more aggressive the methods required to enforce it.
"While the extortionate salaries commanded by the BBC's biggest stars are justified by "market rates," this underlying premise
is never challenged by the women who are leading the gender pay fight. They don't oppose the capitalist market; they just
want a bigger slice of the pie, with the working class footing the bill via contributions to the £4 billion annual license fee."
- BBC gender pay row: Selective outrage of wealthy women
The greater the inequality, the greater the lie to enforce it.
While WSWS was uniquely correct in exposing Bush, Powell, and the ruling-elite structure of the U.S. as using deceit and lies
to start an 'aggressive war' (the ultimate war crime), your description of this corrupt system of global power headquartered in
the U.S. did not fully diagnose and expose it for what it was; a disguised global capitalist EMPIRE.
Your description could have more effectively warned American citizen/'subjects' and the world that "Rather, it is a war of
colonial (Empire) conquest, driven by a series of economic and geo-political aims that center on the seizure of Iraq's oil resources
and the assertion of US global (Empire, not merely) hegemony."
In any case, Andre and Joseph, thanks for reminding readers of this dark and deceitful moment of U.S. history in starting another
'aggressive war' almost two decades ago --- which wars will unfortunately continue until Americans themselves expose and ignite
an essential Second America "Revolution Against Empire" [Justin duRivage]
The Anglo-American-Israelite Empire is globally entrenched and enjoying expansion since 1945. It is time radical critiques of
its values, power and methods should call it by its right name.
I must admit myself I am disturbed by the sheer volume of unchallenged propaganda regarding these claims in the past few months.
The media talking heads and various analysts don't ever really say what the implication of what their claims really mean-war.
We are in an age of new mccarthyism
What was amazing about Powell's charade was that even if Old Bad Ass as I call Saddam had had some Wombars of Mass Destruction
they posed no danger whatsoever! It was obvious 9/11 had put the masses into a tizzy and they would have attacked Mars if told
to!
just because it was a convenient act for them to do what they wanted in conquering iraq is not reason that idiots like that are
capable of planning and concealing the numerous co-conspirators to arrange something like 9..11. imperialism can always count
on blowback to have occasion for further crimes. there is the slim chance that they knew what was being planned and that they
let it happen - except that none of those folks is evil enough for that. not even dick cheney. what i love about all conspiracy
theories of the american kind is that they never nam or show an actual conspirator conspiring. look at one of the truly great
failed conspiracy, that of the 20th july 1944 in germany that was meant to kill hitler and how many people were arrested in no
time at all and executed..
A "conspiracy" is just any two or more people getting together to discuss something affecting one or more other people without
them being party to the discussion. Like a surprise birthday party, for instance. Obviously the "official" version of the 9/11
events is also a "conspiracy theory" that 19 mostly Saudi Arabians led by a guy hiding in a cave in Afghanistan conspired to carry
out co-ordinated attacks that just happened to coincide with most of the USAF being conveniently off in Alaska and northern Canada
on an exercise that day, and another "coinciding exercise" simulating a multiple hijacking being carried out in the northeast
US thereby confusing the Air Traffic Controllers as to whether the hijackings were "real world or exercise", significantly delaying
the response, among other things.
Do you really believe that WTC 7, a steel frame building which was not adjacent to WTC 1 & 2, and was NOT hit by any airplanes,
coincidentally collapsed due to low temperature paper and furniture office fires? Something that has never happened before or
since? Or that such low temperature fires would cause the massive heavily reinforced concrete central core/elevator shaft to collapse
first, pulling the rest of the building inward onto it in classic controlled demolition technique?
It is getting more difficult to find the videos showing that now as Google, as with WSWS articles, is pushing them off the
front pages of results, while Snopes has put out a some very misleading reports that set up false "straw man" claims and then
"disprove" them. Even the "disproofs" are false.
For instance, a Snopes report on the WTC 7 collapse states: "relied heavily on discredited claims, none of which were new,
including:
Jet fuel cannot melt steel beams (This claim is misleading, as steel beams do to not need to melt completely to be compromised
structurally).
A sprinkler system would have prevented temperatures from rising high enough to cause to cause structural damage. (This claim
ignores the fact that a crash from a 767 jet would likely destroy such a system.)
The structural system would have been protected by fireproofing material (similarly, such a system would have been damaged
in a 767 crash). "
Jet fuel, which is Kerosene, burns at around 575º in open air, which was the case in WTC buildings 1 & 2. Most of it was vaporized
by the impact with the buildings and burned of within minutes. At any rate, 575º is far below the point at which structural steel
specifically designed to withstand high temperature fires like that used in the World Trade Centre buildings is weakened.
All of which is irrelevant, as are the other "points" made by Snopes, because Building 7 was not hit by an airplane and there
was no jet fuel involved. Something conveniently "overlooked" by Snopes and other similar misleading "disproofs". Not to mention
that the Intelligence establishment is busy putting out false trails constantly which use, for instance, obviously faked photos
or videos of the three WTC buildings collapsing to discredit the real videos and photos by setting up "straw men" they can then
"disprove" and point to as "evidence" that people who don't believe the official version are "creating fake news".
Quite right. My late father was a structural design engineer, specializing in large steel structures like the WTC and he called
it as soon as the buildings imploded!
"The perpetrators and their conspiracy is not a theory since it has been proved."
By "proved" I assume you are referring to "proofs" such as the fantastical claim that Mohammed Atta's passport was allegedly
and fortuitously "found" when it supposedly survived the 600 mph impact of the 767 he was supposedly piloting with a huge steel
and concrete building, survived the huge fireball it was supposedly in the middle of unscorched, and conveniently fluttered to
the ground intact to land at the feet of an FBI agent who immediately realized it must have belonged to one of the hijackers!
Even Hans Christian Andersen couldn't invent Fairy Tales like that.
the best that conspiracy theorist can do is, invariably, to call proven facts "just another theory " which only proves that they
are actually aware that they are full of hot air! zarembas father as a structural engineer unless a fantasy is certainly better
off among the dead than among the living and perpetrating his ignorance of steel and weight and fire onto the world!
Just because all the details aren't known as to who conspired and why there's enough holes in the "official conspiracy theory"
of 19 hijackers to conclude that this could not have been pulled off without some conspiring on the American side. Certainly the
the neocons benefited greatly from these attacks. So motive is there for sure.
Yes, Michael, the 'media/propaganda-sector' of this seven-sectored Disguised Global Capitalist EMPIRE is currently the most
effective sector --- but the other six; corporate, financial, militarist, extra-legal, CFR 'Plot-Tanks', and of course the dual-party
Vichy-political facade of the 'rougher-talking' neocon 'R' Vichy Party and the 'smoother-lying' neoliberal-con 'D' Vichy Party
are all helping to keep the Empire sound, hidden, and empowered over the only American citizen/'subjects' who could possibly form
a "Political Revolution against Empire"
While it is true that D.C. is run by delusional psychotics that does not mean they are irrational as far as their greed is
concerned.
There is nothing to win in global nuke war, all know it while the outcome would be surely the current global oligarchy loosing
grip on population destroying the system that works for them so well giving chance to what they dread socialist revolution they
would have been much weaker to counter.
Regional conflicts are just positioning of oligarchy for management of global oligarchic country club while strict class morality
is maintained.
What I do not we are conditions for war (split of global ruling elites) while what I see is broad propaganda of war as a excuse
to clamp down on fake enemy in order to control respective populations while there is factual unity among world oligarchy.
As R. Luxemburg pleaded that WWI was not "our" war but war of bunch of aristocrats wanting to divide colonies and bunch
of bankers wanted their bad speculative loans repaid, using working class flesh and blood.
She died abandoned by those on the left who embraced the war for their political aspirations, she was murdered for her true
internationalism i.e. No war fought between working people of one country and working people of another country.
Kalen, it's only effective to use the correct and understandable term 'Empire' in exposing, warning, and motivating average Americans
--- since very few even know what words like; oligarchy, plutocracy, fascism, authoritarianism, corporate-state, or Wolin's 'inverted
totalitarianism' mean --- let alone could ever serve as rallying cries for the coming essential Second American Revolution against
EMPIRE.
As Pat would have shouted if Tom had taken the Paine to edit his call, "Give me Liberty over EMPIRE, or Give me Death!"
"Sweet Carolyn" OH OH OH --- Yes, only a very small percentage of Americans understand that our former country, the U.S. of America,
is categorically, provably, and absolutely a new form of Empire, and is inexorably the first in world history an; 'effectively-disguised',
'truly-global', 'dual-party Vichy', and 'capitalist-fueled' EMPIRE --- an EMPIRE, really just an EMPIRE!
Just do an honest survey, "Sweet Carolyn", yourself, and if you're not a "Sweet Liarlyn", you will have to admit that essentially
ZERO of the first 1000 people you ask, will say --- "Oh ya, Carolyn, of course I know that this whole effin 'system' that others
less informed may still be so stupid that they think they live in a real country, when I (enter their name) do solemnly swear
is just an effin EMPIRE, which is so well disguised, that these few idiots who don't understand that they are just citizen/'subjects'
of this monsterous EMPIRE."
Do the survey, "Sweet Carolyn" and if you don't lie to yourself --- which maybe you do, because HELL, your job is to lie to
others (so it's quite likely that you'll lie about anything) --- you'll find that exactly zero average Americans have the effin
slightest idea in the world that their great 'country' is actually an effin EMPIRE.
HELL, Carolyn, almost half the Americans repeatedly yell, "We're number ONE", "We're number ONE", that their brains would rather
rattle themselves to death than even let logic, history, knowledge, or anything into their addled and propaganda filled heads!
Excellent article, and it did a particularly good job of tying together the foreign policy and domestic policy stratagems of a
major faction of the U.S. ruling class. I, for one, do not doubt that the Russians conduct some sort of cyber warfare against
the U.S.; but that must be understood by considering the fact that every major governmental, political, military, and business
organization on the face of the Earth must now operate in this manner. A friend of mine's son, who was in the Army, pointed out
that the big players, by a wide margin, in spying on and to some degree interfering in the U.S. domestic scene are China and Israel.
Kevin Barrett has written and said on various radio shows that much of what is attributed to the "Russians" are actually the actions
of Russian/Israeli dual citizens, many of whom move freely between the U.S., Russia, and Israel. And, of course, the U.S. runs
major spy and manipulation operations in more countries than any other nation of Earth, and U.S. based corporations are busy both
inside the U.S. and in foreign places in similar activities.
It is clearly a desire of significant sectors, of the Capitalist rulers of the U.S., to repress dissent and political activities
that oppose their agendas. It took them a few years to realize that their old methods using TV, hate radio, magazines, direct
mail, and newspapers were losing their effectiveness. They have been increasing their attacks on leftist websites, hacking into
websites, closing websites using phonied-up "national security" justifications, employing numerous trolls, and establishing and
funding more far right websites, such as Breitbart and Infowars. These efforts are most effective when they are not overpowering
and heavy handed.
The classic book on this was the 1988 book "Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media"
by Noam Chomsky and Edward Hermann. Rob Williams has updated the concept for the internet age in
<http:
www.vermontindependent.org ="" the-post-truth-world-reviving-the-propaganda-model-of-news-for-our-digital-age=""/>.
The strategy
is nothing new, the methods are merely updated and use the latest technologies.
I guess the lesson to be learned here is that rigging elections through byzantine electoral laws and billion dollar corporate
slush funds is a thing of the past. All you need now is 13 amateur IT goomba's with a marketing scheme and twitter accounts. Well, sure is a fragile "World's Sole Superpower" we got here. Go Team?
"... There is only the Deep Purple Mil.Gov UniParty. The Titanic is dead in the water, lights out, bow down hard. The Rich, the Corporate Profiteers and the Military-Political Establishment have pulled away in their fur and jewel-encrusted life boats. It's one minute after midnight on the Doomsday Clock, the hands have fallen off the Debt Clock, the skies are burning and seas are rising (they say), and we are in WW3 in 8 nations. Or is it 9? ..."
"... So the Democrat faction of the Corporate One-Party took back control of the House from the Republican faction. (It's one hard-right party, of course; only liars and those ignorant of history call the Dems "centrist". By any objective or historical standard they're a right-wing party.) ..."
"... I made no prediction on what would happen in this election, but I've long predicted that if/when the Democrats win control of either house they'll do nothing with that control. Jack squat. Status quo all the way, embellished with more retarded Russia-Derangement stuff and similar nonsense. ..."
"... If there really were a difference between these corporate factions, here's the chance for the House to obstruct all Senate-passed legislation. ..."
"... They claim there's a difference between the two parties? ..."
"... But I predict this House won't lift a finger vs. the Senate, and that it'll strive to work with the Senate on legislation, and that it'll fully concur with the Senate on war budgets, police state measures, anything and everything demanded by Wall Street, Big Ag, the fossil fuel extractors, and of course the corporate welfare state in general. ..."
"... Nothing I've talked about here is anything but what is possible, what is always implicitly or explicitly promised by Dembots, and what it would seem is the minimum necessary given what Dembots claim is the scope of the crisis and what is at stake. ..."
It's not even decent theatre. Drama is much lacking, character development zilch. The outcome that dems take congress,& rethugs
improve in senate is exactly as was predicted months ago.
The dems reveal once again exactly how mendacious and uncaring of
the population they are. Nothing matters other than screwing more cash outta anyone who wants anything done so that the DC trough
stays full with the usual crew of 4th & 5th generation wannabe dem pols guzzling hard at the corporate funded 'dem aligned' think
tanks which generate much hot air yet never deliver. Hardly suprising given that actually doing something to show they give a
sh1t about the citizenry would annoy the donor who would give em all the boot, making all these no-hopers have to take up a gig
actually practising law.
These are people whose presence at the best law schools in the country prevented many who wanted to be y'know lawyers from
entering Harvard, Cornell etc law school. "one doesn't go to law school to become a lawyer It too hard to even pull down a mil
a year as a brief, nah, I studied the law to learn how to make laws that actually do the opposite of what they seem to. That is
where the real dough is."
Those who think that is being too hard on the dem slugs, should remember that the rethugs they have been indoctrinated to detest
act pretty much as printed on the side of the can. They advertise a service of licking rich arseholes and that is exactly what
they do. As venal and sociopathic as they are, at least they don't pretend to be something else; so while there is no way one
could vote for anyone spouting republican nonsense at least they don't hide their greed & corruption under a veneer of pseudo-humanist
nonsense. Dems cry for the plight of the poverty stricken then they slash welfare.
Or dems sob about the hard row african americans must hoe, then go off to the house of reps to pass laws to keep impoverished
african americans slotted up in an over crowded prison for the rest of his/her life.
Not only deceitful and vicious, 100% pointless since any Joe/Jo that votes on the basis of wanting to see more blackfellas
incarcerated is always gonna tick the rethug box anyhow.
Yeah- yeah we know all this so what?
This is what - the dems broke their arses getting tens of millions of young first time voters out to "exercise their democratic
prerogative" for the first time. Dems did this knowing full well that there would be no effective opposition to rethug demands
for more domestic oppression, that in fact it is practically guaranteed that should the trump and the rethug senate require it,
in order to ensure something particularly nasty gets passed, that sufficient dem congress people will 'cross the floor' to make
certain the bill does get up.
Of course the dems in question will allude to 'folks back home demanding' that the dem slug does vote with the nasties, but
that is the excuse, the reality is far too many dem pols are as bigoted greedy and elitist as the worst rethugs.
Anyway the upshot of persuading so many kids to get out and vote, so the kids do but the dems are content to just do more of
the same, will be another entire generation lost to elections forever.
If the DNC had been less greedy and more strategic they would have kept their powder dry and hung off press-ganging the kids
until getting such a turnout could have resulted in genuine change, prez 2020' or whenever, would be actual success for pols and
voters.
But they didn't and wouldn't ever, since for a dem pol, hundreds of thousands of fellow citizens living on the street isn't
nearly as problematic for them, as the dem wannabe pol paying off the mortgage on his/her DC townhouse by 2020, something that
would have been impossible if they hadn't taken congress as all the 'patrons' would have jerked back their cash figuring there
is no gain giving dosh to losers who couldn't win a bar raffle.
As for that Sharice Davids - a total miss she needed to be either a midget or missing an arm or leg to qualify as the classic
ID dem pol. Being a native american lezzo just doesn't tick enough boxes. I predict a not in the least illustrious career since
she cannot even qualify as the punchline in a circa 1980's joke.
As you said, nothing will get out of the House, Pelosi can't lead. They can easily swing 3 Democrats, then Mike Pence puts
the hammer down. If anything manages to crawl through, it won't even be brought to a vote in the Republican Senate. Trump can
still us his bully pulpit to circle the White wagons, fly in even more than his current 1,125,000 H-visa aliens, and No Taxes
for the Rich is now engraved in stone for the Pharoahs.
The imminent $1,500B Omnibus Deficit Bill Three will be lauded as a 'bipartisan solution' by both houses, and 2020 looks to
be a $27,000B illegal, onerous, odious National Debt open Civil War.
There is only the Deep Purple Mil.Gov UniParty. The Titanic is dead in the water, lights out, bow down hard. The Rich,
the Corporate Profiteers and the Military-Political Establishment have pulled away in their fur and jewel-encrusted life boats.
It's one minute after midnight on the Doomsday Clock, the hands have fallen off the Debt Clock, the skies are burning and seas
are rising (they say), and we are in WW3 in 8 nations. Or is it 9?
Smart money is moving toward the exits. This shyte is gonna blow. Let's move to Australia, before it becomes part of Xi's PRC
String of Girls.
Reading most of the comments explaining how the D's won/lost,,, the R's won/lost,,, Trump and company won/lost,,, but couldn't
find one post about how America is losing due to the two suffocating party's and a greedy, disunited, selfish, electorate that
wants it all free.
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the Majority discovers it can vote itself
largess out of the public treasury,,,,,,, After that the Majority always votes for the candidate 'promising the most' ,,,,,,,
Alex Fraser.
So the Democrat faction of the Corporate One-Party took back control of the House from the Republican faction. (It's one hard-right
party, of course; only liars and those ignorant of history call the Dems "centrist". By any objective or historical standard they're
a right-wing party.)
It's no big surprise. Last two years it's been the normally self-assured Republicans who, because of their ambivalence about Trump,
have uncharacteristically taken on the usual Democrat role of existential confusion and doubt. Meanwhile the Democrats, in a berserk
batsh$t-insane way, have been more motivated and focused.
So what are these Democrats going to do with this control now that they have it?
I made no prediction on what would happen in this election, but I've long predicted that if/when the Democrats win control of
either house they'll do nothing with that control. Jack squat. Status quo all the way, embellished with more retarded Russia-Derangement
stuff and similar nonsense.
If there really were a difference between these corporate factions, here's the chance for the House to obstruct all Senate-passed
legislation. And as for things which are technically only in the power of the Senate such as confirming appointments, here's the
chance for the House to put public moral pressure on Democrats in the Senate. And there's plenty of back-door ways an activist
House can influence Senate business. Only morbid pedantry, so typical of liberal Dembots, babbles about what the technical powers
of this or that body are. The real world doesn't work that way. To the extent I pay attention at all to Senate affairs it'll be
to see what the House is doing about it.
They claim there's a difference between the two parties? And they claim Trump is an incipient fascist dictator? In that case there's
a lot at stake, and extreme action is called for. Let's see what kind of action we get from their "different" party in control
of the House.
But I predict this House won't lift a finger vs. the Senate, and that it'll strive to work with the Senate on legislation, and
that it'll fully concur with the Senate on war budgets, police state measures, anything and everything demanded by Wall Street,
Big Ag, the fossil fuel extractors, and of course the corporate welfare state in general.
Nor will any of these new-fangled fake "socialist" types take any action to change things one iota. Within the House Democrats,
they could take action, form any and every kind of coalition, to obstruct the corporate-Pelosi leadership faction. They will not
do so. This "new" progressive bloc will be just as fake as the old one.
Nothing I've talked about here is anything but what is possible, what is always implicitly or explicitly promised by Dembots,
and what it would seem is the minimum necessary given what Dembots claim is the scope of the crisis and what is at stake.
Of course, we are all supposed to vote Democratic to halt the tide of Trump fascism. But
should the Democrats take control of the House of Representatives, hate speech and violence as
a tool for intimidation and control will increase, with much of it directed, as we saw with the
pipe bombs intended to decapitate the Democratic Party leadership, toward prominent Democratic
politicians and critics of Donald Trump. Should the white man's party of the president retain
control of the House and the Senate, violence will still be the favored instrument of political
control as the last of democratic protections are stripped from us. Either way we are in for
it.
Trump is a clownish and embarrassing tool of the kleptocrats. His faux populism is a sham.
Only the rich like his tax cuts, his refusal to raise the minimum wage and his effort to
destroy Obamacare. All he has left is hate. And he will use it. Which is not to say that, if
only to throw up some obstacle to Trump, you shouldn't vote for the Democratic scum, tools of
the war industry and the pharmaceutical and insurance industry, Wall Street and the fossil fuel
industry, as opposed to the Republican scum. But Democratic control of the House will do very
little to halt our descent into corporate tyranny, especially with another economic crisis
brewing on Wall Street. The rot inside the American political system is deep and terminal.
The Democrats, who refuse to address the social inequality they helped orchestrate and that
has given rise to Trump, are the party of racial and ethnic inclusivity, identity politics,
Wall Street and the military. Their core battle cry is: We are not Trump! This is
ultimately a losing formula. It was adopted by Hillary Clinton, who is apparently weighing
another run for the presidency after we thought we had thrust a stake through her political
heart. It is the agenda of the well-heeled East Coast and West Coast elites who want to instill
corporate fascism with a friendly face.
Bertram
Gross (1912-1997) in "Friendly Fascism: The New Face of American Power" warned us that
fascism always has two looks. One is paternal, benevolent, entertaining and kind. The other is
embodied in the executioner's sadistic leer. Janus-like, fascism seeks to present itself to a
captive public as a force for good and moral renewal. It promises protection against enemies
real and invented. But denounce its ideology, challenge its power, demand freedom from
fascism's iron grip, and you are mercilessly crushed. Gross knew that if the United States'
form of fascism, expressed through corporate tyranny, was able to effectively mask its true
intentions behind its "friendly" face we would be stripped of power, shorn of our most
cherished rights and impoverished. He has been proved correct.
"Looking at the present, I see a more probable future: a new despotism creeping slowly
across America," Gross wrote. "Faceless oligarchs sit at command posts of a
corporate-government complex that has been slowly evolving over many decades. In efforts to
enlarge their own powers and privileges, they are willing to have others suffer the intended or
unintended consequences of their institutional or personal greed. For Americans, these
consequences include chronic inflation, recurring recession, open and hidden unemployment, the
poisoning of air, water, soil and bodies, and more important, the subversion of our
constitution. More broadly, consequences include widespread intervention in international
politics through economic manipulation, covert action, or military invasion."
No totalitarian state has mastered propaganda better than the corporate state. Our press has
replaced journalism with trivia, feel-good stories, jingoism and celebrity gossip. The banal
and the absurd, delivered by cheery corporate courtiers, saturate the airwaves. Our emotions
are skillfully manipulated around manufactured personalities and manufactured events. We are,
at the same time, offered elaborate diversionary spectacles including sporting events, reality
television and absurdist political campaigns. Trump is a master of this form of entertainment.
Our emotional and intellectual energy is swallowed up by the modern equivalent of the Roman
arena. Choreographed political vaudeville, which costs corporations billions of dollars, is
called free elections. Cliché-ridden slogans, which assure us that the freedoms we
cherish remain sacrosanct, dominate our national discourse as these freedoms are stripped from
us by judicial and legislative fiat. It is a vast con game.
You cannot use the word "liberty" when your government, as ours does, watches you 24 hours a
day and stores all of your personal information in government computers in perpetuity. You
cannot use the word "liberty" when you are the most photographed and monitored population in
human history. You cannot use the word "liberty" when it is impossible to vote against the
interests of Goldman Sachs or General Dynamics. You cannot use the word "liberty" when the
state empowers militarized police to use indiscriminate lethal force against unarmed citizens
in the streets of American cities. You cannot use the word "liberty" when 2.3 million citizens,
mostly poor people of color, are held in the largest prison system on earth. This is the
relationship between a master and a slave. The choice is between whom we want to clamp on our
chains -- a jailer who mouths politically correct bromides or a racist, Christian fascist.
Either way we are shackled.
Gross understood that unchecked corporate power would inevitably lead to corporate fascism.
It is the natural consequence of the ruling ideology of neoliberalism that consolidates power
and wealth into the hands of a tiny group of oligarchs. The political philosopher Sheldon
Wolin , refining Gross' thesis, would later characterize this corporate tyranny or friendly
fascism as "inverted totalitarianism." It was, as Gross and Wolin pointed out, characterized by
anonymity. It purported to pay fealty to electoral politics, the Constitution and the
iconography and symbols of American patriotism but internally had seized all of the levers of
power to render the citizen impotent. Gross warned that we were being shackled incrementally.
Most would not notice until they were in total bondage. He wrote that "a friendly fascist power
structure in the United States, Canada, Western Europe, or today's Japan would be far more
sophisticated than the 'caesarism' of fascist Germany, Italy, and Japan. It would need no
charismatic dictator nor even a titular head it would require no one-party rule, no mass
fascist party, no glorification of the State, no dissolution of legislatures, no denial of
reason. Rather, it would come slowly as an outgrowth of present trends in the
Establishment."
Gross foresaw that technological advances in the hands of corporations would be used to trap
the public in what he called "cultural ghettoization" so that "almost every individual would
get a personalized sequence of information injections at any time of the day -- or night." This
is what, of course, television, our electronic devices and the internet have done. He warned
that we would be mesmerized by the entertaining shadows on the wall of the Platonic cave as we
were enslaved.
Gross knew that the most destructive force against the body politic would be the war
profiteers and the militarists. He saw how they would siphon off the resources of the state to
wage endless war, a sum that now accounts for half of all discretionary spending. And he
grasped that warfare is the natural extension of corporatism. He wrote:
Under the militarism of German, Italian, and Japanese fascism violence was openly
glorified. It was applied regionally -- by the Germans in Europe and England, the Italians in
the Mediterranean, the Japanese in Asia. In battle, it was administered by professional
militarists who, despite many conflicts with politicians, were guided by old-fashioned
standards of duty, honor, country, and willingness to risk their own lives.
The emerging militarism of friendly fascism is somewhat different. It is global in scope.
It involves weapons of doomsday proportions, something that Hitler could dream of but never
achieve. It is based on an integration between industry, science, and the military that the
old-fashioned fascists could never even barely approximate. It points toward equally close
integration among military, paramilitary, and civilian elements. Many of the civilian leaders
-- such as Zbigniew Brzezinski or Paul Nitze -- tend to be much more bloodthirsty than any
top brass. In turn, the new-style military professionals tend to become corporate-style
entrepreneurs who tend to operate -- as Major Richard A. Gabriel and Lieutenant Colonel Paul
L. Savage have disclosed -- in accordance with the ethics of the marketplace. The old
buzzwords of duty, honor, and patriotism are mainly used to justify officer subservience to
the interests of transnational corporations and the continuing presentation of threats to
some corporate investments as threats to the interest of the American people as a whole.
Above all, in sharp contrast with classic fascism's glorification of violence, the friendly
fascist orientation is to sanitize, even hide, the greater violence of modern warfare behind
such "value-free" terms as "nuclear exchange," "counterforce" and "flexible response," behind
the huge geographical distances between the senders and receivers of destruction through
missiles or even on the "automated battlefield," and the even greater psychological distances
between the First World elites and the ordinary people who might be consigned to quick or
slow death.
We no longer live in a functioning democracy. Self-styled liberals and progressives, as they
do in every election cycle, are urging us to vote for the Democrats, although the Democratic
Party in Europe would be classified as a right-wing party, and tell us to begin to build
progressive movements the day after the election. Only no one ever builds these movements. The
Democratic Party knows there is no price to pay for selling us out and its abject service to
corporations. It knows the left and liberals become supplicants in every election cycle. And
this is why the Democratic Party drifts further and further to the right and we become more and
more irrelevant. If you stand for something, you have to be willing to fight for it. But there
is no fight in us.
The elites, Republican and Democrat, belong to the same club. We are not in it. Take a look
at the flight roster of the billionaire
Jeffrey Epstein , who was accused of prostituting dozens of underage girls and ended up
spending 13 months in prison on a single count. He flew political insiders from both parties
and the business world to his secluded Caribbean island, known as "Orgy Island," on his jet,
which the press nicknamed "the Lolita Express." Some of the names on his flight
roster, which usually included unidentified women, were Bill Clinton, who took dozens of trips,
Alan
Dershowitz , former Treasury Secretary and former Harvard President Larry Summers, the
Candide -like
Steven Pinker ,
whose fairy dust ensures we are getting better and better, and Britain's Prince Andrew. Epstein
was also a friend of Trump, whom he visited at Mar-a-Lago.
We live on the precipice, the eve of the deluge. Past civilizations have crumbled in the
same way, although as Hegel understood, the only thing we learn from history is "that people
and governments never have learned anything from history." We will not arrest the decline if
the Democrats regain control of the House. At best we will briefly slow it. The corporate
engines of pillage, oppression, ecocide and endless war are untouchable. Corporate power will
do its dirty work regardless of which face -- the friendly fascist face of the Democrats or the
demented visage of the Trump Republicans -- is pushed out front. If you want real change,
change that means something, then mobilize, mobilize, mobilize, not for one of the two
political parties but to rise up and destroy the corporate structures that ensure our doom.
"... The Democratic Party split into a four-headed monster comprised of Wall Street patrons seeking favors, war hawks and their corporate allies looking for new global rumbles, the permanent bureaucracy looking to always expand itself, and the various ethnic and sexual minorities whose needs and grievances are serviced by that bureaucracy. It's the last group that has become the party's most public face while the party's other activities – many of them sinister -- remain at least partially concealed. ..."
"... the Republicans are being forced to engage on some real issues, such as the need for a coherent and effective immigration policy and the need to redefine formal trade relations. (Other issues like the insane system of medical racketeering and the deadly racket of the college loan industry just skate along on thin ice. And then, of course, there's the national debt and all its grotesque outgrowths.) ..."
"... Meanwhile, the Democratic Party has become the party of bad ideas and bad faith, starting with the position that "diversity and inclusion" means shutting down free speech, an unforgivable transgression against common sense and common decency. It's a party that lies even more systematically than Mr. Trump, and does so knowingly (as when Google execs say they "Do no Evil"). Its dirty secret is that it relishes coercion, it likes pushing people around, telling them what to think and how to act. Its idea of "social justice" is a campus kangaroo court, where due process of law is suspended. And it is deeply corrupt, with good old-fashioned grift, new-fashioned gross political misconduct in federal law enforcement, and utter intellectual depravity in higher education. ..."
"... I hope that the party is shoved into an existential crisis and is forced to confront its astounding dishonesty. I hope that the process prompts them to purge their leadership across the board. ..."
Back in the last century, when this was a different country, the Democrats were the "smart"
party and the Republicans were the "stupid" party.
How did that work?
Well, back then the Democrats represented a broad middle class, with a base of factory
workers, many of them unionized, and the party had to be smart, especially in the courts, to
overcome the natural advantages of the owner class.
In contrast, the Republicans looked like a claque of country club drunks who staggered
home at night to sleep on their moneybags. Bad optics, as we say nowadays.
The Democrats also occupied the moral high ground as the champion of the little guy. If not
for the Dems, factory workers would be laboring twelve hours a day and children would still be
maimed in the machinery. Once the relationship between business and labor was settled in the
1950s, the party moved on to a new crusade on even loftier moral high ground: civil rights,
aiming to correct arrant and long-lived injustices against downtrodden black Americans. That
was a natural move, considering America's self-proclaimed post-war status as the world's Beacon
of Liberty. It had to be done and a political consensus that included Republicans got it done.
Consensus was still possible.
The Dems built their fortress on that high ground and fifty years later they find themselves
prisoners in it. The factory jobs all vamoosed overseas. The middle class has been pounded into
penury and addiction.
The Democratic Party split into a four-headed monster comprised of Wall Street patrons
seeking favors, war hawks and their corporate allies looking for new global rumbles, the
permanent bureaucracy looking to always expand itself, and the various ethnic and sexual
minorities whose needs and grievances are serviced by that bureaucracy. It's the last group
that has become the party's most public face while the party's other activities – many of
them sinister -- remain at least partially concealed.
The Republican Party has, at least, sobered up some after getting blindsided by Trump and
Trumpism. Like a drunk out of rehab, it's attempting to get a life. Two years in, the party
marvels at Mr. Trump's audacity, despite his obvious lack of savoir faire. And despite a
longstanding lack of political will to face the country's problems,the Republicans are being
forced to engage on some real issues, such as the need for a coherent and effective immigration
policy and the need to redefine formal trade relations. (Other issues like the insane system of
medical racketeering and the deadly racket of the college loan industry just skate along on
thin ice. And then, of course, there's the national debt and all its grotesque outgrowths.)
Meanwhile, the Democratic Party has become the party of bad ideas and bad faith, starting
with the position that "diversity and inclusion" means shutting down free speech, an
unforgivable transgression against common sense and common decency. It's a party that lies even
more systematically than Mr. Trump, and does so knowingly (as when Google execs say they "Do no
Evil"). Its dirty secret is that it relishes coercion, it likes pushing people around, telling
them what to think and how to act. Its idea of "social justice" is a campus kangaroo court,
where due process of law is suspended. And it is deeply corrupt, with good old-fashioned grift,
new-fashioned gross political misconduct in federal law enforcement, and utter intellectual
depravity in higher education.
I hope that Democrats lose as many congressional and senate seats as possible.I hope that
the party is shoved into an existential crisis and is forced to confront its astounding
dishonesty. I hope that the process prompts them to purge their leadership across the board. If
there is anything to salvage in this organization, I hope it discovers aims and principles that
are unrecognizable from its current agenda of perpetual hysteria. But if the party actually
blows up and disappears, as the Whigs did a hundred and fifty years ago, I will be content. Out
of the terrible turbulence, maybe something better will be born.
Or, there's the possibility that the dregs of a defeated Democratic Party will just go
batshit crazy and use the last of its mojo to incite actual sedition. Of course, there's also a
distinct possibility that the Dems will take over congress, in which case they'll ramp up an
even more horrific three-ring-circus of political hysteria and persecution that will make the
Spanish Inquisition look like a backyard barbeque. That will happen as the US enters the most
punishing financial train wreck in our history, an interesting recipe for epic political
upheaval.
"... Now there is new information, courtesy of the National Security Agency aka NSA, that confirms that the NSA has Top Secret and Secret documents that are responsive to a FOIA request for material on Seth Rich and his contacts with Julian Assange. While the content of these documents remain classified for now, they may provide documentary proof that Seth Rich "dropped boxed" the emails to Julian. If these documents are declassified, a big hole could be blown in the claim that Russia hacked the DNC. ..."
"... Another case of "Arkancide"? ..."
"... I came to this summary today after I had turned my T.V. off since all the news is now about the "bombs" being mailed to the Clintons and Obamas. (I was afraid a story line would soon continue that the bombs were from Russia via the White House. I can no longer feel certain that anything reported in the "news" is true and wonder what part of it is made up from thin air. ..."
"... And I am sad that such a huge number of American citizens simply no longer care what is true or what is not true. They believe only what they want to believe. Mostly I am sad that Seth Rich lived and died and few seem to want to know the facts surrounding his death. ..."
"... Guccifer 2.0 was nothing but an elaborate joke. ..."
If Russia had actually "hacked" the DNC emails then the National Security Agency would have had proof of such activity. In fact,
the NSA could have tracked such activity. But they did not do that. That lack of evidence did not prevent a coordinated media campaign
from spinning up to pin the blame on Russia for the "theft" and to portray Donald Trump as Putin's lackey and beneficiary.
Any effort to tell an alternative story has met with stout opposition. Fox News, for example, came under withering fire after
it published an article in May 2017 claiming that Seth Rich, a young Democrat operative, had leaked DNC emails to Julian Assange
at Wikileaks. The family of Seth Rich reacted with fury and sued Fox, Malia Zimmerman and Ed Butowsky, but that suit subsequently
was dismissed.
Now there is new information, courtesy of the National Security Agency aka NSA, that confirms that the NSA has Top Secret and
Secret documents that are responsive to a FOIA request for material on Seth Rich and his contacts with Julian Assange. While the
content of these documents remain classified for now, they may provide documentary proof that Seth Rich "dropped boxed" the emails
to Julian. If these documents are declassified, a big hole could be blown in the claim that Russia hacked the DNC.
PT, thank for the very detailed description of the entire story surrounding the supposed Russian hack of the DNC emails.
I always find myself screaming at the T.V. whenever a supposed reporter mentions the supposed Russian hack of the DNC computers
as if such an event is settled history.
I came to this summary today after I had turned my T.V. off since all the news is now about the "bombs" being mailed to the
Clintons and Obamas. (I was afraid a story line would soon continue that the bombs were from Russia via the White House. I can no longer feel certain that anything reported in the "news" is true and wonder what part of it is made up from thin air.
And I am sad that such a huge number of American citizens simply no longer care what is true or what is not true. They believe
only what they want to believe. Mostly I am sad that Seth Rich lived and died and few seem to want to know the facts surrounding his death.
Changing the rules, talks of changing the constitution, and the status of the SC because
Dems can't find a positive message, or a positive candidate, or persuade the candidate to
recognize and reach out to voters the Democratic party abandoned, reeks of defeatism and
worse.
Exactly.
Clinton neoliberals (aka soft neoliberals) still control the Democratic Party but no longer
can attract working-class voters. That's why they try "identity wedge" strategy trying to
compensate their loss with the rag tag minority groups.
Their imperial jingoism only makes the situation worse. Large swaths of the USA population,
including lower middle class are tired of foreign wars and sliding standard of living. They see
exorbitant military expenses as one of the causes of their troubles.
That's why Hillary got a middle finger from several social groups which previously supported
Democrats. And that's why midterm might be interesting to watch as there is no political party
that represents working class and lower middle class in the USA.
"Lesser evil" mantra stops working when people are really angry at the ruling neoliberal
elite.
control of the Senate, a relentlessly undemocratic institution
likbez 10.08.18 at 6:24 am (no link)
I think the US society is entering a deep, sustained political crisis and it is unclear what
can bring us back from it other then the collapse, USSR-style. The USA slide into corporate
socialism (which might be viewed as a flavor of neofascism) can't be disputed.
Looks like all democracies are unstable and prone to self-destruction. In modern America,
the elite do not care about lower 80% of the population, and is over-engaged in cynical
identity politics, race and gender-mongering. Anything to win votes.
MSM is still cheering on military misadventures that kill thousands of Americans,
impoverish millions, and cost trillions. Congress looks even worse. Republican House leader
Paul Ryan looks like 100% pure bought-and-paid-for tool of multinational corporations
The scary thing for me is that the USA national problems are somewhat similar to the ones
that the USSR experienced before the collapse. At least the level of degeneration of
political elite of both parties (which in reality is a single party) is.
The only positive things is that there is viable alternative to neoliberalism on the
horizon. But that does not mean that we can't experience 1930th on a new level again. Now
several European countries such as Poland and Ukraine are already ruled by far right
nationalist parties. Brazil is probably the next. So this or military rule in the USA is not
out of question.
Some other factors are also in play: one is that a country with 320 million population
can't be governed by the same methods as a country of 76 million (1900). End of cheap oil is
near and probably will occur within the next 50 years or so. Which means the end of
neoliberalism as we know it.
Tucker states that the USA's neoliberal elite acquired control of a massive chunk of the
country's wealth. And then successfully insulated themselves from the hoi polloi. They send
their children to the Ivy League universities, live in enclosed compounds with security
guards, travel in helicopters, etc. Kind of like French aristocracy on a new level ("Let them
eat cakes"). "There's nothing more infuriating to a ruling class than contrary opinions.
They're inconvenient and annoying. They're evidence of an ungrateful population Above all,
they constitute a threat to your authority." (insert sarcasm)
Donald Trump was in many ways an unappealing figure. He never hid that. Voters knew it.
They just concluded that the options were worse -- and not just Hillary Clinton and the
Democratic Party, but the Bush family and their donors and the entire Republican
leadership, along with the hedge fund managers and media luminaries and corporate
executives and Hollywood tastemakers and think tank geniuses and everyone else who created
the world as it was in the fall of 2016: the people in charge. Trump might be vulgar and
ignorant, but he wasn't responsible for the many disasters America's leaders created .
There was also the possibility that Trump might listen. At times he seemed interested in
what voters thought. The people in charge demonstrably weren't. Virtually none of their
core beliefs had majority support from the population they governed .Beginning on election
night, they explained away their loss with theories as pat and implausible as a summer
action movie: Trump won because fake news tricked simple minded voters. Trump won because
Russian agents "hacked" the election. Trump won because mouth-breathers in the provinces
were mesmerized by his gold jet and shiny cuff links.
From a reader review:
The New Elite speaks: "The Middle Class are losers and they have made bad choices, they
haven't worked as hard as the New Elite have, they haven't gone to SAT Prep or LSAT prep so
they lose, we win. We are the Elite and we know better than you because we got high SAT
scores.
Do we have experience? Uh .well no, few of us have been in the military, pulled KP, shot
an M-16 . because we are better than that. Like they say only the losers go in the
military. We in the New Elite have little empirical knowledge but we can recognize patterns
very quickly."
Just look at Haley behavior in the UN and Trump trade wars and many things became more
clear. the bet is on destruction of existing international institutions in order to save the
USA elite. A the same time Trump trade wars threaten the neoliberal order so this might well
be a path to the USA self-destruction.
On Capital hill rancor, a lack of civility and derisive descriptions are everywhere.
Respect has gone out the window. Left and right wings of a single neoliberal party (much like
CPSU was in the USSR) behave like drunk schoolchildren. Level of pettiness is simply
amazing.
The fundamental rule of democratic electoral politics is this: tribes don't win elections,
coalitions do. Trump's appeal is strongly tribal, and he has spent two years consolidating
his appeal to that tribe rather than reaching out. But he won in 2016 (or 'won') not on the
strength of that tribal appeal, but because of a coalition between core Trumpists and more
respectable conservatives and evangelicals, including a lot of people who find Trump himself
vulgar and repellent, but who are prepared to hold their noses. The cause
célèbre (or cause de l'infâme) that Kavanaugh's appointment became
ended-up uniting these two groups; the Trumpists on the one hand ('so the Libs are saying we
can't even enjoy a beer now, are they?') and the old-school religious Conservatives,
for whom abortion is a matter of conscience.
Given the weird topographies of US democratic process, the Democrats need to build a
bigger counter-coalition than the coalition they are opposing. Metropolitan liberals are in
the bag, so that means reconnecting with the working class, and galvanising the black and
youth votes, which have a poor record of converting social media anger into actual ballot-box
votes. But it also means reaching out to moderate religious conservatives, and the Dems don't
seem to me to have a strategy for this last approach at all. Which is odd, because it would
surely, at least in some ways, be easier than persuading young people to vote at the levels
old people vote. At the moment abortion (the elephant in the Kavanaugh-confirmation room) is
handled by the Left as a simple matter of structural misogyny, the desire to oppress and
control female bodies. I see why it is treated that way; there are good reasons for that
critique. But it's electorally dumb. Come at it another way instead, accept that many
religious people oppose abortion because they see it as killing children; then lead the
campaign on the fact that the GOP is literally putting thousands upon thousands of
children in concentration camps . Shout about that fact. Determine how many kids
literally die each year because their parents can't access free healthcare and put that stat
front and centre. Confront enough voters with the false consciousness of only caring about
abortion and not these other monstrosities and some will reconsider their position.
And one more thing that I have never understood about the Dems (speaking as an outsider),
given how large a political force Christianity is in your country: make more of Jimmy Carter.
He's a man of extraordinary conscience as well as a man of faith; the contrast with how he
has lived his post-Presidential life and the present occupier of the White House could
hardly, from a Christian perspective, be greater. If the Dems can make a love-thy-neighbour
social justice Christianity part of their brand, leaving Mammon to the GOP, then they'd be in
power for a generation.
"... There has been an ongoing campaign on the part of the US, to get out the idea that China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran have massive armies of hackers that are constantly looking to steal American secrets. The absurdity of the US' claims is pretty obvious. As I pointed out in my book The Myth of Homeland Security ..."
"... "The Great US/China Cyberwar of 2010" is one cyberwar that didn't happen, but was presaged with a run-up of lots of claims that the Chinese were hacking all over the place. I'm perfectly willing to accept the possibility that there was Chinese hacking activity, but in the industry there was no indication of an additional level of attack or significance. ..."
"... One thing that did ..."
"... US ideology is that "we don't start wars" -- it's always looking for an excuse to go to war under the rubric of self-defense, so I see these sorts of claims as justification in advance for unilateral action. I also see it as a sign of weakness; if the US were truly the superpower it claims it is, it would simply accept its imperial mantle and stop bothering to try to justify anything. I'm afraid we may be getting close to that point. ..."
"... My assumption has always been that the US is projecting its own actions on other nations. At the time when the US was talking the loudest about Chinese cyberwar, the US and Israel had launched STUXNET against the Iranian enrichment plant at Natanz, and the breeder reactor at Bushehr (which happens to be just outside of a large city; the attack took some of its control systems and backup generators offline). Attacks on nuclear power facilities are a war crime under international humanitarian law, which framework the US is signatory to but has not committed to actually follow. This sort of activity happens at the same time that the US distributes talking-points to the media about the danger of Russian hackers crashing the US power grid. I don't think we can psychoanalyze an entire government and I think psychoanalysis is mostly nonsense -- but it's tempting to accuse the US of "projection." ..."
"... All of this stuff happens against the backdrop of Klein, Binney, Snowden, and the Vault 7 revelations, as well as solid attribution identifying the NSA as "equation group" and linking the code-tree of NSA-developed malware to STUXNET, FLAME, and DUQU. ..."
"... the US has even admitted to deploying STUXNET -- Obama bragged about it. When Snowden's revelations outlined how the NSA had eavesdropped on Angela Merkel's cellphone, the Germans expressed shock and Barack Obama remarkably truthfully said "that's how these things are done" and blew the whole thing off by saying that the NSA wasn't eavesdropping on Merkel any more. [ bbc ] ..."
"... It's hard to keep score because everything is pretty vague, but it sounds like the US has been dramatically out-spending and out-acting the other nations that it accuses of being prepared for cyberwar. ..."
"... it's hard not to see the US is prepared for cyberwar, when both the NSA and the CIA leak massive collections of advanced tools. ..."
"... My observation is that the NSA and CIA have been horribly sloppy and have clearly spent a gigantic amount of money preparing to compromise both foreign and domestic systems -- that's bad enough. With friends like the NSA and CIA, who needs Russians and Chinese? ..."
"... The Russian and Chinese efforts are relatively tiny compared to the massive efforts the US expends tens of billions of dollars on. The US spends about $50bn on its intelligence agencies, while the entire Russian Department of Defense budget is about $90bn (China is around $139bn) -- maybe the Russians and Chinese have such a small footprint because they are much smaller operations? ..."
"... That brings us to the recent kerfuffle about taps on the Supermicro motherboards. That's not unbelievable at all -- not in a world where we discover that Intel has built a parallel management CPU into every CPU since 2008, and that there is solid indications that other processors have similar backdoors. ..."
"... There are probably so many backdoors in our systems that it's a miracle it works at all. ..."
"... So, with respect to "propaganda" I would say that the US intelligence community has been consistently pushing a propaganda agenda against the US government, and the citizens in order to justify its actions and defend its budget. ..."
"... What little I've been able to find out the new Trump™ cybersecurity plan is that it doesn't involve any defense, just massive retribution against (perceived) foes. ..."
"... Funny how those obsessed with "false flag" operations work so hard to invite more of same. ..."
Bob Moore asks me to comment on an article about propaganda and security/intelligence. [
article ] This is going to be a mixture of opinion and references to facts; I'll try to be
clear which is which.
Yesterday several NATO countries ran a concerted propaganda campaign against Russia. The
context for it was a NATO summit in which the U.S. presses for an intensified cyberwar
against NATO's preferred enemy.
On the same day another coordinated campaign targeted China. It is aimed against China's
development of computer chip manufacturing further up the value chain. Related to this is
U.S. pressure on Taiwan, a leading chip manufacturer, to cut its ties with its big
motherland.
It is true that the US periodically makes a big push regarding "messaging" about hacking.
Whether or not it constitutes a "propaganda campaign" depends on how we choose to interpret
things and the labels we attach to them -- "propaganda campaign" has a lot of negative
connotations and one person's "outreach effort" is an other's "propaganda." An
ultra-nationalist or an authoritarian submissive who takes the government's word for anything
would call it "outreach."
There has been an ongoing campaign on the part of the US, to get out the idea that
China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran have massive armies of hackers that are constantly looking
to steal American secrets. The absurdity of the US' claims is pretty obvious. As I pointed out
in my book The Myth of Homeland Security (2004) [
wc ] claims such as that the Chinese had "40,000 highly trained hackers" are flat-out
absurd and ignore the reality of hacking; that's four army corps. Hackers don't engage in
"human wave" attacks.
"The Great US/China Cyberwar of 2010" is one cyberwar that didn't happen, but was
presaged with a run-up of lots of claims that the Chinese were hacking all over the place. I'm
perfectly willing to accept the possibility that there was Chinese hacking activity, but in the
industry there was no indication of an additional level of attack or significance.
One thing that did happen in 2010 around the same time as the nonexistent
cyberwar was China and Russia proposed trilateral talks with the US to attempt to define
appropriate limits on state-sponsored hacking. The US flatly rejected the proposal, but there
was virtually no coverage of that in the US media at the time. The UN also called for a
cyberwar treaty framework, and the effort was killed by the US. [ wired ] What's
fascinating and incomprehensible to me is that, whenever the US feels that its ability to claim
pre-emptive cyberwar is challenged, it responds with a wave of claims about Chinese (or Russian
or North Korean) cyberwar aggression.
John Negroponte, former director of US intelligence, said intelligence agencies in the
major powers would be the first to "express reservations" about such an accord.
US ideology is that "we don't start wars" -- it's always looking for an excuse to go to
war under the rubric of self-defense, so I see these sorts of claims as justification in
advance for unilateral action. I also see it as a sign of weakness; if the US were truly the
superpower it claims it is, it would simply accept its imperial mantle and stop bothering to
try to justify anything. I'm afraid we may be getting close to that point.
My assumption has always been that the US is projecting its own actions on other
nations. At the time when the US was talking the loudest about Chinese cyberwar, the US and
Israel had launched STUXNET against the Iranian enrichment plant at Natanz, and the breeder
reactor at Bushehr (which happens to be just outside of a large city; the attack took some of
its control systems and backup generators offline). Attacks on nuclear power facilities are a
war crime under international humanitarian law, which framework the US is signatory to but has
not committed to actually follow. This sort of activity happens at the same time that the US
distributes talking-points to the media about the danger of Russian hackers crashing the US
power grid. I don't think we can psychoanalyze an entire government and I think psychoanalysis
is mostly nonsense -- but it's tempting to accuse the US of "projection."
The anti-Russian campaign is about alleged Russian spying, hacking and influence
operations. Britain and the Netherland took the lead. Britain accused Russia's military
intelligence service (GRU) of spying attempts against the Organisation for the Prohibition of
Chemical Weapons (OPCW) in The Hague and Switzerland, of spying attempts against the British
Foreign Office, of influence campaigns related to European and the U.S. elections, and of
hacking the international doping agency WADA. British media willingly
helped to exaggerate the claims: [ ]
The Netherland [sic] for its part released
a flurry
of information about the alleged spying attempts against the OPCW in The Hague. It claims
that four GRU agents traveled to The Hague on official Russian diplomatic passports to sniff
out the WiFi network of the OPCW. (WiFi networks are notoriously easy to hack. If the OPCW is
indeed using such it should not be trusted with any security relevant issues.) The Russian
officials were allegedly very secretive, even cleaning out their own hotel trash, while they,
at the same, time carried laptops with private data and even taxi receipts showing their
travel from a GRU headquarter in Moscow to the airport. Like in the Skripal/Novichok saga the
Russian spies are, at the same time, portrayed as supervillains and hapless amateurs. Real
spies are neither.
There's a lot there, and I think the interpretation is a bit over-wrought, but it's mostly
accurate. The US and the UK (and other NATO allies, as necessary) clearly coordinate when it
comes to talking points. Claims of Chinese cyberwar in the US press will be followed by claims
in the UK and Australian press, as well. My suspicion is that this is not the US Government and
UK Government coordinating a story -- it's the intelligence agencies doing it. My
opinion is that the intelligence services are fairly close to a "deep state" -- the
CIA and NSA are completely out of control and the CIA has gone far toward building its own
military, while the NSA has implemented completely unrestricted surveillance worldwide.
All of this stuff happens against the backdrop of Klein, Binney, Snowden, and the Vault
7 revelations, as well as solid attribution identifying the NSA as "equation group" and linking
the code-tree of NSA-developed malware to STUXNET, FLAME, and DUQU. While the attribution
that "Fancy Bear is the GRU" has been made and is probably fairly solid, the attribution of NSA
malware and CIA malware is rock solid; the US has even admitted to deploying STUXNET --
Obama bragged about it. When Snowden's revelations outlined how the NSA had eavesdropped on
Angela Merkel's cellphone, the Germans expressed shock and Barack Obama remarkably truthfully
said "that's how these things are done" and blew the whole thing off by saying that the NSA
wasn't eavesdropping on Merkel any more. [ bbc ]
It's hard to keep score because everything is pretty vague, but it sounds like the US
has been dramatically out-spending and out-acting the other nations that it accuses of being
prepared for cyberwar. I tend to be extremely skeptical of US claims because: bomber gap,
missile gap, gulf of Tonkin, Iraq WMD, Afghanistan, Libya and every other aggressive attack by
the US which was blamed on its target. The reason I assume the US is the most aggressive actor
in cyberspace is because the US has done a terrible job of protecting its tool-sets and
operational security: it's hard not to see the US is prepared for cyberwar, when both the
NSA and the CIA leak massive collections of advanced tools.
Meanwhile, where are the leaks of Russian and Chinese tools? They have been few and far
between, if there have been any at all. Does this mean that the Russians and Chinese have
amazingly superior tradecraft, if not tools? I don't know. My observation is that the NSA
and CIA have been horribly sloppy and have clearly spent a gigantic amount of money preparing
to compromise both foreign and domestic systems -- that's bad enough. With friends like the NSA
and CIA, who needs Russians and Chinese?
The article does not have great depth to its understanding of the situation, I'm afraid. So
it comes off as a bit heavy on the recent news while ignoring the long-term trends. For
example:
The allegations of Chinese supply chain attacks are of course just as hypocritical as the
allegations against Russia. The very first know case of computer related supply chain
manipulation goes
back to 1982 :
A CIA operation to sabotage Soviet industry by duping Moscow into stealing booby-trapped
software was spectacularly successful when it triggered a huge explosion in a Siberian gas
pipeline, it emerged yesterday.
I wrote a piece about the "Farewell Dossier" in 2004. [ mjr
] Re-reading it, it comes off as skeptical but waffly. I think that it's self-promotion by the
CIA and exaggerates considerably ("look how clever we are!") at a time when the CIA was
suffering an attention and credibility deficit after its shitshow performance under George
Tenet. But the first known cases of computer related supply chain manipulation go back to the
70s and 80s -- the NSA even compromised Crypto AG's Hagelin M-209 system (a mechanical
ciphering machine) in order to read global communications encrypted with that product. You can
imagine Crypto AG's surprise when the Iranian secret police arrested one of their sales reps
for selling backdoor'd crypto -- the NSA had never told them about the backdoor, naturally. The
CIA was also on record for producing Xerox machines destined for the USSR, which had recorders
built into them So, while the article is portraying the historical sweep of NSA dirty tricks,
they're only looking at the recent ones. Remember: the NSA also weakened the elliptic curve
crypto library in RSA's Bsafe implementation, paying RSADSI $13 million to accept their tweaked
code.
Why haven't we been hearing about the Chinese and Russians doing that sort of thing? There
are four options:
The Russians and Chinese are doing it, they're just so darned good nobody has
caught them until just recently.
The Russians and Chinese simply resort to using existing tools developed by the
hacking/cybercrime community and rely on great operational security rather than fancy
tools.
The Russian and Chinese efforts are relatively tiny compared to the massive efforts
the US expends tens of billions of dollars on. The US spends about $50bn on its intelligence
agencies, while the entire Russian Department of Defense budget is about $90bn (China is
around $139bn) -- maybe the Russians and Chinese have such a small footprint because they are
much smaller operations?
Something else.
That brings us to the recent kerfuffle about taps on the Supermicro motherboards. That's
not unbelievable at all -- not in a world where we discover that Intel has built a parallel
management CPU into every CPU since 2008, and that there is solid indications that other
processors have similar backdoors.
Was the Intel IME a "backdoor" or just "a bad idea"? Well, that's tricky. Let me put my
tinfoil hat on: making a backdoor look like a sloppily developed product feature would be the
competent way to write a backdoor. Making it as sneaky as the backdoor in the Via is
unnecessary -- incompetence is eminently believable.
&
(kaspersky)
I believe all of these stories (including the Supermicro) are the tip of a great big, ugly
iceberg. The intelligence community has long known that software-only solutions are too
mutable, and are easy to decompile and figure out. They have wanted to be in the BIOS of
systems -- on the motherboard -- for a long time. If you go back to 2014, we have disclosures
about the NSA malware that hides in hard drive BIOS: [
vice ] [
vice ] That appears to have been in progress around 2000/2001.
Of note, the group recovered two modules belonging to EquationDrug and GrayFish that were
used to reprogram hard drives to give the attackers persistent control over a target machine.
These modules can target practically every hard drive manufacturer and brand on the market,
including Seagate, Western Digital, Samsung, Toshiba, Corsair, Hitachi and more. Such attacks
have traditionally been difficult to pull off, given the risk in modifying hard drive
software, which may explain why Kaspersky could only identify a handful of very specific
targets against which the attack was used, where the risk was worth the reward.
But
Equation Group's malware platforms have other tricks, too. GrayFish, for example, also has
the ability to install itself into computer's boot record -- software that loads even
before the operating system itself -- and stores all of its data inside a portion of
the operating system called the registry, where configuration data is normally stored.
EquationDrug was designed for use on older Windows operating systems, and "some of the
plugins were designed originally for use on Windows 95/98/ME" -- versions of Windows so old
that they offer a good indication of the Equation Group's age.
This is not a very good example of how to establish a "malware gap" since it just makes the
NSA look like they are incapable of keeping a secret. If you want an idea how bad it is,
Kaspersky labs' analysis of the NSA's toolchain is a good example of how to do attribution
correctly. Unfortunately for the US agenda, that solid attribution points toward Fort Meade in
Maryland. [kaspersky]
Let me be clear: I think we are fucked every which way from the start. With backdoors in the
BIOS, backdoors on the CPU, and wireless cellular-spectrum backdoors, there are probably
backdoors in the GPUs and the physical network controllers, as well. Maybe the backdoors in the
GPU come from the GRU and maybe the backdoors in the hard drives come from NSA, but who cares?
The upshot is that all of our systems are so heinously compromised that they can only be
considered marginally reliable. It is, literally, not your computer: it's theirs. They'll let
you use it so long as your information is interesting to them.
Do I believe the Chinese are capable of doing such a thing? Of course. Is the GRU? Probably.
Mossad? Sure. NSA? Well-documented attribution points toward NSA. Your computer is a free-fire
zone. It has been since the mid 1990s, when the NSA was told "no" on the Clipper chip and
decided to come up with its own Plan B, C, D, and E. Then, the CIA came up with theirs. Etc.
There are probably so many backdoors in our systems that it's a miracle it works at
all.
From my 2012 RSA conference lecture "Cyberwar, you're doing it wrong."
The problem is that playing in this space is the purview of governments. Nobody in the
cybercrime or hacking world need tools like these. The intelligence operatives have huge
budgets, compared to a typical company's security budget, and it's unreasonable to expect any
business to invest such a level of effort on defending itself. So what should companies do?
They should do exactly what they are doing: expect the government to deal with it; that's what
governments are for. The problem with that strategy is that their government isn't on their
side, either! It's Hobbes' playground.
In case you think I am engaging in hyperbole, I assure you I am not. If you want another
example of the lengths (and willingness to bypass the law) "they" are willing to go, consider
'stingrays' that are in operation in every major US city and outside of every interesting hotel
and high tech park. Those devices are not passive -- they actively inject themselves into the
call set-up between your phone and your carrier -- your data goes through the stingray, or it
doesn't go at all. If there are multiple stingrays, then your latency goes through the roof.
"They" don't care. Are the stingrays NSA, FBI, CIA, Mossad, GRU, or PLA? Probably a bit of all
of the above depending on where and when.
Whenever the US gets caught with its pants down around its ankles, it blames the Chinese or
the Russians because they have done a good job of building the idea that the most serious
hackers on the planet at the Chinese. I don't believe that we're seeing complex propaganda
campaigns that are tied to specific incidents -- I think we see ongoing organic
propaganda campaigns that all serve the same end: protect the agencies, protect their budgets,
justify their existence, and downplay their incompetence.
So, with respect to "propaganda" I would say that the US intelligence community has been
consistently pushing a propaganda agenda against the US government, and the citizens in order
to justify its actions and defend its budget.
The government also engages in propaganda, and is influenced by the intelligence
community's propaganda as well. And the propaganda campaigns work because everyone
involved assumes, "well, given what the NSA has been able to do, I should assume the Chinese
can do likewise." That's a perfectly reasonable assumption and I think it's probably true that
the Chinese have capabilities. The situation is what Chuck Spinney calls "A self-licking ice
cream cone" -- it's a justifying structure that makes participation in endless aggression seem
like a sensible thing to do. And, when there's inevitably a disaster, it's going to be like a
cyber-9/11 and will serve as a justification for even more unrestrained aggression.
Want to see what it looks like? A thousand thanks to Commentariat member [redacted] for this
link. If you don't like video, there's an article here. [ toms ]
Is this an NSA backdoor, or normal incompetence? Is Intel Management Engine an NSA-inspired
backdoor, or did some system engineers at Intel think that was a good idea? There are other
scary indications of embedded compromise: the CIA's Vault7 archive included code that appeared
to be intended to embed in the firmware of "smart" flatscreen TVs. That would make every LG
flat panel in every hotel room, a listening device just waiting to be turned on.
We know the Chinese didn't do that particular bug but why wouldn't they do
something similar, in something else? China is the world's oldest mature culture -- they
literally wrote the book on strategy -- Americans acting as though it's a great
surprise to learn that the Chinese are not stupid, it's just the parochialism of a 250 year-old
culture looking at a 3,000 year-old culture and saying "wow, you guys haven't been asleep at
the switch after all!"
What little I've been able to find out the new
Trump™ cybersecurity plan is that it doesn't involve any defense, just massive
retribution against (perceived) foes.
Funny how those obsessed with "false flag" operations work so hard to invite more of
same.
Pierce R. Butler@#1: What little I've been able to find out the new Trump™ cybersecurity plan is that
it doesn't involve any defense, just massive retribution against (perceived) foes.
Yes. Since 2001, as far as most of us can tell, federal cybersecurity spend has been 80%
offense, 20% defense. And a lot of the offensive spend has been aimed at We, The
People.
Your mention of Operation Sundevil and Kevin Mitnick in a previous post made me think
that maybe the reason we haven't seen the kind of leaks from the Russian and Chinese
hacking operations that we've seem from the NSA is that they're running a "Kevin Mitnick
style" operation; that is, relying less on technical solutions and using instead
old-fashioned "social engineering" and other low-tech forms of espionage (like running
troll farms on social media). I mean, I've seen interviews with retired US intelligence
people since the 90s complain that since the late 1980s, the intelligence agencies have
been crippled by management in love with hi-tech "SIGINT" solutions to problems that never
deliver and neglecting old-fashioned "HUMINT" intelligence-gathering.
The thing is, Kevin Mitnick got away with a lot of what he did because people didn't
take security seriously then, and still don't. On a similar nostalgia vibe, I remember
reading an article by Keith Bostic (one of the researchers who helped in the analysis of
the Morris worm
that took down a significant chunk of the Internet back in 1988) where he did a follow-up a
year or so afterwards and some depressing number of organisations that had been hit by it
still hadn't patched the holes that had let the worm infect them in the first
place.
Cat Mara@#3: Your mention of Operation Sundevil and Kevin Mitnick in a previous post made me think
that maybe the reason we haven't seen the kind of leaks from the Russian and Chinese
hacking operations that we've seem from the NSA is that they're running a "Kevin Mitnick
style" operation; that is, relying less on technical solutions and using instead
old-fashioned "social engineering" and other low-tech forms of espionage (like running
troll farms on social media).
I think that's right, to a high degree. What if Edward Snowden was an agent provocateur
instead of a well-meaning naive kid? A tremendous amount of damage could be done, as well
as stealing the US' expensive toys. The Russians have been very good at doing exactly that
sort of operation, since WWII. The Chinese are, if anything, more subtle than the
Russians.
The Chinese attitude, as expressed to me by someone who might be a credible source is,
"why are you picking a fight with us? We don't care, you're too far away for us to threaten
you, we both have loads of our own fish to fry. To them, the US is young, hyperactive, and
stupid.
The FBI is not competent, at all, against old-school humint intelligence-gathering.
Compared to the US' cyber-toys, the old ways are probably more efficient and cost
effective. China's intelligence community is also much more team-oriented than the CIA/NSA;
they're actually a disciplined operation under the strategic control of policy-makers.
That, by the way, is why Russians and Chinese stare in amazement when Americans ask things
like "Do you think Putin knew about this?" What a stupid question! It's an autocracy; they
don't have intelligence operatives just going an deciding "it's a nice day to go to England
with some Novichok." The entire American attitude toward espionage lacks maturity.
On a similar nostalgia vibe, I remember reading an article by Keith Bostic (one of
the researchers who helped in the analysis of the Morris worm that took down a significant
chunk of the Internet back in 1988) where he did a follow-up a year or so afterwards and
some depressing number of organisations that had been hit by it still hadn't patched the
holes that had let the worm infect them in the first place.
That as an exciting time. We were downstream from University of Maryland, which got hit
pretty badly. Pete Cottrel and Chris Torek from UMD were also in on Bostic's dissection. We
were doing uucp over TCP for our email (that changed pretty soon after the worm) and our
uucp queue blew up. I cured the worm with a reboot into single-user mode and a quick 'rm
-f' in the uucp queue.
Thanks. I appreciate your measured analysis and the making explicit of the bottom line:
" agencies, protect their budgets, justify their existence, and downplay their
incompetence."
The Kavanaugh confirmation process has been a missed opportunity for the United States to
face up to many urgent issues on which the bi-partisans in Washington, DC are united and
wrong.
Kavanaugh's career as
a Republican legal operative and judge supporting the power of corporations, the security
state and abusive foreign policy should have been put on trial. The hearings could have
provided an opportunity to confront the security state, use of torture, mass spying and the
domination of money in politics and oligarchy as he has had an important role in each of
these.
Kavanaugh's behavior as a teenager who likely drank too much and was inappropriately
aggressive and abusive with women, perhaps even attempting rape, must also be confronted. In an
era where patriarchy and mistreatment of women are being challenged, Kavanaugh is the wrong
nominee for this important time. However, sexual assault should not be a distraction that keeps
the public's focus off other issues raised by his career as a conservative political
activist.
The Security State, Mass Spying and Torture
A central issue of our era is the US security state -- mass spying on emails, Internet
activity, texts and phone calls. Judge Kavanough
enabled invasive spying on everyone in the United States . He described mass surveillance
as "entirely consistent" with the US Constitution. This manipulation of the law turns the
Constitution upside down a it clearly requires probable cause and a search warrant for the
government to conduct searches.
Kavanaugh
explained in a decision, "national security . . . outweighs the impact on privacy
occasioned by this [NSA] program." This low regard for protecting individual privacy should
have been enough for a majority of the Senate to say this nominee is inappropriate for the
court.
Kavanaugh ruled multiple times that police have the
power to search people, emphasizing "reasonableness" as the standard for searching people.
He ruled broadly for the police in searches conducted on the street without a warrant and for
broader use of drug testing of federal employees. Kavanaugh applauded Justice Rehnquist's views
on the Fourth Amendment, which favored police searches by defining probable cause in a flexible
way and creating a broad exception for when the government has "special needs" to search
without a warrant or probable cause. In this era of police abuse through stop and frisk, jump
out squads and searches when driving (or walking or running) while black, Kavanaugh is the
wrong nominee and should be disqualified.
Kavanaugh also played a role in the Bush torture policy. Torture is against US
and international law , certainly facilitating torture should be disqualifying not only as
a justice but
should result in disbarment as a lawyer . Kavanaugh was appointed by President Trump, who
once vowed he would "bring back waterboarding and a hell of a lot worse than
waterboarding." Minimizing torture is demonstrated in his rulings, e.g. not protecting
prisoners at risk of torture and not allowing people to sue the government on allegations of
torture.
Torture is a landmine in the Senate, so
Kavanaugh misled the Senate likely committing perjury on torture . In his 2006
confirmation, he said he was "not involved" in "questions about the rules governing detention
of combatants." Tens of thousands of documents have been kept secret by the White House about
Kavanaugh from the Bush era. Even so, during these confirmation hearings documents related to
the nomination of a lawyer involved in the torture program showed
Kavanaugh's role in torture policies leading Senator Dick Durbin to write : "It is clear
now that not only did Judge Kavanaugh mislead me when it came to his involvement in the Bush
Administration's detention and interrogation policies, but also regarding his role in the
controversial Haynes nomination."
Durbin spoke more broadly about perjury writing: "This is a theme that we see emerge with
Judge Kavanaugh time and time again – he says one thing under oath, and then the
documents tell a different story. It is no wonder the White House and Senate Republicans are
rushing through this nomination and hiding much of Judge Kavanaugh's record -- the questions
about this nominee's credibility are growing every day." The long list of
perjury allegations should be investigated and if proven should result in him not being
confirmed.
This should have been enough to stop the process until documents were released to reveal
Kavanaugh's role as Associate White House Counsel under George Bush from 2001 to 2003 and
as his White House Staff Secretary from 2003 to 2006. Unfortunately, Democrats have been
complicit in allowing torture as well, e.g. the Obama administration never prosecuted anyone
accused of torture and advanced the careers of people involved in torture.
Shouldn't the risk of having a torture facilitator on the Supreme Court be enough to stop
this nomination?
Corporate Power vs Protecting People and the Planet
In this era of corporate power, Kavanaugh sides with the corporations. Ralph Nader
describes him as a corporation masquerading as a judge . He narrowly limited the powers of
federal agencies to curtail corporate power and to protect the interests of the people and
planet.
This is evident in cases where Kavanaugh has favored
reducing restrictions on polluting corporations. He dissented in cases where the majority ruled
in favor of environmental protection but has never dissented where the majority ruled against
protecting the environment. He ruled against agencies seeking to protect clean air and water.
If Kavanaugh is on the court, it will be much harder to hold corporations responsible for the
damage they have done to the climate, the environment or health.
Kavanaugh takes the side of businesses over their workers with a consistent history of
anti-union and anti-labor rulings. A few examples of many, he ruledin favor of the Trump Organizatio
n throwing out the results of a union election,
sided with the management of Sheldon Adelson's Venetian Casino Resort upholding the
casino's First Amendment
right to summon police against workers engaged in a peaceful demonstration -- for which
they had a permit, affirmed the Department of Defense's discretion to negate
the collective bargaining rights of employees, and overturned an NLRB ruling that allowed
Verizon workers to display pro-union signs on company property despite having given up the
right to picket in their collective bargaining agreement. In this time of labor unrest and
mistreatment of workers, Kavanaugh will be a detriment to workers rights.
Kavanough
opposed the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) ruling in favor of net neutrality,
which forbids telecom companies from discrimination on the Internet. He argued net neutrality
violated the First Amendment rights of Internet Service Providers (ISP) and was beyond the
power granted to the FCC. He put the rights of big corporations ahead of the people having a
free and open Internet. The idea that an ISP has a right to control what it allows on the
Internet could give corporations great control over what people see on the Internet. It is a
very dangerous line of reasoning in this era of corporations curtailing news that challenges
the mainstream narrative.
Kavanaugh will be friendly to powerful business and the interests of the wealthy on the
Supreme Court, and will tend to stand in the way of efforts by administrative agencies to
regulate them and by people seeking greater rights.
On the third day of his confirmation hearings, Judge Brett Kavanaugh seemed to refer to the
use of contraception as "abortion-inducing drugs ." It was a discussion of a case where
Kavanaugh dissented from the majority involving the Priests for Life's challenge to the
Affordable Care Act (ACA). Kavanaugh opposed the requirement that all health plans cover birth
control, claiming that IUDs and emergency contraception were an infringement of their free
exercise of religion.
Kavanaugh clerked for Judge Kosinski who he describes as a mentor. Kosinski was forced to
resign after being accused of harassing at least 12 women in the sanctity of his judicial
chambers. Kavanaugh swears he never saw any signs that the judge was sexually harassing
women, but the Democrats did not ask a single question about it.
Multiple accusers
have come forward to allege Kavanaugh's involvement in sexual assault and abuse. While Dr.
Christine Blasey Ford is viewed as credible – she was the only witness allowed to testify
– it is not clear these allegations will be thoroughly reviewed. After being approved by
the committee, the Republican leadership and President Trump agreed on a limited FBI
investigation. It is unclear
whether the FBI will be allowed to follow all the evidence and question all the witnesses.
As we write this newsletter, the outcome has yet to unfold but Jeffrey St.
Clair at Countpunch points out, "the FBI investigation will be overseen by director
Christopher Wray, who was two years behind Brett-boy at both Yale and Yale Law. After
graduation, they entered the same rightwing political orbit and both took jobs in the Bush
Administration. How do you think it's going to turn out?"
Why don't Democrats, as Ralph Nader
suggests , hold their own hearing and question all the witnesses? If there is corroborating
evidence for the accusers, Kavanaugh should not be approved.
During his confirmation process, in response to the accusations of assault, he claimed they
were "a calculated and orchestrated political hit" and "revenge on behalf of the Clinton's." He
demonstrated partisan anger and displayed a lack of judicial temperament, making him unfit to
serve on the Supreme Court.
Kavanaugh exposes the true partisan nature of the highest court, which is not a neutral
arbiter but another battleground for partisan politics. The lack of debate on issues of spying,
torture and more shows both parties support a court that protects the security state and
corporate interests over people and planet. Accusations of sexual assault must be confronted,
but there are many reasons Kavanaugh should not be on the court. The confirmation process
undermines the court's legitimacy and highlights bi-partisan corruption.
An interesting hypothesis. CIA definitly became a powerful political force in the USA -- a rogue political force which starting from JFK assasination tries to control who is elected to important offices. But in truth Cavanaugh is a pro-CIA candidate so to speak. So why CIA would try to derail him.
Notable quotes:
"... I think I've figured out why they had to go to couples counseling about an outside door and why she came up with claim that she needed an outside bedroom door because she'd been assaulted 37 years ago. The Palo Alto building codes for single family homes were created to make sure single family homes remained single family and weren't chopped up into apartments. ..."
"... An outside door into a master bedroom with attached bathroom is a red flag that it's intended for an illegal what's called in law apartment ..."
"... So she wants the door. Husband says waste of money and trouble. Contractor says call me when you're ready. So they go to counseling Husband explains why the door's unreasonable. Therapist asks wife why she " really deep down" needs the door. Wife makes up the story about attempted rape 35 years ago flashbacks If only there were 2 doors in that imaginary bedroom she could have escaped. ..."
"... Kacanaugh was nominated. CIA searched for sex problems in his working life. Found nothing Searched law school and college found nothing. In desperation searched high school found nothing. Searched CIA personnel records which go back to grade school and found one of their own employees was about Kavanaugh's age and attended a high school near his and the students socialized. ..."
"... She's 3rd generation CIA. grandfather assistant director. Father CIA contractor who managed CIA unofficial band accounts. And she runs a CIA recruitment office. ..."
I think I've figured out why they had to go to couples counseling about an outside door and why she came up with claim
that she needed an outside bedroom door because she'd been assaulted 37 years ago. The Palo Alto building codes for single family
homes were created to make sure single family homes remained single family and weren't chopped up into apartments.
Outside doors enter public areas kitchen sunroom living rooms not bedrooms. An outside door into a master bedroom with
attached bathroom is a red flag that it's intended for an illegal what's called in law apartment
There's a unit It's a stove 2 ft counter space and sink. The stoves electric and plugs into an ordinary household electricity.
It's backed against the bathroom wall. Break through the wall, connect the pipes running water for the sink. Add an outside door
and it's a small apartment.
Assume they didn't want to make it an apartment just a master bedroom. Usually the contractor pulls the permits routinely.
But an outside bedroom door is complicated. The permits will cost more. It might require an exemption and a hearing They night
need a lawyer. And they might not get the permit.
So she wants the door. Husband says waste of money and trouble. Contractor says call me when you're ready. So they go to
counseling Husband explains why the door's unreasonable. Therapist asks wife why she " really deep down" needs the door. Wife
makes up the story about attempted rape 35 years ago flashbacks If only there were 2 doors in that imaginary bedroom she could
have escaped.
Kacanaugh was nominated. CIA searched for sex problems in his working life. Found nothing Searched law school and college
found nothing. In desperation searched high school found nothing. Searched CIA personnel records which go back to grade school
and found one of their own employees was about Kavanaugh's age and attended a high school near his and the students socialized.
She's 3rd generation CIA. grandfather assistant director. Father CIA contractor who managed CIA unofficial band accounts.
And she runs a CIA recruitment office.
"... "a key feature of the Roman Empire in its final slide to collapse ... shared values and consensus which had held the Empire's core together dissolved, leaving petty fiefdoms to war among themselves for what power and swag remained." ..."
"... If we understand the profound political disunity fracturing the nation and its Imperial Project, we understand the Deep State must also fracture along the same fault lines. ..."
"... If we consider the state of the nation from 40,000 feet, several key indicators of profound political disunity within the elites pop out: ..."
"... Psychopaths with no moral principles. The nation's elites are not just divided--they're exhibiting signs of schizophrenic breakdown : disassociation and a loss of the ability to discern the difference between reality and their internal fantasies. ..."
"... A funny thing happens when a nation allows itself to be ruled by Imperial kleptocrats: such rule is intrinsically destabilizing, as there is no longer any moral or political center to bind the nation together. The public sees the value system at the top is maximize my personal profit by whatever means are available , i.e. complicity, corruption, monopoly and rentier rackets , and they follow suit by pursuing whatever petty frauds and rackets are within reach: tax avoidance, cheating on entrance exams, gaming the disability system, lying on mortgage and job applications, and so on. ..."
"... But the scope of the rentier rackets is so large, the bottom 95% cannot possibly keep up with the expanding wealth and income of the top .1% and their army of technocrats and enablers, so a rising sense of injustice widens the already yawning fissures in the body politic. ..."
"... As the Power Elites squabble over the dwindling crumbs left by the various rentier rackets, there's no one left to fight for the national interest because the entire Status Quo of self-interested fiefdoms and cartels has been co-opted and is now wedded to the Imperial Oligarchy as their guarantor of financial security. ..."
"... The divided Deep State is a symptom of this larger systemic political disunity. I have characterized the divide as between the Wall Street-Neocon-Globalist Neoliberal camp--currently the dominant public face of the Deep State, the one desperately attempting to exploit the "Russia hacked our elections and is trying to destroy us" narrative--and a much less public, less organized "rogue Progressive" camp, largely based in the military services and fringes of the Deep State, that sees the dangers of a runaway expansionist Empire and the resulting decay of the nation's moral/political center. ..."
"a key feature of the Roman Empire in its final slide to collapse ...
shared values and consensus
which had held the Empire's core together dissolved, leaving petty fiefdoms to war among themselves for what power
and swag remained."
If we understand the profound political disunity fracturing the nation and its Imperial Project, we understand
the Deep State must also fracture along the same fault lines.
If we consider the state of the
nation from 40,000 feet, several key indicators of
profound political disunity within the elites
pop out:
The overt politicization of the central state's law enforcement and intelligence agencies: it is now
commonplace to find former top officials of the CIA et al. accusing a sitting president of treason in the
mainstream media. What was supposed to be above politics is now nothing but politics.
The overt politicization of the centralized (corporate) media: evidence that would stand up in a court of
law is essentially non-existent but the interpretations and exaggerations that fit the chosen narrative are
ceaselessly promoted--the classic definition of desperate propaganda by those who have lost the consent of the
governed.
Psychopaths with no moral principles.
The nation's elites are not just divided--they're exhibiting signs of schizophrenic breakdown
:
disassociation and a loss of the ability to discern the difference between reality and their internal fantasies.
It's impossible to understand the
divided Deep State
unless we situate it in the larger
context of
profound political disunity
, a concept I learned from historian Michael Grant, whose
slim but insightful volume
The
Fall of the Roman Empire
I have been recommending since 2009.
As I noted in my 2009 book
Survival+
,
this was a key feature of the Roman Empire in its final slide to collapse.
The shared values and
consensus which had held the Empire's core together dissolved, leaving petty fiefdoms to war among themselves for
what power and swag remained.
A funny thing happens when a nation allows itself to be ruled by Imperial kleptocrats:
such
rule is intrinsically destabilizing, as there is no longer any moral or political center to bind the nation
together. The public sees the value system at the top is
maximize my personal profit by whatever means are
available
, i.e. complicity, corruption, monopoly and
rentier rackets
, and they follow suit by
pursuing whatever petty frauds and rackets are within reach: tax avoidance, cheating on entrance exams, gaming the
disability system, lying on mortgage and job applications, and so on.
But the scope of the rentier rackets is so large, the bottom 95% cannot possibly keep up with the expanding
wealth and income of the top .1% and their army of technocrats and enablers, so a rising sense of injustice widens
the already yawning fissures in the body politic.
Meanwhile, diverting the national income into a few power centers is also destabilizing
, as
Central Planning and Market Manipulation (a.k.a. the Federal Reserve) are intrinsically unstable as price can no
longer be discovered by unfettered markets. As a result, imbalances grow until some seemingly tiny incident or
disruption triggers a cascading collapse, a.k.a. a phase shift or system re-set.
As the Power Elites squabble over the dwindling crumbs left by the various rentier rackets, there's no one left
to fight for the national interest because the entire Status Quo of self-interested fiefdoms and cartels has been
co-opted and is now wedded to the Imperial Oligarchy as their guarantor of financial security.
The divided Deep State is a symptom of this larger systemic political disunity.
I have
characterized the divide as between the Wall Street-Neocon-Globalist Neoliberal camp--currently the dominant
public face of the Deep State, the one desperately attempting to exploit the "Russia hacked our elections and is
trying to destroy us" narrative--and a much less public, less organized "rogue Progressive" camp, largely based in
the military services and fringes of the Deep State, that sees the dangers of a runaway expansionist Empire and
the resulting decay of the nation's moral/political center.
What few observers seem to understand is that concentrating power in centralized nodes is intrinsically
unstable.
Contrast a system in which power, control and wealth is extremely concentrated in a few nodes
(the current U.S. Imperial Project) and a decentralized network of numerous dynamic nodes.
The disruption of any of the few centralized nodes quickly destabilizes the entire system
because
each centralized node is highly dependent on the others. This is in effect what happened in the 2008-09 Financial
Meltdown: the Wall Street node failed and that quickly imperiled the entire economy and thus the entire political
order, up to and including the Global Imperial Project.
Historian Peter Turchin has proposed that the dynamics of profound political disunity (i.e. social, financial
and political disintegration) can be quantified in a Political Stress Index, a concept he describes in his new
book
Ages
of Discord
.
If we understand the profound political disunity fracturing the nation and its Imperial Project, we
understand the Deep State must also fracture along the same fault lines.
There is no other possible
output of a system of highly concentrated nodes of power, wealth and control and the competing rentier rackets of
these dependent, increasingly fragile centralized nodes.
"... There is less shame in being undone by a "master of deceit." When J. Edgar Hoover coined that description, he had Communists in mind. Back then, though, "Ruskies" and "Commies" – it was all the same. Americans were conditioned to live in fear that the Russians were coming. ..."
"... That nonsense should have ended when Communism more or less officially expired in 1989, followed two years later by the demise of the Soviet Union itself. For a long time, it seemed that it had. At first, the reaction in Western, especially American, political and media circles was triumphalist. The war was over and our side won. Beneath the surface, however, there was mourning in America. ..."
"... With the Cold War, the death merchants, the masters of war, the neocons, and a host of others had had a good thing going. Having been born into it, the political class was comfortable with the status quo too; and generations of Americans had grown up imbibing Russophobia in their mother's milk (or infant formula). ..."
"... Before long, it became clear that our economic and political masters had nothing to worry about, that Cold War anti-Communism was more robust than Communism itself. ..."
"... That suited Bill Clinton and his First Lady, the former Goldwater Girl. Boris Yeltsin, Russia's leader, was their man. He was a godsend, a Trump-like cartoon character and a drunkard to boot – with an economy in tatters, and no rightwing base egging him on. ..."
"... The time was therefore right for a return of the repressed -- for full-blooded, fifties-style, anti-Communist (= anti-Russian) hysteria, or, since that still seemed far-fetched, for anti-Communist (= anti-Chinese) hysteria. ..."
"... Exactly what "Putin," the shorthand name for all that is Russian and nefarious, did, or is still doing, remains unclear. But this does not seem to bother purveyors of the conventional wisdom. Neither is ostensibly informed public opinion fazed by the fact that the evidence supporting the consensus view comes mainly from American intelligence services and from their counterparts in the UK and other allied nations. ..."
"... How ironic therefore that nowadays it is mainly bamboozled Trump supporters in the Fox News demographic -- people who could care less about peace or, for that matter, about truth -- who are wary of the CIA and skeptical of the FBI's claims! ..."
"... They do not even seem to notice that what they allege, vague as it is, is trifling compared to the massive and very open meddling of American plutocrats, Republican vote suppressers and gerrymanderers, and the governments of supposedly friendly nations – like Saudi Arabia, the Gulf monarchies, and Israel ..."
"... Cold War revivalists can therefore rest easy, confident that their propagandists will have at least a few facts with which they can work to restore the perils of their vanished youth. ..."
"... Even so, the level of their hypocrisy is appalling. Russia, along with former Soviet republics and former members of the Warsaw Pact, has been bearing the brunt of far worse American meddling for far longer than anything sanctimonious defenders of so-called American "democracy" can plausibly allege. ..."
"... Hypocrisy reigns here too. It was the Obama administration – run through with neocons, liberal imperialists, and other holdovers from Hillary Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State – that did all it could to exacerbate longstanding tensions between that country's Ukrainian and Russian speaking populations, the better to complete NATO's encirclement of the Russian federation. And it was American meddling that led to the empowerment of virulently anti-Russian, fascisant Ukrainian politicians, much to the detriment of Russian speaking Ukrainians in the east. ..."
"... The Cold War that began after World War II involved a clash of rival political economic systems. The Cold War that reignited a few years ago involves a clash of rival imperialist centers. Its world more nearly resembles the one that existed before World War I than the one that emerged after World War II. ..."
"... However, the difference may be more superficial than it seems. The ease with which Cold War revivalists have been able to get the Cold War up and running again, even without Communism, suggests what a few observers have long maintained -- that the Cold War, on Russia's part, had little, if anything, to do with spreading Communism around the world, and everything to do with maintaining a cordon sanitaire around Russia's borders in order to protect against a demonstrably aggressive "free world." ..."
"... That part of Brzezinski's plan was at least a partial success. But inasmuch as Bush's "they" are still there, still spreading murder and mayhem throughout the Greater Middle East, America and the world has been paying a high price for the benefits, such as they were, that ensued. ..."
"... The never-ending wars set in motion by the "pivot" towards radical Islamism decades ago never quite succeeded in producing an enemy as serviceable as the USSR. But now that Putin's Russia has been pressed into service, that problem is potentially "solved." ..."
"... Efforts to recycle Bush's "they hate our freedom" nonsense ought to be non-starters. But this is the best Cold War revivalists have come up with so far. The Russians, they say, simply cannot deal with the fact that we Americans are so damned free. ..."
"... From a geopolitical point of view, Russia does have an interest in doing all it can to ward off Western aggression. It also has an interest in undermining strategic alliances aimed at blocking anything and everything that challenges American supremacy. And, until sanity prevails in Washington and other Western capitals, it arguably also has an interest in aiding and abetting rightwing nationalists in order to exacerbate tensions within Western societies. ..."
"... Clinton is bad, but Trump is worse -- not just by most measures but by all. Her fondness for war and preparations for war was alarming; she was bellicosity personified. But it was plain even before the election that Trump, a mentally unhinged narcissist, would be even more likely than she to bring on massive devastation. A vote for Trump was and still is a vote for catastrophe. ..."
"... For now, though, the hard and very relevant fact is that Trump has done nothing to help, and quite a few things to harm, Russia. ..."
"... It isn't just ordinary Russians who have been made worse off. Trump has been at least as hard on oligarchs close to Putin as Clinton would have been. ..."
"... If those damned Russians were half as smart as they are made out to be, they would have realized long ago that, for getting anything done that bucks the tide, Trump is too inept to be of any use at all; and that anything he sets out to do is likely to turn out badly not just for America and its allies but for Russia too. ..."
There is less shame in being undone by a "master of deceit." When J. Edgar Hoover coined that description, he had Communists in mind. Back then, though,
"Ruskies" and "Commies" – it was all the same. Americans were conditioned to live in fear
that the Russians were coming.
That nonsense should have ended when Communism more or less officially expired in 1989,
followed two years later by the demise of the Soviet Union itself. For a long time, it seemed
that it had. At first, the reaction in Western, especially American, political and media circles was
triumphalist. The war was over and our side won. Beneath the surface, however, there was mourning in America.
With the Cold War, the death merchants, the masters of war, the neocons, and a host of
others had had a good thing going. Having been born into it, the political class was
comfortable with the status quo too; and generations of Americans had grown up imbibing
Russophobia in their mother's milk (or infant formula).
It turned out, though, that American triumphalism was only a phase. Before long, it became
clear that our economic and political masters had nothing to worry about, that Cold War
anti-Communism was more robust than Communism itself.
However, in the final days of Bush 41 and then at the dawn of the Clinton era, nobody knew
that. Nobody gave America's propaganda system the credit it deserved.
Also, nobody quite realized how devastating Russia's regression to capitalism would be, and
nobody quite grasped the savagery of the kleptocrats who had taken charge of what remained of
the Russian state.
For more than a decade, the situation in that late great superpower was too dire to sustain
the old fears and animosities. Capitalism had made Russia wretched again.
That suited Bill Clinton and his First Lady, the former Goldwater Girl. Boris Yeltsin,
Russia's leader, was their man. He was a godsend, a Trump-like cartoon character and a drunkard
to boot – with an economy in tatters, and no rightwing base egging him on.
But anti-Communism (without Communism) and its close cousin, Russophobia, could not remain
in remission forever. The need for them was too great.
In the Age of Obama, the Global War on Terror, with or without that ludicrous Bush 43-era
name, wasn't cutting it anymore. It was, and still is, good for keeping America's perpetual war
regime going and for undoing civil liberties, but there had never been much glory in it, only
endless misery for all. Also it was getting old and increasingly easy to see through.
The time was therefore right for a return of the repressed -- for full-blooded,
fifties-style, anti-Communist (= anti-Russian) hysteria, or, since that still seemed
far-fetched, for anti-Communist (= anti-Chinese) hysteria.
This was not the only factor behind the Obama administration's "pivot towards Asia," its
largely failed attempt to take China down a notch or two, but it was an important part of the
story.
However, by the time Obama and his team decided to pivot, China had become too important to
the United States economically to make a good Cold War enemy. Worse still, it had for too long
been an object of pity and contempt, not fear.
When the Soviet Union was an enemy, China was an enemy too, most glaringly during the Korean
War. It remained an enemy even after the Sino-Soviet split became too obvious to deny. However,
unlike post-1917 Russia, it had never quite become an historical foe.
Moreover, as Russia began to recover from the Yeltsin era, the Russian political class, and
many of the oligarchs behind them, sensing the popular mood, decided that the time was ripe "to
make Russia great again." Putin is not so much a cause as he is a symptom – and symbol
– of this aspiration.
And so, there it was: the longed for new Cold War would be much like the one that seemed
over a quarter century ago.
***
As everyone who has seen, heard or read anything about the 2016 election "knows," Russian
intelligence services (= Putin) meddled. Everyone also "knows" that, with midterm elections
looming, they are at it again.
This, according to the mainstream consensus view, is a bona fide casus belli , a
justification for war. To be sure, what they want is a war that remains cold; ending life on
earth, as we know it, is not on their agenda.
But inasmuch as cold wars can easily turn hot, this hardly mitigates the recklessness of
their machinations. Humankind was extraordinarily lucky last time; there is no guarantee that
all that luck will hold.
Exactly what "Putin," the shorthand name for all that is Russian and nefarious, did, or is
still doing, remains unclear. But this does not seem to bother purveyors of the conventional
wisdom. Neither is ostensibly informed public opinion fazed by the fact that the evidence supporting
the consensus view comes mainly from American intelligence services and from their counterparts
in the UK and other allied nations.
Time was when anyone with any sense understood that these intelligence services, the
American ones especially, are second to none in meddling in the affairs of other nations, and
that the American national security state – essentially our political police -- is
comprised, by design, of liars and deceivers.
How ironic therefore that nowadays it is mainly bamboozled Trump supporters in the Fox News
demographic -- people who could care less about peace or, for that matter, about truth -- who
are wary of the CIA and skeptical of the FBI's claims!
Try as they might, the manufacturers and guardians of conventional wisdom have so far been
unable to concoct a plausible story in which Russian meddling affected the outcome of the 2016
election in any serious way. The idea that the Russians defeated Hillary, not Hillary herself,
is, to borrow a phrase from Jeremy Bentham, "nonsense on stilts." Leading Democrats and their
media flacks don't seem to mind that either.
They do not even seem to notice that what they allege, vague as it is, is trifling compared
to the massive and very open meddling of American plutocrats, Republican vote suppressers and
gerrymanderers, and the governments of supposedly friendly nations – like Saudi Arabia,
the Gulf monarchies, and Israel.
Nevertheless, it probably is true that the Russians meddled. Cold War revivalists can
therefore rest easy, confident that their propagandists will have at least a few facts with
which they can work to restore the perils of their vanished youth.
Even so, the level of their hypocrisy is appalling. Russia, along with former Soviet
republics and former members of the Warsaw Pact, has been bearing the brunt of far worse
American meddling for far longer than anything sanctimonious defenders of so-called American
"democracy" can plausibly allege.
Moreover, it should go without saying that the democracy they purport to care so much about
has almost nothing to do with "the rule of the demos." It doesn't even have much to do with
free and fair competitive elections – unless "free and fair" means that anything goes, so
long as the principals and perpetrators are homegrown or citizens of favored nations.
Self-righteous posturing aside, Putin's real sin in the eyes of the American power elite is
that, in his own small way, he has been defying America's "right" to run the world as it sees
fit.
When Clinton was president, Serbia did that, and lived to regret it. Cuba has been suffering
for nearly six decades for the same reason, and now Venezuela is paying its dues. The empire is
merciless towards nations that rebel.
With Soviet support and then with sheer determination and grit, Cuba has been able to
withstand the onslaught to some extent from Day One. Venezuela may not be so lucky –
especially now that Republicans and Democrats feel threatened by the growing number of
"democratic socialists" in their midst. Already, the propaganda system is targeting Venezuelan
"socialism," blaming it for that country's woes, and warning that if our newly minted,
homegrown socialists prevail, a similar fate will be in store for us.
This is ludicrous, of course – American hostility and the vagaries of the global oil
market deserve the lion's share of the blame. But the on-going propaganda blitz could
nevertheless pave the way for horrors ahead, should Trump decide to start a war America could
actually win.
Inconsequential Russian meddling is a big deal on the "liberal" cable networks, on NPR, and
in the "quality" press. Democrats and a few Republicans love to bleat on about it. But it is
Ukraine that made Russia our "adversary" and its president Public Enemy Number One.
Hypocrisy reigns here too. It was the Obama administration – run through with neocons,
liberal imperialists, and other holdovers from Hillary Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State
– that did all it could to exacerbate longstanding tensions between that country's
Ukrainian and Russian speaking populations, the better to complete NATO's encirclement of the
Russian federation. And it was American meddling that led to the empowerment of virulently
anti-Russian, fascisant Ukrainian politicians, much to the detriment of Russian
speaking Ukrainians in the east.
But never mind: Putin – that is, the Russia government – violated international
law by sending troops briefly into beleaguered Russian-speaking parts of the country. That they
were generally welcomed by the people living there is of no importance.
Worst of all, Russia annexed Crimea – a territory integral to the Russian empire since
the eighteenth century. Since long before the Russian Revolution, Crimea has been home to a
huge naval base vital to Russia's strategic defense.
The story line back in the day was that anything that could be described as Russian
aggression outside the Soviet Union's agreed upon sphere of influence had to do with spreading
Communism. In fact, the Soviets did everything they could to keep Communist and other
insurgencies from upending the status quo. The mainstream narrative was wrong.
Now Communism is gone and nothing has taken its place. Even so, the idea that Russia has
designs on its neighbors for ideological reasons is hard to shake – in part because it is
actively promoted by propagandists who have suddenly and uncharacteristically become defenders
of international law.
Meanwhile, of course, the hypocrisies keep piling on. It is practically a tenet of the
American civil religion that international law applies to others, not to the United States.
This is why, when it suits some perceived purpose, America flaunts its violations
shamelessly.
Thus nothing the Russians did or are ever likely to do comes close to the shenanigans Bill
Clinton displayed – successfully, for the most part – in his efforts to tear Kosovo
away from Serbia. Clinton even went so far as to bomb Belgrade; Putin never bombed Kiev.
The Cold War that began after World War II involved a clash of rival political economic
systems. The Cold War that reignited a few years ago involves a clash of rival imperialist
centers. Its world more nearly resembles the one that existed before World War I than the one
that emerged after World War II.
However, the difference may be more superficial than it seems. The ease with which Cold War
revivalists have been able to get the Cold War up and running again, even without Communism,
suggests what a few observers have long maintained -- that the Cold War, on Russia's part, had
little, if anything, to do with spreading Communism around the world, and everything to do with
maintaining a cordon sanitaire around Russia's borders in order to protect against a
demonstrably aggressive "free world."
George W. Bush claimed that 9/11 happened because "they hate our freedom." "They" would be
radical Islamists of the kind stirred into action in Afghanistan by Zbigniew Brzezinski and his
co-thinkers in the Carter administration. Their objective was to undermine the Soviet Union by
getting it bogged down in a quagmire like the one that did so much harm to the United States in
Vietnam.
That part of Brzezinski's plan was at least a partial success. But inasmuch as Bush's "they"
are still there, still spreading murder and mayhem throughout the Greater Middle East, America
and the world has been paying a high price for the benefits, such as they were, that
ensued.
The never-ending wars set in motion by the "pivot" towards radical Islamism decades ago
never quite succeeded in producing an enemy as serviceable as the USSR. But now that Putin's
Russia has been pressed into service, that problem is potentially "solved."
However, the American public is not as naïve as it used to be, and it is impossible to
say, at this point, how well this new story line will work.
Efforts to recycle Bush's "they hate our freedom" nonsense ought to be non-starters. But
this is the best Cold War revivalists have come up with so far. The Russians, they say, simply
cannot deal with the fact that we Americans are so damned free.
It is hard to believe, but there are people who are actually buying this but, with a lot of
corporate media assistance, there are. No matter how clear it is that they are not worth being
taken seriously, Cold War mythologies just won't die.
However, it is worth pondering why today's Russia would do what it is alleged to have done;
and why, as is also alleged, it is still doing it.
From a geopolitical point of view, Russia does have an interest in doing all it can to ward
off Western aggression. It also has an interest in undermining strategic alliances aimed at
blocking anything and everything that challenges American supremacy. And, until sanity prevails
in Washington and other Western capitals, it arguably also has an interest in aiding and
abetting rightwing nationalists in order to exacerbate tensions within Western societies.
However, in view of prevailing power relations, these are interests it cannot do much to
advance. Acting as if this were not the case only puts Russia in a bad light -- not for
meddling, but for meddling stupidly.
No doubt, for reasons both fair and foul, Putin wanted Hillary to lose the election two
years ago. So, but for one little problem, would anyone whose head is screwed on right. That
problem's name is Donald Trump.
Clinton is bad, but Trump is worse -- not just by most measures but by all. Her fondness for war and preparations for war was alarming; she was bellicosity personified.
But it was plain even before the election that Trump, a mentally unhinged narcissist, would be
even more likely than she to bring on massive devastation. A vote for Trump was and still is a
vote for catastrophe.
Putin's enemy was Trump's enemy, and it is axiomatic that "the enemy of my enemy is my
friend" -- except sometimes it isn't. Sometimes, my enemy's enemy is an enemy far worse.
For reasons that remain obscure, Putin and Trump seem to have a "thing" going on between
them. Some day perhaps we will know what that is all about. For now, though, the hard and very
relevant fact is that Trump has done nothing to help, and quite a few things to harm,
Russia.
It isn't just ordinary Russians who have been made worse off. Trump has been at least as
hard on oligarchs close to Putin as Clinton would have been.
If those damned Russians were half as smart as they are made out to be, they would have
realized long ago that, for getting anything done that bucks the tide, Trump is too inept to be
of any use at all; and that anything he sets out to do is likely to turn out badly not just for
America and its allies but for Russia too.
Therefore, if there really was Russian meddling, as there probably was, Putin should be
ashamed – not so much for the DNC reasons laid out 24/7 on MSNBC and CNN, but for
overestimating Trump's abilities and for underestimating the extent to which what started out
as a maneuver of Hillary Clinton's, concocted to excuse her incompetence, would take a
perilously "viral" turn, becoming a major threat to peace in a political culture that never
quite got beyond the lunacy of the First Cold War.
"... The mind of the mass media: Email exchange between myself and a leading Washington Post foreign policy reporter: ..."
"... For the record, I think RT is much less biased than the Post on international affairs. And, yes, it's bias, not "fake news" that's the main problem – Cold-War/anti-Communist/anti-Russian bias that Americans have been raised with for a full century. RT defends Russia against the countless mindless attacks from the West. Who else is there to do that? Should not the Western media be held accountable for what they broadcast? Americans are so unaccustomed to hearing the Russian side defended, or hearing it at all, that when they do it can seem rather weird. ..."
"... Regard these indictments in proper perspective and we find that election interference is only listed as a supposed objective, with charges actually being for unlawful cyber operations, identity theft, and conspiracy to launder money by American individuals unconnected to the Russian government. So we're still waiting for some evidence of actual Russian interference in the election aimed at determining the winner. ..."
"... However, I have no doubt that the great majority of Americans who follow the news each day believe the official stories about the Russians. They're particularly impressed with the fact that every US intelligence agency supports the official stories. They would not be impressed at all if told that a dozen Russian intelligence agencies all disputed the charges. Group-think is alive and well all over the world. As is Cold War II ..."
"... And here is Tom Malinowski, former Assistant Secretary of State for democracy, human rights and labor (2014-2017) – last year he reported that Putin had "charged that the U.S. government had interfered 'aggressively' in Russia's 2012 presidential vote," claiming that Washington had "gathered opposition forces and financed them." Putin, wrote Malinowski, "apparently got President Trump to agree to a mutual commitment that neither country would interfere in the other's elections." ..."
"... We also have the case of the US government agency, National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which has interfered in more elections than the CIA or God. Indeed, the man who helped draft the legislation establishing NED, Allen Weinstein, declared in 1991: "A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA." On April 12, 2018 the presidents of two of NED's wings wrote: "A specious narrative has come back into circulation: that Moscow's campaign of political warfare is no different from U.S.-supported democracy assistance." ..."
"... "Democracy assistance", you see, is what they call NED's election-interferences and government-overthrows ..."
William Blum shares with us his correspondence with
Washington Post presstitute Michael Birnbaum. As you can tell from Birnbaum's replies, he comes
across as either very stupid or as a CIA asset.
When I received my briefing as staff associate, House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee,
which required top secret clearance, I was told by senior members of the staff that the
Washington Post was a CIA asset. Watching the Washington Post's takedown of President Richard
Nixon with the orchestrated Watergate story, that became obvious. President Nixon had made too
many overtures to the Soviets and too many arms limitations agreements, and he opened to China.
Watching President Nixon's peace initiatives water down the threat level from the Soviet Union
and Maoist China, the military/security complex saw a threat to its budget and power and
decided that Nixon had to go. The assassination of President John F. Kennedy had resulted in
far too much skepticism about the Warren Commission Report, so the CIA decided to use the
Washington Post to get rid of Nixon. To keep the clueless American left hating Nixon, the CIA
used its assets in the leftwing to keep Nixon blamed for the Vietnam war, a war that Nixon
inherited and did not want.
The CIA knew that Nixon's problem was that he could not exit the war without losing his
conservative base, which was convinced of the nonsensical "Domino Theory." I have always
wondered if the CIA concocted the "Domino Theory," as it so well served them. Unable to get rid
of the war "with honor," Nixon was driven to brutal methods to force the North Vietnamese to
accept a situation that he could depart without defeat and soiling America's "honor" and losing
his conservative support base. The North Vietnamese wouldn't bend, but the US Congress did, and
so the CIA succeeded in discrediting among both the leftwing and righwing Nixon's war
management. With no one to defend him, Nixon was an easy target for the CIA.
Here is Blum's exchange with Birnbaum. It is possible that Birnbaum is neither stupid nor a
CIA asset, but just a person wanting to hold on to a job. The last thing he can afford to do is
to disabuse readers of the "Russian Threat" when Bezos' Amazon and Washington Post properties
are dependent on the CIA's annual subsidy of $600 million disquised as a "contract."
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-20/cia-washington-post-and-russia-what-youre-not-being-told
The Anti-Empire Report # 159 Willian Blum
The mind of the mass media: Email exchange between myself and a leading Washington Post
foreign policy reporter: July 18, 2018
Dear Mr. Birnbaum,
You write Trump "made no mention of Russia's adventures in Ukraine". Well, neither he nor Putin
nor you made any mention of America's adventures in the Ukraine, which resulted in the
overthrow of the Ukrainian government in 2014, which led to the justified Russian adventure.
Therefore ?
If Russia overthrew the Mexican government would you blame the US for taking some action in
Mexico? William Blum
Dear Mr. Blum,
Thanks for your note. "America's adventures in the Ukraine": what are you talking about? Last
time I checked, it was Ukrainians in the streets of Kiev who caused Yanukovych to turn tail and
run. Whether or not that was a good thing, we can leave aside, but it wasn't the Americans who
did it.
It is, however, Russian special forces who fanned out across Crimea in February and March 2014,
according to Putin, and Russians who came down from Moscow who stoked conflict in eastern
Ukraine in the months after, according to their own accounts. Best, Michael Birnbaum
To MB,
I can scarcely believe your reply. Do you read nothing but the Post? Do you not know of high
State Dept official Victoria Nuland and the US Ambassador in Ukraine in Maidan Square to
encourage the protesters? She spoke of 5 billion (sic) dollars given to aid the protesters who
were soon to overthrow the govt. She and the US Amb. spoke openly of who to choose as the next
president. And he's the one who became president. This is all on tape. I guess you never watch
Russia Today (RT). God forbid! I read the Post every day. You should watch RT once in a
while. William Blum
To WB,
I was the Moscow bureau chief of the newspaper; I reported extensively in Ukraine in the months
and years following the protests. My observations are not based on reading. RT is not a
credible news outlet, but I certainly do read far beyond our own pages, and of course I talk to
the actual actors on the ground myself – that's my job.
And: yes, of course Nuland was in the Maidan – but encouraging the protests, as she
clearly did, is not the same as sparking them or directing them, nor is playing favorites with
potential successors, as she clearly did, the same as being directly responsible for
overthrowing the government. I'm not saying the United States wasn't involved in trying to
shape events. So were Russia and the European Union. But Ukrainians were in the driver's seat
the whole way through. I know the guy who posted the first Facebook call to protest Yanukovych
in November 2013; he's not an American agent. RT, meanwhile, reports fabrications and terrible
falsehoods all the time. By all means consume a healthy and varied media diet – don't
stop at the US mainstream media. But ask yourself how often RT reports critically on the
Russian government, and consider how that lacuna shapes the rest of their reporting. You will
find plenty of reporting in the Washington Post that is critical of the US government and US
foreign policy in general, and decisions in Ukraine and the Ukrainian government in specific.
Our aim is to be fair, without picking sides. Best, Michael Birnbaum
======================= end of exchange =======================
Right, the United States doesn't play indispensable roles in changes of foreign governments;
never has, never will; even when they offer billions of dollars; even when they pick the new
president, which, apparently, is not the same as picking sides. It should be noticed that Mr
Birnbaum offers not a single example to back up his extremist claim that RT "reports
fabrications and terrible falsehoods all the time." "All the time", no less! That should make
it easy to give some examples.
For the record, I think RT is much less biased than the Post on international affairs. And,
yes, it's bias, not "fake news" that's the main problem –
Cold-War/anti-Communist/anti-Russian bias that Americans have been raised with for a full
century. RT defends Russia against the countless mindless attacks from the West. Who else is
there to do that? Should not the Western media be held accountable for what they broadcast?
Americans are so unaccustomed to hearing the Russian side defended, or hearing it at all, that
when they do it can seem rather weird.
To the casual observer, THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
indictments of July 14 of Russian intelligence agents (GRU) reinforced the argument that the
Soviet government interfered in the US 2016 presidential election. Regard these indictments in
proper perspective and we find that election interference is only listed as a supposed
objective, with charges actually being for unlawful cyber operations, identity theft, and
conspiracy to launder money by American individuals unconnected to the Russian government. So
we're still waiting for some evidence of actual Russian interference in the election aimed at
determining the winner.
The Russians did it (cont.)
Each day I spend about three hours reading the Washington Post. Amongst other things I'm
looking for evidence – real, legal, courtroom-quality evidence, or at least something
logical and rational – to pin down those awful Russkis for their many recent crimes, from
influencing the outcome of the 2016 US presidential election to use of a nerve agent in the UK.
But I do not find such evidence.
Each day brings headlines like these:
"U.S. to add economic sanctions on Russia: Attack with nerve agent on former spy in England
forces White House to act"
"Is Russia exploiting new Facebook goal?"
"Experts: Trump team lacks urgency on Russian threat"
These are all from the same day, August 9, which led me to thinking of doing this article,
but similar stories can be found any day in the Post and in major newspapers anywhere in
America. None of the articles begins to explain how Russia did these things, or even WHY.
Motivation appears to have become a lost pursuit in the American mass media. The one thing
sometimes mentioned, which I think may have some credibility, is Russia's preference of Trump
over Hillary Clinton in 2016. But this doesn't begin to explain how Russia could pull off any
of the electoral magic it's accused of, which would be feasible only if the United States were
a backward, Third World, Banana Republic.
There's the Facebook ads, as well as all the other ads The people who are influenced by this
story – have they read many of the actual ads? Many are pro-Clinton or anti-Trump; many
are both; many are neither. It's one big mess, the only rational explanation of this which I've
read is that they come from money-making websites, "click-bait" sites as they're known, which
earn money simply by attracting visitors.
As to the nerve agents, it makes more sense if the UK or the CIA did it to make the Russians
look bad, because the anti-Russian scandal which followed was totally predictable. Why would
Russia choose the time of the World Cup in Moscow – of which all of Russia was immensely
proud – to bring such notoriety down upon their head? But that would have been an ideal
time for their enemies to want to embarrass them.
However, I have no doubt that the great majority of Americans who follow the news each day
believe the official stories about the Russians. They're particularly impressed with the fact
that every US intelligence agency supports the official stories. They would not be impressed at
all if told that a dozen Russian intelligence agencies all disputed the charges. Group-think is
alive and well all over the world. As is Cold War II.
But we're the Good Guys, ain't we?
For a defender of US foreign policy there's very little that causes extreme heartburn more
than someone implying a "moral equivalence" between American behavior and that of Russia. That
was the case during Cold War I and it's the same now in Cold War II. It just drives them up the
wall.
After the United States passed a law last year requiring TV station RT (Russia Today) to
register as a "foreign agent", the Russians passed their own law allowing authorities to
require foreign media to register as a "foreign agent". Senator John McCain denounced the new
Russian law, saying there is "no equivalence" between RT and networks such as Voice of America,
CNN and the BBC, whose journalists "seek the truth, debunk lies, and hold governments
accountable." By contrast, he said, "RT's propagandists debunk the truth, spread lies, and seek
to undermine democratic governments in order to further Vladimir Putin's agenda."
And here is Tom Malinowski, former Assistant Secretary of State for democracy, human rights
and labor (2014-2017) – last year he reported that Putin had "charged that the U.S.
government had interfered 'aggressively' in Russia's 2012 presidential vote," claiming that
Washington had "gathered opposition forces and financed them." Putin, wrote Malinowski,
"apparently got President Trump to agree to a mutual commitment that neither country would
interfere in the other's elections."
"Is this moral equivalence fair?" Malinowski asked and answered: "In short, no. Russia's
interference in the United States' 2016 election could not have been more different from what
the United States does to promote democracy in other countries."
How do you satirize such officials and such high-school beliefs?
We also have the case of the US government agency, National Endowment for Democracy (NED),
which has interfered in more elections than the CIA or God. Indeed, the man who helped draft
the legislation establishing NED, Allen Weinstein, declared in 1991: "A lot of what we do today
was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA." On April 12, 2018 the presidents of two of NED's
wings wrote: "A specious narrative has come back into circulation: that Moscow's campaign of
political warfare is no different from U.S.-supported democracy assistance."
"Democracy assistance", you see, is what they call NED's election-interferences and
government-overthrows. The authors continue: "This narrative is churned out by propaganda
outlets such as RT and Sputnik [radio station]. it is deployed by isolationists who propound a
U.S. retreat from global leadership."
"Isolationists" is what [neo]conservatives call critics of US foreign policy whose arguments they
can't easily dismiss, so they imply that such people just don't want the US to be involved in
anything abroad.
And "global leadership" is what they call being first in election-interferences and
government-overthrows.
"... Why didn't Sanders complain about DNC-Hillary collusion (he knew about it well before she captured the nomination - MSM didn't publicize it until after she had won). ..."
"... Why didn't Sanders make a big deal of Hillary's winning 6 of 6 coin tosses during the Iowa primaries. Character was an issue from the start of the race. Trump would later lambast "crooked Hillary". ..."
There were only two populists in the race: Trump and Sanders. One on Hillary's left (sheep-dogging voters to Hillary)
and one on Hillary's right (Trump).
Why did any of the other 18 republicans turn populist? Why didn't they wait so long to complain about the coverage being
provided to Trump?
Why were Republicans so adamantly against Trump after he won the nomination? Many said that they prefered Hillary - whom they
had claimed to hate so much only months before? Answer: Trump had to be an outsider. That's what makes the populist so compelling.
He has to be seen as taking on the establishment.
After such a contentious race, why did Trump quickly say that there would be no prosecution of Hillary? He has proven to be
petty and vain yet he was so quick to forgive the Clintons?
Why did Trump wait so long to fire Comey? It's almost like it was timed for Comey to hand the baton to a special prosecutor.
<> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Here's a few more questions (of many many other questions)
Why didn't Sanders complain about DNC-Hillary collusion (he knew about it well before she captured the nomination -
MSM didn't publicize it until after she had won).
Why didn't Sanders make a big deal of the well-documented time that Hillary changed her vote for a big donor? Hillary loudly
proclaimed that she NEVER changed her vote for money before and DURING the crucial New York debate.
Why didn't Sanders release his 2014 tax returns? He called his tax returns "boring" yet, despite Hillary having released
10 years of tax returns, Sanders only released his 2015 returns. When his 2015 returns were delayed, reporters
asked for the 2014 returns but Sanders refused to provide them.
Why didn't Sanders make a big deal of Hillary's winning 6 of 6 coin tosses during the Iowa primaries. Character was
an issue from the start of the race. Trump would later lambast "crooked Hillary".
Good questions. Asking them sequentially leads even a dumbass like me to conclude Sanders is a fraud.
Unfortunately, most Sanders supporters probably don't remember the issues long enough to reevaluate them collectively. Each
issue appears to them during "the news cycle" as some one-off foible -- considered as misdemeanors and then forgotten before
the next one occurs and thus never assembled mentally as evidence for a larger felony case.
The FAKE NEWS media (failing @
nytimes , @ NBCNews , @ ABC , @ CBS , @ CNN
) is not my enemy, it is the enemy of the American People! ~ Donald Trump
On Thursday, Mr. Trump expressed his distaste for journalists in more populist terms, saying,
"much of the media in Washington, D.C., along with New York, Los Angeles in particular, speaks
not for the people, but for the special interests."
"The public doesn't believe you people anymore," Mr. Trump added. "Now, maybe I had something
to do with that. I don't know. But they don't believe you."
President Trump has denounced and exposed the repeated deceits and ongoing fabrications of
the mass media. Never before has a President so forcefully identified the lies of the leading
print and TV outlets. The NY Times , Washington Post , the Financial
Times, NBC, CNN, ABC and CBS have been thoroughly discredited in the eyes of the
larger public. They have lost legitimacy and trust. Where progressives have failed, a war
monger billionaire has accomplished, speaking a truth to serve many injustices.
"... I'm somewhat puzzled why Trump and his people, when referring to the "fake news" and answering questions from hostile journalists, especially about the idea that the media are "enemies of the American people", fail to bring up the fact that the "fake news" and the "enemies of the people" are not the journalists themselves, but rather the management and ownership of the media. ..."
I posted this one to my facebook page three or four days ago. It's brilliant. I have a few comments. First, I disagree with the
analysis given by the fellow from the Duran in the introduction, something along the lines of "even Anderson Cooper was smirking
because Cohen was demolishing Boot so badly".
If you pay attention to the questions and statements, you find that Cooper is equally as unhinged as Boot is, first hammering
on the point that nobody knows what was discussed in the meeting, then after Cohen rattles off a list, Cooper shifts to the "you're
believing Vladimir Putin on this" tactic, a nail that Cohen wisely smashes with a hammering statement, "I don't want to shock
you, but I believe Vladimir Putin on several things."
Cooper continues to insist that the content of the meeting is unknown and unconfirmed, regardless of what Putin and Trump say.
The sheer hubris of journalists today is unprecedented and outrageous.
I do admit that Cooper shuts up after being schooled by Cohen a second and third time and after Boot makes the mistake of calling
Cohen an apologist for Putin and Russia. This leads me to a second point.
I'm somewhat puzzled why Trump and his people, when referring to the "fake news" and answering questions from hostile journalists,
especially about the idea that the media are "enemies of the American people", fail to bring up the fact that the "fake news"
and the "enemies of the people" are not the journalists themselves, but rather the management and ownership of the media.
\This would accomplish two important things, both necessary, in my opinion. First, it would put the front line journalists
into their correct place, telling them that they are really nothing but mouthpieces, and we know that the real decisions on content
are not made by them.
What a blow to their narcisstic self-esteem that would be!
Second, it would give the American people more information on how their consent is engineered, how the media has owners
who have an agenda, and that agenda is not related to improving the lives of the American people, or even keeping them informed
with accurate information.
For several years, a family of foreign nationals (and not only Wassermannn-Schultz) has
been surfing the congressional computers while having no security clearance.
Both Debbie and Hillary should be in federal prison already. Clinton used to be fond of
droning Assange for divulging the criminal and illegal activities of the state. What Debbie
and Hillary did has been much more dangerous to the US national security.
So British were involved in fabricating of 'Guccifer 2.0' persona. Nice...
Notable quotes:
"... It was Matt Tait who, using the 'Twitter' handle @pwnallthethings, identified the name and patronymic of Dzerzhinsky in the 'metadata' of the 'Guccifer 2.0' material on 15 June 2016, the day after Ellen Nakashima first disseminated the BS from 'CrowdStrike' in the 'WP.' ..."
"... 'Matt Tait is a senior cybersecurity fellow at the Robert S. Strauss Center for International Security and Law at the University of Texas at Austin. Previously he was CEO of Capital Alpha Security, a consultancy in the UK, worked at Google Project Zero, was a principal security consultant for iSEC Partners, and NGS Secure, and worked as an information security specialist for GCHQ.' ..."
"... As I have noted before on SST, a cursory examination of records at 'Companies House' establishes that 'Capital Alpha Security', which was supposed to have provided Tait with an – independent – source of income at the time he unearthed this 'smoking gun' incriminating the GRU, never did any business at all. So, a question arises: how was Tait making ends meet at that time: busking on the London underground, perhaps? ..."
"... The document, when available, may clarify a few loose ends, but the general picture seems clear. Last November, Tait filed 'dormant company accounts' for the company's first year in existence, up until February 2017. One can only do this if one has absolutely no revenue, and absolutely no expenditure. Not even the smallest contract to sort out malware on someone's computer, or to buy equipment for the office. ..."
"... He then failed to file the 'Confirmation statement', which every company must is legally obliged to produce annually, if it is not to be struck off. This failure led to a 'First Gazette notice for compulsory strike-off' in May. ..."
"... However, Tait may well anticipate that there is there will never be any call for him to go back into the big wide world, as the large organisation in which he has now found employment is part of a 'Borgist' network. So much is evident from another entry on the 'Lawfare' site: ..."
"... Also relevant here is the fact that, rather transparently, this placing of the GRU centre stage is bound up with the attempt to suggest that there is some kind of 'Gerasimov doctrine', designed to undermine the West by 'hybrid warfare.' Unfortunately, the original author of this claptrap, Mark Galeotti, who, I regret to say, is, like Tait, British, has now recanted and confessed. In March, he published a piece on the 'Foreign Policy' site, under the title: 'I'm Sorry for Creating the 'Gerasimov Doctrine'; I was the first to write about Russia's infamous high-tech military strategy. One small problem: it doesn't exist.' ..."
"... Quite clearly, the 'Guccifer 2.0' persona is a crude fabrication by someone who has absolutely no understanding of, or indeed interest in, the bitter complexities of both of the history of Russia and of the 'borderlands', not only in the Soviet period but before and after. ..."
"... Jeffrey Carr is one of the latter, and his familiarity with intelligence matters is clear from his organization of the annual "Suits and Spooks" Conference. I believe he was the first to raise questions about the DNC hack which didn't pass his smell test. ..."
"... One quick way to know their bias is the AC test. Google their name plus "Atlantic Council". Ridd fails badly. ..."
"... The Comey, Brennan, Mueller claim - indeed a central one upon which the recent indictment rests- that Guccifer 2.0 was a Russian State agent that hacked the DNC- was discredited and put to rest last year by the forensics conducted by Bill Binney and his colleagues. The Guccifer 2.0 metadata was analyzed for its transmission speed, and based on the internet speeds to and from numerous test locations abroad and in the U.S., it was determined to have been impossible for the so-called Guccifer 2.0 to have hacked the DNC computers over the internet. The transmission speed however did correspond to the speed of the transfer to a thumb drive. Additionally, it was found that the data had been manipulated and split into two parts to simulate a July and a September transfer, when in fact the parts merge perfectly as single file, and where, according to Binney, the probability of the split being a coincidence would be 100 to the 50th power. ..."
"... There is a pattern of abuse of formerly well regarded institutions to achieve the propaganda aims of the Deep State establishment. The depths that were plumbed to push the Iraq WMD falsehoods are well known. Yet no one was held to account nor was there any honest accounting of the abuse. There have been pretenses like the Owen inquiry that you note. ..."
"... It seems that we are marching towards a credibility crisis similar to what was experienced in the Soviet Union when no one trusted the contents in Pravda. ..."
"... What is to be gained by the leadership in Britain in promoting these biological weapons cases since Litvinenko? In the US it is quite apparent that the Deep State have become extremely powerful and the likelihood that Trump recognizes that resistance is futile is very high. Schumer may be proven right that they have six ways from Sunday to make you kowtow to their dictats. ..."
"... I agree that taken by itself, the Dzerzinsky thing would be an anomaly only and could be dismissed as "black humor" of a kind often found in hackers. However, taken with all the other evidence produced by Adam Carter, it becomes much more obviously an attempt to support a false flag "Russian hacker" narrative that otherwise is porous. ..."
"... You want us to believe that the GRU are so sloppy and so inexperienced that they would launch a hack on the DNC and not take every measure to ensure there was no link whatsoever to anything Russian? Any former intel officer worth a damn knows that an operation to disrupt the election in a country the size of the United States would start with a risk/reward assessment, would require a team of at least 100 persons and would not be writing any code that could in any way be traced to Russia. ..."
"... Doctrine-mongering and repeating birth of new faux-academic "entities", such as a "hybrid war" (any war is hybrid by definition), is a distinct feature of the Western "political science-military history" establishment. Galeotti, who for some strange reason passes as Russia "expert" is a perfect example of such "expertise" and doctrine-mongering. Military professionals largely met this "hybrid warfare" BS with disdain. ..."
"... I have to say that the more I look into this whole Russiagate affair, which is mostly in the minds of democrats (and a few republicans) and the MSM, the more it seems that there is indeed a foreign conspiracy to meddle in the internal affairs of the US (and in the presidential elections) but the meddling entity is not Russia. It is the British! ..."
"... So many (ex-) MI6 operators (Steele, Tait, etc) involved in the story. It is interesting that the media don't question the intense involvement of the British in all this. And of course, the British haven't been laggards in adding fuel to the fire by the whole novichok hoax. ..."
As some commenters on SST seem still to have difficulty grasping that the presence of 'metadata' alluding to 'Iron Felix' in the
'Guccifer 2.0' material is strong evidence that the GRU were being framed over a leak, rather than that they were responsible for
a hack, an update on the British end of the conspiracy seems in order.
If you look at the 'Lawfare' blog, in which a key figure is James Comey's crony Benjamin Wittes, you will find a long piece published
last Friday, entitled 'Russia Indictment 2.0: What to Make of Mueller's Hacking Indictment.'
Among the authors, in addition to Wittes himself, is the sometime GCHQ employee Matt Tait. It appears that the former head of
that organisation, the Blairite 'trusty' Robert Hannigan, who must know where a good few skeletons are buried, is a figure of some
moment in the conspiracy.
It was Matt Tait who, using the 'Twitter' handle @pwnallthethings, identified the name and patronymic of Dzerzhinsky in the 'metadata'
of the 'Guccifer 2.0' material on 15 June 2016, the day after Ellen Nakashima first disseminated the BS from 'CrowdStrike' in the
'WP.'
The story was picked up the following day in a report on the 'Ars Technica' site, and Tait's own account appeared on the 'Lawfare'
site, to which he has been a regular contributor, on 28 July.
According to the CV provided in conjunction with the new article:
'Matt Tait is a senior cybersecurity fellow at the Robert S. Strauss Center for International Security and Law at the University
of Texas at Austin. Previously he was CEO of Capital Alpha Security, a consultancy in the UK, worked at Google Project Zero, was
a principal security consultant for iSEC Partners, and NGS Secure, and worked as an information security specialist for GCHQ.'
As I have noted before on SST, a cursory examination of records at 'Companies House' establishes that 'Capital Alpha Security',
which was supposed to have provided Tait with an – independent – source of income at the time he unearthed this 'smoking gun' incriminating
the GRU, never did any business at all. So, a question arises: how was Tait making ends meet at that time: busking on the London
underground, perhaps?
Actually, there has been a recent update in the records. Somewhat prematurely perhaps, there is an entry dated 24 July 2018, entitled
'Final Gazette dissolved via compulsory strike-off. This document is being processed and will be available in 5 days.'
The document, when available, may clarify a few loose ends, but the general picture seems clear. Last November, Tait filed 'dormant
company accounts' for the company's first year in existence, up until February 2017. One can only do this if one has absolutely no
revenue, and absolutely no expenditure. Not even the smallest contract to sort out malware on someone's computer, or to buy equipment
for the office.
He then failed to file the 'Confirmation statement', which every company must is legally obliged to produce annually, if it is
not to be struck off. This failure led to a 'First Gazette notice for compulsory strike-off' in May.
It is, of course, possible that at the time Tait set up the company he was genuinely intending to try to make a go of a consultancy,
and simply got sidetracked by other opportunities.
However – speaking from experience – people who have set up small 'one man band' companies to market skills learnt in large organisations,
and then go back into such organisations, commonly think it worth their while to spend the minimal amount of time required to file
the documentation required to keep the company alive.
If one sees any realistic prospect that one may either want to or need to go back into the big wide world again, this is the sensible
course of action: particularly now when, with the internet, filing the relevant documentation takes about half an hour a year, and
costs a trivial sum.
However, Tait may well anticipate that there is there will never be any call for him to go back into the big wide world, as the
large organisation in which he has now found employment is part of a 'Borgist' network. So much is evident from another entry on
the 'Lawfare' site:
'Bobby Chesney is the Charles I. Francis Professor in Law and Associate Dean for Academic Affairs at the University of Texas School
of Law. He also serves as the Director of UT-Austin's interdisciplinary research center the Robert S. Strauss Center for International
Security and Law. His scholarship encompasses a wide range of issues relating to national security and the law, including detention,
targeting, prosecution, covert action, and the state secrets privilege; most of it is posted here. Along with Ben Wittes and Jack
Goldsmith, he is one of the co-founders of the blog.'
Also relevant here is the fact that, rather transparently, this placing of the GRU centre stage is bound up with the attempt to
suggest that there is some kind of 'Gerasimov doctrine', designed to undermine the West by 'hybrid warfare.' Unfortunately, the original author of this claptrap, Mark Galeotti, who, I regret to say, is, like Tait, British, has now recanted
and confessed. In March, he published a piece on the 'Foreign Policy' site, under the title: 'I'm Sorry for Creating the 'Gerasimov
Doctrine'; I was the first to write about Russia's infamous high-tech military strategy. One small problem: it doesn't exist.'
If anyone wants to grasp what the Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, General Valery Gerasimov,
was actually saying in the crucial February 2013 article which Galeotti was discussing, and how his thinking has developed subsequently,
the place to look is, as so often, the Foreign Military Studies Office at Fort Leavenworth.
In relation to the ongoing attempt to frame the GRU, it is material that, in his 2013 piece, Gerasimov harks back to two pivotal
figures in the arguments of the interwar years. Of these, Georgy Isserson, the Jewish doctor's son from Kaunas who became a Civil
War 'political commissar' and then a key associate of Mikhail Tukhachevsky, was the great pioneer theorist of 'deep operations.'
The ideas of the other, Aleksandr Svechin, the former Tsarist 'genstabist', born in Odessa into an ethnically Russian military
family, who was the key opponent of Tukhachevky and Isserson in the arguments of the 'Twenties, provided key parts of the intellectual
basis of the Gorbachev-era 'new thinking.'
The 'Ars Technica' article in which Tait's claims were initially disseminated opened:
'We still don't know who he is or whether he works for the Russian government, but one thing is for sure: Guccifer 2.0 – the nom
de guerre of the person claiming he hacked the Democratic National Committee and published hundreds of pages that appeared to prove
it – left behind fingerprints implicating a Russian-speaking person with a nostalgia for the country's lost Soviet era.'
In his 2013 article, Gerasimov harks back to the catastrophe which overcame the Red Army in June 1941. Ironically, this was the
product of the Stalinist leadership's disregard of the cautions produced not only by Svechin, but by Isserson. In regard to the latter,
the article remarks that:
'The fate of this "prophet of the Fatherland" unfolded tragically. Our country paid in great quantities of blood for not listening
to the conclusions of this professor of the General Staff Academy.'
As it happens, while both Svechin and Tukhachevsky were shot by the heirs of 'Felix Edmundovich', the sentence of death on Isserson
was commuted, and he spent the war in prison and labour camps, while others used his ideas to devastating effect against the Germans.
Quite clearly, the 'Guccifer 2.0' persona is a crude fabrication by someone who has absolutely no understanding of, or indeed
interest in, the bitter complexities of both of the history of Russia and of the 'borderlands', not only in the Soviet period but
before and after.
Using this criterion as a 'filter', the obvious candidates are traditional Anglo-Saxon 'Russophobes', like Sir Richard Dearlove
and Christopher Steele, or the 'insulted and injured' of the erstwhile Russian and Soviet empires, so many of them from the 'borderlands',
of the type of Victoria Nuland, or the various Poles, Ukrainians and Balts and Jews who have had so much influence on American policy.
(I should note that other Jews, not only in Russia, but outside, including in Israel, think quite differently, in particular as
they are very well aware, as Isserson would have been, of the extent to which 'borderlands' nationalists were enthusiastic collaborators
with the Germans in the 'Final Solution'. On this, there is a large and growing academic literature.)
It is not particularly surprising that many of the victims of the Russian and Soviet empires have enjoyed seeing the tables turned,
and getting their own back. But it is rather far from clear that this makes for good intelligence or sound policy. We were unable
to load Disqus. If you are a moderator please see our troubleshooting
guide .
How does the objective truth get disclosed in an environment of extreme deceit by so many parties?
How to trust western intelligence when they have such a long and sordid track record of deceit, lies and propaganda? At the
same time there is such a long history of Russian and Chinese intelligence and information operations against the west.
Then there is the nexus among the highest levels of US law enforcement and intelligence as well as political elites in both
parties and key individuals in the media complex.
We are living in a hall of mirrors and it seems the trend is towards confirmation bias in information consumption.
Excellent post, especially the debunking of the 'Gerasimov doctrine' which I always thought was more hand-waving and Russian mind-reading.
It's important to realize that there are a number of people in the infosec community who have biases against Russia, just as
there are in the general population. Then there are more cautious people, who recognize the difficulty in attributing a hack to
any specific person absent solid, incontrovertible, non-circumstantial and non-spoofable (and preferably offline) evidence.
Tait doesn't appear to be one of the latter. Thomas Rid would be another. There are others.
Jeffrey Carr is one of the latter, and his familiarity with intelligence matters is clear from his organization of the annual
"Suits and Spooks" Conference. I believe he was the first to raise questions about the DNC hack which didn't pass his smell test.
There are also a number of companies in infosec who rely on latching onto a particular strain of hacker, the more publicly
exploitable for PR purposes the better, as a means of keeping the company name in front of potential high-profile and highly billable
clients. CrowdStrike and its Russia obsession isn't the only one that's been tagged with that propensity.
Mandiant could be referred to as the "Chinese, all the time" company, for example. Richard Bejtlich was at Fireeye and the
became Chief Security Officer when they acquired Mandiant. He spent quite a bit of effort on his blog warning about the Chinese
military buildup as a huge threat to the US. He's former USAF so perhaps that's not surprising.
Glad David's comment has been reproduced as a post in its own right, this is a critically important topic. IMO Matt Tait plays
the role of midwife in this conspiracy. His
Twitter thread
The Comey, Brennan, Mueller claim - indeed a central one upon which the recent indictment rests- that Guccifer 2.0 was a Russian
State agent that hacked the DNC- was discredited and put to rest last year by the forensics conducted by Bill Binney and his colleagues.
The Guccifer 2.0 metadata was analyzed for its transmission speed, and based on the internet speeds to and from numerous test
locations abroad and in the U.S., it was determined to have been impossible for the so-called Guccifer 2.0 to have hacked the
DNC computers over the internet. The transmission speed however did correspond to the speed of the transfer to a thumb drive.
Additionally, it was found that the data had been manipulated and split into two parts to simulate a July and a September transfer,
when in fact the parts merge perfectly as single file, and where, according to Binney, the probability of the split being a coincidence
would be 100 to the 50th power.
As for the crude trace fingerprints (e.g. the referencing of Dzerzinsky), one of the Wikileaks data dumps (Vault 7 Marble)
during a period when Assange was negotiating with the Administration - there were two at the time (Vault 7 Marble and Vault 7
Grasshopper), the release of which apparently enraged Mike Pompeo- was designed to obfuscate, fabricate and frame countries such
as Russia, Iran or North Korea by pretending to be the target country, including in the use of target's alphabet and language.
VIPs has written numerous articles on this in Consortium News. See also the report by Patrick Lawrence Smith in The Nation
at:
https://www.thenation.com/a... . (It was apparently so hot at the time- and disputed by several other VIPs members- that The
Nation sought an independent assessment by third party, though those comments were easily addressed and dismissed in seriatim
by Binney in an annex to the article.)
Binney has explained his forensic analysis and conclusions at numerous forums, and in a sit-down with Secretary Pompeo in October,
2017- though Mueller, the FBI, and mainstream and some of the alternative press seem either deaf, dumb and blind to it all, or
interested in discrediting the study. The irony is, I'd venture to guess, that Binney, with his 40 years of experience, including
as Technical Director and technical guru at the NSA, is, even in retirement, more sophisticated in these matters than any one
at the Agency, or the FBI, or CIA, or certainly, the Congressional Intelligence Committees. So, it is astounding that any or all
of them could have, but did not, invite him to testify as an expert.
Moreover, the NSA has a record of every transmission, and also would have it on backup files. And, the FBI has been sitting
on Seth Rich's computer and his communications with Wikileaks, and presumably has a report that it has not released. And of course,
as Trump asked in his press conference, where's the DNC server, any or all of which would put this question to rest.
The last clause of the first paragraph should have said: "according to Binney, the probability of the split being a coincidence
would be one over 100 to the 50th power
There is a pattern of abuse of formerly well regarded institutions to achieve the propaganda aims of the Deep State establishment.
The depths that were plumbed to push the Iraq WMD falsehoods are well known. Yet no one was held to account nor was there any
honest accounting of the abuse. There have been pretenses like the Owen inquiry that you note.
We see the same situation of sweeping under the rug malfeasance and even outright criminality through obfuscation and obstruction
in the case of the meddling in the 2016 election by top officials in intelligence and law enforcement. Clearly less and less people
are buying what the Deep State sells despite their overwhelming control of the media channels.
It seems that we are marching towards a credibility crisis similar to what was experienced in the Soviet Union when no
one trusted the contents in Pravda.
What is to be gained by the leadership in Britain in promoting these biological weapons cases since Litvinenko? In the
US it is quite apparent that the Deep State have become extremely powerful and the likelihood that Trump recognizes that resistance
is futile is very high. Schumer may be proven right that they have six ways from Sunday to make you kowtow to their dictats.
That was one of the changes being hoped for when Obama was first elected. Instead we got little, except for things such as
bailed out bankers and the IRS scandal which lasted until the end of his 2nd term. The panic from the left over the 2016 election
issues the are still going on is that the expected candidate isn't in office and they are being exposed. Whether they get prosecuted
is another story.
I think Matt Tait, David Habakkuk and many others are reading far more into this Dzerzinsky thing than what it warrants. The government
dependent ID cards used by my family while I was working as a clandestine case officer overseas were signed by Robert Ludlum.
Intelligence officers often have an odd sense of humor.
On a different note, I fully endorse David Habakkuk's recommendation of the writings of Bartles, McDermott and many others
at the Foreign Military Studies Office at Fort Leavenworth. They are top notch. I learned a lot from Tim Thomas many years ago.
I agree that taken by itself, the Dzerzinsky thing would be an anomaly only and could be dismissed as "black humor" of a kind
often found in hackers. However, taken with all the other evidence produced by Adam Carter, it becomes much more obviously an
attempt to support a false flag "Russian hacker" narrative that otherwise is porous.
I believe there is a phrase going something like "an attempt to add verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative."
You want us to believe that the GRU are so sloppy and so inexperienced that they would launch a hack on the DNC and not
take every measure to ensure there was no link whatsoever to anything Russian? Any former intel officer worth a damn knows that
an operation to disrupt the election in a country the size of the United States would start with a risk/reward assessment, would
require a team of at least 100 persons and would not be writing any code that could in any way be traced to Russia.
Unfortunately, the original author of this claptrap, Mark Galeotti, who, I regret to say, is, like Tait, British, has now recanted
and confessed.
Doctrine-mongering and repeating birth of new faux-academic "entities", such as a "hybrid war" (any war is hybrid by definition),
is a distinct feature of the Western "political science-military history" establishment. Galeotti, who for some strange reason
passes as Russia "expert" is a perfect example of such "expertise" and doctrine-mongering. Military professionals largely met
this "hybrid warfare" BS with disdain.
I have to say that the more I look into this whole Russiagate affair, which is mostly in the minds of democrats (and a few
republicans) and the MSM, the more it seems that there is indeed a foreign conspiracy to meddle in the internal affairs of the
US (and in the presidential elections) but the meddling entity is not Russia. It is the British!
So many (ex-) MI6 operators (Steele, Tait, etc) involved in the story. It is interesting that the media don't question
the intense involvement of the British in all this. And of course, the British haven't been laggards in adding fuel to the fire
by the whole novichok hoax.
This needs to be looked at in more detail by the alternative media and well informed commentators like the host of this site.
"... By creating an extremely anti-communist state, the elite will never have to worry about losing control over society because their wealth and power remains safe and sound. ..."
It is an evolution of conspiracy theory, not requiring any kind of convoluted logic or
story telling that used to be required for conspiracy theory to stick. Fake News allows for
simple, truthful, and logical information to be dismissed out of hand, without
examination.
Here's an ad about COCs (PDF) from
1942. They're used for tanning leather, in soaps and perfumes, as insect repellents, for
dying cloth, as antiseptics, and for many, many other commercial and industrial
purposes.
Damn those Syrian butchers for dropping perfume on civilians!
Fake News is the 21st century version of Conspiracy Theory.
It is an evolution of conspiracy theory, not requiring any kind of convoluted logic or
story telling that used to be required for conspiracy theory to stick. Fake News allows
for simple, truthful, and logical information to be dismissed out of hand, without
examination.
@The Voice In the
Wilderness In the dim reaches of pre-history, when Walter Cronkite was reporting, a
real journalist wouldn't report that someone launched a chemical weapons attack unless the
journalist had at least two credible, independent sources providing solid evidence that the
story was true. Newspaper editors and television producers knew their reputations were on the
line and that their competitors would make sure the egg on their face stuck if they reported
something blatantly wrong.
Nowadays, there are no competitors, because journalists and news outlets are mostly
hanging out together in one big cheery cartel, every member of which will defend every other
member to protect the reputation of the whole. The goal is not to outdo competitors and gain
more eyeballs or a greater distribution or greater authority over public opinion. The goal is
to defend the status quo by any means necessary, while somehow maintaining the credibility of
the press.
But no, they shouldn't have published a story that Assad had launched a chemical weapons
attack unless they had a significant amount of solid evidence that it was true.
I have a hard time understanding how people can even begin to credit this crap, given how
close it is to what they told us about Saddam Hussein. But it's actually even worse, because
at least Hussein did, at one time, use chemical weapons on the Kurds. I mean, at least he did
it once, even if he didn't have weapons of mass destruction ready to aim at Israel, or the
Saudis, or the U.S.
#7
It was big news. But failure to report it as false with just as much (or more) attention
and timing was journalistic malpractice. They should have been outraged to have been
conned into spreading false propaganda. IF they were legitimate journalists.
@Cant Stop the
Macedonian Signal
I don't know that anyone waits for confirmation anymore. And the two sources could
be the CIA and VOA or one of their tame journalists.
Credibility is in the eye of the beholder. After they all jumped on Saddam's WMD one can
hardly compare them with Cronkite.
I do remember web blogs asking to please wait for the UN inspectors report. When that
report did come out, anyone with integrity, even if not a professional journalist, would have
highlighted that report and retracted the original and not figuratively bury it on page
56.
But we are substantially together on this. They reported is as fact not as an
unsubstantiated claim.
Chomsky's Five News Filters: A little dated but a good starting point.
The first filter is Size, Ownership, and Profit Orientation of the Mass Media. Mainstream
media is essentially owned by corporations and the government, because those are the very
agents who fund them. Any favourable studies, studies or information that the government or
corporations want the public to know (or don't want them to know) either ends up being aired
or buried as a result.
The second filter is Advertising License to do Business. Mass media isn't interested in
attracting viewers to educate them, but rather to sell them on something. They're more
interested in engaging an audience with higher buying power than actually making a difference
through education and information. Chomsky provides an excellent example, explaining: "CBS proudly tells its shareholders that while it "continuously seeks to maximize audience
delivery," it has developed a new "sales tool" with which it approaches advertisers: "Client
Audience Profile, or CAP, will help advertisers optimize the effectiveness of their network
television schedules by evaluating audience segments in proportion to usage levels of
advertisers' products and services." In short, the mass media are interested in attracting
audiences with buying power, not audiences per se."
The third filter is Sourcing Mass-Media News. Whatever is aired on mass media needs to be
100% credible, meaning it's viewers need to completely trust what's being aired, without the
need of them using their critical thinking skills. Since the majority of the public trusts
the government and mass corporations, AKA the propaganda machines, most of the "news worthy"
content comes from them. Plus, whatever's aired needs to be approved by corporations or the
government and/or mass media must avoid airing anything that would offend their contributors
and funders.
The fourth filter is Flak and the Enforcers. "Flak" refers to negative responses to a
media statement or program aired on the network. Perhaps the most influential producers of
flak are corporations and the government. Corporations have created large scale organizations
whose sole purpose is to produce flak. The government is also a large producer of flak, as it
constantly corrects or threatens the media based on their interests.
The final filter is Anticommunism as a Control Mechanism. Everything at home seems to be a
lesser evil if there's something on the news that seems much worse (fake terrorist attacks,
false enemies, and/or "radical" states). Anything that sounds too left can also be dismissed
if it sounds too much like "communism." By creating an extremely anti-communist state, the
elite will never have to worry about losing control over society because their wealth and
power remains safe and sound.
@fakenews
namely big, opinion-policing non-profits and their lobbyists and followers, ranging from
religious denominations, to AIPAC and the NRA, to the ADL and SPLC.
Looks like MIC is a cancel of the society for which there is no cure....
While this jeremiad raises several valid point the key to understanding the situation should
be understanding of the split of the Us elite into two camp with Democratic party (representing
interests of Wall Street) and large part of intelligence communality fighting to neoliberal
status quo and Pentagon, some part of old money, part of trade unions (especially rank and file
members) and a pert of Republican Party (representing interests of the military) realizing that
neoliberalism came to the natural end and it is time for change which includes downsizing of the
American empire.
This bitter internal struggle in which neoliberals so far have an upper hand over Trump
administration and forced him into retreat.
Notable quotes:
"... Trump is a traitor because he wants peace with Russia. ..."
"... The Russians, the Chinese, the Iranians, and the North Koreans, as well as the rest of the world, desperately need to notice the extremely hostile reaction to peace on the part of the US Democratic Party, many members of the Republican Party, including the despicable US Republican Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, and the Western Presstitute Media, a collection of people on the CIA payroll according to the German newspaper editor, Udo Ulfkotte, and the CIA itself. ..."
"... Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and the rest of the corrupt filth that rules over us are all in the pay of the military/security complex. Just go and investigate the donations to their re-election campaigns. The 1,000 billion dollar budget of the military/security complex, amplified by the CIA's front corporations and narcotics business, provides enormous sums with which to purchase the senators and representatives that the insouciant American voters think that they elect. ..."
"... Therefore, the American public gets not representation, but lies that justify war and conflict. The military/security complex, about which President Eisenhower warned the American people to no effect, is in desperate need of an enemy. In obedience to the military/security complex, the Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama regimes have made Russia that enemy. If Trump and Putin do not understand this, they will easily be made irrelevant. ..."
"... They both can be assassinated, and that is what the statements from Pelosi, Schumer, McCain, Lindsey Graham, et. al., repeated endlessly in the propaganda ministry that is the Western press, encourages. ..."
"... The Supply-Side Revolution ..."
"... When the combination of tax cuts with defense budget cuts came up for a vote, the legendary senator Strom Thurmond, a 48-year member of the US Senate from South Carolina, tapped me on the shoulder. He said: "son, never set your senator up against the military/security complex. He will not be re-elected, and you will be out of a job." I replied that we were just establishing for the record that under no conditions would the Democrats, who wanted more government, vote for a tax rate reduction even if there was a case that it would cure stagflation. He replied: "son, the military/security complex doesn't care." ..."
"... Later as a member of a secret presidential committee, I saw how the CIA attempted to prevent President Reagan from ending the Cold War. ..."
"... Today, right now, at this moment, we are faced with a massive effort of the military/security complex, the neoconservatives, the Democratic Party, and the presstitute media to discredit the elected President of the United States and to overthrow him in order that the utterly corrupt elite that rule American can continue to hold on to power and to protect the massive budget of the military/security complex that, along with the Israel Lobby, funds the elections of those who rule us. ..."
"... There is no institution in America, government or private, that can be trusted. Any government or person who trusts America or any Western country is stupid beyond belief. ..."
"... The entire Russiagate hoax is an orchestration by the military/security complex, led by John Brennen, Comey, and Rosenstein. The purpose is to discredit President trump for two reasons. One is to prevent any normalization of relations with Russia. The other is to remove Trump's agenda as an alternative to the agenda of the Democratic Party. ..."
"... President Trump is almost powerless. Putin, the Chinese, the Iranians, and the North Koreans should recognize this before it is too late for them. President Trump cannot fire and arrest for high treason Mueller and Rosenstein. ..."
"... Reckless and irresponsible comments about treason from former CIA director Brennan, and other ranking public figures, echo similar inflammatory rhetoric from far-right-wing rabble rouser Gen. Edwin Walker, and other members of the John Birch Society, in the days before Pres. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas. ..."
"... What's going on in the United States of America beats the band what happened under Joe McCarthy. The witch hunt against a sitting President by 95 percent of the media, major government institutions such as the criminal CIA, FBI, DOJ and the rest of the crooked Intel community plus the rascals in the US Congress can only happen in a totalitarian society, which the US is. ..."
"... The Brennan, Clappers, Obamas, Clintons, Comeys, Rosenstein and their many subordinate political Mafiosi should be put behind bars instead of running from one TV station to the next and lay the ground for a possibly Trump assassination. ..."
"... As Mr. Rogers correctly states, President Trump is almost powerless. These US fools even try to breed discord between the so-called nationalists and the globalists in Russia for which Medvedev stays. He once served US interests more than Russian ones when he was Prime Minister and got flattered by the ineffable Bill Clinton. ..."
"... So what do we see now ? Putin aiding Trump in steering the USA away from trying to control the whole world, an effort that is destroying the USA, but Deep State does not mind. In this way Russia indeed meddles in USA politics. Trump now invited Putin to come to Washington, the MH17 statement is withheld, the hysteria at CNN is such that MH17 is not even mentioned. In stead: Trump must be mentally deranged. ..."
"... Gore Vidal said there's only one party in America, it's the Money Party and it has two branches. It is even more true today than when he said it. There is no Left or Right anymore, only the question, is it good for Israel? And the American people be damned. ..."
"... Trump is completely powerless to do anything about these two. And this has gone on for a year and a half. ..."
"... It's clear though that Trump believes he has forced his opponents to play a bad hand in their outlandish craze the past week. It's why he doubled down and invited Putin to Washington near the 2018 election time. He perceives this as a chance to re-enact the 2016 election and coast to victory. The establishment is insane, and if he brings their insanity out it plays to his favor. ..."
The US Democratic Party is determined to take the world to thermo-nuclear war rather than to
admit that Hillary Clinton lost the presidential election fair and square. The Democratic Party
was totally corrupted by the Clinton Regime, and now it is totally insane. Leaders of the
Democratic Party, such as Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, my former co-author in the New York
Times, have responded in a non-Democratic way to the first step President Trump has taken to
reduce the extremely dangerous tensions with Russia that the Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama
regimes created between the two superpowers.
Yes, Russia is a superpower. Russian weapons are so superior to the junk produced by the
waste-filled US military/security complex that lives high off the hog on the insouciant
American taxpayer that it is questionable if the US is even a second class military power. If
the insane neoconservatives, such as Max Boot, William Kristol, and the rest of the neocon scum
get their way, the US, the UK, and Europe will be a radioactive ruin for thousands of
years.
House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi (CA), Minority Leader of the US House of
Representatives, declared that out of fear of some undefined retribution from Putin, a dossier
on Trump perhaps, the President of the United States sold out the American people to Russia
because he wants to make peace: "It begs the question, what does Vladimir Putin, what do the
Russians have on Donald Trump -- personally, politically and financially that he should behave
in such a manner?" The "such a manner" Pelosi is speaking about is making peace instead of
war.
To be clear, the Democratic Minority Leader of the US House of Representatives has accused
Donald Trump of high treason against the United States. There is no outcry against this
blatantly false accusation, totally devoid of evidence. The presstitute media instead of
protesting this attempt at a coup against the President of the United States, trumpet the
accusation as self-evident truth. Trump is a traitor because he wants peace with
Russia.
Here is Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer (NY) repeating Pelosi's false accusation: "Millions
of Americans will continue to wonder if the only possible explanation for this dangerous
behavior is the possibility that President Putin holds damaging information over President
Trump." If you don't believe that this is orchestrated between Pelosi and Schumer, you are
stupid beyond belief.
Here is disgraced Obama CIA director John Brennan, a leader of the fake Russiagate campaign
against President Trump in order to prevent Trump from making peace with Russia and, thus, by
making the world safer, threatening the massive, unjustified budget of the military/security
complex: "Donald Trump's press conference performance in Helsinki rises to and exceeds the
threshold of high crimes and misdemeanors. It was nothing short of treasonous. Not only were
Trump's comments imbecilic, he is wholly in the pocket of Putin. Republican Patriots: Where are
you???"
NOTICE THAT NOT ONE WESTERN MEDIA SOURCE IS CELEBRATING AND THANKING TRUMP AND PUTIN FOR
EASING THE ARTIFICIALLY CREATED TENSIONS THAT WERE LEADING TO NUCLEAR WAR. HOW CAN THIS BE? HOW
CAN IT BE THAT THE WESTERN MEDIA IS SO OPPOSED TO PEACE? WHAT IS THE EXPLANATION?
The Russians, the Chinese, the Iranians, and the North Koreans, as well as the rest of
the world, desperately need to notice the extremely hostile reaction to peace on the part of
the US Democratic Party, many members of the Republican Party, including the despicable US
Republican Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, and the Western Presstitute Media, a
collection of people on the CIA payroll according to the German newspaper editor, Udo Ulfkotte,
and the CIA itself.
Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and the rest of the corrupt
filth that rules over us are all in the pay of the military/security complex. Just go and
investigate the donations to their re-election campaigns. The 1,000 billion dollar budget of
the military/security complex, amplified by the CIA's front corporations and narcotics
business, provides enormous sums with which to purchase the senators and representatives that
the insouciant American voters think that they elect.
Do you know how large 1,000 billion is? You would have to live for thousands of years and do
nothing for 24/7 except count to reach that figure. It is a sum that nurtures the recipients,
and the recipients regard it as worth protecting.
Therefore, the American public gets not representation, but lies that justify war and
conflict. The military/security complex, about which President Eisenhower warned the American
people to no effect, is in desperate need of an enemy. In obedience to the military/security
complex, the Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama regimes have made Russia that enemy. If Trump
and Putin do not understand this, they will easily be made irrelevant.
They both can be assassinated, and that is what the statements from Pelosi, Schumer,
McCain, Lindsey Graham, et. al., repeated endlessly in the propaganda ministry that is the
Western press, encourages. Trump can be assassinated or overthrown in a political coup for
selling out America to Russia, as members of both political parties claim and as the media
trumpets endlessly. Putin can be easily assassinated by the CIA operatives that the Russian
government stupidly permits to operate throughout Russia in NGOs and Western/US owned media and
among the Atlanticist Integrationists, Washington's Firth Column inside Russia serving
Washington's purposes. These Russian traitors serve in Putin's own government!
ORDER IT NOW
Americans are so unaware that they have no idea of the risk that President Trump is taking
by challenging the US military security complex. For example, during the last half of the 1970s
I was a member of the US Senate staff. I was working together with a staffer of the US
Republican Senator from California, S. I. Hayakawa, to advance understanding of a supply-side
economic policy cure to the stagflation that threatened the US budget's ability to meet its
obligations. Republican Senators Hatch, Roth, and Hayakawa were trying to introduce a
supply-side economic policy as a cure for the stagflation that was threatening the US economy
with failure. The Democrats, who later in the Senate led the way to a supply-side policy, were,
at this time, opposed (see Paul Craig Roberts, The Supply-Side Revolution , Harvard
University Press, 1984). The Democrats claimed that the policy would worsen the budget deficit,
the only time in those days Democrats cared about the budget deficit. The Democrats said that
they would support the tax rate reductions if the Republicans would support offsetting cuts in
the budget to support a balanced budget. This was a ploy to put Republicans on the spot for
taking away some groups' handouts in order "to cut tax rates for the rich."
The supply-side policy did not require budget cuts, but in order to demonstrate the
Democrats lack of sincerety, Hayakawa's aid and I had our senators introduce a series of budget
cuts together with tax cuts that, on a static revenue basis (not counting tax revenue feedbacks
from the incentives of the lower tax rates) kept the budget even, and the Democrats voted
against them every time.
When the combination of tax cuts with defense budget cuts came up for a vote, the
legendary senator Strom Thurmond, a 48-year member of the US Senate from South Carolina, tapped
me on the shoulder. He said: "son, never set your senator up against the military/security
complex. He will not be re-elected, and you will be out of a job." I replied that we were just
establishing for the record that under no conditions would the Democrats, who wanted more
government, vote for a tax rate reduction even if there was a case that it would cure
stagflation. He replied: "son, the military/security complex doesn't care."
My emergence from The Matrix began with Thurmond's pat on my shoulder. It grew with my time
at the Wall Street Journal when I learned that some truthful things simply could not be said.
In the Treasury I experienced how those outside interests opposed to a president's policy
marshall their forces and the media that they own to block it. Later as a member of a
secret presidential committee, I saw how the CIA attempted to prevent President Reagan from
ending the Cold War.
Today, right now, at this moment, we are faced with a massive effort of the
military/security complex, the neoconservatives, the Democratic Party, and the presstitute
media to discredit the elected President of the United States and to overthrow him in order
that the utterly corrupt elite that rule American can continue to hold on to power and to
protect the massive budget of the military/security complex that, along with the Israel Lobby,
funds the elections of those who rule us. Trump, like Reagan, was an exception, and it is
the exceptions that accumulate the ire of the corrupt leftwing, bought off with money, and the
ire of the media, concentrated into small tight ownership groups indebted to those who
permitted the illegal concentration of a once independent and diverse American media that once
served, on occasion, as a watchdog over government. The rightwing, wrapped in the flag,
dismisses all truth as "anti-American."
If Putin, Lavrov, the Russian government, the traitorous Russian Fifth Column -- the
Atlanticist Integrationists -- the Chinese, the Iranians, the North Koreans think that any
peace or consideration can come out of America, they are insane. Their delusions are setting
themselves up for destruction. There is no institution in America, government or private,
that can be trusted. Any government or person who trusts America or any Western country is
stupid beyond belief.
The entire Russiagate hoax is an orchestration by the military/security complex, led by
John Brennen, Comey, and Rosenstein. The purpose is to discredit President trump for two
reasons. One is to prevent any normalization of relations with Russia. The other is to remove
Trump's agenda as an alternative to the agenda of the Democratic Party.
President Trump is almost powerless. Putin, the Chinese, the Iranians, and the North
Koreans should recognize this before it is too late for them. President Trump cannot fire and
arrest for high treason Mueller and Rosenstein. And Trump cannot indict Hillary for her
numerous unquestionable crimes in plain view of everyone, or Comey or Brennan, who declares
Trump "to be wholly in the pocket of Putin," for trying to overthrow the elected president of
the United States. Trump cannot have the Secret Service question the likes of Pelosi and
Schumer and McCain and Lindsey Graham for false accusations that encourage assassination of the
President of the United States.
Trump cannot even trust the Secret Service, which accumulated evidence suggests was
complicit in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and Robert Kennedy.
If Putin and Lavrov, so anxious to be friends of Washington, let their guards down, they are
history.
As I said above, Russiagate is an orchestratration to prevent peace between the US and
Russia. Leading military/security complex experts, including the person who provided the CIA's
daily briefing of the President of the United States for many years, and the person who devised
the spy program for the National Security Agency, have proven conclusively that Russiagate is a
hoax designed for the purpose of preventing President Trump from normalizing relations between
the US and Russia, which has the power to destroy the entirety of the Western World at
will.
If Putin doesn't listen to him, Russia is in the trash can of history.
Keep in mind that no media informs you better than my website. If my website goes down, you
will be left in darkness. No valid information comes from the US government or the Western
presstitutes. If you sit in front of the TV screen watching the Western media, you are
brainwashed beyond all hope. Not even I can rescue you. Nor God himself.
Americans, and indeed the Russians themselves, are incapable of realizing it, but there is a
chance that Trump will be overthrown and a Western assault will be launched against the handful
of countries that insist on sovereignty.
I doubt that few of the Americans who elected Trump will be taken in by the anti-Trump
propagana, but they are not organized and have no armed power. The police, militarized by
George W. Bush and Obama, will be set against them. The rebellions will be local and suppressed
by every violation of the US Constitution by the private powers that rule Washington, as always
has been the case with rebellions in America.
In the West, which the Russians are so anxious to join, all freedoms are dead -- freedom of
assembly, freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of inquiry, freedom of privacy,
freedom from arbitrary search, freedom from arbitrary arrest, along with the Constitutional
protections of due process and habeas corpus. Today there are no countries less free than the
United States of America.
Why do the Russian Atlanticist Integrationists want to join an unfree Western world? Are
they that brainwashed by Western Propaganda?
If Putin listens to these deluded fools, Putin will destroy Russia.
There is something wrong with Russian perception of Washington. Apparently the Russian
elite, with the exception of Shoigu and a few others are incapable of comprehending the
neoconservative drive for US world hegemony and the neoconservative determination to destroy
Russia as a constraint on US unilateralism. The Russian government somehow, despite all
evidence to the contrary, believes that Washington's hegemony is negotiable. (Republished from
PaulCraigRoberts.org by permission of author or representative)
is big question even if Trump wants peace at all. Trump has shown his real face on the very
beginning when he said that they are going to talk about "his friend" Xi, making Putin very
uncomfortable and throwing some worms in Russia~China relationship in front of cameras for
all to see
Trump came to the meeting in hope to impress Putin with his cowboy arrogance, He now says
that he'll be Putin's worst enemy ( if he don't bow to him I guess : ). all Trump cares about
is his ego, nothing else too sweat mouthed sleazy person
Reckless and irresponsible comments about treason from former CIA director Brennan, and
other ranking public figures, echo similar inflammatory rhetoric from far-right-wing rabble
rouser Gen. Edwin Walker, and other members of the John Birch Society, in the days before
Pres. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas.
What's going on in the United States of America beats the band what happened under Joe
McCarthy. The witch hunt against a sitting President by 95 percent of the media, major
government institutions such as the criminal CIA, FBI, DOJ and the rest of the crooked Intel
community plus the rascals in the US Congress can only happen in a totalitarian society,
which the US is.
The Brennan, Clappers, Obamas, Clintons, Comeys, Rosenstein and their many subordinate
political Mafiosi should be put behind bars instead of running from one TV station to the
next and lay the ground for a possibly Trump assassination. Trump is portrayed by these
crooks as a "traitor." In the US, traitors usefully deserve death. If these political Mafiosi
don't bring down Trump "legally," they will hire a kind of Lee Harvey Oswald who "shot"
JFK.
As Mr. Rogers correctly states, President Trump is almost powerless. These US fools
even try to breed discord between the so-called nationalists and the globalists in Russia for
which Medvedev stays. He once served US interests more than Russian ones when he was Prime
Minister and got flattered by the ineffable Bill Clinton.
Let's wait and see what happens in the upcoming mid-term elections. If the Dems win both
Houses of Congress, Trump is done. The obstructionists will have the upper hand. If they
can't remove him from office "legally," there will be a hitman out there somewhere.
President smugly making peace with the Russian nation that was supposed to be the evil enemy
in a 3rd and final brother war to devastate the white race beyond recovery.
Little upstart in the Democrat party making left wing politics less palatable to the
masses with her heavy handed socialist rhetoric. All while preaching BDS and anti-Israel
sentiment too, representing Frankenstein's CultMarx monster turning on it's creator.
And fewer and fewer people on all sides buying what the American Pravda is selling with
each passing day. The resulting hysteria is both par for the course and downright
delectable.
" Apparently the Russian elite, with the exception of Shoigu and a few others are incapable
of comprehending the neoconservative drive for US world hegemony and the neoconservative
determination to destroy Russia as a constraint on US unilateralism. " My idea is that many
in Russia understand quite well, this is why they demonstrate Russia's military capabilities
frequently. Why does Putin support Assad and Syria ? Not because he likes these countries,
but because he understands that if these countries also get the USA yoke the position of
Russia and China deteriorate.
Putin is careful not to give USA public opinion more 'reason' to fear Russia. Already a
few years ago something fell into the E part of the Mediterranean. It was asserted that
Russia had intercepted a USA missile fired from Spain to Syria. USA and Israel declared that
an excercise had been held. Putin said nothing.
Despite all that NATO does at Russia's borders Putin does not let himself be provoked.
MH17, I suppose Putin knows quite well what happened, Russia has radar and satelites, yet
Putin never gave the Russian view.
So what do we see now ? Putin aiding Trump in steering the USA away from trying to
control the whole world, an effort that is destroying the USA, but Deep State does not mind.
In this way Russia indeed meddles in USA politics. Trump now invited Putin to come to
Washington, the MH17 statement is withheld, the hysteria at CNN is such that MH17 is not even
mentioned. In stead: Trump must be mentally deranged.
Good to see PCR accepting comments again. It's not just the Dumbocruds, it's the Rupuglicunts
too. Follow the money, it's coming from the same sources. Gore Vidal said there's only
one party in America, it's the Money Party and it has two branches. It is even more true
today than when he said it. There is no Left or Right anymore, only the question, is it good
for Israel? And the American people be damned.
Is President Trump A Traitor Because He Wants Peace with Russia? The Democrats say he is
The Democrats -- and their wholly-owned MSM -- will call Trump any name that'll stick. It
means little. Even if Trump got everything he wanted on immigration, that particular
toothpaste is already out of the tube and unless we send back some of the millions of
illegal third-world squatters we've no hope of recovering the United States of America.
If you want to talk treason, you need look no further than the Hart-Celler Act of 1965,
whereby the plan was laid to replace the population of this nation with third-world refuse,
which guaranteed cheap labor for GOP capitalists and endless political support for Democrat
traitors.
As the saying goes "timing is everything." I have to admit I was incredulous that you were
somehow able to link to a functioning version of the Nekrosov film. I've been trying to get
my hands on that documentary for the last few years, but to no avail. I finally managed to
read a comment on another blog that recommended that people who were interested in viewing
the film could do so by reaching out to the producer to request a personalized link, after
which you had to request a password from another individual affiliated with the film.
I managed to do all of that a few weeks ago and was able to watch the video on Vimeo for
the full 2 hours. It was riveting, to say the least. After viewing it again, I thought about
making it available to others. Due to the pressures by Browder and his lawyers, however,
Nekrosov was prevented from making his film available to a wider audience. He got around this
limitation by making it available for private viewing only. And to prevent a private viewer
from uploading it onto the internet he cleverly placed a watermark on each film, indicating
the owner of each copy of the video by displaying a number on the screen. I was surprised to
see the version you linked to indeed has this watermark shown on the screen. Somehow, this
did not deter the individual tied to that number from uploading it and being the one
identified as doing so. That said, I'm glad the film is more widely available as it should be
viewed by as many people as possible so that they can realize what a despicable liar Browder
really is and how the passage of The Magnitsky Act was a travesty of justice which must be
reversed.
"Do you know how large 1,000 billion is? You would have to live for thousands of years and do
nothing for 24/7 except count to reach that figure. It is a sum that nurtures the recipients,
and the recipients regard it as worth protecting."
Tens of thousands of years. At one count per second, 31,687 years and a few months.
"In the West, which the Russians are so anxious to join, all freedoms are dead --
freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of inquiry, freedom
of privacy, freedom from arbitrary search, freedom from arbitrary arrest, along with the
Constitutional protections of due process and habeas corpus."
True. That is the Anglo-Zionist Empire. That is what the WASP Empire delivers, and
it does so to destroy more conservative national and local cultures so their peoples are
tossed into the melting pot and reduced into a goop easy to rule.
Oliver Cromwell taking Jewish money, allying with Jews so he would have the funds to wage
permanent war against the vast, vast majority of non-WASP whites within his reach: that is
the definition of WASP culture; that picture tells you what it always will do.
make something serious about Obama and Hillary destroying whole African country of Libya
killing Colonel Gaddafi on the street, which is greatest war crime in the 21st century so far
or, Bill Clinton bombing Bosnian Serbs '95 opening the door to jihadis to continue behead
people in the middle of the Europe or, Bill Clinton and Nato bombing Serbia '99 to give
"Kosovo" independence killing many civilian and destroying infrastructure on purpose or
Madeline Albright confessing killing half of million Iraqi kids on the camera or, Bush and or
Bushes or those such Bill Browder are just small dirty fish who in comparison is almost not
worth filming I appreciate the effort but get seriously real if you are about to get truth to
people
"The Brennan, Clappers, Obamas, Clintons, Comeys, Rosenstein and their many
subordinate political Mafiosi "
What is going on in the US is systematic. Assange, an investigative journalist who became
the light of truth worldwide, is under a grave danger from US' and UK' Intelligence
Communities of the non-intelligent opportunists and real traitors: https://www.rt.com/news/433783-wikileaks-assange-ecuador-uk/
Meanwhile, Mrs. Clinton, who was criminally negligent with regard to the most important
classified information, has been protected by the politicking Brennan, Clapper, and Mueller:
" it was over 30,000 emails , emails that were sent through to Hillary Clinton through
the unauthorized server and unsecured server and every email she sent out.
There were highly classified -- beyond classified -- top secret-type stuff that had
gone through that server. an instruction embedded, compartmentalized data embedded in the
email server telling the server to send a copy of every email that came to Hillary Clinton
through that unauthorized server and every email that she sent out through that server, to
send it to this foreign entity that is not Russia."
http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2018/07/congressional-record-transcript-on-chinagate.html
The Awan Affair, the most serious ever violation of national cybersecurity, has
demonstrated the spectacular incompetence of the CIA and FBI, which had allowed a family of
Pakistani nationals to surf congressional computers of various committees, including
Intelligence Committee, for years. None of the scoundrels had a security clearance! Their
ardent protector, Wasserman-Schultz (who threatened the DC Marschall) belongs to the
untouchables, unlike Assange:
https://www.theepochtimes.com/awan-congressional-scandal-in-spotlight-as-president-suggests-data-could-be-part-of-court-case_2500703.html
Trump and Putin made a mistake. I do not understand how it could have happened. They should
have issued communiqué that they have agreed to work toward peace and relieve tensions
and suppress conflicts around the world. (I do not have a time for now to write more.)
(sorry)
If Rosenstein & Mueller had done what they did with the publication of the indictments a
few days before the summit -- and were North Koreans -- they'd be in front of a firing squad
within 24 hours. Trump is completely powerless to do anything about these two. And this
has gone on for a year and a half. This is not a strength of democracy.
The US today is like Venezuela was shortly after Maduro was elected (by a narrow margin)
-- after Chavez's death -- and before violence eventually broke out. The losing opposition
refused to accept the result and tensions simmered for a long time.
Or after Morsi was elected in Egypt and before the military coup. The victory was narrow,
the opposition refused the to accept the result and tensions simmered for a long time.
Or maybe like Bush vs Gore. Bush was kinda saved by 9/11 which completely changed the
atmosphere.
Who knows what will happen. It's clear though that Trump believes he has forced his
opponents to play a bad hand in their outlandish craze the past week. It's why he doubled
down and invited Putin to Washington near the 2018 election time. He perceives this as a
chance to re-enact the 2016 election and coast to victory. The establishment is insane, and
if he brings their insanity out it plays to his favor.
The reception of the Trump- Putin meeting is breathtaking. I have in my 61 years never
witnessed such a hate and slander in the MSM. I have after this begun to actually dismiss
that Americans are sensible people! They have completely forgotten the cost of the Civil War.
We in Europe have not forgotten the cost of war and are not going there again. Ever.
The US has become a lunatic asylum with nuclear weapons, never mind Kim Jong Un, look a
squirrel! But the US is a threat to humanity, included it's protegé Israel, the new
Apartheid state.
"Is President Trump A Traitor Because He Wants Peace with Russia?"
Wait; what?
From badmouthing Russia to appointing Russophobes to high office, to imposing sanctions,
to illegally seizing Russian diplomatic property, to committing war crimes in Syria, to a
provocative military buildup in Europe, to arming the illegitimate Ukrainian "government,"
etc., presidential poseur Orange Clown has spent 99% of his "presidency" so far antagonizing
Russia; apparently trying to provoke some kind of Russian military response.
If it was anyone else other than Vladimir Putin calling the shots in Russia, WW3 probably
would've happened already. Yet PCR claims Orange Clown wants peace with Russia?
Note to PCR: It is Vladimir Putin who wants peace, not presidential poseur Orange Clown.
If Orange Clown has had some kind of spiritual epiphany/change of heart, he's going to have
to show good faith by taking some kind of unambiguous action; posturing won't suffice.
There is a lot of truth in what you say, but it does not account for the fight we are
currently witnessing. Two factions in the Money Party are at war with each other. Neither one
is willing to level with the public as to its true aims and motives -- they are fighting
viciously but under the bed sheets, which is why the spectacle looks so unhinged and
silly.
It appears that he is trying to save the US from financial collapse. Hence, he is a traitor
to MIC, particularly to the obscenely greedy Pentagon contractors. The US presidents and
Congress always pandered to MIC first and foremost. He broke (or at least tried to break) the
pattern.
Don't blame all Americans. Forty-eight percent of us voted for Trump; it is very likely
that more than half of the rest voted for Hellary only with great reluctance, owing largely
to the unprecedented campaign of vilification directed at Trump. The point is: a very large
majority of people in this country are nowhere near as insane as the media and elites are --
in fact, we're still nowhere near insane enough for their taste!
I think there is much more to the comment made by Putin regarding Bill Browder and his money flows into the DNC and Clinton
campaign. That would explain why the DNC didn't hand the servers over to the FBI after being hacked. If you follow the money a
lot of what happened during the election and afterwards in regards to Russia and Trump start to make sense. Could it be that we
are finally witnessing the removal the last layers of the center of the onion?
"... How much proof would I need to lend my voice to the escalation of tensions between two nuclear superpowers? Mountains. I personally would settle for nothing less than hard proof which can be independently verified by trusted experts like the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. ..."
"... Is that a big ask? Yes. Yes it is. That's what happens when government institutions completely discredit themselves as they did with the false narratives advanced in the manufacturing of support for the Iraq invasion. You don't get to butcher a million Iraqis in a war based on lies, turn around a few years later and say "We need new cold war escalations with a nuclear superpower but we can't prove it because the evidence is secret." That's not a thing. Copious amounts of hard, verifiable proof or GTFO. So far we have no evidence besides the confident-sounding assertions of government insiders and their mass media mouthpieces, which is the same as no evidence. ..."
As
we just discussed , some major news stories have recently dropped about what a horrible horrifying menace the Russian Federation
is to the world , and as always I have nothing to offer the breathless pundits on CNN and MSNBC but my completely unsatisfied skepticism.
My skepticism of the official Russia narrative remains so completely unsatisfied that if mainstream media were my husband I would
already be cheating on it with my yoga instructor.
I do not believe the establishment Russia narrative. I do not believe that Donald Trump colluded with the Russian government to
rig the 2016 election. I do not believe the Russian government did any election rigging for Trump to collude with. This is not because
I believe Vladimir Putin is some kind of blueberry-picking girl scout, and it certainly isn't because I think the Russian government
is unwilling or incapable of meddling in the affairs of other nations to some extent when it suits them. It is simply because I am
aware that the US intelligence community lies constantly as a matter of policy, and because I understand how the burden of proof
works.
At this time, I see no reason to espouse any belief system which embraces as true the assertion that Russia meddled in the 2016
elections in any meaningful way, or that it presents a unique and urgent threat to the world which must be aggressively dealt with.
But all the establishment mouthpieces tell me that I must necessarily embrace these assertions as known, irrefutable fact. Here are
five things that would have to change in order for that to happen:
1. Proof of a hacking conspiracy to elect Trump.
The first step to getting a heretic like myself aboard the Russia hysteria train would be the existence of publicly available
evidence of the claims made about election meddling in 2016, which rises to the level required in a post-Iraq invasion world. So
far, that burden of proof for Russian hacking allegations has not come anywhere remotely close to being met.
How much proof would I need to lend my voice to the escalation of tensions between two nuclear superpowers? Mountains. I personally
would settle for nothing less than hard proof which can be independently verified by trusted experts like the Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity.
Is that a big ask? Yes. Yes it is. That's what happens when government institutions completely discredit themselves as they did
with the false narratives advanced
in the manufacturing of support for the Iraq invasion. You don't get to butcher a million Iraqis in a war based on lies, turn around
a few years later and say "We need new cold war escalations with a nuclear superpower but we can't prove it because the evidence
is secret." That's not a thing. Copious amounts of hard, verifiable proof or GTFO. So far we have no evidence besides the confident-sounding
assertions of government insiders and their mass media mouthpieces, which is the same as no evidence.
2. Proof that election meddling actually influenced the election in a meaningful way.
Even if Russian hackers did exfiltrate Democratic party emails and give them to WikiLeaks, if it didn't affect the election, who
cares? That's a single-day, second-page story at best, meriting nothing beyond a "Hmm, interesting, turns out Russia tried and failed
to influence the US election," followed by a shrug and moving on to something that actually matters.
After it has been thoroughly proven that Russia meddled in the elections in a meaningful way, it must then be established that
that meddling had an actual impact on the election results.
3. Some reason to believe Russian election meddling was unwarranted and unacceptable.
The US government,
by a very wide margin , interferes in the elections of other countries far, far more than any other government on earth does.
The US government's
own
data shows that it has deliberately meddled in the elections of 81 foreign governments between 1946 and 2000,
including Russia in the nineties.
This is public knowledge. A former CIA Director
cracked jokes about it on Fox News earlier this year.
If I'm going to abandon my skepticism and accept the Gospel According to Maddow, after meaningful, concrete election interference
has been clearly established I'm going to need a very convincing reason to believe that it is somehow wrong or improper for a government
to attempt to respond in kind to the undisputed single worst offender of this exact offense. It makes no sense for the United States
to actively create an environment in which election interference is something that governments do to one another, and then cry like
a spanked child when its election is interfered with by one of the very governments whose elections the US recently meddled in.
This is nonsense. America being far and away the worst election meddler on the planet makes it a fair target for election meddling
by not just Russia, but every country in the world. It is very obviously moral and acceptable for any government on earth to interfere
in America's elections as long as it remains the world's worst offender in that area. In order for Russia to be in the wrong if it
interfered in America's elections, some very convincing argument I've not yet heard will have to be made to support that case.
4. Proof that the election meddling went beyond simply giving Americans access to information about their government.
If all the Russians did was simply show Americans
emails of Democratic Party officials talking
to one another and circulate some
MSM articles as claimed in the
ridiculous Russian troll farm allegations , that's nothing to get upset about. If anything, Americans should be upset that they
had to hear about Democratic Party corruption through the grapevine instead of having light shed on it by the American officials
whose job it is to do so. Complaints about election meddling is only valid if that election meddling isn't comprised of truth and
facts.
5. A valid reason to believe escalated tensions between two nuclear superpowers are worthwhile.
After it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Russia did indeed meddle in the US elections in a meaningful way, and
after it has then been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Russia actually influenced election results in a significant way, and
after the case has been clearly made that it was bad and wrong for Russia to do this instead of fair and reasonable, and after it
has been clearly proven that the election meddling went beyond simply telling Americans the truth about their government, the question
then becomes what, if anything, should be done about it?
If you look at the actions that this administration has taken over the last year and a half, the answer to that question appears
to be harsh sanctions, NATO expansionism, selling arms to Ukraine, throwing out diplomats, increasing military presence along Russia's
border, a Nuclear Posture Review which is much more aggressive toward Russia, repeatedly bombing Syria, and just generally creating
more and more opportunities for something to go catastrophically wrong with one of the two nations' aging, outdated nuclear arsenals,
setting off a chain of events from which there is no turning back and no surviving.
And the pundits and politicians keep pushing for more and more escalations, at this very moment braying with one voice that Trump
must aggressively confront Putin about Mueller's indictments or withdraw from the peace talks. But is it worth it? Is it worth risking
the life of every terrestrial organism to, what? What specifically would be gained that makes increasing the risk of nuclear catastrophe
worthwhile? Making sure nobody interferes in America's fake elections? I'd need to see a very clear and specific case made, with
a 'pros' and 'cons' list and "THE POTENTIAL DEATH OF LITERALLY EVERYTHING" written in big red letters at the top of the 'cons' column.
Rallying the world to cut off Russia from the world stage and cripple its economy has been been a goal of the US power establishment
since the collapse of the Soviet Union, so there's no reason to believe that even the people who are making the claims against Russia
actually believe them. The goal is
crippling Russia to handicap China , and ultimately to shore up global hegemony for the US-centralized empire by preventing the
rise of any rival superpowers. The sociopathic alliance of plutocrats and intelligence/defense agencies who control that empire are
willing to threaten nuclear confrontation in order to ensure their continued dominance. All of their actions against Russia since
2016 have had everything to do with establishing long-term planetary dominance and nothing whatsoever to do with election meddling.
Those five things would need to happen before I'd be willing to jump aboard the "Russia! Russia! Russia!" train. Until then I'll
just keep pointing to the total lack of evidence and how very, very far the CIA/CNN Russia narrative is from credibility.
* * *
Internet censorship is getting pretty bad, so the best way to keep seeing the stuff I publish is to get on the mailing list for
my website , which will get you an email notification for everything I
publish. My articles are entirely reader and listener-funded, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking
me on Facebook , following my antics on
Twitter , checking out my
podcast , throwing some money into my hat on
Patreon or
Paypal , or buying my book
Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers .
HILLARY CLINTON'S COMPROMISED EMAILS WERE GOING TO A FOREIGN ENTITY – NOT RUSSIA! FBI Agent Ignored Evidence Report from
Decameron
FBI Peter Strzok – the philandering FBI chief investigator who facilitated the FISA surveillance of Trump campaign officials in
2016 – has been exposed for ignoring evidence of major Clinton-related breaches of national security and has been accused of lying
about it.
Hillary Clinton's emails, "every single one except for four, over 30,000 of them, were going to an address that was not on the
distribution l ist," Texas Congressman Louis Gohmert said on Friday. And they went to "an unauthorized source that was a foreign
entity unrelated to Russia." The information came from Intelligence Community Inspector General Chuck McCullough, who sent his
investigator Frank Rucker, along with an ICIG attorney Janette McMillan, to brief Strzok.
Gohmert nailed Strozk at the open Congressional hearing on Friday the 13 th in Washington, but Strzok claimed no recollection.
Gohmert accused him of lying. Maybe Strzok's amnesia about the briefing on Hillary Clinton's email server is nothing but standard
FBI training: i.e., when in doubt, don't recall. It's far more likely that there is a campaign of deliberate obstructing justice,
selective prosecution, and political targeting by top officials embedded in the permanent bureaucracy of the Justice Department,
FBI, and broader IC. Strzok is not alone.
And what "foreign entity" got Hillary's classified emails? Trump haters in British Intelligence and those in Israel who want to
manipulate the US presidency – whatever party prevails – come to mind. Listen closely and you may hear rumors around Washington that
it was Israel, not Russia, that was the foreign power involved in approaching Trump advisers. Time to follow that thread.
Both Representatives Gohmert (TX) and Trey Gowdy (SC) did a great job trying to pierce the veil of denials. But, right after Strzok's
amnesia in Congress, the Justice Department announced the indictment of GRU members. Change of subject. The same foul stench noted
by Publius Tacitus about the GRU indictment filled Congress as Agent Strzok testified.
So, a foreign power (not Russia but "hostile" according to Gohmert) modified internal instructions in HC's server so that a blind
copy went to this other country, all 30,000 e-mails. I wonder what was different about the four that were not so copied. What
are likely countries? The UK, China and Israel would be at the top of my list
So the emails were being bcc-ed or the server was set up to copy all emails passing through it to some foreign server? I am curious
about the mechanics.
It seems that the server was the mechanism. Whether that was by physical access to the server or electronically at a distance.
Her entire system was not secure and could be easily penetrated.
"... In December, a letter from Senate Homeland Security Committee Chair Ron Johnson (R-WI) revealed that Strzok and other FBI officials effectively "decriminalized" Clinton's behavior through a series of edits to James Comey's original statement. ..."
"... The letter described how outgoing Deputy Director Andrew McCabe exchanged drafts of Comey's statement with senior FBI officials , including Strzok, Strzok's direct supervisor , E.W. "Bill" Priestap, Jonathan Moffa, and an unnamed employee from the Office of General Counsel (identified by Newsweek as DOJ Deputy General Counsel Trisha Anderson) - in a coordinated conspiracy among top FBI brass. ..."
"... In summary; the FBI launched an investigation into Hillary Clinton's private server, ignored evidence it may have been hacked, downgraded the language in Comey's draft to decriminalize her behavior, and then exonerated her by recommending the DOJ not prosecute. ..."
"... Meanwhile, a tip submitted by an Australian diplomat tied to a major Clinton Foundation deal launched the FBI's counterintelligence operation against the Trump campaign - initially spearheaded by the same Peter Strzok who worked so hard to get Hillary off the hook. ..."
FBI counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok reportedly ignored "an irregularity in the
metadata" indicating that Hillary Clinton's server may had been breached, while FBI top brass
made significant edits to former Director James Comey's statement specifically minimizing how
likely it was that hostile actors had gained access.
Sources told
Fox News that Strzok, who sent anti-Trump text messages that got him removed from the
ongoing Special Counsel Robert Mueller's Russia probe, was told about the metadata anomaly in
2016, but Strzok did not support a formal damage assessment. One source said: " Nothing
happened. "
In December, a letter
from Senate Homeland Security Committee Chair Ron Johnson (R-WI) revealed that Strzok and other
FBI officials effectively "decriminalized" Clinton's behavior through a series of edits to
James Comey's original statement.
The letter described how outgoing Deputy Director Andrew McCabe exchanged drafts of Comey's
statement with senior FBI officials , including Strzok, Strzok's direct supervisor , E.W. "Bill" Priestap, Jonathan
Moffa, and an unnamed employee from the Office of General Counsel (identified by Newsweek as DOJ Deputy General Counsel Trisha
Anderson) - in a coordinated conspiracy among top FBI brass.
It was already known that Strzok - who was demoted to the FBI's HR department for sending
anti-Trump text messages to his mistress -
downgraded the language describing Clinton's conduct from the criminal charge of "gross
negligence" to "extremely careless."
Notably, "Gross negligence" is a legal term of art in criminal law often associated with
recklessness. According to Black's Law Dictionary, it is defined as " A severe degree of
negligence taken as reckless disregard ," and " Blatant indifference to one's legal duty,
other's safety, or their rights ." "Extremely careless," on the other hand, is not a legal term
of art.
18 U.S. Code §
793 "Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information" specifically uses the phrase
"gross negligence." Had Comey used the phrase, he would have essentially declared that Hillary
had broken the law.
In order to justify downgrading Clinton's behavior to "extremely careless," however, FBI
officials also needed to minimize the impact of her crimes. As revealed in the letter from Rep.
Johnson, the FBI downgraded the probability that Clinton's server was hacked by hostile actors
from " reasonably likely " to " possible ."
"Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained
access to Secretary Clinton's personal e-mail account," Comey said in his statement.
By doing so, the FBI downgraded Clinton's negligence - thus supporting the "extremely
careless" language.
The FBI also edited Clinton's exoneration letter to remove a reference to the "sheer volume"
of classified material on the private server, which - according to the original draft "supports
an inference that the participants were grossly negligent in their handling of that
information." Furthermore, all references to the Intelligence Community's involvement in
investigating Clinton's private email server were removed as well.
Director Comey's original statement acknowledged the FBI had worked with its partners in the
Intelligence Community to assess potential damage from Secretary Clinton's use of a private
email server. The original statement read:
W]e have done extensive work with the assistance of our colleagues elsewhere in the
Intelligence Community to understand what indications there might be of compromise by hostile
actors in connection with the private email operation.
In summary; the FBI launched an investigation into Hillary Clinton's private server, ignored
evidence it may have been hacked, downgraded the language in Comey's draft to decriminalize her
behavior, and then exonerated her by recommending the DOJ not prosecute.
Meanwhile, a tip submitted by an Australian diplomat tied to a major Clinton Foundation deal
launched the FBI's counterintelligence operation against the Trump campaign - initially
spearheaded by the same Peter Strzok who worked so hard to get Hillary off the hook.
And Strzok still collects a taxpayer-funded paycheck.
Assistant Attorney General Rosenstein announced a bizarre indictment against Russian military intelligence operatives today that,
rather than confirming the case of "Russian meddling" in the U.S. 2016 Presidential election raises more questions. Here are the
major oddities:
How did the FBI obtain information about activity on the DNC and DCCC servers when the DNC/DCCC refused to give the Feds access
to the servers/computers?
Why does Crowdstrike get credit as being a competent computer security firm when, according to the indictment, they completely
and utterly failed to stop the "hacks?"
Why does the indictment refuse to name Wikileaks by name as the Russian collaborator?
Please go read the indictment ( here ) for yourself.
I have taken the time to put together a timeline based on the indictment and other information already on the public record. Here
is the bottomline--if US officials knew as early as April that Russia was hacking the DNC, why did it take US officials more than
six months to stop the activity? The statement of "facts" contained in the indictment also raise another troubling issue--what is
the source of the information? For example, if the FBI was not given access to the DNC/DCCC servers and computers then how do they
know what happened on specific dates as alleged in the complaint?
Here is the timeline:
18 April 2016--The Russians hacked into the DNC using DCCC computers and installed malware on the network. (p. 10, para 26)
22 April 2016--The GRU (Russian military intelligence) compressed gigabytes of data using X-tunnel and moved it to a GRU computer
located in ILLINOIS. (p. 11, para 26a)
28 April 2016--The Russians stole documents from the DCCC and moved them on to the computer in Illinois. (p. 11, para 26b).
Late April - 5 May 2016--DNC leaders were tipped to the hack in late April. Chief executive Amy Dacey got a call from her operations
chief saying that their information technology team had noticed some unusual network activity. That evening, she spoke with Michael
Sussmann, a DNC lawyer who is a partner with Perkins Coie in Washington. Soon after, Sussmann, a formerfederal prosecutor who handled
computer crime cases, called Henry, whom he has known for many years. (
Ellen Nakashima's 14 June Washington Post article ) (see p. 12, para 32 of th
13 May 2016--The Russians deleted logs and files from a DNC computer. (p. 11, para 31)
25 May - 1 June 2016--the Russians hacked the DNC Microsoft Exchange Server and stole thousands of emails from DNC employees.
(p. 11, para 29).
8 June 2016--DCLeaks.com set up, allegedly by the GRU (no proof offered).
Also created Facebook and Twitter accounts (pp. 13-14, paras. 35, 38, 39)
10 June 2016--Ultimately, the [Crowdstrike] teams decided it was necessary to replace the software on every computer at the DNC.
Until the network was clean, secrecy was vital. On the afternoon of Friday, June 10 , all DNC employees were instructed to leave
their laptops in the office. (
Esquire
Magazine offers a different timeline )
22 June 2016--Wikileaks contacts Guccier 2.0 stating, "send any new material here for us to review and it will have a much higher
impact than what you are doing."
14 July 2016--The GRU, under the guise of Guccifer 2.0, sent Wikileaks an attachment with an encrypted file that explained how
to access an online archive of "stolen" documents.
15 August 2016--Guccifer, alleged to be the GRU, has email exchange with Roger Stone.
22 July 2016--Wikileaks publishes 40,000 plus emails (note, the Indictment INCORRECTLY states that the number was 20,000).
September 2016--The GRU obtained access to a DNC server hosted by a third party and took "data analytics" info. (p. 13, para 34)
October 2016--A functioning Linux-based version of X-agent remained on the DNC server until October. (p. 12, para 32)
Another great curiosity is the timing of the announcement of the indictments. Why today? There was no urgency. No one was on the
verge of fleeing the United States. All of the defendants are in Russia and beyond our reach.
A careful read of the indictment reveals a level of detail that could only have been obtained from intelligence sources (which
means that information would be invalidated if the defendants ever decide to challenge the indictment) or it was provided by an unreliable
third party.
I was shocked to discover, thanks to the indictment, how inept Crowdstrike was in this entire process. Not only did more than
30 days lapse before they attempted to shutdown the Russian hacking by installing new software and issuing new email passwords, but
their so-called security fix left the Russians running an operation until October 2016. How can you be considered a credible cyber
security company yet fail to shutdown the alleged Russian intrusion? It does not make sense.
The most glaring deficit in the indictment is the lack of supporting evidence to back up the charges levied in the indictment.
How do we know that computer files were erased if the FBI did not have access to the computers and the servers? How do we know the
names of the 12 Russian GRU officers? The Russians do not publish directories of secret organizations. Where did this information
come from?
It would appear that the release of the indictment today was a deliberate political act designed to detract and distract from
the Trump visit to the UK and to put pressure on him to confront Vladimir Putin. I have heard from many of my former colleagues who
are hoping that Putin calls the Rosenstein bluff. If forced to reveal the "evidence" behind this indictment because of a challenge
from a defendant, the results will be a disaster for the prosecution.
A report appeared yesterday on the 'True Pundit' site entitled 'Mueller Plagiarizes Right-Wing YouTube Journalist's Lawsuit
Against Podesta in New Russian Indictments; DOJ's Big Splash Appears Fabricated.'
''George Webb sued John Podesta in 2017, along with other elected and public officials including Justice Department personnel
but today, exact language, accusations and content from Webb's suit appeared in the Justice Department's indictment. Beyond
strange.
'Mueller swiped Webb's hacking allegations against Imran Awan and simply flipped them -- almost word for word – and made
the exact allegations against Russian operatives.'
The reference is to a class action brought last November against John Podesta and others by one George Webb Sweigert and
so far anonymous others against John Podesta and others.
It has long seemed to me that it is likely that we have only seen the tip of the iceberg in relation to the activities of
the Awans. However, I do not feel able to take an informed view on whether the 'True Pundit' report and the material presented
by Sweigert reflect accurate information fed by discontented insiders, genuine 'fake news', or some combination of both.
I would be most interested in what others make of this.
Steven Wasserman, Brother of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, to Oversee Awan Family Investigation Jul 27, 2017
https://squawker.org/all/st...
Louie Gohmert, June 5, 2018
"'We need someone assigned to the Awan case that will protect congress from further breaches and from the Awan crime family...
for heavens sake, we need someone in the FBI to step up and do their job'"
In his opening remarks, Gohmert, a former prosecutor, argued that Rosenstein was "disqualified from being able to select
or name" a special counsel because he had counseled Trump on the matter; therefore, Rosenstein would be a material witness.
The truepundit article is fake news IMO. The only 'plagiarism' cited in it is the use of a domain name similar to the Dems
fundraiser site;
actblue.com
. The class action against Podesta alleges the domain was set up by Awan and the DOJ indictment alleges it was set up by the
GRU. Having now read them both, aside from references to 'spearphishing' - a well know hacking technique - I cannot see another
example of significant repeat language.
Thanks for researching! My eyes glaze over whenever I try to read thru generally boring legal docs. Since I had not encountered
Truepundit before, I read some of the other articles on their front page and realized it's a conservative news site. There
are more and more of those lately. Much needed as a balance to the mostly liberal MSM. I put on my "skeptical spectacles" for
both.
My educated guess as to the answer to your three questions is the same as you imply: 1. everything they have they have through
hearsay from Crowdstrike. 2. See #1. 3. Wikileaks is the only party who would actually respond to the indictment and seek discovery,
so leaving them out means they're not in danger of actually having to produce any evidence.
The timing of this announcement illustrates how badly the deep state desires to sabotage Trump's plan to improve US-Russia
relations. Since they have been playing the Russia card for so long with no real results and to the detriment of their credibility,
the urge to try to obstruct Trump at the 11th hour must have been overwhelming.
Between Trumps experience dealing with shady characters in his prior career (esp the casino industry) and what he has no
doubt learned about his enemies in the borg since getting elected, I'm guessing he has contingency plans. And if not, he has
great Road Runner-like instincts :)
I have a sneaking suspicion that Mr. Mueller, Rosenstein and others are a stalking horse for a complete reorganization of the
DOJ and FBI. By that I mean it appears to now be beyond reasonable doubt that the above have demonstrated that they are highly
political organizations, dripping with partisan agendas.
The question then becomes "how can justice be blind in the USA in the face of incontrovertible evidence it ain't?". To me
that sounds like a call to action for President Trump.
I suspect it is more a case of ineptitude than political bias. They were charged with finding meddling, so they are finding
meddling by using imagination rather than evidence. Can you imagine the uproar if they were to conclude a two-year investigation
by saying, "Sorry, we found nothing" at the end? We don't have to imagine, since that's what happened after the Clinton email
investigation.
I think you could be right. If any agreements are made at the Helsinki summit, Trump will have to reign in the deep state to
implement them. I've been wondering why there hasn't been a complete house cleaning at DOJ and FBI yet. Perhaps Trump is waiting
for them to "jump the shark" so blatantly that when it finally comes it will be seen as the end of their long farce by everyone
but the true believers, who by that point will be seen as delusional by the general public. Trump is the master of the game
of perception. If he pulls it off the Democrats get crushed this fall. If not, we get president Pence next spring. Game on.
I think Rosenstein is bucking to be fired by Trump. This will then allow the Democrats, to claim obstruction of justice, justifying
impeachment. ( Assumption being the Democrats win control of Congress and Senate ) He's been deeply provocative giving ample
reason for said dismissal, Trump has resisted up until now. As long as he resists the temptation Congress will eventually impeach
Rosenstein. As this article went to print documents for his impeachment are being drawn up for release on Monday possibly,
of course subject to politics. ( Please edit the link if you feel it's inappropriate )
https://www.zerohedge.com/n...
PT,
Please excuse me if this is a far out idiotic thought re the timing of the indictment, but doesn't this at least possibly give
Putin some power over Trump? Putin could threaten Trump with having one of the accused "confess" to the hacking per a "collusion"
agreement between Russia and the Trump campaign. If that happened, Trump would be promptly impeached. It would be a whirlwind
circus.
Thx for the confirmation. Sometimes I "war game" these things over a couple of Scotches. I come up with all sorts of notions,
but this one seemed reasonable.
1. How did Mueller arrive at his conclusions? There is no exposition of that in the indictment.
2. Has Mueller established a precedent? Wouldn't other countries use this indictment as an example to indict NSA and other
US intelligence personnel for conducting "normal" intelligence activities.
3. Rosenstein in his press conference reiterated what is written in the indictment that no US person was involved, and that
it did not change the outcome of the election. Does that imply that Mueller & the DOJ are stating that there was no collusion
between the Russian government & the Trump campaign? If that is the case what is the remit of the Mueller special counsel?
4. Why is this indictment handed over to DOJ NSD for prosecution rather than Mueller taking it to the court? Isn't the DOJ
NSD implicated in the FISA abuse being investigated by IG Horowitz?
5. The Russian intelligence agents are innocent until convicted by a court. An indictment is only the prosecution's story.
In this case the prosecution has yet to provide the level of evidence required for a conviction.
6. As is the case with the Russian trolls indicted by Mueller, these agents could ostensibly hire counsel and cause Mueller
much embarrassment by requesting evidentiary discovery. Mueller is now backtracking on the Russian troll case as he either
has no evidence to back the indictment or is unwilling to provide defense counsel with the same which means the prosecution
goes no where.
7. Was this indictment primarily a political document for the TDS afflicted media and people at large? Are Mueller and the
Deep Staters assuming that this indictment goes no where as the Russians will not contest the indictment, so it is a cost free,
politically beneficial indictment?
My personal favourite part is this one :"All twelve defendants are members of the GRU, a Russian Federation
intelligence agency within the Main Intelligence Directorate of the
Russian military." Mueller & Co haven't a clue.
For example, if the FBI was not given access to the DNC/DCCC servers and computers then how do they know what happened on
specific dates as alleged in the complaint?
I believe the NSA records and stores metadata for all Internet traffic, so the FBI asked the NSA for whatever the NSA has
for the DNC/DCCC computers then excluded legitimate sources/destinations for the data before analyzing the rest. Once you have
loaded all the data into a database, it's not difficult.
I have heard from many of my former colleagues who are hoping that Putin calls the Rosenstein bluff. If forced to reveal
the "evidence" behind this indictment because of a challenge from a defendant, the results will be a disaster for the prosecution.
The GRU is part of the military so Putin should order one or two "over the top" to "attack" the Mueller organization. Russia
should be able to afford the best defense lawyers in the United States and should be able to circumvent all and any Treasury
Dept. attempts to block any funding.
I thought immediately that Rosentstein's announcement of this indictment was strangely timed. Your analysis indicates it
was put together hurriedly. Therefore, my first thought was that perhaps Rosenstein was attempting to prevent Trump from meeting
with Putin, as many of the opposition media have suggested Trump should not meet with Putin because of the announcement of
the indictment. After all, they say a POTUS should not hang around with the likes of Putin.
However, most anyone who has followed Trump lately would guess that Trump would not change his planned schedule and would
surely keep his schedule and would indeed confront Putin about the indictment.
Then, if that is what they were hoping, it puts Trump in a spot. If Putin denies the entire story and provides Trump with
a plausible denial and Trump then wants to investigate further, Trump could be accused of doing what the opposition has claimed
all along--"colluding." with the baddest Russian of all.
I think Trump would not be stupid enough to accept either Rosensteein's story or Putin's denial without investigating.
It's Rosentstein's word against the Russians' word in that case, and Trump is caught in the middle and in the same place
he's been all along.
I do hope one or all of the accused do ask for a trial. No way, however, would I look forward to that media circus for weeks
and weeks.
I personally felt the story was made up when Grucifer was mentioned and purported to be Russian. I thought it convenient
that the Russians in America who had been first reported as harmlessly trying to meddle while in the U.S. would be back in
Russia and accused just now. Our FBI is truly inept if that is the case. They let the Boston bombers get away with their attack.
They let the Pulse night club jihadist get away with his, and they let the "professional school shooter" fulfill his destiny.
There are so many tangled webs from those who have practiced to deceive that we are faced with never finding the truth in
our lifetimes.
My only hope for relief from this now, strangely,Lisa Page. I do hope she has been burned badly enough by being stupid enough
to become involved with a married co-worker, who is obviously in love with only himself, that she somehow provides us some
answers.
I know that I will surely be happier when this horror story is over.
If the 12 indicted are actually Russian military intelligence officers then wouldn't it be a simple matter for their superior
to order them to front up and demand their day in court?
Sure, there is a risk that they will be convicted, but spooks willingly undertake far more hazardous missions than this.
A promise could be made that if they are found guilty the Russian government will move heaven and earth to arrange a spy-swap
to get them back and a fabulous recompense for their trouble, so the reward is worth the risk.
Honestly, the prosecutor showed terrible judgement when he included Concord Management in a previous indictment, only to
see that company's lawyer calling his bluff. He appears to be under the impression that naming only Russian persons and not
Russian companies will prevent that from happening again.
Thank you PT for your analysis and commentary on this subject.
It seems this indictment is similar to the indictment filed earlier this year against the Russian astroturfers. And in that
instance, one of the companies charged is defending itself in US court. Not only that, it opted to exercise its right to a
speedy trial!!!
From what I've read, the Mueller team was totally caught off guard since it didn't expect any of the Russians to mount a
defense. According to Andrew McCarthy at National Review who's been diligently commenting on the Mueller probe and related
matters, the special counsel's team made the mistake of filing the indictment when it was evidently unprepared to go to trial.
Mueller's team has consequently asked for delays because it can't produce the DISCOVERY that the defendant has a right to review.
I don't know what the latest news is about the case but at one point the Mueller team provided a HUGE cache of internet postings
allegedly made by the defendant BUT THEY WERE IN RUSSIAN. How on earth did that influence American voters?
Overcome by events. They already are, and the event in question hasn't even happened yet. They are also claiming the this indictment
"proves" treason by Trump, even though it does not even suggest that Trump was involved.
They waited TWO YEARS to produce this "evidence" - which is without evidence, merely assertions.? That in itself condemns
it to complete hogwash.
As for the NSA, they could have produced this stuff at any time in the last two years without compromising any "methods
and sources" since we all know since Snowden and Binney how much they capture and retain. Instead, they had only "moderate
confidence" of Russian "meddling" in the January, 2017, "assessment."
They allegedly had to rely on the Dutch to penetrate the hackers? And that story was hogwash from the get-go.
As for how they "know" that certain files were erased, that could have come from the "certified true images" provided by
CrowdStrike to the FBI - but since CrowdStrike is utterly compromised due to the anti-Russian status of its CEO, that's worthless
"evidence."
If Wikileaks was in contact with Guccifer 2.0, then why did James Clapper expend effort trying to shut down the DoJ negotiations
with Assange who offered "technical evidence" that would prove the Russians had nothing to do with the Wikileaks DNC emails?
Sincerely hope Sy Hersh gets his hands on an actual copy of that FBI Seth Rich report, because if he does, the FBI and the
DoJ are going down. Literally everyone in top management of those agencies (and likely at CIA as well, and possibly NSA) will
be up on charges and headed to jail for actual treason.
They have no choice now but to go all in on this stuff because otherwise everyone involved is going to jail.
You missed the obvious corollary: CrowdStrike is obviously a subsidiary of the GRU. Clever moves disguised as bumbling incompetence!
I second the motion to have one of the Russians "volunteer" to come to the US to clear his name, except that the poor guy will
probably end up in Gitmo.
The Witchfinder General has excelled himself this time. Would I be correct in concluding that more sources & methods have
been burnt here? "KOVALEV deleted his search history" for example is intel that has to have come from inside a GRU computer,
assuming it is true of course.
I'd also just like to highlight that a significant part of this indictment is dedicated to the involvement of both Wikileaks
and Bitcoin. It appears to me that a secondary aim here is to bolster Congressional support to outlaw both.
So, the DOJ is operating as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democratic Party in politicking against the President and Congress
controlled by the other party. Is this correct?
How else is one to read this indictment, its coordination with the Democratic leadership ("he must pull out of the Putin
meeting" squawk), and the "unrelated" matter of attacking Rep. Jordan about 25 year old "abuse" charges dating from his time
at OSU? Who was responsible for those "untraceable" attacks-the MSM, the DOJ, the Democratic Party? Is there any light between
these institutions at this point? The attack seems to have been successfully fought off, and Jordan is now parrying with a
direct attack at Rosenstein.
The pace of all this is dizzying. Is anyone else wondering where it leads to?
By indicting foreign intelligence agents has the USA crossed a line so that now USA intelligence agents are fair game in the
courts of foreign lands?
Looking at this deception over the past few years I have always believed its a game of tit-for-tat where the USA hands are
not clean either and that there was a mutual understanding amongst parties that there is a limit to retribution.
"... The Donald likes to complain about fake news when these implicate him, but on the other hand he creates and acts on fake news himself: see the Russian sanctions, Skripal case, the two Syrian attacks based on fake news created by the White Helmets, paid by the State Department. ..."
As if the Donald did not sanctioned to death the Russians on every possible level. How is
this different from Mueller's and comp witch hunt against the Russians?
The Donald likes to complain about fake news when these implicate him, but on the
other hand he creates and acts on fake news himself: see the Russian sanctions, Skripal case,
the two Syrian attacks based on fake news created by the White Helmets, paid by the State
Department.
Looks like another Steele dossier and it has Brennan fingertips all over. Looks like another
exercise in creation of a parallel reality. The content of the document implies that malware was
installed in GRU computers and those computers were monitored 24/7 by CIA. The documents
describes both GNU officers and DNC employees as unsophisticated idiots. DNC employees who who
should undergo some basic security training were easily deceived by fishing emails from a foreign
country. And a good practice is to disable hotlinks in emails.
I always suspected that Guccifer 2.0 was a false flag operation to hide the leak of DNC
documents. If this is true this was really sophisticated false flag.
BTW GRU is military intelligence unit, so to hack into civil computers is kind of out of
their main sphere of activities. They also should be aware about NSA capabilities of intercepting
the traffic.
I especially like the following tidbit: "On or about June 1,2016, the Conspirators attempted
to delete traces of their presence on the DCCC network using the computer program CCleaner." This
is how third rate hackers (wannabes) behave.
First of all the investigation of DNC was botched by hiring a private, connected to
Democratic Party security company (Crowdstrike), so no data from it are acceptable in court. FBI
did not have any access to the data.
Which means that Mueller is a patsy of more powerful forces
How about speed of download that proved to be excessive for Internet connection? Nothing is
said about Dmitri
Alperovitch role is all this investigation, which completely discredit all that results? See for example diuscusstion at
Why
Crowdstrike's Russian Hacking Story Fell Apart- Say Hello to Fancy Bear And, again, the question is: Was Guccifer 2.0 in itself a USA false flag operation ?
Looks like Mueller is acting as an operative of Democratic Party. Could not dig up enough
dirt on Trump, so he now saddled his beloved horse, trying to provoke Russia to respond.
And this John Le Carre style details about individuals supposedly involved. Probably were
provided by CIA ;-)
4. By in or around April 2016, the Conspirators also hacked into the computer networks of
the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee ("DCCC") and the Democratic National Committee
("DNC"). The Conspirators covertly monitored the computers of dozens of DCCC and DNC employees,
implanted hundreds of files containing malicious computer code ("malware"), and stole emails
and other documents from the DCCC and DNC.
5. By in or around April 2016, the Conspirators began to plan the release of materials
stolen from the Clinton Campaign, DCCC, and DNC.
6. Beginning in or around June 2016, the Conspirators staged and released tens of thousands
of the stolen emails and documents. They did so using fictitious online personas, including
"DCLeaks" and "Guccifer 2.0."
7. The Conspirators also used the Guccifer 2.0 persona to release additional stolen
documents through a website maintained by an organization ("Organization Iй), that had
previously posted documents stolen from U.S. persons, entities, and the U.S. government The
Conspirators continued their U.S. election-interference operations through in or around
November 2016.
8. To hide their connections to Russia and the Russian government, the Conspirators used
false identities and made false statements about their identities. To further avoid detection,
the Conspirators used a network of computers located across the world, including in the United
States, and paid for this infrastructure using cryptocurrency.
... ... ...
13. Defendant ALEKSEY VIKTOROVICH LUKASHEV
(Лукашсв
Алексей
Викторович) was a Senior Lieutenant
in the Russian military assigned to ANTONOV's department within Unit 26165. LUKASHEV used
various online personas, including "Den Katenberg" and "Yuliana Martynova." In on around 2016,
LUKASHEV sent spcarphisliing emails to members of the Clinton Campaign and affiliated
individuals, including the chairman of the Clinton Campaign.
14. Defendant SERGEY ALEKSANDROVICH MORGACHEV
(Моргачев
Сергей
Александрович)
was a Lieutenant Colonel in the Russian military assigned to Unit 26165. MORGACHEV oversaw a
department within Unit 26165 dedicated to developing and managing malware, including a hacking
tool used by the GRU known as "X-Agent." During the hacking of the DCCC and DNC networks,
MORGACHEV supervised the co-conspirators who developed and monitored the X-Agent malware
implanted on those computers.
15. Defendant NIKOLAY YURYEVICH KOZACHEK (Козачек
Николай
Юрьевич) was a Lieutenant Captain in the Russian
military assigned to MORGACHEV's department within Unit 26165. KOZACHEK used a variety of
monikers, including "kazak" and "blablablal234565 " KOZACHEK developed, customized, and
monitored X-Agent malware used to hack the DCCC and DNC networks beginning in or around April
2016.
16. Defendant PAVEL VYACHESLAVOVICH YERSHOV (Ершов
Павел
Вячеславович) was a
Russian military officer assigned to MORGACHEV's department within Unit 26165. In or around
2016, YERSHOV assisted KOZACHEK and other co-conspirators in testing and customizing X-Agent
malware before actual deployment and use.
17. Defendant ARTEM ANDREYEVICH MALYSHEV (Малышев
Арт е м
Андреевич) was a Second Lieutenant in the
Russian military assigned to MORGACHEV's department within Unit 26165. MALYSIIEV used a variety
of monikers, including "djangomagicdev" and "realblatr." In or around 2016, MALYSHEV monitored
X-Agent malware implanted on the DCCC and DNC networks.
18. Defendant ALEKSANDR VLADIMIROVICH OSADCHUK
(Осадчук
Александр В
ладимирович) was a Colonel in
the Russian military and the commanding officer of Unit 74455. Unit 74455 was located at 22
Kirova Street, Khimki, Moscow, a building referred to within the GRU as the 'Tower." Unit 74455
assisted in the release of stolen documents through the DC Leaks and Guccifer 2.0 personas, the
promotion of those releases, and the publication of anti-Clinton content on social media
accounts operated by the GRU.
19. Defendant ALEKSEY ALEKSANDROVICH POTEMKIN
(Потемкин
Алексей
Александрович)
was an officer in the Russian military assigned to Unit 74455. POTEMKIN was a supervisor in a
department within Unit 7445f responsible for the administration of computer infrastructure used
in cyber operations. Infrastructure and social media accounts administered by POTEMKIN'S
department were used, among other things, to assist in the release of stolen documents through
the DCLeaks and Guccifer 2 0 personas.
21, ANTONOV, BADIN, YKRMAKOV, LUKASHEV, and their co-conspiratore targeted victims using a
technique known as spearphishing to steal victims' passwords or otherwise gain access to their
computers. Beginning by at least March 2016, the Conspirators targeted over 300 individuals
affiliated with the Clinton Campaign, DCCC, and DNC.
a. For example, on or about March 19, 2016, LUKASHEV and his co-conspirators created and
sent a spearphishing email to the chairman of the Clinton Campaign. LUKASHEV used the account
"John356gh" at an online service that abbreviated lengthy website addresses (referred to as a
"URL-shortcning service"). LIJKASHEV used the account to mask a link contained in the
spearphishing email, which directed the recipient to a GRU-created website. LUKASHEV altered
the a security notification from Google (a technique known as "spoofing"), instructing the user
to change his password by clicking the embedded link. Those instructions wore followed. On or
about March 21, 2016, LUKASHEV, YERMAKOV, and their co-conspirators stole the contents of the
chairman's email account, which consisted of over 50,000 emails.
Starting on or about March 19, 2016, LUKASHEV and his co-conspirators sent spearphishing
emails to the personal accounts of other individuals affiliated with the Clinton Campaign,
including its campaign manager and a senior foreign policy advisor. On or about March 25, 2016,
LUKASHEV used the same john356gh account to mask additional links included in spearphishing
emails sent to numerous individuals affiliated with the Clinton Campaign, including Victims 1
and 2. LUKASliEV sent these emails from the Russia-based email account [email protected] that he spoofed to appear to be from
Google. On or about March 28,2016, YERMAKOV researched the names of Victims 1 and 2 and their
association with Clinton on various social media sites. Through their spearphishing operations,
LUKASHEV, YERMAKOV, and their co-conspirators successfully stole email credentials and
thousands of emails from numerous individuals affiliated with the Clinton Campaign. Many of
these stolen emails. Including those from Victims 1 and 2, were later released by the
Conspirators through DCLeaks.
On or about April 6, 2016, the Conspirators created an email account in the name (with a
one-letter deviation from the actual spelling) of a known member of the Clinton Campaign. The
Conspirators then used that account to send spearphishing emails to the work accounts of more
than thirty different Clinton Campaign employees. In the spearphishipg emails, LUKASHEV and his
co-conspirators embedded a link purporting to direct the recipient to a document titled
"hillary-clinton-favorable-rating.xlsx " In fact, this link directed the recipients' computers
to a GRU-crcatcd website.
22. The Conspirators spearphished individuals affiliated with the Clinton Campaign
throughout the summer of 2016. For example, on or about July 27, 2016, the Conspirators
attempted after hours to spearphish for the first time email accounts at a domain hosted by a
third-
party provider and used by Clinton's personal office. At or around the same time, they also
targeted seventy-six email addresses at the domain for the Clinton Campaign.
Hacking into the DCCC Network
23. Beginning in or around March 2016, the Conspirators, in addition to their spearphishing
efforts, researched the DCCC and DNC computer networks to identify technical specifications and
vulnerabilities.
For example, beginning on or about March 15,2016, YERMAKOV ran a technical query for the
DNC's internet protocol configurations to identify connected devices.
On or about the same day, YERMAKOV searched for opcn-source information about the DNC
network, the Democratic Party, and Hillary Clinton.
On or about April 7. 2016. YKRMAKOV ran я technical query for the DNC's internet
protocol configurations to identify connected devices.
24. By in or around April 2016, within days of YERMAKOV's searches regarding the DCCC, the
Conspirators hacked into the DCCC computer network. Once they gained access, they installed and
managed different types of malware to explore the DCCC network and steal data.
a. On or about April 12,2016. the Conspirators used the stolen credentials of a I )CCC On or
about April 12,2016, the Conspirators used the stolen credentials of a DCCC Employee ('"DCCC
Employee 1") to access the DCCC network. DCCC Employee 1 had received a spearphishing email
from the Conspirators on or about April 6,2016, and entered her password after clicking on the
link.
b. Between in or around April 2016 and June 2016, the Conspirators installed multiple
versions of their X-Agent malware on at least ten DCCC computers, which allowed them to monitor
individual employees' computer activity, steal passwords, and maintain access to the DCCC
network.
c. X-Agent malware implanted on the DCCC network transmitted information from the victims'
computers to a GRU-leased server located in Arizona. The Conspirators referred to this server
as their "AMS" panel. KOZACHEK, MALYSHEV, and their со-conspirators logged into the
AMS panel to use X-Agent's keylog and screenshot functions in the course of monitoring and
surveilling activity on the DCCC computers. 'Ibe keylog function allowed the Conspirators to
capture keystrokes entered by DCCC employees. The screenshot function allowed the Conspirators
to take pictures of the DCCC employees' computer screens.
d. For example, on or about April 14, 2016, the Conspirators repeatedly activated X-Agent's
keylog and screensiot functions to surveil DCCC Employee 1's computer activity over the course
of eight hours. During that time, the Conspirators captured DCCC Employee 1 's communications
with co-workers and the passwords she entered while working on fundraising and voter outreach
projects. Similarly, on or about April 22, 2016, the Conspirators activated X-Agcnt's keylog
and screenshot functions to capture the discussions of another DCCC Employee ("DCCC Employee
2") about the DCCC's finances, as well as her individual banking information and other personal
topics.
25. On or about April 19, 2016, KOZAC1IEK, YERSIIOV, and their co-conspirators remotely
configured an overseas computer to relay communications between X-Agent malware and the AMS
panel and then tested X-Agent's ability to connect to this computer. The Conspirators referred
to this computer as a "middle server." The middle server acted as a proxy to obscure the
connection between malware at the DCCC and the Conspirators' AMS panel. On or about April 20,
2016, the Conspirators directed X-Agent malware on the DCCC computers to connect to this middle
server and receive directions from the Conspirators.
Hacking into the DNC Network
26. On or about April 18, 2016, the Conspirators hacked into the DNC's computers through
their access to the DCCC network. The Conspirators then installed and managed different types
of malware (as they did in the DCCC network) to explore the DNC network and steal documents, a.
On or about April 18, 2016, the Conspirators activated X-Agent's keylog and screenshot
functions to steal credentials of a DCCC employee who was authorized
to access the DNC network. The Conspirators hacked into the DNC network from the DCCC network
using stolen credentials. By in or around June 2016, they gained access to approximately
thirty-three DNC computers.
In or around April 2016, the Conspirators installed X Agent malware on tho DNC network,
including the same versions installed on the DCCC network.
MALYSHEV and his co-conspifators monitored the X-Agent malware from the AMS panel and captured
data from the victim computers. The AMS panel collected thousands of keylog and screenshot
results from the DCCC and DNC computers, such as a screenshot and keystroke capture of DCCC
Employee 2 viewing the DCCC's online banking information.
Theft of DCCC and DNC Documents
27. The Conspirators searched for and identified computers within the DCCC and DNC networks
that stored information related to the 2016 U.S. presidential election, for example, on or
about April 15, 2016, the Conspirators searched one hacked DCCC computer for terms that
included "hillary," "cruz," and "trump." The Conspirators also copied select DCCC folders,
including "Benghazi Investigations." The Conspirators targeted computers containing information
such as opposition research and field operation plans for the 2016 elections.
28. To enable them to steal a large number of documents at once without detection, the
Conspirators used a publicly available tool to gather and compress multiple documents on the
DCCC and DNC networks. The Conspirators then used other GRU malware, known as "X-Tunncl," to
move the stolen documents cutside the DCCC and DNC networks through encrypted channels.
a. For example, on or about April 22, 2016, the Conspirators compressed gigabytes of data
from DNC computers, including opposition research. The Conspirators later moved the compressed
DNC data using X-Tunnel to a GRU-leased computer located in Illinois.
b. On or about April 28, 2016, the Conspirators connected to and tested the same computer
located in Illinois. Later that day, the Conspirators used X-Tunnel to connect to that computer
to steal additional documents from the DCCC network.
29. Between on or about May 25, 2016 and June 1, 2016, the Conspirators hacked the DNC
Microsoft Exchange Server and stole thousands of emails from the work accounts of DNC
employees. During that time, YERMAKOV researched PowerShell commands related to accessing and
managing the Microsoft Exchange Server.
30. On or about May 30, 2016, MALYSHEV accessed the AMS panel in order to upgrade custom AMS
software on die server. That day, the AMS panel received updates from approximately thirteen
different X-Agent malware implants on DCCC and DNC computers.
31. During the hacking of the DCCC and DNC networks, the Conspirators covered their tracks
by Intentionally deleting logs and computer flies. For example, on or about May 13, 2016, the
Conspirators cleared the event logs from a DNC computer. On or about June 20, 2016, the
Conspirators deleted logs from the AMS panel that documented their activities on the panel,
including the login history. Efforts to Remain on the X'CC and PNC Networks
32. Despite the Conspirators' efforts to hide their activity, beginning in or around May
2016, both the DCCC and DNC became aware that they had been hacked and hired a security company
("Company 1") to identify the extent of the intrusions. By in or around June 2016, Company 1
took steps to exclude intruders from the networks. Despite these efforts, a Linux-based version
of X-Agent, programmed to communicate with the GRU-registercd domain linuxkml.net, remained on
the DNC network until in or around October 2016.
33. In response to Company Ts efforts, the Conspirators took countermeasures to maintain
access to the DCCC and DNC networks.
a. Oil 01 about May 31, 2016, YERMAKOV searched for opcn-sourcc information about Company 1
and its reporting on X-Agent and X-Tunnel. On or about June 1,2016, the Conspirators attempted
to delete traces of their presence on the DCCC network using the computer program CCleaner.
b. On or about June 14, 2016, the Conspirators registered the domain actblues.com,
which mimicked the domain of a political fundraising platform that included a
DCCC donations page. Shortly thereafter, the Conspirators used stolen DCCC
credentials to modify the DCCC website and redirect visitors to the actblucs.com
On or about June 14, 2016, the Conspirators registered the domain actblues.com,
which mimicked the domain of a political fundraising platform that included a
DCCC donations page. Shortly thereafter, the Conspirators used stolen DCCC
credentials to modify the DCCC website and redirect visitors to the actblucs.com
domain.
On or about June 20, 2016, after Company 1 had disabled X-Agent on the DCCC
network, the Conspirators spent ever seven hours unsuccessfully trying to connect
to X-Agent. The Conspirators also tried to access the DCCC network using
previously stolen credentials.
34. In or around September 2016, the Conspirators also successfully gained access to DNC
computers hosted on a third-party cloud-computing service. These computers contained test
applications related to the DNC's analytics. After conducting reconnaissance, the
Conspirators
gathered data by creating backups, or "snapshots," of the DNC's eloud-based systems using
the
cloud provider's own technology. The Conspirators then moved the snapshots to cloud-based
accounts they had registered with the same service, thereby stealing the data from the DNC.
Stolen Documents Released through DCLcaks
35. More than a month before the release of any documents, the Conspirators constructed the
online persona DCLeaks to release and publicize stolen election-related documents. On or about
April 19, 2016, after attempting to register the domain clcctionleaks.com, the Conspirators
registered the domain dcleaks.com through a service that anonymizcd the registrant. The funds
used to pay for the dcleaks.com domain originated from an online cryptocutrrecy service that
the Conspirators also used to fund the lease of a virtual private server registered with the
operational email account [email protected]. The dirbinsaabol email account was also used
to register the john356gh URL-shortening account used by LUKASHEV to spearphish the Clinton
Campaign chairman and other campaign-related individuals.
36. On or about June 8,2016, the Conspirators launched the public website dcleaks.com, which
they used to release stolen emails. Before it shut down in or around March 2017, the site
received over one million page views. The Conspirators falsely claimed on the site that DCLeaks
was started by a group of "American hacktivists," when in fact it was started by the
Conspirators.
37. Starting in or around June 2016 and continuing through the 2016 U.S. presidential
election, the Conspirators used DCLeaks to release emails stolen from individuals affiliated
with the Clinton Campaign. The Conspirators also released documents they had stolen in other
spearphishing operations, including those they had conducted in 2015 that collected emails from
individuals affiliated with the Republican Party.
38. On or about June 8,2016, and at approximately the same time that the dcleaks.com website
was launched, the Conspirators created a DCLeaks Facebook page using a preexisting social media
account under the fictitious name "Alice Donovan." In addition to the DCLeaks Facebook page,
the Conspirators used other social media accounts in the names of fictitious U.S. persons such
as "Jason Scott" and "Richard Gingrey" to promote the DCLeaks website. The Conspirators
accessed these accounts from computers managed by POTEMKFN and his co-conspirators.
39. On or about June 8, 2016, the Conspirators created the Twitter account @dcleaks_. The
Conspirators operated the @dclcaks_ Twitter account from the same computer used for other
efforts to interfere with the 2016 U.S. presidential election. For example, the Conspirators
used the same computer to operate the Twitter account @BaltimorcIsWhr, through which they
encouraged U.S. audiences to "[j]oin our flash mob" opposing Clinton and to post images with
the hashtag #BlacksAgainstHillary.
Stolen Documents Released through Guccifer 2.0
40. On or about June 14, 2016, the DNC -- through Company 1 -- publicly announced that it
had been hacked by Russian government actors. In response, the Conspirators created the online
persona Guccifer 2.0 and falsely claimed to be a lone Romanian hacker to undermine the
allegations of Russian responsibility for the intrusion.
41. On or about June 15,2016, the Conspirators logged into a Moscow-based server used and
managed by Unit 74455 and, between 4:19 PM and 4:56 PM Moscow Standard Time, searched for
certain words and phrases, including:
Search terms
"some hundred sheets"
"some hundreds of sheets"
dcleaks
illuminati
широко
известный
перевод [widely known translation]
"worldwide known"
"think twice about"
"company's competence"
42. Later that day, at 7:02 PM Moscow Standard Time, the online persona Guccifer 2.0
published its first post on a blog site created through WordPress. Titled "DNC's servers hacked
by a lone hacker," the post used numerous English words and phrases that the Conspirators had
searched for earlier that day (bolded below):
Worldwide known cyber security company [Company 1] announced that the Democratic National
Committee (DNC) servers had been hacked by
"sophisticated" hacker groups.
I'm very pleased the company appreciated my skills so highly))) [...]
Here are just a few docs from many thousands I extracted when hacking
into DNC's network. [...]
Some hundred sheets! This's a serious case, isn't it? [...]
I guess [Company 1] customers should think twice about company's competence.
F[***J the Illuminati and their conspiracies! МШШ F[***]
[Company 1] !!!!!!!!
43. Between in or around June 2016 and October 2016, the Conspirators used Guccifer 2.0 to
release documents through WordPrcss that they had stolen from the DCCC and DNC. The
Conspirators, posing as Guccifer 2.0, also shared stolen documents with certain
individuals.
a. On or about August 15,2016, the Conspirators, posing as Guccifer 2.0, received a request
for stolen documents from a candidate for the U.S. Congress. The Conspirators responded using
the Guccifer 2.0 persona and sent the candidate stolen documents related to the candidate's
opponent. On or about August 22,2016, the Conspirators, posing as Guccifer 2.0, transferred
approximately 2.5 gigabytes of data stolen from the DCCC to a then-registered state lobbyist
and online source of political news. The stolen data included donor records and personal
identifying information for more than 2,000 Democratic donors.
On or about August 22, 2016, the Conspirators, posing as Guccifer 2.0, sent a reporter
stolen documents pertaining to the Black Lives Matter movement. The reporter responded by
discussing when to release the documents and offering to write an article about their
release.
44. The Conspirators, posing as Guccifer 2.0, also communicated with U.S. persons about the
release of stolen documents. On or about August 15, 2016, the Conspirators, posing as Guccifer
2.0, wrote to a person who was in regular contact with senior members of the presidential
campaign of Donald J. TVump, "thank u for writing back... do u find anyt[h]ing interesting in
the docs i posted?" On or about August 17, 2016, the Conspirators added, "please tell me if i
can help u anyhow ... it would be a great pleasure to me." On or about September 9,2016, the
Conspirators, again posing as Guccifer 2.0, referred to a stolen DCCC document posted online
and asked the person, "what do u think of the info on the tunout model for the democrats entire
presidential campaign." The person responded, "[p]retty standard."
45. The Conspirators conducted operations as Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks using overlapping
computer infrastructure and financing.
a. For example, between on or about March 14, 2016 and April 28. 2016, the Conspirators used
the same pool of bitcoin funds to purchase a virtual private network ("VPN") account and to
lease a server in Malaysia. In or around June 2016, the Conspirators used the Malaysian server
to host the dcleaks.com website.
On or about July 6, 2016, the Conspirators used the VPN to log into the @Guccifcr_2 Twitter
account. The Conspirators opened that VPN account from
the same server that was also used to register malicious domains for the hacking of the DCCC
and DNC networks.
On or about June 27, 2016, the Conspirators, posing as Guccifer 2.0, contacted a U.S.
reporter with an offer to provide stolen emails from "Hillary Clinton's staff." The
Conspirators then sent the reporter the password to access a nonpublic, password-protected
portion of dc.eaks.com containing emails stolen from Victim 1 bу LUKASHEV, YERMAKOV, and
thier co-conspirators in or around March 2016.
46. On or about January 12,2017, the Conspirators published a statement on the Guccifer 2.0
WordPrcss blog, falsely claiming that the intrusions and release of stolen documents had
"totally no relation to the Russian government"
Use of Organization 1
47. In order to expand their interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, the
Conspirators transferred many of the documents they stole from the DNC and the chairman of the
Clinton Campaign to Organization 1. The Conspirators posing as Guccifer 2.0, discussed the
release of the stolen documents and the timing of those releases with Organization 1 to
heighten their impact on the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
a. On or about Juno 22, 2016, Organization 1 sent a private message to Guccifer 2.0 to
"[s]end any new material [stolen from the DNC] here for us to review and it will have a much
higher impact than what you are doing." On or about July 6, 2016, Organization 1 added, "if you
have anything hillary related we want it in the next tweo [sic] days prefable [sic] because the
DNC [Democratic National Convention] is approaching and she will solidify bernie supporters
behind her after." The Conspirators responded, "ok... i see." Organization I explained, "we
think trump has only a 25% chance of winning against hillary ... so conflict between bernie and
hillary is interesting "
b After failed attempts to transfer the stolen documents starting in late June 2016, on or
about July 14, 2016, the Conspirators, posing as Guccifer 2.0, sent Organization 1 an email
with an attachment titled "wk dnc linkl.txt.gpg." The Conspirators explained to Organization 1
that the encrypted file contained Instructions on how to access an online archive of stolen DNC
documents. On or about July 18, 2016, Organization 1 confirmed it had "the 1Gb or so archive"
and would make a release of the stolen documents "this week."
48. On or about July 22, 2016, Organization 1 released over 20,000 emails and other
documents stolen from the DNC network by the Conspirators. This release occurred approximately
three days before the start of the Democratic National Convention. Organization 1 did not
disclose Guccifer 2.0's role in providing them. The latest-in-time email released through
Organization 1 was dated on or about May 25,2016, approximately the same day the Conspirators
hacked the DNC Microsoft Exchange Server.
49. On or about October 7, 2016, Organization 1 released the first set of emails from the
chairman of the Clinton Campaign that had been stolen by LUKASHEV and his co-conspirators.
Between on or about October 7, 2016 and November 7, 2016, Organization 1 released approximately
thirty-three tranches of documents mat had been stolen from the chairman of the Clinton
Campaign. In total, over 50,000 stolen documents were released.
"... The fact of the matter is, if Russia wanted to do, cause lot of difficulty to the American election they could have. Instead, they went and talked privately to us. So when the government says Russia intercepted stuff that was very important to us, I'm being very fuzzy about it, it wasn't about the election. They told us that there were certain people in America doing things that were very deleterious to the War on Terrorism for personal and financial gain, and they could have blown it publicly but they went internally to us." ..."
"... I haven't listened to that particular interview yet, but can say the the HRC emails with Sid Blumenthal show the reason we got in bed with Sarkozy (and Britain) to destroy Libya was: ..."
"... To steal the nationalized oil ..."
"... To steal the hundreds of tons of gold and silver. ..."
"... To prevent Libya from developing a pan-African gold dinar and development bank to complete with the Federal Reserve petrodollar and the IMF. ..."
"... I can also say that Hersh documented that Ambassador Stevens was an arms dealer, smuggling Libyan military weapons into Syria to finish the "regime change" operation still ongoing there. Also, HRC knew her "rebels" were hunting down and murdering any black Libyans they could find even before Gaddafi was anally bayonet raped. ..."
Hello There! I'm curious to know if any readers have comments about a recent Sy Hersh
interview. In response to a question about Russian interference in the last US presidential
election Hersh replied:
"I have been reporting something, I've been watching something since 2011 in Libya, when we
had a secretary of state that later ran for president, and I will tell you: Some stories take
a long time. And I don't know quite how to package it. I don't know how much to say about it.
I assure you that there's no known intelligence that Russia impacted, cut into the DNC,
Podesta e-mails. That did not happen. I can say that.
I can also say Russia learned other things about what was going on in Libya with us and
instead of blowing -- [. . . lots cut out here before returning to the topic . . . ]
The fact of the matter is, if Russia wanted to do, cause lot of difficulty to the
American election they could have. Instead, they went and talked privately to us. So when the
government says Russia intercepted stuff that was very important to us, I'm being very fuzzy
about it, it wasn't about the election. They told us that there were certain people in
America doing things that were very deleterious to the War on Terrorism for personal and
financial gain, and they could have blown it publicly but they went internally to
us."
I haven't listened to that particular interview yet, but can say the the HRC emails with Sid
Blumenthal show the reason we got in bed with Sarkozy (and Britain) to destroy Libya was:
To steal the nationalized oil
To steal the hundreds of tons of gold and silver.
To prevent Libya from developing a pan-African gold dinar and development bank to complete
with the Federal Reserve petrodollar and the IMF.
I can also say that Hersh documented that Ambassador Stevens was an arms dealer, smuggling
Libyan military weapons into Syria to finish the "regime change" operation still ongoing there.
Also, HRC knew her "rebels" were hunting down and murdering any black Libyans they could find
even before Gaddafi was anally bayonet raped.
If I come up with more after listening, I'll post again.
Looks like Brennan abused his power as a head of CIA and should be held accountable for that.
Notable quotes:
"... Did the U.S. "Intelligence Community" judge that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election? ..."
"... it is not that ..."
"... even that is misleading ..."
"... the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence Research did, in fact, have a different opinion but was not allowed to express it ..."
"... The second thing to remember is that reports of the intelligence agencies reflect the views of the heads of the agencies and are not necessarily a consensus of their analysts' views. The heads of both the CIA and FBI are political appointments, while the NSA chief is a military officer; his agency is a collector of intelligence rather than an analyst of its import, except in the fields of cryptography and communications security. ..."
"... Among the assertions are that a persona calling itself "Guccifer 2.0" is an instrument of the GRU, and that it hacked the emails on the Democratic National Committee's computer and conveyed them to Wikileaks. What the report does not explain is that it is easy for a hacker or foreign intelligence service to leave a false trail. In fact, a program developed by CIA with NSA assistance to do just that has been leaked and published. ..."
"... Retired senior NSA technical experts have examined the "Guccifer 2.0" data on the web and have concluded that "Guccifer 2.0's" data did not involve a hack across the web but was locally downloaded. Further, the data had been tampered with and manipulated, leading to the conclusion that "Guccifer 2.0" is a total fabrication. ..."
"... "Disclosures through WikiLeaks did not contain any evident forgeries." ..."
"... DHS [the Department of Homeland Security] assesses that the types of systems Russian actors targeted or compromised were not involved in vote tallying ..."
"... Prominent American journalists and politicians seized upon this shabby, politically motivated, report as proof of "Russian interference" in the U.S. election without even the pretense of due diligence. They have objectively acted as co-conspirators in an effort to block any improvement in relations with Russia, even though cooperation with Russia to deal with common dangers is vital to both countries. ..."
Musings II The "Intelligence Community," "Russian Interference," and Due Diligence
Posted on by JackDid the U.S. "Intelligence Community" judge that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential
election?
Most commentators seem to think so. Every news report I have read of the planned meeting of
Presidents Trump and Putin in July refers to "Russian interference" as a fact and asks whether
the matter will be discussed. Reports that President Putin denied involvement in the election
are scoffed at, usually with a claim that the U.S. "intelligence community" proved Russian
interference. In fact, the U.S. "intelligence community" has not done so. The intelligence
community as a whole has not been tasked to make a judgment and some key members of that
community did not participate in the report that is routinely cited as "proof" of "Russian
interference."
I spent the 35 years of my government service with a "top secret" clearance. When I reached
the rank of ambassador and also worked as Special Assistant to the President for National
Security, I also had clearances for "codeword" material. At that time, intelligence reports to
the president relating to Soviet and European affairs were routed through me for comment. I
developed at that time a "feel" for the strengths and weaknesses of the various American
intelligence agencies. It is with that background that I read the January 6. 2017 report of three
intelligence agencies: the CIA, FBI, and NSA.
This report is labeled "Intelligence Community Assessment," but in fact it is not
that . A report of the intelligence community in my day would include the input of all the
relevant intelligence agencies and would reveal whether all agreed with the conclusions.
Individual agencies did not hesitate to "take a footnote" or explain their position if they
disagreed with a particular assessment. A report would not claim to be that of the
"intelligence community" if any relevant agency was omitted.
The report states that it represents the findings of three intelligence agencies: CIA, FBI,
and NSA, but even that is misleading in that it implies that there was a consensus of
relevant analysts in these three agencies. In fact, the report was prepared by a group of
analysts from the three agencies pre-selected by their directors, with the selection process
generally overseen by James Clapper, then Director of National Intelligence (DNI). Clapper told
the Senate in testimony May 8, 2017, that it was prepared by "two dozen or so analysts --
hand-picked, seasoned experts from each of the contributing agencies." If you can hand-pick the
analysts, you can hand-pick the conclusions. The analysts selected would have understood what
Director Clapper wanted since he made no secret of his views. Why would they endanger their
careers by not delivering?
What should have struck any congressperson or reporter was that the procedure Clapper
followed was the same as that used in 2003 to produce the report falsely claiming that Saddam
Hussein had retained stocks of weapons of mass destruction. That should be worrisome enough to
inspire questions, but that is not the only anomaly.
The DNI has under his aegis a National Intelligence Council whose officers can call any
intelligence agency with relevant expertise to draft community assessments. It was created by
Congress after 9/11 specifically to correct some of the flaws in intelligence collection
revealed by 9/11. Director Clapper chose not to call on the NIC, which is curious since its
duty is "to act as a bridge between the intelligence and policy communities."
During my time in government, a judgment regarding national security would include reports
from, as a minimum, the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), and the Bureau of
Intelligence and Research (INR) of the State Department. The FBI was rarely, if ever, included
unless the principal question concerned law enforcement within the United States. NSA might
have provided some of the intelligence used by the other agencies but normally did not express
an opinion regarding the substance of reports.
What did I notice when I read the January report? There was no mention of INR or DIA! The
exclusion of DIA might be understandable since its mandate deals primarily with military
forces, except that the report attributes some of the Russian activity to the GRU, Russian
military intelligence. DIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, is the U.S. intelligence organ
most expert on the GRU. Did it concur with this attribution? The report doesn't say.
The omission of INR is more glaring since a report on foreign political activity could not
have been that of the U.S. intelligence community without its participation. After all, when it
comes to assessments of foreign intentions and foreign political activity, the State
Department's intelligence service is by far the most knowledgeable and competent. In my day, it
reported accurately on Gorbachev's reforms when the CIA leaders were advising that Gorbachev
had the same aims as his predecessors.
This is where due diligence comes in. The first question responsible journalists and
politicians should have asked is "Why is INR not represented? Does it have a different opinion?
If so, what is that opinion? Most likely the official answer would have been that this is
"classified information." But why should it be classified? If some agency heads come to a
conclusion and choose (or are directed) to announce it publicly, doesn't the public deserve to
know that one of the key agencies has a different opinion?
The second question should have been directed at the CIA, NSA, and FBI: did all their
analysts agree with these conclusions or were they divided in their conclusions? What was the
reason behind hand-picking analysts and departing from the customary practice of enlisting
analysts already in place and already responsible for following the issues involved?
As I was recently informed by a senior official, the State Department's Bureau of
Intelligence Research did, in fact, have a different opinion but was not allowed to express
it . So the January report was not one of the "intelligence community," but rather of
three intelligence agencies, two of which have no responsibility or necessarily any competence
to judge foreign intentions. The job of the FBI is to enforce federal law. The job of NSA is to
intercept the communications of others and to protect ours. It is not staffed to assess the
content of what is intercepted; that task is assumed by others, particularly the CIA, the DIA
(if it is military) or the State Department's INR (if it is political).
The second thing to remember is that reports of the intelligence agencies reflect the views
of the heads of the agencies and are not necessarily a consensus of their analysts' views. The
heads of both the CIA and FBI are political appointments, while the NSA chief is a military
officer; his agency is a collector of intelligence rather than an analyst of its import, except
in the fields of cryptography and communications security.
One striking thing about the press coverage and Congressional discussion of the January
report, and of subsequent statements by CIA, FBI, and NSA heads is that questions were never
posed regarding the position of the State Department's INR, or whether the analysts in the
agencies cited were in total agreement with the conclusions.
Let's put these questions aside for the moment and look at the report itself. On the first
page of text, the following statement leapt to my attention:
We did not make an assessment of the impact that Russian activities had on the outcome of
the 2016 election. The US Intelligence Community is charged with monitoring and assessing the
intentions, capabilities, and actions of foreign actors; it does not analyze US political
processes or US public opinion.
Now, how can one judge whether activity "interfered" with an election without assessing its
impact? After all, if the activity had no impact on the outcome of the election, it could not
be properly termed interference. This disclaimer, however, has not prevented journalists and
politicians from citing the report as proof that "Russia interfered" in the 2016 U.S.
presidential election.
As for particulars, the report is full of assertion, innuendo, and description of
"capabilities" but largely devoid of any evidence to substantiate its assertions. This is
"explained" by claiming that much of the evidence is classified and cannot be disclosed without
revealing sources and methods. The assertions are made with "high confidence" or occasionally,
"moderate confidence." Having read many intelligence reports I can tell you that if there is
irrefutable evidence of something it will be stated as a fact. The use of the term "high
confidence" is what most normal people would call "our best guess." "Moderate confidence" means
"some of our analysts think this might be true."
Among the assertions are that a persona calling itself "Guccifer 2.0" is an instrument of
the GRU, and that it hacked the emails on the Democratic National Committee's computer and
conveyed them to Wikileaks. What the report does not explain is that it is easy for a hacker or
foreign intelligence service to leave a false trail. In fact, a program developed by CIA with
NSA assistance to do just that has been leaked and published.
Retired senior NSA technical experts have examined the "Guccifer 2.0" data on the web and
have concluded that "Guccifer 2.0's" data did not involve a hack across the web but was locally
downloaded. Further, the data had been tampered with and manipulated, leading to the conclusion
that "Guccifer 2.0" is a total fabrication.
The report's assertions regarding the supply of the DNC emails to Wikileaks are dubious, but
its final statement in this regard is important: "Disclosures through WikiLeaks did not
contain any evident forgeries." In other words, what was disclosed was the truth! So,
Russians are accused of "degrading our democracy" by revealing that the DNC was trying to fix
the nomination of a particular candidate rather than allowing the primaries and state caucuses
to run their course. I had always thought that transparency is consistent with democratic
values. Apparently those who think that the truth can degrade democracy have a rather bizarre
-- to put it mildly–concept of democracy.
Most people, hearing that it is a "fact" that "Russia" interfered in our election must think
that Russian government agents hacked into vote counting machines and switched votes to favor a
particular candidate. This, indeed, would be scary, and would justify the most painful
sanctions. But this is the one thing that the "intelligence" report of January 6, 2017, states
did not happen. Here is what it said: " DHS [the Department of Homeland Security] assesses
that the types of systems Russian actors targeted or compromised were not involved in vote
tallying ."
This is an important statement by an agency that is empowered to assess the impact of
foreign activity on the United States. Why was it not consulted regarding other aspects of the
study? Or -- was it in fact consulted and refused to endorse the findings? Another obvious
question any responsible journalist or competent politician should have asked.
Prominent American journalists and politicians seized upon this shabby, politically
motivated, report as proof of "Russian interference" in the U.S. election without even the
pretense of due diligence. They have objectively acted as co-conspirators in an effort to block
any improvement in relations with Russia, even though cooperation with Russia to deal with
common dangers is vital to both countries.
This is only part of the story of how, without good reason, U.S.-Russian relations have
become dangerously confrontational. God willin and the crick don't rise, I'll be musing about
other aspects soon.
Thanks to Ray McGovern and Bill Binney for their research assistance.
Jack F. Matlock, Jr.
Booneville, Tennessee
June 29, 2018
"... In a mature society, it would not matter if someone was black, white, gay, Jewish, young, old, whatever but what policies they bring to the party. This article, going out of its way to label Nixon as LGBT and Sanders as Jewish, really only means that they are letting the other side set the rules and that is never a winning position. Unfortunately we do not live in a mature society. ..."
"... Not until people are done with identity politics will it be really possible to bring a new order into focus. Support Kamala Harris, for example, because she is not white and a woman? Not unless she has policies that the bulk of Americans want and is not just the old party in a new guise. I suspect that this use of the term 'progressive' is just a term to describe what the majority of Americans want out of their governments. People like Clinton, Pelosi, Waters and Albright can not and will not do this so time for them to be pushed aside. I think that the US Presidential election of 2020 will be very telling of how things play out as the results of the 2018 mid-terms are absorbed. ..."
"... I think identity politics has always served as a diversion for elites to play within the neoliberal bandwidth of decreasing public spending. Fake austerity and an unwillingness to use conjured money for public QE are necessary for pursuing neoliberal privatization of public enterprises. Therefore Bernie and his MMT infrastructure are anathema to corporate democrats and their Wall St. benefactors. ..."
"... Moral Monday represents what I deem as people over profit. I would rather be a spoiler than enable corporate sociopaths to.expand mass incarceration, end welfare as we know it, consider the killing of a half-million Iraqi children an acceptable cost, or oversee the first inverted debt jubilee in 2008 to forgive the liabilities of fraudsters by pauperizing debtors. ..."
"... Once you abandon class-based politics, and all parties accept the neoliberal consensus, you still have the problem of attracting support. You can only do that by turning to the politics of identity, as practised in Africa or the Balkans, where you seek to corral entire groups to vote for you, based on ethnicity, skin colour etc. ..."
"... Modern parties of the "Left" have taken over the methods, if not the ideology, of the old Communist parties, which is to say they present themselves as natural leaders, whom the membership should follow and vote for. ..."
"... Readers should examine the recent book Asymmetric Politics. The key point is that the Democratic Party is as described by David in some fair part an identity-based party, so it is supported by, e.g., many African-Americans. The Republican Party, unusual in the Western World, is not an identity based party; it is an idea-based party. It may not be very good at putting its ideas into effect, but it is an idea-based party that anyone can support. ..."
"... The Republicans are an "ideas-based" party? Well, I guess if you consider the interest-motivated "product" of Overclass-funded think tanks to be "idea-based," then OK. Me, I've haven't seen the Republicans as anything other than a class and (white) race-based party since I was a youth half a century ago. ..."
"... As for the cynicism of how the Democrats use identity politics: granted. Nevertheless, African-Americans have some tangible and valid reasons for voting for them, awful as they are. ..."
"... George Phillies didn't say the Republicans had "good" ideas. He just noted that the Republicans have "ideas". A "bad" idea is still an "idea". ..."
"... So Pelosi's final bequest to the public is a corrupt successor? What a world! ..."
"... Pelosi's been quoted a number of times saying, "we lead with our values". You certainly do, Mrs. Speaker! Thanks for making it clear! ..."
"... Come on, folks. By now you should have learned that what politicians say doesn't mean a damn thing -- it's what they do. The establishment is only interested in perpetuating the establishment. ..."
"... As far as I've seen, they trot out identity politics only when it suits their aims and it has nothing to do with what the voters actually want. ..."
"... Identity politics are to Democrats what religious politics are to Republicans: A pious high ground they use whenever they want to denounce anyone opposed to them as corrupt and immoral, but immediately gets shelved the moment it interferes with the money and power. ..."
"... To me, it's a dishonest policy erasure tactic for favoring establishment candidates. If you're against Hillary Clinton, it's must be ..."
"... Of course the most important identity is that of the worker, the person who must sell their labor power in the marketplace to survive. But you will rarely hear the Democrats discuss that identity. You might hear about "working families" and the "middle class" but it really means nothing. The Republicans use the same language and they are just as mendacious. ..."
"... Working families: Groups of people related genetically or by choice, all of whom, regardless of age, have to work to ensure they have food, clothing, and shelter. ..."
"... I can think of a couple of identity-words to offer to see if anyone identifies with them. Ex-middle class. Nouveau poor. ..."
"... Western Democrats focus too much on a minority which has barely any impact on the economy at the expense of the majority which actually dictates the general economic trend and therefore also creates the byproduct welfare/life quality of all the meme minorities to whom it trickles down. That's the issue here. The difference between normal people and minorities is that normal people know they don't matter in the larger picture, while minorities think they matter while at the same time asking to be treated as part of the normal people even though their very mentality is a paradox towards being normal. ..."
"... The West is simply too bankrupt on things that matter in the bigger picture and too involved in things that don't, a complete lack of prioritization. ..."
Eric Holder, former attorney general of the USA under President Obama, has publicly
announced that he is considering a run for the White House in 2020. (Thanks to that
WikiLeaked email awhile back, we know that Citigroup directed a newly elected President Obama
to appoint him to the position of A.G.)
I fervently pray that Eric Holder, of Covington & Burling, declares himself a
candidate!
Only then will the opportunity again present itself to expose Eric Holder -- and Covington
& Burling -- in their involvement with the creation and operation of MERS (Mortgage
Electronic Reporting System) and its connection to the global economic meltdown (2007 --
2009), the greatest illegal wealth transfer and insurance swindle in human history!
How we would welcome such transparency of evil, how BlackRock profited from that economic
meltdown, then oversaw the disbursement of those TARP bailout funds.
Exposure of the network of BlackRock and Vanguard and State Street and Fidelity; exposure
of their major investors. Further exposure of the Blackstone Group and Carlyle Group and
other such PE/LBO giants!
How the InterContinental Exchange (ICE) was involved in nefarious commodity price rigging,
etc., manipulated derivatives dealing and how today they oversee LIBOR rates!
The further exposure of the influence and perfidy of the Group of Thirty (www.group30.org)
and the Bretton Woods Committee (www.brettonwoods.org) -- oh how we'd love to see such
exposure!
Holder for President? Oh boy Mr. Peabody! That's great!
If a critical difference-making margin of non-voting Black non-voters in Milwaukee were
willing to non-vote between Clinton and Trump even at the price of letting Trump take
Wisconsin, that could mean that the Race Card is wearing thin. Who exactly would Mr. Holder
be able to fool in Milwaukee? He would do well in Hyde Park though . . . getting the Guilty
White Privilege Expiation vote. Will that be enough? Will the Madison vote be enough to make
up for the Milwaukee non-vote?
You know who would be a perfect pair? Holder and Harris. Or Holder and Booker. Or some
such. Seriously, if the DemParty nominates Holder, I will vote for Trump all over again. And
at the Senate or Representative level, I would vote for an old legacy New Deal Democrat if
there is one. But if they run a Clintonite, some protest Third Party looks very attractive by
comparison.
In a mature society, it would not matter if someone was black, white, gay, Jewish,
young, old, whatever but what policies they bring to the party. This article, going out of
its way to label Nixon as LGBT and Sanders as Jewish, really only means that they are letting
the other side set the rules and that is never a winning position. Unfortunately we do not
live in a mature society.
If push came to shove you would have to describe both the Republican and Democrat parties
as bastions of neoliberalism and both parties play games with identity politics as it
fractures those who would oppose them and encourages internecine warfare. Like a kaleidoscope
shifting focus, the 2008 crash has started off a shift in how politics is done and the
success of Trump in the US, Brexit in the UK as well as other leaders is this shift in its
first efforts of readjusting.
Not until people are done with identity politics will it be really possible to bring a new
order into focus. Support Kamala Harris, for example, because she is not white and a woman?
Not unless she has policies that the bulk of Americans want and is not just the old party in
a new guise. I suspect that this use of the term 'progressive' is just a term to describe
what the majority of Americans want out of their governments. People like Clinton, Pelosi,
Waters and Albright can not and will not do this so time for them to be pushed aside. I think
that the US Presidential election of 2020 will be very telling of how things play out as the
results of the 2018 mid-terms are absorbed.
I think identity politics has always served as a diversion for elites to play within the
neoliberal bandwidth of decreasing public spending. Fake austerity and an unwillingness to
use conjured money for public QE are necessary for pursuing neoliberal privatization of
public enterprises. Therefore Bernie and his MMT infrastructure are anathema to corporate
democrats and their Wall St. benefactors.
Moral Monday represents what I deem as people over profit. I would rather be a spoiler
than enable corporate sociopaths to.expand mass incarceration, end welfare as we know it,
consider the killing of a half-million Iraqi children an acceptable cost, or oversee the
first inverted debt jubilee in 2008 to forgive the liabilities of fraudsters by pauperizing
debtors.
The obvious answer is "very" and this applies pretty much to every major allegedly leftist
party in the western world.
The fact is that if you want to form a political party and take power, or even make good
careers, you have to find supporters and get them to vote for you. Historically, after the
growth of modern political parties, they differentiated themselves by reference to social and
economic groups. In most countries there was a traditionalist party, often rural, with links
to church and aristocracy and the socially conservative, a middle-class professional/small
business party and a mass working class party often under middle-class leadership. Depending
on the country, this could, in practice, be more than three or less than three distinct
parties.
Once you abandon class-based politics, and all parties accept the neoliberal
consensus, you still have the problem of attracting support. You can only do that by turning
to the politics of identity, as practised in Africa or the Balkans, where you seek to corral
entire groups to vote for you, based on ethnicity, skin colour etc. The problem is that
whilst the old political distinctions were objective, the new ones are much more subjective,
overlapping and sometimes in conflict with each other. After all, you are objectively
employed or unemployed, a shareholder or landowner or not, an employee or an employer, you
have debt or savings, you earn enough to live on or you don't. It's therefore easier to
construct political parties on that basis than on the basis of ascriptive, overlapping and
conflicting subjective identities.
Modern parties of the "Left" have taken over the methods, if not the ideology, of the
old Communist parties, which is to say they present themselves as natural leaders, whom the
membership should follow and vote for. This worked well enough when the markers were
economic, much less well when they are identity based. Trying to herd together middle-class
professional socially-liberal voters, and immigrants from a socially conservative background
afraid of losing their jobs backfired disastrously for the Socialist party in the 2017
elections in France, and effectively destroyed the party. People don't like being instructed
who it is their duty to vote for.
The other very clarifying moment of that election was the complete absence, up and down
the western world, of voices supporting Marine Le Pen for President. Not a single voice was
raised in her support, although her victory would have been epoch-making in terms of French
politics, and certainly not Albright's.
That tells you everything you need to know, really.
Readers should examine the recent book Asymmetric Politics. The key point is that the
Democratic Party is as described by David in some fair part an identity-based party, so it is
supported by, e.g., many African-Americans. The Republican Party, unusual in the Western
World, is not an identity based party; it is an idea-based party. It may not be very good at
putting its ideas into effect, but it is an idea-based party that anyone can support.
Note that many Democrats are totally terrified by the idea that the Republican Party would
become an identity-based party, namely the white people's party, because if the white vote
supported the Republicans nationally the way it already does in the south the Democrats
would, in the immortal words of Donald Trump, be schlonged.
Indeed, that support is now
advancing up through the Appalachians into central Pennsylvania and the Southern Tier of New
York. West Virginia was once heavily Democratic.
And while some Democrats propose that
America is becoming a majority-minority country, others have worked out that, e.g., persons
of Hispanic or Chinese ancestry may over several generations follow the Irish and the
Italians and the Hungarians and the Jews, none of whom were originally viewed* as being
white, by being reclassified in the popular mind as being part of the white majority.
*Some readers will recall that quaint phrase "the colored races of Europe". At the time, a
century and then a fair amount ago, it was meant literally. Anglo-Saxons were a race.
Irishmen were a distinct race.
The Republicans are an "ideas-based" party? Well, I guess if you consider the interest-motivated "product" of Overclass-funded think
tanks to be "idea-based," then OK. Me, I've haven't seen the Republicans as anything other than a class and (white)
race-based party since I was a youth half a century ago.
That Republicans will distract, misdirect and dissemble to mask their class and race-based
identity doesn't change the reality of it.
As for the cynicism of how the Democrats use identity politics: granted. Nevertheless,
African-Americans have some tangible and valid reasons for voting for them, awful as they
are.
Dyson neatly derailed the whole thing with his 'mean white man' line. Could have just been
Fry vs Goldberg too, Peterson talked past the others yhe whole time.
Whole thing deserves a do-over.
I'm really worried about a repeat of 2016 with a heavy dose of voter purges and
reregistrations. Ocasio-Cortez will need a strong GOTV ground game to pull off the upset.
Cuomo may be part of a political dynasty, but I recall that when Mario Cuomo was sending
out feelers about running for president, there was plenty of "Who's the furriner?" I can't
find the quote, but some Southern politician opined that there weren't many Marios and fewer
Cuomos in the South. (And when Geraldine Ferraro was on the ticket with Mondale, journalists
and columnists "miraculously" discovered that her husband was a mafioso.) So there's white
and there's white.
Not that I'd vote for Cuomo. And I certainly agree with Glenn Greenwald. But ethnic
politics cut all different ways.
Come on, folks. By now you should have learned that what politicians say doesn't mean a
damn thing -- it's what they do. The establishment is only interested in perpetuating the
establishment.
Here in Pennsylvania, Republican senator Pat Toomey has stayed in office only because the
Dem establishment here has refused to back Joe Sestak, a terrific but rebellious candidate,
for years. Last time around, it endorsed a woman over Sestak and another fantastic male
candidate–but she was as crappy as they come. As far as I've seen, they trot out
identity politics only when it suits their aims and it has nothing to do with what the voters
actually want.
If Sestak and his supporters started a little Third Party just for Pennsylvania, how many
votes would he get? If he and his supporters called it the Revenge Against Betrayal Party,
how many votes would he get?
Identity politics are to Democrats what religious politics are to Republicans: A pious
high ground they use whenever they want to denounce anyone opposed to them as corrupt and
immoral, but immediately gets shelved the moment it interferes with the money and power.
To me, it's a dishonest policy erasure tactic for favoring establishment candidates. If
you're against Hillary Clinton, it's must be because she's a woman, not because
she's, say, a neoliberal, corporatist warmonger -- it deliberately supplants legitimate
policy differences with identity. Not only is it breathtakingly dopey as a psychological
theory -- because it's pretty obvious that someone could oppose a person based on
those policy differences -- it's also obnoxiously presumptuous: "I'm going to substitute my
statements as to motivation for yours." None of that matters, of course, as long as the work
of erasing policy from the discourse is done.
And while it surely matters who is in congress and who sits in the oval office, possibly
we should all become more focused and engaged with system change rather than just individuals
running for office. (although damn am I impressed with Alexandria's keen appreciation of
democracy), To that end I offer ideas from the brain of Gar Alperovitz https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1-Ss5h9F9k
Thank you, Lee. About a quarter of the way through Gar's talk and may need to take a
little rest to let my soul catch up. For me, in my community which is being hard hit by
gentrification and rents are, for many long-time residents, becoming unaffordable, this might
be the exactly the right ideas at the right time. Tomorrow I will be going to the last
meeting of our neighbourhood food co-op as it dissolves, after 10 years, and I can't decide
whether I am more angry or sad. It was well-intentioned, but just couldn't make it work.
Perhaps a bad plan, or maybe no systematic plan at all. Anyway. I never really expected to
see my $1000 again when I bought that bond 10 years ago.
Meantime, I will listen to Gar finish his talk, and pro'ly get his book from the
library.
So here is Gar talking about the Evergreen Co-ops of Cleveland: "That is a
community-building, wealth-democratizing, decentralized, combination of community and worker
ownership, supported by quasi-public procurement, through a planning system using
quasi-public moneys. That is a planning system. {It} begins with a vision of community which
starts by democratizing as far as you can from the ground up, building capacity at the
national level or the regional level, to purchase and thereby stabilize the system in a form
of economic planning. Now think about those things. Those are ideas in a fragmentary
developmental process as the pain of the system grows and there are no other solutions. "
It is strong stuff, but reading it seems dense and dull, but Gar makes it all make sense
on first hearing. So, in anyone interested in community economic action, do check it out.
Of course the most important identity is that of the worker, the person who must sell
their labor power in the marketplace to survive. But you will rarely hear the Democrats
discuss that identity. You might hear about "working families" and the "middle class" but it
really means nothing. The Republicans use the same language and they are just as
mendacious.
I wouldn't mind the slogans and euphemisms if there was some substance behind them. I get
that Americans generally like to think of themselves as "middle class" whether they are
making minimum wage or millions of dollars but at least put some substance behind your
rhetoric.
Both parties are using identity politics to win elections while avoiding the economic
issues that every poll indicates Americans care about the most. The result is an increasingly
disillusioned and depressed population that hates the entire political system. Almost half of
the eligible electorate stays home during election years. Non-voters tend to be poorer while
the political junkies who are increasingly shrill, angry and unreasonable tend to be
wealthier. These are the people who form the base for identity politics because they have the
luxury to worry about such nonsense.
Working families: Groups of people related genetically or by choice, all of whom,
regardless of age, have to work to ensure they have food, clothing, and shelter.
"It's about the children " Madeline Albright, when asked about 500,000+ dead Iraqi children caused by the sanctions
she promoted said "We think the price was worth it " When will this nauseating hag slink off the public stage?
https://fair.org/extra/we-think-the-price-is-worth-it/
An average person with their limited lifespan can barely manage a quota of about a dozen
people to truly care about and about 70 to be acquainted with. Chances of any of those
belonging to some of those special category people are low to the point of it being
irrelevant and worthless to get acquainted with the categories themselves and their
cultures/language, unless they live in a few congregation capitals on this planet like San
Francisco, capitals which can be numbered on both my hands.
Unless the average person decides for themselves to care, trying to convince them to care
about special identity is tantamount to attempting to rob them of their precious lifespan,
over what? Superficial identities. There are religions which worship the supernatural. Now
there's a religion which worships the superficial called Identity Politics or Social Justice
Evangelism as i like to call it (as usual it has about as much to do with social justice as
Christianity had to do with world peace, and all to do with identity masturbation), arisen
jointly as a result of inflated and growing narcissism and unwarranted sense of
self-importance personality disorders influenced by spending too much time on social media
such as Facebook and Twitter.
Bah. Western Democrats focus too much on a minority which has barely any impact on the
economy at the expense of the majority which actually dictates the general economic trend and
therefore also creates the byproduct welfare/life quality of all the meme minorities to whom
it trickles down. That's the issue here. The difference between normal people and minorities
is that normal people know they don't matter in the larger picture, while minorities think
they matter while at the same time asking to be treated as part of the normal people even
though their very mentality is a paradox towards being normal.
The West is simply too
bankrupt on things that matter in the bigger picture and too involved in things that don't, a
complete lack of prioritization.
The Last but not LeastTechnology is dominated by
two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt.
Ph.D
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors
of this site
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society.We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be
tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without
Javascript.
<img
src="https://www.mintpressnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/PARKHOMENKO-twitter.com-2018.08.14-04-34-11.png"
alt="Adam Parkhomenko" width="355" height="454"
srcset="https://www.mintpressnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/PARKHOMENKO-twitter.com-2018.08.14-04-34-11.png
355w,
https://www.mintpressnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/PARKHOMENKO-twitter.com-2018.08.14-04-34-11-235x300.png
235w" sizes="(max-width: 355px) 100vw, 355px" /> Before Clinton declared her candidacy,
Parkhomenko started a PAC for Hillary Clinton with the goal of getting millions of people
email lists so the support was ready for a Clinton run. After she declared her candidacy,
Robby Mook, Hillary's campaign manager decided to sideline Parkhomenko and didn't take on his
full staff as promised. He reduced Parkomenko to a quiet menial position when he was brought
onboard.
Republish our stories! MintPress News is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 International License.
Originally from: 
MIGA!
Note that the candidate swears to be "faithful" to the "interests, welfare and success of
the Democratic Party," but not to its principles. That's because there aren't any.
